Evidence of meeting #5 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Jansen has just raised an important point. We won't be able to discuss the motion until it has been properly translated. That is a principle that we must adhere to. I am making the same request as Ms. Jansen and Mr. Ste-Marie.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
There's no disagreement from me or anyone else on that, Peter. We're going to get that to the clerk with the slight changes to be amended and put it out.
Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I agree with the comments by Ms. Jansen, Mr. Julian and Mr. Ste-Marie. I would add that Mr. Fraser has acted in good faith. His intention was for us to have the document in both official languages before we vote. There was not a lot of time to translate the minor changes.
As you suggested, Mr. Chair, we should take 15 minutes or so for the interpreters to do a reliable and complete translation and for all members of the committee to receive the new motion in both official languages. We could then move to a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, that's where we're at.
Are there any other comments before we suspend for 15 minutes? We will reconvene at five o'clock, Ottawa time.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't have you all in front of me, so I can't see you.
Mr. Fraser, did you want in?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Certainly, Mr. Chair.
For the sake of absolute clarity, all members of our caucus are in complete agreement with all of the points made. For the record, the minor changes are ones that came in just minutes before. They are quite minor. I think it is fair and essential that we have a full translation for members in the language of their choice.
With that on the record, we could move forward with the suspension, so we can deal with the translation, and reconvene as soon as the clerk sends the full text of the motion in both official languages. That would be the appropriate next step.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We shall reconvene.
We'll go to a discussion on this. I know we're batting it around out of procedural rules. If we are agreed on going forward, we will have to have unanimous consent to basically move this motion and do what we want to do with this motion. Once we deal with that, then we can go to whatever we want to do.
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Actually, I don't think it's that complicated. If the subamendment is withdrawn, then the motion could be put as a subamendment to the original motion of privilege. Then we can go from there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That would be one way. The other way would be unanimous consent to allow this motion. The other motion would stay intact, as it is. That's probably where people want to go.
I have Mr. Fraser, followed by Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Julian.
Mr. Fraser, go ahead.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I don't think this has to be a lengthy intervention.
I seek the unanimous consent of committee members, pursuant to your advice, that the motion be moved as it was read out and circulated by the clerk.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Julian isn't prepared to give that unanimous consent. That leaves us where we are.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I'd love to hear from Mr. Poilievre. I think it would be.... I'd like to hear from Mr. Ste-Marie as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Poilievre, do you want to speak? Then it will be Mr. Ste-Marie, and back to Mr. Julian.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
This compromise is a step forward. It's imperfect and incomplete, but it is a step in the right direction.
There are about a thousand redactions and exclusions in the bundle the government handed this committee. This motion would require the government to hand over, unredacted and unexcluded, about 54% or 55% of that material. We would be removing black ink from about half of the pages that are currently covered up.
The motion requires the government, basically, to give over everything except that which is excluded or redacted under section 69 of the Access to Information Act, which deals with cabinet secrets. If you take that bundle of documents, everything that isn't stamped with justification under section 69 must be given, unredacted, to the law clerk to read.
That is the strict interpretation that I impose on this motion. If that is not honoured, I reserve the right to reintroduce my point of privilege and resume talks on it.
Again, Mr. Fraser has committed to me, by virtue of this motion, that every single redaction or exclusion except those justified under section 69 will be removed, so that the documents can be handed over to the law clerk for his perusal. He will be able, then, to testify before the committee as to whether the government is in compliance with Mr. Julian's original motion of July 7.
Mr. Fraser, do you agree with that statement?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll come back to Mr. Fraser after I go to Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Julian.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
It seems like a reasonable compromise, for the same reasons as those Mr. Poilievre stated.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I yield to Mr. Fraser to respond to Mr. Poilievre's question and reserve the right to come back.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think the goal, if I can put it even more simply, is to give everything from the original motion to the law clerk and have the law clerk conduct an assessment as to whether the government is in compliance, and then report to this committee where we can ask questions.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I'm sorry, just to clarify—because I think that's probably where you were leaving a little bit of ambiguity—of the original bundle that the government handed over to the committee, everything in that bundle will be given to the law clerk unredacted and unexcluded except that which is currently marked by section 69.
Is that correct, Mr. Fraser?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think the only things that we're looking to protect under section 69 are the cabinet confidences, and we have agreed, with the exception of what's been handed over that would normally be subject to cabinet confidences, that's not going to the law clerk.
Everything else that we've been looking for would be going to the law clerk—not to share with the committee—for him to look at, conduct an assessment of, and then come back to the committee so we can ask if the government has done what they've said they were going to do or what the committee has asked them to do.
