Evidence of meeting #60 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I don't appreciate that. I was open. I was trying to bring an open way forward, a pathway forward to have a proper conversation on this, which I felt was the right thing to do after seeking advice from many people who have been behind the scenes working on ATIPs and working on many studies that are a volume in size and scope. They were saying that this is unreasonable and that we should be asking the departments to come here to sit before us before we take it further. That's what I think we should do.
Conservative
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I have been sitting on this committee for nearly four years now. It has always been a pleasure. We have dealt with each other with respect, even if we didn't always agree. We must continue in this way. No one has any business making accusations or insinuations. Someone might not be happy about something that has happened or been said but they should be able to state their point of view without making any personal attacks. This is extremely important to me. It is a mark of respect that everyone is entitled to. We shouldn't forget that we should hold ourselves up as examples for people in the community. If we are not able to rub along, how can we ask members of the public who might have opposing views to get along without resorting to violence?
That said, the report will state that our parliamentary privilege has been breached and that contempt has been shown. If we vote against this, we are opening ourselves up to a breach that could be used going forward. Future parliamentarians will also see breaches of their privilege. This should be unacceptable to us, and unacceptable for future parliamentarians. We have to think long and hard on this. We can't just indulge in navel-gazing. We also have to take future parliamentarians into account.
Thank you.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank my colleague, Ms. Viola, for her comments.
I would like to mention something before I dive into the topic at hand.
I often say, and I actually did say this when I was speaking on the telephone to Scott Aitchison, that we can disagree without being disagreeable. By that, I mean that discussions mustn't become personal. It is a shame when people do that, because it isn't necessary. I hope that everyone from every party will take that into consideration.
Let's get back to the motion. As far as I know, if the committee does pass the motion, someone will raise a question of privilege in the House. The Speaker will decide if it is indeed a question of privilege and if he does, there will be an unlimited debate during which speeches can be made and this debate will take precedence over other debates in the House.
The committee can always decide if it is necessary or not to refer something to the House. There have been many cases in the past where parliamentary privilege was breached and the committee did not feel the need to refer to the House, so I don't agree at all with the opinion that this would create a precedent. This does not mean that the committee considers that contempt has been shown, but simply that the committee prefers not to refer to the House, because we all know what will happen if we refer the question of privilege to the House right now.
As for myself, I do hope that we can agree to summon witnesses before the committee in order to ask questions and let them explain why there have been so many problems. I think part of the difficulties lie in the fact that we have requested hundreds of thousands of pages and given too short a turnaround time.
As far as I know, when the Government of Canada does issue contracts, it lets the suppliers choose if the contract is to be drawn up in French or in English. It is always the supplier who decides the language of the contract. The Government of Canada has no policy requiring the translation of all contracts. Certain contracts are drawn up in French, others in English.
When documents must be submitted to our committee, I agree wholeheartedly that this must be done in both official languages. Neither anglophones nor francophones should be disadvantaged when reading a contract. However, the committee must recognize that it should shoulder part of the blame. I accept part of the blame, because I did not appreciate the vast volume of documents that the committee had requested.
I have a second point to raise.
As for the committee's request, I read the sixth point of paragraph d) of the motion, which asks that McKinsey provide all records concerning subcontracts issued by McKinsey & Company in relation to each contract. In the example of the Canada Pension Plan, the refusal to disclose documents to the committee is perhaps linked to the fact that some of the McKinsey documents are of an extremely sensitive nature in the eyes of third parties. I think that we should ask the company to come and explain why it's so reluctant to provide those documents to our committee.
I therefore believe that the committee has another step to take before raising a point of privilege in the House which, I fear, would lead to a never-ending debate. I just wanted to explain to my colleagues why I believe we shouldn't be carrying this motion right now. I would rather that we follow the suggestion of my colleague, Mr. Johns.
Thank you.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Regarding parliamentary privilege, I know it gives us priority and it's different from ATIPs for sure, but the scale of work we've requested is monumental and the resources are still the same. We should be given priority as parliamentarians and have the reasonable right to receive these documents in a timely way in both languages, but we recognize that it's still time and work being done by people who are only human. I just want to make sure that we're taking that into consideration.
My other concern is.... Anyway, I've said enough. I hope we get those departments here, which I think would give us a pathway to where we go next.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Sure. I appreciate that.
I will address the comments or feedback we've gotten from the departments.
The documents are ready. They're translated. There was the ESDC issue, but the documents are ready and translated. Many departments have just flatly refused, saying we do not have the right or privilege to see the documents, despite the order from the committee. That's the general feedback from the departments. They state that the ATIP law, for example, supersedes parliamentary privilege.
It's not a matter of their not having the resources to get them to us. They are ready. They're just refusing to, for various reasons.
I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Gourde.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
I'm going to weigh into the debate, because I have already seen this type of situation. I think it was on this very committee and it was either 2007 or 2008. We were dealing with a lot of documents, thousands of pages worth. At the time, certain members of the committee had expressed their wish that part of the documents not be translated. That didn't fly, however, because the fundamental right to obtain information in both official languages was upheld in the end. The committee lost an enormous amount of time due to systemic obstruction that went on for three or four meetings. In the end, we just waited to get the translations that were provided in due course and then worked with the translated documents.
It seems that we could draw out this discussion, but the result would no doubt be the same at the end of the day. The precedent proves that you have to translate all the documents. I am here today standing in for a colleague. I don't know how the committee wants to go about it, but it would be dangerous to create a precedent. Historically speaking, we have always translated all documents, regardless of the time that takes. This is what I wanted to say.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I'd just say that in two weeks' time since our last meeting.... In that last meeting, members who were not in support of reporting this to the House, based on their comments, said they wanted one more letter to go and that it was about just giving one more chance. That's different from what we've heard today. There's been an evolution. Now it's more meetings, more witnesses, more excuses.
To be crystal clear, that's as predictable as this happening today, after those departments had an additional two weeks to comply with their legal obligation to provide documents to this committee following those meetings, as sure as those two weeks didn't provide enough comfort for members to support the objective fact that departments are refusing to provide documents to a committee simply because they don't believe the committee has the right. However, they're wrong. It's not a debate. There's no question on whether what they're saying is right or wrong. What they're saying is wrong.
We heard it from officials before, and we heard it from a minister here that they were going to see what they could do. The only thing they can do that is compliant with their obligations and with the law is to give us the documents—of course, being mindful of redactions for the protection of personal information or private information. That's been allowed for. This is a refusal. It's a refusal, and it creates a precedent. This is going to be a problem.
I can only guess that the thinking of some members would be that they're going along to get along and that this is going to keep people happy in Langevin Block, in the PMO and PCO. However, what is the effect if we're disregarding the precedent and the law just to say that this is politically inconvenient for the current government, when it's strictly an accountability measure? People talk all the time about being concerned about Canadians' confidence in public institutions. This is the exact opportunity that everyone has to demonstrate that this place works. We asked for information. There's been no judgment made by this committee about the information that was provided except for the absence of information that was ordered and wasn't given to us, that was not in the acceptable form and that was not in both official languages, in spite of the capacity for those documents to be tabled in both official languages.
If you, Mr. Chair, were in receipt of a letter and informed this committee that the departments—all of them—had said that there is one reason they haven't provided this information to us in a fulsome way in both official languages and that it's because of time, that they don't have enough time, I could wholeheartedly support an extension. It would be disappointing, but I could support that. However, you don't have that letter. They haven't sent it because that's not why we don't have the information. It's because they don't believe that this place matters. They don't believe that the powers of Parliament matter.
The way for them to show that was to have respected the obligation they had to table the appropriate documents in the appropriate form with the clerk of this committee.
I've read the analysts' report. Like Ms. Vignola, I did not read every single character that was tabled with this committee. I didn't read it in both French and English. In some cases, that wouldn't be possible because they didn't give it to us in that format. I did read every word of the report that is the subject of the motion on the floor that we're about to vote on. Since my last intervention, I haven't heard anyone take the opportunity to tell me what the analysts got wrong.
I listened for it, but I stepped out for a minute.
I'll just look at my colleagues. Was a response offered to my previous question from any of the other members that information the analysts included in the report was incorrect? Did that happen?
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
They've indicated that it wasn't the case when I stepped out of the room, just so I'm certain.
This isn't about putting a dissenting report forward because we disagree or someone disagrees with the majority view of the committee about what we learned in this study, or giving drafting instructions or doing clause-by-clause with analysts. This is just saying that, even though it's a fact that they were required to give us the documents and they didn't do it, some members of the committee are going to make the choice to send the signal to the entire bureaucracy that, for all time, if they don't feel like it, they don't have to send documents to committees of Parliament. That is the message for every future government.
When committees have this issue in the future, the bureaucracy can always look back to OGGO.
You know, Chair, you might have to modify your opening. You might have to call it the “once mighty OGGO” because we can't even demand papers from the government departments and have them send them to us. It turns us into a joke.
When we give witness lists to the clerk and they call for witnesses, why would anyone come? We'll issue them a summons—so what? We have the power to send for papers and people. No, we don't. We demonstrated that ourselves.
What's that phrase that I hearken back to? Maybe it was a lesson that I got when I was a young guy: I'm not mad; I'm just disappointed. Yep, I'm just super disappointed.
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I visit a schoolroom and the kids ask me why this job is important, I say it's because our democracy is so important. I had the privilege to visit two schools in my constituency last week. One was in Brockville and one was in Westport. I just said that our democracy is what makes Canada special.
I was elected in 2018, 2019 and 2021, and in none of those elections was there bloodshed. Nobody was jailed and not a shot was fired. It was peaceful in those cases, even if, much to my chagrin, it was a continuation of the government. Before my time in politics in 2015, there was a peaceful and orderly transition between one party to another because we have traditions, laws and past practices that guide us. The underpinning of all of that is that this place matters.
When people see that it stops mattering and they continue to centralize the power so it's just a few individuals and everyone else just becomes window dressing, then I think we'll find that's not something history looks kindly on in a broader sense.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
All I'm trying to do here is get....
I have two things.
First is a question to you, Mr. Chair.
Have you written to these departments, and have they written back, in writing, stating that they refuse to supply these documents?
Conservative
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
For me, I'd like us to write a letter to these departments and invite their staff to come before the committee, so we can have them explain themselves. There are seven. We should have them appear before the committee.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Wow. Let's start with the biggest violators. Starting with them, let's get them here to explain themselves. We should consider, before we take this to the House, have some discussion and at least be able to ask those questions of those public servants. What are the barriers? They can then provide us this information.
That's what I'm hoping we can do in a pathway to getting a result in order to ensure that our privileges are being respected. Taking it over to the House on this matter, without doing this due diligence, would be unwise.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
No, I have some more to say before you call the vote.
Yes—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, I'm just going to interrupt quickly.
Please put up your hands so I can see, so we're not repeating this, please.
