Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Michel Bédard]

When there's a claim of parliamentary privilege and if the matter were to be referred to the courts, the court would examine the claim of parliamentary privilege. Once it finds that it is within an established parliamentary privilege, the court will refuse to entertain the question because it will recognize that the exclusive privilege is the exclusive purview of the House of Commons or Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Exactly, so who rules specifically on the matter?

[Michel Bédard]

The court will rule on whether or not a parliamentary privilege exists, and there is already jurisprudence recognizing that the power to send for records and papers is an established parliamentary privilege. Once the courts have made this determination, how a privilege is exercised is for Parliament itself to decide.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The Speaker will make a ruling on that.

[Michel Bédard]

The House or committees will decide the order they will issue. If an order is not complied with, the matter could be raised as a question of privilege, and there could be rulings from the Speaker. There were such rulings in 2009, 2011 and 2021, and they have all recognized the—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes, exactly. You have differences of opinion about law, you have the courts deferring to Parliament, you have Speakers making rulings and you have Speaker Milliken and SpeakerRota—both, if it matters, elected as Liberals—making rulings that protect the privilege of Parliament at different points in time.

Very directly, to go back to Mr. Shea, do you recognize the lawful authority of the Speaker and your obligation to comply with the Speaker's rulings whether or not you agree with them?

[Matthew Shea]

It's not about whether I agree with the ruling or not. This is the government position—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The government doesn't agree with the rulings, but they lost. They made their case to the Speaker. They lost. The Speaker made a determination that they were wrong. Don't you think you should comply with the law when the Speaker rules and is the lawful authority, as we've established?

[Matthew Shea]

Again, I would have to take that back to our legal counsel, who ultimately make the determination. I will say—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

I'm sorry. I'm afraid that is our time. We're sticking right to the dot because we have to vote.

We have Mr. Kusmierczyk, please, for three minutes. Then we will adjourn.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I know it's already been established here: the frustration of committee members around the table and, really, from all parties. We want to maximize the amount of information. We want to maximize transparency. I think we were all united, and I think we're all united in our frustration in terms of not being able to receive the full documents we asked for.

What I want to do in this committee room is also understand your concerns as well. I wanted to ask is this, just to put in context this debate we're having here: Is this committee's request unique in the sense of asking for fully unredacted documents?

It's a question for Mr. Shea, but it's also a question for other members around the table. I mean, committees always ask for the production of papers. This is something that's standard. Is this unique in terms of asking for fully unredacted documents? I guess that's what I'm trying to understand here.

[Matthew Shea]

You'll forgive me that I don't know what other committees have asked for unredacted documents. I think our position has been consistent, though. When asked to produce documents, we produce them in both official languages and with appropriate redactions.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

If I could, I'll ask that question of some of the other folks around the table too. Is this unique what we're asking for?

[Michel Leduc]

I'm more than happy to say it's unprecedented for us. We are not part of the federal government, just to put that on the record, so this has never happened before.

[Christiane Fox]

I would say with respect to IRCC that I think we consistently try to reconcile the parliamentary committee requests with the other acts we must abide by, whether that be privacy or other types of sensitivities. I would say that this is probably not the first time we've encountered this type of challenge in that context, but I think what we try to apply is looking at the most minimal ways...and I think personal information and the Privacy Act is something that we have to be very sensitive to. I think it's balancing both the objectives of the committee and some of our other obligations that we must adhere to.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mollie Johnson]

I would just say “plus one” to that comment. I think really trying to be timely and complete in the work we're doing. The size and the pace at which we're working as we try to get information, as we have, into the committee in both official languages is really our priority. However, consistently, the imperative is ensuring that Canadians and the people with whom we work can be assured that when we have their information we will keep it private. That's consistent with the laws that Parliament has passed and our objectives when we're working with them so that they can have confidence in us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That is our time.

Witnesses, thank you very much.

Colleagues, we will adjourn, so we can go and vote.