Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 29th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

I think that on the point of order there is, as Mr. Cullen has described, no consensus, so we'll go back to the—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I just want to clarify that the deadline we actually have is not 2 p.m. It's a little later than that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's a little later than that.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay, all right. I'm not the person who would negotiate for my side. I just wanted to make sure of that.

Could I ask just one more thing? It relates to the same point. The subcommittee meets once per week. Is that right? I'm not actually advocating this. Please don't misunderstand. I'm merely throwing it out as a possibility. We have a very tight deadline that involves travel next week and the week after that, on the Tuesday, I believe.

I have item 6 of the Liberals' scheduling motion, which came out last night. I think this is the one that Mr. Bittle was referring to. Item 6 refers to Tuesday of the week following.

In principle, anyway, if that were to slide back a further week, we could still have the travel. It would just be the week of June 10 to 13. I'm not advocating anything. I'm just pointing out that you want to have as many doors as possible, and then others have to decide on this.

I hope I won't be misunderstood as suggesting anything that I'm not. Now I know that it's once a week, and that basically Tuesdays are the days that you have to get it done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay, I'll go back to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go back to Mr. Richards' motion.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay, but we now know we have a couple of different things we didn't know before.

Who is on the speaking list besides me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle and Mr. Nater.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I think Mr. Richards is also on there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Then, Mr. Richards.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

All right.

I think I've dealt with most of what I had to say on the subject of privacy. I had just one further comment on the subject of the issue of privacy, a summation, as it were, of what I was saying earlier. I would summarize it this way. I don't want to be unfair to Mr. Bittle, but I do feel that what he was doing was a bit of a version of what's known as a motte and bailey argument, in which you use a term where you can retract it to its narrow meaning and say, don't you agree with the right to privacy? Don't people have a right to their privacy? For goodness sake, you can't have everybody spying into everybody else's life. Aren't you outraged by Cambridge Analytica, and aren't you appalled by Mr. Zuckerberg's willingness to sell your information to people who then make assumptions about your activities and desires and try to manipulate them through their ads?

I assume that is why I used to get ads on Facebook—or maybe it was Google—where they thought I wanted orthopaedic aids. I think the reason was that they identified I was getting a lot of correspondence dealing with pensions. It was from people who were worried about their Canada pension plan cheque not having come through. Anyway, they said, “Ha, there's this key word. He must need orthopaedic aids.” I would have been happier if that hadn't happened. I could say that's an invasion of my privacy. We all agree with that kind of privacy.

When you spread it so broadly that everything that might make, say, the government uncomfortable is counted as privacy, you've entered the bailey region. The motte is the little part in the middle of the castle. The bailey is the larger part. You then expand out to something else that's broader, and you take in claims as part of that word that are not something the average person thinks is reasonable. So yes, it could be embarrassing to the government. It could be that people would say that this is not a reasonable way of doing things, and the government would be a little embarrassed by the fact that people now know this, but that doesn't change the fact that the people have the right to know it.

Preserving the government from embarrassment is not something that is regarded as a legitimate thing in this country. We have very careful rules about this. This is a motte and bailey argument. You can actually look up motte and bailey arguments on the Internet and learn more about them in greater detail. I invite you to do that.

I want to now turn to the issue of consultation with the other parties. The term “consultation” seems to be interpreted more and more narrowly by the current government. Every opposition complains about every government's lack of consultation and the pro forma nature of its consultation. I've been in opposition twice now, once back from 2000 through 2005 and then since the 2015 election, with a 10-year period where my party was in government. I've had a chance to see this from both sides, and from the opposition side twice.

Under the Chrétien government we complained, because Mr. Chrétien would—as it was described to me—call up Stockwell Day and then John Reynolds, who was the leader of the opposition. After that, it was Stephen Harper. He did this pro forma thing where he'd call up and say, “We've chosen so-and-so for this job. We're just letting you know.” That was consultation. At least we got a phone call.

Now, if what Nathan Cullen described is correct, we get the equivalent of an automated voice that says, “Your call is important to us.” That's not consultation. That's giving prior cognizance, but that's all it is. Consultation actually involves people having the ability to say something back, like, “We don't think that's the best candidate. Have you considered so-and-so?” or something of that nature.

The standards of Mr. Chrétien's government were not high. I actually can't remember what the standards of the government I was a part of were—I'm going to guess the Liberals say they were not high—and the standards of the current Trudeau government, by that low measure, are too low: they are lower yet.

This is not an acceptable way of carrying on a consultation. We should have the right to ask the minister what the process was, what the protocol is.

Here's what we're really getting at: is there an internal protocol in the Liberal government on what constitutes a consultation? This is not something dictated by law. It's dictated by convention, which is to say it's dictated by that which is generally found to be acceptable by the public at large and particularly by the politically knowledgeable public. By that standard I believe this government is failing, but as long as the failure is kept in obscurity, as long as we don't know what the rule is, if they have a rule—maybe it's a moving target, or they use a different standard at different times, depending on which minister is making.... Who knows?

Knowing whether there is an internal protocol as to what constitutes consultation, when it was adopted, how it varies from that which existed under the previous government would be helpful. That should be public information.

There is in the Library of Parliament a book that lists political conventions and attempts to systematize them. It was developed under the Pearson government in 1967. It has not, shamefully, been updated since that time, but it contains protocols for any number of different things.

Here, for example, is the way, if you are resigning from cabinet, that you ought to address the issue on which you are resigning without revealing a cabinet confidence. There is a draft letter laid out. There is a draft response from the Prime Minister laid out so this can be followed, allowing for a person who is resigning on principle to indicate what the principle was without violating cabinet confidences, to prevent their resigning under a cloud or breaking an official secret.

Similarly, there is some kind of protocol at work here, and we ought to know what it is. It ought to be public. The minister could provide us information on it that would not involve saying it's all a secret—would not legitimately involve saying that. The minister could try to say it did, but were she to say that, she would not be telling the truth.

We all avoid in this place. We may not always say the whole truth, but that which we say is the truth, and that, of course, includes the minister, who has as far as I can tell always been truthful with me, and indeed as far as I can see with everybody else—as is her duty, but I think it comes naturally to her.

If you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I want in connection with this to deal with Mr. Bittle's comments earlier regarding my colleague, Mr. Richards. I must say, having known Blake a long time—Blake worked under me when I was the critic or shadow minister, as we now say, and I have subsequently worked under his leadership—that I have never once seen him deviate from the absolute truth on anything or suggest that it's acceptable ever. He is a man of the highest honour, as is appropriate.

Some people will say you should devalue remarks made by a colleague in defence of a colleague of the same partisan stripe. You can do that if you wish, but I have the highest regard for Blake Richards, and I think that Mr. Bittle's comments were not ideal. Upon consideration he may come to that conclusion himself—although I hold Mr. Bittle in high regard.

I made some jokes earlier about Scott Brison not really liking him. That, of course, was not.... I was dissembling a bit when I said I suspect that Scott Brison likes him just as much as he likes the rest of his own caucus. I can go and ask Scott at some point and confirm this. He may wonder why I'm asking such a strange question, but—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

On a point of order, just to confirm, has Mr. Brison ever been a member of your caucus?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Well, that's actually—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'm not sure he liked you when he was.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Actually, that's a complicated question, because Mr. Brison left the PC caucus when the merger was anticipated. It hadn't yet happened.

Mr. Simms knows that story. That's right.

We have thus never actually served in the same caucus.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Almost.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

We came close. He has let me know that the fact I was a member of the caucus he'd be joining had nothing to do with his decision, so this is the basis on which I say that he likes me so much.

Mr. Chair, I know that you are worried that I might, in the future, stray a tiny bit from the strict and punctilious observance I've had of absolute relevancy in every detail of what I've said so far. Keeping that thought in mind, I have decided that it might now be a good opportunity to bring my conclusions on this matter to a close, although I do have some further thoughts, which I can express after I get put back on the speaker's list further down on this particular motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I move that the debate be now adjourned.

[Some hon members]

Oh, oh!

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry, there's no debate on this. We have to go to the vote on this.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

On a point of order, I just wanted to point out that this is open and accountable government right here, Mr. Chair. This is open and accountable government.

[An hon. member]

I would like a recorded vote.