I want to switch to talk about the production of papers motion, which directly relates to this racism study.
As you're aware, I put forward this production of papers motion back in February, supported unanimously by the committee, requiring the department to provide documents related to racism. The officials were given a deadline of March 30, which they complied with. However, until last week, we as committee members didn't know that the department had failed to comply with the rule of having to submit everything in both official languages. We had to get it translated after the fact.
The department also failed to abide by Parliament's absolute authority when it comes to examining original and unredacted documents. I just want to read a passage from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 137:
By virtue of the preamble and section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament has the ability to institute its own inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents, rights which are fundamental to its proper functioning. These rights are as old as Parliament itself....
As stated in a report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in 1991:
The power to send for persons, papers and records has been delegated by the House of Commons to its committees in the Standing Orders. It is well established that Parliament has the right to order any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary for its information. … The power to call for persons, papers and records is absolute, but it is seldom exercised without consideration of the public interest. The House of Commons recognizes that it should not require the production of documents in all cases; considerations of public policy, including national security, foreign relations...
and so forth.
My motion explicitly excluded national security and cabinet confidence, yet the redaction of documents provided to this committee by your department on the basis of solicitor-client privilege, as found in the Access to Information Act, disregards this absolute power of Parliament.
Our committee received a letter from the House of Commons's law clerk that stated, “The House’s and its committees’ power to order the production of records constitutes a constitutional parliamentary privilege that is not limited by the exemptions found in the Access to Information Act.”
As a result, our committee met and decided that our chair would write to the deputy minister with a deadline of 4 p.m. yesterday for the documents to be sent to this committee unredacted, yet the deputy minister wrote back to reaffirm redactions on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. She said, “Redactions have been applied to two documents under section 23 of the Access to Information Act for the protection of solicitor-client privilege.”
Madam Xavier, can you confirm that your department—Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada—is aware that you have breached parliamentary privilege?