Evidence of meeting #144 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was leak.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
—and cast a cloud over a respected jurist. To characterize them as whistle-blowers is quite ironic.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Cooper may be protected by parliamentary privilege, but with that parliamentary privilege also comes some responsibility with respect to parliamentary language. He knows full well that the word he just used would not be allowed in the chamber. I would suggest to you that, just as parliamentary privilege extends to committees, so too should the rules around unparliamentary language.
I would invite him to apologize and to withdraw that remark, and I would ask you to so direct him, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I was going to wait until Mr. Cooper finished speaking to ask him to do that, but indeed, I am going to do that, since you intervened at this point.
Mr. Cooper, I ask you to withdraw. You know some of the words you used were unparliamentary.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I will not withdraw. The Prime Minister is a proven liar, and let me—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
No, your microphone is closed now.
I'm suspending the meeting for a few seconds.
I will once again invite you to simply withdraw the word, as you would have to do in the chamber when you use that word.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
To wrap up the point that I was going to make, Mr. Ehsassi talks about whistle-blowers, characterizing these people, these leakers, as whistle-blowers who leak to cast a cloud over a respected jurist and who undermined the credibility of the former attorney general and undermined the integrity of the Supreme Court selection process. It is quite a way to characterize an individual as a whistle-blower in that context. It's also quite ironic coming from government members, this sudden interest in protecting whistle-blowers, because we see what happens to whistle-blowers in the Liberal caucus, including Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.
What happens when you blow the whistle on the Prime Minister's corruption? The answer is that you get kicked out of the Liberal caucus. So much for defending whistle-blowers.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to correct Mr. Barrett. My—quote, unquote—“scoff” that he mentioned was definitely not about respect for Justice Turpel-Lafond. I appreciate all of the great work that she's done. In fact, my reaction to his wording was really about his feigned indignation and the reason that we're here today.
Most definitely this government has committed to do politics differently, and I've witnessed it happen in this justice committee as we've put forward this very open, merit-based process of Supreme Court appointments. I don't think that, as Liberal members, we have any lessons to learn from the Conservatives, who have had very secretive ways in which they appoint their senators, for example, and who've been on the record spewing hate speech and have just had their behaviour condemned.
As I completely understand that this is an important conversation that we need to have, I don't think, again, that this is the right place for that conversation to occur, and I look forward to voting against this.
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you, Chair.
For folks watching this at home, it's really difficult to follow some of the threads and where people are going here. First of all, the idea that we would call journalists here and somehow threaten their independence is completely false. No one has ever said that we would put journalists here. Certainly throughout the previous study with the former attorney general, there were no journalists called before this committee or ever put on a witness list to be called before this committee. I don't know where that idea was pulled from. This threat to the independence of our journalists and their integrity is completely and utterly false. It has not happened at other committees and it is not happening at this committee. I don't know where the idea even comes from that it's what we're here talking about.
Also, I would like to talk about going to PROC. It is on Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Rankin personally that the Speaker will rule. This is not anything to do with this particular situation that we're talking about today. That's completely separate, so that's been brought up.
There is no evidence of new safeguards. The current Attorney General has said that there's nothing to see here, that we're not investigating and that he believes the Prime Minister. Well, Canadians don't believe the Prime Minister because he's changing his story every single, solitary day. When you're changing your story, that creates doubt. That's not the opposition creating that doubt. That is the PMO themselves through their daily injury to themselves, to be quite honest.
If you can imagine, Canadians would like better than just to take the Prime Minister at his word when we're talking about the independence of Supreme Court justice appointments. I'd also like to talk a bit about the process. This is the only process we have because there is no other process being offered. If you say that's flawed, then why is this the process you pursued under the previous attorney general's study? I don't understand that logic because there certainly was an alternative there. That alternative was to have an independent public inquiry, which we've been consistently calling for, and you said that the Prime Minister's Office has obviously decided it is not going to happen.
You've done this before; there's a pattern here. On the idea that the process here is not the correct one, I don't follow that thread at all because it's not what the justice committee has previously done. There is certainly an opportunity for it to be studied here.
On the PMO leaks—you know the behaviour of staff and the PMO around the scandal and now around this issue—that we need the PMO staff, everyone who is involved in this, to come before the committee. Quite frankly, why wouldn't they want to clear their own names? I don't understand. They've been named now in two major justice scandals, so why would they not want to come before this committee to clear their own names? Mr. Butts had that desire in the previous study, and that same opportunity should be afforded to them.
The last thing I want to say is that this is the only process we have because there's no other process being put on the table. If there's another serious process that's being put on the table, please share it with us because that's certainly what we would like to see as well.
In this particular case, there are 125,000 lawyers across the country who are saying that this needs to be investigated. I can't imagine that Liberals are going to say to those 125,000 lawyers, “We don't believe there's anything here to see.” I don't know if you've read their statement or if you've read their letter, but it's quite clear that they have deep concerns about what has happened.
To Ms. Khalid, I would just like to say that it's a false argument to say that we either study the online hate or we do this. That's completely false, and there is no comparison of those two things. When you speak about women, I'm incredibly concerned about women. I'm concerned about women in our court system. They need to know that they're sitting in front of independently selected judges and that there are quality people who are applying because they're not afraid of having their names smeared. That's the way we can help women, and that's the way we can stand up for human rights in our country: by protecting the independence of our judicial system.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
I have Mr. DeCourcey and then Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. DeCourcey.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Mr. Chair, thanks for the opportunity to join the committee today.
Let me congratulate you and the committee on a number of years of excellent work on behalf of Canadians.
I want to start by saying that I think it's regrettable that Mr. Barrett doesn't see fit for a person to change their socks on a regular basis. I would encourage him to maybe rethink that statement. I think it's important that we change our socks on an ongoing basis.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Matt, that's a great contribution.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Also, I find it regrettable that Mr. Cooper would use that type of language here at this committee. He should see fit to unequivocally retract those words. All he has to do is look to the leadership of his own leader, who saw fit to delete numerous tweets recently once he had been put on notice.
Conservative
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
I would start by saying that. Then I would get to the matter at hand, which is that certainly the breach of a confidential process in the matter of a Supreme Court nominee is regrettable, but it's definitely not unprecedented, as Mr. Cooper led off with today.
That breach has been denied as having come from the PMO. The PM has been firm on that numerous times. The same way as Mr. Rankin stands firm that it didn't come from him and Mr. Nicholson stands firm that it didn't come from him, the PM has also said it has not come from him. Therefore, I see this as now a purely partisan attack on what is a regrettable situation, emanating from the opposition in this case.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Let's get to the only way the opposition would seek to find where the source was, which would be to bring—