Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 21st, 2024

[Michel Bédard]

Generally, the power to send for records is unfettered. If the committee requests unredacted documents, it is entitled to unredacted documents. The Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act or any other act will not apply, nor will the spirit of the act. If redactions are proposed, it's up to each committee to decide whether or not it will accept the redactions.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Is Parliament not supreme when ordering documents, or is CBSA allowed to deny the will of the committee?

[Michel Bédard]

The power for Parliament to send for records and paper is absolute.

Yes, if the House or one of its committees is ordering the production of documents, it is entitled to them.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I appreciate that. I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good. Are there any other questions? It doesn't sound like it.

I will then turn it back to Mr. Erskine-Smith.

You have the last five minutes, please. The floor is yours.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

I wouldn't mind, given that we're at the end of this, recapping a little bit.

You've called this an “unprecedented and unusual” order today. Is that right?

[Michel Bédard]

That's correct. That's how the speaker, in his ruling, qualified the order.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Now the Auditor General has said there's nothing criminal here to warrant referring the matter to the RCMP. Earlier today, before your testimony, the Ethics Commissioner said exactly the same thing.

The Auditor General has expressed concerns with the order. The RCMP has expressed concerns with the order as well. Are you aware of those concerns?

[Michel Bédard]

Yes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Now we have the former law clerk, Rob Walsh, as well as a former senior parliamentary counsel, Steve Chaplin, calling the order an abuse or a likely abuse of the House's powers.

You have said here— I just want to be clear—in response to Ms. Khalid's questions, that Parliament's function, the function for which its powers exist, is not to serve a third party's investigation.

Is that right?

[Michel Bédard]

That's correct.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

You've also said that the gold standard with respect to our separation of powers as a country was when this committee went in camera to avoid interfering with an RCMP investigation.

Is that right?

[Michel Bédard]

I'm sorry; could you repeat the question?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

You have said the gold standard—you used the language of “gold standard”—to respect the separation of powers was when this committee went in camera 20 years ago to avoid interfering with a police investigation.

Is that correct?

[Michel Bédard]

That's correct.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Here we are doing the exact opposite of that gold standard and—wait for it—after all of that, the RCMP is unlikely to even be able to use the underlying information because, absent a search warrant issued on reasonable grounds, the use of that information would obviously violate an accused's charter rights.

What precedent are we setting here? Where does this end?

[Michel Bédard]

In terms of the order and in answer to Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné's question, there might still be a use related to parliamentary proceedings with the documents that were produced, but that will require a subsequent order from the House.

If the intent is to have the documents used as part of an investigation of the RCMP or as evidence before a court of law, it's at odds with parliamentary law.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Let's imagine other scenarios.

Once upon a time, a Harper government was going after environmental charities. Let's say that a majority-led Conservative Parliament is so angry about that issue and so vindictive that they decide they're going to order the disclosure of every single document and email from an environmental charity. Parliament reigns supreme, right?

[Michel Bédard]

The parliamentary privilege to order the production of documents is an exercise of privilege. It is absolute and unfettered.

Once that has been exercised, the use of proceedings is, by parliamentary law, subject to restrictions and limitations.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's understood—absolute and unfettered.

However, with “absolute and unfettered”, we ourselves should possibly subject ourselves to some reasonable framework that we should operate under, because you could imagine a request for documents in any number of instances. You could imagine a number of unreasonable requests, including this one, in which documentary disclosure is being demanded in the face of the Auditor General's concerns, the RCMP's concerns and lawyers' concerns that this is improper. In the face of former parliamentary counsel saying that this is an abuse of power, we still have that power. If we're willing to use it in this case, when are we not willing to use it?

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Do I have Monsieur Drouin?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I wasn't sure. All right. I just wanted to be sure. I didn't want to leave any time on the table.

Monsieur Bédard, I want to thank you very much for your testimony and participation in relation to the study of Report 6.

There's no information to submit. So thank you again.

Members, we'll see all of you on Wednesday.

With that, have a good day. I adjourn the meeting.