I thank you very much for that, Chair, and I thank my colleague for stepping in. I do credit having grown up with eight brothers and sisters to the fact that I am used to a lot of chatter around the dinner table, but it was always done with respect, and that is something that we all learned from our parents.
Chair, this committee has shown that it is able to innovate and that it is able to evolve. That would have been in the instances when we invited the environment commissioner. That was something that had been requested of this committee a number of times, and due to the unanimous nature, the consensual nature, we were never able to get the consent of all members to indeed invite the commissioner of the environment, who comes under the Office of the Auditor General. Indeed the Auditor General at that time was certainly favourable to our—not just the environment committee—looking at those reports again from a performance and cost-benefit angle, which is the purview of this committee. Given that we know that the environment and the economy go together, it was very appropriate for us to call the commissioner forward to review those reports and to hear from the deputy ministers of those departments as to how they were progressing in reaching the targets that we all wanted to see attained.
That is another way that this committee, again in a consensual way, was able to work together to get to a good outcome. I think that is the kind of practice standard that Mr. Fragiskatos was alluding to when he looked at how the Canadian public accounts committee is considered internationally. In fact it is so highly considered on the international stage that the Office of the Auditor General is often called on to participate and to consult with other parliaments and other governments in other countries, and we often have delegations here from public accounts committees from other countries to observe the work that we do.
Chair, I'm very proud of the fact that we can serve as that kind of model, because we know that in some countries—it's the parliamentary and democratic processes that we take for granted—not only are they still evolving, but there's also the integrity of institutional processes, the fact that you need to separate the political from the partisan from the institutional aspects of government. Each one does have its role, but when they are conflated, then it serves no one.
We do not wish to see the Canadian government turn into a bureaucracy, so that it's strictly bureaucrats who are running the country. That is why we elect people who run on a platform, who propose different ideas and, as we all know, the party that brings in the most MPs then forms the executive end of the government.
Then they can bring forward the policies that they proposed or, indeed, policies.... I have seen this already, and I think it's quite a healthy process. Very often something seems like a good idea at one point, but when the environment changes, and I'm talking about not just the physical environment but also the economic, socio-political or geopolitical environments, then policies must be brought forward. Again, that is rightly the purview of the party that is in power, but it is done with input from all the other parties because, of course, legislation must be proposed and votes must be taken so everyone knows exactly where everyone stands.
Then, in the event of an election, it's very clear that the electors have the chance to make a decision as to whether they like what the current government is doing or if they do not. As we have seen during an election period, the government must still continue to function. That is the institutional side of the government, our public servants.
Our public servants are bound not only by their professional ethics, by their training and by their education but also by law. They must conduct their duties in a way that is compliant with the law of the land. That includes keeping certain documents and certain pieces of information confidential, because that is the only way that we can ensure that their work will not become politicized in such a way that it serves a partisan purpose, not to mention the other harms that can transpire from divulging the private information of an individual, which could be harmful to them, to their business, to their financial situation and to their person.
Depending on the agency in question, we know that this legislation protects us all from the abuse of any institutional arm or agency. We saw an example of that when the Auditor General was asked by members of this committee to divulge information about the contracts that she and her officials saw that were signed with the pharmaceutical companies. She made it very clear that it was not something she could do. It was made very clear that she and her officials are within the Auditor General Act, which is another text that I certainly recommend everyone involved in this committee read.
It makes it very clear that the Auditor General, on one hand, has the duty, ability or one might call it privilege, and it's part of her professional work, to see any and all documents that are required in the performance of her work. On the other hand, she and her officials, under pain of criminal prosecution, cannot divulge that information, not even in an in camera setting, because that is not sufficient for the purpose of the legislation.
There again, after much fulsome discussion here, there was a compromise that was reached with the highest assurance that the documents in question would be kept completely confidential and that permanent members of this committee could view those documents and then proceed with the study that we had at hand.
It is not without precedent that this committee is able to reach a place where, while some members are looking for a blank cheque, if you will, on seeing anything and everything that they want, without any clear direction, quite frankly.... That is where I say that, even when all members agree to conduct a study, the understanding is that it's conducted in the normal manner and in a legal and professional manner, as per the practice of this committee. In other words, that study is not turned into a kangaroo court.
This committee, perhaps more than any other.... Certainly, I have seen how some other committees operate. I've seen how some committees have operated in other international settings, and it is extremely unfortunate when committees just become a place to destroy reputations and hurl accusations behind the veil of privilege. Ordinary Canadians would not like to go the way.... I'm thinking of American committees we've seen. I remember, during the height of one crisis, every member of the American U.S Senate Select Committee on Intelligence walking out and—blah blah blah—talking about whatever they had just heard in a confidential audience. It was very distressing to see that.
When this committee agrees to do a study, I think that members—even those who are not too enthusiastic about, for example, our studying a report from the commissioner of the environment—would not appreciate it if we then became a wholescale environment committee. That would not be the appropriate use of this committee's time. I know that was a concern members had in the 42nd and briefly in the 43rd Parliament, before we had to move on to other matters when the pandemic hit.
It is certainly something that I personally would respectfully bear in mind. I would never want to see this committee, even if there is a majority of members who wish to conduct a certain study or to go about it in a certain way, do a study without any consideration whatsoever for the concerns and objections of the other committee members. We lose exactly what we hope to achieve, which is to conduct a study, to hear witnesses, to put together findings and to have a report that has the name of the public accounts committee of Canada in its title, where it's very clear that this is the view of the members of this committee.
We lose that if members ride roughshod over the wishes of other members. I am adamant—as I have seen it work in this committee—that there be a way to work toward a common understanding of how we conduct ourselves and how we continue in the review of documents, and that it always be with respect to the law, which I think would be the very minimum that any parliamentary committee would subject itself to. It would not ask members of the public service to break the law. That, Mr. Chair, is a bridge too far. That is not acceptable whatsoever, and it's where I feel—and I hope that other members are thinking about this as well—it could have consequences, intended and unintended, for years and Parliaments to come.
I've already witnessed some committees that turn into a circus. It's no secret. We tune in on the television, and we see a public display that, quite frankly, does not behoove our Parliament, but there you have it. If the public accounts committee, of all the committees, was to fall in that direction, I would find it extremely disturbing because we have been able to get the answers that we're looking for.
When we had a member here.... I'm thinking of Mr. Desjarlais' rightful insistence and persistence that we have a minister of the Crown here to explain the continual delays and failures to meet not just stated goals but also basic services for indigenous peoples. That is something that we supported because, indeed, that is when.... If the institutional arm, on a repeated basis, is not able to meet its mandate...and this is where, Mr. Chair....
You know, I don't go nuclear right away. We have the meetings. We've had successive reports. We had the Auditor General—both the late Mr. Ferguson and Ms. Hogan—speak to this issue. Indeed, rightfully so, Mr. Desjarlais brought this forward so that we've had the minister once, perhaps twice, already, and we hope to see the minister again.
It is something that, on this side, we are certainly more than willing to support. It becomes part of our job. It is what we need to be doing because we're talking, again, about the performance of a department. However, we never want to let go of having the deputy ministers come because, apparently, at one time, that was—