I look forward to hearing from opposition colleagues, Mr. Chair, particularly if it's Mr. McCauley on your list. I'm not sure if it is. I would love to hear what he has to say about the fact that there's no.... I mean, there are a number of problems, as we've already put on the record, to put it mildly. I continue to be polite because this is the audit committee of Parliament, where we're supposed to be non-partisan, so what does it say if I seek to agitate? I won't do that. Others might want to do that, but not me.
I wonder if Mr. McCauley could address, when it is his turn to speak, that glaring omission in his motion and in the amendment, as well, about the lack of protections for public servants. There are no protections that are included here. If he's going to put forward an idea, a motion, an amendment or whatever it might be.... Ultimately, it's an idea that the CRA go down this path of submitting to this committee documents from a particular organization that would, without question—let's be clear on this—contravene the privacy provisions of law, of the Income Tax Act in this case.
I'll get to this point, but now, as I speak, I realize that there could be other contraventions of privacy that are included here. By invoking, as he has, his motion and his amendment, I wonder what other privacy protections of organizations and of Canadians, the Conservatives have thrown into question. I see nothing. I see no protection mentioned at all and no thought given to that.
You know, I hate to say it because, as I said, I'm trying to be collegial, but it takes me back to things that have been said about the Conservatives, this particular iteration of Conservatives: that they don't have respect for public servants. If they did, if they had respect for public servants, there would have been an inclusion—at least a sentence—in terms of protecting public servants who would reveal this information. It's not there. I don't see it. None of us sees it.
It's hard to take seriously the idea that there's respect being given to public servants on the side of Conservatives who have made that point in this debate and in other places. It's just not here. I think we need more information on that particular point, Mr. Chair. How can we ask public servants to go down the path of in effect, or not in effect but directly.... I'll be very blunt. They're being asked to break the law. I can't believe I'm saying this at a public accounts committee, at a parliamentary committee.
When I was elected in 2015, I never thought we would see a committee go in this direction. Some of the best work you can do on Parliament Hill—and you, Mr. Chair, and I have shared these conversations because we've sat on another committee before and worked well together—is at committee. Here we're talking about ordering public servants to reveal documents that would have them break the law. Is this really what we're debating? Is this what we were elected to do? It's not right. It's not in keeping with the obligations of parliamentarians, and it goes completely against any notion of fairness in a modern democracy.
As you know, there are very important branches of Parliament. There is the executive. There's the legislature. However, within those, of course, is the public service—or the “bureaucrats”, to use the term my Conservative friends are so inclined to use. If we're going to be serious about our obligations as parliamentarians, we have to pay attention to the needs, interests and concerns pertaining to parliamentary obligation, and that means recognizing that in no way should any parliamentary committee or any parliamentarian ever ask public servants to break the law.
It's stunning. It represents a low point in this committee's history—there's no question about that—and it represents a low point in terms of what I've seen in almost eight years of having the honour of serving the people of London North Centre. That's the first point I wanted to raise.
Related to it, I wonder.... Again, I'm waiting for Mr. McCauley to put his opinion on the record, but before we get there, I want to make a few more points.
I wonder if we could look into this, Mr. Chair. Have we ever had a committee that has asked public servants to do something so egregious without asking for protections at the very least? Is there any precedent for that?
Maybe you can tell by my tone, Mr. Chair, that I'm not completely serious. However, if we're going to be serious about debating this overall motion and the amendment, then perhaps it makes sense to go down this path. I think we'll find that no committee worth its salt has ever asked that of public servants. To offer no protections is something that, as I said, is a real low point.
Mrs. Shanahan said a number of interesting things that I want to build on, not to repeat, Mr. Chair. The implications of the work that we do here are far-reaching, and if we were to go forward and support the amendment and the overall motion of Mr. McCauley and the Conservatives, then I think we would be running into a real challenge because this point about leaks from the CRA is not an inconsequential point.
The implications of that.... What does it mean? There are implications for charities. If charities are looking at the overall picture and wanting to exist in a context of fairness, you need a—