I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 24, 2020, by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes concerning the redacted documents provided by the government in response to an order adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance during the previous session.
The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes alleges that the government is in contempt of Parliament because it did not respect the order from the Standing Committee on Finance. He said that on July 7, 2020, during the previous session, the committee adopted an order requiring the government to produce documents and that any redaction in these documents be done by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel based on the guidelines set out in the order. The member claims that the documents were apparently redacted by departments before being sent to the committee. As evidence, the member cited correspondence addressed to the committee from the law clerk.
The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes also argued that the government tarnished the reputation and dignity of the law clerk by publicly stating that it was he who had redacted the documents, as specified in the committee’s order.
The member said that exceptional circumstances justified the Chair’s ruling on this matter despite the absence of a report from the Standing Committee on Finance, given that the committee had not yet been constituted at the beginning of this parliamentary session.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons responded that the government respected the motion from the Standing Committee on Finance and provided exactly the information requested, on time. He explained that the only things excluded were matters of cabinet confidence and national security, as required by the motion and by statute. The parliamentary secretary added that the committee can meet to transact business as of next week and that, in the absence of a report from the committee, it would be difficult for the Speaker to make a determination as to whether the committee's order was respected.
After the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes brought this matter to my attention, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the member for La Prairie, as well as the parliamentary secretary, made subsequent interventions.
In explaining this ruling, it is important to understand the sequence of events that led to the question before the Speaker.
On July 7, the Standing Committee on Finance adopted a motion ordering the government to produce certain papers related to We Charity and Me to We, by no later than August 8.
Once the documents were received by the committee clerk, they were sent to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel for redaction in compliance with the committee’s order.
In a letter dated August 18 to the committee clerk, the law clerk explained that his office had redacted from the documents information related to the public servants involved in the matter. The same letter also mentioned that additional redactions had been made by government departments to protect cabinet confidence and other information covered by the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. The letter noted that certain redactions had been made by the departments on grounds not contemplated by the committee's order and that it was for the committee to determine if it was satisfied with the redactions.
The redacted documents were released to committee members on August 18, the same day that Parliament was prorogued. As a consequence, the committee could not sit and could not review the documents or report to the House.
As of today, it is not possible to know whether the committee is satisfied with these documents as provided to it. The new session is now under way. The committee, which has control over the interpretation of its order, has an opportunity to examine the documents and decide what to do with them. On September 23, the House adopted an order setting out a specific procedure to re-establish committees, including the Standing Committee on Finance.
Given these facts and circumstances, it is my view that this is a matter for the committee to consider. If it believes that its privileges have been breached or has any other concern with respect to the situation, it can report to the House.
For these reasons, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank the members for their attention.