44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023
- 04:24:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I hope we can come to a fast resolution on what I'm about to discuss here today. This is a matter that has been before this committee several times before. It is on what I believe is a potential breach of privilege.
Mr. Chair, I would ask you to listen to what I'm about to go over in an attempt to demonstrate how this has been breached, not only for me but for all members within this committee. As I said, I hope we will have the support of the NDP and the Bloc as well as the government in this recognition, so that we can move swiftly on to Bill C-290 and get that bill—I know the Bloc is very anxious to do so—back to the House for the next step.
The breach of privilege, Mr. Chair, is a result of several things.
The first relates to our repeated attempts to get documents from the different departments. As of today, I believe, six of 21 organizations, who have been asked three times. The first was on January 18 and the second was on March 5 by you, Mr. Chair. My goodness, March 5—what month are we in now? We're in June, so this was three months ago. Again, this was after discussing it in this committee on March 8, for a third time, yet they haven't completed their submissions. In fact, 16 submitted redacted documents, when in fact McKinsey themselves have provided unredacted pages.
That is certainly the first reason. We've asked for these documents on several occasions. We certainly want to hear from all the departments. We've heard from some of the departments. I have further information here that tells me it probably isn't even necessary for us to hear from the remaining departments that exist. There seems to be some type of lack of will to move forward on this.
I recognize that we want to get to Bill C-290. We want to get it passed through the House. The Conservatives are committed to doing that. I'm hoping everyone else is as well, understanding the important testimony we've heard.
That would be the first one. We've asked three times for these documents. We have not received these documents.
The second reason obviously has to do with official language rights. It's really important that the committee receive the documents in both official languages. We've seen that some of the documents were redacted. That's not good enough, because we need the documents in both official languages.
Of course, Mrs. Vignola was a good spokesperson. She showed why we had to have documents in both official languages. Furthermore, a member of our party, Mr. Godin, demonstrated why the Conservatives felt it was important for all documents to be translated into both official languages.
I will now talk about the third reason.
I said that it was very important that we receive everyone from the departments to explain to us why we did not receive the documents. However, I believe I have here a communication that moots that, Mr. Chair. It is a communication with the Privy Council Office, from Maia Welbourne to Mr. Paul Mackinnon and cc'd to Erin Mather, Linda Nguyen and Jean Cintrat. Mr. Mackinnon asks Ms. Welbourne if she thinks that....
He writes, “Good morning. Remind me”—and this is on June 6, so around the time that we had the first group—“If passed, it's not binding on government to produce documents. Sent from my iPhone”—as we all do in this day and age, Mr. Chair.
Now, the next part I'm going to read out is very shocking. It's actually contrary to what the legal specialist who was in there visiting said. It, in fact, reads, “The government considers it non-binding if Parliament does.”
According to this communication, according to the PCO, it does not have to listen to the will of this committee or the will of Parliament. It just has to listen to the government. If that is not a breach, I cannot think of what type of breach of privilege might exist. If the PCO, the acting body of this government, is saying that what we decide here, what all parties on this side of the House—in the opposition, I should say—decide, or in fact what we as a committee decide, is not movable and is not actionable enough to produce documents.
I'll finish the communication. It says, “The government considers it non-binding”—that's just so insulting it's difficult to read—“if Parliament does. If government doesn't produce documents as ordered by the House, then the matter can be escalated in a number of different ways, including as far as finding the government is in contempt, a minister or official being called to the bar, a non-confidence vote”.
This is the same kind of scenario as last June with Iain Stewart's being called to the bar, and regrettably, we remember how the government hid behind that event. I think it was truly an event in the House of Commons. However, this is where it gets even juicier, unfortunately.
I'll quote again: “Main difference now being the supply and confidence agreement with the NDP.” This document goes on to say, beyond the insult, that our deciding as a parliamentary committee is not enough for this government to produce documents because it is supported as a result of the supply agreement between the NDP and the Liberal government.
It is for these three reasons.... First is the denial of the documents in redacted form.
Second, we did not receive full versions of them in French and English.
Then, finally, there is this insulting communication that I have in my hands whereby this government actually believes that it is not their responsibility, and who knows who the PCO has been instructed by. We've tried to pull this information from them in the past regarding other matters, but they have been instructed that they are not required to follow the will of Parliament. They are not required to follow the will of this committee and bring these documents to us.
Why need we even listen to these other departments if the PCO has been instructed that these documents need not be supplied to this committee? It's more than enough, I believe, to consider it a breach of privilege.
Perhaps then, Mr. Chair, I will read the motion that I brought forward here today. You can certainly take the time to determine if you agree with my assessment as well.
1148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:35:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, copies have been distributed, or they are being distributed to all members. I will now read this into the record if we're ready.
Again, before I read it, Mr. Chair, I hope we can come to a fast resolution that this is, in fact, a breach of privilege, so that we can move forward to Bill C-290, which is of paramount importance, certainly for the Bloc and of interest for the Conservatives as well.
With that.... Pardon me?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:35:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm reading it now. I move that further to the evidence received by the committee subsequent to the motion adopted on Monday, April 24, 2023, in relation....
By the way, I should say that if the member of the NDP feels so strongly about moving on to Bill C-290, as we do, then he'll vote in support of this motion and we can just move forward to Bill C-290. I think that would be the best way he could show his support for Bill C-290 right now.
I'll continue reading. Actually, I'll start again. I move:
That, further to the evidence received by the Committee subsequent to the motion adopted on Monday, April 24, 2023, in relation to the redactions and improper translation of documents ordered for production by the Committee on Wednesday, January 18, 2023, the Committee is of the opinion that there is a potential breach of privilege which must be reported to the House, and therefore, notwithstanding the decision of the Committee on Monday, April 17, 2023, the Committee adopt the report drafted by the analysts, entitled “Question of Privilege on Providing Documents to the Committee”, as amended, instruct the Chair to present this report to the House forthwith....
I'm going to pause here again, Mr. Chair, and say that we don't want to hold up any of the House business. We just simply want this referred to the House. We don't want to mess up the schedule any more. We are all anxious to get home to our constituents and serve them over the summer, but we feel this has to be dealt with prior to leaving. We just want this referred to the House. That's all we want, Mr. Chair. I believe we'll satisfy the breach. Again, the motion says:
...adopt the report drafted by the analysts, entitled “Question of Privilege on Providing Documents to the Committee”, as amended, instruct the Chair to present this report to the House forthwith, and that the Committee request a comprehensive government response pursuant to Standing Order 109.
Yes, I hope that this committee will take.... I'll wait for your ruling, but I would hope that should you potentially decide it is a breach, this committee would take it seriously, pass this motion and send this off to the House, so that we can swiftly move on to Bill C-290.
Thank you.
411 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:35:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Sure.
As I said, I feel as though there certainly has been a breach of privilege. I'm really looking forward to this group passing this motion and referring this to the House so that we can receive all the documents that we should, as parliamentarians, be allowed to see. I'm really looking forward to this being passed and this being sent to the House.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:29:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Chair, I want to make a subamendment to the amendment, which I hope might be friendly, and that is eliminating paragraph (d). We have concerns about anonymity if keeping paragraph (d).
I would be looking to remove paragraph (d), please, Chair.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:32:30 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, I'm happy to put it in writing.
Is it just two sentences, or what does the extent have to be? I can loosely translate it as well, but I don't want to hold up the process.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:46:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I just want to say that I've done that survey he talked about and I believe what he's saying. If you were to amend it to include it within the public service survey, I feel that would also be sufficient, which, according to his reasoning, would suffice, because then you're folding that survey into the bigger survey.
That would be my suggestion, if he's sincere, which I'm sure he is.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:51:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I was going to ask that we change “not employed in the public service” to “not employed in the Public Service of Canada”. I think it's better defined.
Would the government be open to...? As I understand it, they're currently objecting to this. I guess they would still object to it if we put “the Public Service of Canada” versus “the public service”. In that case, if all opposition parties vote to support it, then it is not significantly material but it is material.
I guess that would be my subamendment then. One moment. Let me just confer with my desk.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:52:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm going to withdraw the subamendment. It doesn't feel material enough to spend time on it at this point.
Thank you.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:11:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
This is simply a coordinating amendment to allow for definitions mentioned through our other amendments to be determined through regulation.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
