44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023
- 04:35:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thanks, Ms. Kusie.
The motion is in order. I don't have anything else to offer except that it is in order and you can continue if you wish.
29 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
- 04:36:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you.
I have Mr. Housefather, then Mr. Jowhari, Mr. Kusmierczyk and Mr. Johns.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:36:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, the situation is frustrating for everyone, but I want to lay out how this would work because what Mrs. Kusie is saying is, I don't believe, accurate about how it would happen.
If the committee were to adopt her motion, any member of the House could raise this as a question of privilege—
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:36:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm sorry. Can I interrupt for a second?
You're not as clear as you normally are.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:36:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm sorry about that. Is that better, sir?
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:37:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Give me just a moment. We're just confirming with the interpreters, Mr. Housefather.
We're good. Thank you. Please go ahead, sir.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:37:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much.
If we were to refer this to the House, then any member of the House could raise a question of privilege, which would, if the Speaker rules that it is a prima facie case of privilege, end up taking up all kinds of time in the House, not to mention the representations that would be made to determine or argue that it was a question of privilege.
While I am sympathetic to the arguments being raised by my colleague, I definitely do not want the valuable legislative time of the House this week being taken up by a question of privilege and stopping legislation from being adopted. For that reason, Mr. Chair, I would not be prepared to support passing this today, in any event.
Thank you very much, and I'll turn to Mr. Kusmierczyk, who I think was next.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:38:06 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you for bypassing me, Mr. Housefather. I'm not getting in my word count.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:38:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That's not what I meant, Mr. Chair.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:38:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
2 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:38:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Actually, Mr. Chair, I think it was Majid who was on deck second. Am I not correct? That's at least how it came across.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:38:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, that's right. I'm sorry. I thought he was waving away.
Go ahead, Majid.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:38:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
You always have to defer to your senior.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:38:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
In age, maybe, but not in wisdom.
Our colleague, Madam Kusie, referred to a number of emails. I don't think our side, at least, is in the position of having had an opportunity to look at them and see. That's the core of the conversation we are having. I think the analysts have done a good job reflecting all the facts in a very chronological order for a certain period. That was shared with us, so thank you to the analysts.
However, the gist of the discussion Madam Kusie is having is that she somehow has had an opportunity to have access to certain information, which has led her to believe that the government does not intend, under any circumstances, to provide the document we asked for. We have another meeting on Wednesday, and I think this would be a great opportunity to see whether those who are referred to in these emails could be present and answer the question of what this means.
Without access to those emails and verification, it would be very hard for me, today, to make that decision to be able to support it. That's why I was asking if it's possible for us to get access to those emails and understand what the contents are and make a decision then. If those are the cases, then we could compile that and put it in a report and send it out. That's really the core of the conversation or what you're justifying.
I'll stop there, because I don't want to filibuster or kill time. Thank you.
269 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:40:30 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We have Mr. Kusmierczyk, Mr. Johns and then Mr. Barrett.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:40:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this.
I want to say that I think my colleague Mr. Housefather, again, as is his standard, has gotten to the heart of the matter. Even though we take this matter of privilege seriously—of course we want to get to the bottom of the reasons why the documentation wasn't provided by the various agencies unredacted—the concern here is that it will open up an opportunity for our colleagues on the Conservative side to simply delay the work being done in the House of Commons. That work is absolutely too important. We see, for example, in other committees, questions of privilege being raised by the Conservatives that tie up the work of those committees for multiple meetings.
I was elected to this committee and this House to get work done. What I'm seeing in this committee is a tremendous drift in its work. We have drifted off course. We have eight studies—eight—that have been opened up: McKinsey, the GG expenditure, outsourcing, diversity and procurement—do you remember that one?—ArriveCAN, air defence procurement, the national shipbuilding strategy and Bill C-290. These are all paramount. All of these are important studies. We opened all of these and have not finished a single one.
I look at the McKinsey study and see the mountainous production of papers—hundreds of thousands of documents and millions of words submitted. I think the PBO estimated that's $9 million in translation alone. If halting the work of this committee and delaying the work of Parliament are the goals, I have to say that's disheartening. We see these tactics time and again.
I weigh those concerns against the seriousness with which we take the question of privilege—this issue before us—but, again, let's call a spade a spade here. We've seen this before. This is not new. There's nothing new under the sun. We've seen this before. We know how this plays out. There's too much at stake. There's too much work, especially in this last week. Canadians expect us, in this last week, to buckle down, work together and get legislation passed. They are looking for us to demonstrate leadership. For that reason, I can't support this. I support the principle of it, but I see the door this will open. It would only delay the work of this committee. Again, we have been blown way off course already. It's time to rein this back in.
I'm turning to my colleagues across the table among the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives: Let's right this ship. Let's get it back on course. Let's get these committee studies passed and do the work Canadians expect us to do, especially in this last week in Parliament.
For that reason, I don't think I can support this.
Thank you.
502 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:44:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.
Go ahead, Mr. Johns.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:44:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thanks.
We heard from Matthew Shea from the Privy Council Office. He appeared at this committee. He's the assistant secretary to the cabinet, ministerial services and corporate affairs.
He brought to the attention of this committee.... When we grilled him about the redactions, he cited the “Open and Accountable Government” document. He cited that, in “Accountable Government” from 2011, the previous government issued the following guidance to ministers in the public service, and the same guidance was issued by the current government in “Open and Accountable Government” in 2015:
Public servants also have a duty to hold in confidence some of the information that comes into their possession in the course of their duties. There is a tension between that obligation and the request of parliamentarians for disclosure of that same information. When appearing before parliamentary committees, public servants should refrain from disclosing that kind of confidential information, for instance because the information is confidential for reasons of national security or privacy, or because it consists of advice to Ministers. Accounting officers should not disclose confidential information, including advice to Ministers, even where that information pertains to matters of organizational management. In practice, officials should endeavour to work with Members of Parliament, in cooperation with Ministers and their offices, to find ways to respond to legitimate requests for information from Members of Parliament, within the limitations placed on them.
This policy was brought in by the Harper Conservatives. We should be looking at this policy and having a conversation about that. If we have more questions about these redactions, we should be bringing Matthew Shea back here in front of this committee.
I appreciate Mr. Kusmierczyk's talking about being adrift in this committee. We haven't gotten a study done. In fact, the Conservatives keep bringing forward motions that could be included in the reports, whether it be on the Governor General, on McKinsey.... We have nine studies going right now. This could be included in the study on McKinsey. We have 220,000 pages so far. This is what this committee has received.
I want to give an idea. It would take 30 seconds per page to look at it. It would take 1,833 hours and 20 minutes to review these documents. That's 52 full-time weeks. Since it's only been a few months, it would probably take about four full-time staff to go over the documents we have gotten so far. I don't believe anyone around this table has done that, unless you somehow have a budget that I don't have in my office or have a pile of volunteers who want to go through 220,000 pages.
I suggest that we include this in our final report—that would make sense to me—so that we can get to Bill C-290, or we can get Matthew Shea back here and can ask him more questions because I have a lot more questions before I want to send this to the House.
I hate redactions, and I hate this policy. I think it needs to be reviewed. Clearly, it's a problem for this committee. I don't believe that sending this nuclear approach to the House is the right approach. I think we should be doing some work here in this committee before we do that.
566 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:48:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We'll have Mr. Barrett really quickly, and then we'll suspend for voting.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
