Well, thanks, Mrs. Shanahan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Here too we have another reasonable proposition that's been offered to the committee. I would hope that it somehow breaks the logjam, so to speak, that unfortunately has materialized here tonight. I'd just remind colleagues...and sometimes we do need this reminder, because particularly in today's political environment, whether it's in Canada or elsewhere, we do have a lot of partisanship that unfolds. On this committee we try to be above that, or we certainly should.
Mr. Chair, you'll remember that in the summer we attended a gathering here in Ottawa. You were there, I was there and a number of the members of the committee were there. As members of Parliament of the public accounts committee, we joined with others at provincial levels and certainly in the public service as well to understand more about what the committees focused on this issue of public accounts do in their work and how they seek to carry it out. One thing that really was evident was this: The non-partisan nature of each of these committees is absolutely instrumental towards the success that each committee is or is not able to have. When a committee is politicized, when it is nothing but partisanship, that committee is all the more likely to not succeed. That is particularly true of a committee that is supposed to be, under the terms of its mandate, non-partisan.
As to where I'm going on this, because I'm sure either you, Mr. Chair, or more likely Mr. McCauley will question me on relevance, we just heard another very sensible, I think, and reasonable point of view put forward by Mr. Housefather. What is wrong with what he is suggesting? Again, in a few days' time, when we reconvene here on Parliament Hill, we would have the ability not just to examine a written response; we could also, in an camera session, talk to public officials about all these matters and then decide for ourselves where risk lies or does not lie. We might come to the view that the view of PSPC on this is wrong and that we can proceed in the way that has been proposed by the Bloc and by some other members of this committee.
I speak for myself, but I think colleagues certainly on this side would join me in saying that it's very difficult to come to a decision when we haven't properly understood a fulsome point of view on this question of NDAs and as they relate to this subject at hand.
Let me also point out—Mr. Housefather referenced it in passing, but I don't think it's a point to be dismissed—that in other committees, the signing of non-disclosure agreements is not ruled out. In fact, some committees have embraced that.
I point you, Mr. Chair, to an earlier report of the justice standing committee. The report was written when the advisory committee on the appointment of Supreme Court judges was put into place a few years back.
Recommendation 3 in the early report on how the committee would be constituted says the following:
The Committee recommends that all members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who agree to sign a non-disclosure agreement, be consulted by the Minister of Justice on the shortlist of candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. This will allow members of Parliament to fulfil their roles as democratic representatives and law-makers.
Notice that there is a direct link there between the signing of the NDA and members of Parliament carrying out their obligations.
Recommendation 3 continues:
The Committee also recommends that all the material in the possession of the Advisory Board concerning the candidates be shared with members after signing the non-disclosure agreement and that sufficient time be allocated for members to do their research on the candidates once they are in receipt of such materials....
It continues from there, but I won't belabour the point, Mr. Chair. You're nodding, so you agree with me that members of Parliament have signed non-disclosure agreements. That is not outside the norm. Therefore, if they have signed non-disclosure agreements, it is logical to conclude that the signing of such agreements does not breach parliamentary privilege.
This is a point that's been raised by the opposition today. In fact, Mr. McCauley said he would be deeply insulted at that proposition. However, members of the justice committee, and perhaps there are other committee.... Maybe that's something we could look at in order to resolve this whole debate and discussion. That's something that certainly colleagues on the justice committee have done. If they've done it there, their parliamentary privilege hasn't been broken, unless they've resigned themselves to that outcome, and accepted that their parliamentary privilege would be broken. I don't think they did that.
With that in mind, I put it again to colleagues, let's think reasonably here. If they don't want to agree to Mr. Housefather's amendment today, and they clearly do not, let's give it a few days for us to reconvene, and talk to officials in our normal way, in the way we've become accustomed to at this committee. Officials from PSPC can come in. They can talk about the risks as they see them. They can talk about why there's a necessity from their perspective of a non-disclosure agreement. As I've said before, that's eminently reasonable. That's what we should be doing at this committee. We should always be trying to find ways to be reasonable.
I've seen this committee work in that direction. When it happens, we do very good work together, whether it's on subjects relating to the environment, indigenous affairs or the public accounts in general. I think we've had some very good meetings where there's been a lot of collaboration. In fact, I've seen members, and it happens both ways, give up time to fellow members to raise questions in matters in which they are particularly interested. Collectively, we're interested in all the subjects that naturally come to our attention. There will be some items that come our way, and I'm thinking of last week when Mr. Desjarlais, for very clear reasons—