EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Finance NUMBER 002 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Wednesday, October 21, 2020 Le mercredi 21 octobre 2020 Standing Committee on Finance CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE October 21, 2020 Committee NUMBER 002 NUMBER 002 NUMÉRO 002 02 21 10 2020 2020/10/21 16:45:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des finances Standing Committee on Finance FINA Chair The Honourable Wayne Easter 2 43

(1645) [ English ]

The Chair (Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)) :

I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number two. We are on the subject of committee business. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. That format is a little different from what we have been used to thus far. Pursuant to the House order of September 23, proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. As you're aware, the webcast will show only the person who is speaking. I believe that most members know to use the buttons at the bottom to select the language they're using. If you're speaking in English, press “English”. If you're speaking in French, press “French”.

For members participating in person, proceed as you normally would with the in-person committee, but I have been asked to remind folks of the health protocols that are now in place on the Hill regarding masking and distancing. That's what we mean by a hybrid format. A number of us are in our offices or in our ridings, and some are in the committee room. When speaking, please wait until I recognize you, as usual. If attending virtually, you will turn on your mike. If you're in person, where Gabriel is, your microphone will be controlled as it normally is by the proceedings and verifications officer.

With respect to the speaking list, the clerk and I will do our best—and that's a qualifier—to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person. At the last meeting, we were dealing with a subamendment by Mr. Gerretsen to an amendment by Mr. Kelly to an original motion by Mr. Poilievre. I'm just wondering.... We would need unanimous consent to do this. I know that we're all concerned about the pre-budget consultations. I think everyone is. We're all getting calls.

It's going to take a lot of prep work to get the pre-budget consultations organized by staff and get the committee lists together and the witnesses coming in. We're not going to be able to do the job we would normally do, I don't think, in any event, when we would normally have probably about 300 witnesses in person. Given the hybrid Parliament, the Zoom calls and the difficulty of getting time and rooms, this isn't normal for us. I'm wondering if we could get unanimous consent to deal with the motion that Ms.

Dzerowicz was going to bring forward on pre-budget consultations so that we could bring forward those 793 briefs and some people could start reading them and get that organized so that the clerks and other staff could organize the pre-budget consultations. Then we could come back to the subamendment to the amendment to the motion—

(1650) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC) :

Mr. Chair—

The Chair :

—but we would need unanimous consent to do that. Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I would make a motion in the spirit of what you've suggested. I would move that we immediately vote on the motions with respect to the WE documents and the subamendments to those motions, so that once we've completed those within the next five minutes, we can immediately move on to the next order of business, which is from Ms. Dzerowicz.

The Chair :

That wasn't the way I was putting it. I know—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Well, that's the way I'm putting it.

The Chair :

I'm asking—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

That's my motion.

The Chair :

I'm asking.... It's not a motion. You can't put a motion right now.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I just did.

The Chair :

No, you can't. It's not allowed. I'm asking if there is—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Now you're obstructing pre-budget consultations on top of it.

The Chair :

I'm asking if there is unanimous consent to do what I've suggested.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Well, you haven't moved it. There's no motion before us.

The Chair :

No, no. I'm asking if there is unanimous consent to go to—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

For what, though? Nobody's moved anything. You can't have unanimous consent for a motion that doesn't exist.

The Chair :

Are you done, Pierre?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Well, it depends on what you have to say.

The Chair :

If you are, we'll move on, or do you want to keep talking? Go ahead. I'm asking if there is unanimous consent to bring forward the motion that Ms. Dzerowicz has proposed on pre-budget consultations, deal with that, and then come back to the motion we were dealing with the other day when the committee adjourned.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I just moved that we vote on the existing motions before the committee. Then we can go right to the pre-budget consultation motion.

The Chair :

I asked if there's unanimous consent to go to Ms. Dzerowicz's motion. If there is or isn't—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Right. I'm the only one who has a motion on the floor at this point.

The Chair :

No, you're.... I'm asking if there's unanimous consent. I gather there is not. Okay. Then we will—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Oh, now we can't get to pre-budget consultation, because you're obstructing that too.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Well, you're continuing to disrupt, Pierre. Obviously, you don't want to go there. That's fine. Ms. Dzerowicz, go ahead on your point of order.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

[ Inaudible—Editor ]

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

I introduced the motion on October 8, and then it was interrupted on a question of privilege by Mr. Poilievre. Technically, I have introduced a motion. It is on the floor. I probably want to change a couple of the dates on it, but it's exactly the pre-budget consultation motion. Since it is on the floor, is it possible for me, as per what you suggested, to bring it forward?

The Chair :

When we suspended, we were on the subamendment to the amendment to the motion. Without unanimous consent to go back to the pre-budget consultation motion, we can't do that. We'll have to deal with what's before us. At this stage, I don't see unanimous consent, so we will have to go to the subamendment. I believe that's where we're at. Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Can I speak to the subamendment?

The Chair :

You can. You can start—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Okay.

The Chair :

—but we want to establish a speaking list. I believe Mr. Fraser was next. If Mr. Fraser is willing to let you go, we'll go with you, Mr. Poilievre, and then Mr. Fraser. Could we start to establish a list from there? I didn't put up my hand-raising thing yet. We may have to turn to the clerk on this. Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I actually think Mr. Julian is next on the list.

The Chair :

Well, at the last meeting, I believe it was Mr. Fraser after Mr. Gerretsen , and then Mr. Julian—I think.

Mr. Ted Falk :

Does the speaking order continue on from meeting to meeting? How does that work?

The Chair :

We should be going with the speaking list from the previous meeting, I believe. I'm not 100% sure on that, Mr. Falk, but I don't think anybody is—

(1655) Mr. Ted Falk :

I think Mr. Julian will be brief anyway. Just leave him where he is.

The Chair :

Okay. We'll go with.... Who wants to go first—Mr. Poilievre or Mr. Julian or Mr. Fraser? I'll leave it up to you folks.

Mr. Sean Fraser (Central Nova, Lib.) :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, before we get into the speaking order stuff, there's one thing I'm curious about and need the clerk's advice on. There obviously are certain issues of commonality around document production between the motion, the amendment and the subamendment on the floor at this committee and the motion that was just voted on by the House. I'm curious to know, from a procedural point of view, whether the clerk has advice on the impact of the vote that's just been taken in the House of Commons on the motion before this committee.

The Chair :

Does the clerk want to make a comment on that? I think, from where I sit, it's committee business, but go ahead, Madam Clerk.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk) :

I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear. As a reminder, members should put their microphones on mute when they are not speaking. Unfortunately, Mr. Fraser, would you mind repeating?

Mr. Sean Fraser :

No, I don't mind repeating. Thank you. I'm just curious to know your advice with regard to the motion that's currently being debated at this committee, which has certain commonalities with the motion that was just voted on before the House of Commons. Does the vote that was just taken at the House of Commons have any impact on the motions before this committee?

The Clerk :

No, they would not be related items.

The Chair :

Yes, what happens in the House and what happens in the committee are basically two different areas. I have on my list Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Julian, Mr. Fraser, Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Fragiskatos. Do we want to go with it this way? Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have to say this circus that the Prime Minister has created gives rise to great suspicion about what he is hiding. First we had the WE scandal, then the WE cover-up, then the WE prorogation, and then today, in order to try to cover it all up again, we had his threat of a “WElection”. The last thing we need right now is a “WElection”. We need to focus on the pandemic. Canadians are suffering, millions are unemployed, our jobless rate is the highest in the G7, our deficit the biggest in the G20, and instead of working on those problems, this committee—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (London North Centre, Lib.) :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

—is playing games to try to prevent the truth from coming out in the WE scandal.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair :

We have a point of order from Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

The member ought to know, as finance critic, that the debt-to-GDP ratio is 48%, which comparably is extremely low—

The Chair :

I don't think that—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I just want the record to reflect the facts, Mr. Chair. As a committee, I think we deserve that.

The Chair :

That's not a point of order. We will go back to you, Mr. Poilievre.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

The deficit is the largest in the G20 this year. It is true that past governments have bequeathed good, solid financial health to this Prime Minister , but he's working with great haste to burn all of those riches and leave the present generation—forget future ones—empty-handed. I'll go back to my original point. What the hell is this government hiding so that they're prepared to shut Parliament down?

The Chair :

Mr. Poilievre—

Mr. Sean Fraser :

On a point of order—

The Chair :

We'll go to your point of order, Mr. Fraser, but Mr. Poilievre, could we hear relevance to the subamendment? What's your point of order, Mr. Fraser?

Mr. Sean Fraser :

My point of order is on the use of unparliamentary language. I think the honourable member knows the language he's using to make his point, while it may increase the number of people who watch his YouTube video, is not appropriate when we're sitting in a parliamentary setting. Thank you.

The Chair :

It's a valid point. Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

(1700) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Well, Mr. Chair, no one wants to go there, but the reality is that the government is going to some incredible lengths to hide some ugly truths. If the Prime Minister was not afraid of what could come out in this scandal, he wouldn't have crippled three parliamentary committees with an endless stream of speeches about everything from Greek philosophers to cartoon characters in order to burn up committee time and prevent us from getting to motions that would release unredacted documents to the public. He wouldn't have shut Parliament for six weeks, nor would he have threatened an election today.

It's ironic that today in the House of Commons, in a related motion, Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister said he would call an election if a committee looked into the WE scandal. He could not name a single, solitary policy objective that the opposition is hindering, so clearly this election threat has nothing to do with protecting Canadians in the pandemic and everything to do with protecting him from accountability. I would ask members to quickly adopt the motion for my point of privilege, so that we can get the unredacted documents—

The Chair :

Mr. Poilievre, I do hate to interrupt you, but we're not on your motion. We're on the subamendment to the amendment. I can't—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

It's to the motion—

The Chair :

It's the subamendment to the amendment to the motion—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

That's right, so we.... Mr. Chair, you—

The Chair :

We are speaking on the subamendment now, so it would be nice to have a little close relevance to that.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

You can't comment on the subamendment to the amendment to the motion if you don't talk about the motion.

The Chair :

You weren't on the motion.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

You can't talk about a branch or a leaf if you don't talk about the tree.

The Chair :

The trouble is you weren't talking about the tree, Pierre.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I was right in the root of the tree, and I'm trying to get to the root of this scandal.

The Chair :

I tell you, the tree's a tall one. You're in the clouds.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Chair, it has some very deep roots that go deep in the ground.

The Chair :

Go ahead.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I'm trying to expose those roots. Mr. Chair, what is the government trying to hide in all this? Why would they go to such great lengths if there was nothing here? One can only imagine that the Prime Minister is waking up at two in the morning in cold sweats thinking about what might come out in this scandal, and that's why he has sent his MPs into this committee to filibuster for 20 hours when we should be talking about pre-budget consultations.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Yes. In correcting the record, the member talked about the deficit.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

He forgot to mention that Canada has provided as much fiscal support for the economic recovery—

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC) :

Mr. Chair, this isn't a point of order.

The Chair :

That's not a point of order, Mr. Fragiskatos. Mr. Poilievre—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

No country has done more. I'm just quoting directly from where the member took his point.

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

I have a point of order.

Mr. Pat Kelly :

Get control.

The Chair :

That's not a point of order, Mr. Fragiskatos. Who else had a point of order? Was it Mr. Julian? Go ahead.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Yes.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ) :

I have a point of order, as well.

[ English ]

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask all members to respect members who are speaking. I don't think these interruptions at the finance committee are helpful or dignified.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie :

I have a point of order, as well. I'm here in the room with the interpreters, who are doing a wonderful job. When a ruckus like that breaks out, it's impossible for them to do their job, and those of us who speak only French can't follow the discussion. I would call on members to show a little more decorum, please. Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie. I'll go back to Mr. Poilievre, and a couple of points have been noted by Mr. Julian and Mr. Ste-Marie. Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

This is a scandal in which the Prime Minister's family accepted half a million dollars, and then the Prime Minister turned around and gave the group that provided those funds half a billion dollars. That's a major Canadian scandal, and let me speak directly to him when I say Conservatives will not relent until the truth comes out in this scandal. He can threaten, he can bully, he can shut things down, but at the end of the day we will continue to do our jobs until we expose the truth, so let's get busy and pass this motion so we can see the unredacted documents, the unvarnished truth, and let Canadians judge accordingly. Thank you.

(1705) The Chair :

Thank you. I'll go on to Mr. Julian. The floor is yours. Mr. Poilievre has finished.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not going to speak for long because I believe we need to go immediately to the votes on the subamendment and the amendment and stop the filibuster, but I am profoundly disturbed that the Prime Minister has basically done away with pre-budget hearings. He threatened an election, and of course that meant no pre-budget hearings at all. I think to re-establish our responsibility we need to vote now on the subamendment on the amendment and on the motion of privilege and move on from there. That's our responsibility as a finance committee. Then we can have discussions around committee business.

The Chair :

You're done, Peter? Good. Thank you. Mr. Fraser is next on my list. Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll take a different view from my colleagues. One of the things that everyone seems to be saying is that they do want to get on with the work of the committee with respect to pre-budget consultations. If that were true, we would be doing them. I think it was made clear at the outset of this meeting when I think you made the eminently reasonable suggestion that we should seek unanimous consent to deal with Ms. Dzerowicz's motion.

One of the important factors behind this initiative is that the Standing Orders have a time limit within which this committee, should we choose to move forward with pre-budget consultations, has to make recommendations and table an associated report on the floor of the House of Commons. This is going to require significant effort by the staff of this committee after the work is done by committee members to hear from witnesses.

I think the sensible thing to do would be to jump right to the pre-budget consultation motion, and when we sort that out, return to issues that continue to be disputed by members of this committee.

One of the things that I take issue with, frankly, in both the motion that was debated yesterday and voted on just moments ago in the House of Commons and the motion and amendment that were put forward by the Conservatives at this committee is that they're saying they're willing to move ahead with the work of Parliament and allow the government to govern only if they first admit that they're all corrupt or if they're all willing to admit that the government and the independent public service have violated privileges of members of this committee. I don't think it's a reasonable place to start.

Frankly, I still maintain that this matter should never have been brought before this committee as a point of privilege, because I think the ordinary way to deal with this, particularly when we have the government saying we'd work in good faith, is to ask for co-operation from the government. Jumping straight to a point of privilege seems, in my view, to be premature. Perhaps, before I get into my remarks—I know you surveyed the crowd informally—I would formally ask for unanimous consent so that this committee can immediately move to Ms.

Dzerowicz's motion and determine whether we have the willingness of committee members to attend to that so we may return to it. I expect I know where this is going, but we may as well make it official.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I have a friendly amendment.

The Chair :

All right, does Mr. Fraser have unanimous consent?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Chair, with a friendly amendment—

The Chair :

Does Mr. Fraser—

Mr. Sean Fraser :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm seeking unanimous consent. I'm wondering, before we deal with amendments, if we have such consent.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

You can't figure out if you have consent until you look at the amendment.

The Chair :

Mr. Poilievre, come to order, please. Is there unanimous consent?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Chair, sorry. I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order, a point of order.

The Chair :

Well, let's hear your point of order.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I'm offering a friendly amendment that can get us onto the pre-budget consultation motion.

(1710) The Chair :

No, that wasn't.... The member's question was whether there is—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

If you're going to violate the process here, then no, you can't get unanimous consent.

The Chair :

Mr. Poilievre, I am not violating the process. You were being disruptive—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

That is not fair.

The Chair :

—and Mr. Fraser asked if there was unanimous consent. It's a fair question.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

No.

The Chair :

Okay, there's not unanimous consent. Mr. Fraser, the floor is yours.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now that consent has been denied to move immediately to pre-budget consultations, I'm happy to get on with the debate on the subamendment to the amendment to the main motion of privilege that was put forward before this committee. I think it would be helpful to understand where the procedural dispute comes from. Of course, the pre-budget consultation motion that I just referred to moments ago was put on the floor by my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz in a previous meeting.

The motion would have sought to have this committee conduct pre-budget consultations as we typically do, although this year has been different, given the pandemic. I've been hearing from dozens of local organizations and national organizations that want to come before this committee specifically to offer their testimony in support of different requests in advance of the next federal budget. Many of them had previously put forward suggestions in a pre-pandemic context, and Ms.

Dzerowicz's motion, I think quite appropriately, would have been designed to allow those same groups to make amendments to their testimony or evidence to reflect the changing world we live in. Frankly, I find it odd, given the complaints we've heard from members of the opposition, specifically the Conservatives, Mr. Chair, about the government moving forward with measures to help Canadians during a pandemic, when I understand the House of Commons was shut down for good reason: to protect the health of Canadians.

Now, when given the opportunity to have multi-partisan oversight of suggestions from the public in advance of the government implementing an agenda on budgetary measures, I find a cognitive dissonance between the two positions the Conservatives seem to hold simultaneously. If they don't wish to take

part in the pre-budget consultation, then the government will continue to engage with stakeholders on its own and move forward with the budget recommendations. In any event, to go back to the matter at hand, that was the issue on the floor of the House of Commons. Mr. Poilievre interjected with the point of privilege that accuses the government and the public service of violating his privilege. He would have this committee find that and report it to the House. There was an error in the original motion that would have made it impossible for a technical reason.

That had to do with the timing of the disclosure of documents the government provided to the finance committee in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. That, of course, was the subject of a ruling; you ruled it out of order because of that fatal mistake. The majority of members of this committee took a different view and chose to move ahead in any event. The proposed amendment sought to remedy that defect by incorporating the evidence before this committee in the previous session of this Parliament into the evidentiary record in the present session of this Parliament.

The subamendment sought to cure that defect. The subamendment specifically sought to address the problem, because we realized during the previous meeting of this committee that the evidentiary record dealt with two different sets of documents. One of them, very importantly, included the transmittal letters that came from each of the various departments that made disclosures to this committee and explained in detail why certain redactions were made to those documents.

The efforts of the opposition in the previous meeting were to ensure that the evidentiary record this committee could consider did not include the transmittal letters that explained why the redactions had been made.

(1715) We had a few proposed subamendments. The first had to do with getting the clerk to compare the two sets of documents for their accuracy and, after a debate, that failed. The second proposed subamendment sought to deal with adding page annotations, I believe, so that there could be an easy comparison and the transmittal letters that provide important context could be on the record. The third subamendment, which is the one that we are on now, has to do with the preparation of two complete sets of documents, both of which would be on the evidentiary record before this committee.

This subamendment specifically would have allowed the transmittal letters to be on the record. That brings us to the present subamendment, which Mr. Gerretsen put forward. He moved:

That the committee requests the complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons by relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the final package of documents that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons approved for release, that both of the document packages be provided to the Committee no later than October 19, 2020—

—I think that ship has sailed—

—and that after the committee reviews the two different versions of documents, the committee invite each of the relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, to give testimony regarding the redactions applied to the documents that were requested and granted in the motion adopted on July 7, 2020, and that until such a time as this testimony is complete, debate on the main motion and amendment from Pierre Poilievre be suspended and that the Chair be authorized to

schedule these witnesses, and convene a meeting to resume debate on Pierre Poilievre's motion once these meetings have taken place.

It seems there are two problems with the refusal to support this subamendment. One is that it would have the evidentiary record remaining deficient and it would prevent folks from giving testimony to provide clarity specifically on why certain redactions were made, which is in accordance with ordinary practices of the public service. Second, it would allow us to avoid having this committee, or members of it, hold the committee hostage in its ability to conduct pre-budget consultations. Effectively, the opposition is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

They will say, “Give us everything we want, and then we'll allow you to do your work.” That simply cannot reasonably be construed as letting the committee do its work. I think it would be quite reasonable for us—

Mrs. Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC) :

On a point of order, I have just a quick question. He is suggesting that—

The Chair :

Yes, go ahead, Ms. Jansen.

Mrs. Tamara Jansen :

On a point of order, is he saying that Conservatives are saying that they're the only ones suggesting that the documents be given to the law clerk unredacted? I believe that was a committee motion that was agreed to.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Mr. Chair, I don't mean to prejudge your ruling. I'm not sure that it's a point of order and I didn't mean to necessarily make that suggestion in any event. I think my point here, which I made at the end of my remarks, was more to do with putting the cart before the horse in terms of not letting pre-budget consultations proceed until documents had been provided. If we want to revisit a previous order of this committee, I'm happy to do that. In fact, I expect we may, over the course of this meeting. I don't know if you—

The Chair :

No, go ahead. It's not really a point of order. It's more a request for information, but thank you for that point, Ms. Jansen. Because it's confusing, I might remind Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Julian to take those raised hands down for another time if they're not still on the speakers list. Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Certainly. The problem we're dealing with right now, which the subamendment seeks to cure, is the fact that, as I mentioned, there would be incomplete disclosure to the committee if the main motion and/or amendment passed without the subamendment. Second is obviously the pre-budget consultation point that I made. One of the things I don't believe to be appropriate is that the individuals who are being accused of violating the privileges held by members of this committee haven't been given an opportunity to defend themselves. They've made redactions in accordance with their legislative obligations.

I appreciate, and perhaps if I was mistaken earlier in understanding Ms. Jansen's point.... I don't deny what the initial motion said back in July, I think it was, but the civil service has difficulty disclosing documents even to the law clerk when the legislative obligations upon them prohibit the disclosure of certain kinds of information. I spoke a bit about this natural tension that exists between legislation on the books in Canada and the previous order of this committee. These kinds of things do happen by times. Before we determine that they—

(1720) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the member said that there are legislative obligations that restrict the committee's ability to acquire governmental documents. There are no such legislative restrictions. Parliament is supreme and has access to all of the information it seeks from government departments—

The Chair :

I think it's a matter—

An hon. member: Mr. Chair, I don't believe that's a point of order.

The Chair: I know it's not a point of order; it's a matter of debate. Go ahead.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Certainly, and perhaps I'll address that point before I'm done as well. Where I was going with this point is that if we were to adopt the main motion or the amendment without the subamendment, we would not only be denying the opportunity for the civil service to explain why the redactions were made, but we would also specifically be excluding from evidence the explanation it had already given to this committee, but which has nevertheless not made it onto the evidentiary record before the committee. I don't think that's fair. The rule at play here is one of due process.

There's no question that this committee in Parliament, I should say more broadly, has the ability to control its own internal processes. However, I think we should refrain from disembarking from a long history, both in parliamentary democracy more broadly and our system of justice protecting due process. In fact, instead of dumping off the analysis without seeing complete information, I think the appropriate thing would be to ask the ministers responsible to make what disclosures remain outstanding.

The situation that we have here is impugning our professional public service, who remain non-partisan, for the jobs they have done. We heard directly from the Prime Minister , from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, from the then finance minister, from the Minister responsible for ESDC , and from staff. The process of accountability and, frankly, the transparency built throughout, is the kind of thing we had the opportunity to ask the ministers responsible about already.

Now we're trying to pass judgment on the government's alleged violation of the committee's privileges based on documents from individual public servants who don't even have an opportunity to defend themselves, and without giving the opportunity for the minister responsible to actually offer the defence. I know that honourable members on this committee are familiar with the concept of ministerial responsibility. In fact, the member from Carleton, in a previous Parliament, I believe it was in 2010, during a committee meeting said:

My comments will continue to focus on the conduct of political staff members and the importance of ministerial responsibility for that conduct. That is entirely pertinent to this motion, and if committee members disagree they will discard my arguments.

I'm going to quote continually the rules as they are written: The individual or personal responsibility of the Minister derives from a time when in practice and not just in theory the Crown governed; Ministers merely advised the Sovereign and were responsible to the Sovereign for their advice. The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates....

He went on, and I'm reading from the original quote:

The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts.

Again:

Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of the Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts.

This is a continuing quote from the member in this committee. He continued: We are Parliament in this committee, and it is ministers who are accountable to Parliament, according to the rules. Ministers exercise power and are constitutionally responsible for the provision and conduct of government; Parliament holds them personally responsible for it. The principle of collective ministerial responsibility, which is of a much more recent vintage, evolved when Ministers replaced the Sovereign as the decision-makers of government. Ministers are expected to take responsibility for, and defend, all Cabinet decisions.

The principle provides stability within the framework of ministerial government by uniting the responsibilities of the individual Ministers under the collective responsibility of the Crown.

That latter point explains why Minister Baird is here to explain the conduct of a member of the Prime Minister's Office. Under the principle of collective responsibility, he, as a minister, a servant, is responsible in our system for defending the conduct of subordinates in this government. He has been so designated by the Prime Minister, who makes those designations by historic convention.

(1725) This is the foundation of our democratic system of government, Mr. Chair. It is not something that can be thrown away at a whim or dispensed with when a coalition of parties, through their numbers, seeks to undermine it in order to score a few short-term and myopic political points.

In the aftermath of the 2008 election, the coalition parties attempted to reverse the results of that vote. Now we are seeing them attempt to reverse the results of roughly 300 years of parliamentary tradition and replace it with a kangaroo court that would intimidate political staff members, whose responsibilities to this House flow through the ministers

Mr. Chair, the quote, I think, was well articulated at the time and is applicable today. What this committee is seeking to do, in the absence of the subamendment forming part of the motion to ultimately be adopted by this committee, is to attribute responsibility for violating the privileges of members of Parliament who serve on this committee to civil servants, by virtue of the evidentiary record that includes only testimony and emails that come specifically from civil servants.

They won't even allow evidence from the head of the relevant departments or indeed the head of the civil service, the Clerk of the Privy Council, to be adduced into the evidentiary record. This would fly in the face of holding the minister responsible. I don't think it would be fair, frankly, to avoid an explanation from the government by the minister responsible by referring only to the documentary evidence that has been partially disclosed to this committee as a result of a technical difficulty during the uploading of the documents.

Again, I'm referring specifically to the exclusion or attempted exclusion of the transmittal letters from the body of evidence that's before this committee. With respect to the appropriateness of the redaction, I think the opportunity to explain is key.

I think the transmittal letters would be essential, and I think that the government has demonstrated a willingness to work with this committee formally or informally, specifically when the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader made the invitation to say that if this committee is not satisfied with what it's received, the government would work in good faith with it.

There hasn't been an opportunity to even have that conversation directly with the government because there's this effort to have only a portion of the evidentiary record from the previous session of this Parliament introduced into the evidence currently before this committee. The NDP had made the argument previously—and Mr.

Poilievre has hinted at this as well—that because we have a supremacy over our ability to produce records, in fact...and the parliamentary law clerk made an allusion to this in the letter sent to members of this committee, but we also have letters specifically from the head of the public service, who explained that there are certain rules they are bound by. I think that attempting to reconcile those two points of view through conversation may in fact be a productive thing. Specifically, Mr. Chair, the kinds of things that we're dealing with...and my colleague, Mr.

Gerretsen went to great lengths to make these points during our previous meeting. If you read the transmittal letters, a lot of them say very similar things. The head of Canada's public service and the head of different departments have by and large explained that there were two kinds, two buckets, of documents each of which were treated differently by the motion this committee adopted back in July. Specifically, the motion states:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Committee order that any contracts concluded with We Charity and Me to We, all briefing notes, memos and emails

—including the contribution agreement between the department and WE Charity—

from senior officials prepared for or sent to any Minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any written correspondence and records of other correspondence with We Charity and Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the Committee no later than August 8, 2020; that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request;

—which is going to be important in just a moment—

(1730) and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.

The two categories outlined in that motion include, first, the documents that would be subjected to cabinet confidence or that may have national security implications. The second would be redactions that are designed to deal with the privacy and personal information of individuals who are not members of this committee. The first category is an important one. Each of the transmittal letters indicated that no redactions were made for national security purposes, so that is not really an issue before the committee, and I don't think anyone would dispute that, but I've been surprised before.

The second heading under that bucket, if you will, is cabinet confidences. There are explanations in each of the transmittal letters that certain redactions had been made for the purpose of protecting cabinet confidence, but, in fact, we never requested documents that touched on cabinet confidences. You'll recall, Mr. Chair, that our colleague Mr. Poilievre, during the middle of the summer, was waving around pages that, in fact, were heavily redacted. I won't dispute that; in fact, pages were redacted.

I think that's obvious, but what he didn't tell anybody is that those were documents that specifically weren't asked for because they were subject to cabinet confidence. I think that's pretty important. The reason that we redacted pages at all was that we chose to produce.... I shouldn't say “we”; the government chose to produce documents that were not asked for even though they were subject to cabinet confidences and produced the portion of it that were relevant to the WE Charity matters that this committee had been looking at.

If you go through the document, you can see details of cabinet meetings that were revealed to this committee even though we specifically said we did not want them. The remaining pages that follow some of those were, in fact, heavily redacted, but again, they may have touched on anything from—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the committee immediately move to votes on the subamendment, the amendment and the main motion that resulted from my earlier point of privilege—

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Mr. Chair, can you move a motion on a point of order?

The Chair :

You can't move a motion on a point of order. Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

(1735) Mr. Sean Fraser :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you're procedurally correct in your assessment of the proposed motion. In any event, we've covered the cabinet confidences and national security, which I think, as Mr. Gerretsen pointed out, cover many of the more heavily redacted versions.

Again, for the sake of clarity, the reason that most of those redactions would have taken place is that they are subject to cabinet confidence, but in any event this committee, or I should say the finance committee in the previous session of this Parliament, specifically told the government that it didn't want documents that fell into that category. The remaining category of redactions is really the only thing that is in dispute at this committee. Redactions were made that the motion suggested ought to have been made by the clerk.

However the relevant deputy ministers, in accordance with the legislation they referred to in those transmittal letters, explained why those redactions took place and what efforts they made to obtain consent to divulge information that the statutes bar them from divulging. For the most

part it was personal contact information. Mr. Gerretsen went through at great length, page-by-page to demonstrate that among the redacted documents this committee asked, the redacted parts largely touched on the personal contact details of the independent public servants. Although I know Mr. Gerretsen had some fun during the committee meeting imputing motives in at least one instance, I don't think why someone may have been trying to—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm not sure if it was the audio on my end, but could you have Mr. Fraser repeat the previous statement he made regarding personal information. I didn't hear it.

The Chair :

It's not really a point of order, but if you care to, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Peter, I trust you don't want me to start from the beginning, so I'll pick up at the last sentence.

The Chair :

No, definitely not.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, I want just the previous few sentences.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

No problem. I am coming near the end of my argument. In any event, aside from the cabinet confidences, which we did not ask for but were provided anyway, the remaining category of redactions largely touches on personal information. I don't think this committee needs to see the phone numbers of public servants. I think it would be inappropriate. I do think that the public would benefit from going through the documents that have been provided to see the redactions for themselves.

Aside from those pages that we didn't ask for, these are minor redactions that touch on the personal information of Canada's professional and independent public service. I'd be happy to get into the redactions more specifically and in depth if we need to. I hope we don't need to go there. For the time being, for those reasons, I think it's essential that the committee support the subamendment. It will allow us to see the total body of evidence, to quickly move to pre-budget consultations and return to the controversy on the specific motion as soon as we are done.

Hopefully, it will allow the government an opportunity to work with this committee to give it the information it needs to bring a level of oversight to whichever spending programs we desire to review. In this particular instance, I don't think it's necessary to disclose the personal information of public servants as part of it. Those are my comments for now, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fraser. Next on my list is Ms. Dzerowicz, followed by Mr. Fragiskatos.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It's nice to see everybody. I want to start by just addressing this off the top. I believe there was a comment earlier about the Prime Minister instructing us to do this filibuster. I don't know how other parties work, but our Prime Minister doesn't instruct our committees. I just wanted to indicate for the record that this is absolutely not true. I can also personally say that I have zero desire to have this meeting go any longer than it needs to. I only have a great desire to move as quickly as we can to pre-budget consultations, which is why I was delighted that you, Mr.

Chair, suggested right off the bat that we move right to a pre-budget consultation motion. You asked for unanimous consent, and I do want the record to formally show that there was no support from the Conservatives, no support from the NDP and no support from the Bloc Québécois for your ask in terms of unanimous consent for us to move directly to pre-budget consultations. I also want to address a few of the comments that Mr. Poilievre started off with. He talks about a WE scandal. Saying one million times that there's a WE scandal doesn't make it true. There was no WE scandal.

There were some legitimate concerns when WE was selected about how WE was selected. There was a motion that we as finance committee had agreed to study it in terms of how the decision came about and how much money was actually spent in providing that contract over to WE. I want to remind everybody once again—I know I said this last time, but sometimes repetition is important—that for almost two months over the summer we met to actually deliberate on those questions. Again, transparency and oversight are absolutely critical.

If there are questions, or if people think there are mistakes, it's absolutely important for us to be looking at that. I do also want to remind the public, the media and anybody else who's listening that it isn't typical for committees to meet during the summer, but it was extraordinarily important for us. We're in a pandemic. I think that initially we were meeting as the finance committee to provide proper oversight of the emergency support programs, which is absolutely appropriate.

Then, I think, when the decisions around WE being selected for the Canada summer student grant program came up, it was determined that it was important for us to look at it. I just want to remind people of what we heard, because, again, I want to continue to dispel the consistent sorts of statements about WE scandals or WE cover-ups. There was no corruption. There was no corruption. We heard—under oath—from both of the Kielburgers, Craig and Marc Kielburger. We heard from Prime Minister Trudeau . We heard from Minister Morneau. We heard that they're not friends. They don't have each other's phone numbers.

They don't socialize. There was zero attempt by anybody in our government to be able to select WE for any personal benefit or to benefit people who might have been their friends. They're not personal friends. We also heard very clearly that WE was selected by our civil servants. I was actually going through Rachel Wernick's testimony again. There was a day when we had Ms. Wernick come in. We had Ms. Gina Wilson come in on the same day, I believe, and we had Minister Bardish Chagger come in as well. Ms.

Wernick very clearly stated that, given the fact that we had very specific parameters and very quick time frames, it was suggested by the bureaucrats, by herself, that WE could be the only organization that could actually deliver the program in the timeline and the time frame that we had asked them to do it in. That was validated by Ms. Wilson and also by our Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Shugart. There was no misuse of funds. The other thing we were asked to look at was whether or not.... How much money did we spend on all this?

What we heard for all of the monies at the time of our last meeting was that it was about to be returned. I think it was in a bank account, and I think they just needed some final details, but my understanding is that at this moment all of the dollars have been returned. We also heard that there was zero profit to WE. It was just costs that they were covering.

(1740) Then the contribution agreement was selected because of the expediency of actually being able to deliver the actual program. I don't know if there were 13 or 17, but there was an extraordinary number of checkpoints to try to ensure that there was accountability for any of the dollars that were actually given to WE for the delivery of the CSSG program and to ensure that it was actually doing what it was meant to be doing. We talked about why it was rushed. We talked about why it was not a sole-source contract and why it was a contribution agreement.

We also gave lots of examples of other contribution agreements. We also proved, time and time again, that it was absolutely for students, that we actually made this decision, in terms of selecting WE, because we absolutely wanted to support our students and that this was just one of many programs in the over $9 billion we've actually allocated to support students in a number of different programs. During our last session I did read out the names of some of those programs, and if we do have to go on for a long time this evening, I'll continue to read the full list of all the programs a little later.

I'll talk a little bit more about this in a minute, although my colleague Mr. Fraser has done an excellent job talking about there being no cover-up in terms of the redacted document.

I also want to continue to remind everyone that there continue to be two independent investigations by two outstanding, long-term civil servants: our Auditor General—who will continue to provide oversight of the spending, including that for the CSSG program, all the other student programs and all the other programs that are currently under way—and the Ethics Commissioner, who is currently investigating both the former Minister of Finance, the Honourable Bill Morneau, and our Prime Minister , to see whether there indeed was any type of ethics violation. That is what we recall. I also want to address Mr.

Poilievre's other point around a WE cover-up. Again, mentioning a cover-up one million times does not make it a cover-up. There were 5,600 documents were released. It could be a little bit more. Maybe it was 5,693. I'm not quite sure of the exact number. I am just saying approximately 5,600 documents. They were released on the day that our Prime Minister announced the prorogation. Our Prime Minister made sure those documents were actually released publicly before he actually prorogued government.

I want to remind everybody that any of the redactions that were made to the 5,600 pages were made by our independent civil servants. That again has been validated by my colleague Mr. Fraser, or at least we have been reminded us about it. This subamendment that is before us right now seeks to address any issues there might be in terms of any political interference in making the decisions on what was to be redacted. The subamendment is trying to say to bring forward those senior civil servants, whose job it was to do the redactions. Let's bring them before this committee.

Let's also bring forward our parliamentary law clerk, as well as our parliamentary legal counsel, so this committee can actually ask questions, and so they can explain why the redactions happened and answer any questions that maybe have not been brought out into the open. That is what this subamendment to the amendment to the original motion is trying to do. I want to point out once again the four key parts of this subamendment: the first is to suspend the main motion and the amendment that Mr. Poilievre has proposed. Again, it's just suspending it. It's not eliminating it. It's not putting it away.

It's suspending it. The second is to have the chair authorized to

schedule meetings with the witnesses—which is what I had mentioned to you before—and invite the relevant deputy ministers or signatories of the transmittal letters—so those who were actually responsible for the actual redactions—as well as the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons. The third part of it is that we resume debate, after we do those sessions, to debate Mr. Poilievre's motion once the meetings have actually taken place.

(1745) I don't want to have anybody think we're trying to cover up anything. I truly don't believe we're trying to cover up anything. I have complete confidence in all of our public servants. They have, to the best of their ability, sought to only redact those items that deal with cabinet confidentiality and any personal or other items that should not be disclosed, like conference call numbers, or any items that might be completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have 100% confidence in our public servants to be able to do that. Now I want to go for a couple of minutes to what Mr.

Julian mentioned, that we are trying to do away with the pre-budget consultations. I want to directly say to Mr. Julian that there was an opportunity at the onset of this meeting to support the chair's suggestion to us to vote on pre-budget consultations so that our clerk and her team could start calling witnesses and preparing for the meetings. We know that we have 793 submissions to come before this committee. There's a lot of work ahead, and it's important work that Canadians need us to do. I think we have to make a decision as colleagues. Do we want to make our Parliament work?

That includes the work here on this committee. I genuinely and truly believe that every one of us ran because we want to serve not only our local communities, but also our country, and we want to make much better the lives of the people we're honoured and privileged to serve. I think this particular moment is especially important because we're going through an unprecedented pandemic. It's a health crisis. It's an economic crisis. Canadians need us more than ever to step up and make our best efforts to help them and our country through this unpredictable time.

This committee can provide that space for the pre-budget consultations so we can hear some of the best ideas from those who are being impacted in both the short and long terms. We can also hear from some of our economic and financial leaders. I truly believe that if we make a decision today to move to pre-budget consultations, you would have very willing partners, at least on the government side, to move forward as fast as possible. I urge us to find a way to unanimously approve going right to a pre-budget consultation motion and moving as fast as possible to pre-budget consultations.

I also want to make reference to a letter that our government House leader has submitted to the House leaders of each the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. I know there were discussions behind the scenes about a special committee to oversee the investments in COVID-19. I'm not quite sure whether that's completely off the table. I would like to believe that maybe that could still be on the table. I think it's a really great idea. It's a committee that would do two things.

One is to provide continued oversight of COVID-19 spending, particularly since we're spending over $300 million on the 80 programs we've introduced. I think it's really important for us to continue to be transparent and accountable and provide as much oversight not only on federal spending, but I would love us to also be able to ensure that we get accountability for all the dollars we've also sent to the provinces, the municipalities and other groups and make sure money is going to where it needs to go; that if some adjustments are needed, that we're able to do so.

I like this proposed motion for a special committee. I particularly like it because it would allow the finance committee, which had already been doing some of this oversight prior to prorogation, to engage fully and completely in pre-budget consultations, to focus on budget 2021 and the best recommendations and the best ideas and the best thinking out there and have another committee provide that proper accountability and oversight.

It also gives the committee a mandate to take over the responsibility for the issue of the document redaction, anything to do with anybody still worried about any of the redactions of the WE documents that were submitted.

(1750) I think, if there are some additional steps that need to be taken, I think that is an option and a committee that could be looked at. I want to end maybe at this point, because I've lots of other things to say, but I'll let some other colleagues talk. I do want to reiterate that there really is zero desire, at least on my side—and I truly believe I'm speaking for the government side—for us to be going any longer than we need to. I think we're trying to find a path to the pre-budget consultations as quickly as possible. All of these other motions, to be honest, are unneeded diversions.

I think they're diversions that we should find a way to maybe withdraw simply because, at this point in time, Canadians need us to step up and do the work at hand on pre-budget consultations and to find a way to restart our economy as quickly as possible and support them as workers, as Canadians, and support our businesses as we try to come out of one of the largest health and economic crisis we've had in almost 100 years. I think with that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to sign off at this point and allow the next speaker to speak. Thank you.

(1755) The Chair :

I have Mr. Fragiskatos next and then Ms. Koutrakis.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues. I'd especially like to thank Ms. Dzerowicz for reminding us of the importance of pre-budget consultations. I echo that sentiment completely. I know I put it on the record last meeting, but I think we have to, as members of Parliament entrusted to carry out the will of constituents, really ask ourselves where we are in the country right now. We are seized with the most significant crisis of our time. Thankfully, we have Standing Orders that lead us in the right direction, or should lead us in the right direction, Mr.

Chair, if members want to acknowledge where we are and what needs to be done. I asked you in the previous meeting, Mr. Chair—and there was also a question for the clerk—about Standing Order 83.1 and what happens in instances where that Standing Order is not respected. Of course, Standing Order 83.1, as we all know, or should know, relates to pre-budget consultations. It calls specifically for the finance committee to carry out pre-budget consultations by a specified date. Mr. Chair, it's been a few days since that very lengthy meeting, and my memory is a bit foggy.

Could you remind me what happens when a committee does not respect a Standing Order, in this case 83.1? What would be the consequences of that? If you don't have that answer immediately at hand, feel free to interrupt—it's the chair's prerogative to do so—and you can provide it to me and our committee. We would need a reminder on that. I think it's an important thing to know as we engage in discussions around this topic. There is something else that bears emphasizing.

I've talked about the Standing Orders and the need to respect them, but let's also keep in mind that these Standing Orders exist for particular reasons. They didn't fall from the sky. They are the legacy of a long-established Westminster parliamentary tradition that over time, over decades and generations, has been built up. Those Standing Orders, which are the rules or the foundation of Parliament, are the constitution by which we engage one another in parliamentary procedure. We have to follow those rules. It's not as if this rule stands on its own and we can choose to respect it or ignore it.

It exists for good reason. There are historic reasons behind the existence of standing orders, and I think that also needs to be put to colleagues. Furthermore, it is so surprising—well, perhaps not surprising judging by the partisanship of the opposition parties, in particular the Conservatives—that it's much more reasonable to engage with my colleagues Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Julian. That's not to take anything away from what the Conservative members add to this committee. When we have seen genuine meetings take place, they have contributed.

Fair enough, we will disagree from time to time, perhaps most of the time, but I've seen every single Conservative member in the previous Parliament, and I'm sure I'll see that from the new members of the committee, with Mr. Falk.... I've sat in on other committees where Mr. Falk has served. He made an important contribution on the justice committee. Ms. Jansen is a new member of Parliament. I would expect that she will also make a contribution here, and bring ideas, particularly around issues of the environment. I know that she's worked in that field before, as a small businessperson, if I'm not mistaken.

In any case, it is something that I think we can all look forward to. We all bring our own experiences to these discussions, Mr. Chair. However, I will go back to the point that I began with. You might be wondering where I'm going with this. I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, where was unanimous consent for pre-budget consultations? We're faced with a crisis. I expected that we would put partisanship completely aside to engage on this very important issue before the committee. Ms.

Dzerowicz is quite right, and her constituents are quite fortunate, because they have a serious member of Parliament who recognizes where the country is and what needs to be done. As I've said throughout, we need to have pre-budget consultations. We need to hear from the close to 800 stakeholders.

(1800) Correct me if I'm wrong. Again, you can verify this at your leisure, but I believe that is the highest number of requests we've ever seen at the finance committee, period. That is a new record, so to speak, and one that is not at all unexpected. We see a crisis before us, and of course there's going to be an enormous number of stakeholders from right across the country who want to speak to us, and we have to hear them out. We should have seen tonight a unanimous consent motion pass for this committee to engage immediately, without reservation, towards a pre-budget consultation, but here we are.

It's tremendously unfortunate. I will tell you, Mr. Chair, as someone who has served now for a couple of years on the finance committee, that pre-budget consultations aren't simply an exercise. They really provide the foundation for what the finance committee does, which is to put forward opinions and thoughts in the form of recommendations that go directly to the Minister of Finance and directly to the Prime Minister for review. Now, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have, as their prerogative, the ability to ignore those recommendations.

I know that was the case in previous governments, for example. I don't mean to pick on the Conservatives, but a good number—most, in fact, from what I've heard from colleagues who worked on previous finance committees—of the recommendations made by finance committees that operated during the time of Stephen Harper were not adhered to. It was the PMO and the Department of Finance, but especially the PMO under Mr. Harper, that was setting the budget direction. I won't say that's fine, but that's in the past, and I won't dwell on that.

This particular government has taken a different approach, whereby members of Parliament can actually, from across the aisles.... I'm in Ottawa right now, Mr. Chair, and just yesterday I saw a member of Parliament on the Conservative side walk right over to the Minister of Health and hand the minister a letter on behalf of a constituent. The minister accepted that letter.

It goes to show that there is this engagement, this openness, which one could argue is in fact a characteristic of the Westminster system and which, as we all know, allows for a direct interaction between the opposition, especially Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and the government. Mr. Chair, in fact, this reminds me of things that you have said in Parliament yourself.

I remember you giving a passionate speech—this was a number of months ago—where you spoke about the ability of members of Parliament to engage directly with the executive, whether it's to hand them a letter on behalf of constituents or whether it is, in previous times prior to the pandemic, to sit down with them and talk about an issue of relevance and importance. This speaks to what the Westminster system allows for—that direct engagement—in contrast to the presidential system.

I gave a speech in Parliament yesterday, and at the opening, I talked about how in fact one of the ways that I think the Westminster system stands as a positive contrast is that, unlike the presidential system, where there's not that direct engagement between opposition and government, the Westminster system allows that very direct engagement. Here we have a committee—I'm speaking mostly to the opposition here—in which we can come together and put forward ideas that will be looked at very seriously by the government, because that principle is built into the system itself. It's built into the Westminster system.

The government has to look at what this committee puts forward and opines on in the form of recommendations. As I said before, it is these pre-budget consultations that have helped to really structure—I think that was the word I used—my approach in the finance committee, because the most important thing a government can do, apart, certainly, from respecting the physical security of citizens and ensuring it, is to look at a budget that provides for all their other basic needs, all the other basic needs that citizens rightly expect their government to fulfill.

Without a budget, there really is no reason for government, one could argue.

(1805) Therefore, I think it's the most important work this committee can do. We had an opportunity tonight to proceed immediately to that, but again my colleagues in the opposition have stood in the way, which is so incredibly unfortunate. I say that again. I am just stunned at where we are. What did we hear instead? Instead we heard Mr. Poilievre who, by the way, Mr. Chair, I have no personal qualm with. I think Mr. Poilievre has a particular approach to his role as an MP. Some can disagree with it; I know his colleagues will agree with it.

He's a long-time and experienced member of the House, and I suppose the style he employs, what he brings to the job and how he engages in it, is based on a recognition, on his part at least, that it's something that works for him, so I won't comment on that. But when Mr. Poilievre puts things on the record that simply are not true, my colleagues will forgive me for my.... I had a few points of order when Mr. Poilievre was speaking. It was not meant as a way to disrespect the member or disrespect the proceedings of the committee.

I just thought that it was relevant to introduce a point of order to make sure that the blues reflect fact. When Mr. Poilievre says things like the government allocated a certain amount of money to the WE Charity, that is simply false. He said that hundreds of millions of dollars went to the WE Charity. The number he used was $500 million. Perhaps the pandemic has been a long one, and we had a long meeting last week, so perhaps all of that has built up and is affecting of Mr. Poilievre's judgment. I'm not sure.

This is just a reminder that the $500-million figure actually relates to the Canada student service grant. There was $500-plus million dollars that was going to go towards the Canada student service grant to allow that program to function. It was not, absolutely not, going to go to WE Charity. There was $43 million that was going to go to WE Charity so that the organization could administer the program, but all of that money was going to be reimbursed. It's my understanding that any monies that were paid to WE Charity by the government have been paid back. The long of the short of it, Mr.

Chair, on that point is that no money is now in the pocket of WE Charity. When the opposition, as we heard here today with Mr. Poilievre.... Yesterday I was in the House and I heard a number of Conservative MPs speaking to the opposition day motion, which in and of itself is a separate matter. I don't think I'll touch on it here, but it depends. What a ridiculous motion that was. When we're talking about the issues of the day, talking about the wage subsidy, talking about improving rental assistance, talking about the Canada recovery benefit and the need to support young people, these are the things that—

(1810) Mr. Peter Julian :

Point of order.

The Chair :

I'm sorry—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Now I'm being interrupted. I had good things to say about Mr. Julian before—

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos, there is a point of order from Mr. Julian. Mr. Julian, go ahead.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to relevance, we're going to start cracking down in the filibuster whenever there is a move away from relevance. There is a long-standing tradition that you can take 15 or 20 seconds and deviate, but if what we're hearing now is Liberal members having no new content to add, then we really should proceed to the vote.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, with all—

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos, keep as close to relevance as you can.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Certainly, Mr. Chair. As we just saw, Ms. Dzerowicz raised the idea of pre-budget consultations. I'm speaking about pre-budget consultations and their importance. In fact, I'm very surprised that Mr. Julian would interrupt. I quite like Peter, Mr. Julian, for the approach that he brings—

Mr. Peter Julian :

A point of order.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I gave a compliment, Mr. Julian.

The Chair :

On a point of order, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

This is not relevant to the subamendment. With respect, Mr. Chair, the rules are very clear. Mr. Fragiskatos has to be relevant to the subamendment discussion. If he has nothing further to say on that—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I have much to say.

Mr. Peter Julian :

—let's proceed to the vote.

The Chair :

Okay. Speak to the motion on the floor, Mr. Fragiskatos, and tie it in as closely as you can.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I have much to say. I will talk about the subamendment, Mr. Chairman. I'm about to do that. I just wanted to acknowledge the comments of my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz, which brought forward the very important idea that we move to a pre-budget consultation. I also wanted to correct the record on some of the things Mr. Poilievre said. I think the parliamentary record should be accurate. I think I've done that now. Colleagues, I think in the House yesterday, I was one who corrected the record of what was exchanged in the House. But I will leave that there. Mr.

Julian should be happy because I'm going to talk about the subamendment here, which I think is eminently reasonable, Mr. Chair, extremely reasonable. What does it call for? It does not dismiss what the opposition is talking about. That would have been the approach of previous governments. I'm thinking especially of Mr. Harper, but not to pick on him. There are other examples one could cite, but it's very interesting to hear Conservative members go on about democracy and transparency and accountability—

Mr. Peter Julian :

A point of order.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I'm about to talk about the subamendment, Mr. Chair. I keep getting interrupted.

M. Peter Julian :

Mr. Chair, we're seeing repetition and lack of relevance. If Mr. Fragiskatos no longer has anything to say about the subamendment, we should proceed to a vote, because he is now repeating comments that he's made previously and he is not relevant to the question at hand.

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead, and we'll see where it leads.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I will pick up where I left off. I'm surprised, because I had starting talking about the subamendment, one that I had said before is a very reasonable one. It calls on what? It calls on public servants to testify regarding the redactions made to the documents in question. What is wrong with that? Why would we want to muzzle our public servants, who have performed so admirably during the pandemic? I had a conversation with a friend of mine earlier today, who was asking me about all of the various programs and how they're actually put together.

It is a truism in politics that we, as elected officials, quite often if not always, get credit. That should not be the case. Our public servants deserve so much credit, because they have played such a great role when it comes to the policy design of the various programs, and we know what those programs are. But what's at stake if we don't adopt the subamendment, if we don't allow public servants to come to explain to our committee why they decided to make certain decisions regarding redactions, I would say to you and say to my colleagues, is that we would violate a very important principle relating to fairness.

Fairness is ultimately a question of justice. That is not something that is just a recognition on my part. There's a long-established philosophical tradition in liberalism in general, but I think if you look across the philosophical spectrum, if I can put it that way, you will find conceptions of justice that are ultimately rooted in fairness. Ultimately, when we talk about fairness, we're really talking about justice. For me, Mr. Chair, it's about John Rawls. I'm passionate about politics for many reasons, but—

(1815) Mr. Peter Julian :

Point of order.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Here we go again, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to speak to the subamendment. I'm trying to put some meat on the bones, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair :

There is a point of order, Mr. Fragiskatos. Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you. Again, I question the member's relevance on the subamendment and his repetition, Mr. Chair. If Mr. Fragiskatos has nothing new to add, and he is not going to stay relevant to the topic, we should proceed to a vote.

The Chair :

I believe, Mr. Julian, the subamendment relates to the document packages and the evidence that may or may not be in them. I do believe in this case Mr. Fragiskatos is providing background information on that last point. Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I appreciate it, Mr. Chair. I was making the point that questions of fairness—and those questions are at play if we deny public servants the opportunity to come to committee, as the Conservatives especially want to do, and I hope we won't. Questions of fairness are ultimately questions of justice. I was talking about John Rawls, who is probably the philosopher who recognized this the most or who's credited with a theory of justice that's rooted in fairness. I don't mean to quote philosophers in an arrogant way. We all have our interests and passions.

Philosophy is one of my interests, but I don't use it as a stick, so to speak, here at committee. It provides me with a foundation for understanding the various questions we are seized with, including the subamendment. As I said, by calling on public servants to come to speak, it offers them an opportunity to put to us the rationale for their decisions. If we say “no” to those public servants, then we are denying them their ability to speak. We are in effect muzzling them, and I used that word earlier. I think it makes sense to repeat that word.

We are denying them free speech, free thought and especially fair legal treatment. I'm using these words directly from John Rawls in A Theory of Justice , which is no doubt his most famous work, published in 1971 but still extremely relevant. If my colleagues have not had a chance to read Rawls, that's a good place to start.

He asked the question of what makes up a just society, and said a number of things, but key characteristics such as the ability to vote have to be entrenched, as well as the ability to seek office and also free speech, free thought, and especially fair legal treatment, all of which have to be encouraged. All those are the key characteristics of what a free and a fair society looks like and therefore a just society. As I said, Rawls's concept of fairness is ultimately rooted in his notion of justice. I'm bouncing it around, and I'm sorry.

To get directly to it, by denying public servants the ability to speak to our committee, I would submit to my colleagues in the opposition, who are holding this up, that we would not be acting in a just way. As human beings they are entitled to fair treatment, and therefore public servants coming to our committee to put their thoughts on the record should happen. I think the subamendment is incredibly fair in that regard. What would we say if they couldn't come, if we denied them that right? We would be saying that, in effect, this committee has endorsed the notion that free speech and free thought don't matter.

I think that this idea of fair and equal legal treatment that Rawls talks about is especially applicable here. We would be commenting on matters that involve public servants, but not offering them an opportunity to justify decisions and to speak to us. I don't mean to single out Mr. Julian, but if Mr. Julian can't get behind this subamendment, I would be surprised, because I've heard him speak at great length on his respect and admiration for the public service.

I remember in the summer, when we had the Public Service Alliance of Canada at committee, the union that represents public servants in this country—and I don't think it's the only union that does so, but it is probably the most well known—Mr. Julian spoke glowingly about his respect for that organization and all public servants. He regularly pointed to his appreciation of public servants, who throughout the pandemic have contributed endless hours away from their families in the spirit of designing programs that are ultimately benefiting Canadians.

(1820) We are seeing Canadians now enjoying those programs, and I use “enjoy” in context because obviously we are in a pandemic. However, those Canadians are able to provide for their families because of things like the CERB, the wage subsidy and all of the various other programs. Businesses are allowed to exist because of the work that—

Mr. Peter Julian :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

What's your point of order?

Mr. Peter Julian :

Again, it's relevance, Mr. Chair, and repetition. The Liberal members are repeating themselves now. They are not relevant to the debate at all. They are holding up a whole range of things, including our ability to

schedule pre-budget hearings. I think if there's nothing left to say, nothing new and nothing relevant, that we should proceed to the vote.

The Chair :

Mr. Julian, we can see that the subamendment is quite broad if someone wants to read it out. It relates to public servants and to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to get testimony regarding the redactions—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair—

The Chair :

—so I don't think Mr. Fragiskatos is far off relevance at this time. He has been before, but I don't believe at this time that he is. Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, I'll respectfully disagree, but the respect I have for you is such that I won't carry on that disagreement. I believe I've always been relevant, but if colleagues will deviate from that and put forward a different idea, including you, that's fine. You mentioned something there that is important. You talked about the text of the subamendment.

I am very passionate about the issues I'm bringing up here—the ideas of fairness, the ideas of justice—and I won't apologize for that passion, but just so we're on the same page, it would make sense for me to read into the record the subamendment in question so that we're all on the same page. I'll do that now. The subamendment states as follows:

That the committee requests the complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons by relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the final package of documents that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons approved for release, that both of the document packages be provided to the Committee no later than October 19, 2020, and that after the committee reviews the two different versions of documents, the committee invite each of the relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, to give testimony regarding the redactions applied to the documents that were requested and granted in the motion adopted on July 7, 2020—

This is the part of the motion that I was touching on before I was interrupted by my honourable colleague. It continues:

—and that until such a time as this testimony is complete, debate on the main motion and amendment from Pierre Poilievre be suspended and that the Chair be authorized to

schedule these witnesses, and convene a meeting to resume debate on Pierre Poilievre's motion once these meetings have taken place.

I think we're all caught up now, if we weren't already. That is the text of the subamendment. To my honourable colleagues in the opposition, here you have Liberal members willing to put...I won't even say “water in our wine”, because we've never really been against transparency and accountability here. We are absolutely for it, but we raise our points on the basis of a fundamental belief that public servants shouldn't just be talked about.

When we're discussing their decisions, we should be able to ask them about their decisions and, on the basis of fairness, on the basis of justice, we should allow those public servants to speak, to share their perspective. I know that one particular colleague who stands out, Mr. Poilievre, continues to point to redacted documents and continues to draw a line between documents that have been redacted and—only in his mind is it making sense—some sort of a plot on the part of the government to withhold information. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was very happy to hear my colleague Mr.

Fraser talk earlier about how to put things into context and about the importance of recognizing cabinet confidence, which is a long-established principle. Documents that have been redacted are not documents that the government and public servants were trying to hide from the committee. Redactions happen for reasons relating to cabinet confidence, something that my colleague from Carleton, Mr. Poilievre, recognized. He suddenly forgot it. When he went into opposition, I guess he forgot it, but in 2014, Mr. Chair, he was asked about a briefing book, including the table of contents, if I remember correctly.

He was asked a question by an NDP member of Parliament in 2014 about these redactions in documents that were in Mr. Poilievre's purview and possession.

(1825) In the response given to the NDP on the issue of redactions, this time not just as a Conservative member of Parliament but also as the minister for democratic reform, which placed Mr. Poilievre in a very good position because, as someone responsible for democratic institutions, he would know all about cabinet confidences and what that means, especially in the Westminster parliamentary tradition, he said as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the decision on what to reveal is made by non-partisan public servants, for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.

Mr. Chair, that is a very key point of relevance that we have to acknowledge as a committee. In fact, I want to repeat it, Mr. Chair, because we need to be crystal clear on these points. Mr. Poilievre replied in 2014:

Mr. Speaker, the decision on what to reveal is made by non-partisan public servants, for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.

He recognizes the importance of cabinet confidence. We heard earlier about cabinet confidence in relation to redacted documents. There's nothing nefarious, nothing out of sort, nothing unethical here, Mr. Chair. Cabinet confidence is very important. That's the long and the short of it. It really is absolutely vital that we understand these things in context.

If members of the opposition want to play games and try to trick Canadians by somehow connecting the dots in a certain way and rearranging the pieces of the puzzle so that it creates a particular narrative to suit their interests, I suppose they can do that, but what this committee should be doing is embracing the idea of fairness, number one. This subamendment that's been proposed allows for the transparency and accountability the government is talking about, but does so in a way that does not exclude the opportunity for public servants to come and speak. We can ask them questions relating to cabinet confidence.

It will be interesting to hear the questions that Mr. Poilievre has when he raises it, as I expect he would, seeing that he, at least one time, understood how the principle operated. He could put questions about cabinet confidence to them, and we would see what the matter is and what the opposition is so troubled by. In fact, what I think we'll ultimately come to conclude, Mr. Chair, is that we're fighting here about the need for cabinet confidence to be held back, and also private information in the form of phone numbers and the names of kids of public servants.

I wonder, if the Conservatives were in power and if such issues came up, what side of the debate they would be on. In fact, we just heard what side of the debate they were on in 2014, Mr. Chair. Let's get back to the issues that are truly important. We need to see legislation passed in Parliament, because these are spending matters, and as a matter of course, they need to be put in place through legislation. I'm talking, of course, about the updates to the Canada emergency wage subsidy. I'm talking, of course, about updates to the Canada emergency business account. I'm speaking of the rent support that Canadians—

(1830) Mr. Michael McLeod (Northwest Territories, Lib.) :

I have a point of order.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Chair, on a point of order—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Let's get back to that work. Mr. Chair, I'll let Mr. Julian finish his point of order.

The Chair :

There's a point of order from Mr. McLeod first, I believe, and then Mr. Julian. Go ahead, Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Michael McLeod :

Mr. Chair, I'm just looking at my screen. I don't know if we still have quorum. Can you do a quorum count?

The Chair :

Okay. Yes, we have it now. We were a little close there. Go ahead, Mr. Julian. You had a point of order.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Yes, Mr. Chair, but it's two and two, so obviously we did have quorum. Mr. Chair, I would again question the relevance and the repetition. I do appreciate a good filibuster, as you know—my record is 16 hours to head off the softwood lumber sellout—but you can't repeat and you have to stay relevant. Mr. Fragiskatos has strayed wildly from that. I would ask you to rein him in so that he sticks to the issue and doesn't repeat himself, which he has done now on numerous occasions. It would allow us to have the vote if he doesn't have anything more to say.

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead. The floor is yours.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm coming to the end of my remarks here. I do take issue with Mr. Julian and other members of the opposition. I think Mr. Poilievre also used the term “filibuster” earlier. I don't consider this a filibuster as much as I do a spirited debate between colleagues who are on opposite sides of important issues. I won't apologize for being passionate about the issues at hand. As a matter of parliamentary privilege, I will exercise my opportunity to put arguments forward as I see fit. Have I been accused of being long-winded before?

Certainly I have been, by my opposition colleagues, yes, but I haven't seen Liberal colleagues intervene to tell me to stop speaking, so that is at least heartening. I'll also mention, Mr. Chair, and I hope committee members didn't take it as disrespect, that when I was reading into the record the subamendment in its entirety, I was reading from my phone. My cousin sent me a picture of his new niece. That brought a smile to my face and—

The Chair :

This isn't relevant, Mr. Fragiskatos.

(1835) Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

That's fine. I just received a picture and if there was a smile on my face, that's why it was there. I hope colleagues will understand that. I'm someone of Greek heritage and incredibly family-oriented, so when I saw the picture of—

The Chair :

Stick to relevance, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I'm coming to the end, but I just wanted to clarify. I didn't get any message regarding a smile or anything like that, but I thought I owed it to colleagues to provide an explanation. That's how I feel, Mr. Chair. You've heard my thoughts on the pre-budget consultations. You've heard what I, as someone who takes very seriously the idea of fairness, think about the subamendment. That's really all about justice. I'm someone who takes very seriously the need to hear from Canadians from coast to coast to coast regarding the pandemic. We should get on with the business of this committee. I would propose to colleagues that we begin—

Mr. Peter Julian :

Do that by voting. Let's have the vote.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

No, I'm sorry, Mr. Julian—

Mr. Peter Julian :

Let's have the vote and move on.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Shall we actually take seriously this subamendment, which I hope my opposition colleagues will come on board with and whose merits I hope they will recognize? Why they haven't so far is beyond me, but perhaps they can explain that. I'll stop there, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

We'll turn now to Ms. Koutrakis, followed by Mr. Fraser.

Ms. Annie Koutrakis (Vimy, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues. To my colleague across the way, Mr. Julian, I hope you won't call me out on relevance for what I'm about to say. I'm in a celebratory mood, if you will, because this is my first anniversary—my one year—of being a member of Parliament.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Hear, hear!

Ms. Annie Koutrakis :

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Hear, hear!

Ms. Annie Koutrakis :

Thank you for that. I just swayed a little bit to say I'm very honoured to be among my colleagues around the table on this very important finance committee with all the important work that we do and we will continue to do. It's a shame that we didn't have unanimous consent to go forward with the pre-budget consultations, but, having said that, I don't want to repeat all of the reasons that my colleagues have given. I will attempt to go through what type of information was redacted and why. I am really pleased to address this motion before the committee. As members know, the original motion for production of papers called for:

all briefing notes, memos and emails, including the contribution agreement between the government and the organization, from senior officials prepared for or sent to any Minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any written correspondence and records of other correspondence with We Charity and Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the Committee no later than August 8, 2020; that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request; and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.

In response to the—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Hear, hear!

Ms. Annie Koutrakis :

Thank you. In response to the motion for production of papers, the government departments retrieved records that responded to the committee's motion. In doing so, and as directed and allowed by the committee's motion, certain information was redacted. In fact, in some instances, information was provided beyond what the motion stipulated. We have mentioned this before, and my colleagues have stressed this point in the past, but I think it merits repeating.

For example, in the case of the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, after a thorough search, it retrieved all records from the department that responded to the committee's motion. For that department, for example, this represented fewer than 100 pages of records that were responsive to the motion. Of that, only a small portion were redacted, consistent with the parameters of the motion and the principles and laws set out in the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act.

As is the practice in applying the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act, the goal was to release as much information as possible. In fact, as an example, in ISED's response, only two exemptions and one exclusion were applied. In the context of the Access to Information Act, an exemption can be explained as a mandatory or discretionary provision under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act that authorizes the head of a government institution to refuse the disclosure of information in response to an access or privacy request.

Additionally, in the same context, an exclusion can be explained as being a provision of both the Access to Information Act or Privacy Act that removes certain records from the application of the legislation. Of the two exemptions used, only one reference was redacted under paragraph 16(2)(

c) of the Access to Information Act, which is a discretionary injury test exemption providing protection for information that could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of an offence. Paragraphs (a), (

b) and (

c) provide examples of the types of information to which this exemption may apply. The examples specify information as follows:

(

a) on criminal methods or techniques;

(

b) that is technical information relating to weapons or potential weapons; or

(

c) on the vulnerability of particular buildings or other structures or systems, including computer or communication systems, or methods employed to protect such buildings or other structures or systems.

In ISED's case, the redacted reference detailed ISED's network path, the disclosure of which could reasonably have been expected to facilitate the commission of an offence. The Government of Canada's network structures consist of vulnerable system aspects that should be safeguarded and not be disclosed in order to prevent providing potential hackers with information that could help them illegally hack Government of Canada systems. I am sure that everybody on the finance committee would agree with that point.

In refusing access to the file path, the public interest was considered, and the possible injury described above outweighed that interest. However, in the public interest, the name of the document was left unredacted in order to remain as transparent as possible while continuing to protect ISED's specific information. All institutions are committed to safeguarding personal information, and the release of the file path could have conceivably led to an unauthorized access of the network. In this instance, information was exempted to prevent such a possible breach and only after careful consideration.

The second exemption used, subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act, was applied on less than 1% of ISED's total documents. It is important to understand that the purpose of

section 19 of the Access to Information Act is to strike a balance between the right of the public to access information in records under the control of a government institution and the right of each individual to his or her privacy.

(1840) Section 19 incorporates, by reference, sections 3 and 8 of the Privacy Act, which are essential for the

interpretation and application of this exemption:

When deciding as to whether something constitutes personal information, one must not forget that the intent of subsection 19(1) and its incorporation of

section 3 of the Privacy Act is to protect the privacy or identity of individuals who may be mentioned in releasable material. The subject of the two Acts read together is that information must be provided to the public except where it relates to personal information about identifiable individuals.

Although subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act is a mandatory exemption based on a class test, it is subject to three exceptions in subsection 19(2) of the act. Subsection 19(2) of the act allows for permissive disclosure in three circumstances. The information may be disclosed if, first, “the individual to whom it relates consents to the disclosure”; second, if “the information is publicly available”; and third, if “the disclosure is in accordance with

section 8 of the Privacy Act”. Also, we have this, in Fontaine versus the RCMP:

...the Federal Court of Appeal commented that the obligation under paragraph 19(2)(

a) is, at most, to make reasonable efforts to seek consent of the individuals concerned and that what is reasonable must take into account the practical difficulties that may exist to find and locate the individuals.

It is up to each institution to determine whether it is appropriate to seek consent. In preparing the records for this committee's consideration, care was taken by ISED, for example, to obtain consent to disclose certain personal information from exempt staff referenced in the material and, in collaboration with other government departments, the staff from WE Charity, in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act. The final redaction applied by the department was the exclusion of information that was classified as a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.

We are all aware of how our government cabinet system works—and I'm quickly finding out, as a new member—and how important and essential it is to keep the collective decision-making process protected by the rule of confidentiality in order to be able to continue to engage in full and frank discussions. The Access to Information Act in

section 69 allows for the exclusion of “Confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada”, which are defined in the act as information contained in six types of documents. The types of records are described as follows:

(

a) memoranda the purpose of which is to present proposals or recommendations to Council;

(

b) discussion papers the purpose of which is to present background explanations, analyses of problems or policy options to Council for consideration by Council in making decisions;

(

c) agenda of Council or records recording deliberations or decisions of Council;

(

d) records used for or reflecting communications or discussions between ministers of the Crown on matters relating to the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy;

(

e) records the purpose of which is to brief ministers of the Crown in relation to matters that are before, or are proposed to be brought before, Council or that are the subject of communications or discussions referred to in paragraph (d);

(

f) draft legislation; and (

g) records that contain information about the contents of any record within a class of records referred to in paragraphs (

a) to (f).

The determination of the cabinet confidence is not done by the head of the institution alone. It requires the access to information office within a government institution to consult with its departmental legal services unit “in all instances where information that may qualify” as a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada “has been identified in response to a request under the act” or, in this case, a motion for the production of papers.

(1845) All this was considered, Mr. Chair, and legal services were consulted when the redaction was applied on the confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. As members know, “The Committee's motion stipulates that Cabinet confidences and national security information are to be excluded from the package.” In the case of ISED, “...No information is withheld on the grounds of national security, since the information did not so pertain.”

The Chair :

Ms. Koutrakis, I have to interrupt. Mr. Falk, I have you on here twice. Okay, one of you disappeared. We are back to normal now. Mr. Falk was showing up in double.

Mr. Ted Falk :

I'm sorry about that, Mr. Chair, but my battery was running low on one device, so I had to switch to the other.

(1850) The Chair :

That's not a problem. I just wondered what was happening.

Mr. Ted Falk :

I hadn't anticipated this endless and meaningless rhetoric.

The Chair :

I see. We are short some members. I'll remind members of the committee that they should be in attendance, especially the one who moved the original motion. Go ahead, Ms. Koutrakis.

Ms. Annie Koutrakis :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry to hear that my honourable colleague thinks this is useless rhetoric. We are trying to establish relevance and what kind of information was kept in mind by the very competent and professional public servants when they were doing the redactions,. I will continue. With respect to cabinet confidence—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

There is a point of order from Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

The interruption is not toward Ms. Koutrakis. She knows the respect I have for her, but she did touch on an important point there. Unparliamentary language needs to be identified as such. The word “useless” to describe the words of my colleague and other colleagues is just not on, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you. Your point is made. Go ahead, Ms. Koutrakis.

Ms. Annie Koutrakis :

I will continue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to cabinet confidences, ISED in fact provided information to the committee on the Canada student service grant that was a cabinet confidence. This is in keeping with the public disclosures of information on this matter made by members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. A principled approach was adopted to this information to ensure a non-selective application of the protection afforded by cabinet confidentiality.

I should add that in determining the appropriate redactions, institutions also draw on the access to information manual of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. It contains discretionary administrative guidelines to help government institutions administer the legislation and meet policy requirements. It is a detailed guide that explains the requirements of the act, the regulations and the related policy instruments. It also contains policy advice, practical

interpretations and best practices. Where appropriate, relevant case law is cited and excerpts are sometimes reproduced. The Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for issuing direction and guidance to government institutions with respect to the administration of the Access to Information Act and

interpretation of this policy. This ensures a consistent approach and understanding across institutions. The work of TBS is critical, and is complemented by the knowledge and experience of the members of the access to information teams across government. Consultations form a key part of their work. These include consultations with other parts of the institution as well as with other departments and third parties when required. Redactions are only applied following the necessary outreach to those who provided the documents in order to obtain a clear understanding of why they believed a redaction should be applied.

The same process applies when analyzing the documents retrieved to respond to a parliamentary committee. Redactions are applied carefully and only after a thorough round of consultations has taken place. The goal throughout the process of preparing the documents for the committee was to release as much information as possible while respecting the relevant acts and in line with the intent of the committee's motion. It is reflection of the duty to assist embedded in the Access to Information Act that institutions seek to fully understand a request in order to provide the most documents possible in response.

I hope that my remarks today help members understand in some instances the scope and nature of the redactions that were applied. In the case of ISED, the decision on what information to publish or release and what information to protect or redact, as in all information requests, including this committee's, was made in keeping with the spirit of the Access to Information Act—the spirit of openness and transparency, based on the principle of and commitment to open government. This is why, Mr.

Chair, I have to reiterate at this point that unless we invite the relevant senior department heads, the deputy ministers who, along with their teams, did the redacting, to explain why they redacted the information they did, I'm not sure how we could go forward as a committee to vote on something that.... You know, that is key information that is missing, for me as a member of the finance committee, to ensure that I fully understand before I cast my vote. I urge my honourable committee members, let's step up. Let's do the right thing. Let's vote on what is relevant here.

Let's get back to doing the very important work we were all elected to do. It's certainly an honour and a privilege to be on the finance committee. We should be looking at pre-budget consultations. I don't want to exhaust that point. All of us have discussed that. I am confident and certain that my colleagues across the way feel the same way. It's just a matter of agreeing on how to get there. Let's do what we have to do. Let's do what we were elected to do. Let's get on with the very important work the finance committee has to do.

Hopefully, we can get through this tonight and, if we do have another meeting tomorrow, it will be on pre-budget consultations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1855) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis.

Mr. Peter Julian :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd just like to say to Ms. Koutrakis that that was perfect, with no repetition, and relevant. I was impressed with it as a filibustering speech, but if Liberal staffers are spending all this time preparing these speeches, they could actually be doing better things. If we had the vote, we could move on to pre-budget hearings.

The Chair :

I think you made your point of order. I imagine Ms. Koutrakis thanks you, but I believe you're beyond your point of order. Ms. Koutrakis, thank you. I have Mr. Fraser, followed by Ms. Dzerowicz. Mr. Fraser, the floors is yours.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute further to the debate on the subamendment. Again, the subamendment is trying to cure multiple defects, but one in particular is the problem that exists because of incomplete document disclosure. The incompleteness was not by virtue of a decision of the government, but instead by the ineffective transmission of certain documents, specifically the remittal letters.

Frankly, before I get into the specifics about redacted documents and why they have been redacted, which is the subject of the subamendment, I know that different members have made statements about getting to the bottom of this. I can't help but feel that I should put it on the record that we have in fact gotten to the bottom of it. What has happened is that the Prime Minister himself has admitted that he made a mistake and should have recused himself from the conversation around the Canada student service grant.

Nevertheless, the government has produced thousands of pages explaining, in unimaginable detail, specifically what had taken place. The argument around this—

Mr. Peter Julian :

On a point of order, I apologize to Mr. Fraser, but I just want to clarify with the clerk that the table has the replacement papers for Daniel Blaikie, who will be taking on this delightful finance filibuster for the next few hours.

The Chair :

Madam Clerk, I believe you have the papers. Is that correct?

The Clerk :

Yes, we've received the documentation.

The Chair :

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you.

The Chair :

We hate to lose you, Peter. I will miss that orange background that I always see behind you. It's sharp to the eye. Okay, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

And my friend Mr. Julian will be disappointed. I was excited about what was coming next. Mr. Chair, one of the issues I keep coming back to is the inability to understand the context of the documents that have been produced in the absence of the letters that have explained why certain redactions have been made. Specifically we can look, for example, at the remittal letter that the opposition seems to insist should not be produced, which comes from the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet.

It was a letter dated August 7 that accompanied disclosure sent to David Gagnon who, of course, is well known to members of this committee as the clerk at the time. It said: I am pleased to provide records from the Privy Council Office (PCO) that were requested under the motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance...on July 7, 2020 in relation to the committee's study on the WE Charity and the Canada Student Services Grant...(Annex 1).

I'm also pleased to provide information related to the undertakings that I agreed to at my appearance before the committee on July 7, 2020 which were as follows:

1. A detailed timeline of events.

Attached at Annex 2 is a timeline describing PCO's knowledge of and involvement with the file.

2. A full list of organizations that were consulted on program development.

On Friday, July 24, 2020, the Department of Employment and Social Development (ESDC) provided the Committee with a list of the national coalition member organizations of the Canada Services Corps...who ESDC spoke with in March and April of 2020.

I am told that on April 9, 2020, Department of Finance officials were provided with a report on stakeholder outreach regarding support for students during the COVID-10 context....

3. PCO media monitoring from the dates when Margaret and Alexandre Trudeau had speaking engagements for WE Charity.

I can confirm that PCO Media Monitoring does not have any media content of the public appearances for either Margaret Trudeau or Alexandre Trudeau.

The PCO media centre monitors coverage of the Government of Canada priorities, programs and services and does not monitor media coverage related to the relatives of the Prime Minister or their public appearances.

4. All communications between PMO staff and PCO staff; the Finance Minister's Office and PCO; and the Finance Minister's Office and the Finance Department relating to WE charity contribution agreement and the CSSG.

These communications are included in Annex 1 and in the package from the Department of Finance.

5. Names of partici