EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Finance NUMBER 004 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Wednesday, October 28, 2020 Le mercredi 28 octobre 2020 Standing Committee on Finance CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE October 28, 2020 Committee NUMBER 004 NUMBER 004 NUMÉRO 004 04 28 10 2020 2020/10/28 16:25:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des finances Standing Committee on Finance FINA Chair The Honourable Wayne Easter 2 43 PUBLIC PART ONLY -

PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT

(1755) [ English ]

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

We'll call the meeting to order. We're resuming meeting number four of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the motion adopted in the House on Wednesday, September 23, 2020, the committee is meeting virtually. The committee met earlier in camera and is now resuming committee business in public. We will start where we left off at the last meeting. On my list I have Ms. Dzerowicz and then Mr. Julian. Ms. Dzerowicz.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.) :

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I would like to start by saying I'm unhappy to be back here. I'd rather be in pre-budget consultations right now. It's beginning to feel a little like a 21st century Shakespearean tragedy, where there's a—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

What's your point of order, Mr. Poilievre?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Ms. Dzerowicz was saying that she wants to get to pre-budget consultations. I move that we go straight to a vote on my point of privilege and then we can go straight to pre-budget consultations.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

That's not a point of order.

The Chair :

I'm sorry, it's not a point of order. You can't move a motion right now. Ms. Dzerowicz, the floor is yours.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Thank you so much. I was beginning to say it's beginning to feel a little bit like a 21st century Shakespearean tragedy, in which there's a plague on all of our houses so that we can't somehow find a way out of this current impasse we have. Because we've been away for almost a week right now. I think it's important for us to make sure that for anyone who's listening, whether it's the media or it's Canadians, we do a little bit of a reset of where we're at. There has been concern over on the opposition side that there is some sort of a cover-up, something hiding in redacted documents that have been submitted.

On our side, the government side, we are saying there is no desire to hide or cover up anything. The subamendment that we are discussing right now is a genuine attempt by the Liberal side to find a solution that would address any perception that all of the information might not have been provided or that there might be a cover-up. The whole idea behind the subamendment is that we do want to move past this and to move to pre-budget consultations. I'm going to start by reading through Mr. Gerretsen's subamendment to the motion again.

It's important for a number of reasons and I'm going to be addressing a number of these points quite extensively. Also, I think it's a good reminder. I think it's always easy to yell out and say “cover-up”. It's much harder to say there's no cover-up, there's no scandal, and here are the reasons why.

The subamendment indicates the following: 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, 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's important to note that all we're asking for is a suspension of the original motion. We're also asking for two sets of documents. I'll explain a little bit more what the two different sets of documents are, because I think there's a little bit of confusion out in the media, out in the public, about what they are.

We're asking for the two sets of documents to be brought forward to this committee and that the committee then invite the relevant deputy ministers as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons to give testimony regarding the redactions applied to the documents. Once that's over, we can come back to the committee and resume discussion and debate on the motion that Mr. Poilievre has before us right now. We have suggested the subamendment because we want to directly address any perception or any belief that there might be some cover-up.

Also, we want to prove that we were indeed honouring what we had agreed to and passed on July 7 at the finance committee, which was basically that all of the following be provided: all contracts related to the WE Charity, all briefing notes, memos and emails from senior officials, as well as all of the written correspondence and records from ME to WE from March 20 no later than August 8, and that matters of cabinet confidence and national security be excluded and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens as well as...would be made by the office of the law clerk.

(1800) This subamendment that's before us right now is a direct attempt for us to try to bring in the people who actually did the redactions, to bring in the law clerk, who the opposition members feel needs to also be at the table, and basically put it to them: the questions around why the redactions were happening, why they took place and what could be some possible next steps that might get us past this impasse. I also wanted to mention that the other reason why the subamendment was proposed is that.... Again, it's a subamendment to the amendment to the original motion. Mr.

Poilievre's original motion basically indicates that the committee has concluded that the government's response failed to comply with the order that the finance committee had agreed to complete on July 7, which was to release the WE documents, and we know that about 5,600 pages of documents were actually released.

The motion would basically say that if it is shown, that if the committee concludes that they failed to comply with the order, which we as the government believe that we have complied with—the order—then we move into...that the committee would be seen as its privileges being breached because what has been asked for has not been provided. The last part that's important to note, because I'd like to address this in my remarks, is that the committee “therefore, recommends that [the] Order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of [the] documents”.

Again, just basically, for everybody listening out there, that would mean that all 5,600 documents, completely unredacted, would go directly to the law clerk, instead of what has happened and what typically happens, which is that these documents go to our independent civil servants, who will basically redact or sort of blackline, based on cabinet confidentiality and based on national security issues—although in this case we've been told time and time again that there were no issues of national security that had to be redacted—and, third, for any privacy considerations.

That is why the subamendment is actually on the table. I wanted to reiterate again that we on the government side truly believe that we have complied with the order. We have explained quite a bit over the course of the last couple of weeks that it has been our independent civil servants who actually did the redactions. We also explained that if there were any redactions, they were done for three reasons.

I just mentioned them: the cabinet confidentiality, the national security—again, they ended up telling us that there was none of that—and then for any personal or completely irrelevant information related to the awarding to WE Charity to deliver the service of the CSSG, the Canada student service grant. We also, then, gave a lot of examples of what was actually redacted, based on letters that came from the deputy ministers of the various different departments that actually submitted the WE documents. We've provided all of that.

I also at this point want to make sure that I'm explaining the two sets of documents because, to be honest, I wasn't completely clear about it, so I spent quite a bit of time to make sure that I was clear on it. If you look at our subamendment, it basically says that it requests two different sets. The first set is a “complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons” as well as the “relevant Deputy Ministers”.

Basically, this first package is the set of the 5,600 documents that were redacted by our independent civil servants based on the criteria of cabinet confidentiality, any personal information or irrelevant information. Those sets of documents, as per the July 7 motion that we agreed to, actually went to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Then the law clerk basically took that information and added their own redactions. That became blacklined. What came from the deputy ministers and the independent civil servants over to the law clerk was “greylined”.

That package went to the law clerk and the law clerk took the package, and then the package was blacklined. Then that was what was released. When we're looking at these documents, we have to understand that there are two different sets. We wanted both sets to come in so you could see what exactly was redacted by our independent civil servants and then what was actually redacted by our law clerk. If you compare the grey line with the black line, you'll be able to see what was further redacted by our law clerk. I wanted to make sure that was understood.

(1805) It came out in the newspaper yesterday that Ian Shugart, the Clerk of the Privy Council, has offered to testify before our committee and explain the redactions and what's happened and answer any outstanding questions we might have. I think what's important to note is that for me, one of the key questions is why we wouldn't want to take up the Clerk of the Privy Council on his offer?

Even if we go further on, why wouldn't we want both the Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk to come before this committee so that we can ask these questions and do it in public so that the public could hear whether or not things were properly redacted, if anything was hidden or anything was unnecessarily redacted, so that all of that could come out in full transparency in public and before this committee.

Maybe if we have both of these very senior officers before our committee, we'd be able to move past this impasse and be able to move to important work that we have to do as a finance committee in pre-budget consultations. I think it's important to mention the point of privilege. Some of my other colleagues, who probably have more of a legal background, will be able to explain this far better than I can. Every time I get information that I don't quite understand, I have to put it into very simple language, because if I don't understand it, I know that none of my constituents will understand it.

They'll probably ask why it is significant, why it is important that the government would be concerned about a committee privilege being breached, and why would there be some fear of that coming to the House of Commons? We truly believe that the 5,600 documents were redacted properly. We don't think anything is being hidden. We trust and believe that our independent public servants have followed to the law what they were tasked to do.

We think they have done this for years and we're very grateful for their extraordinary work, because I know this is an extraordinary effort in addition to all of the amazing work they've been doing to try to help Canadians through this pandemic. We don't agree that committee's privileges has been breached. Should this come to the floor, it would also provide a tool for the opposition to be able to use against the government in a way that could hold up government for days.

It's unpredictable and it could be used at any time to maybe stop any legislation from going through, or any important piece of work that we need to do, and it's particularly problematic because time is of the essence. We're at a particular time where it is unprecedented both from a health perspective as well as an economic perspective. We're going through two types of crises right now.

(1810) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Then why did you shut down Parliament—

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Mr. Chair, I will continue—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

—for six weeks?

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

—without the interruptions. That is why it is important for us not to have this questions of privilege brought to the floor of the House of Commons. One, it's because we don't believe that the committee's privileges have been breached; and two, I think it can be used as a tactic to stall government, important legislation, and important work in our moving forward and addressing some of the important needs and actions that can be...

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

You're stalling right now.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

We are not, Mr. Poilievre. We are trying to introduce a subamendment so we can clarify any hesitations or any perceptions that we might be covering up in any way, so that we can move forward, address the concerns of opposition members and be able to do our pre-budget consultations.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Let's move to a vote.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

I'm still talking on the subamendment, Mr. Poilievre. The next point I want to make is the following.... Let me just get my pages; I have so many pages in front of me, I have to organize myself. I want to point out the inconsistencies in the motion. I think it's important to reiterate here, for the media and anybody who might be listening, that this gets a little bit to the heart of where there is some disagreement between the Liberal government side and our opposition.

When we passed the motion on July 7, we had all agreed as a committee that all of the documents related to the contracts that were concluded with the WE Charity and ME to We, all the briefing notes, all the memos, all the emails 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...Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the Committee no later than August 8”.

Then there is a semicolon, after which it says, “that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request; and that [the] 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 disagreement is that for us what is typical, to my understanding—I am only starting my sixth year of being a politician, and my understanding of this has been my experience as well—is that when these types of documents are requested, it is very typical that matters of cabinet confidence and national security are excluded.

Our understanding, when we all agreed to it, was that anything else, that didn't include cabinet confidence and national security, would actually then move on to the law clerk for his redaction. My point is that this is what we agreed to on July 7. Then, I will say to you, in the original motion that Mr. Poilievre has proposed, he basically is recommending that the unredacted version of all the documents produced by the government actually be sent to the law clerk. So there is an inconsistency with that, between what it is that we had agreed to and what it is that right now the opposition wants us to do.

They want us to go to the beginning, get the 5,600 documents, completely unredacted, and send it over to the law clerk. It's problematic in a number of ways. One, it is inconsistent with what was agreed to initially. Two, it's also, in what I have been told and what I understand, unprecedented. It's not done. It is not something that typically goes to the law clerk. It is the role of our civil servants. They are independent civil servants. They work for our government, but if there were a transition in government, you might still have the same Clerk of the Privy Council. Their role is to be independent.

I completely trust that this is what they have done and that they have honoured to a T what was set out in what we had agreed to at finance on July 7. I want to point out that inconsistency in terms of what was agreed to and what is now being asked for, and also that it is unprecedented. This takes us to our current stalemate. I think the unfortunate thing is that we are wasting a lot of time. In the end, I think it really is Canadians who end up suffering. It is Canadians who are going to lose in the end.

Unfortunately, we are going to start losing public trust that we are going to be able to work together to be able to resolve this, find a way forward, and do the important work that we need to do for Canadians at this time.

(1815) I also want to mention two other key points before I sign off. If you look at why we proposed the subamendment, again it was not only to dispel the fact that there was anything that our government was trying to hide but it was also an attempt to bring the key actors forward to be able to answer questions. As to whether there is an attempt to hide or not be accountable for anything, I think it's important to bring forward that we also, as a government—and the House leaders of each of the parties have been working on this—suggested a special committee to provide oversight on COVID-19 spending.

It's really important for the public to know that our government believes in 100% transparency and we have proposed a special committee to provide that oversight. If you actually just look at the first paragraph of that special committee—

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) :

On a point of order, Chair, as Julie is referring to this committee and the House leaders, I would love to get an update on how those negotiations are going.

The Chair :

That wasn't a point of order.

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

Point of order.

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

Sorry, she just referred to it, so I thought—

The Chair :

Mr. Julian claims he has a point of order, so we will see.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. This is not relevant to the debate on the subamendment. We're going to have to start tightening up Liberal members. If they have nothing new to say that is relevant, we should proceed to the vote, which the Liberals have been holding up now for three weeks.

The Chair :

That's not a point of order. Well, it will go to relevance, Ms. Dzerowicz. Mr. Fragiskatos, do you have a point of order?

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

I do. I simply disagree with Mr. Julian. Ms. Dzerowicz brought up a point that I think was entirely relevant and she wasn't allowed to complete that point. It's a bit of a trend here on committee when colleagues are making a point—

(1820) The Chair :

Okay, we're both talking relevance.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: —that they are interrupted.

The Chair: We will go back to Ms. Dzerowicz. Ms. Dzerowicz.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I believe it is relevant. How it's relevant is that, as I mentioned, the reason we presented the subamendment to the amendment to the original motion was that we're attempting to show that we're not trying to cover up. We're attempting to show that we are accountable and that we have fulfilled what we had agreed to at the finance committee on July 7. What I was trying to show when I mentioned the special committee to oversee COVID-19 spending is that it is also part of our attempt to try to alleviate any concerns about us not being accountable and not being transparent.

I think you've seen this as well, Mr. Julian, and all of the other members of the committee. Our supplementary estimates were released on October 22. We now know that the spending authority of the government has reached $476 billion. Absolutely, there needs to be accountability, so we have proposed a committee to provide that accountability. I want to make sure that Canadians and the media—everybody—know that we're doing everything we can to ensure we are accountable and transparent to Canadians. The other point I want to mention is that sometimes when you go down the rabbit hole....

What we've been sort of focused on very much are the 5,600 documents and what was redacted, who redacted it, should it have gone straight to the law clerk and was it appropriate for our independent civil servants to have redacted that, but I think it's really important to remind everyone that we, as the finance committee, actually studied the WE contracts. We actually studied the other motion that was also approved on July 7, which was basically to look at how the decision was made to select WE Charity to deliver the Canada student service grant.

We also looked at how much money was spent in doing so, and we have proved unequivocally.... Unequivocally....and people can look at I think meetings 43 to 51 in the first session of the 43rd Parliament if they want to go online to look at this. We have proven unequivocally that there has not been any corruption. We heard testimony under oath from the Kielburgers, from Prime Minister Trudeau and from the former finance minister. We also proved conclusively there was no misuse of funds. Actually, all of the funds have been returned to us.

We've also proved conclusively—it was said in testimony and reaffirmed—that it was our senior civil servants who actually proposed and suggested WE Charity to deliver the CSSG program. All of that is in testimony. We explained why it needed to be rushed and the decision decided before the summer. Then we explained that it wasn't a sole source contract. It was actually a contribution agreement, which we have done in a number of different cases on other emergency support programs, and there was a lot of accountability along the way.

We have to make sure that we remind ourselves that this is not just about the redaction of the documents. On the documents, I think there's a perception that the opposition is trying to propose, that we're hiding things. What I'm trying to say to you is that we spent a couple of months actually looking at this. We had many witnesses come before us. We asked all of these questions about corruption and misuse of funds and about who made the decision, why it was so rushed, was it really a sole source and did we really do this for the students. We have unequivocally proven all of that in testimony.

These additional documents are to me supplemental information. They're important. They should be delivered. We should honour what it is that we agreed to on July 7, and I believe that we fully have done so. What we're trying to do with the subamendment is that we're trying desperately to find a way to get out of this impasse. We're trying desperately to say let's bring forward the Clerk of the Privy Council and let's bring forward the law clerk. Let's hear from both of them, let's talk about what was redacted and let's maybe ask some questions.

Maybe through bringing them forward, we can find a way out of this impasse and move on to the important work that Canadians need us to step up and do at this unprecedented time. I think I'm going to leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I will pass the baton to one of my colleagues and say thank you so much for the opportunity to express my views.

(1825) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Ms. Dzerowicz. Next on my list is Mr. Julian, who will be followed by Mr. Fragiskatos. Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to speak for very long because the Liberals have now been stalling for three weeks, so any fault for the pre-budget hearings not being held.... Yes, it's true that, under this government, as under the previous Conservative government, pre-budget hearings are basically ignored. We've had people coming forward for years making very specific and important policy suggestions that have just been cast aside.

That said, it's an important tool, and the only reason we're not holding pre-budget hearings now is that Liberal government members of this committee do not want to hold the vote on a privilege motion. The subamendment is designed to basically kill; it's a kill amendment. It kills the privilege motion. What's important for the public to understand—and certainly any member of the Canadian media who is tuning in to this finance committee—is that the privilege motion provides the Speaker of the House of Commons, somebody who is elected by every member of Parliament....

We hold these elections at the beginning of each Parliament. All members of Parliament have one vote. We elect a Speaker and we trust that Speaker with questions such as privilege. This motion, if the Liberal members permit us to have a vote, would then allow the Speaker to rule. What could Liberal members be afraid of when it's the impartial Speaker who looks over the evidence that's presented by the committee and makes a decision? I cannot understand why Liberal members have been plugging up the works for three weeks and refusing to hold a vote on this matter when it's the Speaker who ultimately rules.

All we're saying is, let's give the Speaker the opportunity to rule on this motion of privilege. At the same time, it's very clear that the law clerk, again independent, should be able to take a look at the unredacted, uncensored documents. When over 1,000 pages have been censored or redacted, there is a matter of some concern about getting to the bottom of this. This is what parliamentarians should be doing. The subamendment is designed to kill the privilege motion. It is designed to basically delay for weeks, if not months, any logical conclusion to this. As you know, Mr.

Chair, if a privilege motion is not directed to the Speaker within a timely period, it kills the motion of privilege. Let's not split hairs here. What the Liberals are doing with the subamendment is trying to kill the motion of privilege. That's what they are attempting to do.

The Chair :

Mr. Julian, there is a point of order from Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. I am subbing in for Ms. Dzerowicz. With regard to what Mr. Julian is arguing, my understanding is that the subamendment does not, in any way, impact the privilege motion. Can we get clarification on that, Chair?

The Chair :

Your argument, Mr. Julian, is that it impacts the privilege motion, is it not?

Mr. Peter Julian :

Absolutely, and that's why it's been proposed, and Liberal members know that.

The Chair :

My ruling is that it really doesn't. It delays the privilege motion. If somebody wants to read what it really says, it delays the privilege motion until the evidence is such that the privilege motion should be put forward. That would be my opinion. Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Chair, that is exactly my point. Privilege is something that needs to be presented within a timely period, so the subamendment is designed to delay the motion of privilege. That means it effectively kills the motion of privilege, because if it is not brought back in a timely way, the Speaker has an obligation, according to long parliamentary tradition, to disallow it. Let's be very clear and very frank about what the government members are trying to do. They are attempting to kill the motion of privilege. They are attempting to remove from the Speaker and from parliamentarians the right to rule on this.

The committee having a vote—and I believe firmly that this is a question of privilege—only requests of the Speaker to make a ruling on this. This is what I find the most outrageous part of this, Mr. Chair. Not only are government members delaying the work of the finance committee—and there are many other things we could be working on—they are also attempting to kill a motion of privilege that would allow the Speaker to rule on this. If it is true that the Liberal members just want to get this to an impartial judge, the Speaker, who is elected by all members of Parliament, is the best person to make that judgment.

I would ask, through you, Mr. Chair, to government members, please stop delaying, please stop stalling, allow the vote to be held and allow the Speaker then to take this into consideration and make his judgment on whether or not this is a bona fide question of privilege. All the committee can do is advise the Speaker about what happened. It is up to the Speaker to make that decision. Let's not make it for him. Let's have the vote, provide the report and let's see what the Speaker rules.

(1830) The Chair :

Thank you. I'm going to clarify a little of what I said. I do not see this as a delay to deny the point of privilege, Mr. Julian. As outlined in the subamendment to the amendment, I see it as gathering the evidence to see if there is a point of privilege from the finance committee's point of view. That's what I see it as.

Mr. Peter Julian :

That's debate, Mr. Chair, and I would disagree with you on that.

The Chair :

On that I guess we disagree. But it is debate. Sorry about that. Mr. Fragiskatos, you are up.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

That's right, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Immediately I want to take issue with what we just heard. It has been very surprising to me, throughout these meetings we have had, to hear Mr. Julian stand in the way of this committee hearing out public servants, inviting them here in the first instance, then hearing them and having the opportunity to ask questions of those public servants. That is really what the subamendment is all about, as Mr. Julian well knows. I can expect that kind of an attitude from my Conservative colleagues, but not from the NDP.

I've said at length at these meetings that I deeply respect what Mr. Julian brings to Parliament. He speaks very sincerely on the matter of public servants, and here we have public servants wanting to come to appear at our committee. In fact, I'll read it into the record, in case colleagues are not aware—and maybe I'm being unfair to Mr. Julian. Perhaps he has not seen the letter that the Clerk of the Privy Council—

Mr. Peter Julian :

Point of order.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

—has issued to the clerk of the committee.

The Chair :

Excuse me, Mr. Fragiskatos, there is a point of order.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Yes. As we discussed last week when Mr. Fragiskatos raised exactly the same debating points, there is a rule of repetition around these filibusters. He can't keep coming back to the same speech. He can't keep coming back to the same content. If he has has nothing further to add—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, that's not a point of order.

Mr. Peter Julian :

If he has nothing further to add, we should proceed to the vote.

The Chair :

I believe you're attacking relevance, Mr Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

No, it's repetition. He raised exactly this same speech last week and we're in the same filibuster.

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos was referring to a letter—I believe from the clerk, is it? Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos, and we'll see where it goes. I'll cut you off if it's repetition.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you very much. No, I was simply making a point in reference to what Mr. Julian had just added to our discussion here tonight, so it's not repetition. I'll bring this to his and the committee's attention. Certainly I know that Liberal members are aware of this, and I think opposition members will know of it too, but still it deserves to be read into the record. This is the letter sent just yesterday, as I understand, by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Ian Shugart, to our clerk, Ms. Lukyniuk. It begins by saying:

Dear Ms. Lukyniuk: I am writing further to recent discussions at the Standing Committee on Finance.

My colleagues and I would be pleased to make ourselves available to appear before the committee to speak to the redactions that were made if it would be useful to do so.

For reasons that I'll be pointing out in the next few minutes, I think it would be useful for us to hear Mr. Shugart and other public servants testify. I know we have been discussing the documents requested by this committee for quite some time now. I think it's fair to say that there is some disagreement among the parties on the redactions of non-relevant cabinet confidences by the public service. As well, there is clearly confusion in regard to who redacted which set of documents that are floating out there.

We have the very comprehensive set of documents released by the government House leader, which had some light redactions in relation to personal privacy and unrelated cabinet confidences. Then we have the redactions completed by the law clerk, which were more intensive. These disagreements and the confusion in relation to these documents are all fair and valid points. This turns me to the letter from Mr. Shugart. As the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, he is in fact ultimately responsible for safeguarding cabinet confidences.

It is he who gave very clear instructions to relevant departments to release as much information as possible in regard to the Canada student service grant. As a result of these instructions, several departments undertook to release an unprecedented level of information, including cabinet confidences relating to the CSSG, the Canada student service grant. Over 5,000 pages were disclosed, and included documents that would never have seen the light of day under the previous Harper government.

I think even opposition colleagues would agree with that, including perhaps even Conservatives, but I'll leave that point aside. As has been discussed here at length, we saw documents ranging from memoranda to cabinet, prime ministerial briefing notes and cabinet committee synopses to departmental briefing notes and correspondence between public servants, ministerial staff, deputy ministers and ministers. The release of these documents is significant. The opposition members can take umbrage with the fact that some redactions were made by public servants. Frankly, I think this was to be expected.

In order to release the details required for a fulsome review of the Canada student service grant, some redaction was required in relation to the non-relevant portions of these cabinet documents. As my friends in the Conservative Party will know—Mr. Poilievre especially—typically cabinet meetings are not solely focused on one topic. Particularly during this ongoing pandemic, countless important topics are discussed at cabinet, and relevant discussions taken.

In order to ensure the proper functioning of responsible government, reasonable redactions were made to unrelated topics included in these cabinet documents so as to allow for their release. This is not out of the ordinary. Truthfully, this is the standard operating procedure. I know my colleagues are trying to set this narrative that they are making reasonable requests for documentation and that it's a standard move to allow the law clerk to review unredacted documents. However, this couldn't be further from the truth, and they know that. They have been in this position themselves.

They understand that this inherent tension between the executive and legislative branches in regard to access to Crown confidences has existed since Confederation, and in fact much longer in other Commonwealth countries. We have discussed these documents at length, and the opposition has expressed their indignation with the redactions completed by the non-partisan professional public service.

(1835) Right here, right now, we have an opportunity to clear the air and address their concerns. We have in our possession this letter from Mr. Shugart, who wishes to come before this committee, along with relevant deputy ministers, to discuss the documents that were released by the Government of Canada. Because of Mr. Shugart's position and his initial commitment to release all documentation related to the Canada student service grant, he is in fact uniquely positioned to answer our questions.

It therefore begs this question: Why does the opposition not want to hear from the clerk and the relevant deputy ministers? Why do they not want to hear from the professional, non-partisan public servants who could provide the answers to the questions we are all seeking? I think the only logical answer here is that the answers that are likely to be provided do not fit the opposition's narrative. Accepting the clerk's offer to appear is actually the most prudent thing we could do right now as a committee.

If the opposition has questions related to redactions, the clerk, and the deputies attending with him, can answer them. I find it extremely interesting that since Parliament resumed back in September, we have had several meetings in regard to these documents. Throughout the prorogation, the opposition was talking about these documents and the redactions that were made. Now we have an opportunity here from the chief public servant who controls the release of the documents, and the opposition argues against his appearance. I'm getting a bit of whiplash here. Just what is the opposition's position on this matter?

My theory is that the opposition is afraid to hear from Mr. Shugart and the other deputies. I think they know full well that Mr. Shugart, who is a non-partisan public servant, will reinforce the true reality here. Conversely, if the opposition really thinks the information that was redacted was somehow inappropriate or in bad faith, they should welcome having Mr. Shugart here to answer questions. Furthermore, I do not think my opposition colleagues want to hear from Mr. Shugart—specifically because he has reason and precedent for the cabinet confidences that were not disclosed.

I do not think my opposition colleagues have a leg to stand on with respect to their arguments. I noted earlier in my remarks that there has been, since Confederation, this natural tension between the executive and legislative branches of government in Canada. Canada is a nation built on the principle of three co-equal branches of government, each charged with inherent responsibilities. It is true that Parliament is in fact supreme in its abilities to request a call for documents and to request the appearance of government individuals. However, as history shows us, that call does not always have to be answered.

In fact, parliamentarians have a responsibility to use their privilege powers wisely, exercising them in only the most extreme of circumstances. This is not one of those times. I think my opposition colleagues know full well that the Clerk of the Privy Council has legitimate and reasonable grounds for disclosing the information that was disclosed while at the same time holding back unrelated matters. I underline that: “unrelated matters”.

It's interesting, because it was actually the former justice minister Rob Nicholson, of course a Conservative minister, who back in 2010 made reasonable arguments on the responsibilities of government to withhold cabinet confidences and maintain Crown secrets. On March 31, 2010, at page 1220 of Debates, for example, Mr. Nicholson notes that “as parliamentarians, we should always be guided by a principle of great restraint when asserting privileges of the House”. Mr. Nicholson goes on to note the following:

On this point, I would remind the House that our parliamentary privileges are not indefinite, nor unlimited, but defined by the Constitution in the Parliament of Canada Act as those possessed by the United Kingdom House of Commons in 1867.

On the second point, I would remind the House that exact scope of those privileges [has] been a matter of debate since Confederation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, many of our parliamentary privileges are unwritten.

Now, this is a key point. As my opposition friends' former colleague states, the scope of privileges is “a matter of debate”, and has been so since Confederation. Inherently, this idea that Mr. Poilievre has had his privileges violated, because the documents that were produced were void of some cabinet confidence in keeping with the long-standing practices of a responsible government, is a matter of debate all unto itself.

(1840) I think that's what my opposition colleagues are afraid to hear from Mr. Shugart, to be frank about it, that the missing information that was unrelated to WE might not add to this whole issue that we are faced with with by the opposition. Whether it be Speaker Beaudoin in 1957 or our friends in the U.K. in 1997, there is a long-standing practice amongst parliamentary democracies to exclude cabinet confidences from disclosure to Parliament unless absolutely necessary.

While it is true that Parliament has its ability to exercise supremacy, it should be recognized that the non-partisan and professional public service also has a sworn duty to uphold the secrecy of cabinet confidences and Crown secrets. Mr. Shugart, in his duty as the steward of those secrets, determined it appropriate to release confidences as they relate to the CSSG, and the public was provided with over 5,000 pages of information, much of them stamped “SECRET” or “CONFIDENCES OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY COUNCIL”.

However, the clerk still has a duty to uphold the secrecy on matters unrelated to the CSSG, and he has done just that. Clearly, this is why my opposition colleagues do not want to hear from him, as a reasonable explanation coming from this non-partisan public servant. Even our Supreme Court has stated in the Vaid decision that each of the three branches of government must respect the legitimate spheres of the others, noting this while at the same time defining some of the limits to Parliament's supremacy under the Parliament of Canada Act. Bringing this towards a conclusion, Mr.

Chair, I think it's very important for us to hear from Mr. Shugart and the relevant deputy ministers. Hearing from our public servants to why some information was released and some wasn't is very important. I think we, as committee members and as Canadians more generally, deserve to hear about why the process undertaken by the clerk and other officials was in keeping with the regular course of practice when the government provides documents to Parliament.

As I've stated, colleagues across the way would have everyone think it's not a big deal to just hand over unredacted documents to the law clerk, but standard practice. Well, it's not. There are long-standing conventions for why this is not the regular order of business. Mr. Shugart is an expert witness who can provide context as to why that is the case.

Now is the perfect opportunity for my colleagues on the other side to stop playing petty partisan games, put their money where their mouths are, so to speak, and allow the Clerk of the Privy Council and other relevant deputy ministers to appear before this committee and provide their expert testimony as it relates to the disclosed documents that we've been discussing. I also want to touch on a point raised by Ms. Dzerowicz when she spoke earlier this evening. She raised a very good question to the committee, specifically to opposition colleagues.

We didn't hear a response from opposition colleagues, and I'd love to hear a response on the question. That question is: Why not? Why not bring Mr. Shugart and other public servants here so they can speak to the committee? I really think that the committee is missing an enormous opportunity here. If we think back about the role that public servants play in a modern, mature democracy such as Canada's, their role cannot be understated at all. They provide the technical expertise and advice that is so vital for the functioning of modern government. The evolution of the public service is a history in its own regard.

When we see societies becoming more advanced in the same line, so to speak, you have the development of a public service. If you go back, for example, to the development and shift towards an industrial society, you saw not just the rise of democracy, but you also saw in parallel the development of a public service that could serve, not just government, but more generally, and even more importantly, the people, the citizens of a particular land. In our case we're talking about Canada.

(1845) This role of providing technical expertise on answering questions of elected officials is long standing. This is a long-standing one, not just in the Westminster parliamentary tradition, but goes all the way to the Italian city states. Machiavelli was, for example, an adviser, and we could call him a public servant—

Mr. Peter Julian :

Point of order.

The Chair :

We have a point of order from Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I am staying to the point. I am staying relevant.

The Chair :

We'll hear Mr. Julian's point of order.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Fragiskatos two weeks ago was raising the Italian city states and Machiavelli—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

No, I was not. That's not true.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Yes, so it's a question of repetition in this case, Mr. Chair. I would also suggest that it's a question of relevance on this as well. If he doesn't have anything further to contribute on the subamendment, we should proceed to a vote.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, may I...?

The Chair :

I believe that a couple of weeks ago someone—I'm not sure it was Mr. Fragiskatos—was talking about Aristotle and a couple of others, but I don't believe that it was this particular portion on city states. The floor is yours, Mr. Fragiskatos.

(1850) Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I'll plead guilty. It was I who was speaking about Aristotle, but Machiavelli is very different, as we all know. I simply make the point—and Mr. Julian has opened the door for me to speak to this—that when I talk about the need for a professional public service that can provide advice, I'm putting the matter into context so that Mr. Julian can understand what's at stake here. Public servants have contributed a great deal not just to Canadian democracy but to the development of societies going back to time immemorial.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Point of order.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

It's simply putting it into context. I'm glad to speak to the issues, but I continue to be interrupted—

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos, we have a point of order from Mr. Julian. Go ahead.

Mr. Peter Julian :

He says it very well, but it's still repetition. He's still coming back to the same points. If he has nothing new to add, we should proceed to a vote.

The Chair :

But could he not be putting this into a historical context, going back to the city states?

Mr. Peter Julian :

I think he veered away from the city states and went back to similar comments that he made last week.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

No, Mr. Chair, I respectfully disagree with that. Again, there is nothing wrong with putting a matter into context for the benefit of committee members, and this is not to do so in an arrogant way. I respect that every single member of the committee has something to offer based on their interests and background. If it is offensive somehow for me to talk about Italian city states and the place of Niccolò Machiavelli as an adviser to various Italian leaders in his day, I could point to other examples to put the matter into context without even reference to Aristotle, who was an adviser in his own—

The Chair :

I would ask you, Mr. Fragiskatos, to show us how this is relevant to the current discussion.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Yes, and that's where I'm getting, Mr. Chair. In parallel, as I was talking about before, it didn't begin this way, but it was an evolution. The public service in modern society has evolved.

There was a very clear recognition beginning really from the transition of agrarian societies to the industrial revolution that you needed a non-partisan public service that would not represent the interests of a particular class, and that would not represent the interests of a particular political party, but would be a non-partisan public service that would provide the technical advice and expertise necessary for elected officials, such as we are, to make decisions that would benefit the whole, that would serve the common good. When I hear colleagues...and again, it's tremendously surprising that Mr.

Julian is standing in the way of public servants coming to this committee. Here, we have an opportunity to hear from Mr. Shugart, and this opens the door for him and for other colleagues to ask relevant questions that are on their minds. It wouldn't be only Mr. Shugart. We would be very happy to hear from the law clerk. The subamendment calls for that. I'm not sure where the NDP is coming from on that particular matter. I have respect for all public servants in this country at every level of government, federally, provincially and municipally, but this is the Clerk of the Privy Council.

This is the most important public servant in all of Canada, and by not allowing him to come to committee, opposition colleagues are in effect silencing him. We've used the word “muzzling” here before at committee as well. There is an enormous problem with that. When I see a letter addressed from the clerk asking us to open ourselves, to make ourselves available to listen to the clerk, and we say no, what does that say about the direction of this committee? Why are we denying Mr. Shugart and other public servants that right?

Mr. Peter Julian :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fragiskatos is not touching on the subamendment and not a single member of this committee has said that we are denying or voting against having the Privy Council clerk come to committee. We are on a motion of privilege. There is a subamendment. He should stick to that. If he has nothing further to add, let's go to the vote.

(1855) Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Chair, if I could, allowing the clerk to attend committee offers the clerk an opportunity to speak to the matters at hand. If there are misunderstandings, if there are questions about why and what has happened with respect to the CSSG and documents and redactions, the clerk can speak to those issues. We need to hear from him, and right now opposition colleagues are preventing that from happening. In so doing, we are also preventing something that is tremendously vital from moving forward, which is pre-budget consultations.

Here we are debating this when we could be discussing the issue of the budget and what Canadians expect. The opposition's efforts here are standing in the way of our fulfilling our obligations under Standing Order 83.1, which this committee still has not considered. It still has not considered what happens in instances where we don't fulfill that standing order, which is arguably the most important standing order related to the functioning of this committee.

We have not considered that as a committee, because we have been embroiled in discussions and the intransigence of the opposition preventing us from moving forward. I'm quite interested in moving forward with pre-budget consultations so that we can hear about the needs of the country at this time. Every single one of us on this committee, every single member, will bring with them a set of experiences that will inform the work of the committee on pre-budget consultations. I'm looking at Mr. Julian. He has an interest in not-for-profit organizations. He has worked in that sector.

They have a tremendously important role to play right now. I'm looking at Mr. McLeod, who is very passionate about Canada's north and would be able to invite witnesses to speak about the needs of Canada's north during COVID-19. I'm looking at Mr. Fraser—

Mr. Peter Julian :

I have a point of order. It's on relevance, Mr. Chair. If he has nothing further to add that is relevant to the subamendment, we should proceed to a vote.

The Chair :

Mr. Fragiskatos, keep relevance in mind. Tie your remarks back to the subamendment, if you could.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, I simply make the point that when we are embroiled in discussions of this nature, when we can't come to agree that it is important for us to finally say yes to hear from public servants who can answer these questions that opposition members and all members of the committee have, then we are standing in the way not just of public servants and their ability to be heard, but of this committee fulfilling its duty to hold pre-budget consultations.

I was simply making the further point that I'm looking around at this committee, which has all of the potential in the world to work together as a team to find ways to suggest to the government relevant policy recommendations pertaining to what should be in the next budget. I pointed to Mr. McLeod. I pointed to Mr. Julian. I was looking at Mr. Fraser. I know Mr. Fraser has a law background. He has studied genocide if I'm not mistaken. I think he did his master's degree in that area of law, looking at international law as it pertains to genocide.

I would think he would have suggestions about international development organizations that could come and speak to our committee about the impact COVID-19 is having across the world, particularly in developing countries. I see Mr. Falk, who is a rural member, as I understand it, and would be able to put forward suggestions based on expert testimony about what direction we ought to take in Canada with respect to agriculture, looking at how COVID-19 is impacting farmers right across the country. Mr. Chair, I know you're passionate about agriculture as well. I see that Ms.

Vecchio is sitting in, and she will know southwestern Ontario very well. I know she shares an interest and a passion for it as much as I do. If she wished to sit in on pre-budget consultations, she could do the same. The point I'm making is that the more we prevent public servants from coming to this committee—the more we engage in debates around that—the more we are prevented from actually doing the work that Canadians have entrusted to us and that constituents expect of us. I talked about the importance of the public service before. It has evolved through history.

It has taken, in modern and democratic societies, a non-partisan shape and form. That is something that impacts Canada in very important ways. Why are we trying to ignore that? What are we so afraid of, if Mr. Shugart and other public servants come to the committee? I said before that perhaps there is something to be afraid of, not on the side of the Liberal members but perhaps opposition members are worried that what will be put on the record by public servants will not fit the narrative that is coming from their party leadership about how to score political points.

That is not what we should be doing at this committee. We should be engaging in the issues of the day. I'm looking right now at members of the committee, those in the opposition in particular, and pleading with them.

If they want to hold back the opportunity for non-partisan professionals to come and tell us and in turn tell Canadians—of course the hearings would be televised, I'm assuming—how decisions were made around these issues pertaining to the CSSG, they'll have to answer that question to their constituents, because their constituents are not so interested, I would think, in the matters the opposition continues to put on the table here today. Their constituents are absolutely focused on tomorrow because tomorrow their rent could be due.

Tomorrow, their kids need to go to school, and parents want to make sure those kids come home healthy. COVID-19 continues to impact society in ways that we're only starting to see. Of course, there are even long-term effects from COVID-19 that are now starting to be understood. Constituents are worried about their businesses. Constituents are worried about workers. They are worried about the progress, or lack of progress, that Canada could see in the coming years if we aren't careful.

(1900) This committee has an opportunity to engage directly with government. One of the first things I'd like to see is for the Governor of the Bank of Canada to come back to committee. He was good enough to come in the previous session.

Mr. Peter Julian :

I have a point of order. Obviously Mr. Fragiskatos, as eloquent as he is, has run out of things to say. He's not relevant, so let's proceed to the vote.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, Mr. Julian continues to do this. It's interesting that on the one hand he raises points around privilege, but then he regularly interrupts not just me but other members of the committee. He well knows that if he does it on an ongoing basis it raises matters of privilege. It is my parliamentary privilege to put on the record issues that I think are very important pertaining to this debate. I have not wavered from the general focus of the matter at hand.

I reiterate that we as a committee have a unique opportunity to learn more about the process around decisions that were made, and to learn more about misunderstandings related to the CSSG that exist and have been peddled for some time by the opposition . Let's have public servants come in. What is the fear? What is the worry? By denying them that right we deny them the ability to be heard.

I wonder what we would say if we were in their position, if we were non-partisan public servants working in the bureaucracy who wanted to express and voice a point of view and had made that clear to, arguably, the most important parliamentary committee on Parliament Hill, and we heard members of the opposition holding that back. It's not right. It's not in keeping with best practices. It's not in keeping with what, again, our constituents would expect of us. I go back again and underline that concept, that idea, of the word “constituents”.

What do those people who've sent us to Parliament want us to be discussing right now? They see a debate unfolding around this particular issue, one that, as far as I can tell, is bound to consume us here this evening and perhaps into the morning, and I'm completely prepared to do that. I remember, for example, two weeks ago when Mr. Gerretsen said that he would go to the hilt for public servants and I echo that view. By denying public servants the right to come to this committee, we're just not doing what's expected of us as MPs. In the same way that Mr.

Gerretsen said it was important to put forward ideas that would allow for public servants to come and testify, I simply agree with that. I will absolutely go to the hilt, if I could put it that way, for our non-partisan, professional public service. They have something to say. The most important figure within the public service has issued an extraordinary letter and an extraordinary request. What are we doing? We see certain members of the opposition, who form a majority because of the minority Parliament, holding that back and preventing that from happening. It's simply not on.

Because of that and because we continue to see these debates take place here, we are also putting ourselves in a compromised position because the more this goes on the more we are likely to break Standing Order 83.1. I put again to my colleagues, very respectfully, to think long and hard about what it is that we are trying to achieve. We have an opportunity.... I see Mr. Longfield is attending the meeting. I will tell you he is one of the most passionate people I've met on issues around innovation.

He would want to see a committee talk about issues relating to high tech, innovation and how that impacts his constituents in Guelph.

(1905) Mr. Peter Julian :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

On a point of order, Mr. Julian, you're likely talking about relevance.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. If he's run out of things to say, we should really proceed to a vote. It's been three weeks now with a lot of repetition and irrelevant comments. I think it's time now to proceed to a vote.

The Chair :

That's not a point of order. Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

The point I'll leave with or the point I haven't considered here tonight, I should say, and it will be the final point before I turn it over, is this: What precedent are we setting? By preventing public servants to come we are putting ourselves in a compromised position. I raised the question last week at our meeting when I simply asked if there was some sort of legal outcome that we would have to worry about as a committee if we hear from public servants who want to testify and we prevent them from doing so. Is there any precedent?

Is there any precedent with ramifications that the clerk could point to in that regard? It's something I genuinely worry about. Again, we have a letter here that's been sent. We ought to say yes to Mr. Shugart. I look forward very much to colleagues putting on the record their thoughts on the matter here tonight.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos. There do seem to be a considerable number of calls for relevance. We are debating the subamendment by Mr. Gerretsen to the amendment by Pat Kelly to the motion by Mr. Poilievre. I'm going to read the subamendment so people can keep it in mind:

That the committee requests the complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to 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,—

We're past that date now.

—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.

That's the subamendment that we have to be relevant to. I have on my list Ms. Koutrakis followed by Mr. Longfield. Do you want to be on the list or do you have a point to raise, Mr. Julian? I'm not hearing you.

(1910) Mr. Peter Julian :

I raised my hand a long time ago to be on the speaking list.

The Chair :

Sorry. Were you ahead of Ms. Koutrakis? Were you on the sidebar?

Mr. Peter Julian :

I thought I was.

The Chair :

Okay. We'll let you go first, and then we'll go to Ms. Koutrakis.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you very much. I will be brief. I always enjoy hearing from Ms. Koutrakis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for reading the subamendment. Now the public is aware that this is a motion that basically kills privilege. It suspends, which is sneaky. By suspending and delaying, what it basically does is it makes the privilege motion no longer timely, which is a key factor in privilege and which is why privilege was raised the very first day we came back.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I want to say that I heard this argument earlier on by the honourable member of Parliament—

The Chair :

I don't think that's a point of order, Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

There's repetition going on.

The Chair :

The floor is Mr. Julian's.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I always welcome Mr. Sorbara's interventions. What is key is that the Speaker has actually asked us in his ruling, because of the timely nature, to report back. He asked about the committee deciding what to do with them, which is what the motion says. The subamendment kills that component and doesn't allow the motion of privilege to go forward. I reiterate because I think it's important for people who are still with us watching the finance committee, which is in a public forum.

The reality is that the subamendment kills the motion of privilege and does not allow the Speaker to rule on this. That's an important point. Why are government members trying to stop the Speaker from ruling, a Speaker who was elected by everybody? That's a question that should be in the public's mind regardless of who is intervening during the course of the evening. A privilege motion goes to the Speaker and the Speaker rules.

The Speaker has the ability, looking at privilege and looking at precedent, to decide whether the committee report is valid, so why are Liberal members trying to stop the motion from going through and the report from being presented to the Speaker? That's something that all members of the public should keep in mind this evening. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield my time to Ms. Koutrakis.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. We're back to Ms. Koutrakis.

Ms. Annie Koutrakis (Vimy, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleague Mr. Julian. I also enjoy listening to your arguments. I will have to respectfully disagree with the last point you made, which was that the subamendment kills Mr. Poilievre's motion. What the subamendment tries to do and what, very eloquently, my colleagues have previously explained and clarified is that it would allow us to see the two packages of documents and be able to compare them to make sure that there was no breach of privilege. The best people to do that and to come and present are the Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk.

We all agree that we hold both in very high regard and that they are very well respected. I believe we all feel that way as members of the finance committee, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, I'm worried that we will not allow these two very professional people to come before our committee to give their own explanation in their own words as to why the information was redacted the way that it was. It's almost as if we were in a court where somebody has been found guilty before being given due process. I genuinely believe that is not what we are all saying at the finance committee.

I really believe that we all come from a good place with good intentions, and we're trying to find the right path to satisfy all sides, and more importantly, to make sure that we serve Canadians and our constituents as they expect and deserve. I'll just circle back a little and put on the record again what the finance committee adopted on July 7, 2020.

On July 7, 2020 the finance committee adopted a motion requesting various types of documents, “regarding the design and the creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any other correspondence and records or other correspondence with WE Charity and Me to We from March, 2020”. The Privy Council Office provided the documents in its possession that were responsive to the committee's motion on August 8, 2020, which was the deadline set by this committee.

The PCO documents were also part of a larger package provided to the committee from the six government departments involved in the development of the CSSG that had been approached by WE concerning youth initiatives in the context of a pandemic. I will be speaking today about PCO's documents. In particular, I would like to speak about the relatively few instances where certain personal information was protected from disclosure to the committee. I will do that because it is important to understand the very valid reasons that this was done and the responsible manner in which it was done.

The motion the committee adopted on July 7 setting out the mandate for its study on this matter included the objective of examining “how the outsourcing of the Canada Student Service Grant to WE Charity proceeded as far as it did”. The approximately 5,000 total pages in each official language given to our committee provide a comprehensive understanding of the development and the launch of the CSSG. They demonstrate the due diligence analysis that was conducted by the public service, including with respect to the financial assessment of WE.

The documents also provide details about cabinet decision-making around the CSSG, as considerable information that would otherwise constitute cabinet confidence was released to the committee due to public statements by ministers about what was before cabinet. The finance committee therefore received more information than its motion requested, given it provided for cabinet confidences to be excluded. On the other hand, none of the personal information redacted in PCO's documents would assist the committee in fulfilling its mandate of examining the CSSG.

Therefore, I really believe it is worth first discussing why personal information is protected from disclosure under the law.

(1915) As is explained on the website of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in this quotation:

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the Privacy Act has “quasi-constitutional status”, and that the values and rights set out in the Act are closely linked to those set out in the Constitution as being necessary to a free and democratic society.

Others have argued that the protection of an individual's privacy is closely linked to the protection of their autonomy and human dignity. The Privacy Act, passed by Parliament in 1983, provides that, “Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed” except in very specific circumstances described in the act. It is sometimes noted that the Privacy Act does not apply to the House of Commons and its committees.

This is true in the sense that parliamentary bodies are not government institutions subject to the act, and that parliamentarians do not have to manage personal information under their control in the ways provided for by the act. However, the Privacy Act does apply to government institutions from which parliamentarians sometimes seek information, as was the case with the finance committee's July 7 request. Ministers and public servants are therefore bound by this law and the restrictions it places on disclosing personal information when responding to requests for documents.

They can't ignore the law, regardless of who is requesting the information. Furthermore, the July 7 request for papers stated that “any redactions” of “personal information” were to be made by the House law clerk. Although on its face the intention of this part of the motion was to protect personal information, it put departments in a difficult situation. Any personal information that is disclosed to the law clerk must be authorized by the Privacy Act. An impermissible disclosure under the Privacy Act cannot be saved even if the law clerk takes subsequent steps to protect the information from further disclosure.

In his cover letter to the committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council wrote:

In this package, I have...chosen to disclose certain personal information contained in the Privy Council records relating to individuals working in ministers' offices as well as personal information of individuals who work for WE. I have decided to disclose this information because in my view the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy. I have notified the Privacy Commissioner of my intention to disclose this personal information, as I am required to do under the Privacy Act.

I have decided to protect the phone number and email addresses of WE employees other than Craig and Marc Kiehlburger. In addition, there are a few references to the family members of a public servant and I have chosen to protect that information. In my opinion, the public interest in disclosing this type of personal information does not clearly outweigh the invasion of privacy.

If we were to assume, Mr. Chair, that the Clerk of the Privy Council is not honest and he's not forthcoming, that he's not doing his job as he should be, then I hate to use the word and I don't want to use the word, but it's almost like we're alleging—or some members of our committee from the opposition are alleging—that he's not to be trusted. If he's not to be trusted, then why has this employee, Mr. Shugart, been part of our government process and in various positions for as long as he has?

I think that's something that each and every one of us and the Canadians who are watching us right now have to answer and have to take a step back and say.... You know, we hire the best people, and I have no reason whatsoever not to believe that we have the best people in our public service, because I know we do. We're lucky.

(1920) We have a parliamentary system and a government where democracy works. I think we need to show them, especially our public servants, how we believe in the work that they do, and we need to trust them. This approach was in keeping with the paragraph that I read earlier, just to circle back. This approach was in keeping with paragraph 8(2)(

m) of the Privacy Act, which authorizes the disclosure of personal information, where the head of the government institution considers that “the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure”. Let's take a closer look at some of the personal information that was protected from disclosure in the PCO documents. This is where I would love to be able to have Mr. Shugart before the committee to go through it himself, so that we could all hear in his own words why.

Most of the personal information that has been protected from disclosure is the email addresses and telephone extensions of WE Charity employees contained in the various correspondence, as was indicated in the letter from the Clerk of the Privy Council. For example, on page 50, there is an email from Craig Kielburger to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth , dated April 22, 2020. The only information not disclosed in this message are the email addresses of two WE employees and one of their telephone extension numbers. However, their names are provided: Sofia Marquez and Lauren Martin.

The committee was thus made aware that these two individuals were copied on the email and thus had knowledge of discussions between WE and the government. In fact, Ms. Marquez testified before the House Standing Committee on Finance on August 13, 2020. All of the content of the message from Mr. Kielburger is provided. Similarly, on page 52, there is an April 10, 2020 email from Mr. Kielburger to the minister where the only information not disclosed is the email address and telephone extension of two WE employees, but their names are shown.

Attached to this email is the proposal that WE provided to the government entitled “Engaging Young Canadians In Service and Social Entrepreneurship Programming”, and none of its contents is redacted. The email address of Mr. Kielburger's executive assistant does nothing to advance the committee's understanding of the CSSG. Beginning on page 364 is a draft of the funding agreement for support for students and recent graduates between Canada and WE Charity Foundation.

The only information protected from disclosure in this 16-page document is the email addresses and telephone numbers of the WE Charity employees listed as contacts. Their names and position titles are provided.

All the rest of the information in this vital document is shown, such as the purpose of the contribution agreement; conditions governing the eligibility of expenditures; the requirement for WE to keep proper books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and to provide them to the government upon request; the requirement for WE to securely protect personal information; the requirement for WE to provide detailed biweekly reports to the government on program implementation; the right of the government and the Auditor General to audit the project; and so on and so on.

I should note that I am referring here to the draft agreement contained in PCO's package of documents. However, these same clauses are found in the final agreement contained in the documents provided by Employment and Social Development. Clause 24 of the final agreement relates to conflict of interest and states the following:

24.1 No current or former public servant or public office holder to whom the Conflict of Interest Act (S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 2), the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment or the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector applies shall derive a direct benefit from the Agreement unless the provision or receipt of such benefit is in compliance with the said legislation or codes.

24.2 No member of the Senate or the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of the Agreement or to any benefit arising from it that is not otherwise available to the general public.

(1925) I believe that I have shown that protecting from disclosure a very limited amount of personal information from the documents provided to the committee does not detract from the committee's objective of understanding the development of the CSSG and WE Charity's involvement. Further, when Canadians, such as those employed by charitable organizations, have dealings with the Government of Canada, they expect that their personal information will be protected in line with the Privacy Act.

If the government did not protect personal information as the Privacy Act requires, then Canadians' trust in government and the rule of law would be eroded. I would also like to touch briefly on the limited amount of information that was redacted in PCO's documents to protect the vulnerability of government communication systems. This is information that would be protected from disclosure under paragraph 16(2)(

c) of the Access to Information Act. The information that was protected for this reason was the cellphone numbers of various public servants, ministers' staff and government conference call I.D. numbers. Wide dissemination of this information could allow unauthorized access to government telecommunications systems, something that I am certain none of us would ever want. Where these cellphone numbers had appeared, the names of the public servants they belonged to appear. This information was provided despite the committee's motion stipulating that it would be redacted by the law clerk.

The Privacy Act allows, in the context of an access to information request, for the personal information of an officer or employee of a government institution that relates to the position or functions of the individual to be disclosed. Again, the cellphone numbers of public servants would do nothing to advance the mandate of the committee's study.

In his cover letter to the committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council stated, “As I noted when I appeared at committee on July 21, 2020, my intent has been to be as expansive as possible in relation to the information that I provide.” This approach guided the work of public servants when they collected the documents requested by the committee and carefully considered what the public interest was when making decisions about what to protect from disclosure.

They were also guided by “Open and Accountable Government, 2015”, which “sets out core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of Ministers in Canada's system of responsible parliamentary government.” It states in part:

Public servants also have a duty to hold in confidence some of the information that comes into their possession in the course of their duties. There is a tension between that obligation and the request of parliamentarians for disclosure of that same information. When appearing before parliamentary committees, public servants should refrain from disclosing that kind of confidential information, for instance because the information is confidential for reasons of national security or privacy....

The same passage was contained in the 2011 version of “Open and Accountable Government”. Various past governments have held the belief that the protection of Canadians' personal information from unauthorized disclosure, even to Parliament, is sacrosanct.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, 2017, explains how, in 1973, the government tabled in the House of Commons its views on the general principles governing notices of motion for the production of papers. Although not formally approved by the House, these principles have been followed since then. The document tabled in 1973, 10 years before the adoption of the Privacy Act, lists papers or documents considered exempt from production. This includes papers that are excluded from disclosure by statute, and papers that are private or confidential and are not of a public or official character.

In 2009, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts tabled its 22nd report entitled “The Power of Committees to Order the Production of Documents and Records”. This report dealt with a request for documents that included personal information contained in an audio recording. The government protected this information from disclosure, which the committee objected to.

(1930) The government's response to this report stated:

The Government believes that the departmental officials acted lawfully and diligently in these circumstances and that the House and Canadians should be concerned with the committee’s exercise of a claimed privilege in these particular circumstances. Necessity is the principle that underlies parliamentary privilege, which itself is “a gift from the electorate” to safeguard their rights. In the Government’s view, even if privilege were to extend so far, a very strong justification would be required for demanding the personal information of individual citizens, which in this case comprised twelve seconds of tape.

In the same vein, the supplementary opinion of the 22nd report raises concerns that the committee “did not consider the public interest when demanding the production of these audiocassettes.” Regardless of the scope of the committee’s powers, the Government believes that parliamentary committees and all parliamentarians should, as a general principle and as a matter of convention, exercise restraint in the exercise of their privileges, particularly when the interests of individual citizens are affected.

This government response was signed by Rob Nicholson, then minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, and Jay Hill, then leader of the government in the House of Commons. Getting back to the matter that is at the root of this discussion, the unprecedented public health crisis that is the COVID-19 pandemic, it is worth remembering the original objective of the CSSG, or the Canada student service grant, announced by the Prime Minister on April 22. It was at a time when the devastating economic impacts of the pandemic, which we are all living through again in the second wave, were already being felt.

Many students were seeing their summer jobs, internships and volunteer positions evaporate. The Prime Minister stated:

The future of our economy and our country relies on the opportunities and support we provide to Canadian students today. To promote a sustainable economic recovery, we need a strong workforce and good job opportunities for young people. That means giving them the support they need to continue their studies and encouraging them to serve their communities. Together, we will get through this difficult time.

Canada's professional, non-partisan public service set about designing a suite of initiatives to address this problem. That included the Canada student service grant. We heard this over and over again throughout the summer and when we started again on September 23. The public service worked around the clock to develop a proposal for cabinet that was informed by considerable due diligence. When the House finance committee made its request for documents to examine this process, the public service again worked around the clock to assemble thousands of pages.

Almost 6,000 pages were provided by the committee's deadline. Personal information was provided to the committee only after the Clerk of the Privy Council carefully weighed whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy interests at stake, as he is required to do under the Privacy Act. Most of the pages that appear to be redacted in the package in fact contain information on topics completely unrelated to the CSSG or WE Charity, such as other items being discussed at the same meetings. They are clearly marked as not relevant.

The package of documents provides a comprehensive understanding of the design and creation of the Canada student service grant, as requested by the committee. Again, Mr. Chair, I would implore all my colleagues around the table, discussing this very important issue today. I know that my colleagues and I and our government do not want to delay unnecessarily, or delay at all. We are all trying to find a way we can agree to move forward. As my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos said earlier, we have a lot.... I know that everybody agrees on this point, but how do we get there to move forward?

We really need to start our pre-budget consultations.

(1935) I receive hundreds of emails every day from my constituents. As a member of the finance committee, many witnesses want to come to speak before us. As someone said—and I don't remember who said it, a colleague earlier—let cooler heads prevail. Let's start finding a way forward. I'm sure that we can. I am certain that we can. How do we get there? I think we need to compromise. I think we need to find a way forward. I think we should not, in any way ever, indicate either directly or indirectly that we do not trust our very professional public servants. Mr. Shugart has released his letter.

He would like to come before the committee. Who better than he to provide the answers we are looking for? As Ms. Dzerowicz said in her comments, the Clerk of the Privy Council redacted some and then the law clerk redacted some more. Who better than these two individuals to come before our committee so that all Canadians can hear first-hand, directly from their own mouths, why the documents were redacted in the way they were? I am sure that if they are given the opportunity to come before our committee.... There's no cover-up. There's no corruption whatsoever.

There is no will from the government to hide anything from Canadians and our constituents. We just want to make sure we find a solution to this impasse and we get back to the very important work we were all elected to do: to serve our constituents in the best way we can, to be their strong voices and to offer them the support they so very much still need going through the second wave. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a third wave. I beg all of you on this finance committee to find a way forward to do what we're expected to do. I look forward to hearing more comments. I thank you, Mr.

Chair, for giving me the opportunity to provide my long-winded comments.

(1940) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis. I think you outlined the concern over the impasse. I would hope that parties are talking off-line to try to find a way out of this impasse. I don't know if Pat Kelly—I don't see him on here at the moment. There used to be.... Pat, he might have been a relative of yours. There used to be a federal labour mediator by the name of Kelly, and he was one of the best. Maybe we'll have to call you in, because your names are the same, to see if we can break this impasse.

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

I have a great idea. We'll just have a vote and then it's over.

The Chair :

I don't think they're going to agree to that.

Mr. Pat Kelly :

Then they're the problem, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

The next speaker on my list is Mr. Longfield. Welcome, Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the committee members. I'm pleased to be with you tonight. I sat in on some of the meetings last week, and I was surprised that only the Liberals were talking about the documents that everybody wanted to see. Now we have the documents in front of us, and we have an amendment on the floor to bring in the people who did some redacting to explain the redactions. I did see the presentation last week by Mr.

Fraser, which was excellent in explaining how redactions happen and what was being redacted, and the pattern over and over of a mobile cellphone number that was redacted several times to protect the public servant, or in that case to protect their privacy, a person from the WE Charity who was being referenced in the documents. Canadian citizens who come forward and provide information for us also have protections under the rules of the committee. In the rules of the committee I was surprised that Mr. Julian commented about having the Speaker rule on the committee and turning over our privilege to the Speaker.

We all know in the House of Commons that committees are the masters of their own destinies. Pierre Poilievre's motion quotes the Speaker saying that the committee, which has control over the

interpretation of its order, has an opportunity to examine the documents and decide what to do with them, which is what we're talking about tonight. Without the subamendment, we're not doing what the Speaker asked. We're not having people be witnesses for us to explain positions and why things happened in the way they happened. We're saying we have the documents, and that's not enough. We need to know about the redactions, but we don't want to talk about them. We're chasing our own tail, and as Ms. Koutrakis said, I hope there is a way forward that could see the committee moving forward.

In the meantime, it's very important to discuss the documents in front of us. I thank Mr. Fragiskatos for mentioning that I'm a bit of an innovation geek. That came from being a managing director of a few businesses where we put in ISO 9000 quality management systems. This is the quality management system of the House of Commons: how we get documents in front of us to make sure that quality systems are being followed, and then bring people forward to discuss the quality system in application and how they interpreted it so that we could see whether there are differences in

interpretation. Everything we do has to do with documents. Last week the whole agreement was in front of the committee and could have been discussed, but the redactions were discussed. I won't go into that because tonight we're talking about amendments. The agreement was very interesting. I have sat on 28 not-for-profit boards. My wife keeps track. The agreements we had with different orders of government and different types of not-for-profits were either contribution agreements, where you were paid up front to deliver services, or agreements where you were reimbursed later after you had provided services.

IRAP is an example, the industrial research assistance program that we provide businesses. We were delivering it through a few not-for-profits in Guelph, and we had to up front the money. We did that through the chamber of commerce, through an agreement we set up with them to work with their balance sheet instead of our balance sheet as we were starting Innovation Guelph. We were able to provide services through the IRAP agreement and then had to report what we had done to the government to get reimbursed. Other agreements we have, such as the one WE Charity had, are where you get paid up front.

Then you have to report on how the money is disbursed and the qualifications for how the money gets disbursed. Who qualifies, how they qualified, how they were measured, how they report back to the government was all included in those documents in depth. We won't go over that tonight.

When you hear in the House of Commons comments that it was the Prime Minister 's bank account, or this had something to do with the Prime Minister's family, it was a document that was a legal agreement between a charity and the Government of Canada, and that charity, through its board of directors, like any not-for-profit, has to be able to report finances and is largely controlled by a volunteer board of directors.

(1945) I'm not sure whether WE Charity had any paid board of directors members, but usually the board of directors oversees the disbursement of funds and then reports back that the agreements have been reached. Having sat on boards, I and the other members were very concerned about these reports coming back to us because the board members had the fiduciary responsibility to make sure that everything was being done properly so that we would eventually get paid back, or that we wouldn't have to give back to the government money we had misappropriated or misspent. I was following Ms.

Koutrakis very closely so that we wouldn't duplicate any pages. I'm starting on page 54 and page 55. The curtain has been lifted, if you will. For many of the redactions that we discussed in the committee last week, the committee has been shown what was behind the redacted black bar. In regard to the motion before us, I'd like the committee to look through a number of these documents that we have in our digital binder, which really only the Liberals are discussing. Hopefully the other parties will also join in the discussion.

This is the only way we can get it on the record that we now have these internal documents, the documents that are on our committee's website, and they can compare what the government provided to the parties through the government House leader 's office. I'd also like to note that the government House leader's office provided the parties with a USB stick on the day of prorogation that contained all the documents that were submitted to the law clerk. Before I get started, I just want to speak about the PCO document that was provided to the committee by the law clerk after his redactions.

At page 55, if you want to look at that, you'll be aware that it was completely blacked out. That was one of those pages that was in the infamous press gallery scene when Mr. Poilievre theatrically waved some of the papers in front of the cameras and threw some of them in the air to show that some sort of government cover-up was happening. I think he would know, if he'd looked at the documents, that the redactions were there because there was a reason for the information to be taken out, and in those sections that were fully blacked out it had something to do with cabinet confidence.

Page 54 of the same document was also fully redacted, to such an extent that only the subject and date were visible. You know what was on the page but you can't see the details or the reasons our public service made that decision. Again, they could come and explain to the committee if the committee would have them. For now, our only witness is the document, which is why documents are so important in Parliament. Sometimes the document is all you have to go on. I'm sure that none of the pages provided by the government House leader are in fact redacted.

The entire page was redacted by the law clerk in the documents that he briefly provided to the committee. I know in some of the debates people get heated and they say that the Prime Minister is the one who redacted these documents, or the House leader redacted these documents, and that the government is covering this up. Really, the decisions on the redactions were made by our independent public service, which provided thousands of pages for us to review. To see them thrown on the floor was a disservice to the public service, and it was also a disservice to documents in general. Documents are sacred.

If you think of documents in some of the major faiths of the world, they are sacred. It would be like my standing up at mass, being a lector, which I am, and pulling pages out of the lectionary and throwing them on the floor. The documents that we rely on need to be treated with respect. To see them thrown all over the floor was disrespectful of the documents. It would be like taking the Quran or the Sikh sacred writings or the Torah and disrespecting them. We have to respect the documents of Parliament, and the people behind those documents.

(1950) Mr. Peter Julian :

I have a point of order on relevance, but I also think Mr. Longfield is becoming a little offensive.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

On page 51 of the PCO documents—

The Chair :

Just hold on, Mr. Longfield. Wait until we hear the point of order and then we'll make a decision

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I was waiting for you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Peter Julian :

This is absolutely not relevant and I found it, quite frankly, a bit offensive to compare the redacted documents to sacred texts. The question of relevance is very clear here, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

On relevance, Mr. Longfield, you are on the documents that are relevant. Maybe you should not stretch the comparisons too far.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Sure. I was just trying to draw on the importance of written words and how written words mean so much in different contexts. In Parliament, the written words that we use are very important and that's what we're looking at tonight. I wasn't trying to say these were scriptural words. These are written words that we're dealing with in the same way that written words are used in other contexts.

Page 51 of the PCO document received by the law clerk contains an email that was sent by Sofia Marquez from the WE organization, and it was sent to—well, we can't tell as both the name and the email address of the recipient have been blacked out. In the email, it references someone who had spoken to this named person. If I look through the documents the government provided, you could not find out who the recipient was, so the recipient was being protected.

Now we know that it was Caitlin Lyon and the person referenced in the email who talked to her was Chris, who is likely Christiane Fox, who is the deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs at PCO. You could argue the relevance to our study of knowing whose desk it was on and why it was on it, or if we had witnesses, they could tell us why they didn't think it was relevant. For now, we can see who these people were and what their names were, and it could be discussed at committee whether that's relevant or not.

Page 45 of the PCO documents provided to the committee is redacted again by the law clerk, not by the Prime Minister , not by a Liberal insider. It's a non-partisan servant of the Government of Canada who, interestingly, on the third page, is redacted. However, if you look at the same page in the documents provided by the GHLO, you'll see that the part redacted by the law clerk is in fact the signature block of one of the public servants. Again, is that important for the study? Is that important to decide whether there was a government cover-up?

There is a huge number of redactions in the documents that were received by this committee, but the vast majority of them were done by the office of the law clerk and now we've seen a couple of examples of what was behind the redactions. It is certainly not being addressed to an individual within the Liberal Party. Page 47 of the documents from PCO provided to the committee by the law clerk also looks like a conversation that was cut off in the middle. If you want to just pull that one up, you can look side by side and you can see the black and the black and some pieces that we can now see.

However, if you look at the unredacted document, again you see that the document provided to the clerk had no redactions at all. As you notice above, these are just some of the examples of the PCO documents that were released by the government House leader compared with those redacted by the parliamentary law clerk. However, I want to turn your attention for a moment to the ESDC document, because this is an issue of differing redactions. It's not just present in the release of the PCO documents.

Much of the subject matter deals with the CSSG that's contained in the documents of officials from ESDC and the staff of the office of the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth , and she's come up in a lot of these discussions. The first example I would turn your attention to involves an email among the minister's office staff and the public servants. Side by side, you can see a redacted copy and an unredacted copy on page 299 of the ESDC release. Looking at page 299, this has been released to our committee. We have it on our electric drive. Briefly, the parliamentary law clerk has shown us this.

We haven't had a chance to discuss it.

(1955) You would be confronted with a line of black redactions throughout the document on one copy, yet if you turn your attention to the same page of the same document released by the government House leader , there are no redactions whatsoever. What's being redacted? The document from the government House leader was reviewed by the public servants and it was released unredacted, as requested, and you can see what was redacted. What was redacted in the first instance were some names of people.

If you look down further, you'll see some email addresses of some of the principal people that were left in the document. There's another great example. There's no huge cover-up. There's no conspiracy. This isn't a trial. This is a committee room. Committee rooms aren't where you do trials. This isn't where you get objective information. This is where you get partisans debating information. In this case, the words are very clear in terms of what's being redacted and what isn't being redacted. Looking at page 430 of the law clerk's documents, what do we find?

If you look at page 430, there are significant redactions again. The page is riddled with black lines. Let me reiterate for the committee, though, that this was a document that was redacted by the parliamentary law clerk as requested in a motion passed by this very committee and as requested by the official opposition. We were asking for documents, but we said we didn't need to see some of the things that would be considered confidential that didn't pertain to the study the committee was doing.

If we look at the exact same page in the documents released by the government House leader , the documents that the opposition accuse are completely redacted, what do we find? Nothing, there are no redactions. That whole page is clear. There is not one redaction. The proof is right here in front of us. If you don't believe me, take a look for yourself. When you look at this, the name at the top is Daisy Arruda, I think. I'm having trouble reading my screen. Rachel Wernick is who it's from. It was sent on April 30, 2020. That wasn't redacted in the first case.

In looking at who it went to, you can see the name of the person it went to and the carbon copy of the person it went to. The content is what was being provided. The content that was considered sensitive ended up being blacked out. We can look at it to see whether we think it would be overly sensitive or whether it really contributes to anything. The law clerk decided that we didn't really need to see what was behind there, but now the House leader has looked at it and said, okay, just open the door on that piece to show that we're being open by default.

A few pages later, on page 494, from the ESDC release, we have the parliamentary [ Technical difficulty—Editor ].

(2000) Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Julian. I believe Mr. Longfield is frozen now.

Mr. Peter Julian :

That's a very interesting filibuster technique, but it does raise the issue of relevance. His staying in that same position and not actually saying anything at all, I think indicates that we should proceed to a vote, because obviously Mr. Longfield has nothing to add.

The Chair :

I don't believe that it's Mr. Longfield in this case. I believe it's technology, Mr. Julian. He is in central Canada, though I think their technology is usually better than at this end here. Mr. Longfield, did we lose you? If we lost Mr. Longfield, I will go to Mr. Fragiskatos and come back to Mr. Longfield. Madam Clerk, do you know what happened there?

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

I'm being told that Mr. Longfield's capacity on his computer was at 100%. An IT ambassador is reaching out to him right now.

The Chair :

Okay, we'll give him a minute. Otherwise, we'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos and then Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Well, that's proof positive—

The Chair :

We'll give him a minute, Peter.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Okay, no problem.

The Chair :

Why don't we suspend for 10 minutes and take a washroom break while he's coming on? I'm the only one on this end and I think I'm up for a washroom break. We'll suspend for 10 minutes and come back at 8:15 Ottawa time. The meeting is suspended.

(2005) (2015) The Chair :

We have a quorum again so we will reconvene. The floor is again yours, Mr. Longfield

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Thank you. I apologize for the technical inconveniences. My Microsoft Edge was going through an update and I had too many other programs open. I've closed them all and I got my hot water and lemon, so hopefully that will help out. I think as I was leaving off I was talking about page 494 from the ESDC documents and looking at what the parliamentary law clerk had decided in terms of what needed to be redacted, including emails and names. It's similar to what we saw on the other documents.

Whereas, if we compare it to what the government House leader released, as completed by the professional non-partisan public service, we find no redactions whatsoever. Again, Rachel Wernick was redacted several times, but now we know who she was and who the author of the document was. We even have her mobile phone number, which was raised a number of times last week, and I can just imagine that if that is public and people have her cell number….

We all know what that does to your life when you're in the middle of a family gathering and someone's calling you asking about redacted documents, but that's the type of public servant we have and were trying to protect. For the purpose of the committee's work, we now know some of those details that were being protected before. I find it interesting that the opposition has continued, in public, to call into question these documents. They were provided to our committee. It is like a dog chasing a car down the street. The car stops, and the dog doesn't know what to do.

You have what you needed, so now what do you want to do with it? My colleagues will understand that there's always been an inherent tension between what we ask for and can receive as parliamentarians, and the ability of the government to safely provide the documents without compromising the responsible functioning of the government. It's really not a question of covering things up. It's a protection of our civil service, who have been working extremely hard through COVID and always. When I was first elected, I was just amazed by the professionalism of our public service.

They always ask if there is anything more they can do for you. They give you things faster than you expect and then ask what else you need. Those are the people we are trying to protect so that we can use their information without sharing the information that would directly connect them, and we speak on their behalf when we're in committee. Again, with the subamendment, we are getting the heads of the civil service and the law clerk to come and answer as to what the process of redaction is and what process they were following, because we received the documents through their work.

How they make those decisions really should be of interest to the committee so that we know what process is followed. As a democracy, we do have the three equal branches of government, and whether it's the Supreme Court of Canada, the Senate or the House of Commons, we are all working together for Canadians. It has been recognized, though, that Parliament is supreme, because we are the elected officials, unlike other democracies. I'm thinking of south of us where judges are elected.

In our case we have appointment systems for the other orders of Parliament, but we are the ones who are elected by the people of Canada, so the extent to which our supremacy allows for the production of cabinet confidences has been a matter of debate for some time. We also know that, as cabinet is discussing things, we end up in a different place at the end of the discussion from where we started. If you start at the beginning of the discussion and ask what cabinet's doing, and then the cabinet doesn't deliver on that, that would really undermine the trust that Canadians have in cabinet.

It is similar to a board meeting. In business we had board meetings all the time where we would talk about the future of the company, and sometimes, in times like this, we would be asking how many people we would have to lay off, and sometimes we would find ways so that we didn't have to lay them off. We would get support from the Government of Canada in the case of the businesses now getting support, so that they don't have to lay people off, and those decisions are made.

Once they know that the support's in place from the Government of Canada, people don't have to lose sleep because they're going to be losing their jobs, because we're supporting them.

(2020) However, those are discussions that are done behind closed doors, not to be nefarious, not to try to hide things, but really to protect your employees from concerns that they don't have to worry about. You're paid as a manager to worry about what needs to be done on behalf of the people you're serving in your company. It's similar to what we do when we're serving the people in our communities.

The Government of Canada's cabinet has to be able to have those very frank discussions of worst-case scenarios and then plan around those without causing turmoil in people's homes, or even in stock markets, for that matter. We could go into great detail about several of the Tory ministers and MPs, including the member for Carleton , who have argued in favour of safeguarding cabinet confidences.

Regardless of the stripe of your party, you can understand that certain things have to be done in confidence for very many different reasons—for when you're working with different governments across the world, for world security, for the security of.... In terms of people at their kitchen tables, my family doesn't know a lot of the discussions we have in government, because I'm there for them, as I'm there for the other families in Guelph. They don't need to know what's keeping me up at night.

My wife will know sometimes that I've been up at night, but she won't know that I'm worrying about the businesses in Guelph—

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. If we could just get back on topic, that would be great.

The Chair :

Relevance, Mr. Longfield; I think you used an example to make a point. That's fine—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, here too a member was trying to make their point and in the middle of a sentence was interrupted. It continues to happen. It's been happening today. It's been happening—

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

I have a point of order.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Now I've been interrupted.

The Chair :

Hold on, Ms. Vecchio. I have to hear Mr. Fragiskatos' point of order first. Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

It is not a contravention of parliamentary procedure, Mr. Chair, for a member to waver slightly off a point if they're going to go back and make that point with examples or however they might do it. Mr. Longfield was illustrating a personal example that was proving his argument.

The Chair :

I think you've made your point, Mr. Fragiskatos. That's what I indicated to Mr. Longfield. As long as there was an example related to making his point.... Ms. Vecchio.

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

I appreciate the debate brought forward by Mr. Fragiskatos, but I also look at the time. I think if it's really relevant, then it should not take four or five minutes to get to a relevant story and then try to make that.... Maybe we have to look at the longevity of the story before we bring it back. I'd prefer to go maybe a couple of inches, but not a full mile. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Vecchio. I believe Mr. Longfield has heard your point. Mr. Longfield, you have the floor.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I appreciate both comments. I also appreciate the chance to get a sip of my hot water and lemon. The points of order give me a break, and I appreciate that, but I wasn't doing it to have a break. What I'm really showing, getting back to the documents that we're talking about, is that as elected officials, we have a role to play. Sometimes that role needs to be protected by confidence. As the professional, non-partisan public service, they have their role to play in providing us documents that will also protect Canadians and protect the confidences they have within their office.

People share information that isn't always something that should be put out in the public domain—mobile cellphone numbers, as an example. In terms of the sworn duty to protect our national security and the privacy of cabinet confidences, the point I was making when I was interrupted by the points of order, was that we all have things we have to shoulder as our own responsibilities as leaders. They provided the documents to the committee, but the documents aren't being reviewed and the witnesses aren't coming forward to say why they're redacted. I have an issue with that.

That's what my presentation tonight is about. It's about the issue that the committee really hasn't picked up the information it was given and had a fulsome discussion with the people responsible for the redactions. I won't repeat all the matters that relate to the Canada student service grant and its creation, but really, at the end of the day, we have students who aren't getting served because of what is going on in this room. Even if we could find a way to bridge these cabinet confidences, we're still not serving the people we're trying to serve by getting them the funding that we were trying to get them.

It's an unfortunate situation that we have in front of us. The day the prorogation occurred.... I was in the House earlier, and the Conservatives were mentioning prorogation. The government House leader 's office released these documents for all of us to r