Thank you very much, Chair.
Chair, I must say that I am very much heartened and enlightened by the interventions we've heard today, because I think it goes to the heart of the matter as to why the motion before us is unacceptable, certainly to me. I thank my good colleague, Mr. Housefather, for his articulate and detailed exposition of exactly what the flaws are in that motion.
Indeed, I want to pick up on one of the flaws, and that is not referring to the WE Charity because, oddly enough, earlier today Mr. Angus was very much concerned about the WE Charity. He was talking about the WE Charity at length: about the documents and about testimony that had been given to I think particularly the finance committee and elsewhere concerning WE.
I'm sorry that he's not here, but I'm sure that Mr. Green will pass this on to him. I would like to remind Mr. Angus, who had a great concern about the quality of the documents, about the redaction process, about transparency and who was telling this committee what—or other committees. I had that opportunity at our previous meeting to read out to this committee the different letters from the ministries—from Finance, from the Treasury Board, from Innovation, from PCO and the Clerk of the Privy Council—about the care that was taken in redacting in providing those documents. Because indeed, the redaction process is an important legitimate process that is designed to protect—there's a certain screening that has to happen—different elements that are important to Canadians, the first, of course, being national security.
In each letter, I'll remind members of the committee, the writers made it clear that national security was not an issue in the redaction, but that the privacy of individuals concerned, as well as cabinet confidences that were unrelated to the issue at hand—the student grant program—were certainly considered carefully and those that were unrelated were taken out, but others—cabinet confidences—in the quest for transparency were included in the documents. I won't say it in my words but in the words of the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Ian Shugart, a highly respected public servant, who has served both sides of the aisle and who has the highest integrity.
Mr. Shugart was able to say in a letter, “With respect to Cabinet confidences, you will note that considerable information on the Canada Student Service Grant that were Cabinet confidences, is being provided to the Committee.” A little later on, he further explains:
In this package, I have also 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 because 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'm going to come back to that, because it is key that this type of work was done by qualified public servants with every due consideration. So, I'm going to object strenuously to the characterization that Mr. Angus made earlier today, that somehow the redaction was overdone or that it was not done in good faith for the purposes of this committee.
We find the same thing from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. This is from Mr. Simon Kennedy regarding the delivery of the documents that were requested by the finance committee earlier this summer:
It should be noted, however, that in the preparation of this package, care was taken to obtain consent to disclose certain personal information from exempt staff referenced in the material and, in collaboration with other government departments, the staff from WE Charity in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act.
A little later on, he continued:
...you will note that...information on the Canada Student Service Grant that were Cabinet confidences is being provided to the Committee. This is in keeping with the public disclosures of information on this matter made by the members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. A principled approach was adopted to this information to ensure a non-selective application.
We find the same thing when the Secretariat of the Treasury Board of Canada. This is from Peter Wallace, referring to the finance committee's motion that cabinet confidences are to be excluded from the package, who confirmed the following:
...no information is being withheld on the grounds of national security, since the information does not so pertain. With respect to Cabinet confidences, you will note that considerable information on the Canada Student Service Grant that were Cabinet confidences is being provided to the Committee.
So, where is information being hidden from the parliamentarians that need to see it?
The information concerning the WE situation was all provided. I for one have confidence that all of this was done in the proper manner to make sure that, over and above the request made by the finance committee, the documents pertaining to WE were provided.
Again, the secretariat in this case makes reference to the principled approach that was taken. It was not a lackadaisical approach. It was not an arbitrary approach. It was not that everyone did as they saw fit. There's a principle that is followed. We should expect no less. It says:
This package includes information being made available as a result of a limited waiver of solicitor client privilege as it relates to the information that is being provided by Employment and Social Development Canada.
Again, this was an approach over and above what was requested.
Think of the work that went into the production of those documents. We all heard that over 5,000 pieces were delivered this summer prior to the prorogation. Everyone had a lot of time to pore over them. They were provided to the maximum possible, given the principles of protecting personal data and cabinet confidences, and as I say, really pushing that envelope.
Of course, we heard also from the Minister of Finance's office on that same note. Having been a member of the public accounts committee in the last Parliament, I can remember how critical that was, the financial information, information that could affect private interests, competitive information, sensitive trade information, market-moving information. How important it is to maintain that privacy. I dare say, I can't reveal some of the discussions that we had in camera at the time, of course. We were dealing with some quite extensive audits of different government agencies. We're talking about billions of dollars that were being managed.
I was delighted to serve with the likes of David Christopherson from the NDP, and others. I believe Mr. Poilievre was with us for a very short while. Because the public accounts committee is known for its unanimous approval of reports, everyone understood how important that financial information was and how the keeping of cabinet confidences from one government to the next is an important principle.
The finance department also confirms that considerable information on the Canada student services grant, which was the issue at hand contained in cabinet confidences, is being provided to the committee. A principled approach was taken, with respect of this information, to ensure a non-selective application of the protection afforded by cabinet confidentiality. Information not related to the Canada student services grant that is contained in cabinet confidences is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request, as it should be. We would expect no less. As time goes on and different Parliaments are formed and different governments are formed, that is a principle that must be maintained.
With respect—