Evidence of meeting #40 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll call the meeting of the finance committee to order. For the first half-hour, we'll deal with business. I believe, Mr. Julian, that you have a motion. I know that Mr. Poilievre also has one, but I believe yours was in first.
We'll start with you if you want to go ahead, Peter.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Hopefully, this won't be controversial. I would like to move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Committee order that any contracts concluded with WE Charity and Me to We, all briefing notes, memos and emails from senior officials prepared for or sent to any Minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any written correspondence and records of other correspondence with WE Charity and Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the Committee no later than August 8, 2020; that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request; and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, as The Globe and Mail outlined this morning, a lot of questions are being asked around this. As the finance committee, we were charged back in March, you'll recall, to do the stewardship around all spending programs related to COVID-19, including this one. Our responsibility as the finance committee is to ask these questions and to get answers on behalf of Canadians.
We need to know whether or not this decision went to cabinet and why there was a reduction in the number of positions for Canada summer jobs—it's certainly something that has had an impact on ridings across the country— and why this organization was put forward instead of our civil service. I understand that the government is potentially moving this program back to the civil service. On the sole sourcing of it, what was the process? How was the organization informed?
All of these are questions that people are asking. As the stewards of the public trust around all the spending related to COVID-19, I'd like to move this motion so that we can get those answers for Canadians and, hopefully, we'll have consensus on the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I believe everyone has a copy of it, Peter.
I'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos first and then Mr. Fraser. Anyone else can put their hand up so I know where to go.
Go ahead, Peter, and then Julian.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a friendly amendment to put forward, and then I have a question for Mr. Julian.
With respect to the friendly amendment, I'm going to seek the advice of the clerk on where it ought to be included. I believe that the contribution agreement between the department and WE ought to be a part of the motion as well.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
That the contribution agreement between the department and WE be included, be accessible, something along those lines, but as for its placement, I'm not sure.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I think that's included in the motion as written. It allows for all of the information—briefing notes, memos and emails—but I'll certainly let colleagues join in. For the moment, I'd like to keep the motion as presented.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It's a friendly amendment. It just provides a specific understanding that this would be included as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The amendment I believe—I'll have to ask the clerk for this—is in order and we will have to go to the amendment first.
Go ahead, Caroline.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Caroline Bosc
It is in order, but I would ask that we know exactly where we want it in the motion, because depending on where it is put in the motion, it could change the sense of the motion. I would ask that the member specify where in the motion they would like to add it.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Okay. If I could, Mr. Chair, perhaps it could be included right after the word “emails”. How does that work? You'd strike “and” and “memos” would get a comma. You'd strike “and” emails and include a new word there, that new word being “and”, and then the point about the contribution agreement, phrased as I did a moment ago.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Could you do it this way, “all briefing notes, memos, including the contribution agreement between” and then “and emails from senior officials”? I think it would be better in there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. The discussion's on the amendment. I know made Peter made a point. We'll have to start a new list here.
Is there any discussion or will we move on the amendment and then go back to the original motion, or go back to the motion as amended?
Any further discussion on the amendment? It's just being more specific, I would suggest, to make sure that contribution agreement is there.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
My sense is that it's redundant, but I'll let the committee decide.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
On the motion as amended, I have Mr. Fragiskatos, Mr. Fraser and Ms. Dzerowicz. We'll start with that and then we'll see where we go.
Mr. Fragiskatos.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just want to draw attention to the section of the motion that begins with:
that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request; and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.
I raise it here out of my curiosity. The motion adopted at the health committee a while back called for all documents, including briefing notes, memos and emails from senior officials prepared for the Minister of Health, Minister of Transport, Minister of Public Safety, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of National Defence regarding the outbreak of the coronavirus, no later than March 15, 2020.
We see in the motion why redactions of national security were important in that case, and that's why I read in detail what was presented at the health committee, but why the focus on national security here? What are the concerns regarding national security on the part of Mr. Julian? I'm curious about that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay the point has been made.
Do you want to answer that, Peter, and then I'll go to Mr. Fraser?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I thank Mr. Fragiskatos for his question.
This is standard format that other committees have adopted, potentially not the health committee at that time, but generally this is the type of structure that allows for those matters that shouldn't be released with a very strict framework to be protected items. It's not something that's out of the ordinary at all.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
On the same issue, substantively I don't have a problem with what you're proposing, Peter. There's a technical piece that I have a little bit of a concern about. I spent a little bit of time working for an access to information organization and the way that you framed the motion has two issues that I have a concern about. First, to the point of national security and cabinet confidence, those would routinely be excluded under the ordinary process, as would things like solicitor-client privilege and real estate transactions. There's a handful of them in the Access to Information Act.
The second piece is about the law clerk and parliamentary counsel and the disclosure of Canadians' personal information that could be included in these documents to the people you've requested make the redactions. I understand that, in and of itself, would be a violation of federal privacy legislation. You're right. I've seen this type of a motion in a couple of committees and I've seen as many or more essentially try to do the same thing, by tasking the department with producing them in accordance with the required access to information practices. Is there a reason?
I really don't have a strong preference here, but there are similar kinds of issues that I've seen cause problems before. I'm wondering if there's a reason why you have the preferred approach with the language you've used as opposed to, say, the health committee...or I think the government operations committee had a similar one to what Peter has mentioned. I'm not going to dig my heels in and be difficult here, but if there's a reason to go your way I'd be interesting in knowing it, because I do see there could be a bit of an administrative difficulty and a potential privacy violation by proceeding with the motion as is.