Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Lake. It's your absolute right to weigh in.

I have Mr. Gerretsen and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I find it very interesting, Mr. Chair, to be lectured by a Conservative member who was sitting in the House of Commons when Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament solely for the purpose of avoiding an election. He's somehow sitting there with a straight face telling Liberal members that proroguing after spending over $300 billion in order to get the gauge of Parliament to determine if we're taking the right course is somehow not a proper use of proroguing Parliament. Meanwhile this member was in the House that whole time, including when Stephen Harper did that and prorogued Parliament to save his own skin, and for no other reason.

I appreciate Mr. Lake's comments. I think he did a very good job of delivering that, in particular advancing his position on it, but hypocrisy is a very interesting thing and we're seeing it on full display right now in this committee from Conservative members.

Going back to Mr. MacGregor's point, the reason I have a difficult time with what he's saying is that the reality of the situation is that it's not department officials who were doing the majority of the redacting. It was specifically the officials, and I will go back to my motion, because we asked specifically for them to come. They are the deputy ministers but also the Law Clerk and the Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Commons. These are not political staff, nor are deputy ministers political staff. These are individuals who have no way to defend themselves.

To suggest, as Mr. MacGregor did, that it's okay to proceed with this parliamentary privilege because of the fact that they're in the department.... It's unfortunate, but it's the same angle the Conservatives are using. That angle is that they need to make sure that they just get as much out there as possible, so that Pierre can go out again and start waving things around and grandstanding, get a 20-second clip that he can share on Twitter for all of his faithful followers to watch. It actually produces nothing in terms of what a parliamentary privilege is intended to produce.

What we're doing here is we're saying is that those who were impacted by this and are being impacted by this motion that's being proposed right now.... Again, the way that we ended on this motion is very interesting in that Mr. Poilievre decided that he would circumvent the order in which motions were already being delivered in committee, but I digress. What we end up with is a motion that holds people in light of breached privileges of members of Parliament, and that's where I think Mr. MacGregor and all members of this committee need to focus. It is the fact that you're not allowing these people to defend themselves.

Mr. MacGregor brings up the point. He asks whether this is the hill we're willing to die on. Well, guess what. If this is a hill that involves saving the careers of individuals who are professionals, who work within the government and who don't have a voice because the system intentionally doesn't provide them a voice because they're non-partisan, then this is a hill that I'll go to. I will defend those people. I will go to the hill for those people, and if Mr. MacGregor chooses that it's not the hill that's he's interested in dying on, then that's entirely his prerogative. However, I think it's worth fighting for those people, worth fighting for them to give their voices so that their voices can be heard, and to give them the opportunity to come forward to committee to explain in detail why and how things were redacted in the way that they were.

I'm sure we're going to find out at the end of the day that there's nothing to this outside of a standard redaction of information that was not relevant to the motion and what was being requested by committee.

I've made the point before that we really need to look for a way to provide an avenue for these people to speak and explain themselves so that we can get all the information out there. The blatant disregard for giving them that opportunity, which is being showcased by members of all opposition parties for that matter, is extremely troubling. I'm willing to fight for those officials to make sure that their voices are heard.

This is a hill that I'm willing to die on, Mr. MacGregor. I'm willing to fight for those people to make sure that their voices can be heard. I respect the fact that you're claiming that you had the prerogative and you were justified in 2017 when you were in this position, but somehow magically we're not justified right now. That's a matter of your opinion, with which I, respectfully, completely, 100% disagree. We need to make sure that our public officials always have the protections and are given the opportunities at all junctures, whenever possible, to explain themselves, especially before you bring them before a motion that basically suggests that they have breached your privilege, which is extremely unfortunate.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I wanted to respond to Mr. MacGregor's comments on that, and of course to Mr. Lake's hypocrisy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We'll go on to Mr. Fragiskatos. I don't see Ms. Jansen.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I echo the sentiment that we just heard from Mr. Gerretsen on the point relating to Mr. MacGregor. It's not being disrespectful to say that it's very surprising when we have a subamendment before us that would very much allow for public servants to come forward to explain. The subamendment is perfectly in line with an idea and notion that suggest that public servants deserve to be treated fairly and, by virtue of the fact that they are non-partisan, we have to take it upon ourselves to provide them an avenue through which they will be able to articulate the particular decisions they've made. Opposition members can ask them questions—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not trying to make this a point of debate. This is a point of clarification, and I hope you will find it a point of order.

Just to rewind, am I not correct that when the committee was examining the original motion back in July, it did approve that redactions could be made as necessary by the office of the law clerk? I thought that redactions had already been agreed to by this committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is a point of debate. I've been interrupted. It's a point of debate.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'm asking for a clarification, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

There's no such thing as a point of clarification. It's a point of order, and that's definitely not a point of order

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Perhaps Mr. Chair can walk us down memory lane. I just want to have on the record a previous motion that was passed by the committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Well, it's Mr. Fragiskatos who has the floor. It's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll go back to Mr. Fragiskatos.

I think you can go back to the record. I don't want to be in error by saying something that wasn't on the record at the time in terms of the directive. Therefore, the best thing is to go back and look at the blues and the motion.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't belabour the point, but I find it rather curious that Mr. MacGregor, being a member of the NDP and a passionate one, clearly put himself on the record as not supporting the subamendment that is opening the door, in a very transparent and fair way, to public servants to voice decisions that they made instead of the alternative. Mr. Kelly's amendment, like everything that Mr. Poilievre has done before it, does not allow for public servants to explain themselves. Instead, it silences them.

What we've done here on the Liberal side is put forward a subamendment, which I'll speak about in a moment at length, Mr. Chair, about why it continues to be important that we look at and support the subamendment of Mr. Gerretsen.

I found this rather curious, with the NDP being always on record as a party that supports public servants and the whole idea of a vibrant, professional, non-partisan public service.

To Mr. Lake's point, although I have not had the chance to get to know Mr. Lake very well, I know him to be a very passionate advocate around a number of issues, particularly autism. I know that he has taken issue with particular decisions made by the government in the past, which he's quite free to do.

I noticed, though, and I think it's important to say back to Mr. Lake that it is interesting—I'll use a neutral word—that Mr. Lake failed to mention the record of the Harper government. I know it goes back a little bit, but he was a part of it. When he accuses committee members of standing in the way here and of playing political games, which we are not.... Certainly, however, if you want to talk about political games, Mr. Chair, what do we call efforts to obstruct the work of committees, to get in the way of committee work, such as we saw under the Harper government?

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there was a book that Conservative staffers wrote that was to be read by committee members—in particular, Conservative committee chairs. The intent of that booklet was to find ways to prevent committees from doing their work, to prevent them from meaningfully engaging in the issues of the day, to ensure that only Conservative-friendly witnesses would come forward to address committees. There are many other examples.

It's thus a bit rich that Mr. Lake has told us here today of how unfair he thinks the Liberal side is when it is putting forward ideas that allow for this issue around redacted documents on the WE Charity issue and that allow us as parliamentarians to engage in those matters, but in a way that allows public servants to voice their perspective. We're not being obstructionist at all.

I was also moved by Mr. Badawey's insight. He comes at this as someone who has led in politics in other ways. At the municipal level, he was a mayor for a number of years in the community of Port Colborne—to which, actually, I have a tie, Mr. Chair: my mother-in-law is originally from there. The Badawey family is well known in that community and well respected. I think we understand why, when we hear Mr. Badawey speak with such passion about the everyday people he knows in his community.

I would ask my honourable colleagues that we keep that spirit and ethic in mind. What would our constituents say right now—and perhaps they are all watching and are seized with this issue on the parliamentary channel, though something tells me...[Inaudible--Editor].

What would they say, though, if they knew that we had a chance either to be debating this subject at great length—I believe we began at 11:00 a.m. today, and that's fine, as the days are long in parliamentary life—or were seized with parliamentary budget consultations as an alternative? Which would they want us to focus on, Mr. Chair? Which subject would be more important?

On top of that, if our constituents were made aware—and yes, some will be watching and so will already be aware, but if the vast majority knew—that the Liberal side has put forward a subamendment that allows for the general substance of what the opposition is seeking to hear, but in a much fairer way, what would they say? I think they would say the committee should unanimously support Mr. Gerretsen on this subject. I will leave those initial observations there.

I want to get into my further thoughts on what Mr. Gerretsen has articulated. It has been a while since he put forward the subamendment, so to remind members let me review the motion that Mr. Gerretsen has tabled. It reads, “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 the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons approved for release; that both of the documents 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. Until such a time as this testimony is complete debate on the main motion and amendment from Mr. Poilievre be suspended, and that the chair be authorized to schedule these witnesses and convene a meeting to resume debate on Mr. Poilievre's motion once these meetings have taken place.”

I know I might be accused of trying to waste time here by reading out the subamendment for the motion of Mr. Gerretsen, but it's important to catch up because it has been a long day, and some time has passed since Mr. Gerretsen put forward his idea.

What we are looking for is a full and complete accounting, Mr. Chair, of the documents to be provided to the committee. The opposition has since twice voted down Liberal members' attempts to provide the committee with a common set of documents without a word, Mr. Chair—and here I find some surprise—from the Bloc or the NDP. It's not clear that these members have expressed a view, and many of the members from those two parties here are substitutes. I don't see Mr. Julian. I know Mr. MacGregor put himself on the record before. It's unfortunate he took the view that he did, so I think my previous comment applies.

Next, we are asking for the transmittal letters. They have been cited here at length, but let me repeat that these documents tell the committee how the world-class public servants who prepared these documents, per the motion of this committee, applied redactions. Let me share some highlights.

The text of the letter from Mr. Paul Rochon, the deputy minister of finance, reads:

The Committee’s motion stipulates that Cabinet confidences and national security information are to be excluded from the package. 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 contained in Cabinet confidences is being provided to the Committee. This is in keeping with the public disclosures of information on this matter made by members of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. A principled approach was taken with respect to this information to ensure a non-selective application of the protection afforded by Cabinet confidentiality. As a result, considerable information on the Canada Student Service Grant that would otherwise be protected as Cabinet confidence is being released. Information not related to the Canada Student Service Grant that is contained in Cabinet confidences is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request.

That is entirely reasonable, Mr. Chair. Furthermore, the letter states:

With respect to personal information, the department is obliged to protect such information under the Privacy Act unless the individuals to whom it relates consent to its disclosure, or disclosure is otherwise authorized in certain specified circumstances or the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any resulting invasion of privacy.

His letter continues:

Reasonable efforts were made by the department to obtain consent. Where consent was not given, the department found that the public interest in sharing the information with the Committee outweighed any invasion of the individual’s privacy. As such, disclosure is being made pursuant to subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) of the Privacy Act. As required by that Act, the Privacy Commissioner was informed by our decision. In very limited cases, personal information was redacted from these records as consent was not obtained from the individuals concerned nor was the department able to conclude that the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighed the invasion of the individuals’ privacy. The type of personal information that remains protected consists of the identity of unrelated third parties where their opinion or view relates to an unrelated matter to this inquiry, as well as personal e-mail addresses and phone numbers.

That is the end of the quote.

From the text of the letter from Mr. Simon Kennedy, Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, which my Conservative friends will know as the former Industry Canada, I read into the record the following:

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has retrieved all records from within the Department that respond to the Committee’s motion. You will find the results of that search enclosed for the Committee’s consideration.

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.

In addition, the Committee’s motion stipulates that Cabinet confidences and national security information are to be excluded from the package. 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 information on the Canada Student Service Grant that was a Cabinet confidence is being provided to the Committee. This is in keeping with the public disclosures of information on this matter made by members of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. A principled approach was adopted to this information to ensure a non-selective application of the protection afforded by Cabinet confidentiality. Information not related to the Canada Student Service Grant that constitutes a Cabinet confidence is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request.

Next, Mr. Chair, is the text from the secretary of the Treasury Board, Mr. Peter Wallace, who holds the distinction of having served as a senior public servant in three levels of government in Canada:

The Committee’s motion stipulates that Cabinet confidences and national security information are to be excluded from the package. 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. This is in keeping with the public disclosures of information on this matter made by members of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. A principled approach was adopted to this information to ensure a non-selective application of the protection afforded by Cabinet confidentiality. As a result, considerable information on the Canada Student Service Grant that would otherwise constitute Cabinet confidences is being released. Information not related to the Canada Student Service Grant that constitutes Cabinet confidences is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request.

It continues.

This same principled approach was also applied to the second enclosed package of TBS documents, which is provided in support of the commitment by the Clerk of the Privy Council to provide additional information on due diligence on the Canada Student Service Grant subsequent to his appearance on July 21, 2020. Additionally, because I believe...it is in the public interest to do so, 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.

While many TBS employees continue to work virtually, guided by public health measures and focused on curbing the spread of COVID-19, these two packages provide, to the best of my knowledge, as of August 7, 2020, the TBS documents in response to the above-noted request for production of papers and due diligence line of inquiry.

I've read into the record that perspective. Now, let me continue on my own, here, Mr. Chair. Again, the opposition— I'm especially thinking about the Bloc here, as I've not heard anything from them—and the NDP have opposed the provision of these critical transmittal letters, without a single word. It is because they are not tuned in, Mr. Chair. I see that Mr. Ste-Marie is there. I respect him a great deal.

But again, we have something here, in the form of Mr. Gerretsen's motion, that I think can be agreed to. Plenty of compromises have been made. I hope the Bloc has an opinion. I've heard the NDP's, but, unfortunately, it has not made much of an impact and that is why I say what has been offered doesn't really count, with all due respect to my honourable colleague, Mr. MacGregor.

Further, we are asking that the various versions of the documents be compared and that the very public servants who wrote to this committee, Mr. Gagnon and indeed all Canadians, in their transmittal letters, be asked to come before the committee to talk about their approach and to answer questions from members about this motion. Again, I have questions for these individuals. Sadly, the Conservatives are refusing to hear advice from the public servants. I made this comment before in my remarks about an hour ago. It's stunning to me that the Conservatives aren't open to that. What is the fear? Might it be the fact that public servants could put on the record very basic points relating to not wanting to disclose personal information, which I think is very reasonable. That would, therefore, expose all of this on the Conservative side as one big political game, which it surely is. But I leave that judgment aside for now.

Again, to my Bloc and NDP colleagues, Mr. Gerretsen has put this forward. That opens a path that allows us to get past the issues we have been debating so vigorously. We've finally reached a resolution, what I think is a reasonable one. Let's be serious about it. In every study this committee conducted in the last session of Parliament, officials provided us with testimony and that testimony was meaningful, Mr. Chair. That is their duty on behalf of Canadians.

This has been the case for every study I've been part of as a parliamentarian. There is no doubt about that. I've had the honour and privilege of serving on the finance committee, the foreign affairs committee, public safety and national security, and at every opportunity whenever officials have come we've only benefited as a committee.

It's unfortunate that some—and I'm not speaking specifically of Conservatives or only the Conservatives at the table here today, but in general there seems to be this view of public servants on the part of Conservatives, this branding of them as somehow irresponsible, as somehow living off the largesse of the state. It's frankly not true. If we look at some of the central actors who have been getting Canadians through this crisis, public servants have played an incredibly important role. Of course, Canadians deserve the most credit in the first instance because of the responsibility they have shouldered for themselves, their families and their businesses. Public servants have been instrumental in suggesting policy designs that have met the needs of the moment, and I'm thinking particularly of the CERB but also the various other programs that were created very quickly and executed with incredible skill by the public service, whom unfortunately members of the Conservative Party continue to demonize, and other opposition colleagues have not stood up for in the right way here today.

Let's review and let me go back to this point about what we have heard from public servants at committee before. On Monday, February 3, 2020, in a very lengthy meeting from 3:30 to 8 p.m.—if that meeting was very lengthy, what is today's? But anyway we will leave that for now. ...a study on the pre-budget consultations of early 2020, what this committee should be working on, the following officials attended. From the Department of Finance, we heard from Nicholas Leswick, the assistant deputy minister of the economic and fiscal policy branch; Andrew Marsland, the senior assistant deputy minister in the tax policy branch. I will highlight him in particular here. At the very beginning of COVID-19, I had specific questions from constituents relating to certain programs the government had put forward. I asked him technical details very openly at committee, and he articulated the rationale. This allowed me, as a member of Parliament, to go back to my constituents and provide an explanation on why programs were designed in the way they were. He was very helpful in that.

Evelyn Dancey, the associate assistant deputy minister of economic development and corporate finance branch, also attended.

On Tuesday, March 10, from 3:30 to 5:30, the standard meeting time for this committee, we met for a study on corporate subsidies. What a lifetime ago that was. I have a faint memory of it, but it's still relevant to mention in my remarks because on that day we heard from ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, with Daryell Nowlan, the vice-president, policy, programs and communications; and Bill Grandy, the director general of programs. We also heard from the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, as well as the Department of Industry, with Mitch Davies and Andrea Johnston. Excuse me; that is not to disrespect Ms. Buist from the Northern Economic Development Agency, as she was also there—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. Sorry to interrupt my esteemed colleague, but do we still have quorum? I see a number of our opposition members are not present.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Genuis counts as one and a half.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, we do, by one member, and yes, Mr. Genuis counts as one and a half at the moment.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Don't worry; we're not going anywhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

We also heard on that day from the Office of the Auditor General, with Mr. Andrew Hayes, the deputy auditor general and interim commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

My colleagues could be wondering why I'm reading out the full titles of these individuals. It's because they have worked hard to attain the positions they're in and deserve to be recognized.

There was also Heather Miller—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Will you mention their degrees as well?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Well, Mr. Genuis, they have, if not one degree at the university level, two or three probably, and—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

These are from what institutions?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Genuis, I'm speaking here. It's really not good of you to interrupt. However, if you want me to go on and speak about the average education level of our public servants, you'll find that they have master's degrees and Ph.D.'s. They can't hear your criticisms because their Ph.D.'s are plugged in their ears, Mr. Genuis. That's how educated they are. You continue to find ways to belittle the public service. You continue to find ways to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You have to go through the chair, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Excuse me on that, Mr. Chair. It's been a long day, so sometimes I, too, forget the requirements at committee.

It's simply a rebuttal to Mr. Genuis, Mr. Chair, who again jumped in without even saying “point of order”. He was a great debate champion, as he's reminded all of us in Parliament, repeatedly.

[A voice]

He was?