Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
You are reading from the documents you said you didn't have before? Is that correct?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
No, I'm sorry, Ms. Jansen. You're misunderstanding. I'm not reading from the documents that you're raising here. I'm giving context to the entire discussion, so let me continue.
Let me turn your attention to pages 105 to 110 of the PCO release.
A number of programs listed are unrelated to the CSSG and have nothing to do with the motion at hand. The committee explicitly did not ask for this, but still, where relevant, if there was mention of the CSSG, it was disclosed. An example is on page 107. Documents like this are a prime example of the documents that Mr. Poilievre was waving around, as you remember, many weeks ago in what some have termed, quite correctly, a stunt at a press conference. Items requested by the committee were related to the Canada student service grant, and this cabinet confidence document, I might add, was released with all information related to the CSSG contained therein. The non-partisan professional public service redacted matters that were not related to the committee motion, which was not only to be expected but was also both appropriate and prudent.
Another example, Mr. Chair, is on pages 189-190 of the PCO release. We are looking at an email between Rachel Wernick at ESDC and Ms. Tara Shannon from PCO. As the motion expressly stated, unrelated cabinet confidences were removed. As well, Ms. Wernick's cellphone number was removed. I hope we can all agree it wouldn't be appropriate for that number to be public. That is absolutely vital. The more we push this, the more I worry that certain members of the committee might not take that into account, but I'll leave that aside. In fact, the motion that was passed by this committee requesting these documents asked for this type of redaction to be made.
Again, here on page 191 of the PCO release, we have another email between Ms. Wernick and Ms. Shannon. Again, only a cellphone number has been removed. Yet another example is on pages 192-193 of the PCO release. There's another redaction to protect the cellphone number. I think we can all agree that the removal of such information is reasonable. Again, this is all adding context to the discussion here at hand, Mr. Chair. I find it interesting that while the public is battling a second wave of COVID-19, my opposition colleagues are chasing down private cellphone numbers.
Let's look at pages 219-221 of the PCO document that was released. Frankly, this is a truly extraordinary document, a document that would rarely be released, a document that we would never have seen released under the Harper government. The synopsis of an entire cabinet meeting has been made public. Obviously, there are items protected by cabinet confidence; however, items related to the CSSG were still disclosed. Who knows what other topics were discussed? It could be national security issues. We don't know. It could be cabinet confidences that are unrelated to any of this and that should be protected. This is determined by the Clerk of the Privy Council and referenced in his transmittal letter.
Frankly, Chair, there are reasons that documents like this are not normally public until long after a government's mandates have ended, ensuring the confidence of cabinet deliberations essential to the peace, order and good governance of the country, which my colleagues across the aisle always talk about, I believe sincerely. Cabinet confidences are essential to responsible government, and in an extraordinary move the clerk waived privilege of the sections of this document as they related to the cabinet discussion on the CSSG. Cabinet confidences are among our country's most protected information, and here they are for everyone to read.
My opposition colleagues are not satisfied with only seeing the relevant information in question that they asked for in their motion—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I need to interrupt you for a minute, Mr. Fragiskatos. Are these documents that you're reading from—I can't quite tell—related to the subamendment that we're debating now, or more related to the main motion or the amendment to the main motion? I could clearly tell that what Mr. Fraser was putting into the record was related to documents in the subamendment, but I'm not sure on these, so try to keep it relevant to the subamendment you're on, and if not, try to move back to documents that are relevant to the subamendment.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that they are relevant because they are related to the subamendment in highlighting the issues that are required to be reconciled by the discrepancies. What he's reading into the record directly speaks to the amendment to the amendment, or the subamendment.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll monitor it and keep watch.
Just hold on, Mr. Fragiskatos. I believe I have a point of order from Mr. Fraser. Mr. Fraser, I don't know where your mike is. It's doing the same trick with me.
Pat, go ahead.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Mr. Chair, I would bring it to your attention that the remarks we heard sounded suspiciously like an argument already made. They were almost word for word from Mr. Fraser's earlier remarks. We could check the transcript. I would hope we are not repeating arguments that have already been made.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, Mr. Fragiskatos can take that into consideration as well.
You're on, Mr. Fragiskatos.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm simply adding greater detail and, as we heard from Mr. Gerretsen in his point of order, it is all related to the subamendment, because what's articulated are issues that are required to be reconciled, discrepancies that exist, and it's important also for that perspective to be brought forward for all of the committee and for the clerk as well.
Everything is intended to put context in place. I don't believe there has been any breach here or anything along those lines, but I will continue in this vein, and if colleagues wish to point anything out.... I was trying very hard to follow Mr. Fraser, and I believe I did, but it is not my intent here to repeat anything that my colleague has already put on the record.
I've lost my place here, Mr. Chair. I'm not complaining about the point of order that was raised, but let me....
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
While you are looking for your place, I am going to give a heads-up to Ms. Dzerowicz that she is next on the list.
Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Here's yet another example. It's on pages 192 to 193 of the PCO release. It's another redaction to protect a cellphone number. We can all agree that the removal of such information is reasonable. It's interesting that while we are battling a second wave of COVID-19, my opposition colleagues are choosing to chase down private cellphone numbers. I do remember reading that already in to the record, Mr. Chair. Let me just skip down here.
On page 268 of the PCO release, we have an exchange between Ms. Wernick and Mr. Philip Jennings from PCO. In it, they are discussing an attachment that Ms. Wernick has forwarded to PCO. I know the opposition has a lot of interest in Ms. Wernick, but the only item redacted here is her cellphone number. I don't think they need that, Mr. Chair.
Here's another example. On pages 348 to 352 of the PCO release, we have another one of Mr. Poilievre's fully blacked out documents, if you can remember that famous press conference. If Mr. Poilievre were a sitting minister of the Crown—the overall result he is maybe looking for from all of this—he would have access to this entire document. However, seeing as how he is not, and following the motion passed at this committee, we have below the relevant portions of the document as they relate to the CSSG. In an extraordinary move, the relevant parties in this document were unredacted by the Clerk of the Privy Council.
Items that are not relevant to the committee's motion requesting documents were redacted by the non-partisan professional public service. The redactions were for good reason. For example, many items were likely on the agenda of the cabinet meeting as matters of national security and sensitive procurement that would hurt the government's ability to act in the national interest, matters that if released could be damaging to Canada. I don't know about my opposition colleagues, but I am always in favour of protecting Canada's reputation and national security before anything else, Mr. Chair.
These redactions clearly strike the right balance between releasing relevant information and ensuring necessary cabinet confidences are protected.
Mr. Chair, turning to a very important document, the actual funding agreement between WE and the Government of Canada, which is on pages 364 to 380 of the PCO release, again we see that the professional public service redacted personal contact information. That is it. Nothing more. This entire funding agreement is public, not redacted, and available for public and parliamentary scrutiny.
I think it bears repeating that while we sit here discussing the redactions of private cellphone numbers, the second wave of COVID-19 continues to rage through parts of Canada. While our focus should be on assisting Canadians to get through the second wave and conducting pre-budget consultations to see how we can help to build back better, we are focusing on missing phone numbers, and again I remind my colleagues that there is a standing order pushing us, forcing us, to commence a pre-budget consultation.
Below is a Finance Canada proposal—not below; excuse me. Let me talk about a Finance Canada proposal on pages 394 to 401 in the PCO release. It discusses the implementation of the CSSG in full unredacted detail. The only information removed is again the private cellphone number of a public servant.
Next we have a very interesting document, Mr. Chair. I think my colleagues will find this quite interesting. We are looking here at page 404 of the PCO release, which is an invitation to a meeting to discuss the WE contract. The redaction is of a conference call login ID. These are all simple things that need to be redacted for privacy purposes.
From the PCO release, pages 417 to 419, we have cabinet confidence documents stamped “Limited distribution”, a document called a “Memorandum to the Prime Minister” seeking his decision regarding the CSSG and other matters.
As is noted in the motion from this committee, matters related to the CSSG were requested, and here we have them released. However, items unrelated to any confidences were redacted, as we expressly permitted by the motion that was agreed to by members of this committee.
Next there is a very interesting email in the PCO release on pages 426 to 427, an email from Ms. Rosanne MacKay at PCO to one of her colleagues, Alain Beaudoin. The topic is a cabinet meeting note from the Prime Minister. It's not unusual whatsoever. The redaction, again, is a public servant's cellphone number. There's a pattern here, Mr. Chair.
Let's take a look at other pages, 428 to 432, from PCO. Again, we have a document with a conference call ID redacted, an item that is clearly not related to the CSSG. These items were redacted by the professional and non-partisan public service.
Below we have another release that I'd like to talk about, further to my comments, on pages to 433 to 434. Again, what is my opposition colleague's complaint? It is a public servant's cellphone number. What exactly is the opposition hoping to find with the cellphone number of public servants?
Another redacted page in the PCO release is page 456. Mr. Poilievre seems to take issue with a redaction on this page. I see that he's present at the meeting, or at least his screen is on, but he's not there to hear this. In any case, I'll continue by saying that we're looking at an email among public servants who are involved in the CSSG file. I'm sure colleagues on the other side would really decipher this email if they wanted to. I'll give them a hint. The email is of a private citizen.
There are more examples. Just for the information of Canadians watching, we are focused on getting you through this pandemic. That is our obligation now, and I think that will come to define what we do as parliamentarians in the weeks and months ahead. I hope that this committee is allowed to engage in that work. Unfortunately, we continue to see opposition colleagues focused on cellphone numbers of professional public servants.
Here's more from the PCO release. On pages 491 to 495, we have an email from Mr. Kielburger to Ms. Fox at PCO. The entire content and attached information from Mr. Kielburger are included. There are no redactions on content, other than the names of private citizens and personal contact information, which is not at all relevant.
Now let's turn our attention to the documents provided by the Department of Finance. I'll add that they've done an amazing job. They came to committee time and again in the previous session to answer committee members' questions about the pandemic, and I'm sure that will continue if this committee is allowed to do its work.
On pages 1 to 3 of the release, once again, all content related to the CSSG is present. The only redactions relate to third parties not associated with the program. Let's take a look at pages 51 to 54 of the Department of Finance release. We're looking at an email between Ms. Kovacevic from the Department of Finance and minister's staff. The content is all here, all visible for public and parliamentary scrutiny. The only redactions present are of cellphone numbers, information that is not relevant and should not be in the public realm.
In keeping with my opposition colleagues' predisposition to light their hair on fire, if I could put it that way, over what they call unreasonable redactions, let's turn our attention to page 189 of the Department of Finance release. We have a meeting invitation, with all information visible. The redactions are a conference call ID. I'd love to hear my opposition colleagues explain why this redaction is at all inappropriate. The redaction was completed by the non-partisan and professional public service, who, as I have mentioned throughout my remarks here, were following all relevant guidelines to ensure that the documents conformed with the committee's motion, which states that redaction of private information is permitted.
Now let's look at page 190 of the Department of Finance release. This same email from Craig Kielburger to then Minister Morneau was also part of the WE documents submission that was received by this committee. In that email, we see the same email with all information present. As we see there, the information had nothing at all to do with the CSSG and thus had no relevance to the motion of this committee.
On page 216 of the Department of Finance release, there's an email from Ms. Marquez at WE to officials in the public service who were responsible for the CSSG. The only redactions present are of personal information of Ms. Marquez.
Again, on pages 222 to 223 of the Department of Finance release, we have all content of the email between Ms. Marquez and relevant department officials fully visible. What could the redactions be that my opposition colleagues are up in arms about? They are an email address and contact information for Ms. Marquez. This is not exactly anything shocking.
We're looking now at page 224 of the Department of Finance document. We have here a meeting invitation from Ms. Kovacevic to a minister's office staff member. All content is present. What redactions are Mr. Poilievre and the Conservatives taking issue with? These were a conference ID and Ms. Kovacevic's cellphone number. We can go on and on.
There's a similar story on page 226. Again, the only redaction present is a conference call ID. All content as well as the names and emails of relevant officials are present for Canadians and the opposition to see.
I will certainly be accused by some members of the committee, some of whom are smiling at me right now, of sounding like a broken record, but it bears emphasis that when we're looking at the Department of Finance release, we continue to see patterns. All content of this agenda and the notes for a meeting between members of the PCO, PMO, ESDC and the Department of Finance are included.
This is a cabinet confidence document, Mr. Chair, and it's been released for review—
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll just interrupt you again, Mr. Fragiskatos, on relevance. At this point, the information you seem to be providing to the committee is on the issue of redactions, which, in my view, is more aligned with what the main motion states. The subamendment we're discussing now is about the issue of providing more information, not less. I again remind you of relevance. I believe your comments are very relevant to the main motion, but I am questioning considerably whether they are relevant to the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Fragiskatos, the floor is yours.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, isn't it relevant to the need for the clerk to be able to compare the documents? What he's providing now gives the opportunity for that work to actually happen.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Just let me have a look at my rough notes on the subamendment, which mainly relates to transmittal letters.
Yes, you are talking about comparing documents, so go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you. I was just taking a water break there, Mr. Chair. I will continue.
I was speaking specifically about the Department of Finance release, as I said before. All content of this agenda and notes from a meeting of members of PCO, PMO, ESDC and the Department of Finance, all this content in terms of meetings, is included. This is a cabinet confidence document, Mr. Chair. It's been released for review, with all information related to the CSSG visible.
The redactions that we find here are a conference call ID number. Again, there's another pattern here, Mr. Chair. We could be conducting pre-budget consultations. Instead we're sitting here and debating the redaction of a conference call ID, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to add to the context. I'm just trying to, as Mr. Gerretsen said, put some more meat on the bones so that we can have a full understanding of what's at stake with the amendment to the amendment we are debating.
I'd much rather be debating getting help out the door for Canadians in need, Canadians looking to pay rent, Canadian small business owners, Canadians looking to secure themselves and their families. Just yesterday, Mr. Chair, I met with Meetings Mean Business Canada, a business having an enormously tough time. I would love to hear them at committee. Unfortunately, we cannot do that.
Let's take a look at an email exchange and the comments.
There's not that much more, Mr. Chair. I'm almost through.
Let's take a look at an email exchange between Ms. Kovacevic and the minister's office staff and department officials. In this chain, we find all the information in the body of the email present. Again, though, we have redactions of private cellphone numbers. This is information that does not need to be in the public domain; therefore, our non-partisan public service removed it, quite understandably, as per the terms of the motion voted on by the members of this committee.
Let's take a look now—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll just interrupt for a second, Mr. Fragiskatos.
Mr. Julian, am I correct that you don't have a point of order but you want on the speaking list? Okay, great.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
He'll be able to speak soon, Mr. Chair. As I said, I'll be wrapping up shortly.
Let's take a look at an email from Ms. Wernick to officials across the public service, including PCO and the Department of Finance, on pages 326 to 330 of the Department of Finance release. The redactions that the opposition is taking issue with include Ms. Kovacevic's cellphone number. It really is absurd here, Mr. Chair.
On pages 411 to 426 of the Department of Finance release, we seem to be looking at a decision document of some kind. On pages 411 to 426, again, what you'll notice here is that all the information relevant to the CSSG is unredacted and present for everyone to see. The redactions are unrelated cabinet confidences, as determined by the non-partisan and professional public service. As was expressly permitted for in the motion from this committee, all cabinet confidences that are related to CSSG would be released, but unrelated information was to be redacted, and it was.
There's nothing too complex here, Mr. Chair. It's not rocket science. It's already a rare occurrence for cabinet confidences of a sitting government to be released. The clerk took the extraordinary step of releasing all information as it related to the CSSG, while also maintaining protection of necessary and unrelated cabinet confidences. Everything present here has been done in the spirit of that promise and while respecting the committee's motion for information.
I'll conclude in a moment, but let me look at two more examples of broad redactions. These are the famous blacked-out pages that Mr. Poilievre wanted to bring to the attention of the country, again at a time when the country was focused on COVID-19 and not the musings of, with all due respect, Mr. Poilievre. Beginning on page 219 of the PCO release, we have a summary of a full cabinet meeting. The discussion could have been related to vaccines, PPE procurement, national security or other matters. A cabinet document such as this is rarely, if ever, made public. Cabinet confidences unrelated to the Canada student services grant are redacted, as per the terms of the motion adopted at the committee. In keeping with the spirit of the FINA motion, CSSG items are, however, entirely visible.
As a second example, on page 348 of the PCO release, we have a second cabinet note that is redacted. This is the later cabinet meeting in May of 2020. CSSG implementation was discussed and is unredacted, as ordered by the finance committee motion and as agreed to by the Clerk of the Privy Council. However, the rest of the information is redacted, as it falls under cabinet confidence. We do not know what the topics of discussion were here. There could have been talks related to national security issues or legal discussions with solicitor-client privilege, protected as such. There could have been discussions related to further PPE and vaccine procurement that, if public, would have put our competitiveness at risk.
To sum up, Mr. Chair, I think I've demonstrated here—and I'll admit I was exhaustive, but again, we have to put everything into proper context—that the redactions the opposition have been turning into political theatre are in fact in line with the motion they proposed at this very committee.
Mr. Chair, I'll now turn to you. I know that there are other speakers on the list. I'm glad to put this on the record, where it needs to be.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
The next two speakers are Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Julian, in that order. They're the only ones on my list until we vote on the amendment to the amendment.
Look, we've been at this for five hours and 15 minutes. I'm going to suspend for 10 minutes. I have to make my own coffee here—I'm in isolation—and take a washroom break, so take 10 minutes to stretch your legs. We'll come back on at 26 minutes after the hour.
The meeting is suspended.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, how are we doing for members coming back on?
I see Ms. Jansen, Mr. Falk, Mr. Fraser, Ms. Vecchio. She is waving both hands there. I'll tell you, instant coffee isn't as good as Starbucks, but it'll do.
Ms. Dzerowicz, you are on next on, if you are back. Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Julian are next.
All right, we have quorum. We are ready to go. Keep in mind that we are on the subamendment. Thanks for the 10-minute break. I needed that.
We'll turn to you, Ms. Dzerowicz, on the subamendment.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I also want to say a huge thanks to you, Mr. Chair, and to everyone, for the 10-minute break.
I too am going to go through a fairly detailed speech. It's not quite as long as my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos's, but I can assure you, Mr. Chair, it is related to the subamendment. It highlights the issues that we have to look at in the reconciliation of any discrepancies, and why it's important for us to have analysis from the clerk to compare the two versions we've been talking about.
I'm going to continue from where my colleague Mr. Fraser left off by providing a detailed examination of the package of the documents provided by ESDC. The transmittal letters read into the record by Mr. Fraser provide us with some good context. I'm going to be providing a few more examples of why it was very good context. I'm going to use the page numbers that were stamped on the documents, as they are the only indicators I have from the packages provided to the committee today. Again, this is all related to the ESDC documents. I'm going to start with pages 159 and 161.
At the very top right of the page a designation reads “secret”, and then there's another designation that reads “confidence of the Queen's Privy Council”. These are key designations that one would find in a document with cabinet confidences. Confidences of the Queen's Privy Council are defined in the following way:
Cabinet ministers are collectively responsible for all actions taken by the Cabinet and must publicly support all Cabinet decisions. In order to reach final decisions, ministers must be able to express their views freely during the discussions held in Cabinet. To allow the exchange of views to be disclosed publicly would result in the erosion of the collective responsibility of ministers. As a result, the collective decision-making process has traditionally been protected by the rule of confidentiality, which upholds the principle of collective responsibility and enables ministers to engage in full and frank discussions necessary for the effective functioning of a Cabinet system.
The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that cabinet confidentiality is essential to good government. In the decision Babcock v. Canada, 2002, SCC 57, at paragraph 18 the court explained the reasons for this: The process of democratic governance works best when Cabinet members charged with government policy and decision-making are free to express themselves around the Cabinet table unreservedly.
To preserve this rule of confidentiality, subsection 70(1) of the Privacy Act—and from hereon in I'm going be referring to the Privacy Act as “the act”—provides:This Act does not apply to confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
For convenience, in the following, “material confidences” will be used to refer to confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. Matters classified as secret are considered secret because their release would cause serious injury to the national interest, yet here we see that one of those essential confidences was redacted with only a conference call ID redacted. Clearly, the government and public service have been proactive in releasing as much information as possible, even information that's typically closely held and privileged to allow for the proper and effective management of government.
Maybe I'll pause for one second. I think that sometimes when we us lingo for who's doing the redacting—I know it's been mentioned a few times, but it's always been said that you have to repeat things six or seven times for it to stick in someone's mind—the redactions were done by our independent civil servants and under very strict rules. These are rules that have been followed for years. They were not new rules that were created for these documents. I want to remind all Canadians who might listening that this was done by independent civil servants to decide what should be redacted, what should not be included.
I'll provide some more information about what we continue to.... I want to highlight a few more redactions.
If we look to pages 414 to 429, you will see an email between relevant public servants responsible for the CSSG program. For those who have forgotten, CSSG is the Canada student service grant program, which WE had originally been awarded to deliver by ESDC. The only redactions we see here are of personal information and unrelated cabinet confidences, which were permitted under the FINA motion. However, our government was forthright. All information as it relates to the CSSG is here in plain sight. The entirely blacked-out pages that Mr. Poilievre has referenced several times are nowhere to be found. I want to make sure I point that out.
On pages 544 to 545, if we look at those pages of the ESDC release, we once again see redacted phone numbers. The only redactions we have found on these particular pages is in reference to a conference call ID.
On page 621, again we show redactions of conference call access information, which, Mr. Chair, is very reasonable. These are active conference call lines, likely used by by Ms. Wernick or the minister's staff. There's no reason that the public should have access to it, for any reason. It is a security issue.
Chair, if we look at pages 622 to 628 of the ESDC release—and if you had it in front of you, you would see on the top right corner that this document is marked “secret”. For those Canadians who are following from home, Treasury Board Secretariat and our security services count any information that could cause serious injury to the national interest as secret information. I'm sure Canadians can understand that cabinet confidences are information critical to the national interest and government decision-making. They are, rightly, never disclosed lightly, yet here in this document we have a prime example of the level of transparency our government went to in order to ensure that documents related to CSSG were released to parliamentarians.
Where we do see redactions in these secret cabinet confidence documents, they are for information unrelated to our motion, and which are clearly in the critical national interest and therefore should remain protected. Our non-partisan public service went about ensuring that the national interest was respected.
We turn to pages 631 to 638. As mentioned earlier on, Mr. Chair, there are reasons why we're marking many of our documents secret or at a higher classification and why they're so closely guarded. I want to provide an example where the non-partisan public service did make some redactions.
Here we are looking at pages 631 to 638 of this ESDC release. Colleagues will note that it's only one page. This is due to the fact that the public service redacted the section due to relevance and to protect cabinet confidences, which is in our national interest.
I know, Mr. Chair, that my opposition colleagues sometimes will think that we have a negative intent when those redactions are done by our independent civil servants. I do think they've been very responsible. I think they've done their best to try to disclose as much information while honouring secret or non-disclosable information, as per how I've defined it earlier on when I started the presentation.
If we turn to pages 888 to 889, the only thing that's redacted here is a private cellphone number of public servant.
Again, if we turn to pages 958 to 966, it looks to be a cabinet document to discuss the implementation of the CSSG. Again, these are not the types of documents that, on average, are made public. In respect of the motion we have, it is almost entirely unredacted, with unrelated personal information and cabinet confidences removed.
If we turn to pages 975 to 979 from the ESDC release, we see minimal redactions. Only personal information was removed; 95% of all these pages are visible for anyone to read.
On pages 1056 to 1057, here we have an email from Ms. Wernick to several other officials. Clearly, all items are related to CSSG. They are unredacted. They're visible. At the time our government was busy delivering a number of programs to help Canadians through the pandemic. These redactions are likely discussions around those programs.
If you were able to turn to this and look at pages 1092 to 1098, this is an example of what a complete page redaction looks like.
As you could see from some of my previous examples, complete page removals like this are rare and are directly related to cabinet confidences, which, as the original FINA motion stated, were expressly excluded. Again, these pages were removed by the professional non-partisan public service, who were carrying out their duty to protect cabinet confidences.
Here's also an interesting redaction, Mr. Chair. Somewhere between pages 1262 and 1275 of the ESDC release, we see that the non-partisan public service has redacted a document password. Of course, we do that for security reasons, and for very valid reasons.
On pages 1784 to 1788, you'll see that there is communication between Ms. Wernick and several department officials, with minimal sections removed due to cabinet confidence, which is, again, expressly permitted under the FINA motion.
When we look to pages 1959 to 1960, we're looking at an email from Ms. Wernick to Ms. Shannon at PCO. We see that over 95% of the email is visible, with one minor redaction due to the cabinet confidence. As we've mentioned, that is completely allowable.
Let me see if I can give you a few more examples, and then I want to wrap up with a couple of comments.
On pages 2176 to 2181, we're looking at an email from the deputy minister at ESDC. We see a majority of the information is included as it relates to CSSG, but again, any cabinet confidence or private information is removed.
If we look at page 2191, we see it's an email from Minister Qualtrough to her deputy minister. We see there's no redaction other than the minister's private email address. Typically these types of correspondence are kept in confidence, but it was waived as it relates to CSSG and is here for all of us to see.
I think we can see from these examples that our public service did its very best to try to put out as much information as possible, as long as we were honouring anything that might be deemed a cabinet confidence or part of cabinet discussions, as long as we were honouring any secret information like telephone numbers or any personal details that might be completely irrelevant to the CSSG contract, to the CSSG program and to WE being selected to deliver the CSSG contract.
I'm trying to see if there is anything else that's relevant, other than telephone numbers being redacted and other bits of information. Largely, I have about another 10 pages where I could say, well, for the most part we haven't redacted the information. We've done our very best to try to provide information, or the civil servants tried to make sure that as much information was going out...as per the instructions of the July 7 motion.
I'm going to end with probably one more comment, Mr. Chair. One thing that I think we might have forgotten is that when our Prime Minister made the announcement that there was going to be a prorogation of government, I think he—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I have a point of order. Is that relevant right now to the subamendment we're discussing?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Absolutely, it is. If you'll just wait for me to complete my sentence, you'll hear it.