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.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
If I understand correctly, Mr. Chair, Mr. Julian is—
Liberal
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
There is an issue of relevance here. Straying occasionally is quite different from devoting an entire speech to something that is not relevant to what is before the committee.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
If that's the case, Mr. Chair, and I accept that from Mr. Julian, I would love for him to tell me what the official amount of time is. He said 20 seconds. Is that written down somewhere, or is that his anecdotal perspective? Or is that how long it takes him to stray? I guess as long as Mr. Julian can stray for 20 seconds....
Sorry, Mr. Chair, but your microphone is way up. I can't hear you trying to interrupt.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You've had quite a bit of time to rebut the remarks of Mr. Julian, and I think that's fair ball. If we could get back to the amendment and why you are proposing it and supporting it, that would be great.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Well, I didn't get to finish it. I am not as skilled as Mr. Julian. I haven't had the years of experience he has had to be able to summarize thoughts in 20 seconds or less. I apologize if it takes me longer to do that. I'm not as skilled a politician as he is.
I don't think it's appropriate for Mr. Julian to set arbitrarily time limits for how long one is able to stray off topic. Either you're allowed to, or you're not allowed to. Mr. Julian was allowed to, but I guess it was only 20 seconds, so he was okay. Now I'm trying to address what he said, and I'm being called out of order by him for doing that. I take exception to that, Mr. Chair.
I'll leave it at that, and I'll turn the floor back over to you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's good, Mr. Gerretsen.
Mr. Julian may not be able to set time limits, but as chair, I can, so let's get back to relevance.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We have Ms. Dzerowicz and then Mr. Fraser.
We're on the amendment to the amendment; keep that in mind.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Yes, thank you. One can get lost in all these, yes.
The reason I support the amendment is that it will ensure that the package of documents we have been provided a link to is complete and that the transmittal letters are included, and that is a fundamental reason I am supporting the motion of my colleague Mr. Gerretsen.
I also want to point out that perhaps if there is some question as to whether the documents were redacted properly, I think the committee should get to hear from the public servants who did the redactions and from the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel, because right now I think we have to ensure that due process is provided to them. If after the committee has heard from these witnesses it is still not satisfied, then it can take whatever action it deems necessary, but at least we will have afforded due process to allow those who redacted these documents to speak to them.
I would also point to some remarks that Minister Rodriguez's parliamentary assistant Kevin Lamoureux made in the House in September.
He said the following:
...I want to make it clear that when the finance committee restarts on October 8 or 9, if it readopts the motion and is not satisfied with the way the government has provided documents to the committee, the government is prepared to work in good faith with the committee to address any concerns that it may have.
I also want to point out again what the Harper Conservative government said in 2010 in response to the 22nd report of the public accounts committee. It's a government where Mr. Poilievre and indeed a number of MPs currently at this meeting served as MPs.
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.
Those are my comments so far, Mr. Chair, and that will feed over to Mr. Fraser, who was after me, I believe.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mrs. Jansen, did you have your hand up, or were you just giving a wave?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll do my best to speak to the subamendment that's on the table, which really deals with the issue of the extent to which the full disclosure that the government provided should be part of the evidentiary record going forward. I would suggest that if we're going to proceed with any of the motions on the floor, whether we're dealing with the main motion, the amendment or the subamendment, the very least the professional public service is owed is the opportunity to explain why they've made the redactions they've made, before this committee embarks on a quest to find that their redaction of those documents constitutes a violation of the privileges held by members of this committee.
To maybe lead with the point, effectively what's going on here right now with respect to the subamendment is that those who have indicated their opposition to it have more or less said they want to ensure that the evidentiary record does not include the government's explanation as to its redactions. They instead want to find that those redactions constitute privilege and make sure we bury the evidence so we can't hear the government on why they may have done what they've done in terms of the document disclosure.
I don't think that's the right approach.
Ms. Dzerowicz actually quoted part of Kevin Lamoureux's remarks in the House when this made it to the floor previously. With respect, I believe Mr. Julian also made the point that there's obviously a breach of privilege. The Speaker of the House of Commons found that he could not find a prima facie case of privilege. I would therefore dispute the notion that it constituted one, notwithstanding his misplaced confidence.
In his remarks in the chamber, Mr. Lamoureux said the following:
The member argues that the government did not respect the finance committee's motion, while at the same time acknowledges that the government provided the requested documents to the clerk of the committee on August 8, 2020. It was the opposition parties who wanted the law clerk to review these documents for the purposes of additional redactions. Liberal members on the committee agreed to the motion. I want to be clear: The government respected the finance committee's motion and provided the documents on time. The government also provided exactly the information that the committee requested in its motion. The only things excluded were matters of cabinet confidence and national security, which the committee spelled out in the motion.
In preparing the documents in response to the committee motion, public servants respected their statutory obligations under law. The government provided the documents, which were 5,600 pages, on the date requested by the committee. Due to the time needed for the law clerk to do his work, Parliament was prorogued before they were properly given to the committee. As a result, not only did the finance committee cease to exist with prorogation, but the committee did not fully have these documents. It is therefore difficult for the opposition to argue that the government did not comply with the committee's motion, when they were not in a position to take such a determination since they did not have the formal law clerk-approved documents.
Then the portion that Ms. Dzerowicz read out—and this is important, given the nature of the allegation of a violation of privilege—was this:
...I want to make it clear that when the finance committee restarts on October 8 or 9, if it readopts the motion and is not satisfied with the way the government has provided documents to the committee, the government is prepared to work in good faith with the committee to address any concerns that it may have.
There has been an offer made to work with members of the committee. I would suggest that this is a far cry from a violation of privilege.
What I want to draw your attention to, though—and this is really the crux of the subamendment—is whether you're going to include all of the evidence, including specifically the government's explanation as to why certain redactions have been made. I don't understand how someone could oppose the inclusion of the explanation by the government of the very thing that has been alleged to constitute a violation of privilege.
If I take a look at some of the letters that the public servants prepared in response to the committee's motion, we can start with the letter from the Clerk of the Privy Council, which is specifically the kind of document that I now understand the opposition does not want to form part of the evidentiary record going forward.
In a letter on August 7 to David Gagnon, who was the clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance at the time, the Clerk of the Privy Council wrote:
Dear Mr. Gagnon,
I am pleased to provide records from the Privy Council Office (PCO) that were requested under the motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance (“the committee”) on July 7, 2020 in relation to the committee's study on the WE Charity and the Canada Student Service Grant....
I am also pleased to provide information related to the undertakings that I agreed to at my appearance before the committee on July 21, 2020 which were as follows:
1. A detailed timeline of events.
Attached at Annex 2 is a timeline describing PCO's knowledge of and involvement with the file.
2. A full list of organizations that were consulted on program development.
On Friday July 24, 2020, the Department of Employment and Social Development (ESDC) provided the Committee with a list of the national coalition member organizations of the Canada Service Corps (CSC) who ESDC spoke with in March and April of 2020.
I am told that on April 9, 2020, Department of Finance officials were provided with a report on stakeholder outreach regarding support for students during the COVID-19 context....
3. PCO media monitoring from the dates when Margaret and Alexandre Trudeau had speaking engagements for WE Charity.
I can confirm that PCO Media Monitoring does not have any media content of the public appearances for either Margaret Trudeau or Alexandre Trudeau.
The PCO media centre monitors coverage of the Government of Canada priorities, programs and services and does not monitor media coverage related to the relatives of the Prime Minister or their public appearances.
4. All communications between PMO staff and PCO staff; the Finance Minister's Office and PCO; and the Finance Minister's Office and the Finance Department relating to WE charity contribution agreement and the CSSG
These communications are included in Annex 1 and in the package from the Department of Finance.
5. Names of participants....
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I have a point of order.
Are we now discussing the documents? I'm confused. If we can just vote on the amendment, we could dispense with this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think Mr. Fraser is making the point through the letter of why that is important evidence as related to Mr. Gerretsen's subamendment, so it is relevant.
Mr. Fraser, go ahead.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That is precisely why I'm going through some of this evidence. I am trying my best to highlight the context the government did provide, which the opposition now seems intent to exclude from consideration as we move forward.
I forget precisely where I was. I believe I was just picking up on number five:
5. Names of participants, notes, and recording of mid-April meetings between Rachel Wernick, Michelle Kovacevic (and whether PCO personnel were aware of the meeting taking place and participated)
I am told that a teleconference between officials with the Department of Finance and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) was held on the evening of April 18, 2020.
He provides a list of the officials who took part. I'll spare you from listing all of their names. He mentions near the end that:
No officials from PCO participated in the call or were aware of the meeting.
There is no recording of the meeting.
Meeting notes that were taken by Rachel Wernick in an e-mail thread about setting up the call are attached at Annex 4.
6. Due diligence analysis of any financial scrutiny undertaken with regard to the WE charity during this process.
Attached at Annex 5, you will find the detailed explanation prepared by ESDC of the controls embedded in the contribution agreement to ensure stewardship and appropriate use of funds, as well as a brief overview of the typical process used to evaluate projects and recipients.
Further information relating to due diligence that was done by officials in relation to the Canada Student Service Grant is provided in Annex 1 and in the packages that other relevant departments are providing to this committee.
7. The full text of contribution agreement
This document was provided to the Committee by ESDC on Friday July 24, 2020.
The letter goes on. The final page of this particular letter says:
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.
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 constitute cabinet confidences is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request.
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 the public interest and 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 Mark Kielburger. 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.
Similarly, because I believe that it is in the public interest to do so, I am prepared to issue a limited waiver of solicitor client privilege as it relates to the information that is being provided by departments in response to this motion and my undertakings.
Lastly, I wish to draw the committee's attention to a Note to File, prepared by Christiane Fox, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs at the Privy Council Office. In that Note to File, Ms. Fox provides a clarification regarding references in two email exchanges (Annex 6).
I trust that the Committee will find the above explanations helpful in its consideration of the enclosed materials.
Sincerely,
Ian Shugart
Clerk of the Privy Council Office
The final portion of the letter that I read said, “I trust that the Committee will find the above explanations helpful in its consideration of the enclosed materials.” I am sure Mr. Shugart will be interested to hear that the committee not only is seemingly not finding them helpful, on the opposition side, but is actively trying to exclude that explanation from the evidentiary record going forward.
Perhaps the transmittal letters that provide context for these documents that are now the subject of the motion are the most important documents among those that were disclosed.
As you can see from the Clerk of the Privy Council's letter, more information was actually provided than was requested by the committee. Matters that constitute cabinet confidence were provided, as well as other information. In fact, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that the transmittal letters weren't necessarily requested by the committee, but certainly they have become relevant because they provide context to the rest of the documents that we're discussing, and we shouldn't be trying to hide the government's public explanation of the redactions that, in fact, took place.
The government, frankly, went above and beyond what was required in responding to what the committee asked for. It's not just Mr. Shugart who had a letter that provides a similar kind of context. In fact, the different departments have done something very similar.
If we actually look at the letter from the deputy minister of finance, for which I don't have the date before me—I believe it was also on the same day—I will point out the importance of this particular letter.
He says, “Dear Mr. Gagnon”—again, sent to the clerk—
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I'm not one to interrupt, but I don't see Mr. Poilievre on screen again. He hasn't been on screen for a while. Is he all right? Is everything okay? Is something wrong?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't believe that is a point of order.
We'll go back to you, Mr. Fraser.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Sure. I'm back to the deputy minister of finance's transmittal letter, which is being sought to be excluded from the evidentiary record going forward. The deputy minister wrote to Mr. Gagnon, who was then the clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance:
Dear Mr. Gagnon:
On behalf of the Department of Finance, I am transmitting the attached documents to you in response to the motion adopted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on July 7, 2020....
He copied the text of the motion before the committee in that letter:
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—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Fraser, I hate to interrupt you, but the translators are having a little difficulty with the speed you are going at, so if you could just slow down a smidgen....