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—