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—