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.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think, Mr. Poilievre, it's really not. I don't have to move to vote.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Motion to challenge the chair. Challenging the chair. I'm challenging your ruling.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Motion to challenge the chair. I'm challenging your ruling.
1:50 p.m.
An hon. member
On what? I don't know if there was a ruling to challenge.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Your ruling is that you can't move to a vote, and I'm challenging that.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I can't move to a vote until there's satisfaction among committee members to move to a vote.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I am going to ask the clerk and the analysts to meet for five minutes, come back with as best an answer as they can give us, then maybe we can get to the vote. I have no other choice but to do that.
Take five minutes, Evelyn and the analysts, to see when you can come back to us with.
The meeting is suspended for five minutes.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll come back to order.
Madam Clerk, have you a response to what we asked you to look into?
2:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes. In that link to the documents that were shared with the committee members are the documents that were sent from the department. They do not include the transfer letters, those were separate files, and the letter from the law clerk, but all the other documents that were transferred as part of the request are in that link.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I see two hands up. I first have Mr. Gerretsen and then Mr. Fraser.
Go ahead.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I would like to move an amendment to the amendment, Mr. Chair, in light of the fact that we heard this information.
My amendment to the amendment would be at the end and would read, “and further that the clerk of the committee do a complete analysis of the documents provided to the committee by the law clerk and compare them to that which was provided to members by the government.”
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I have it in French, and I can forward the French text as well to the clerk. Maybe my staff could do that right now.
I will read it again more slowly so everybody can take that in. This would be an amendment to the amendment, Mr. Chair, to follow what is currently proposed. It reads: “and further that the clerk of the committee do a complete analysis of the documents provided to the committee by the law clerk and compare them to that which was provided to members by the government.”
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I have to find the original motion.
I believe the amendment to the amendment is in order. We're on that. It has been moved.
Mr. Fraser.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair; and thank you to any staff involved with the comparison.
One of the things that's really important is that the transmittal letters in particular are included in the package of documents that will find its way for consideration by the committee.
You'll recall the original motion back in July that, again, gained support from both sides of the aisle, which said:
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, memos and emails...from senior officials prepared for or sent to any Minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any written correspondence and records of other correspondence with We Charity and Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the Committee no later than August 8, 2020;
This next part is key to the importance of the transmittal letters, and forgive my taking a bit of time to get there, but this piece is important:
that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request;
Before I read the rest of the motion, I think it's important for it to sink in that the government was not requested to give documents that touched on cabinet confidence or that compromised national security.
It went on to say:
and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.
I argued earlier in this meeting that it doesn't relieve the non-partisan public service of their obligations to comply. In any event, I'll set that argument aside for now.
The point here is that, for items that are not relevant to the committee or motion request for documents that were redacted by the professional public service, those redactions took place for good reasons. They may have involved items that were on the agenda of a cabinet meeting, the cabinet meetings in fact, perhaps, that the Prime Minister and his chief of staff testified to at the finance committee in the previous session; matters of national security and sensitive procurement that could hurt the government's ability to act in the national interest; or matters that, if released, could be damaging to Canada, which is frankly what we're trying to avoid the disclosure of under ordinary circumstances.
I am always in favour of protecting our national reputation and our national security before anything else and allowing government to make decisions knowing that they can have, in certain circumstances, confidential conversations.
In my view, the redactions that I've seen strike the right balance between releasing relevant information as the committee has requested and protecting cabinet confidence, which, again, this committee did expect would be respected.
In the Privy Council Office document release that the clerk circulated today, there is a synopsis of a cabinet meeting. Frankly, it's an extraordinary document, when you think of it, that would rarely be released. I don't think previous governments would have allowed that type of document disclosure of things that should be subject to cabinet confidence. The synopsis here of an entire cabinet meeting has been made public, though there are obviously items that are protected by cabinet confidence.
Items that related to the Canada student service grant were still disclosed. I don't know what other topics were discussed. There could be national security issues—we'll never know—and cabinet confidences that are not related to any of this ought to be protected for good public policy.
This was determined by the Clerk of the Privy Council, in reference to my point, in his transmittal letter specifically. These transmittal letters give context to the documents to explain precisely why certain things were redacted or not redacted.
Frankly, there are reasons that documents such as this are not normally public until long after a government's mandate has come to an end. Ensuring the confidence of cabinet deliberations is essential to peace, order and good government, which our colleagues often reflect upon publicly in their comments.
These confidences are essential to the operation of responsible government, yet in a rather extraordinary move the Clerk waived privilege on sections of this particular document as they related to cabinet discussion on the Canada student service grant. These confidences are amongst our country's most protected information. Here it is for everybody to read.
If opposition colleagues want to view documents that are subject to cabinet confidence, they should form government and be appointed to cabinet and they will have their access to cabinet confidences there, and frankly, I would defend their right to have those confidences, even in opposition.
Until then, Mr. Chair, the release of this relevant cabinet information as it relates to the Canada student service grant is going to have to suffice.
Through the PCO release, once again, what do we actually find redacted? It's a personal phone number of a staff member, an item that never would have been released in an access to information request. I think that kind of protection is important and necessary.
To conclude the point in support of the subamendment, the transmittal letters we now know were not included amongst a few other documents that were just referred to, and are not actually captured by the motion. It's difficult to imagine how we can determine the appropriateness of disclosures made by the government when we simply accept the documents but purposefully exclude the government's explanation as to why certain redactions may have been in place. As such, I would be supporting my colleague's subamendment that he's placed before the committee.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
Ms. Jansen is next on my list.
The amendment to the amendment is the issue we're on now. We'll have a vote on it, then get to the amended motion, or not, and then to the original motion.
We're on the amendment to the amendment.
Ms. Jansen.
October 15th, 2020 / 2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Yes, thank you.
I find it very, very interesting how we were talking about how very important it was. The Liberals wanted us to get moving on to the next most important item of business. Mr. Fraser is actually putting a motion forward that is going to ensure that it takes weeks for us to go forward, when we know that all of these documents are already public.
Regular Canadians are going to say, “This doesn't feel like openness and transparency to me.”
Again, as I say, it's going to take weeks. Can you imagine how long this is going to take?
The clerks have all been working hard and doing their job. We know they're very competent. We're very thankful for the work they do. This amendment as it stands just boggles the mind. This absolutely stands in the way of our getting anything done.
Just so you know, regular Canadians who don't talk lawyer-speak are going to be quite shocked at this amendment.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I will be supporting my colleague's amendment to the amendment to the original motion. I just wanted to respond to Ms. Jensen's comments.
Let Canadians be very clear. I put a motion on the table for us to begin pre-budget consultations. During an unprecedented pandemic, I can assure you that if there's anything that's wasting time, it is the original motion that was actually proposed by the opposition. It is not us.
If you can wave a magic wand, Ms. Jansen, and get us right back to the pre-budget consultation, I think that is where we're raring to go. We know that Canadians want to talk to us. Canadians want to share their ideas. We know that economists want to provide some advice on how we create a competitive environment in Canada.
How do we best restart the economy so that we can support our businesses moving forward?
How is it that we can make sure that we continue to support those industries that are most impacted: tourism, arts and culture, hospitality?
I can unequivocally tell you that it is not us who is wasting anybody's time. It is the original motion that was put before us. I will tell you that there is a motion that I read first. It's on the table. It's on pre-budget consultation. We were ready to start it at our last meeting.
Thank you.