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.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Okay, great, because I'd like to hear a ruling on that.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I would like to know whether or not bathroom breaks are all right if we turn off the video.
October 15th, 2020 / 3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes, Ms. Jansen, for a very short time.... When I need a bathroom break we're going to suspend for three minutes.
In any event, on Mr. Gerretsen's point, I certainly would prefer if people would leave their cameras on so that we can see that the members are present. When we're at an official committee meeting in person in Ottawa, the people are there, and if they leave the room it's quite easy to see who's there and who's not. All I see in some cases—in this case—is that the names are up, but I really don't know if they're present or not.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If the pictures on the screen drop below what is needed for quorum, then—
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
—the meeting would have to stop.
For clarity on that point of order, Mr. Chair, if, for example, just hypothetically speaking, Mr. Poilievre was not on the screen, and, hypothetically speaking, all the Liberal members dropped off, then you wouldn't have quorum and you'd have to end the meeting. Is that correct?
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Okay, I just wanted to check on that. Thank you.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I had just finished going through some of the information included in the letter from the deputy minister of finance that the amendment to the main motion would exclude and that is the subject of the subamendment.
The next letter that was submitted in the government's disclosure package, which would not be adopted before this committee under current circumstances, came from the deputy minister of innovation, science and economic development. It was sent to Mr. Gagnon. Perhaps I'll spare some committee members the pain of hearing this next part again, which is repetitious. It began with copying and pasting the language from our July 7, 2020, motion, which I previously read into the record. Ms. Jansen, I'll spare you a few minutes of the voice you've indicated you enjoy so much.
In any event, after the copy of the motion, the text of the letter reads:
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has retrieved all records from within the Department that respond to the Committee’s motion. You will find the results of that search enclosed for the Committee’s consideration.
It should be noted, however, that in the preparation of this package, care was taken to obtain consent to disclose certain personal information from exempt staff referenced in the material and, in collaboration with other government departments, the staff from WE Charity in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act.
In addition, 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 information on the Canada Student Service Grant that was a Cabinet confidence 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. Information not related to the Canada Student Service Grant that constitutes a Cabinet confidence is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request.
This came from Simon Kennedy. ISED, too, made the point that they were providing disclosure in accordance with what the committee had asked. They explained, in instances where there was differentiation, why that may not be the case, and, in fact, explained that documents that would otherwise have been subjected to cabinet confidences were nevertheless disclosed.
If we look at the letter from the secretary of the Treasury Board, also sent to Mr. Gagnon, it started out similarly. It reads:
In response to the motion adopted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance (FINA) on July 7, 2020 concerning any contracts concluded with We Charity and Me to We, all briefing notes, memos and emails, including the contribution agreement between the government and the organization, 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, please find enclosed bilingual copies of Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat records.
It should be noted, that in the preparation of this package, care was taken to obtain consent to disclose certain personal information from relevant exempt staff referenced in the material.
Similar to the other letters, this one from the Treasury Board indicates:
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 constitutes Cabinet confidences is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request.
This same principled approach was also applied to the second enclosed package of TBS documents, which is provided in support of the commitment by the Clerk of the Privy Council to provide additional information on due diligence on the Canada Student Service Grant subsequent to his appearance on July 21, 2020. Additionally, because I believe that it is in the public interest to do so, this package includes information being made available as a result of a limited waiver of solicitor client privilege as it relates to the information that is being provided by Employment and Social Development Canada.
While many TBS employees continue to work virtually, guided by public health measures and focused on curbing the spread of COVID-19, these two packages provide, to the best of my knowledge, as of August 7, 2020, the TBS documents in response to the above-noted request for production of papers and due diligence line of inquiry.
We're seeing a pattern here. One is that these transmittal letters, which are the subject of the subamendment, provide the necessary context. They refer to the committee's request for information from the different government departments.
These transmittal letters, which would not be part of the evidentiary record going forward under the proposed motion or the proposed amendment to the main motion, nevertheless continue to drive home the point that we have made redactions in accordance with what the committee has requested and in fact, particularly when it comes to cabinet confidences, we have nevertheless disclosed material that would ordinarily be subject to Crown privilege or cabinet confidence. There are various other departments as well, Mr. Chair.
I just finished with TBS. If we look at the letter from the deputy minister of ESDC and the senior ADM of ESDC and chief operating officer for Service Canada, as well as the senior associate deputy minister of diversity, inclusion and youth, that letter makes similar points. This evidence shouldn't be excluded from the record because it provides important context. They, too, wrote on August 8, to then clerk Mr. Gagnon of the Standing Committee on Finance.
They said:
Dear Mr. Gagnon: On behalf of Canadian Heritage and Employment and Social Development Canada, please find enclosed, electronically, all records, in the original language of drafting, requested under the Motion for production of papers related to the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) and the We Charity and Me to We, adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance...on July 7, 2020. Due to the significant volume of documents requiring translation, a partial package containing the translated records is here enclosed. Over 400 translators have been working on the documents for some time and we will provide the rest as soon as possible. As discussed during Committee testimony, Canadian Heritage, with support from Employment and Social Development Canada and Service Canada, are working diligently to ensure that students negatively affected by COVID-19 receive much-needed support as they seek to further their studies in a time of reduced employment opportunities. As you will see from the enclosed documents, the approach adopted by the Departments is to disclose as much information as possible within the scope of the Motion, to further the Committee's breadth and depth of understanding of the design and creation of the CSSG. 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....
I won't repeat that portion because it simply goes on to make the exact same point as the previous letters that in fact, because the committee requested national security and cabinet confidences be respected, the government nevertheless took the step in its redactions to make public certain measures that in these transmittal letters they've indicated their desire to keep public matters that would ordinarily be subjected to cabinet confidentiality.
The letter continued after that same paragraph we had seen before:
Recognizing the significant public interest we have included relevant personal information in the collection but not personal opinions, in accordance with s.37 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and s.8(2)(m) of the the Privacy Act. We have communicated this decision to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Similarly, because we believe that it is in the public interest to do so, we are prepared to issue a limited waiver of solicitor client privilege as it relates to the information that is being provided by Employment and Social Development Canada. The information enclosed consists of four parts: 1. The Contribution Agreement signed between the Government of Canada and the WE Charity Foundation; 2. A list containing the names of Government of Canada representatives who received a proposai from WE Charity for funding to deliver a 3-month youth summer service program and a 12-month youth entrepreneurship program for youth 16 to 29; 3. A set of documents that illustrate key moments in the design of the CSSG; and 4. A larger collection of communications, documents and meeting notes connected with the development and decision-making processes for the CSSG. ln addition to the request from the Committee, Canadian Heritage and Employment and Social Development Canada have also received a significant number of Access to Information requests related to the CSSG. Sorne of these requests go beyond the scope of the Committee's Motion. We will make the Committee aware of ATIP releases related to the CSSG as they occur. We trust that the Committee finds the enclosed material useful for its work.
That was signed by the deputy minister of ESDC, Graham Flack; the senior associate deputy minister of ESDC and chief operating officer for Service Canada, Lori MacDonald; and the senior associate deputy minister of diversity, inclusion and youth at Canadian Heritage, Gina Wilson.
As it's been made clear, Mr. Chair, by these transmittal letters following the adoption of the motion of the finance committee, our public service worked really hard to gather the relevant documents and provide the committee with literally more than 5,000 pages.
As has been noted, the motion adopted by the committee stipulated that matters of cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request, and that any redaction necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose 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 at the House of Commons. The exemptions were applied by our non-partisan public service. Deputies at ESDC stated in their transmittal letter, which is the subject of the subamendment, that the approach that was adopted was to disclose as much information as possible within the scope of the committee's motion. No exclusions were made on the grounds of national security.
The other subject about which the committee said, “government, we don't want documents from you” was on cabinet confidences. The government decided, nevertheless, where it was appropriate to waive cabinet confidences and disclose those documents, even though the committee never asked for them. A substantial amount of information that would normally be under cabinet confidence was, in fact, provided to the committee, information that would fall under cabinet confidence but was not related to the Canada student service grant and therefore—
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
On a point of order, is this not debate now? I don't know; he seems to be debating that this is all important—
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
On your point of order, no, I don't believe it is debate. I believe he is making the argument as to why these letters are relevant to the subamendment. I expect he's speaking in favour of the subamendment and why other members should agree with him and see these documents as important to be tabled.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Mr. Chair, may I comment on this point of order?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes, Mr. Samson.
While I'm on this point of order of Ms. Jansen's, I would say, to the benefit of the question raised by Mr. Gerretsen.... We all know that quorum is a majority, but what would happen, if I do not see a majority of members in person on my screen, is that I would have to suspend until such time as the members come back. It wouldn't be an adjournment; it would be a suspension until we again had quorum. So that point is cleared up.
Mr. Samson.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you, Chair.
On this point of order, which is really important, I want to thank Mr. Fraser for the important information he's providing the committee and Canadians. It's essential. That's why we want to make sure that all the information.... Those letters that he's making reference to are providing us with key information in this debate.
What I find quite amazing is that here the opposition is willing to limit the information that is provided on this subamendment, but with their initial motion they were complaining they didn't have all the information. I don't know where they're going. Either they want all the information so that we can take a decision or they don't want all the information. This subamendment—
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I believe you're straying into considerable debate there, Mr. Samson.
I will go back to Mr. Fraser, who had the floor.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As much as I admire my fellow Nova Scotian and colleague, that may be debate. Perhaps he'll want to jump into the debate when I wrap up.
To Ms. Jansen's point—
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will compliment Mr. Fraser and the person who prepared his presentation. I don't agree with it, but it is carefully prepared.
