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.
October 15th, 2020 / 3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I was just going to point out that it's not a point of order.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I've now gotten compliments from the NDP, and from Ms. Jansen on the tone of my voice, and Mr. Fragiskatos jumped to my defence. If only we had a Green Party member here, and of course our representative from the Bloc, whom I don't see because it's darkened, but I'll wait; perhaps I'll receive one in French before the meeting is done.
Mr. Chair, look, I will wrap up here. To Ms. Jansen's point, this is very much debate, but this is debate on the subamendment, which I think is appropriate.
The crux of my point is this. The transmittal letters are the subject of this subamendment. As it stands, under the main motion or the proposed amendment, the transmittal letters and other documents that specifically explain why the government made the redactions it did are being sought to be excluded by members of the opposition. I think if this motion goes anywhere, it should include the government's explanation before this committee declares the government to have violated its privilege as a result of the redactions it has made.
Specifically, the motion before the committee, as I've repeated a number of times, as was pointed out, to address Mr. Julian's point, to the people who prepared my presentation...are the non-partisan public servants who've written those letters that are sought to be excluded from the committee's record right now. But the points made by each of those letters are largely these. The committee never asked for anything that was subject to cabinet confidence or that would compromise national security. To the extent that any redactions touched on cabinet confidence or national security, those are really not an issue for this committee. In fact, there were no redactions made on the basis of national security. We know that because the transmittal letters say so. The committee may not formally know that if they don't include the transmittal letters in the record.
The second category of documents that were not subject to a request by this committee is the category of cabinet confidences. Similarly, if the argument is that a failure to divulge cabinet confidence constitutes a violation of this committee's privilege, there would be no basis...and in fact I don't think that would be disputed. Nevertheless, the government actually did disclose material that would ordinarily be subject to cabinet confidence.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
As a point of order, are we not again entering into debate? The idea was that you would receive unredacted documents at the committee that would go to the law clerk to get redacted. That didn't happen. Now you're debating I don't know what.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I have a point of order, as well, and I would like to address that point of order.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll address the point of order. Was it Mr. Fraser who came in on the point of order? Then I'll go to Mr. Gerretsen. Then I'll tell you my thoughts.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
In fact, Mr. Chair, this is debate. I'm not speaking on a point of order. I'm speaking in the debate on the subamendment. I think my debate would be appropriate. I can't disagree with Ms. Jansen. It's very much debate.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I was going to point out the same thing. Mr. Fraser is not speaking to a point of order right now, Mr. Chair. He's speaking to the actual amendment to the amendment. I don't know where the confusion is, but it's debate.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I fully understand that. He is speaking to the subamendment and summing up his points.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I really am, I promise.
The final point is the other category of documents that would have been made subject to redactions by the law clerk. Anything that was redacted based on national security or cabinet confidence would properly be redacted because the committee never requested those documents.
The second grouping of categories were things like privacy, personal information. The committee has asked that the law clerk make those redactions. The independent civil service points out in their transmittal letters that certain committee members are trying to exclude from the record, that in fact they have certain obligations that they are required to adhere to, including those under the Privacy Act. They explained the process by which they made decisions as to when and whether they should redact those pieces of information. As far as I can tell, the redactions that would have been made under that heading relate to things like personal information on family members of people who may have been involved in some of the decision-making—personal phone numbers, email addresses—but not the contents of correspondence for people who had no say in this.
At the end of the day, my point on the subamendment is that if we're going to have this go anywhere, the transmittal letters give explicit direction as to what process the government implemented and what factors they considered when they were making those redactions. I think that's relevant to the work of this committee.
Thank you.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Sorry, I have no idea where we are now. Are we debating?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We are debating the subamendment, which is the amendment to the amendment. That's where we are at the moment on the transmittal letters.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay. I'm just hoping—because it's just going on and on and on—let's get to a vote. I think that would be awesome.
Thank you.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. Do I see any others on the list? Can we go to a vote?
I see Mr. Fragiskatos.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I know Ms. Jansen is anxious to go to a vote, but there are still matters that need to be put on the record in relation to the amendment to Mr. Kelly's initial amendment.
It's been a long day for all of us; forgive me if I read at a pace that is not a normal pace. I'm going to try to get through something that, as I said, needs to be put on the record here. I'm not intending to read slowly, Mr. Chair, but when you're staring at a screen for hours on end, your eyes are likely to play tricks on you. If not tricks, it's a painful experience to look at a screen for hours on end; let's put it that way.
In any case, Mr. Chair, colleagues, I want to offer all of you a bit of a deep dive on the documents that were provided to opposition parties and to detail how the redactions completely adhere to the motion that was tabled before this committee. I also want to point out that this work was undertaken by the world-class, non-partisan, professional public service we have, who have helped us in such incredible ways through the COVID-19 crisis, and well beyond that, in accordance with their various obligations.
Let me start by reflecting on the motion that was tabled before this committee, which reads as follows:
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;
These next points are particularly relevant here:
that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request; 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.
That was the motion. Let me return to the substance of my remarks.
This deep dive begins with the documents provided by the Privy Council Office.
As an example, Mr. Chair, let's start with page 49. I'm going to list pages, Mr. Chair, that might not align with what's been received most recently, but in any case, it doesn't take away anything from the substance of my remarks here.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Yes, it is, Mr. Chair, and I'll be making that argument throughout.
As I said, let's start with page 49 of the PCO document release. There are a number of programs listed that are unrelated to the Canada student service grant that have nothing to do with the motion at hand. The committee explicitly did not ask for this. However, in keeping with the motion, items related to the CSSG were released.
Next there's an email from Mr. Kielburger, which is on pages 78 to 79 of the PCO document release. It's from Mr. Kielburger to Ms. Christiane Fox at PCO. The only redaction present is a private citizen's email address; this is Mr. Kielburger's assistant. This is private information and has no relevance whatsoever to this process, per the terms of the motion at the committee.
Again, this is all about giving context, all about relating to the issues we are discussing, Mr. Chair, and I think a fulsome understanding of the wider context is—
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
On a point of order, I'm a wee bit confused again. Sorry.
I thought you didn't have the documents, but now you're reading from the documents. Is that correct?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
The member is a new member to the committee, Mr. Chair. That much is—