Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Gerretsen.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I fully understand that. He is speaking to the subamendment and summing up his points.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Next on my list I have Ms. Jansen.

Go ahead, Ms. Jansen.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Sorry, I have no idea where we are now. Are we debating?

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Do I see any others on the list? Can we go to a vote?

I see Mr. Fragiskatos.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is relevant to the subamendment, is it?

[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—

[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?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

The member is a new member to the committee, Mr. Chair. That much is—

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

You are reading from the documents you said you didn't have before? Is that correct?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

No, I'm sorry, Ms. Jansen. You're misunderstanding. I'm not reading from the documents that you're raising here. I'm giving context to the entire discussion, so let me continue.

Let me turn your attention to pages 105 to 110 of the PCO release.

A number of programs listed are unrelated to the CSSG and have nothing to do with the motion at hand. The committee explicitly did not ask for this, but still, where relevant, if there was mention of the CSSG, it was disclosed. An example is on page 107. Documents like this are a prime example of the documents that Mr. Poilievre was waving around, as you remember, many weeks ago in what some have termed, quite correctly, a stunt at a press conference. Items requested by the committee were related to the Canada student service grant, and this cabinet confidence document, I might add, was released with all information related to the CSSG contained therein. The non-partisan professional public service redacted matters that were not related to the committee motion, which was not only to be expected but was also both appropriate and prudent.

Another example, Mr. Chair, is on pages 189-190 of the PCO release. We are looking at an email between Rachel Wernick at ESDC and Ms. Tara Shannon from PCO. As the motion expressly stated, unrelated cabinet confidences were removed. As well, Ms. Wernick's cellphone number was removed. I hope we can all agree it wouldn't be appropriate for that number to be public. That is absolutely vital. The more we push this, the more I worry that certain members of the committee might not take that into account, but I'll leave that aside. In fact, the motion that was passed by this committee requesting these documents asked for this type of redaction to be made.

Again, here on page 191 of the PCO release, we have another email between Ms. Wernick and Ms. Shannon. Again, only a cellphone number has been removed. Yet another example is on pages 192-193 of the PCO release. There's another redaction to protect the cellphone number. I think we can all agree that the removal of such information is reasonable. Again, this is all adding context to the discussion here at hand, Mr. Chair. I find it interesting that while the public is battling a second wave of COVID-19, my opposition colleagues are chasing down private cellphone numbers.

Let's look at pages 219-221 of the PCO document that was released. Frankly, this is a truly extraordinary document, a document that would rarely be released, a document that we would never have seen released under the Harper government. The synopsis of an entire cabinet meeting has been made public. Obviously, there are items protected by cabinet confidence; however, items related to the CSSG were still disclosed. Who knows what other topics were discussed? It could be national security issues. We don't know. It could be cabinet confidences that are unrelated to any of this and that should be protected. This is determined by the Clerk of the Privy Council and referenced in his transmittal letter.

Frankly, Chair, there are reasons that documents like this are not normally public until long after a government's mandates have ended, ensuring the confidence of cabinet deliberations essential to the peace, order and good governance of the country, which my colleagues across the aisle always talk about, I believe sincerely. Cabinet confidences are essential to responsible government, and in an extraordinary move the clerk waived privilege of the sections of this document as they related to the cabinet discussion on the CSSG. Cabinet confidences are among our country's most protected information, and here they are for everyone to read.

My opposition colleagues are not satisfied with only seeing the relevant information in question that they asked for in their motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I need to interrupt you for a minute, Mr. Fragiskatos. Are these documents that you're reading from—I can't quite tell—related to the subamendment that we're debating now, or more related to the main motion or the amendment to the main motion? I could clearly tell that what Mr. Fraser was putting into the record was related to documents in the subamendment, but I'm not sure on these, so try to keep it relevant to the subamendment you're on, and if not, try to move back to documents that are relevant to the subamendment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that they are relevant because they are related to the subamendment in highlighting the issues that are required to be reconciled by the discrepancies. What he's reading into the record directly speaks to the amendment to the amendment, or the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll monitor it and keep watch.

Just hold on, Mr. Fragiskatos. I believe I have a point of order from Mr. Fraser. Mr. Fraser, I don't know where your mike is. It's doing the same trick with me.

Pat, go ahead.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would bring it to your attention that the remarks we heard sounded suspiciously like an argument already made. They were almost word for word from Mr. Fraser's earlier remarks. We could check the transcript. I would hope we are not repeating arguments that have already been made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, Mr. Fragiskatos can take that into consideration as well.

You're on, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm simply adding greater detail and, as we heard from Mr. Gerretsen in his point of order, it is all related to the subamendment, because what's articulated are issues that are required to be reconciled, discrepancies that exist, and it's important also for that perspective to be brought forward for all of the committee and for the clerk as well.

Everything is intended to put context in place. I don't believe there has been any breach here or anything along those lines, but I will continue in this vein, and if colleagues wish to point anything out.... I was trying very hard to follow Mr. Fraser, and I believe I did, but it is not my intent here to repeat anything that my colleague has already put on the record.

I've lost my place here, Mr. Chair. I'm not complaining about the point of order that was raised, but let me....