Evidence of meeting #2 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 video is available from Parliament.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
—I think they should hear the matter.
What's your point of order, Mr. Julian?
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fragiskatos was doing the same thing. In the case of repetition, it is true that other Liberal members can take some liberty with the regulation of repetition to a certain extent, but Mr. Fragiskatos cannot, so he can't keep going back to reading the same thing into the record.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
This, folks, is the motion we're dealing with. I do see two or three new members on here, and I do think they need to hear what the motion is so they understand the debate as it occurs.
I am going to allow it for Mr. Fragiskatos this one time, but that will be the last.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I'm sorry, but that's not how.... The rule of repetition does not work that way, if one member of the committee changes. So if you persist in that ruling, I'll have to challenge the chair.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's fine. You can challenge the chair, but that is my ruling.
I think new members who are sitting at the committee deserve the decency to hear the subamendment to the amendment one more time.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'll have to challenge that ruling. The rule of repetition applies to members who are speaking. It does not apply to a change in committee or if some new members of committee have joined us.
So I'll have to challenge you on that.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's fine. I always like to see that members are best informed.
Madam Clerk, could you do the roll call and see where my ruling ends up? I think I have a fair idea where.
October 21st, 2020 / 9:10 p.m.
The Clerk
The question is, shall the chair's decision be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, Mr. Fragiskatos, you cannot read the subamendment to the amendment.
I think I would be allowed to, but I won't bother.
Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, and I appreciate the intervention of Mr. Kelly.
When he intervened, I was about to mention his name because he was not there when I read it earlier. It was for his benefit. Certainly he's a learned colleague. I'm not trying to—
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Well, I don't know about that, Mr. Kelly. You weren't onscreen. A number of Conservatives have been missing in action tonight, not onscreen—in the kitchen or on the golf course, I don't know where, but not onscreen during the meeting.
I was just trying to make sure that you were briefed on the subamendment. You heard it last time, I know, but a number of days have passed since then and I just wanted to make sure, out of pure respect, that I read it again.
I understand the ruling that's been made here, and I'll continue.
The motion is common sense, Mr. Chair. We know what it stands for. Colleagues in the opposition say they know what it means, so I hope they come to see that it is about common sense. The opposition says they want to review the documents. The motion provides an opportunity for them to compare the documents as presented by the professional public service and those finalized by the parliamentary law clerk. These are the non-partisan, professional public servants whom I've talked about here at length tonight.
We've had other colleagues speak about them at length, and we know that Mr. Poilievre spoke about them, in glowing terms, in fact, in 2014. I won't reread that quotation. I see that perhaps I've somehow offended Mr. Poilievre. I hope not. As I said before, I have nothing against him personally. In 2014, he did put a quote on record about cabinet confidence that I think is quite relevant, but suddenly he has forgotten what he said. Unfortunately, the position he held then does not suit the Conservative partisan narrative that Conservative members, led by him, were so anxious to entrench.
Mr. Chair, let's be clear here, if I can continue my remarks. Let's be clear that this goes above and beyond what the initial motion called for in July.
Mr. Chair, this would also provide all members, including myself, with an opportunity to ask the independent, non-partisan public servants questions about how and why they made the decisions they did, and I would hope that every member of this committee would take an opportunity to get a truer understanding of the role of cabinet confidences and the importance they have in our democratic institutions. They have a long-established tradition, which members of this committee in the opposition have spoken about also in previous iterations of themselves—let's put it that way.
Mr. Chair, I do not pretend that I will be the last person to represent my riding, and it is a privilege every day to represent the people of London North Centre. I am certainly not the first, so I think it is important that we make decisions that respect and respond to the parliamentary institutions, as those who have come before me have certainly done, and as I hope those who follow will do. That means that before we make any decision, we must evaluate the best information, get the best testimony, and be deliberate in our actions.
Based on the actions of the Conservatives in their press conferences—they're very entertaining press conferences, but not much genuine information is being shared in those press conferences—and in their actions here at committee, I understand they have no desire to hear the truth, because the truth does not fit their narrative. I understand that the NDP and the Bloc have pressure to support their opposition colleagues.
We as parliamentarians believe it's imperative that we make sure our decisions stand the test of time. There is partisanship, and partisanship does play a role. Sometimes it can be a positive role, but let's not shirk our duty as parliamentarians, first and foremost.
Let me address why hearing from the professional public servants is critical. As we established last week, the transmittal letters that are critical to explaining these documents—not only to explain the necessary redactions but also to explain the documents generally—have not been uploaded into the public disclosure of these documents.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, Mr. Fragiskatos is now repeating comments that he's made previously.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
If he has nothing more to add, we should proceed to a vote. He is now repeating himself, and this is something I have flagged before—repetition and relevance. He is relevant, but he is repeating himself, and if Liberals don't have new material to add, we should proceed to a vote.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't recall if he said these words before.
Go a little further, Mr. Fragiskatos, and we'll determine that.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Sure, Mr. Chair. I'll return to my remarks.
Similar ideas have come up, but Mr. Julian is off base here. I'm not going to hypothesize about why this is the case, but they are not repetition. I'm talking about the professional public service here and issues relating to it, and documents.
These letters have been discussed at length by other colleagues. Their importance needs to be emphasized, Mr. Chair, because their importance is paramount.
Let me just emphasize here for the committee that these are the documents that tell the committee how the world-class public servants—whom Mr. Julian very regularly and very sincerely speaks about at this committee—who prepared the documents as per the motion at this committee, applied redactions.
Let me share some key highlights. They present an example for the committee and, for that matter, for Canadians who are looking at this and following along.
We have the text of the letter from Mr. Paul Rochon, deputy minister of finance, a public servant to his core, someone who has testified before this committee many times. To give you a sense of his professionalism, I'd like to highlight his qualifications, Mr. Chair. He has been the deputy minister of finance since 2014. Before that, he was the deputy minister of international development. Mr. Chair, these were all important appointments that took place under the previous government. Previously, Mr. Rochon was the deputy minister of health, and concurrently, a special adviser to the Minister of Finance on negotiations for a Canadian securities regulator.
Mr. Rochon has more than 20 years of experience at the Department of Finance and held a number of positions, including associate deputy minister of finance and Canada's finance deputy at the G7, G20 and the financial stability forum, as well as senior assistant deputy minister in the economic and fiscal policy branch.
To say he is an outstanding professional, Mr. Chair, would be an understatement. In his transmittal letter to the law clerk, he wrote, as follows:
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 contained in 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 taken with respect 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 be protected as Cabinet confidence is being released. Information not related to the Canada Student Service Grant that is contained in Cabinet confidences is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request.
With respect to personal information, the department is obliged to protect such information under the Privacy Act unless the individuals to whom it relates consent to its disclosure, or disclosure is otherwise authorized in certain specified circumstances or the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any resulting invasion of privacy.
Reasonable efforts were made by the department to obtain consent. Where consent was not given, the department found that the public interest in sharing the information with the Committee outweighed any invasion of the individual’s privacy. As such, disclosure is being made pursuant to subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) of the Privacy Act. As required by that Act, the Privacy Commissioner was informed of our decision. In very limited cases, personal information was redacted from these records as consent was not obtained from the individuals concerned nor was the department able to conclude that the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighed the invasion of the individuals’ privacy. The type of personal information that remains protected consists of the identity of unrelated third parties where their opinion or view relates to an unrelated matter to this inquiry, as well as personal e-mail addresses and phone numbers.
While the members opposite seem to do everything they can to accuse the government of some mismanagement, it is clear from this short letter that the ministry of finance went above and beyond to satisfy the committee's request.
Mr. Chair, I think opposition members should have the opportunity to ask Mr. Rochon if they feel that he has somehow acted irresponsibly. I also think that Mr. Rochon should have the opportunity to defend his department's actions, given the accusations that they—I'm talking about the opposition here—are insinuating.
Further, Mr. Chair, the text of the letter from Simon Kennedy, Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development, says as follows:
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.
I think what I just read there bears emphasis. I hope my colleagues won't accuse me of repetition, but it's a very important point. 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.
I'll continue:
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.
I'm reading remarks that are onscreen, Mr. Chair, and I can't see in the grid view of Zoom if my colleague Mr. Poilievre is there. What I just read is relevant to the very entertaining but not informative press conference: “Information not related to the Canada Student Service Grant that constitutes a Cabinet confidence is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request.” The papers that he was throwing around fit into this.
Next is from the text of the Secretary of the Treasury Board, Mr. Peter Wallace, who holds the distinction of having served as a senior public servant in three levels of government. His letter says as follows:
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.
These are all pertinent points, made by some of the most eminent, qualified and respected public servants this country has to offer. Those are my words, Mr. Chair, in case you were wondering.
I'll go back to the letter:
This same principled approach was also applied to the second enclosed package of TBS [Treasury Board Secretariat] 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 and response to the above-noted request for production of papers and due diligence line of inquiry.
That's the end of the quotation, Mr. Chair.
All of these individuals have led very distinguished careers. They are people we need to take seriously, people who, unfortunately—when I say “people”, I'm speaking about the public service in general—the previous Harper government didn't have much time for and regularly muzzled, whether they were scientists or other public servants. Let's show them the respect they deserve.
I know the NDP feels that way. I've said before that I've heard Mr. Julian and other NDP members, in various committees and in the House, speak in strong terms and passionate ways about the importance of public servants and the public service in general.
