Finance Committee on March 4th, 2021

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

No, that would be on a follow-up basis. I don't think we have time in the limited questioning I have remaining.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're looking for that in writing, Mr. Dufresne.

We have about three minutes for questions from the Conservatives and three minutes from the Liberals.

Are you on, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, to confirm what we said all along, Conservatives were never looking for every irrelevant document to be included. We were looking for documents that the government covered up with black ink on the grounds that—as it claimed—they were irrelevant to be reviewed by the clerk.

The reason for that is to ascertain if, in fact, the information contained under that ink was irrelevant, which is something the clerk cannot confirm because he has not seen them. If it were completely unrelated, then it would not have been included in the disclosure in the first place. Obviously, information not relevant would not have been included because, as Mr. Fraser correctly points out, that would have been literally millions or even billions of pages.

We're talking about information that was included but blacked out. If the government has nothing to hide—if, in fact, this is just unrelated information about PPE procurement, as Mr. Fraser claims—it would have let the clerk look at it and confirm as much. He could, in a confidential way, have determined the relevance.

I ask again, Mr. Dufresne, did you have the ability to look at information marked “not relevant” to confirm whether in fact it was or was not relevant?

[Philippe Dufresne]

No.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

There you go.

Again, Mr. Fraser expects us just to take the government's word that nothing behind the black ink was relevant to Canadians.

Furthermore, the government is saying that there is no precedent for cabinet confidences to be reviewed by parliamentary committees in manners that are protected from public disclosure. Can you confirm whether, in the Afghan detainee controversy, a parliamentary committee was able to look at those sorts of things, in private, without public disclosure?

[Philippe Dufresne]

The Afghan detainee did not raise cabinet confidence as the ground. It was the ground of national security.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

It was security.

[Philippe Dufresne]

There may be an argument that cabinet confidence is distinct, but certainly, with respect to the very sensitive national security information, a compromise solution was found in the creation of an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians with the support of a panel of former judges who could make determinations on whether certain things could be released publicly.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Did any of the members of Parliament then breach their duties of confidentiality and jeopardize national security when they were given private access to that information?

[Philippe Dufresne]

They did not to my knowledge.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Right, so there is a successful precedent under a previous government—it was Conservative, but that's actually not relevant—that allowed members of Parliament to scrutinize secret and confidential sensitive information without imperilling the public interest.

I thank you very much, Mr. Dufresne, for your work, and I wish you well.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That will end that round.

Ms. Dzerowicz, you'll have to wrap it up.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

There might be time for one minute, if one of my colleagues has another question.

I want to correct the record, because I think that is important to do in these cases. My colleague Mr. Poilievre made a statement that was not true when he indicated that the Prime Minister intervened to give WE Charity the half-million dollar contract. That has proven to be completely untrue, according to all of the evidence that we heard throughout the summer. I think we need to make sure this is on the record in this meeting.

I also want to address what Mr. Poilievre just said about their having to take the government's word that the documents were not relevant. I want to remind everyone that when we're saying “the government”, these are non-partisan civil servants who are responsible for ensuring that they follow the committee's instructions and provide the documents as instructed.

My question to you, Mr. Dufresne, because I want to make sure this is crystal clear in the minds and understanding of anyone who is actually listening to us, is this: Have you seen or has there been any evidence of, in your view, any political interference in the work that our civil servants have done to provide us with that information?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I have not seen any.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much.

Those were all of my questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. May, do you have one question?

Then ask it. You have time for one.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

In your opinion, Mr. Dufresne, was the material that was provided to this committee responsive to the request you received?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Was it responsive to the request I received?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm sorry. It's not the request that you received but the request made by the committee, which you reviewed.

[Philippe Dufresne]

It was but for the claim of those grounds under the Access to Information Act, as I have identified.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

That is very clear.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That is a good point to end on.

With that, thank you to the witnesses, Mr. Dufresne and Ms. Gauthier. Thank you to all the members who raised very intense questions. I think we had a very lively discussion.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.