Finance Committee on March 4th, 2021

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I wanted to just indicate that the Clerk of the Privy Council came before us and let us know that his intent was “to be as expansive as possible” in relation to the information that he released. I just want to make sure that statement is on record, even though they went beyond what was asked for on July 7. That was the intent, and I think he followed that intent.

Last, is it fair to say the committee has a number of options to deal with the outstanding concerns if there is some information that we feel we might need to see? Whether it's in camera or not, is it fair to say we have a number of options for looking at that right now?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I would agree with that. Yes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Ms. Gill, you have two and a half minutes. Then we'll go over to Mr. Julian for about three minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just heard my colleague from Davenport say that, if a document had not been provided to the committee, the committee would never have noticed that it did not have that document or that information. She was talking about the relevance of the documents. I hope that the government did not act on that basis. Of course, I want to repeat that I believe it is up to the committee to decide whether documents are relevant.

Mr. Dufresne, a little earlier, I asked you whether, to your knowledge and in your experience, this type of redaction by officials is a usual practice. I would like to go into that issue a little more.

Mr. Shugart, whom you know, told this committee that he had “started the ball rolling in the system, and if people had questions, doubts, trouble interpreting the instructions—”

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Hold on, Madame Gill. Mr. Fragiskatos has a point of order.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Yes, of course.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if it's only on my end, but I'm having an issue with interpretation. I can only vaguely hear the translation. I mostly hear Madame Gill. My French is improving, but I'm not bilingual at this point.

I just wanted to flag that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Madame Gill, are you on French on your system there?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Yes, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right. Let's give it a try again.

You will not lose your time, Madame Gill. Go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Do you want me to start right from the beginning, Mr. Chair? I don't know at which point Mr. Fragiskatos lost the interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Start over. That's fine.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Okay.

My colleague from Davenport just said that, if documents hadn't been provided, no one would have noticed. She just told us this. I hope that this wasn't the government's intention when it decided that officials would redact the documents. Personally, I'm concerned about this. I believe that the responsibility for determining the relevance of the documents lies with the committee or with the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, and not with outsiders.

That's why, Mr. Dufresne, I'd like to expand on my last question about whether, based on your knowledge and experience, this type of redaction is common practice.

I'll quote Mr. Shugart, whom you know. He said the following in the committee: “... I started the ball rolling in the system, and if people had questions, doubts, trouble interpreting the instructions, the departments could ask the Privy Council Office for a judgment call. In that sense, yes, and ultimately, I am responsible.”

I'm wondering whether you find it odd that the most senior official in the Prime Minister's department asked the different departments to redact the documents. Is that a common practice?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I don't find it improper that the Clerk of the Privy Council is the person ultimately responsible for decisions in the public service. In my opinion, that isn't an issue.

I read the evidence that he gave to the committee. My understanding is that the Clerk of the Privy Council is bound by the Access to Information Act and must apply the grounds set out in the act. He also referred to cabinet confidences as a ground for determining the position to take on redactions. That's how I see his role. Personally, I don't see—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Sorry to interrupt you, but time is running out.

Do you consider this an established practice? Officials shouldn't be making these redactions. What does this say about your role or the trust placed in you? In the union world, where I come from, we would be talking instead about subcontractors or non-compliance with the agreement. How do you feel about the fact that you aren't the one doing the work that you're responsible for?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I'm the lead counsel for the House. My role is to advocate for the interests of the institution as a legislator, meaning the legislative power. From my perspective, the constitutional power of the House is greater than the powers conferred by legislation such as the Access to Information Act. This doesn't mean that public policy imperatives should be ignored. However, it does mean that the House must make the decision. The decision-maker is the House, not the government. The government has its position and interpretation, which the Clerk of the Privy Council shared with you.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

We move to Mr. Julian. We'll pick up the time he lost before.

You have three minutes, Peter.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dufresne. This is very illuminating.

So far we found that the documents were wholly or partially redacted—at least 300 pages—using the broad loopholes of the Access to Information Act. I find that quite disturbing.

I'd like to come back to the other element of your testimony that I find quite disturbing. That is that other redactions, omissions, and exclusions took place on the grounds of cabinet confidence and on the grounds of relevance.

The original motion, as you indicated, also talked about national security. I'm presuming that national security was not cited as a reason for any of the substantial redactions that took place. My question is, how many pages were wholly or partially redacted on the grounds of matters of cabinet confidence, and how many pages were excluded, wholly or partially, on the grounds of relevance?

[Philippe Dufresne]

There were no exclusions on the basis of national security. On the basis of cabinet confidence, those represented 6% of the redactions.

In terms of things that were not relevant, I'm looking for that information. We'll see if I can have that by the end of my appearance today. If not, then I will forward that subsequently to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Gauthier, if you want in here at any time, don't be afraid to yell.

Go ahead, Peter.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

Madame Gauthier, if you have something to add, please don't hesitate.

We're now up to at least 600 pages. What I found disturbing, when the original documents were dumped as Parliament was stripped of its powers by prorogation, was the sheer size and scope of the blacking out of documents. It was stunning to me, as a member of the committee, to see to what extent the government was ripping apart what had been a very clear indication of the importance of obtaining those documents.

If we're now looking at 600 pages plus whatever was redacted out on the basis of relevance, I would be interested, Mr. Dufresne, in having you talk about what the committee's options are going forward. We have what is still a substantial redaction of the original request. What options do we have, as committee members, to get to the bottom of this scandal?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Mr. Julian, some of the options I've set out are—and I'll repeat them—that the committee could ask to review some of that information in camera so it can satisfy itself as to what's behind it. It could ask that more information be provided as to the reasoning behind it, or it could accept the grounds and determine that they are grounds that can be incorporated into the committee's order. The approaches are really either to accept it, or to not accept it and find some way to have access to it, perhaps confidentially or with other rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

I'm not sure, but I think we have Mr. Poilievre next.

Mr. Poilievre, you're on next, followed by Mr. Fraser, for five minutes.