Evidence of meeting #24 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In my view, they were consistent with those acts and those definitions. Again, if the committee agrees that those grounds ought to be accepted, my testimony here today is that they were applied by the government in a manner consistent with those definitions.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Therefore, they were consistent with the law of Canada.
Mr. Dufresne, did any politically sensitive information get redacted?
2:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
We looked at the redactions on the basis of whether they were consistent with the definitions, both with respect to the committee's motion language and then, in November, with the grounds as defined in the access to information legislation.
That's how we looked at them. We said the government was claiming this reason for an exemption, and we asked ourselves whether it would meet that definition. Again, in my view, it's necessary for the committee to accept that ground, but assuming the committee did, the question is, would it be private information? Would it be solicitor-client privilege? In my view, those were applied in a manner consistent with those definitions.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
However, where members of the opposition, whether it's Mr. Poilievre or others, point to something that was redacted—or rather, they raise suspicions that things were redacted on political grounds and that politically sensitive information was excluded from the eyes of the committee—your view is that that did not happen.
2:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
My view is that those redactions all appear to have been made on the basis of the grounds in the Access to Information Act that I have listed.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Therefore, they were guided by the law and not politics.
Was the government ever obligated to turn over documents that were not relevant, Mr. Dufresne?
2:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In my view, it was not.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
I want to read something, Mr. Chair, if I could. Let me just bring it up here. I have in front of me an October 19 press release issued by members of the Conservative party, which reads, “There is clearly information related to this”—they term it a scandal—“that the government blacked out and don't want Canadians to see.”
Again, and forgive me if it's a repetitive point, but I think Canadians deserve the assurance. Is there any evidence that important documents relating to this contract were redacted?
2:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
What I have seen is that the information that was redacted was redacted on the basis of the grounds in the Access to Information Act that I have set out.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, what we have heard here is clear, in my view. You will recall that in the many meetings we had over the course of a number of months on this issue, I did not and my Liberal colleagues did not stand in the way of our discussing the WE Charity issue.
We've had it confirmed now that redactions made on political grounds did not take place. Where those redactions took place, it was entirely consistent with Canadian law—again, things like solicitor-client privilege and things like the protection of personal information.
I would ask my colleagues on the committee whether, if they had family members or friends who were public servants, for example, they would want the personal cellphone numbers or email addresses of those individuals shared. We know the answer, and we have law in place to protect that personal information.
Mr. Poilievre will wave papers, as he did in that infamous press conference, and I underline the word infamous in particular, Mr. Chair. He will wave papers around that look to be redacted to create another story, but there's no story here. I don't see anything nefarious that took place. I'm satisfied that the government acted in an appropriate way.
Thank you very much.
3 p.m.
Liberal
March 4th, 2021 / 3 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dufresne, thank you for your testimony. I have a number of questions for you. I am hoping that you can shed some light on certain aspects of this affair that I still find unclear.
In your experience and to your knowledge, is it a common practice for officials to set about redacting documents before they are sent to a committee?
3 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Yes, in my experience, it's a practice we see often.
3 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Perhaps I should rephrase my question more specifically: Do you often see officials redacting documents even though the committee has ordered the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to take care of doing so?
3 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Yes, we certainly see that. That's actually what my letter last summer was intended to point out. It doesn't necessarily mean that the grounds were in no way founded in public policy. As I said in my remarks, committees should try to achieve a degree of balance. They must ask themselves why that kind of confidentiality is permitted. That said, the committee has constitutional powers, so the decision is the committee's.
3 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
So, it happens, but the decision is the committee's. As you said, this is a committee right that has its origins in the Constitution Act, 1867. So we should be able to have access to the documents in the way the committee ordered. Of course, we have talked a lot about the content, but now the form is the issue, meaning the way in which the committee's order has been responded to. This is what Mr. Poilievre clearly set out in his motion.
How would we go about describing that practice? My assumption is that officials are, to an extent, overstepping their rights by deciding to change the provisions of the committee's order.
3 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Well, I don't want to comment on the government's practices. I prefer to talk about the House, the committees and their powers. In my opinion, the important thing to bear in mind is that committees and the House play the role of the “grand inquest of the nation”. This is a constitutional power recognized by the Supreme Court. It is fundamental. It was also recognized by Speaker Milliken in the ruling I quoted.
That is why statutory exceptions do not limit the committee. It is up to the committee to make that decision. However, as Speaker Milliken himself said in his ruling, some public interest imperatives really should not be minimized, but it is up to the committee to make that decision
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Right; it is up to the committee to make that decision.
As you mentioned, the officials went beyond the restrictions that the committee established in terms of redacting the documents. I can only assume that, in its study, the committee would have found some of the redactions to have relevance. So all the documents should have been provided to the committee, which, in all confidence, should have been left to decide the relevance of the information and to choose those aspects it wanted you, Mr. Dufresne, to redact.
3:05 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
What I mentioned, essentially, is that it is up to the committee to decide which documents it wants to receive and which grounds for redaction it wants to allow. If the committee allows certain grounds, in this case the protection of Cabinet secrecy, the information in question does not have to be provided. At that point, there is no problem.
The committee could adopt other approaches. It could ask to see the documents in camera, for example. All kinds of options exist.
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Let me ask my question more simply.
Of course, the committee can decide to impose limits on itself, as you very rightly said. However, if the committee asks for information without setting limits, but someone decides to go beyond the committee's order and redact the documents, it is possible that the person will be redacting information that might be relevant to the study in question, in this case, the study on WE Charity. It is up to the committee to decide what is and is not relevant for its study, correct?
3:05 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Actually, relevance is, in a way, the basic quality that justifies whether information is included. If it is not relevant, it is not included at all.
The question to be asked is whether the information should be protected on grounds of confidentiality or on any other appropriate ground. That question is always asked because, in any disclosure, there may be—
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I would just like to make it clear that, if it is up to the committee to choose the information it wants to have, it means that it should also be deciding on the relevance of the information, not government officials, who have received no mandate to redact the documents.
3:05 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I believe that the committee decides on the relevance of the information when it prepares the motion. It determines the information it needs on a certain subject and it determines which types of documents it needs. That's what establishes whether the information is relevant.
The second question is to decide which grounds it is going to accept in determining that a piece of information must be kept confidential.
