Finance Committee on Oct. 28th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order. We're resuming meeting number four of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the motion adopted in the House on Wednesday, September 23, 2020, the committee is meeting virtually. The committee met earlier in camera and is now resuming committee business in public.

We will start where we left off at the last meeting. On my list I have Ms. Dzerowicz and then Mr. Julian.

Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to start by saying I'm unhappy to be back here. I'd rather be in pre-budget consultations right now. It's beginning to feel a little like a 21st century Shakespearean tragedy, where there's a—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

What's your point of order, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Ms. Dzerowicz was saying that she wants to get to pre-budget consultations. I move that we go straight to a vote on my point of privilege and then we can go straight to pre-budget consultations.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm sorry, it's not a point of order. You can't move a motion right now.

Ms. Dzerowicz, the floor is yours.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much.

I was beginning to say it's beginning to feel a little bit like a 21st century Shakespearean tragedy, in which there's a plague on all of our houses so that we can't somehow find a way out of this current impasse we have. Because we've been away for almost a week right now. I think it's important for us to make sure that for anyone who's listening, whether it's the media or it's Canadians, we do a little bit of a reset of where we're at. There has been concern over on the opposition side that there is some sort of a cover-up, something hiding in redacted documents that have been submitted. On our side, the government side, we are saying there is no desire to hide or cover up anything.

The subamendment that we are discussing right now is a genuine attempt by the Liberal side to find a solution that would address any perception that all of the information might not have been provided or that there might be a cover-up. The whole idea behind the subamendment is that we do want to move past this and to move to pre-budget consultations. I'm going to start by reading through Mr. Gerretsen's subamendment to the motion again. It's important for a number of reasons and I'm going to be addressing a number of these points quite extensively. Also, I think it's a good reminder. I think it's always easy to yell out and say “cover-up”. It's much harder to say there's no cover-up, there's no scandal, and here are the reasons why.

The subamendment indicates the following: That the committee requests the complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons by relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the final package of documents that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons approved for release, that both of the document packages be provided to the Committee no later than October 19, 2020, and that after the committee reviews the two different versions of documents, the committee invite each of the relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, to give testimony regarding the redactions applied to the documents that were requested and granted in the motion adopted on July 7, 2020, and that until such a time as this testimony is complete, debate on the main motion and amendment from Pierre Poilievre be suspended and that the Chair be authorized to schedule these witnesses, and convene a meeting to resume debate on Pierre Poilievre’s motion once these meetings have taken place.

It's important to note that all we're asking for is a suspension of the original motion. We're also asking for two sets of documents. I'll explain a little bit more what the two different sets of documents are, because I think there's a little bit of confusion out in the media, out in the public, about what they are. We're asking for the two sets of documents to be brought forward to this committee and that the committee then invite the relevant deputy ministers as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons to give testimony regarding the redactions applied to the documents.

Once that's over, we can come back to the committee and resume discussion and debate on the motion that Mr. Poilievre has before us right now. We have suggested the subamendment because we want to directly address any perception or any belief that there might be some cover-up. Also, we want to prove that we were indeed honouring what we had agreed to and passed on July 7 at the finance committee, which was basically that all of the following be provided: all contracts related to the WE Charity, all briefing notes, memos and emails from senior officials, as well as all of the written correspondence and records from ME to WE from March 20 no later than August 8, and that matters of cabinet confidence and national security be excluded and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens as well as...would be made by the office of the law clerk.

This subamendment that's before us right now is a direct attempt for us to try to bring in the people who actually did the redactions, to bring in the law clerk, who the opposition members feel needs to also be at the table, and basically put it to them: the questions around why the redactions were happening, why they took place and what could be some possible next steps that might get us past this impasse.

I also wanted to mention that the other reason why the subamendment was proposed is that.... Again, it's a subamendment to the amendment to the original motion. Mr. Poilievre's original motion basically indicates that the committee has concluded that the government's response failed to comply with the order that the finance committee had agreed to complete on July 7, which was to release the WE documents, and we know that about 5,600 pages of documents were actually released. The motion would basically say that if it is shown, that if the committee concludes that they failed to comply with the order, which we as the government believe that we have complied with—the order—then we move into...that the committee would be seen as its privileges being breached because what has been asked for has not been provided.

The last part that's important to note, because I'd like to address this in my remarks, is that the committee “therefore, recommends that [the] Order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of [the] documents”. Again, just basically, for everybody listening out there, that would mean that all 5,600 documents, completely unredacted, would go directly to the law clerk, instead of what has happened and what typically happens, which is that these documents go to our independent civil servants, who will basically redact or sort of blackline, based on cabinet confidentiality and based on national security issues—although in this case we've been told time and time again that there were no issues of national security that had to be redacted—and, third, for any privacy considerations. That is why the subamendment is actually on the table.

I wanted to reiterate again that we on the government side truly believe that we have complied with the order. We have explained quite a bit over the course of the last couple of weeks that it has been our independent civil servants who actually did the redactions. We also explained that if there were any redactions, they were done for three reasons. I just mentioned them: the cabinet confidentiality, the national security—again, they ended up telling us that there was none of that—and then for any personal or completely irrelevant information related to the awarding to WE Charity to deliver the service of the CSSG, the Canada student service grant. We also, then, gave a lot of examples of what was actually redacted, based on letters that came from the deputy ministers of the various different departments that actually submitted the WE documents. We've provided all of that.

I also at this point want to make sure that I'm explaining the two sets of documents because, to be honest, I wasn't completely clear about it, so I spent quite a bit of time to make sure that I was clear on it. If you look at our subamendment, it basically says that it requests two different sets. The first set is a “complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons” as well as the “relevant Deputy Ministers”. Basically, this first package is the set of the 5,600 documents that were redacted by our independent civil servants based on the criteria of cabinet confidentiality, any personal information or irrelevant information.

Those sets of documents, as per the July 7 motion that we agreed to, actually went to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Then the law clerk basically took that information and added their own redactions. That became blacklined. What came from the deputy ministers and the independent civil servants over to the law clerk was “greylined”. That package went to the law clerk and the law clerk took the package, and then the package was blacklined. Then that was what was released.

When we're looking at these documents, we have to understand that there are two different sets. We wanted both sets to come in so you could see what exactly was redacted by our independent civil servants and then what was actually redacted by our law clerk. If you compare the grey line with the black line, you'll be able to see what was further redacted by our law clerk. I wanted to make sure that was understood.

It came out in the newspaper yesterday that Ian Shugart, the Clerk of the Privy Council, has offered to testify before our committee and explain the redactions and what's happened and answer any outstanding questions we might have. I think what's important to note is that for me, one of the key questions is why we wouldn't want to take up the Clerk of the Privy Council on his offer? Even if we go further on, why wouldn't we want both the Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk to come before this committee so that we can ask these questions and do it in public so that the public could hear whether or not things were properly redacted, if anything was hidden or anything was unnecessarily redacted, so that all of that could come out in full transparency in public and before this committee. Maybe if we have both of these very senior officers before our committee, we'd be able to move past this impasse and be able to move to important work that we have to do as a finance committee in pre-budget consultations.

I think it's important to mention the point of privilege. Some of my other colleagues, who probably have more of a legal background, will be able to explain this far better than I can. Every time I get information that I don't quite understand, I have to put it into very simple language, because if I don't understand it, I know that none of my constituents will understand it. They'll probably ask why it is significant, why it is important that the government would be concerned about a committee privilege being breached, and why would there be some fear of that coming to the House of Commons? We truly believe that the 5,600 documents were redacted properly. We don't think anything is being hidden. We trust and believe that our independent public servants have followed to the law what they were tasked to do. We think they have done this for years and we're very grateful for their extraordinary work, because I know this is an extraordinary effort in addition to all of the amazing work they've been doing to try to help Canadians through this pandemic.

We don't agree that committee's privileges has been breached. Should this come to the floor, it would also provide a tool for the opposition to be able to use against the government in a way that could hold up government for days. It's unpredictable and it could be used at any time to maybe stop any legislation from going through, or any important piece of work that we need to do, and it's particularly problematic because time is of the essence. We're at a particular time where it is unprecedented both from a health perspective as well as an economic perspective. We're going through two types of crises right now.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Then why did you shut down Parliament—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will continue—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

—for six weeks?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

—without the interruptions.

That is why it is important for us not to have this questions of privilege brought to the floor of the House of Commons. One, it's because we don't believe that the committee's privileges have been breached; and two, I think it can be used as a tactic to stall government, important legislation, and important work in our moving forward and addressing some of the important needs and actions that can be...

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You're stalling right now.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

We are not, Mr. Poilievre. We are trying to introduce a subamendment so we can clarify any hesitations or any perceptions that we might be covering up in any way, so that we can move forward, address the concerns of opposition members and be able to do our pre-budget consultations.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Let's move to a vote.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'm still talking on the subamendment, Mr. Poilievre.

The next point I want to make is the following....

Let me just get my pages; I have so many pages in front of me, I have to organize myself.

I want to point out the inconsistencies in the motion. I think it's important to reiterate here, for the media and anybody who might be listening, that this gets a little bit to the heart of where there is some disagreement between the Liberal government side and our opposition. When we passed the motion on July 7, we had all agreed as a committee that all of the documents related to the contracts that were concluded with the WE Charity and ME to We, all the briefing notes, all the memos, all the 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...Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the Committee no later than August 8”. Then there is a semicolon, after which it says, “that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request; and that [the] 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.”

The disagreement is that for us what is typical, to my understanding—I am only starting my sixth year of being a politician, and my understanding of this has been my experience as well—is that when these types of documents are requested, it is very typical that matters of cabinet confidence and national security are excluded. Our understanding, when we all agreed to it, was that anything else, that didn't include cabinet confidence and national security, would actually then move on to the law clerk for his redaction.

My point is that this is what we agreed to on July 7. Then, I will say to you, in the original motion that Mr. Poilievre has proposed, he basically is recommending that the unredacted version of all the documents produced by the government actually be sent to the law clerk. So there is an inconsistency with that, between what it is that we had agreed to and what it is that right now the opposition wants us to do. They want us to go to the beginning, get the 5,600 documents, completely unredacted, and send it over to the law clerk.

It's problematic in a number of ways. One, it is inconsistent with what was agreed to initially. Two, it's also, in what I have been told and what I understand, unprecedented. It's not done. It is not something that typically goes to the law clerk. It is the role of our civil servants. They are independent civil servants. They work for our government, but if there were a transition in government, you might still have the same Clerk of the Privy Council. Their role is to be independent. I completely trust that this is what they have done and that they have honoured to a T what was set out in what we had agreed to at finance on July 7. I want to point out that inconsistency in terms of what was agreed to and what is now being asked for, and also that it is unprecedented.

This takes us to our current stalemate. I think the unfortunate thing is that we are wasting a lot of time. In the end, I think it really is Canadians who end up suffering. It is Canadians who are going to lose in the end. Unfortunately, we are going to start losing public trust that we are going to be able to work together to be able to resolve this, find a way forward, and do the important work that we need to do for Canadians at this time.

I also want to mention two other key points before I sign off.

If you look at why we proposed the subamendment, again it was not only to dispel the fact that there was anything that our government was trying to hide but it was also an attempt to bring the key actors forward to be able to answer questions.

As to whether there is an attempt to hide or not be accountable for anything, I think it's important to bring forward that we also, as a government—and the House leaders of each of the parties have been working on this—suggested a special committee to provide oversight on COVID-19 spending. It's really important for the public to know that our government believes in 100% transparency and we have proposed a special committee to provide that oversight.

If you actually just look at the first paragraph of that special committee—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, as Julie is referring to this committee and the House leaders, I would love to get an update on how those negotiations are going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That wasn't a point of order.

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

Point of order.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Sorry, she just referred to it, so I thought—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian claims he has a point of order, so we will see.

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

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

This is not relevant to the debate on the subamendment. We're going to have to start tightening up Liberal members. If they have nothing new to say that is relevant, we should proceed to the vote, which the Liberals have been holding up now for three weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's not a point of order.

Well, it will go to relevance, Ms. Dzerowicz.

Mr. Fragiskatos, do you have a point of order?

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

I do. I simply disagree with Mr. Julian.

Ms. Dzerowicz brought up a point that I think was entirely relevant and she wasn't allowed to complete that point. It's a bit of a trend here on committee when colleagues are making a point—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, we're both talking relevance.