—that they are interrupted.
Evidence of meeting #4 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.
Evidence of meeting #4 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.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I believe it is relevant. How it's relevant is that, as I mentioned, the reason we presented the subamendment to the amendment to the original motion was that we're attempting to show that we're not trying to cover up. We're attempting to show that we are accountable and that we have fulfilled what we had agreed to at the finance committee on July 7.
What I was trying to show when I mentioned the special committee to oversee COVID-19 spending is that it is also part of our attempt to try to alleviate any concerns about us not being accountable and not being transparent.
I think you've seen this as well, Mr. Julian, and all of the other members of the committee. Our supplementary estimates were released on October 22. We now know that the spending authority of the government has reached $476 billion. Absolutely, there needs to be accountability, so we have proposed a committee to provide that accountability. I want to make sure that Canadians and the media—everybody—know that we're doing everything we can to ensure we are accountable and transparent to Canadians.
The other point I want to mention is that sometimes when you go down the rabbit hole.... What we've been sort of focused on very much are the 5,600 documents and what was redacted, who redacted it, should it have gone straight to the law clerk and was it appropriate for our independent civil servants to have redacted that, but I think it's really important to remind everyone that we, as the finance committee, actually studied the WE contracts. We actually studied the other motion that was also approved on July 7, which was basically to look at how the decision was made to select WE Charity to deliver the Canada student service grant.
We also looked at how much money was spent in doing so, and we have proved unequivocally.... Unequivocally....and people can look at I think meetings 43 to 51 in the first session of the 43rd Parliament if they want to go online to look at this. We have proven unequivocally that there has not been any corruption. We heard testimony under oath from the Kielburgers, from Prime Minister Trudeau and from the former finance minister.
We also proved conclusively there was no misuse of funds. Actually, all of the funds have been returned to us. We've also proved conclusively—it was said in testimony and reaffirmed—that it was our senior civil servants who actually proposed and suggested WE Charity to deliver the CSSG program. All of that is in testimony.
We explained why it needed to be rushed and the decision decided before the summer. Then we explained that it wasn't a sole source contract. It was actually a contribution agreement, which we have done in a number of different cases on other emergency support programs, and there was a lot of accountability along the way.
We have to make sure that we remind ourselves that this is not just about the redaction of the documents. On the documents, I think there's a perception that the opposition is trying to propose, that we're hiding things. What I'm trying to say to you is that we spent a couple of months actually looking at this. We had many witnesses come before us. We asked all of these questions about corruption and misuse of funds and about who made the decision, why it was so rushed, was it really a sole source and did we really do this for the students. We have unequivocally proven all of that in testimony.
These additional documents are to me supplemental information. They're important. They should be delivered. We should honour what it is that we agreed to on July 7, and I believe that we fully have done so. What we're trying to do with the subamendment is that we're trying desperately to find a way to get out of this impasse. We're trying desperately to say let's bring forward the Clerk of the Privy Council and let's bring forward the law clerk. Let's hear from both of them, let's talk about what was redacted and let's maybe ask some questions. Maybe through bringing them forward, we can find a way out of this impasse and move on to the important work that Canadians need us to step up and do at this unprecedented time.
I think I'm going to leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I will pass the baton to one of my colleagues and say thank you so much for the opportunity to express my views.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you very much, Ms. Dzerowicz.
Next on my list is Mr. Julian, who will be followed by Mr. Fragiskatos.
Mr. Julian.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't want to speak for very long because the Liberals have now been stalling for three weeks, so any fault for the pre-budget hearings not being held.... Yes, it's true that, under this government, as under the previous Conservative government, pre-budget hearings are basically ignored. We've had people coming forward for years making very specific and important policy suggestions that have just been cast aside.
That said, it's an important tool, and the only reason we're not holding pre-budget hearings now is that Liberal government members of this committee do not want to hold the vote on a privilege motion.
The subamendment is designed to basically kill; it's a kill amendment. It kills the privilege motion. What's important for the public to understand—and certainly any member of the Canadian media who is tuning in to this finance committee—is that the privilege motion provides the Speaker of the House of Commons, somebody who is elected by every member of Parliament.... We hold these elections at the beginning of each Parliament. All members of Parliament have one vote. We elect a Speaker and we trust that Speaker with questions such as privilege.
This motion, if the Liberal members permit us to have a vote, would then allow the Speaker to rule. What could Liberal members be afraid of when it's the impartial Speaker who looks over the evidence that's presented by the committee and makes a decision? I cannot understand why Liberal members have been plugging up the works for three weeks and refusing to hold a vote on this matter when it's the Speaker who ultimately rules. All we're saying is, let's give the Speaker the opportunity to rule on this motion of privilege.
At the same time, it's very clear that the law clerk, again independent, should be able to take a look at the unredacted, uncensored documents. When over 1,000 pages have been censored or redacted, there is a matter of some concern about getting to the bottom of this. This is what parliamentarians should be doing.
The subamendment is designed to kill the privilege motion. It is designed to basically delay for weeks, if not months, any logical conclusion to this. As you know, Mr. Chair, if a privilege motion is not directed to the Speaker within a timely period, it kills the motion of privilege.
Let's not split hairs here. What the Liberals are doing with the subamendment is trying to kill the motion of privilege. That's what they are attempting to do.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I am subbing in for Ms. Dzerowicz.
With regard to what Mr. Julian is arguing, my understanding is that the subamendment does not, in any way, impact the privilege motion.
Can we get clarification on that, Chair?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Your argument, Mr. Julian, is that it impacts the privilege motion, is it not?
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Absolutely, and that's why it's been proposed, and Liberal members know that.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
My ruling is that it really doesn't. It delays the privilege motion. If somebody wants to read what it really says, it delays the privilege motion until the evidence is such that the privilege motion should be put forward. That would be my opinion.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, that is exactly my point.
Privilege is something that needs to be presented within a timely period, so the subamendment is designed to delay the motion of privilege. That means it effectively kills the motion of privilege, because if it is not brought back in a timely way, the Speaker has an obligation, according to long parliamentary tradition, to disallow it.
Let's be very clear and very frank about what the government members are trying to do. They are attempting to kill the motion of privilege. They are attempting to remove from the Speaker and from parliamentarians the right to rule on this.
The committee having a vote—and I believe firmly that this is a question of privilege—only requests of the Speaker to make a ruling on this. This is what I find the most outrageous part of this, Mr. Chair. Not only are government members delaying the work of the finance committee—and there are many other things we could be working on—they are also attempting to kill a motion of privilege that would allow the Speaker to rule on this.
If it is true that the Liberal members just want to get this to an impartial judge, the Speaker, who is elected by all members of Parliament, is the best person to make that judgment.
I would ask, through you, Mr. Chair, to government members, please stop delaying, please stop stalling, allow the vote to be held and allow the Speaker then to take this into consideration and make his judgment on whether or not this is a bona fide question of privilege.
All the committee can do is advise the Speaker about what happened. It is up to the Speaker to make that decision. Let's not make it for him.
Let's have the vote, provide the report and let's see what the Speaker rules.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
I'm going to clarify a little of what I said.
I do not see this as a delay to deny the point of privilege, Mr. Julian. As outlined in the subamendment to the amendment, I see it as gathering the evidence to see if there is a point of privilege from the finance committee's point of view. That's what I see it as.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
That's debate, Mr. Chair, and I would disagree with you on that.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
On that I guess we disagree. But it is debate. Sorry about that.
Mr. Fragiskatos, you are up.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
That's right, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.
Immediately I want to take issue with what we just heard. It has been very surprising to me, throughout these meetings we have had, to hear Mr. Julian stand in the way of this committee hearing out public servants, inviting them here in the first instance, then hearing them and having the opportunity to ask questions of those public servants. That is really what the subamendment is all about, as Mr. Julian well knows.
I can expect that kind of an attitude from my Conservative colleagues, but not from the NDP.
I've said at length at these meetings that I deeply respect what Mr. Julian brings to Parliament. He speaks very sincerely on the matter of public servants, and here we have public servants wanting to come to appear at our committee.
In fact, I'll read it into the record, in case colleagues are not aware—and maybe I'm being unfair to Mr. Julian. Perhaps he has not seen the letter that the Clerk of the Privy Council—
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes. As we discussed last week when Mr. Fragiskatos raised exactly the same debating points, there is a rule of repetition around these filibusters. He can't keep coming back to the same speech. He can't keep coming back to the same content. If he has has nothing further to add—
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
If he has nothing further to add, we should proceed to the vote.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
No, it's repetition. He raised exactly this same speech last week and we're in the same filibuster.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Fragiskatos was referring to a letter—I believe from the clerk, is it?
Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos, and we'll see where it goes. I'll cut you off if it's repetition.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
No, I was simply making a point in reference to what Mr. Julian had just added to our discussion here tonight, so it's not repetition.
I'll bring this to his and the committee's attention. Certainly I know that Liberal members are aware of this, and I think opposition members will know of it too, but still it deserves to be read into the record. This is the letter sent just yesterday, as I understand, by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Ian Shugart, to our clerk, Ms. Lukyniuk. It begins by saying:
Dear Ms. Lukyniuk: I am writing further to recent discussions at the Standing Committee on Finance. My colleagues and I would be pleased to make ourselves available to appear before the committee to speak to the redactions that were made if it would be useful to do so.
For reasons that I'll be pointing out in the next few minutes, I think it would be useful for us to hear Mr. Shugart and other public servants testify.
I know we have been discussing the documents requested by this committee for quite some time now. I think it's fair to say that there is some disagreement among the parties on the redactions of non-relevant cabinet confidences by the public service. As well, there is clearly confusion in regard to who redacted which set of documents that are floating out there.
We have the very comprehensive set of documents released by the government House leader, which had some light redactions in relation to personal privacy and unrelated cabinet confidences. Then we have the redactions completed by the law clerk, which were more intensive. These disagreements and the confusion in relation to these documents are all fair and valid points.
This turns me to the letter from Mr. Shugart. As the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, he is in fact ultimately responsible for safeguarding cabinet confidences. It is he who gave very clear instructions to relevant departments to release as much information as possible in regard to the Canada student service grant. As a result of these instructions, several departments undertook to release an unprecedented level of information, including cabinet confidences relating to the CSSG, the Canada student service grant. Over 5,000 pages were disclosed, and included documents that would never have seen the light of day under the previous Harper government. I think even opposition colleagues would agree with that, including perhaps even Conservatives, but I'll leave that point aside.
As has been discussed here at length, we saw documents ranging from memoranda to cabinet, prime ministerial briefing notes and cabinet committee synopses to departmental briefing notes and correspondence between public servants, ministerial staff, deputy ministers and ministers. The release of these documents is significant.
The opposition members can take umbrage with the fact that some redactions were made by public servants. Frankly, I think this was to be expected. In order to release the details required for a fulsome review of the Canada student service grant, some redaction was required in relation to the non-relevant portions of these cabinet documents.
As my friends in the Conservative Party will know—Mr. Poilievre especially—typically cabinet meetings are not solely focused on one topic. Particularly during this ongoing pandemic, countless important topics are discussed at cabinet, and relevant discussions taken. In order to ensure the proper functioning of responsible government, reasonable redactions were made to unrelated topics included in these cabinet documents so as to allow for their release.
This is not out of the ordinary. Truthfully, this is the standard operating procedure. I know my colleagues are trying to set this narrative that they are making reasonable requests for documentation and that it's a standard move to allow the law clerk to review unredacted documents. However, this couldn't be further from the truth, and they know that. They have been in this position themselves. They understand that this inherent tension between the executive and legislative branches in regard to access to Crown confidences has existed since Confederation, and in fact much longer in other Commonwealth countries.
We have discussed these documents at length, and the opposition has expressed their indignation with the redactions completed by the non-partisan professional public service.
Right here, right now, we have an opportunity to clear the air and address their concerns. We have in our possession this letter from Mr. Shugart, who wishes to come before this committee, along with relevant deputy ministers, to discuss the documents that were released by the Government of Canada. Because of Mr. Shugart's position and his initial commitment to release all documentation related to the Canada student service grant, he is in fact uniquely positioned to answer our questions.
It therefore begs this question: Why does the opposition not want to hear from the clerk and the relevant deputy ministers? Why do they not want to hear from the professional, non-partisan public servants who could provide the answers to the questions we are all seeking? I think the only logical answer here is that the answers that are likely to be provided do not fit the opposition's narrative. Accepting the clerk's offer to appear is actually the most prudent thing we could do right now as a committee. If the opposition has questions related to redactions, the clerk, and the deputies attending with him, can answer them.
I find it extremely interesting that since Parliament resumed back in September, we have had several meetings in regard to these documents. Throughout the prorogation, the opposition was talking about these documents and the redactions that were made. Now we have an opportunity here from the chief public servant who controls the release of the documents, and the opposition argues against his appearance.
I'm getting a bit of whiplash here. Just what is the opposition's position on this matter? My theory is that the opposition is afraid to hear from Mr. Shugart and the other deputies. I think they know full well that Mr. Shugart, who is a non-partisan public servant, will reinforce the true reality here. Conversely, if the opposition really thinks the information that was redacted was somehow inappropriate or in bad faith, they should welcome having Mr. Shugart here to answer questions. Furthermore, I do not think my opposition colleagues want to hear from Mr. Shugart—specifically because he has reason and precedent for the cabinet confidences that were not disclosed. I do not think my opposition colleagues have a leg to stand on with respect to their arguments.
I noted earlier in my remarks that there has been, since Confederation, this natural tension between the executive and legislative branches of government in Canada. Canada is a nation built on the principle of three co-equal branches of government, each charged with inherent responsibilities. It is true that Parliament is in fact supreme in its abilities to request a call for documents and to request the appearance of government individuals. However, as history shows us, that call does not always have to be answered. In fact, parliamentarians have a responsibility to use their privilege powers wisely, exercising them in only the most extreme of circumstances. This is not one of those times.
I think my opposition colleagues know full well that the Clerk of the Privy Council has legitimate and reasonable grounds for disclosing the information that was disclosed while at the same time holding back unrelated matters. I underline that: “unrelated matters”. It's interesting, because it was actually the former justice minister Rob Nicholson, of course a Conservative minister, who back in 2010 made reasonable arguments on the responsibilities of government to withhold cabinet confidences and maintain Crown secrets.
On March 31, 2010, at page 1220 of Debates, for example, Mr. Nicholson notes that “as parliamentarians, we should always be guided by a principle of great restraint when asserting privileges of the House”.
Mr. Nicholson goes on to note the following:
On this point, I would remind the House that our parliamentary privileges are not indefinite, nor unlimited, but defined by the Constitution in the Parliament of Canada Act as those possessed by the United Kingdom House of Commons in 1867.
On the second point, I would remind the House that exact scope of those privileges [has] been a matter of debate since Confederation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, many of our parliamentary privileges are unwritten.
Now, this is a key point. As my opposition friends' former colleague states, the scope of privileges is “a matter of debate”, and has been so since Confederation. Inherently, this idea that Mr. Poilievre has had his privileges violated, because the documents that were produced were void of some cabinet confidence in keeping with the long-standing practices of a responsible government, is a matter of debate all unto itself.
I think that's what my opposition colleagues are afraid to hear from Mr. Shugart, to be frank about it, that the missing information that was unrelated to WE might not add to this whole issue that we are faced with with by the opposition.
Whether it be Speaker Beaudoin in 1957 or our friends in the U.K. in 1997, there is a long-standing practice amongst parliamentary democracies to exclude cabinet confidences from disclosure to Parliament unless absolutely necessary. While it is true that Parliament has its ability to exercise supremacy, it should be recognized that the non-partisan and professional public service also has a sworn duty to uphold the secrecy of cabinet confidences and Crown secrets. Mr. Shugart, in his duty as the steward of those secrets, determined it appropriate to release confidences as they relate to the CSSG, and the public was provided with over 5,000 pages of information, much of them stamped “SECRET” or “CONFIDENCES OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY COUNCIL”.
However, the clerk still has a duty to uphold the secrecy on matters unrelated to the CSSG, and he has done just that. Clearly, this is why my opposition colleagues do not want to hear from him, as a reasonable explanation coming from this non-partisan public servant. Even our Supreme Court has stated in the Vaid decision that each of the three branches of government must respect the legitimate spheres of the others, noting this while at the same time defining some of the limits to Parliament's supremacy under the Parliament of Canada Act.
Bringing this towards a conclusion, Mr. Chair, I think it's very important for us to hear from Mr. Shugart and the relevant deputy ministers. Hearing from our public servants to why some information was released and some wasn't is very important. I think we, as committee members and as Canadians more generally, deserve to hear about why the process undertaken by the clerk and other officials was in keeping with the regular course of practice when the government provides documents to Parliament.
As I've stated, colleagues across the way would have everyone think it's not a big deal to just hand over unredacted documents to the law clerk, but standard practice. Well, it's not. There are long-standing conventions for why this is not the regular order of business. Mr. Shugart is an expert witness who can provide context as to why that is the case.
Now is the perfect opportunity for my colleagues on the other side to stop playing petty partisan games, put their money where their mouths are, so to speak, and allow the Clerk of the Privy Council and other relevant deputy ministers to appear before this committee and provide their expert testimony as it relates to the disclosed documents that we've been discussing.
I also want to touch on a point raised by Ms. Dzerowicz when she spoke earlier this evening. She raised a very good question to the committee, specifically to opposition colleagues. We didn't hear a response from opposition colleagues, and I'd love to hear a response on the question. That question is: Why not? Why not bring Mr. Shugart and other public servants here so they can speak to the committee?
I really think that the committee is missing an enormous opportunity here. If we think back about the role that public servants play in a modern, mature democracy such as Canada's, their role cannot be understated at all. They provide the technical expertise and advice that is so vital for the functioning of modern government.
The evolution of the public service is a history in its own regard. When we see societies becoming more advanced in the same line, so to speak, you have the development of a public service. If you go back, for example, to the development and shift towards an industrial society, you saw not just the rise of democracy, but you also saw in parallel the development of a public service that could serve, not just government, but more generally, and even more importantly, the people, the citizens of a particular land. In our case we're talking about Canada.
This role of providing technical expertise on answering questions of elected officials is long standing. This is a long-standing one, not just in the Westminster parliamentary tradition, but goes all the way to the Italian city states. Machiavelli was, for example, an adviser, and we could call him a public servant—