Finance Committee on Oct. 28th, 2020

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Julian continues to do this. It's interesting that on the one hand he raises points around privilege, but then he regularly interrupts not just me but other members of the committee. He well knows that if he does it on an ongoing basis it raises matters of privilege. It is my parliamentary privilege to put on the record issues that I think are very important pertaining to this debate. I have not wavered from the general focus of the matter at hand. I reiterate that we as a committee have a unique opportunity to learn more about the process around decisions that were made, and to learn more about misunderstandings related to the CSSG that exist and have been peddled for some time by the opposition .

Let's have public servants come in. What is the fear? What is the worry? By denying them that right we deny them the ability to be heard. I wonder what we would say if we were in their position, if we were non-partisan public servants working in the bureaucracy who wanted to express and voice a point of view and had made that clear to, arguably, the most important parliamentary committee on Parliament Hill, and we heard members of the opposition holding that back. It's not right. It's not in keeping with best practices. It's not in keeping with what, again, our constituents would expect of us.

I go back again and underline that concept, that idea, of the word “constituents”.

What do those people who've sent us to Parliament want us to be discussing right now? They see a debate unfolding around this particular issue, one that, as far as I can tell, is bound to consume us here this evening and perhaps into the morning, and I'm completely prepared to do that. I remember, for example, two weeks ago when Mr. Gerretsen said that he would go to the hilt for public servants and I echo that view. By denying public servants the right to come to this committee, we're just not doing what's expected of us as MPs. In the same way that Mr. Gerretsen said it was important to put forward ideas that would allow for public servants to come and testify, I simply agree with that. I will absolutely go to the hilt, if I could put it that way, for our non-partisan, professional public service. They have something to say. The most important figure within the public service has issued an extraordinary letter and an extraordinary request. What are we doing? We see certain members of the opposition, who form a majority because of the minority Parliament, holding that back and preventing that from happening.

It's simply not on. Because of that and because we continue to see these debates take place here, we are also putting ourselves in a compromised position because the more this goes on the more we are likely to break Standing Order 83.1.

I put again to my colleagues, very respectfully, to think long and hard about what it is that we are trying to achieve. We have an opportunity....

I see Mr. Longfield is attending the meeting. I will tell you he is one of the most passionate people I've met on issues around innovation. He would want to see a committee talk about issues relating to high tech, innovation and how that impacts his constituents in Guelph.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On a point of order, Mr. Julian, you're likely talking about relevance.

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

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. If he's run out of things to say, we should really proceed to a vote. It's been three weeks now with a lot of repetition and irrelevant comments. I think it's time now to proceed to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

The point I'll leave with or the point I haven't considered here tonight, I should say, and it will be the final point before I turn it over, is this: What precedent are we setting? By preventing public servants to come we are putting ourselves in a compromised position. I raised the question last week at our meeting when I simply asked if there was some sort of legal outcome that we would have to worry about as a committee if we hear from public servants who want to testify and we prevent them from doing so. Is there any precedent? Is there any precedent with ramifications that the clerk could point to in that regard? It's something I genuinely worry about.

Again, we have a letter here that's been sent. We ought to say yes to Mr. Shugart.

I look forward very much to colleagues putting on the record their thoughts on the matter here tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

There do seem to be a considerable number of calls for relevance. We are debating the subamendment by Mr. Gerretsen to the amendment by Pat Kelly to the motion by Mr. Poilievre.

I'm going to read the subamendment so people can keep it in mind:

That the committee requests the complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to 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,—

We're past that date now.

—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.

That's the subamendment that we have to be relevant to.

I have on my list Ms. Koutrakis followed by Mr. Longfield.

Do you want to be on the list or do you have a point to raise, Mr. Julian? I'm not hearing you.

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

I raised my hand a long time ago to be on the speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Sorry.

Were you ahead of Ms. Koutrakis? Were you on the sidebar?

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

I thought I was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

We'll let you go first, and then we'll go to Ms. Koutrakis.

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

Thank you very much.

I will be brief. I always enjoy hearing from Ms. Koutrakis.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for reading the subamendment. Now the public is aware that this is a motion that basically kills privilege. It suspends, which is sneaky. By suspending and delaying, what it basically does is it makes the privilege motion no longer timely, which is a key factor in privilege and which is why privilege was raised the very first day we came back.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I want to say that I heard this argument earlier on by the honourable member of Parliament—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I don't think that's a point of order, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

There's repetition going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The floor is Mr. Julian's.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I always welcome Mr. Sorbara's interventions.

What is key is that the Speaker has actually asked us in his ruling, because of the timely nature, to report back. He asked about the committee deciding what to do with them, which is what the motion says. The subamendment kills that component and doesn't allow the motion of privilege to go forward. I reiterate because I think it's important for people who are still with us watching the finance committee, which is in a public forum.

The reality is that the subamendment kills the motion of privilege and does not allow the Speaker to rule on this. That's an important point. Why are government members trying to stop the Speaker from ruling, a Speaker who was elected by everybody? That's a question that should be in the public's mind regardless of who is intervening during the course of the evening. A privilege motion goes to the Speaker and the Speaker rules. The Speaker has the ability, looking at privilege and looking at precedent, to decide whether the committee report is valid, so why are Liberal members trying to stop the motion from going through and the report from being presented to the Speaker? That's something that all members of the public should keep in mind this evening.

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield my time to Ms. Koutrakis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We're back to Ms. Koutrakis.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague Mr. Julian.

I also enjoy listening to your arguments.

I will have to respectfully disagree with the last point you made, which was that the subamendment kills Mr. Poilievre's motion. What the subamendment tries to do and what, very eloquently, my colleagues have previously explained and clarified is that it would allow us to see the two packages of documents and be able to compare them to make sure that there was no breach of privilege. The best people to do that and to come and present are the Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk.

We all agree that we hold both in very high regard and that they are very well respected. I believe we all feel that way as members of the finance committee, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, I'm worried that we will not allow these two very professional people to come before our committee to give their own explanation in their own words as to why the information was redacted the way that it was. It's almost as if we were in a court where somebody has been found guilty before being given due process.

I genuinely believe that is not what we are all saying at the finance committee. I really believe that we all come from a good place with good intentions, and we're trying to find the right path to satisfy all sides, and more importantly, to make sure that we serve Canadians and our constituents as they expect and deserve.

I'll just circle back a little and put on the record again what the finance committee adopted on July 7, 2020.

On July 7, 2020 the finance committee adopted a motion requesting various types of documents, “regarding the design and the creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any other correspondence and records or other correspondence with WE Charity and Me to We from March, 2020”.

The Privy Council Office provided the documents in its possession that were responsive to the committee's motion on August 8, 2020, which was the deadline set by this committee. The PCO documents were also part of a larger package provided to the committee from the six government departments involved in the development of the CSSG that had been approached by WE concerning youth initiatives in the context of a pandemic.

I will be speaking today about PCO's documents. In particular, I would like to speak about the relatively few instances where certain personal information was protected from disclosure to the committee. I will do that because it is important to understand the very valid reasons that this was done and the responsible manner in which it was done.

The motion the committee adopted on July 7 setting out the mandate for its study on this matter included the objective of examining “how the outsourcing of the Canada Student Service Grant to WE Charity proceeded as far as it did”. The approximately 5,000 total pages in each official language given to our committee provide a comprehensive understanding of the development and the launch of the CSSG. They demonstrate the due diligence analysis that was conducted by the public service, including with respect to the financial assessment of WE.

The documents also provide details about cabinet decision-making around the CSSG, as considerable information that would otherwise constitute cabinet confidence was released to the committee due to public statements by ministers about what was before cabinet.

The finance committee therefore received more information than its motion requested, given it provided for cabinet confidences to be excluded. On the other hand, none of the personal information redacted in PCO's documents would assist the committee in fulfilling its mandate of examining the CSSG. Therefore, I really believe it is worth first discussing why personal information is protected from disclosure under the law.

As is explained on the website of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in this quotation:

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the Privacy Act has “quasi-constitutional status”, and that the values and rights set out in the Act are closely linked to those set out in the Constitution as being necessary to a free and democratic society.

Others have argued that the protection of an individual's privacy is closely linked to the protection of their autonomy and human dignity. The Privacy Act, passed by Parliament in 1983, provides that, “Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed” except in very specific circumstances described in the act.

It is sometimes noted that the Privacy Act does not apply to the House of Commons and its committees. This is true in the sense that parliamentary bodies are not government institutions subject to the act, and that parliamentarians do not have to manage personal information under their control in the ways provided for by the act.

However, the Privacy Act does apply to government institutions from which parliamentarians sometimes seek information, as was the case with the finance committee's July 7 request. Ministers and public servants are therefore bound by this law and the restrictions it places on disclosing personal information when responding to requests for documents. They can't ignore the law, regardless of who is requesting the information.

Furthermore, the July 7 request for papers stated that “any redactions” of “personal information” were to be made by the House law clerk. Although on its face the intention of this part of the motion was to protect personal information, it put departments in a difficult situation. Any personal information that is disclosed to the law clerk must be authorized by the Privacy Act. An impermissible disclosure under the Privacy Act cannot be saved even if the law clerk takes subsequent steps to protect the information from further disclosure.

In his cover letter to the committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council wrote:

In this package, I have...chosen to disclose certain personal information contained in the Privy Council records relating to individuals working in ministers' offices as well as personal information of individuals who work for WE. I have decided to disclose this information because in my view the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy. I have notified the Privacy Commissioner of my intention to disclose this personal information, as I am required to do under the Privacy Act.

I have decided to protect the phone number and email addresses of WE employees other than Craig and Marc Kiehlburger. In addition, there are a few references to the family members of a public servant and I have chosen to protect that information. In my opinion, the public interest in disclosing this type of personal information does not clearly outweigh the invasion of privacy.

If we were to assume, Mr. Chair, that the Clerk of the Privy Council is not honest and he's not forthcoming, that he's not doing his job as he should be, then I hate to use the word and I don't want to use the word, but it's almost like we're alleging—or some members of our committee from the opposition are alleging—that he's not to be trusted.

If he's not to be trusted, then why has this employee, Mr. Shugart, been part of our government process and in various positions for as long as he has? I think that's something that each and every one of us and the Canadians who are watching us right now have to answer and have to take a step back and say.... You know, we hire the best people, and I have no reason whatsoever not to believe that we have the best people in our public service, because I know we do. We're lucky.

We have a parliamentary system and a government where democracy works. I think we need to show them, especially our public servants, how we believe in the work that they do, and we need to trust them.

This approach was in keeping with the paragraph that I read earlier, just to circle back. This approach was in keeping with paragraph 8(2)(m) of the Privacy Act, which authorizes the disclosure of personal information, where the head of the government institution considers that “the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure”.

Let's take a closer look at some of the personal information that was protected from disclosure in the PCO documents. This is where I would love to be able to have Mr. Shugart before the committee to go through it himself, so that we could all hear in his own words why.

Most of the personal information that has been protected from disclosure is the email addresses and telephone extensions of WE Charity employees contained in the various correspondence, as was indicated in the letter from the Clerk of the Privy Council.

For example, on page 50, there is an email from Craig Kielburger to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, dated April 22, 2020. The only information not disclosed in this message are the email addresses of two WE employees and one of their telephone extension numbers. However, their names are provided: Sofia Marquez and Lauren Martin. The committee was thus made aware that these two individuals were copied on the email and thus had knowledge of discussions between WE and the government. In fact, Ms. Marquez testified before the House Standing Committee on Finance on August 13, 2020. All of the content of the message from Mr. Kielburger is provided.

Similarly, on page 52, there is an April 10, 2020 email from Mr. Kielburger to the minister where the only information not disclosed is the email address and telephone extension of two WE employees, but their names are shown. Attached to this email is the proposal that WE provided to the government entitled “Engaging Young Canadians In Service and Social Entrepreneurship Programming”, and none of its contents is redacted. The email address of Mr. Kielburger's executive assistant does nothing to advance the committee's understanding of the CSSG.

Beginning on page 364 is a draft of the funding agreement for support for students and recent graduates between Canada and WE Charity Foundation. The only information protected from disclosure in this 16-page document is the email addresses and telephone numbers of the WE Charity employees listed as contacts. Their names and position titles are provided. All the rest of the information in this vital document is shown, such as the purpose of the contribution agreement; conditions governing the eligibility of expenditures; the requirement for WE to keep proper books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and to provide them to the government upon request; the requirement for WE to securely protect personal information; the requirement for WE to provide detailed biweekly reports to the government on program implementation; the right of the government and the Auditor General to audit the project; and so on and so on.

I should note that I am referring here to the draft agreement contained in PCO's package of documents. However, these same clauses are found in the final agreement contained in the documents provided by Employment and Social Development. Clause 24 of the final agreement relates to conflict of interest and states the following:

24.1 No current or former public servant or public office holder to whom the Conflict of Interest Act (S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 2), the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment or the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector applies shall derive a direct benefit from the Agreement unless the provision or receipt of such benefit is in compliance with the said legislation or codes.

24.2 No member of the Senate or the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of the Agreement or to any benefit arising from it that is not otherwise available to the general public.

I believe that I have shown that protecting from disclosure a very limited amount of personal information from the documents provided to the committee does not detract from the committee's objective of understanding the development of the CSSG and WE Charity's involvement. Further, when Canadians, such as those employed by charitable organizations, have dealings with the Government of Canada, they expect that their personal information will be protected in line with the Privacy Act. If the government did not protect personal information as the Privacy Act requires, then Canadians' trust in government and the rule of law would be eroded.

I would also like to touch briefly on the limited amount of information that was redacted in PCO's documents to protect the vulnerability of government communication systems. This is information that would be protected from disclosure under paragraph 16(2)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The information that was protected for this reason was the cellphone numbers of various public servants, ministers' staff and government conference call I.D. numbers. Wide dissemination of this information could allow unauthorized access to government telecommunications systems, something that I am certain none of us would ever want. Where these cellphone numbers had appeared, the names of the public servants they belonged to appear. This information was provided despite the committee's motion stipulating that it would be redacted by the law clerk. The Privacy Act allows, in the context of an access to information request, for the personal information of an officer or employee of a government institution that relates to the position or functions of the individual to be disclosed. Again, the cellphone numbers of public servants would do nothing to advance the mandate of the committee's study.

In his cover letter to the committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council stated, “As I noted when I appeared at committee on July 21, 2020, my intent has been to be as expansive as possible in relation to the information that I provide.”

This approach guided the work of public servants when they collected the documents requested by the committee and carefully considered what the public interest was when making decisions about what to protect from disclosure. They were also guided by “Open and Accountable Government, 2015”, which “sets out core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of Ministers in Canada's system of responsible parliamentary government.” It states in part:

Public servants also have a duty to hold in confidence some of the information that comes into their possession in the course of their duties. There is a tension between that obligation and the request of parliamentarians for disclosure of that same information. When appearing before parliamentary committees, public servants should refrain from disclosing that kind of confidential information, for instance because the information is confidential for reasons of national security or privacy....

The same passage was contained in the 2011 version of “Open and Accountable Government”. Various past governments have held the belief that the protection of Canadians' personal information from unauthorized disclosure, even to Parliament, is sacrosanct.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, explains how, in 1973, the government tabled in the House of Commons its views on the general principles governing notices of motion for the production of papers. Although not formally approved by the House, these principles have been followed since then. The document tabled in 1973, 10 years before the adoption of the Privacy Act, lists papers or documents considered exempt from production. This includes papers that are excluded from disclosure by statute, and papers that are private or confidential and are not of a public or official character.

In 2009, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts tabled its 22nd report entitled “The Power of Committees to Order the Production of Documents and Records”. This report dealt with a request for documents that included personal information contained in an audio recording. The government protected this information from disclosure, which the committee objected to.

The government's response to this report stated:

The Government believes that the departmental officials acted lawfully and diligently in these circumstances and that the House and Canadians should be concerned with the committee’s exercise of a claimed privilege in these particular circumstances. Necessity is the principle that underlies parliamentary privilege, which itself is “a gift from the electorate” to safeguard their rights. In the Government’s view, even if privilege were to extend so far, a very strong justification would be required for demanding the personal information of individual citizens, which in this case comprised twelve seconds of tape. In the same vein, the supplementary opinion of the 22nd report raises concerns that the committee “did not consider the public interest when demanding the production of these audiocassettes.” Regardless of the scope of the committee’s powers, the Government believes that parliamentary committees and all parliamentarians should, as a general principle and as a matter of convention, exercise restraint in the exercise of their privileges, particularly when the interests of individual citizens are affected.

This government response was signed by Rob Nicholson, then minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, and Jay Hill, then leader of the government in the House of Commons.

Getting back to the matter that is at the root of this discussion, the unprecedented public health crisis that is the COVID-19 pandemic, it is worth remembering the original objective of the CSSG, or the Canada student service grant, announced by the Prime Minister on April 22. It was at a time when the devastating economic impacts of the pandemic, which we are all living through again in the second wave, were already being felt. Many students were seeing their summer jobs, internships and volunteer positions evaporate.

The Prime Minister stated:

The future of our economy and our country relies on the opportunities and support we provide to Canadian students today. To promote a sustainable economic recovery, we need a strong workforce and good job opportunities for young people. That means giving them the support they need to continue their studies and encouraging them to serve their communities. Together, we will get through this difficult time.

Canada's professional, non-partisan public service set about designing a suite of initiatives to address this problem. That included the Canada student service grant. We heard this over and over again throughout the summer and when we started again on September 23. The public service worked around the clock to develop a proposal for cabinet that was informed by considerable due diligence.

When the House finance committee made its request for documents to examine this process, the public service again worked around the clock to assemble thousands of pages. Almost 6,000 pages were provided by the committee's deadline. Personal information was provided to the committee only after the Clerk of the Privy Council carefully weighed whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy interests at stake, as he is required to do under the Privacy Act. Most of the pages that appear to be redacted in the package in fact contain information on topics completely unrelated to the CSSG or WE Charity, such as other items being discussed at the same meetings. They are clearly marked as not relevant. The package of documents provides a comprehensive understanding of the design and creation of the Canada student service grant, as requested by the committee.

Again, Mr. Chair, I would implore all my colleagues around the table, discussing this very important issue today. I know that my colleagues and I and our government do not want to delay unnecessarily, or delay at all. We are all trying to find a way we can agree to move forward. As my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos said earlier, we have a lot.... I know that everybody agrees on this point, but how do we get there to move forward? We really need to start our pre-budget consultations.

I receive hundreds of emails every day from my constituents. As a member of the finance committee, many witnesses want to come to speak before us. As someone said—and I don't remember who said it, a colleague earlier—let cooler heads prevail. Let's start finding a way forward. I'm sure that we can. I am certain that we can. How do we get there? I think we need to compromise. I think we need to find a way forward. I think we should not, in any way ever, indicate either directly or indirectly that we do not trust our very professional public servants.

Mr. Shugart has released his letter. He would like to come before the committee. Who better than he to provide the answers we are looking for? As Ms. Dzerowicz said in her comments, the Clerk of the Privy Council redacted some and then the law clerk redacted some more. Who better than these two individuals to come before our committee so that all Canadians can hear first-hand, directly from their own mouths, why the documents were redacted in the way they were? I am sure that if they are given the opportunity to come before our committee....

There's no cover-up. There's no corruption whatsoever. There is no will from the government to hide anything from Canadians and our constituents. We just want to make sure we find a solution to this impasse and we get back to the very important work we were all elected to do: to serve our constituents in the best way we can, to be their strong voices and to offer them the support they so very much still need going through the second wave. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a third wave.

I beg all of you on this finance committee to find a way forward to do what we're expected to do.

I look forward to hearing more comments.

I thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the opportunity to provide my long-winded comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis.

I think you outlined the concern over the impasse. I would hope that parties are talking off-line to try to find a way out of this impasse.

I don't know if Pat Kelly—I don't see him on here at the moment. There used to be....

Pat, he might have been a relative of yours. There used to be a federal labour mediator by the name of Kelly, and he was one of the best.

Maybe we'll have to call you in, because your names are the same, to see if we can break this impasse.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I have a great idea. We'll just have a vote and then it's over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I don't think they're going to agree to that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Then they're the problem, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The next speaker on my list is Mr. Longfield.

Welcome, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee members. I'm pleased to be with you tonight.

I sat in on some of the meetings last week, and I was surprised that only the Liberals were talking about the documents that everybody wanted to see. Now we have the documents in front of us, and we have an amendment on the floor to bring in the people who did some redacting to explain the redactions.

I did see the presentation last week by Mr. Fraser, which was excellent in explaining how redactions happen and what was being redacted, and the pattern over and over of a mobile cellphone number that was redacted several times to protect the public servant, or in that case to protect their privacy, a person from the WE Charity who was being referenced in the documents. Canadian citizens who come forward and provide information for us also have protections under the rules of the committee.

In the rules of the committee I was surprised that Mr. Julian commented about having the Speaker rule on the committee and turning over our privilege to the Speaker. We all know in the House of Commons that committees are the masters of their own destinies. Pierre Poilievre's motion quotes the Speaker saying that the committee, which has control over the interpretation of its order, has an opportunity to examine the documents and decide what to do with them, which is what we're talking about tonight.

Without the subamendment, we're not doing what the Speaker asked. We're not having people be witnesses for us to explain positions and why things happened in the way they happened. We're saying we have the documents, and that's not enough. We need to know about the redactions, but we don't want to talk about them. We're chasing our own tail, and as Ms. Koutrakis said, I hope there is a way forward that could see the committee moving forward.

In the meantime, it's very important to discuss the documents in front of us. I thank Mr. Fragiskatos for mentioning that I'm a bit of an innovation geek. That came from being a managing director of a few businesses where we put in ISO 9000 quality management systems. This is the quality management system of the House of Commons: how we get documents in front of us to make sure that quality systems are being followed, and then bring people forward to discuss the quality system in application and how they interpreted it so that we could see whether there are differences in interpretation.

Everything we do has to do with documents. Last week the whole agreement was in front of the committee and could have been discussed, but the redactions were discussed. I won't go into that because tonight we're talking about amendments.

The agreement was very interesting. I have sat on 28 not-for-profit boards. My wife keeps track. The agreements we had with different orders of government and different types of not-for-profits were either contribution agreements, where you were paid up front to deliver services, or agreements where you were reimbursed later after you had provided services. IRAP is an example, the industrial research assistance program that we provide businesses. We were delivering it through a few not-for-profits in Guelph, and we had to up front the money. We did that through the chamber of commerce, through an agreement we set up with them to work with their balance sheet instead of our balance sheet as we were starting Innovation Guelph. We were able to provide services through the IRAP agreement and then had to report what we had done to the government to get reimbursed.

Other agreements we have, such as the one WE Charity had, are where you get paid up front. Then you have to report on how the money is disbursed and the qualifications for how the money gets disbursed. Who qualifies, how they qualified, how they were measured, how they report back to the government was all included in those documents in depth. We won't go over that tonight.

When you hear in the House of Commons comments that it was the Prime Minister's bank account, or this had something to do with the Prime Minister's family, it was a document that was a legal agreement between a charity and the Government of Canada, and that charity, through its board of directors, like any not-for-profit, has to be able to report finances and is largely controlled by a volunteer board of directors.

I'm not sure whether WE Charity had any paid board of directors members, but usually the board of directors oversees the disbursement of funds and then reports back that the agreements have been reached. Having sat on boards, I and the other members were very concerned about these reports coming back to us because the board members had the fiduciary responsibility to make sure that everything was being done properly so that we would eventually get paid back, or that we wouldn't have to give back to the government money we had misappropriated or misspent.

I was following Ms. Koutrakis very closely so that we wouldn't duplicate any pages. I'm starting on page 54 and page 55. The curtain has been lifted, if you will. For many of the redactions that we discussed in the committee last week, the committee has been shown what was behind the redacted black bar.

In regard to the motion before us, I'd like the committee to look through a number of these documents that we have in our digital binder, which really only the Liberals are discussing. Hopefully the other parties will also join in the discussion. This is the only way we can get it on the record that we now have these internal documents, the documents that are on our committee's website, and they can compare what the government provided to the parties through the government House leader's office. I'd also like to note that the government House leader's office provided the parties with a USB stick on the day of prorogation that contained all the documents that were submitted to the law clerk.

Before I get started, I just want to speak about the PCO document that was provided to the committee by the law clerk after his redactions. At page 55, if you want to look at that, you'll be aware that it was completely blacked out. That was one of those pages that was in the infamous press gallery scene when Mr. Poilievre theatrically waved some of the papers in front of the cameras and threw some of them in the air to show that some sort of government cover-up was happening. I think he would know, if he'd looked at the documents, that the redactions were there because there was a reason for the information to be taken out, and in those sections that were fully blacked out it had something to do with cabinet confidence.

Page 54 of the same document was also fully redacted, to such an extent that only the subject and date were visible. You know what was on the page but you can't see the details or the reasons our public service made that decision. Again, they could come and explain to the committee if the committee would have them. For now, our only witness is the document, which is why documents are so important in Parliament. Sometimes the document is all you have to go on.

I'm sure that none of the pages provided by the government House leader are in fact redacted. The entire page was redacted by the law clerk in the documents that he briefly provided to the committee.

I know in some of the debates people get heated and they say that the Prime Minister is the one who redacted these documents, or the House leader redacted these documents, and that the government is covering this up. Really, the decisions on the redactions were made by our independent public service, which provided thousands of pages for us to review. To see them thrown on the floor was a disservice to the public service, and it was also a disservice to documents in general.

Documents are sacred. If you think of documents in some of the major faiths of the world, they are sacred. It would be like my standing up at mass, being a lector, which I am, and pulling pages out of the lectionary and throwing them on the floor. The documents that we rely on need to be treated with respect. To see them thrown all over the floor was disrespectful of the documents. It would be like taking the Quran or the Sikh sacred writings or the Torah and disrespecting them. We have to respect the documents of Parliament, and the people behind those documents.