Finance Committee on Oct. 28th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

It is not a point of debate here. I simply want to make sure that the parliamentary record is accurate. The member ought to consult the IMF and the World Bank when making—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

That's debate.

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

That is debate, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm not sure. I haven't heard enough yet.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, I apologize for interrupting.

When too many speakers are speaking at the same time, there is noise, and the interpreters aren't able to translate the remarks. We should be aware of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Fragiskatos, the floor is yours for the moment.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, the parliamentary record ought to be accurate. Mr. Poilievre is putting forward points that are not. He ought to consult the World Bank, the IMF, economists who work at both, and he will find that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That is debate, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Poilievre, we'll go back to you, but keep it relevant to the topic we're on, if you can.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I guess now we can't talk about the economy at the finance committee. It's out of order.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order, and I think you will find that this is a point of order.

Mr. Poilievre has mentioned that the Conservatives wanted to move forward to the pre-budget consultations. I want to state for the record—and this is on the record—that my motion was actually put forward before the point of privilege that Mr. Poilievre put in, so it is we, the Liberals, who tried to get us immediately to the pre-budget consultations, but it was stopped by the Conservatives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right, I take your point, but we have to get through this impasse.

First, I think Mr. Fraser put forward a proposal earlier, and Mr. Poilievre has the floor now.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

It's funny, when you start talking about the economy at the finance committee, Liberals cry “Point of order, point of order, please stop talking about the economy.” I wouldn't want to talk about the economy either, with the record they have. It's a complete economic disaster. As I was saying, today the Bank of Canada had more bad news, that investment is expected to lag far behind and the only growth we're going to get is out of additional consumption, which means we're going to continue consuming more than we produce, borrowing more than we make—and all to produce the highest unemployment in the G7.

We're in an economic catastrophe right now. Conservatives want to get to the pre-budget consultations immediately, so we can come up with plans to fix this disastrous state and try to rescue the economy and find out why Canada has the worst performance in the G7.

All we have to do to get on to that is to vote on my motion, and then we're on to pre-budget consultations. I don't even mind starting to plan tonight for pre-budget consultations. I think it would take us about 10 minutes to vote and I still have some energy here, so I'd be happy to work even later into the night and at least get started with a skeleton plan for pre-budget consultations. We don't have to do it all tonight, but let's get going. We have a lot of economic wreckage to fix, and the finance committee is ground zero to fix it.

We're in a strange position where there's a government that, despite having the biggest deficit and highest unemployment in the G7, doesn't have a budget, doesn't have a fiscal anchor. They can't tell us what the deficit is; they can't tell us what the spending will be for this year; they're no longer publishing biweekly reports on their COVID programs—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Poilievre, I am going to say relevance here. I've let you go on for quite a while. When somebody comes up with the other arguments on the economy, which I expect they will, I'm going to have to let them go on for about equal time. We're going to find that more people are off the subamendment, and I will have to allow them because I'm allowing you to go on the economy, and I'll allow them as well.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I say let him go.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I can understand why the government wouldn't want to talk about the economy. We can add it to the list of the many things they don't want to talk about and they want to ban other people from talking about.

The question I ask on the WE scandal is, what is it that they have to hide? First, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament so this committee could no longer meet. Then, when it came back, he filibustered three committees: the procedure committee, the ethics committee, and the finance committee, which we're experiencing right now.

Then we said, “You know what? Just give those WE documents over to the law clerk in confidence. Let him look at them.” “No. Hell, no. We can't let him see those.” Then I said, “Well, you're violating our privileges as a committee. Why don't we let the Speaker rule on that?” “Oh, no, no. We can't let the Speaker rule on that either.”

They're terrified to let the Speaker render a judgment on the subject. He's actually a Liberal, and they don't trust him to rule on this. They seem to be afraid that he might have a conscience and rule according to the facts and the Standing Orders rather than partisan ideology, so they're trying to prevent the Speaker from even ruling on my point of privilege.

If my point of privilege has no merit, they'd just pass my motion right now; it would go off to the House, and the Speaker would take one look at it and throw it out the window. However, of course, the government knows it is very meritorious. It is a rock-solid case for the breach of privilege in which the government has engaged. That is exactly why they don't want the Speaker to have the opportunity to rule on it. They're afraid of the Speaker; they are afraid of the law clerk; they are afraid of whatever is hidden away in those documents under all that black ink. They are afraid of all those things. That's exactly why they are here today speaking for hours and hours, and in the process sacrificing our ability to carry out pre-budget consultations. Therefore, I would encourage the government to put an end to this ridiculous filibuster.

By the way, the antics aren't working. We saw in the by-elections, with cratered Liberal support in two long-time Liberal strongholds, that Canadians are not impressed. Liberal support collapsed in Toronto Centre, of all places, the most Liberal riding in the whole country. They went from winning by 17 points to five points in York Centre, another long-time Liberal stronghold. I think Canadians have been watching over the last month or so. They saw the Prime Minister try to cover up the WE scandal with the prorogation and the threats of an election and the endless procedural games, such as the one we're witnessing right now, and they said no.

I think the Prime Minister, who was so desperate to get to an election a week ago, might be thinking twice now. He might be saying, “Maybe I'm not in such a great position to call that election.” He desperately needs the election to happen before more of the truth comes out in the WE scandal. He's trying to delay the facts until after the election so that voters can't judge him on his real conduct. The truth will come out, and increasingly, I think you will find that Canadians are appalled by his conduct and the conduct that his MPs are engaging in on his behalf.

I would encourage members to do the job we were sent to do here. Stop covering up the corruption. If you have nothing to hide, don't hide it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Poilievre, I'm just going to read out what the Speaker asked us to do, and maybe you could respond to it, what the Speaker said at the end of your motion:

As of today, it is not possible to know whether the committee is satisfied with these documents as provided to it. The new session is now under way. 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.

It goes on from there.

Do you have any response to that and what the Speaker is really asking for? To me, he's asking us to look at the documents, not just send them to him.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

He is asking us for that, and we have looked at them. I spent six weeks looking at them after they were released, and as a member of the committee, I'm prepared to cast my vote that they are not in accordance with the original request of the committee when we passed our motion in the summer.

The Speaker has asked us to vote on whether we are satisfied with the documents the government released, and I am voting no to that by voting yes to my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're on the subamendment, and we're back to Ms. Dzerowicz, followed by Mr. Fonseca, Mr. Badawey and Mr. Gerretsen.

Ms. Dzerowicz, go ahead.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Poilievre's intervention was interesting. I think if Mr. Poilievre wants to move forward with the pre-budget consultations, he just needs to withdraw the motion. Then we could move immediately to my motion, which has been read and is on the table at the moment. We could get started this evening. There's nobody on the Liberal side who would be opposed to doing that.

What I also find very interesting is Mr. Poilievre's comment that when the Clerk of the Privy Council is part of a Conservative government, they are independent, but they become a personal employee when the Prime Minister is a Liberal. The Clerk of the Privy Council is an independent civil servant, and I truly believe that they serve equally no matter who is in office, whether it's the Conservatives or the Liberals. I'm not quite sure why, under a Liberal government, the Clerk of the Privy Council becomes a personal employee of the Prime Minister, as opposed to an independent civil servant.

Mr. Poilievre keeps asking the same questions, and I'm not quite sure why he thinks he will get different answers. What we had agreed to on July 7 was that we provide all the documents for WE, that matters of cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request, and that we allow any other redactions necessary to protect the privacy of Canadians. The rest of that motion speaks to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.

We don't agree with it, because we want to be consistent with the July 7 motion. We feel that we have honoured it and that there is no breach of privilege by this committee.

I'm not quite sure what Mr. Poilievre means with his comment that we're acting erratically. I will only speak for myself. I have zero desire to be speaking anymore about any of these motions. I truly want to get to pre-budget consultations. I would like to hear from any other speakers who might want to come before this committee.

I think our fiscal situation is unprecedented, because we are going through an unprecedented pandemic. We absolutely need the very best ideas and advice right now, not only to continue to help Canadians and businesses, but also to chart a course out of this pandemic so we can build a foundation from which to pivot as strongly as possible as we come out of it.

I don't think we are acting erratically. I can only speak for myself. I have zero desire to continue to speak about this. I would rather move on to pre-budget consultations, as I have mentioned now twice in my remarks over the last few minutes. I have talked about pre-budget consultations, and there is a motion on the table. It is very easy for us to go back to it.

The next comment I want to make is about the idea that we have something to hide, that there is a scandal. It's almost as though we have to keep repeating: They say there's a scandal and we're hiding things, and then we say it's not true. I keep reminding the committee of this because I'm hoping that it continues to go out into the public, whether through the media or directly to Canadians who might be listening. We had several months of testimony. We heard from many witnesses. There is no scandal. There is no corruption. We have heard testimony under oath. There is no corruption. There is no close personal friendship between the Kielburgers and the Prime Minister or any of our ministers. There is no misuse of funds. Zero funds were spent. All the money has come back.

WE Charity was selected by our civil servants. This came out directly in the testimony of Rachel Wernick. It was the same day that Ms. Gina Wilson and Minister Bardish Chagger testified. We talked about why it's not a sole-source contract. We talked about why it had to be a contribution agreement and about all the things that were in place to ensure that there were proper checks by civil servants and that proper milestones were achieved before the different tranches of dollars would flow to WE Charity.

We talked about how absolutely this was for students and how the Canada student service grant was only one of many programs that we actually introduced for students. Indeed, we introduced $9 billion of support for students. The WE Charity one was the equivalent of up to $543 million, and that means that over $8 billion has flowed for other student programs. That money has flowed and the programs are successful. They have been helping students.

Then Mr. Poilievre talked about economic facts, and you know, honestly, I'm going to leave that. I know a lot of my colleagues are going to want to interject as well, but they're very one-sided, the facts that Mr. Poilievre has supported. I don't want to portray that there's a big rosy picture about our economy. We're going through an unprecedented economic and health crisis. We're going through a pandemic that is unprecedented, at least in the last hundred years. Every major country is going through this. There is a major rupture in the global financial and economic force that actually exists in the world today.

Yes, it's serious. Yes, we have to be vigilant. Yes, we have to be accountable for what we're spending. Yes, we have to be thinking very thoughtfully and grabbing the best ideas and the best thoughts in order to chart a course forward, but there's no way that this is all negative. I know that we've heard from TD and a few other banks who say that Canada has outperformed the United States, that we have taken a number of steps that have been very beneficial in helping to support Canadians, in helping to support businesses.

We also know we have quotes from TD Bank economists saying that “federal government income support programs” have so far been of paramount importance in “averting a delinquency tsunami”. We also have the managing partner at KPMG who said, “Our clients have told us that the federal wage subsidy program is helping them not only to retain their employees, but also to cope with pandemic-related costs and rehire workers who have been laid off”.

There are a number of other quotes we have. We know that about 75% of our workforce is back working, and that's compared to 52% of the U.S. population. Again, no one is presenting this as the rosiest picture, but we're not in rosy times. We're in difficult times and there's nobody, at least on the Liberal side, who is questioning going to pre-budget consultations or hearing from specific experts.

Anyway, I think for the scribbles I did in response to Mr. Poilievre's comments, that is what I have.

So where are we? I apologize in advance. I know I shouldn't, but I do have a bit of a prepared speech. It is actually very relevant, because it speaks to the colossal effort and the incredible amount of collaborative work, as well as the sheer transparency that has already gone into producing the WE documents and also the huge effort that's been undertaken to disclose as much information as possible. But I think also in my speech you're going to get a sense of how much knowledge a senior civil servant needs to have to properly do redactions, to follow the privacy laws and follow the principles and rules that ensure maximum transparency.

Then I'm going to end with where we are now. I'm not anywhere as talented as Mr. Fraser. I will not be going anywhere as long, but I will begin now. I will say to you, before I begin, that I would prefer that we have the Clerk of the Privy Council come to the committee with the law clerk. I think they are the best people to be responding to the WE documents that have been submitted, that have been redacted. I think this is what the opportunity is, and that's the opportunity that this subamendment to the amendment to the original motion actually presents.

But in the absence of getting approval from anybody in opposition at this moment, I will continue with my remarks.

Mr. Chair, as a democratic society founded on the guiding principles of openness, transparency and accountability, Canada and its government consistently work to maintain legitimacy and the trust of the people they serve. In support of these principles, measures have been put in place within our institutions to make sure that government information is available and accessible to the public, which allows them to hold their governments to account. This is why we have an Access to Information Act. The Access to Information Act gives Canadian individuals or corporations in Canada the right to access records of government institutions that are subject to the act.

However, we know that in the process of upholding these principles our government does not operate in a vacuum. In its mission to protect and deliver services, the Government of Canada is called upon to interact and transact daily with individuals and corporations, resulting in the capture of private and other information. That's why we have the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act protects the privacy of those whose personal information the Government of Canada has access to, and provides them with the right to access that information. It also protects against unauthorized disclosure of that personal information, while safeguarding the collection, use, storage, disclosure and disposal of any of that personal information.

It is true that these acts apply and are enforced in the same way across government. However, it's not uncommon for different government departments or agencies to have their own internal procedures when it comes to dealing with the requests for the release of personal information. Let me give you a comparison.

At the Department of Canadian Heritage, for instance, the mechanism in place to deal with access to information and privacy is the access to information and privacy secretariat. On the department's website, it is stated:

The mandate of the Canadian Heritage Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Secretariat is to implement and administer the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to ensure that legislative and central agency policies and procedures are respected on behalf of the Department.

The ATIP Secretariat coordinates responses to requests for information held by Canadian Heritage by either sending copies of requested records to applicants or by arranging for applicants to review requested records onsite.

By comparison, if you go to ESDC, Employment and Social Development Canada, in addition to the Privacy Act, they decided to go further in their management of personal information. The department is governed by additional statutory obligations as set out in the department's enabling act, which dictates the rules that apply to personal information that is controlled by ESDC through its programs. According to information available on its website, ESDC also has a place, an offence provision, for the inappropriate use and disclosure of personal information under the control of ESDC.

Despite these different internal processes, when it comes to the management of privacy by different departments, there is one thing that has always been consistent, and that is the professionalism and hard work of our public servants. Whether they work at Heritage Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada or Public Services and Procurement Canada, we owe them respect and gratitude for the phenomenal job they do at keeping our country running, even under very difficult conditions and circumstances. If the last few months have taught us anything, it is that our public servants are truly the rock of our government.

When a government department such as ESDC receives an access to information request, it has to determine whether information in the requested document could be considered third party information under the act. When the department determines that the documents in question contain information that could be considered third party information as defined under section 20 of ATIP, officials are required to consult with the third party prior to the documents being released, as stipulated in section 27 of the act, while allowing them 20 days to respond, pursuant to section 36.3 of the act.

First, let's hear what section 20 of the act says on third party information. Under the heading “Third Party Information”, subsection 20(1) reads:

Subject to this section, the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Part that contains

(a) trade secrets of a third party;

(b) financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by the third party;

(b.1) information that is supplied in confidence to a government institution by a third party for the preparation, maintenance, testing or implementation by the government institution of emergency management plans within the meaning of section 2 of the Emergency Management Act and that concerns the vulnerability of the third party’s buildings or other structures, its networks or systems, including its computer or communications networks or systems, or the methods used to protect any of those buildings, structures, networks or systems;

(c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party; or

(d) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations of a third party.

With regard to notices to third parties, subsection 27(1) of the Access to Information Act reads:

If the head of a government institution intends to disclose a record requested under this Part that contains or that the head has reason to believe might contain trade secrets of a third party, information described in paragraph 20(1)(b) or (b.1) that was supplied by a third party, or information the disclosure of which the head can reasonably foresee might effect a result described in paragraph 20(1)(c) or (d) in respect of a third party, the head shall make every reasonable effort to give the third party written notice of the request and of the head's intention to disclose within 30 days after the request is received.

Finally, as part of that consultation, the third party has 20 days from the time of the consultation notice to make representations to the government body in question as to why certain information pertaining to them should not be disclosed.

In the case of ESDC, the decision on whether to disclose that information would be made having considered these representations, if received, and notice of such decisions would be given to the third party.

Subsection 36.3(1) states clearly, under “Notice to third parties”:

If the Information Commissioner intends to make an order requiring the head of a government institution to disclose a record or a part of a record that the Commissioner has reason to believe might contain trade secrets of a third party, information described in paragraph 20(1)(b) or (b.1) that was supplied by a third party or information the disclosure of which the Commissioner can reasonably foresee might effect a result described in paragraph 20(1)(c) or (d) in respect of a third party, the Commissioner shall make every reasonable effort to give the third party written notice of the Commissioner's intention.

In terms of the “Contents of notice”, subsection 36.3(2) states:

The notice must include

(a) a statement that the Information Commissioner intends to make an order requiring the head of a government institution to disclose a record or part of a record that might contain material or information described in subsection (1);

(b) a description of the contents of the record or the part of the record that, as the case may be, belong to, were supplied by or relate to the third party to whom the notice is given; and

(c) a statement that the third party may, within 20 days after the notice is given, make representations to the Commissioner as to why the record or part of the record should not be disclosed.

Mr. Chair, having said all of this, I would be remiss if I did not go back to the genesis of what brings us here again today. Why is this all important? It's because—and I said part of this at the outset of my remarks—I think it's really important to remind my colleagues on this committee of the colossal effort, the incredible amount of collaborative work, as well as the sheer transparency, that has already gone into the production of documents for the study of the government decision to enter into a contribution agreement with the WE organization to administer the Canada student service grant.

On July 16, Minister Bardish Chagger, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, the minister responsible for the Canada student service grant, appeared before this committee in response to an invitation by the committee. She was first in a long list of cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, as well as public servants and civil society witnesses, to appear before this committee to talk about the government decision to list the WE Charity organization for the administration of the Canada student service grant. I do think it's worth repeating that it's historic. The Prime Minister does not typically come before a committee, so the Prime Minister decided to attend in the interest of ensuring maximum accountability and transparency.

Let's get back to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. During her appearance, the minister and her officials were asked a number of questions relating to email exchanges, phone calls and other types of correspondence between herself and the Kielburgers, starting in March 2020, as well as information on briefing notes, memos and emails between her office and her officials.

On that same day, public servant Rachel Wernick, senior assistant deputy minister for the skills and employment branch at Employment and Social Development Canada, was also invited by the committee to testify. During Ms. Wernick's appearance, she was asked to provide the committee with a number of follow-up documents.

Gina Wilson, the deputy minister for Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, and Stephanie Hebert, assistant deputy minister for Employment and Social Development Canada, also testified to talk about the contribution agreement between the federal government and WE Charity. These officials were asked numerous questions on memos and emails, including on the contribution agreement between the government and the organization, and on briefings from senior officials prepared for or sent to any minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada student service grant, starting with when the plan for that grant crystallized.

These questions were answered in the moment or were included in either documents released on July 27 or the document package of August 8. We should note that this is part of the minutes record of those meetings, and I would encourage anyone who might want to refresh their memory and see what exactly it says to do so.

On July 21, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart, in response to an invitation from this committee, also appeared before this committee as part of the same study on WE Charity and the Canada student service grant. He took a lot of pointed questions from opposition members on the names of participants and timelines of the WE contribution agreement, and was asked to provide many documents for the committee's study, to which he was extraordinarily accommodating. I don't think he once said no to any document that was actually asked for.

During these appearances, Minister Bardish Chagger and her officials, as well as the clerk, were asked to provide the committee with a number of follow-up documents, including proposals submitted by the WE organization to ESDC officials, email exchanges between ESDC officials and the Keilburger brothers from the WE organization, and finally information regarding efforts to engage with other organizations' administration of the Canada student service grant.

Details about other organizations contacted in the early development stages of the Canada student service grant program.... Sorry, that didn't come out very well, but I think what I meant to say was that details about other organizations that were also contacted in the early development stages of the CSSG program...were also contacted.

In response to the committee's request for these follow-up documents, government officials, instead of dragging their feet to the August 8 deadline for the production of these documents, went to work immediately and produced the follow-up documents within six days.

To me, that's extraordinary, because we had a group of civil servants who had been working non-stop during the initial part of our pandemic to produce programs, to provide emergency supports, to provide their best ideas, to introduce these programs in as quick, efficient and responsible a manner as possible. On top of that, they came before our committee and they made sure these documents were available as quickly as possible and would meet the very quick timeline of August 8. I very much appreciate their extraordinary efforts: not only the extraordinary work that they do, but also their efforts to produce these documents.

In the following list, I'll go back to what was produced in six days: the proposal dated April 9 from WE, entitled “Closing the COVID-19 Opportunity Gap for Young People through Social Entrepreneurship”; the email dated April 22, 2020 from Mr. Keilburger to Ms. Wernick; the attachment to the April 22 email; the WE Charity proposal dated April 21, entitled “Engaging Young Canadians in Service and Social Entrepreneurship Programming”; and the list of all the organizations that were consulted and/or considered by ESDC officials to deliver a student service program.

The list includes, without being limited to, Apathy is Boring, Katimavik, Mind Your Mind, Canadian Roots Exchange, The Duke of Edinburgh's award, Rideau Hall Foundation, Do Some Good, Community Foundations of Canada, Canadian Red Cross, United Way, Volunteer Canada, Universities Canada, Colleges and Institutes Canada.

I will point out, Mr. Chair, that there was this big question about whether it was the Prime Minister or some minister who thought that they had to go right to WE Charity and that this was what they wanted to go to right away.

In the testimony during the summer, we heard that there was actually a fairly robust list that senior civil servants explored in terms of who could deliver the Canada student service grant, and it's also listed here. I think it's important for me to point this out.

Mr. Chair, these documents I just listed were separate from and in addition to the request for the production of documents captured in my colleague Peter Julian's motion of July 7, which asked for a number of documents to be released to the committee by August 8. They were all released on July 27 and were critical in shaping the subsequent work of this committee in its study of the government's decision to enter into a contribution agreement with WE Charity. They also provided much-needed clarity to our members as they continued to cross-examine other witnesses that have appeared before the committee since then. Additionally, these documents were also included in the document production package that was made available on August 8.

The Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth, who is also the minister responsible for the Canada student service grant, has appeared before both this committee and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. During both appearances, she was asked many of the same questions, and her answers were consistent. At every turn, whenever she was asked to provide follow-up documents, she responded very collaboratively and committed to submitting all information that could help the different committees do their work.

By the end of it, when it was time to produce the documents, thousands of pages were made available to the committee. Despite the attempts to expose some type of government cover-up, the documents produced on August 8 confirm what Minister Bardish Chagger, the Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council and government officials had said all along, which was that public servants were the ones who recommended the WE Charity organization to administer the Canada student service grant.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to conclude this part of my formal remarks—I still have some more remarks after this—by saying that in the last several months, our government's response to the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been an example of clear and consistent leadership. We've adopted a series of measures that have supported the most in need and the most vulnerable in our society. Indeed, we're probably up to about 80 programs that have been introduced. Based on the supplemental estimates that were released on October 27, our spending authority around all these emergency programs has actually gone up to $476 billion, which is an extraordinary and unprecedented amount of money. As the Canada student services grant has shown, sometimes there will be false starts, but we're no less determined to be there to provide for all those in need who need their government by their side during these difficult times.

I will say that when you're introducing 80 programs and you're introducing things fairly expeditiously, there are always going to be times when things don't go perfectly. I think it's perfectly legitimate for us to be following up on things that might not have gone perfectly.

We spent two months looking at the WE Charity and why they were selected to deliver the CSSG service. Why did we want it to be done so quickly? Why did it not end up going so well? I think we had a number of responses, but it also became very clear—I've said this many times, but it seems like repetition is the mot du jour—that there's been no corruption, and that's been proven. There's been no misuse of funds. It was selected by civil servants. It was rushed because of the summer. There was a contribution agreement that had very clear milestones and accountability mechanisms for all the dollars and all the deliverables that needed to be produced. With all of these documents, there is no cover-up.

These are my own concluding remarks. I want to go back because I want to sum up where we're at. I'm always hoping that at any moment, we might be able to find some way out of this impasse.

The reason I want us to find some way to get past this so that we can get to pre-budget consultations is that I truly believe that the work of this committee—perhaps more so than the work of many other committees—will be critical if we are to do all that we really need to do for Canadians. I do think we have to leave behind some of the partisan gamesmanship that we're seeing right now. We really have to focus back on the well-being of Canadians.

Mr. Chair, at the very beginning, on October 8, after I had proposed the pre-budget consultation motion and Mr. Poilievre then came in with his point of privilege, I thought there was some worry that there was a cover-up, that many documents were redacted or that we did not disclose all the information. However, we have now proven over the last four or five meetings that this is simply not true. We have shown that time and time again. There were 5,600 pages of documents released.

I also want to remind everyone that the documents were actually released before the Prime Minister prorogued government. To me, that's an important point. It's not an action of a government that's trying to hide something. We actually released those documents before we prorogued.

I also want to say that it was released.... There were two sets of redactions. We have to remind ourselves that the first set of redactions were actually done by our civil servants. They did it because of cabinet confidence and they did it for any personal information. I know Mr. Fraser spent quite a bit of time earlier this evening taking us through some of those examples. I think then it went over to the law clerk, who did some further redactions.

We're left with two sets of documents with redactions, but no politician did any of the redactions. It wasn't the Prime Minister, it wasn't any of the ministers, and it wasn't anybody on this committee. It was not politicians. It was independent civil servants who followed very clear rules.

As I mentioned in this speech, you can tell there are a lot of rules around the Privacy Act, such as what information needs to be disclosed, how you gather that information and what you release. There are a lot of rules around that. I think we have excellent, trained and very capable civil servants who I truly believe have done an excellent job in doing their best in providing as much accountability and transparency as they could while redacting the minimum amount that they felt they needed to do following the laws, the Access to Information Act and the privacy laws, as well as honouring cabinet confidence. I know Mr. Fraser spoke earlier about why cabinet confidence absolutely needs us to protect it.

We also read and spoke extensively about the transmittal letters, so there's some wonderful information. I know Mr. Fraser spent quite a bit of time on this as well, talking about each of the departments that did the redactions. They explained what they redacted. It's a public document, and it provides the public, the media and everyone who wants to read it with an idea about why the redactions took place. The vast majority of the information is out there; it's out there for people to read. There weren't 5,600 pages redacted; it was only anything related to cabinet confidence, personal information and things that were completely unrelated.

In an attempt for our finance committee to be able to get past this impasse, we have put forward this subamendment. We have put forward the subamendment because we thought we'd invite the release of the two sets of redacted documents, the redactions that civil servants have done and the redacted copy of the law clerk, and make sure that they are released properly to the finance committee. Two, we said, "Let's invite the Clerk of the Privy Council and let's also invite the law clerk. Let's bring them before this committee. We'll suspend Mr. Poilievre's motion”. Let us suspend it—not throw it away, but suspend it—and then let us ask some questions. Then through that, hopefully we can find a way to move forward.

I want to remind everyone that Mr. Shugart, Clerk of the Privy Council, has also written a formal letter to the committee offering to come before this committee to explain the redactions. I completely disagree with my colleague Mr. Poilievre, who, for some reason, has made....

The Clerk of the Privy Council is not an employee of the Prime Minister; he is an officer of the House of Commons, so he is our independent civil servant. It's the same whether the Prime Minister is a Conservative, a Liberal, an NDP leader, a Green Party leader or anyone else.

I also want to say, because it's in the lines of transparency and accountability, that I know Mr. Poilievre talked about “the WE cover-up” and all this cover-up that's happening. We put another proposal on the table, “we” being the Liberal government. We've put together this proposal around this special committee to oversee COVID-19 spending. I already talked about how much has been released through the supplementary estimates. It is an extraordinary amount of money. It is important for us to continue to provide oversight over this extraordinary amount of spending that we're doing in a very fast manner.

I want to remind Canadians, because it's very important for Canadians not to feel that there has been no oversight, that we have done oversight. Before Parliament was prorogued, the former Minister of Finance had released a biweekly report that talked about every single.... I have it in front of me, the last report. There are 34 pages that talk about where the money went, what it was spent on and which program it went to.

Then every two weeks we had the former minister of finance in front of us answering questions. In addition to that, we also had government officials spending extra time after that to answer questions. It is so important that we have maximum accountability and transparency. I absolutely fundamentally believe this. I know my colleagues believe it. I believe that everybody in the House believes it. I think we need to find a way forward on that as well. I've already talked about that part.

We've offered a way out. I believe that Mr. Fraser said earlier that we should go back to what we agreed to on July 7. Let's release the documents, the way we have agreed to, over to the law clerk. That's on the table. We've also offered the special COVID committee, which not only provides oversight of our unprecedented emergency spending but also provides an option to take over the responsibility for these WE documents. Last, we've presented the subamendment to try to get through this impasse.

Why don't we give it a chance? What do we have to lose? Maybe we're going to hear information. By bringing forward the law clerk and bringing forward the Clerk of the Privy Council, maybe we're going to hear information that might actually give us some tidbits or some information that may lead us to find a way out of this impasse.

I can't believe this comes to mind, but it does. Rumsfeld said that there are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I would fit it into the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. We don't know what's going to be said if we are able to bring forward the Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk, but I think at least there's a chance we might have some information. We might somehow find a way to get past this impasse.

To me, we don't lose anything. The original motion is not lost. It gives us a glimmer of hope that maybe we can find a route out of this, or perhaps you can propose another creative idea. The creative idea is not, “Hey, let's just vote on the original motion.” I think we've already explained ad nauseam, and in particular during this session, why there are so many problems with just moving forward and voting on that original motion. It's unrealistic to offer the same option over and over again and expect a different result. I think they call that the definition of insanity. People can't offer the same thing over and over again, keep on hearing “no” and think they're going to get a different result. We've tried to put some options on the table. We're looking for some other options.

I'll end with this, Mr. Chair. A number of my colleagues throughout the evening said pretty much the same thing, but I think it bears repeating. At moments like these, particularly when we get to 12:15 in the morning and we're becoming really tired, we're here to serve Canadians, to give voice to our constituents, to make this country better. At a time of an unprecedented pandemic, at a time when we're dealing not only with the health crisis but also with an economic crisis, it's really up to us to rise up to meet our responsibilities, to listen to our better angels, to find a way to break this impasse, because Canadians really need us at this moment.

I really believe that we need to be the government that Canadians need us to be. I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: If it's not going to be us, then who is it going to be, and if it's not going to be now, then when?

That's it for my comments for now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz.

I have Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Badawey, and others have said they want to come in for a second or third time following that.

We'll start with Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's great to be back at the committee. I see that you're still on the hurdle that we were trying to pass the last time I was on this committee, and that's with respect to the desire to have those who did the redactions come back and speak their minds about why they did what they did. I find it perplexing that we still haven't come to some resolution on the need for that to happen.

Before I go into those comments, I'd like to go back to something that Mr. Poilievre said earlier. In fact, it's something that he's been saying regularly, if you've been following him in the House during question period. I can appreciate it if that's difficult at times, but nonetheless, if you do take the time to listen to what he has to say, he keeps going on about this argument, and he made it in his speech a few moments ago. He keeps going on about this argument about how we're getting the worst results for the highest investment. Think about that. That's his assessment.

Only Conservatives would rate the effectiveness of dealing with a pandemic solely and completely on the economic contributions and results that come out of it. How is it possible that Mr. Poilievre only cares about talking about economics right now, about talking strictly from a fiscal sense about inputs and outputs ? He has absolutely no desire, for some reason, to talk about the social impacts of this situation.

The reality is—

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I hear somebody talking, but I don't know who it is.