Finance Committee on Nov. 5th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number five of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. We're welcoming a couple of new recruits here to the finance committee this evening.

Thank you for coming.

The committee is meeting today to conduct committee business, as we have been doing for a little while.

Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on Wednesday, September 23, 2020, the committee is meeting virtually. Today's meeting is taking place by video conference and the proceedings will be televised and made available on the House of Commons website. I don't believe it's necessary for me to repeat all the rules, as we don't have any witnesses before us. I think committee members are well aware of the rules.

When we last adjourned, it was reported that discussions would be ongoing to achieve, hopefully, an agreeable settlement on the motion in the name of Mr. Poilievre. I take it that no agreement has been reached as yet, although I understand considerable progress is being made. Therefore, we'll start where we left off on the subamendment to the amendment to the original motion by Mr. Poilievre.

I have on my list to start off the engagement tonight with Mr. Fragiskatos, followed by Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Julian.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see colleagues.

Mr. Chair, I won't take too much of the committee's time. I just wanted to take a few moments, if I could, to recap where we are. For those back at home, after weeks of watching it could be easy to be confused as to why we're here.

We have our initial motion, which pertains to Mr. Poilievre's matter of privilege in relation to redacted documents. These documents were received by this committee in accordance with a motion that was passed by committee members. The documents were in the format as requested in the motion and were provided on time. The redactions that Mr. Poilievre seems to be taking issue with, it would appear, are directly related to the work done by the parliamentary law clerk. I can appreciate that Mr. Poilievre is not happy with the results of the motion. However, it was his party that drafted the original motion.

Subsequently, we have an amendment and a subamendment on the table related to the production of documents, on which version of documents should be disclosed, how they are compared and whatnot. I won't waste time going into detail on that. What is key to the subamendment is the appearance of the Clerk of the Privy Council. As my colleagues have noted previously, and as my opposition colleagues are fully aware, we are in possession of a letter from the most senior civil servant in the country. The Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to cabinet is the head of our civil service, the head of the Privy Council Office, which coordinates the functioning of the government in Canada. As secretary to cabinet, they are the chief adviser to cabinet and are responsible for the accurate recording of meetings and decisions. Clearly, the clerk is in a position to be an expert witness on any number of matters, particularly because it was the clerk who pre-emptively ordered the release of documents, including cabinet confidences and the names of relevant public servants, prior to this committee making its motion.

It's important that we focus for a moment on the matters at hand. As I noted, the clerk is the secretary to cabinet and is responsible for keeping information related to cabinet. As a result, he is the keeper of cabinet confidences. He can choose whether they're waived in a particular circumstance, as he did in the matter of the Canada student service grant. He did choose to waive confidence and provide all documentation that flowed through the cabinet papers system. The clerk committed to doing this before we even voted on requests for these documents.

Further to his responsibility to keep cabinet confidences, the clerk did take the position that matters unrelated to the student service grant should not be disclosed. Is this an unreasonable position? I think not. Is this position by the clerk to redact unrelated cabinet confidences outside the normal scope of practice? No, it is not. Is it outside the normal scope of practice for department officials, non-partisan public servants, to redact said documentation at point of source? No. Is it outside the normal scope of practice for the public service to provide completely unredacted cabinet documents to the parliamentary law clerk and for him, and him alone, to choose what should be redacted as a cabinet confidence? Absolutely, 100%.

This is exactly what Mr. Poilievre and my opposition colleagues are calling for here. The opposition majority is calling on this committee to take a position regarding document requests that is very far outside the normal practice. It's happening not just here. We see this happening at other committees as well. We also see it with the structure of the motion the Conservatives made in regard to their opposition motion the other week, again, requesting documents unredacted and calling on the law clerk to make those redactions for cabinet confidences. The parliamentary law clerk has never had powers to review cabinet confidences. There are legal precedents and reasons for this—very good reasons.

For the information of colleagues, I am on point in relation to our subamendment. I believe setting the proper context is important. You will fully understand my point momentarily.

As I have explained, the way in which the majority opposition has requested documents is rather unorthodox and out of the ordinary. To make it even more interesting, the original motion drafted and passed by the opposition recognized that unrelated cabinet confidences would be redacted at source and then forwarded to the law clerk for a personal privacy check.

The motion was structured and passed in that way and no one from the opposition said otherwise. Imagine our surprise when Mr. Poilievre appeared post-document release dramatically throwing blacked out papers around at the press briefing, papers he received from the law clerk and conforming to the exact specifications of a motion that he proposed.

Now this brings me to the Clerk of the Privy Council. In mid-August the government House leader released documents, the exact documents that the clerk had promised and that the clerk had requested in the motion, minus the redactions by the law clerk. This was an extraordinary release of Crown secrets. As has been said in this committee in the past, this release of documents this was unlike any that had occurred in the past. Included in the information was reference to specific public servants, which the clerk took the extreme step of leaving unredacted. This required the clerk to file a notice with the Privacy Commissioner advising him of his move.

I think colleagues need to let the gravity of that decision sink in. We now have two sets of documents, the lightly redacted information from the government House leader, which saw the complete release of information as it relates to the CSSG, or the Canada student service grant, minus unrelated cabinet confidences, which included the names of public servants. We also have the documents from the law clerk, which are a bit more heavily redacted, removing the names of public servants, phone numbers and emails, among some other items.

Now the opposition has taken issue with the preredactions made by the public servants in relation to unrelated cabinet confidences, which again I find strange considering that this was in the motion from the committee. It's the regular practice when documents are sent to the committee as well, though clearly this doesn't fit the partisan narrative of the majority opposition. Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Julian and others have concerns about these preredactions. We can debate all day about how this was to be expected because of the motion that was passed. However, let's set that argument aside for a moment.

As I've said, the Clerk of the Privy Council is the keeper of cabinet confidences and is an expert witness when it comes to their release. He has offered to come before this committee. That letter sent by him states clearly that he and his relevant deputy ministers would gladly come before the committee to explain how they went about reviewing the motion from the committee, compiling documents and complying the best they could with our request.

I know this has been reported in the press as well, so Canadians across the country will be aware of this fact too. Personally I'm not sure why the opposition has questions about why there were redactions for unrelated cabinet confidences. I get that they have their political game to play so I'm willing to play ball on some level. That's why I think it's completely reasonable to have the clerk and his fellow deputies here to explain themselves. What is important for us to remember is that, like us, the amazing public servants who work for the Government of Canada swear an oath, an oath to uphold the secrecy of all matters that come before them in their duties and to uphold the statutes that govern privacy laws in Canada.

As we push these public servants for the release of information, they are conducting a delicate balancing act between our rights as parliamentarians to reasonably access government documents and their sworn responsibility to uphold the confidence of the cabinet process and protect the functioning of responsible government. I think that, up front, the clerk should be commended. He recognized that this program, while on its merits was a good concept as far was the program was concerned, clearly had issues on the implementation front. He recognized the need to be 100% up front and transparent in regard to how the CSSG came into being, and he ensured that the cabinet documents relating to its creation and approval were made available for parliamentarians.

However, as committee members, we have to recognize that this unprecedented move to make the information available had to be balanced with the need to protect cabinet confidences on matters that were unrelated. If we accepted the request from the clerk to appear, I think that is what he would tell this committee. I think he has a measured and reasonable explanation for why some information was released and other information was not. I think the testimony he will give will side with the fact that it is not the responsibility of the Clerk of the Privy Council to assist the official opposition with their politically motivated fishing expedition

I think it wouldn't be appropriate for him to unredact information for purely political reasons, to help the opposition. It would taint the cabinet process. All these explanations would be better heard coming from the lips of the clerk himself.

I think we know what colleagues on the other side are afraid of. They are rather annoyed that we will not allow the tyranny of the opposition majority to rule supreme here in this place. I think they are annoyed that a non-partisan professional public servant is willing to come forward and testify, and that the testimony that would be given would likely counter their narrow partisan strategy. I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favour of the subamendment to allow the clerk to come forward and explain the position of the government in regard to the redaction. It's the right thing to do.

I ask colleagues to do the right thing: Allow the clerk to come before us. Let's move past this matter after he testifies and get to the work that Canadians expect of us. In particular, I am very much looking forward to discussing the motion from Ms. Dzerowicz regarding pre-budget consultations. It's the whole reason this committee exists. Let's hear from the clerk and then let's get to the work on pre-budget planning.

This is a critical point and one that is quite relevant, because, if we think back, this debate around Mr. Kelly's amendment and the subamendment that has been proposed by the Liberal side really does, as we continue with it—and I think we should because the subamendment is tremendously important—stand in the way of our looking at Ms. Dzerowicz's motion, which is completely on par with what this committee, as I just said, needs to do: commence pre-budget consultations so that we can begin to hear from Canadians about what their priorities are.

As we face a second wave, COVID-19 continues to impact almost every part of this country in some shape or form. In my own province, Ontario, we are seeing real challenges, not only in the GTA and in Ottawa, but also in other parts. As we start to grapple with it, we need to hear from experts, particularly on the economy, and consider how COVID-19 is impacting the land. I can't emphasize enough to my colleagues how imperative it is that we move in this direction. If we think back to when we were elected, what was it we were sent here to do?

The committee process for all MPs is central to the job of being a parliamentarian. We all know that this job is many things. It's really two jobs, at the end of the day. You have the constituency work, which is vital, but you also have the work that takes place on Parliament Hill. On this latter point, the work on Parliament Hill, our committee work is crucial, imperative. I have had the honour of serving on the committee for foreign affairs, on the committee for public safety and national security, and now for the previous two years, under your learned leadership, Mr. Chair, and I say this very sincerely.... I know you're a modest man, and you're shaking your head there. You should not. You have led the committee in a very able way, Mr. Chair.

It is a tremendously important thing to sit on the finance committee, and the work we do is varied. We have a role in the gathering of ideas that relate to COVID-19 and the economic response, the gathering of ideas that find their way in the form of recommendations for the finance minister to consider and for the Prime Minister also, of course, to consider. That is not a small thing. It is something that I and colleagues around the table will take pride in, but our constituents also feel a great amount of pride when they know they have MPs representing them who sit on this committee, arguably the most important committee on Parliament Hill.

As we have engaged in this debate, I have thought back to what it is preventing from happening. It is obviously preventing us from dealing with Ms. Dzerowicz's motion, which is calling on us to begin immediately pre-budget consultations.

However, that doesn't mean this debate is one that I'm willing to simply surrender to the opposition, because there are a number of things at stake here. We have the Clerk of the Privy Council, who has made the very important point that he wishes to come before committee to be asked questions, not only by members of Parliament on the Liberal side but by opposition members of Parliament as well. It is an extraordinary move on his part, and we see the opposition standing in the way of that happening.

This is where I have real concerns. We have not dealt in previous meetings with this point that I'm about to make at this committee, but it has been suggested, especially by Mr. Poilievre, and I am disappointed not to hear opposition colleagues challenge him on this point.... I will tell you—and I think I speak for the entire Liberal side—that when Mr. Poilievre suggested that it would not be something he would be open to, that he would not be in favour of having the clerk appear before this committee, because in his view the clerk operates at the whim of the Prime Minister and, as I think Mr. Poilievre put it, is somehow under the thumb of the Prime Minister, is reliant, is “dependent”, on him.... These are the words he continues to use. Mr. Poilievre has said that the Clerk of the Privy Council is dependent on the Prime Minister. It's just not true.

The most senior civil servant in the land is, by definition, neutral and objective. They must be in order to carry out their role, which is what? The clerk has the most important role in the public service, and we need to make sure that, while there naturally will be quarrels between members of Parliament on opposite party sides, we do not attack the public service, which, as we have seen with the issue of the day, COVID-19, were it not for the federal public service.... We could also talk about the public services operating at the provincial and municipal levels, but I won't do that. I'll focus on the federal public service and what an extraordinary job they have done through COVID-19.

By suggesting that the head of Canada's public service is somehow under the rule of and entirely “dependent”, as Mr. Poilievre put it, on the Prime Minister, that is something that besmirches not only the reputation of this particular clerk. It besmirches the reputation of clerks previous and those who will come after Mr. Shugart. It also attacks the reputation and honour of existing public servants at all levels, whether they are public servants who have just recently joined Canada's civil service or whether they are experienced ones as well.

I wonder why it is that my Conservative colleagues continue to do this at almost every opportunity. It surprised me as well that Mr. Poilievre made the point, because he speaks very highly, at least he has in previous sessions and meetings of this committee.... In the previous Parliament, for example, I remember him putting on record that he held Mr. Shugart in high esteem. That was an interesting point, but one that he completely contradicts when he says that Mr. Shugart is under the thumb of the current Prime Minister. It's just not the case. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, when Mr. Poilievre served in cabinet, Mr. Shugart was the deputy minister to Mr. Poilievre and has served under a number of different governments.

All of which is to say, that the moment we begin to attack public servants is the moment when we see a tide or a shift in our democracy that we should absolutely avoid. All of us are in this position as members of Parliament, a position that will not be forever. We are here for sometimes a few years and sometimes a good number of years. The reality is that partisanship plays a role in that process. We've decided to approach our public service in that way, but public servants who decide to work in the civil service, making a contribution along those lines, want nothing to do with politics. Once we begin attacking them, we violate a central, a cardinal, rule in a democracy, and that is that the public service must never be politicized.

Public servants are not politicizing this process but by making the accusations that Mr. Poilievre has put forward, and which again I emphasize to my amazement, the opposition has not intervened to correct him or to voice their view on the matter. We take away, we do away with the need to ensure that our democracy, in terms of the public service, is free of politics.

There's another thing, too, here. I remember Mr. Gerretsen suggesting this, although he didn't complete the thought, if I remember, when he sat at this committee a few weeks back. It was that we have to be very careful about how we decide to engage discussions around the public service because they're not here to defend themselves. When Mr. Poilievre makes these accusations he does so without Mr. Shugart and other public servants present. That to me is offensive because public servants are not to be attacked for all the reasons I've laid out. Also, it's not their position to engage in these debates.

Mr. Shugart realizes that but in a very honourable way has put forward a letter to this committee so he can be heard. If members of the opposition at that point wish to engage combatively with him I suppose that can happen. To launch these accusations without the Clerk of the Privy Council present is quite extraordinary and something I don't think I've seen at any committee level. I wonder if it's happened before in previous committees. Perhaps it has, as that parliamentary history is long. I'm going to assume, because of the strength of our democracy, that the times it has transpired are few and far between.

This point about not attacking the public servants who serve this country—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I hate to interrupt but Mr. Fragiskatos has repeatedly asserted, falsely, that wild accusations or criticisms were made of the Clerk of the Privy Council, which is not correct. Mr. Poilievre did not attack Mr. Shugart in any way. He pointed out that he is an employee of the Prime Minister—

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

He said he was dependent on the Prime Minister.

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

In fact, he went on to assert repeatedly that he was, if I can quote him from the record, a heck of a guy. I don't think he at any point attacked the integrity or the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Kelly, we're into debate, unless you have a point of order.

If you want to make that point you're welcome to it.

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

There are two points. One point of order was on the correction of the record. The other point of order I have would be relevance. He strayed far beyond the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I can take relevance.

I'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos on relevance. I do think in part he was refuting an argument that was made in a previous discussion by a member.

Before I give you the floor again, Mr. Fragiskatos, Madam Clerk, you will have to give me a signal if Mr. Ste. Marie wants in. I usually can see him on my screen even when he's in the room but I can't see him tonight. You can give me a shout or wave your hand if he happens to want in.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was an interesting point of order. I think you ruled it a point of debate. In that vein I would like to thank Mr. Kelly for his intervention because.... I see he's now put his thumbs up. He doesn't realize that he just gave me a new track to follow, one that is actually entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

Mr. Kelly says that the attack didn't happen because Mr. Poilievre was actually honouring Mr. Shugart. He did have some good things to say. He's also put that on the record in previous meetings, but when Mr. Poilievre uses the word “dependent” it implies that the clerk is not “independent”. To make that kind of an accusation against the Clerk of the Privy Council of Canada is probably the ultimate insult that can be launched towards the highest-ranking public servant at the federal level that this country has to offer.

I won't belabour that point, but it's an interesting intervention on the part of Mr. Kelly. He knows I have respect for him. I've been open about the way I've worked well with Mr. Kelly in the past. In fact, I first met him when we carried out pre-budget consultations a few years ago. If I recall, he has a background in business. He is known in the business community.

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

I have a point of order.

I'm sure that singing the praises of Mr. Kelly is something we'd all like to do, but it is not relevant to the subamendment. If Mr. Fragiskatos has nothing else to contribute to the debate, let us proceed to the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have four other people in the lineup at the moment, including you, Mr Julian.

Mr. Fragiskatos, Mr. Julian has a valid point, though, on relevance.

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

I acknowledge your ruling there, Mr. Chair. I always strive to keep it relevant. If, for a few seconds there, I broke the 20-second rule that Mr. Julian has talked about in the past, I really apologize.

By the intervention here.... If the opposition wishes to raise points of order, it's obviously within their right to do so as MPs working on committee. I have to put on record here again that when the accusations were launched against the clerk by Mr. Poilievre, I didn't hear anything on the part of the NDP. Mr. Julian did not raise his voice. Those who replaced him at committee when Mr. Julian stepped out for a few hours in the last meeting that we had on the subject, and in meetings before that, nothing was put on the record from the NDP that has, at least in its rhetoric, consistently put forward a message that would have Canadians believe that they have real respect and admiration for public servants. Here we have Mr. Julian working with the Conservative opposition and Mr. Poilievre, which is an interesting alliance, to put it mildly and to be polite about it. I leave that there.

I know that others want to speak. I have more ideas on the importance of never attacking public servants, and by extension never politicizing the public service, or at least debates that would tend in that direction. I'm glad to bring those matters up later on, but I know that Ms. Dzerowicz is at the edge of her seat, getting ready to put forward a speech that we're all ready and excited to hear.

With that said, Mr. Chair, I will turn it over to my colleague from Davenport.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

That's quite an introduction, Ms. Dzerowicz. The floor is yours.

I can see it in Mr. Julian's eyes. He's looking for relevance already.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to say thank you to my colleague for giving me such an introduction. I'm afraid I'm probably going to disappoint. I am not ready with any oratorical speeches at the moment, although I probably have a few interesting things to say before I go into some prepared remarks. To be honest, a lot of it is expanding on where Mr. Fragiskatos has been. It's been exactly along the lines I've been thinking about, so I am expanding on some of his points.

Here is where I am going to start off. I am going to say that we on the government side do not believe—and I say this wholeheartedly—that we're hiding anything. I always like reminding everyone who is listening, and maybe some of the new colleagues who have joined us today at this committee meeting, that we actually had almost two months of testimony over the summer, just to look into the WE Charity being selected to deliver the Canada student service grant, the CSSG.

We have heard very clearly through that testimony that there was no corruption, that there was no misuse of funds and that WE was actually independently selected by civil servants. The reason we rushed before the summer was that, we knew that university students really wanted to be able to access as much money as possible so they could fund their continued education. We went to a contribution agreement and not a sole-source contract for very deliberate reasons and we explained that, and we absolutely did this for students.

Not only did we introduce the CSSG program, but we introduced over $9 billion in supports for students. The vast majority of that money has gone out. It's been very helpful, and it's been very helpful for my nephew, who is now at Brock University. I'll tell you, he laments that school is not fully back in session, but I know that he has taken advantage of some of the programs because he needed to. I wanted to put that out there because I think it's very important.

The 5,000-plus documents—I think there are around 5,600—do not have a smoking gun. There is no smoking gun there. What the subamendment before us tries to get to is to say, let's bring all the parties relevant to this matter—to the redactions, to the documents and to why things were redacted—around the table. Then we can address any outstanding questions and concerns and try to do it in a public way, in a transparent way, so that we can move on to pre-budget consultations. This is a motion I had introduced at our very first session, after we came back from prorogation and after we listened to the Speech from the Throne. That was, I believe, on October 8.

I found something in the paper that I want to share with you. This is from the Toronto Star weekend edition. There was a foundation that decided.... It was a group that actually had been very involved with the WE Charity for over 10 years. They took out a full-page ad and it's exactly relevant to what we're talking about. It says:

The Real #WEscandal is the Loss of #WEcharity

My name is Andy Stillman. I believe in smart, impactful philanthropy. That's why for nearly a decade, my family foundation supported WE Charity. But over the past months I've been confused, reading negative press about WE and its founders. If you're like me, you want to cut through the politics and get to the truth.

So that's exactly what I did. I hired top-rated, non-partisan investigators and forensic accountants, including Matt Torigian, former Deputy Solicitor General for the province of Ontario, and forensic accountant Dr. Al Rosen, who has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The review included over 5,000 pages released by the federal government, and nearly 400 documents released by WE Charity, as well as a full evaluation of WE Charity's finances and that of the social enterprise ME to WE that funds the charity.

The findings convinced me. So much so that I wanted to pay for these full-page ads to ensure that Canadians have the truth.

Here Are the Top Five Things the Experts Found:

1. The public service considered multiple other charities and groups, and the public service determined that We Charity was the best partner to administer the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) to help students.

2. The Prime Minister's Office did not predetermine that WE Charity would be selected to administer the Canada Student Service Grant.

3. WE Charity would have made no profit from the CSSG, but only been reimbursed for eligible expenses to administer the program. WE Charity was clearly motivated by helping students.

4. ME to WE Social Enterprise has created jobs to help lift people overseas from poverty and given 100% of its profits to WE Charity or reinvested funds for social purposes.

5. Marc and Craig are volunteers who never profited from WE Charity. In contrast, the Kielburger family are the among the most generous financial supporters of WE Charity.

Simply put, there was no funny business. The real #WEscandal is politics causing the loss of an incredible Canadian charity which has helped millions of young people for over 25 years.

See the facts for yourself at FriendsofWE.org and learn how you can help right this wrong.

I remain a believer in WE Charity and I will continue to support them. Today's world needs more youth volunteerism, not less. We need to take a step back, think critically and check our assumptions.

It is my hope that these reports will renew your confidence in an important organization, like it has mine. If you want to make your voice heard, I hope you'll share your WE story of impact with FriendsofWE.org

I just want to say that because, again, it validates.... The reason we're actually talking about a subamendment to an amendment of an original motion is that the original motion had an implication that there were redactions done by our independent civil servants that were hiding things that were some kind of smoking gun, that were covering up some kind of big scandal or some sort of big cover-up. That is indeed not the case.

Again, because of the two months of testimony we've had.... I found it so amazing that this foundation decided it was going to hire its own independent investigators and forensic accountants to actually see if there was any funny business, and when it found the results, decided to go out and put out these ads, and it was really important to do so. I thought I'd start with that, because it is really important for us to put it on the table.

Getting back to the subamendment, again, the reason we want the subamendment to pass is that it was our attempt on the Liberal side to try to deal with any concerns that there was some sort of document that hid some big secret or cover-up, so that we could move as fast as we could to pre-budget consultations. Now, because we've had a number of discussions, it feels like where we are at is that there is agreement that we'll eliminate cabinet confidence and we'll eliminate anything of national security. However, I think where we are sitting is that there are some redactions within the original set of documents that went to the law clerk that had zero relevance to WE and that never needed to be submitted, but because they were just part of the documents they ended up being submitted and were automatically redacted. What is important to state is that if those sections were not included as part of the submission, no one would have ever complained, because it was never part of the original intention that they be included.

Anyway, I don't know if any of that is clear but we have a few hours to actually make it clearer.

Where I am going to take us is actually what my colleague, Mr. Fragiskatos, talked about when he indicated that Mr. Shugart, our Clerk of the Privy Council, had submitted a very clear letter to the Clerk of the Committee indicating the following:

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.

I know that we've been discussing the documents requested by this committee for some time now, and I think it is fair to say there is some disagreement among parties in relation to the redactions of non-relevant cabinet confidences by the public service. As well, there seems to be clear-cut confusion as to who redacted which set of documents that are floating out there.

If you look at the subamendment we've put on the table, we've actually proposed to bring forward to the committee both sets of documents. The set of documents that is coming forward that was redacted by our independent civil servants, that's package number one. Package number two is the package that came back from the law clerk, which was further redacted. That way we can see the differences.

In any case, there seemed to be some confusion in regard to who redacted which set of documents. 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. We then have redactions completed by the law clerk, which were intensive.

On the first set of documents, the redactions and instructions came from our law clerk. Mr. Fragiskatos talked a bit about how it was the clerk who gave very clear instructions to all departments as to what information needed to be released. I want to add to the discussion that cabinet confidence is very clearly defined. There are six short points that are defined in terms of confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. It's in a subsection of our Privacy Act, which states:

70(1) This Act does not apply to confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any information contained in

(a) memoranda the purpose of which is to present proposals or recommendations to Council;

(b) discussion papers the purpose of which is to present background explanations, analyses of problems or policy options to Council for consideration by Council in making decisions;

(c) agenda of Council or records recording deliberations or decisions of Council;

(d) records used for or reflecting communications or discussions between ministers of the Crown on matters relating to the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy;

(e) records the purpose of which is to brief ministers of the Crown in relation to matters that are before, or are proposed to be brought before, Council or that are the subject of communications or discussions referred to in paragraph (d); and

(f) draft legislation.

It's important to point that out for anyone who is listening. To be honest, I had to learn this as well. I learned it as part of all of these discussions. It's very clear, when formal documents are actually requested, that there are very clear guidelines about how to define cabinet confidences, how to define items of national security and how to define things that are irrelevant. I wanted to make sure that I put that out there.

As a result of the proper instructions that came from the Clerk of the Privy Council, several departments undertook to release an unprecedented level of information, including cabinet confidences relating to the CSSG, where 5,000 pages were disclosed, including documents that would never had seen the light of day.... It says here in my notes that they would “never have seen the light of day under the previous Harper government”.

That comment just highlights the point that our government is trying its best to be as transparent and as open as possible. The release of an unprecedented number of documents is part of that. I would also point out, and it's important to note, our Prime Minister did not prorogue Parliament until all of these documents were formerly released to the public.

That's a very important note to reiterate, because to me that is another clear action our Prime Minister took that showed there was no desire on our part to not release the full documents, as was agreed to at our July 7 finance meeting.

The release of these documents is significant. The opposition members can now take umbrage with the fact that some redactions were made by public servants, but it's to be expected. I explained that there are very clear definitions about what redactions need to be made. I would also add that there's probably a lot of training that goes into making sure that we only redact what we need to redact, and everything else is made public.

To my friends in the Conservative Party, as they will know, Mr. Poilievre especially, typical cabinet meetings are not solely focused on one topic, particularly during this ongoing pandemic. Countless important topics are discussed at cabinet, and relevant decisions are taken in order to ensure proper functioning and responsible government. Reasonable redactions were made to unrelated topics, including these cabinet documents, so as to allow for their release. This isn't out of the ordinary, and I want to make sure that I reiterate that.

I'll move on here.

We have in possession this letter from Mr. Shugart, who wishes to come before this committee along with the 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.

Therefore, it begs the question: Why does the opposition not want to hear from the clerk and the relevant deputy ministers? I'd also ask, as it relates to the subamendment, why we would not want to bring our Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk together at the exact same time. This is what the subamendment also highlights.

I also want to mention something that Mr. Poilievre indicated in the last session. I don't know if other Conservatives also mentioned it, but I do recall Mr. Poilievre saying this a number of times. There seemed to be an implication that the Clerk of the Privy Council is not independent, and I think this is troubling. I pointed out very quickly that, if you're in government—and the Conservatives were in government for a while—Canadians and all other parties assume that our public service will be independent and act independently, and that they will do that irrespective of whichever party is in government. I absolutely believe that this is true right now.

If Mr. Poilievre or other members believe that, for some reason, our public service is not independent anymore, this is a much bigger issue that we need to address. It is not the focus and should not be the focus right now, but I'm pointing out something that is very troubling in terms of that line of questioning or that type of indirect sort of accusation, which it is fairly direct. I truly believe that our Clerk of the Privy Council, who had—and this has been pointed out—been a deputy minister for Mr. Poilievre when he was a cabinet minister in previous governments.... At that point Mr. Shugart acted independently, and I absolutely believe that the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is now Mr. Shugart, is acting independently as well.

I was going to say that it's a slippery slope, but I don't even think it's a slippery slope. I don't even think there should be any kind of a slope that we should be going down in terms of saying our civil servants are not independent and are not acting in the best interests of all Canadians.

Where I am going to go from here? I think one of the things I'd like to get to is the whole thing of why. To be honest, I'd prefer if we were on pre-budget consultations right now. I'm not quite sure why it is that our opposition is not allowing us to hear from the Clerk of the Privy Council and from our law clerk. Honestly, I've never heard of parliamentarians refusing to hear from these independent civil servants, and the very act of refusing to allow them to testify here at committee is effectively politicizing our public service.

The public service in this country is expressly non-partisan for a reason. It's absolutely unacceptable that the opposition is taking the position that they have. Let's put partisanship and politics aside for a moment. Let's acknowledge the fact that, at the instruction of the Clerk of the Privy Council, the public service compiled documentation related to the Canada student service grant.

In keeping with the motion of this committee, cabinet confidences were removed. That is a standard practice, and I talked a lot about that before, and I know everybody knows about it. The clerk added only one caveat to the release of these documents, that personal information was to be removed from the documents. Even then, the names of political staff and public servants were left visible. Only phone numbers and unrelated family member names were removed, as the clerk indicated in his letter to us.

The law clerk, upon receiving the documents on August 8, went about his duty to review the documents for personal information, as indicated by the committee motion, and redacted appropriately. Those are the blacked-out documents the opposition members are waving around in, as it says here, “moments of grandeur”, but I think it's also the opposition waving around the same documents in French and in English.

I want to get this on the record. I have the utmost respect for the parliamentary law clerk and the work he does. I know that the role of the law clerk is essential to the functioning of Parliament and to protecting its rights and privileges. Like most lawyers, he will always defend the rights of his clients strenuously. His legal opinions will always take the most conservative view of Parliament being the ultimate authority amongst the three branches of government. This makes complete sense. That's his job. I'm happy to have him on my side. I think he's done great work on this file under the most strenuous circumstances, particularly the pandemic. However, the Clerk of the Privy Council and public servants at large also have inherent responsibilities. For them it's to the Crown, to protect Crown secrets and uphold and enforce the statutes and legislation passed by legislators.

This leads us to the normal tension that exists, and not just now. It has always existed. There will always be tension between the law clerk and the Clerk of the Privy Council as it relates to this type of release of documents. The law clerk will always take the most expansive position on the rights of parliamentarians for access to documents. The Clerk of the Privy Council, and by extension the public servants, will always take the opposite position, that cabinet confidences have to be protected and upheld at all costs.

Typically, we resolve this tension through negotiation, where a happy medium is found. I think that is where we ideally want to go. I think that's the reason we proposed this subamendment. Let's bring both to the table. As I have said time and time again, we already proved through the testimony in the two months over the summer that there is no scandal and there is no cover-up, as Mr. Poilievre, I think, is very fond of theatrically stating there is. There is no smoking gun in terms of any of the 5,000-plus documents.

Don't just take our word for it. You also have this independent foundation that had been very involved with WE and became very troubled with all these allegations about WE. They independently hired Dr. Al Rosen, a former deputy solicitor general for the Province of Ontario and forensic accountant, who has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada, to also validate that, as he said, there is “no funny business”.

With that, the only thing I would leave with everyone before I pass the baton to the next person who would like to speak is that at this point I will tell you that I am really quite worried about our pre-budget consultations. I wonder whether we can really give the proper time that is needed to the almost 800 organizations, individuals and corporations who have made submissions to us. I have an interview that I'm supposed to be doing about what happens if there are no pre-budget consultations.

I truly believe in the work of our government. I truly believe in the work of this committee. I believe we have important work ahead of us to not only listen to those who are going through an unprecedented pandemic but also to hear their very best ideas about how we can support not only them as organizations, as corporations, but also Canadians overall, how we can get our economy back on track, how we can create a strong economic foundation from which to pivot after we come out of this pandemic, how we can also set ourselves up to be even more competitive and address some of the structural financial issues we have had in the past, how we can put our capital to work to become as competitive as we can, and how to address maybe some of the bigger issues we have in terms of trade surpluses.

It's really important for us to try to get past this. I've heard Mr. Julian say a couple of times—I know he's about to speak, so he'll probably respond to this—that he has put all these ideas on the table.

Quite honestly, Mr. Julian, I have not heard all your ideas on the table. I've only heard a “no”, or there seems to be a reluctance to actually agree to the subamendment so that we can maybe bring all the actors to the table to try to get past this so that we can have a certain number of meetings and considerations for pre-budget consultations, and put forward these very excellent ideas to our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to our government so that they can be incorporated into the much-awaited and much-needed budget 2021.

With that, thank you so much, Mr. Chair and everyone, for lending your ears.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Ms. Dzerowicz.

Next on my speaking order is Mr. Julian and then Ms. Koutrakis.

I still have Mr. Fragiskatos on it. I don't know if you're on after that or if you just didn't take your “raise hand” function down.

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, could the clerk read the subamendment please?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk]

It is that the amendment be amended by adding after the words “current session” the following:

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

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose the following amendment to the subamendment: It is that we strike everything from “until”—the final sentence that suspends and destroys the point of privilege—and that we add “and, following a vote on the point of privilege, that the committee proceed immediately to committee discussion on pre-budget hearings.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Can you, Mr. Julian, go through that again a little more slowly?

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

It's the final sentence. Perhaps the clerk could read it again. It starts with “until”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It begins, “until such a time as this testimony is complete”.

[The Clerk]

It is:

...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.

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

Again, my amendment to the subamendment is to strike everything from “until” to the end of the subamendment, and to replace it with “and that the committee proceed immediately following a vote on the point of privilege motion to discussion of the pre-budget hearings.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Madam Clerk, I have to ask this of you because we are into an amendment of the subamendment to the amendment of the motion. Do we need unanimous consent to do that? I believe we do.

I'll wait for the clerk to respond. She knows the rules better than I do.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.