Finance Committee on Nov. 24th, 2020

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Clerk, you are here to discuss exclusions under cabinet confidences according to the motion. How many such exclusions or redactions of so-called cabinet secrets were a part of the package that was released?

[Ian Shugart]

Chair, I regret, but I think we're back to the initial round. I am not in a position today to get into the numbers of documents.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Okay. You don't have that number.

[Ian Shugart]

That's right.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You can't tell us whether all of the documents, excluded or redacted, actually appeared at a cabinet meeting. Now it seems that you're saying that you didn't even see all of the documents, even though we were told that you were going to be coming here to explain why they were redacted or excluded. Effectively, we're not getting any new information or a rationale today that we didn't already have, which brings back memories.

The Ethics Commissioner reported that nine witnesses could not provide information in the SNC-Lavalin investigation because, again, of cabinet confidences, as defined by your office and by the Prime Minister. In it he says, “I was, therefore, prevented from looking over the entire body of evidence to determine its relevance to my examination”—as as requested democratically by Parliament. He said, furthermore, that he was unable to fully discharge his investigatory mandate, again, because of the application of so-called cabinet confidentiality.

Has the Ethics Commissioner been in contact with anyone in the government to acquire information regarding the WE scandal, to your knowledge?

[Ian Shugart]

No.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

He has not asked for any documents or any witnesses in the government, to your knowledge.

[Ian Shugart]

That is correct.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You have not been summoned to testify in his investigation or answer any of his questions.

[Ian Shugart]

No, I have not.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

If he were to ask to see the documents that you have redacted or excluded under the pretext of cabinet secrecy, would you take the same approach in this WE scandal investigation that you took in the SNC-Lavalin investigation?

[Ian Shugart]

As the custodian of cabinet confidences, I would take the same principled approach to every case.

Chair, given that the member has opened the door to the SNC-Lavalin case, I think it is worth pointing out that I indicated to the Ethics Commissioner that had he grounds for believing that specific cabinet confidences might assist him in his work, I was more than prepared to receive such overtures, and I did not receive any. I applied the doctrine of cabinet confidence in that case, the Prime Minister having already waived substantial cabinet confidence—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Shugart, but with respect to his report, which is a matter of public record that you have not publicly disputed until now—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Poilievre, if I look at the time, I see that the Clerk, from the combination of your last two questions, needs a few more seconds to complete his answer. I'm not going to—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I hope it won't come off my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Clerk, finish your statement, please.

[Ian Shugart]

I would just say, Chair, that the Ethics Commissioner and I did have an exchange of letters. I was entirely prepared to hear from him with respect to his reasons and the grounds for requesting further information, and there was no further request. The matter stayed there. I do not dispute his report except to say that the Ethics Commissioner is likewise a servant of the House of Commons, and I deeply respect that role; but I am a servant of the—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Okay. Sure, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll let it to go back to Mr. Poilievre. Go ahead.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

—with respect, the Ethics Commissioner has indicated there were nine witnesses prevented from providing information to his investigation into the SNC-Lavalin scandal, but they were prevented from doing so—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Poilievre, there's a point of order.

What's your point of order?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

We are starting to get into SNC-Lavalin, a completely different case—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I hear you.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

—and I don't find it relevant to what we're discussing now. I don't see the relevance to this motion now.