Evidence of meeting #6 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ian Shugart  Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
Mario Dion  Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz. We'll try to keep it relevant to the motion asking the clerk to be here.

Mr. Poilievre, you have time for one last quick question.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

The Ethics Commissioner, then, did provide a rationale for what he needed and why he needed it in the context of that cabinet confidentiality dispute—we are now discussing another today—and still the government prevented him from receiving it.

So allow us, Mr. Clerk, to be suspicious about the government's, and particularly the Prime Minister's, good faith when it comes to the application of so-called cabinet secrets. If so-called cabinet secrets were used as a pretext to prevent the truth from coming out in the last scandal, why should we not believe it would happen in this scandal?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I am sorry, but this is completely irrelevant to what we are supposed to be—

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

The question has been asked. We'll let it go.

Mr. Clerk.

4:45 p.m.

Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office

Ian Shugart

Well, I would never presume to limit the suspicion of members of the opposition, or any members of the House, but I would say that as a servant of the executive branch, I applied the principles of cabinet confidence in terms of whether disclosure outweighed the public interest. In that particular case, as in every other case on which I have to make a judgment, that was the outcome.

I think the Ethics Commissioner understands that, even though undoubtedly he doesn't agree. But that dynamic tension between the legislature and the executive branch is part of our system.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay, thank you both.

Mr. Fraser and Mr. Fragiskatos are splitting their time.

Mr. Fraser, you have roughly the first two-and-half minutes.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Thank you, and please cut me off so that I don't intrude upon my colleague's time allocation.

Mr. Shugart, thank you for being here. I appreciate your willingness to testify before the committee.

During your opening remarks, I believe you described your approach as “a principled approach” that would “ensure a non-selective” redaction of the documents.

I take that to mean that there were certain rules in place that you would have employed to ensure that no one could game the system to have, for partisan reasons, certain documents redacted.

Could you explain in your own words what you meant by “a non-selective” approach?

4:45 p.m.

Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office

Ian Shugart

Gladly, Chair.

One can imagine that if there were not any application of principles at the outset of the exercise, even neutral public servants might be inclined to look at one document and say: “Oh, this will be awkward, and we won't release it, but this one will be all right, so we'll release it.”

That is not the application of the principle of cabinet confidentiality, and it can't be allowed to stand. I therefore gave direction, as every other clerk before me has, to apply the redactions, if there were to be any, on a consistent basis, so that if there was anything that the Prime Minister or ministers had already spoken to, they were to be released. If they went to the core of the issue about timing, about the advice that had been given in this particular case, our bias was to release them.

Now, there might be other principles, such as national security—I don't think it would have applied in the WE Charity case, but it would in others—by virtue of which a public servant might say, “we need to think about this one” or “we need advice on this particular issue”, and such a question would be examined from that point of view.

This is what I meant by a principled approach at the outset.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Make this a quick, snappy question, Mr. Fraser.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Sure.

You also gave testimony today, Mr. Shugart, that there was no consultation with the Prime Minister or any cabinet ministers who would be the custodians of these documents during the process. Given that there wasn't ministerial intervention of that nature and given the non-selective approach, do you have confidence that all of the redactions were in fact made independently, without any partisan considerations, as should be in the normal course?

4:50 p.m.

Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office

Ian Shugart

I am completely confident that public servants consistently did their job and applied, according to the principles that had been set out, all of the examination of the records. I'm very satisfied.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Including that they were done free from partisan considerations?

4:50 p.m.

Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office

Ian Shugart

Absolutely.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Thank you.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Fragiskatos.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shugart, I want to quote something. It's from the National Post, so my Conservative colleagues can avoid saying that I'm biased here in citing the quotation. It's attributed to you. I just want to read it to you and you can confirm whether or not you said it. It's from a 2019 piece around the time you were appointed Clerk of the Privy Council. It says that speaking to a parliamentary committee last June, you also provided some perspective on your role as a public servant. Then here's the quotation:

“Under both (Harper and Trudeau) governments I have personally had the experience many times of giving ministers unwelcome advice and welcome advice, good news and bad,” he said. “That is our responsibility....”

Mr. Shugart, I ask this question because of what has been accused by Mr. Poilievre. First of all, did you say that? Is that quote accurate?

4:50 p.m.

Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office

Ian Shugart

That quote is indeed accurate. It sounds very much like something I would say and did say.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

So you serve cabinet, you serve the Prime Minister. But first and foremost is it fair to say that the Clerk of the Privy Council serves Canadians?

November 24th, 2020 / 4:50 p.m.

Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office

Ian Shugart

Yes, but I have to be clear. I'm a bit of a stickler about these things. The public service serves Canadians in some of our functions very directly. The agent at a call centre serves Canadians very directly. The agent at a Canada Revenue Agency call centre or service centre does it directly. But we serve Canadians through serving the executive branch of the government. We are part of the executive branch; we serve the government of the day regardless of stripe.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Understood, but you are not under the thumb of the Prime Minister. That's what's been implied subtly by Mr. Poilievre and Conservative opposition colleagues at this committee in previous meetings, unfortunately. Have you ever had—

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We'll have to leave it—

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

—pressure on you to offer partial advice?

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

That will be the last question, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Clerk.

4:50 p.m.

Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office

Ian Shugart

My advice, to the very best of my ability—and I don't want to personalize it, as this is true of all public servants—is impartial in the sense that [Technical difficulty—Editor] to have an interest in the partisan benefit or interests of the government of the day, or any other party. We give our advice. We also take direction as to the decisions of the government of the day. But we do our best to give professional, truthful advice. Is there human bias in that? Of course there is, but it is professional and non-partisan.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thank you for your service.