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.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
How many were records used for reflecting communications and discussions between ministers?
4:15 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
That would be the same answer, Chair.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
It's the same answer.
4:15 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
It's the same answer, Chair.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Okay, how many were records that contained information about the contents of any record related to cabinet?
4:15 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
As to quantification, it's the same answer.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
We're not getting any answers, actually, with respect, and I do have a great deal of respect for you, Mr. Clerk.
We're told that you're the one who made the decision to withhold or redact all of this information. I've just listed all the legal justifications for withholding or redacting cabinet secrets that exist in the Access to Information Act, to find out which of them you actually used for these redactions and you can't give me any number to prove that these redactions were actually related to the legal authorities in the act.
How can we be sure that, one, you were the one who even made this decision, and two, that there was any legal foundation, purported or otherwise?
4:15 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
Chair, I indicated in my statement that I directed the public service. Specific redactions were made by departments under the authority of their deputy ministers, but I gave the direction as to the approach that would be followed consistent with statements that had been made by ministers and my commitment to this committee—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Poilievre, give the Clerk time to finish his answer and we'll go on to Ms. Dzerowicz.
Mr. Clerk, are you completed on your answer?
4:15 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
I'll finish the sentence, Chair. I committed to this committee that I would provide the committee with as much information as transparently as possible and an expansive definition of access to these documents.
I have answered the committee that less than 1% of the information provided to the committee was redacted by cabinet confidentiality.
I've given a percentage, not a number of pages.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I want to say a huge thanks to you, Mr. Shugart, for coming before our committee again. Thank you for your tremendous leadership.
Sometimes when we're in the bubble, we go through these committee meetings and we forget that we're going through an unprecedented pandemic. I want to say a huge thanks to you, to your team and to the entire public service for the tremendous work that they're doing through this pandemic, and which they continue to do as we move through it.
Thank you for coming back.
You've actually disappeared. Should I be worried about that?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
I'm still here.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Okay, sorry, Mr. Shugart.
I want to be clear because it seems like my colleague Mr. Poilievre is holding out that redactions made by the public servants, by various departments, were conducted in a non-compliant manner. Can you just be clear with us, because you said you provided direction to the deputy ministers of the various departments? Who actually makes the decision about which cabinet confidences need to be redacted? Who actually makes that decision about the cabinet confidences that need to be excluded from what is submitted?
Also, can you speak to how the public servants do their job in a non-partisan, professional way and follow their obligations under the Privacy Act?
4:20 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
Yes.
On the matter of the redactions, I gave general direction to departments, supported by staff in the Privy Council Office well trained in this area.
There were two principal aspects. Documents that normally would be cabinet documents, covering material the Prime Minister or members of cabinet had already publicly commented on, anything answering that description, was to be released even though it was in the form of a cabinet confidence.
The second thing is that, as I committed to the finance committee in July, because the question was at the heart of discussions in cabinet, I would be as transparent as we possibly could be with relevant information, even if it were contained in cabinet confidences.
That direction was given to departments, to deputy ministers and to the people in the departments who do the actual work. They reviewed their documents and made the redactions.
Sometimes there is a question that an official in a department will be uncertain whether or not to redact, and that will be referred to their counterparts in the Privy Council Office for advice. That's what occurred in this case.
What was provided, then, in this case is a very large number of cabinet documents, either because they were in the public interest going directly to the matter before the committee and the public controversy at the time, or because the Prime Minister and ministers had already commented on those matters and, in a sense, cabinet confidence was already waived.
To answer your second question, we do this with an absolute conviction about applying the law and the principles in the law. Whether it is convenient for a minister, on the basis of any partisan consideration, does not enter into it.
I have to say that in my experience, whether working for Conservative or Liberal ministers, whether answering questions from New Democrat or Bloc or government members, we are trained to do our work without regard to partisan interests. We work very closely with politicians, the elected branch of government, but our conviction in Canada, our values in our public service, are to do it without regard for the partisan interest of the government of the day.
That, I can affirm to the committee, was how we went about our business in this case, and I would say in every case.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Shugart.
I'd say to you that you were very clear that there is proper training about what to actually redact. I heard that very clearly. I also heard very clearly that it was done in a completely non-partisan way.
Maybe the last thing I just want to make sure is clear is this. There wasn't a different process when the Conservatives were in power versus what is happening right now. I say this because there seemed to be some question as to whether or not there was a different process then. If requests were made for documents to be submitted to committee under the Conservatives, and to exclude cabinet confidences, and they had be redacted in a particular way, it was done following the same rules under the previous Conservative government as what we've asked for under our Liberal government this time around.
Can you confirm that?
4:25 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
No two cases, of course, are exactly the same, but the principles are the same. One of the situations in a previous House of Commons under a Conservative government.... I should be clear that the House of Commons was not under a Conservative government; there was a Conservative government at that time.
The Afghan detainees issue has been very important in affirming and establishing the details of cabinet confidentiality. Although each case is different, the principles are the same. The process that public servants will follow in applying the rules to the redactions would be the same.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, both.
We'll go to Mr. Fortin for six minutes, please.
The floor is yours.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Shugart.
Redacting a document more than 5,000 pages long is a colossal job. I understand the principle of confidentiality for various documents, what belongs to Cabinet and so on. That's not what I want you to address, you have already done it.
How did you technically determine what should be redacted or not? First, what individuals are involved in the process? You are certainly not single-handedly reading the 5,000 pages with a felt-tip pen in hand and striking through item after item. Who is physically involved in doing that?
4:25 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
They are public servants at various levels. We have an element of supervision. For example, they are not junior public servants, they have enough experience. They take the documents and read them in their entirety. It's a huge job.