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.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, thank you.
We only have about five minutes left.
Mr. Fortin, we're into two-and-a-half-minute rounds. In any event, we'll have Mr. Fortin, and then Mr. Julian.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Shugart, you told me earlier that 20 or so senior officials were tasked with studying the documents. Basically, you were responsible for that process.
Did you personally see each of the texts before they were redacted? When someone said that they were going to redact a page from line 3 to line 10, for example, did you read the redaction they were proposing?
4:55 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
No, Chair, I did not. This was delegated responsibility to other public servants.
I would like to point out that—
4:55 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
Okay.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Shugart. We could discuss this for a very long time and I'm sure it would be very interesting.
I am asking you to give me the names of the people who supervised the operation, if it was not you.
Did those documents contain information about the WE Charity Foundation or were they all about the WE Charity? You understand the distinction, they are two different entities: the WE Charity and the WE Charity Foundation.
Was the WE Charity Foundation mentioned in the redacted passages or in the documents that you studied?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Clerk, when you're answering Rhéal, could you adjust your mike a little bit. The sound is not coming through clearly.
The translators were having a little bit of a problem, Rhéal.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
4:55 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
Mr. Chair, to the best of my recollection, the documents were about the WE Charity only.
As for the names of the officials, I just wanted to know the names of the responsible deputy ministers in the departments.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I want to know who decided to redact the passages. I need those names.
It's up to you to decide how you can get them to me. What I want to know is which individuals decided to redact which passage or number of passages.
November 24th, 2020 / 4:55 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
I will give you the names of those responsible and they are deputy ministers. Everything is the deputy ministers' responsibility. It is not our practice to provide the names of public servants, particularly those at lower levels.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay, but I also understand from your testimony that, today, you are not able to tell me—
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Fortin, we're at the two-and-a-half-minute mark. The clerk will finish his answer.
We're at two and a half. Those were the arrangements we made at the beginning. That's what we're sticking with.
Finish your answer, Mr. Clerk.
4:55 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
No, that was all.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Let me finish my question first, Mr. Chair.
You interrupted me just now to tell me that—
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Clerk, please sum up your answer, or Mr. Julian will not have any time at all.
4:55 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
No, I'd rather hear from Mr. Julian than from me.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Shugart, for being here today. What you're indicating to us, though, is disturbing: that the executive branch basically can turn its back on very clear committee direction.
I have three questions coming out of that. First, can you provide us with detailed information about the classification for each of the redactions that were done in the month of August, including information on the issue of documents that, according to some people's criteria, were not relevant? If you could provide us with that information, I think it would be very helpful.
Secondly, are you not saying, then—I don't want to put words in your mouth—that the executive has the right to do the same redaction for documents that go to the law clerk this time around? If the executive can expand its exclusion far beyond the committee's mandate, is that not a concern?
Thirdly, could you explain the uneven distribution of redaction or cabinet confidences by the fact that different public servants may have applied differing criteria when they were excluding some of the documents on the basis of cabinet confidence?
5 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
Chair, as to the first question, I am happy to provide further information. I propose that it be in written form, but that was the offer to the committee, and I'm happy to follow up with further information on that.
With respect to the third question, no, I don't believe that there was differentiation between different departments and public servants with respect to the principles applied to the redactions. That's why we set out the direction to departments at the outset. We've done the same with respect to the current request for documents for the health committee. We've provided direction on what should be included in order to do our very best to meet this monumental task that the House has given us.
With respect to the second question, yes, I'm afraid that it is a fact that if the executive branch were to give all of the documents of cabinet confidence or commercial sensitivity or solicitor-client privilege or national security to the law clerk, it would be, in a sense, waiving that privilege, because the law clerk is a servant of the legislature, not of the executive.
That is not a reflection at all on the law clerk, who is a professional, experienced, highly qualified individual. It's a function of his being a servant of the legislature. The executive has a responsibility to preserve its ability to do its job as the executive, and frequently, that requires not divulging cabinet confidences, solicitor-client privilege or other kinds of information.
Now, we want to be as co-operative in this matter with the law clerk as we can. Meetings have been held, but at the end of the day, this does come down to our system of governance and this dynamic tension between the executive and the legislative branches of government.