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.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
What's you're point of order? Mr. Poilievre is out of time, but what's your point of order?
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I would advise my colleague that he should read the Magna Carta that is on his bookshelf. If he does, he'll understand the basic principles of democracy.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
He'll understand that the Clerk is independent, and that he should stop besmirching his reputation.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You interrupted me before I was done my time, and you're not allowing me to finish.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
November 24th, 2020 / 5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, and thank you to Mr. Dion for joining us as a witness today.
During Mr. Shugart's testimony earlier in this meeting, he explained the process that was employed to make certain redactions. I'll remind committee members that the reason we've asked each of you to come here is to discuss redactions of cabinet confidences.
If I can summarize, Mr. Shugart explained that they established a process and a set of rules that would be employed, and the responsible deputy ministers had their staff then execute the redactions according to those rules.
In your testimony, you explained that your rules apply to senior officials within government, and Monsieur Fortin, during one of his questions today, raised the issue of what would happen if a civil servant did things the wrong way. What if they made a redaction they shouldn't have, for example?
This has been the current that has been underpinning the last number of meetings that we've had on this particular issue. The allegation that no one has made explicitly, but that seems to be hanging over everyone's head, is that some civil servant would have been directed by the government to redact this or that, and that it would have been inappropriate, given what the committee had asked it to do.
If Mr. Shugart's testimony today is true—and I believe it to be true, as I I believe him to be a man of integrity, and, more importantly, that the person who holds that position must be beyond reproach—that there was no consultation with ministers or the Prime Minister, and in fact the deputy ministers charged the civil servants beneath them to execute these redactions in accordance with the rules, do you think there could be an ethical violation?
5:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, I follow your question. I listened to the Clerk. I also believe that it was done in the manner he's described, but it's always possible, in spite of the directions, that somebody doesn't follow the directions. However, I don't know that; I'm just stating a fact.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Certainly, and I'm not asking you to suggest whether someone did break the rules. I'm asking if, in fact, the Clerk's testimony is true, that there were no ministerial interventions to direct such redactions to take place.... Even if there were a mistake made, would that constitute any kind of a violation of conflict of interest or ethical requirements on the part of those who are subject to the rules?
5:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, it wouldn't, because the act deals strictly with a conflict between a private interest and a public interest. It didn't apply.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Very quickly, before I hand it over to my colleague, I note that you mentioned moments ago that full disclosure had been made, with the exception of the disclosure of documents that did not pertain to what had been asked for, and that this satisfied you that you had the information to do your work.
On the issue of those particular redactions that do not pertain, I used to run into this issue in my career before politics, when we would deal with disclosure in litigation. There was no real difference, to my mind, between things that were not relevant but were included in an otherwise relevant document and other documents that just had no reference whatsoever.
In your view, does the obligation to disclose change at all because an irrelevant portion is contained in a document that may have some relevant material, or is it similar to that of the millions upon millions of documents that are within the custody of the Government of Canada, which the government just chose not to produce because they're not relevant?
5:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
As I stated in my opening remarks, my preference is that we get everything that's covered by what we've asked for, and that's what I believe we received. In fact, I would prefer that no redaction be made, because we can be the judge of what is irrelevant to what we've asked for. The more information we get, the better it is for us.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Sir, I'm asking not necessarily what's more or better, but whether it's in accordance with the rules.
5:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The rule is: I ask you; you give me. It's akin to a court of competent jurisdiction, so in cases of doubt, provide it. That would be my advice.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I've not saved much time for my colleague here, so I'll let him take over.
