Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Bill Matthews]

The results of the audit at National Defence revealed challenges, in some cases, with the completeness of documentation on the file. That is a very normal finding. It is something that requires constant reminding.

We will be doing more checks to make sure that the completeness is better. However, the longer-term fix here—because it's very much still a manual process—is the e-contracting or an e-procurement system that is being rolled out across government, which has not yet hit National Defence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Godin, welcome back. You have five minutes, please.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin, I would like to check something with the interim law clerk and parliamentary counsel, Mr. Bédard.

Is it true that federal departments and agencies are required to submit their documents to committees in both official languages?

[Michel Bédard]

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, the documents that government departments and agencies table in the House of Commons must be in both official languages. In accordance with this practice, there is a time-honoured tradition of departments and agencies submitting documents to committees in both official languages.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Is that a requirement, Mr. Bédard? You mentioned a tradition, but the wording in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice is quite specific: it is indeed a requirement for departments and agencies. Can you confirm that?

[Michel Bédard]

Essentially, the documents tabled in the House of Commons must be in both official languages. If documents were not provided in both official languages to a committee, the committee could simply report that to the House and request that the documents be tabled there. That would be the process. So documents must be tabled in both official languages in the House, and then sent to committee.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bédard.

You can appreciate that I am particularly interested in the official languages aspect. As to redacted documents and transparency, I think it has been demonstrated that there was no desire to clearly present the facts and the actions of various government departments and agencies.

Mr. Shea, how can the Privy Council Office do this as regards the production of documents?

I am asking since we have just completed our consideration of Bill C‑13, which seeks to modernize the Official Languages Act, and we had the choice between three agencies to oversee federal departments and institutions: Canadian Heritage, the Privy Council Office and Treasury Board. The government chose Treasury Board, but reluctantly. That is what we in the Conservative Party of Canada wanted, but not really what the government wanted.

What do you say to the fact that some documents were not translated or that machine translation was used? In some cases, artificial intelligence was used. In other cases, artificial intelligence was used to accelerate the process in order to meet deadlines. Yet other organizations were able to produce documents without using artificial intelligence.

Does that now demonstrate a lack of will and a lack of bilingual or francophone staff to meet Parliament's requests and requirements?

[Matthew Shea]

In the case of the PCO, we did translate all of our documents and provide them to the committee. We absolutely made extra efforts to ensure that all documents were provided in both official languages, as we always do.

As I mentioned, in contrast with other departments, we had a relatively small number of pages, so it was, perhaps, easier for us to do some of that. However, in situations where we've had large productions of documents, we will use external vendors to supplement PSPC in order to make sure that we adhere to the requirements of Parliament.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Shea.

The Privy Council Office is nonetheless the Prime Minister's department. Does it not have an obligation to be a good steward of the official languages in Canada and to send the message to the other departments and to federal institutions to uphold the official languages and respect them through their actions?

Canada Post translated documents using artificial intelligence and stated that it did so in order to save time and meet the deadline. Does that mean that, because it did not have the necessary staff or internal resources to meet the deadline, they had to ride roughshod over the French language? That is how I interpret it.

By the way, I am talking about Canada Post, but this also applies to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board or Employment and Social Development Canada. There is a long list, but I will not spend all my time on that.

Don't you think this sends a negative and inconsistent message and shows a lack of will and good faith? Yes, redactions and transparency have to be considered, but so too does respect for both official languages. To my mind, as long as Canada is a bilingual country—and I want to emphasize that the two founding languages are English and French—, I will fight for this cause.

Should that same intent and will not be evident in the Privy Council's actions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that is our time.

Perhaps you can get back to us in writing, please. You may not be aware, but since your last appearance, OGGO has passed a motion requiring all responses within three weeks.

Mr. Housefather is next, please, for five minutes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses.

My colleague Ms. Vignola made a very specific and compelling statement about the need for documents to be in Canada's two official languages and to be of equal quality in both languages. Acting as though one part of the community in Canada is less important that the other part is completely unfair. I completely agree with what Ms. Vignola said.

Mr. Shea, I want to go to you with respect to getting some precision as to the position of the Privy Council Office.

With regard to the policy that you stated, which I believe you said was adopted in 1973 and reaffirmed in 2010, who reaffirmed that? Was it the cabinet at the time?

[Matthew Shea]

It would have been the government that tabled it, I believe, at a parliamentary committee, if I'm not mistaken. The “Open and Accountable Government” that I referenced would have been approved by the Prime Minister in 2011 and then reaffirmed by the current Prime Minister.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand, but what I'm asking you is about the policy you were stating that allows for redactions to documents that committees call for.

You used the word “government”. Who was that? Was it the cabinet? Was it the Clerk of the Privy Council? Who approved the policy?

[Matthew Shea]

I would need to return to the committee to say exactly who submitted the policy. It was submitted to a parliamentary committee on behalf of the government, if you're talking about the 1973 principles governing the production of government documents.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, I would like to know—and I think probably others would like to know—who the unnamed person was that presumes to speak on behalf of the government.

Let me understand. What you're then saying is that you, as the Privy Council Office, instructed other departments to follow that policy from 1973 and 2010. Is that correct?

[Matthew Shea]

Privy Council Office encourages consistency across the government. Each individual deputy has accountability in terms of redactions for their own department, but we absolutely encourage consistency across the government.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay, so what we're talking about is a competing understanding.

Parliament and parliamentary committees understand that they can ask for documents. I think we would all understand why cabinet confidences need to be redacted and perhaps some personal information, and there are perhaps times that attorney-client privilege would also need to be redacted. However, I think the committee then would, in its discretion, make that determination in association with the department that was making that claim.

In this case, it sounds like, irrespective of the advice of parliamentary counsel, somebody has taken a position that the government has a blanket right to redact these criteria.

Let me ask this: Did a Speaker of the House of Commons ever agree with this policy?

[Matthew Shea]

I am not aware whether they have.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What would happen, sir, if the Speaker....

Let me just ask one other question. Are you maintaining that the policy you are saying is the government policy would be the same whether it was a committee of the House that asked for documents or the House of Commons as a whole voted by majority to compel the production of unredacted documents?

[Matthew Shea]

I think, in any case, on a case-by-case basis, the government would seek counsel from the Department of Justice and would make a determination of public interest for certain documents.

There are certainly examples in recent memory where the government has allowed cabinet confidences, for example, to be used in a commission of inquiry, or examples where we have found alternatives, like in the health motion, to allow members to view documents that would be national security in nature.

I think that the government goes out of its way to find solutions. I think, in keeping with “Open and Accountable Government”, the last sentence of that is about working with parliamentary committees to find a path forward. Certainly I think that is the view of the government, that we should do our best, our utmost, to find a path forward.

In the case of the McKinsey documents, I believe we have done that. PCO, as we've convened different departments, has certainly encouraged us to minimize redactions and to make sure that these are defensible redactions that fully adhere to the spirit of the rules.

As you've seen, even in the case of Privy Council, unredacted—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand. I have only a limited amount of time, and I have to get some questions out.

To me, the way to then properly do that would be to enter into negotiations with the chair of the committee and the legislative clerk to talk about this issue, which I don't believe actually occurred.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're out of time, Mr. Housefather. Do you have a quick question, and they can get back to us?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess my only question, if you can get back to me in writing, would be this. Would it be possible, then, to get a copy—and I'm sure it would be privileged—of the legal opinion of the Department of Justice that says there is this ability to trump parliamentary supremacy when it comes to the production of documents?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks. If you're able to get back to us....

Ms. Vignola, you have two minutes, then Mr. Johns has two minutes, and then we're going to go to three and three. We have to stick right to that, though.

Please go ahead.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to highlight certain information to those in attendance.

At IRCC, Ms. Fox, there were about 50 people assigned to read the documents, translate and analyze them and to ensure that everything was in order. Is that correct?