Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I'm going to go back to Mr. Shea.

Mr. Shea, where is the line? When you're drawing the line on whether to redact a document or not, when it's in the public's interest or in the government's interest, where do you find the line? I'll start with that first of all. Where's the line?

[Matthew Shea]

I think in each case, we would consult with the Department of Justice when it comes to making a decision to override, for example, personal information. There are situations where personal information is released because it's in the public's interest to do so.

When it comes to cabinet confidence, I think it's a much broader discussion and involves other consultations. Again, the Department of Justice is really the lead for that, and it wouldn't be me.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Is there no political involvement at all in this?

[Matthew Shea]

There's no political involvement.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Was it the same in 2010 under the Conservatives?

[Matthew Shea]

It would be the same under both.

For cabinet confidences, I believe the Prime Minister needs to approve that, but I would have to check that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

How do we know there are no things like...?

Ms. Hudon, I'm going to put you on the spot a bit. The cost of the chauffeur, which I raised with you, when you flew him to Vancouver twice, was almost as much I spent in a year travelling to B.C. and back. How do we know that there aren't more things like that redacted, things that the public should know about?

How do we ensure that it's not hiding information that's going to embarrass the government and that it's duly protected to protect the Canadian government, the taxpayer and, ultimately, the beneficiaries, as Mr. Leduc talked about in terms of the pension plan?

[Matthew Shea]

I can't speak for every department, but I would say in general and certainly at PCO, we have dedicated experts doing these types of redactions. They're the same folks who do access to information requests, and this is what they do. They have no vested interest in one document versus another. They just want to be consistent in the way redactions are applied.

If there's personal information, it's redacted. If there are cabinet confidences, they're redacted. If it's national security and so on.... It's not about if this would embarrass somebody versus not embarrass them. That is not part of the criteria.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Leduc, in terms of the impact on the Canadian pension plan, what is the potential impact, the bottom line, in terms of the person receiving their pension? What could be the impact?

[Michel Leduc]

It would erode our ability to do what we've been doing, which is that, out of the $570-billion fund today, $400 billion is from our net profit. Our ability to be the leading investor in the world, which we are, based on financial performance over 10 years, requires us to be very commercial and very sensitive—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

What's the cost of the compromise?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, gentlemen. That is our time.

We are—

[Michel Leduc]

It's $570 billion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Leduc, I'm sorry. That is our time.

Colleagues, we're going to suspend. Then we'll come back after, hopefully, one vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, we are back in session.

Witnesses, thank you for bearing with us.

We'll start right back with Mr. Nater for five minutes, please.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you, thank you to our witnesses for joining us here this afternoon.

Mr. Shea, in your opening comments you noted that you respect the role of Parliament. My concern is, and I don't say this facetiously, that I'm not sure you understand the role of Parliament. You mentioned in a response to Mr. Barrett that you're not a legal expert—neither am I. I'm a farm kid from Logan township, but when I don't understand something, I seek out experts.

My question to you is this: What expertise did you seek out on parliamentary procedure and on the authority of Parliament to send for documents?

[Matthew Shea]

I consulted, in advance of appearing at this committee, our legislative House planning team within the Privy Council Office, along with our legal counsel, to refresh my memory on the protocols that are in place for dealing with parliamentary committees, along with the reasons that certain information must be redacted. I did that consultation.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Did you seek the advice of the parliamentary law clerk?

[Matthew Shea]

I did not consult the parliamentary law clerk.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I get the impression, sir, that despite the fact that you're an assistant secretary to cabinet, you don't fully understand the authority of Parliament. Parliament's authority to call for papers, to call for documents, is unfettered. You mentioned solicitor-client privilege. Are you aware that Parliament can call for any document that goes against solicitor-client privilege? Are you aware of that?

[Matthew Shea]

Again, the successive governments have had the same point of view on this, which is that there are exceptions that must be applied and have been consistently applied for several governments in a row.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Again, sir, do you know what the difference is between government and Parliament?

[Matthew Shea]

There's a separation, clearly, between the different branches of government.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Are you aware that Parliament is supreme in its ability to call for documents? Regardless of what the government says, Parliament has unfettered access to call for documents.

[Matthew Shea]

I respect the role of Parliament, and I absolutely respect its authority. I must, at the same time, respect the legal opinions that have been provided by the Department of Justice and the time-honoured traditions that have gone on between successive governments in terms of how to approach parliamentary document production.