Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Mr. Matthews. I have to interrupt you. We have the vote bells ringing.

Colleagues, can we agree, unanimously, that we'll continue until five minutes before, as usual?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Go ahead, Mr. Matthews. I'm sorry for interrupting you.

[Bill Matthews]

That's fine, Mr. Chair.

Regarding National Defence, we have provided all the documents we had in both official languages. We had them translated by Public Services and Procurement Canada, so I expect they were translated correctly.

We have reviewed the redacted documents again to give the committee greater transparency. There are now 5,000 pages, with about 350 that have redacted sections. In my opinion, we have finished our work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid that is our time.

Colleagues, in case it was not clear, Mr. Bédard is available to answer any questions you have, as members.

Go ahead, Mr. Johns, for six minutes.

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

Obviously, the fact that departments produced documents with redactions is hugely concerning. That's why we're having you here, right now. My goal and my frustration need to be grounded in questions and in getting answers and a better understanding of the issue and, certainly, the precedent.

One thing, Mr. Shea, that you highlighted with me was how there is history on this. Can you talk a bit about that? You said that, in 2010, under the Conservative government.... What did they do, in terms of how they responded in situations like this?

[Matthew Shea]

The passage I read, previously, from “Open and Accountable Government”, was from the previous government. The exact same wording was continued for the current government. Again, as I've said from the beginning, this is not something unique to today. It's something successive governments have absolutely enforced.

When it comes to cabinet confidences.... This is something that even Parliament has reaffirmed in other acts, including the Access to Information Act, where cabinet confidences are excluded for 20 years, recognizing the important role cabinet discussions have in shaping government policy.

I don't think we're presenting anything new. If you were to look back at transcripts from years ago, you would find similar arguments from the governments of various days.

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

Did the Conservative government in 2010 release documents unredacted when the opposition demanded that happen?

[Matthew Shea]

My understanding would be that, in that time period, the exact same processes we're following today would have been followed in terms of the types of redactions, whether it be—

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

The answer is no.

[Matthew Shea]

The answer is no.

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

Okay. Thank you for that.

I took the time to.... I appreciate Mr. Leduc, who reached out to, I think, all members of the committee.

Would that be correct, Mr. Leduc?

[Michel Leduc]

Perhaps not all members, but we attempted to involve—

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

Did you reach out to each party? Okay.

I was responsive. I wanted to learn. I think the whole issue here is.... I want to better understand why. I don't have all the answers yet, so I'm glad you're here today to answer some of that.

Mr. Leduc, could you please elaborate on why disclosing documentation to a parliamentary committee would be harmful to the Canada pension plan contributors and beneficiaries—to our seniors and those who are retired? Can you talk about the impact that could have?

[Michel Leduc]

Thank you for the question.

There are multiple potential impacts. I'll start with a point of reference on why we were created. We were created because the Canada pension plan was literally going bankrupt. In 1995, independently, the chief actuary produced a report saying that, by 2014, we were going to run out of money. One of the solutions was to create an entity that would expose the fund not currently needed to global capital markets. That means we have to engage all around world, with a wide variety of investment partners and portfolio companies. Even though we are a public-purpose organization, it is 100% expressed commercially.

The very root of what we do is dependent on confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. That information being made accessible for our competitors could be very damaging. It could also lead to less trust in us, as a partner, because of the sensitive nature. That's the first thing.

The other one is—and we can use Canada as an example—the world has changed in terms of what is seen as a patient, engaged and productive investor going into a foreign nation. Even Canada treats sovereign wealth funds differently than it would treat a purely commercial organization. As an example, when we enter the U.S., we are dependent on the special, unique status we have as an independent pension fund.

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

Would this violate that?

[Michel Leduc]

It would.

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

Okay. The provincial legislatures have the same constituents as we have. You work, obviously, with them. Can you talk about any concerns they might have in disclosing this? How come we haven't heard from them on this issue? Why are they not writing letters?

[Michel Leduc]

Earlier, during the hearing, the Constitution Act, 1867, was invoked. Pensions under the Constitution are predominantly a matter of provincial jurisdiction under section 92. The only exceptions are the federally regulated entities, such as airlines and banks, for example.

When the CPP was created, it was created as a joint venture with the provinces, which maintain.... That is enshrined in our enabling statute. The participation of the provinces is fundamentally preserved in how we operate.

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

How do you ensure there's accountability to us, here at the committee, to the government and to Canadians?

[Michel Leduc]

What we try to do every day within CPPIB—and this goes back to when we started operating, so a quarter of a century—is to strike a very delicate balance between our public accountability and the commercial nature of what we do. There is a wide range, including—obviously, it's more symbolic—tabling our annual report in the House of Commons, which is full of disclosures.

We also appear annually before the House of Commons finance committee. We hold public meetings with the public to discuss and let the public ask us any questions they want. The office of the chief actuary, which resides within the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions—

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

Do you understand the frustration of parliamentarians—

[Michel Leduc]

Absolutely.

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

—not being able to ask direct questions and get answers, because we're accountable to the electorate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid that is our time, gentlemen.

Next, we have Mrs. Kusie for five minutes, please.