Government Operations Committee on June 21st, 2023

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

We've heard that translations, although they are necessary, are very costly. The PBO indicated that over $8.2 million has been spent on translations on this production of documents to this point.

Can you tell us a little bit about how much your organization has spent on translations to this point?

[Mélanie Bernier]

We have encountered some challenges in the translation of these documents. We had communicated with the translation bureau, who were not able to support us in the translations for this request.

We have also reached out to all of our networks of translators, who have also informed us that they didn't have the ability to deliver in the time frame we had available to us, so we had to find new translation resources. That, unfortunately, did not end up having the quality to meet our expectations or to meet the timing we had. We ended up doing a portion of that translation internally with our own resources.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Is this money that's coming from federal public servants' retirement funds?

[Mélanie Bernier]

These expenses on translation are part of our operating costs and, yes, they are paid from the money that goes to the pensions.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That is most unfortunate. That money should be staying to support our hard-working federal public servants who have retired.

Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Chair, I would yield my time to my colleague Mr. Housefather.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

You have about two and a half minutes, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shea, I want to come back to something you just said, which preoccupies me. Did you say that Ms. Welbourne did not work at PCO this year at all?

[Matthew Shea]

I can confirm the exact date, but I believe she left at the end of the last calendar year.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

At the last meeting, if you look at the blues, Mrs. Kusie stated that this email was from June 6, around the time we had the first group of departments appearing before the committee on McKinsey redactions on June 5, 2023.

Mr. Shea, is it possible that Ms. Welbourne could have sent this email from PCO on June 6, 2023?

[Matthew Shea]

It is not possible.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It's very interesting how this committee may have been misled at the last meeting, given the fact that this email was clearly indicated to the committee as related to this set of documents and came around the time of the first group of departments appearing before the committee.

Mr. Chair, I would again make the request that Mrs. Kusie now turn over that document that she referenced to the committee. Can I ask for unanimous consent for her to do that, please?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

You should ask for PCO to table it and see how long it takes them to get—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I don't think so, Mr. Housefather. Perhaps you'll return to your questioning.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Certainly.

Mr. Shea, does it disturb you that a member of this committee would attempt to imply that PCO took this attitude towards documents when this email does not seem to have been related to these documents?

[Matthew Shea]

I have not seen the reference that you mentioned. I heard that there was an email referred to.

All I can say is that we have looked, and we are confident that Ms. Welbourne did not work at PCO at the time. We would happily provide any email, if we could find it, that was related to that, but we have no such email that we can find.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much.

Perhaps my last point is this: Can you just confirm to the committee in writing, then, that Ms. Welbourne did not work there in June 2023?

[Matthew Shea]

I can confirm, and I have already confirmed that she left in December 2022.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, it's a pleasure to have you at OGGO with us instead of our usual time together at the public accounts committee.

You have six minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and hello to my colleagues.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

As the chair just mentioned, I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, so if there's one thing I can do for this committee, despite not having attended the previous meetings, it's add some perspective.

At the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I introduced a motion that was adopted unanimously, calling on the government to produce, by a certain deadline, the unredacted contracts with pharmaceutical companies from which it had purchased COVID‑19 vaccines. Before the deadline, we received all the contracts signed with the six pharmaceutical companies from Public Services and Procurement Canada, and those contracts were unredacted.

Why was the Standing Committee on Public Accounts able to adopt this motion and get Public Services and Procurement Canada to comply with our request for such sensitive contracts, when a similar motion moved at this committee didn't meet with the same response, the same level of satisfaction or, most importantly, the same success rate? When I look at the documents that were produced and I see how much was redacted by the government, whereas McKinsey sent in unredacted documents, I can't help but ask myself some questions. Is it due to bad faith or incompetence? I would rather it was the first and that it could be fixed so that this committee could finally get access to the documents it requested. The law clerk just reiterated that this committee has the right to make such requests.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Shea. At the last meeting, I gather that you said the documents had been sent over redacted, in accordance with the instructions Mr. Harper had given when he was in office.

Is that right, Mr. Shea?

[Matthew Shea]

I believe what you're referring to is that, at the last committee, I quoted from “Open and Accountable Government”. I'm happy to read that passage again if you would like me to. Ultimately, what I indicated was that it was from 2011 and was approved by the Prime Minister at the time. It was to guide how the public service and ministers should interact with parliamentary committees.

What I indicated was that in 2015, when the current Prime Minister approved “Open and Accountable Government”, that exact same passage was there. The message from me was that successive governments have given the exact same edict to members of the public service and to ministers about how to interact with committees, in keeping with what previous governments have done as well.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Okay, thanks.

It's 2023 now. Regardless of what happened in 2011 and 2015, this Parliament has rights that take precedence over whatever edicts may have been given in the past. If this committee requests certain documents, under its parliamentary privilege, it's reasonable for public servants to comply.

Mr. Shea, I'll start with you, if you don't mind.

Can you confirm, or rather explain to me in a few words, because I don't have much time, why you weren't able to produce the unredacted documents requested by this committee by the prescribed deadline?

[Matthew Shea]

We respectfully understand the position of the law clerk and what has been explained to this committee, and our approach to the production of documents is sensitive to the powers of the House of Commons and its committees to request production of documents and the role of members of the House of Commons in holding the government to account.

However, the public service's position is animated by other considerations, including respect for other laws enacted by Parliament. Successive governments have taken the view that laws enacted by Parliament itself prohibit the disclosure of certain types of documents.

Going back to my last appearance, we talked about some of the initial redactions from the Privy Council Office documents that were around commercial sensitivities and around privacy. The Privacy Act explicitly prevents us from being able to share that information without the consent of the individual. What we did at PCO is that we actually went to the individual to seek that consent, in keeping with the law—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I apologize for interrupting you, Mr. Shea, but I don't have much time and I just wanted to comment on what you said.

I still say that parliamentary privilege supersedes the things you just mentioned, and that's why the Standing Committee on Public Accounts was able to get access to the highly confidential vaccine purchasing contracts between the government and the pharmaceutical companies. We were able to get them because at that moment, as Mr. Housefather can also attest, since he was there too, there was trust in our committee.

Do you distrust this particular committee or any particular members?

[Matthew Shea]

I reflected in the last appearance...and when I read “Open and Accountable Government”, the very end of it talks about the importance of “Members of Parliament, in cooperation with Ministers and their offices, to find ways to respond to legitimate requests for information from Members of Parliament, within the limitations placed on them.”

A big part, with any of these requests, is the importance of, as a government, our working with the committee to try to find solutions. I think there have been a number of examples in recent history where we have worked as a government with committees to try to find solutions to give access to national security information or other types of information using other methodologies and being creative where possible.

My response to this committee would be that we remain open to finding solutions to make sure that you get the information you need.

I do want to reiterate that, in the case of the PCO—