Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2024

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

Minister, thank you for being here.

On June 10, Alex Ruff, who is a member of NSICOP, said, “To build on what Mr. McGuinty said, I'm 100% in agreement. The Prime Minister is not redacting anything.”

Mr. Ruff is a member of NSICOP. Mr. Cooper is just throwing out wild allegations based on, at best, speculation. Who do you think the public should believe, Mr. Ruff or Mr. Cooper? Mr. Ruff is a Conservative member of Parliament who sits on NSICOP.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I think you highlight exactly one of the challenges in this space. When colleagues, often benefiting from parliamentary privilege and the immunity that comes with that, assert a series of falsehoods and then purport to ask a question, it leads to a considerable disservice in the public understanding. Something as important as who gets to decide what portions of a report done by representatives of all political parties, Mr. Ruff being one of them, and including senators from the other place, who would have been in those rooms while that report was being prepared.... For him to confirm that the redactions of that report are done by officials, with zero input from any political staff person or from an elected person....

Just to lay bare the falsehood of Mr. Cooper—the idea that the Prime Minister redacted that report—I think Mr. Ruff answered that very compellingly and confirmed that this is absolutely bogus.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'll turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Duguid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.

Mr. Duguid, you have about three minutes and 15 seconds for your time.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to Ms. Drouin and Minister LeBlanc for appearing before us.

Mr. Chair, this is a public meeting, as I think everyone knows, and I'm sure the public has noted the enthusiasm with which Mr. LeBlanc is here today to speak to us, but I think I'll direct my question to Ms. Drouin.

Again, because this is a public meeting, on some of these terms that we're throwing around—from cabinet confidence to solicitor-client privilege—I wonder if you could reflect a bit for us on why cabinet confidence is important. This is a practice, as Mr. LeBlanc has noted, in Commonwealth parliaments around the world, and it has been practised for a century and a half in our country. Why it is important? What are the risks associated to national security in providing unfettered access to classified documents and waiving of cabinet confidence?

Maybe a reflection, as well, on solicitor-client privilege, just so the public can really understand this and this can perhaps be a learning moment....

[Nathalie Drouin]

Perfect.

Let me start with the easiest one: solicitor-client privilege.

This is really enshrined into our Constitution: making sure that you have access to legal advice and that the legal advice will remain protected. That privilege also applies to the Crown.

When it comes to cabinet confidence, as the minister said previously, this is really at the core of our Westminster system. This is to allow ministers to give options, opinions and advice to the cabinet and then, after a decision has been taken, to have solidarity behind the decision. We don't want to fetter that in any shape or form, in order to respect and to have a strong democracy.

Let me make a link with FI, or foreign interference—I'm sorry; I will learn not to use acronyms. The first goal of foreign actors is to attack our democracy. This is really the first goal. We need to protect the tools that are there in order to protect our democracy. This is why I think that cabinet confidence...this is not a partisan conversation. This is something that we should be proud of and that is absolutely essential to enabling any government to govern. That's about...in terms of intelligence, I'm sure you have heard about the challenge between using—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Madame Drouin, I'm sorry to interrupt. I will let you finish, but if you could, try to keep it to about 30 to 45 seconds in your final segment.

Thank you.

[Nathalie Drouin]

I'm sorry about that.

You've heard about “intel to evidence”. I'm sure you have heard about that. The reason is that when we collect intelligence, we are doing espionage, in a way. We are doing that covertly. We are not giving the targets the opportunity to be heard, so throwing information into the public domain would not be responsible. On top of that, it can burn the essential sources that we have. This is why we really need to be very careful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Madame Drouin.

You may appreciate that my father used to joke tongue-in-cheek that this was an “AFZ”, meaning an acronym-free zone. I appreciate that there are many acronyms, of course, that we use.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have much time, but we're going to talk about solutions. We all agree on one thing here: Obviously, far too many documents are considered confidential when they shouldn't be. It's the culture of secrecy that has been fostered with regard to information. It's obvious when you compare our way of doing things with that of our neighbours and that of the other Group of Five countries.

Now, we can't do a 180-degree turn. However, for the sake of the commission of inquiry, can our minister at least commit to making summaries of the documents, instead of redacting most of their content, so that the commission has enough information to do its job? Can we have that commitment? That would save us from having to meet again in three months' time because the commissioner has too many obstacles in her way to do her job.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I will make the following commitment without hesitation: As a government, we will continue, as we have done, to develop the commission's mandate. Since the commission was created and began its work, we have wanted to ensure that it had access to all the documents it needs.

I'll come back to what Ms. Drouin and I mentioned. I too was an opposition MP, so I understand. On the other hand, you can't be too specific in certain statements. I'm not saying that Ms. Gaudreau made that kind of statement, but what we're talking about here is the idea that a government would eliminate the principle of cabinet secrecy. Whatever may have happened under Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney or Pierre Elliott Trudeau, this principle has existed for a very long time. In any case, as a government, we have demonstrated our openness and willingness to co‑operate with the commission. We lifted cabinet secrecy to ensure that the commission had the documents it needed to do its job.

As I said in my comments at the beginning, this is an active discussion. I have every confidence in the senior Privy Council officials who are taking part in these discussions. I'm convinced, Ms. Gaudreau, that we won't have to come back here in three months to discuss certain matters that may have been mentioned in the media, but that don't give a completely accurate picture of the work that's being done between the government and the commission.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I hope so very much.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Ms. Kwan, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate what the minister just said, with the exception, though, that the commissioner is not getting access to all the documents. She's made the request, and there are documents being withheld.

I'm going to ask Madame Drouin this question: How many cabinet documents are being withheld?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I find this question interesting—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you very quickly. I have only two and a half minutes. Can you just give me a short answer?

[Nathalie Drouin]

I don't have the numbers. You're going to like that. Many documents have been withheld. Of course, we haven't shared memoranda about dental. Of course, we haven't shared memoranda about pharmacare.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Chair, if I may—

[Nathalie Drouin]

It's impossible to respond with how many we have withheld.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan. I won't redact that from your time.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Obviously, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Madame Drouin, I'm not talking about documents that are not relevant to the inquiry and its mandate. I'm talking about how many documents are being withheld that are relevant to the mandate of the inquiry.

[Nathalie Drouin]

I think I told you that all relevant documents that were to the point, talking about foreign interference, protecting our democracy.... This is why those four big memoranda to cabinet, in order to be transparent, have been shared with them. Those are the ones that are to the point and really helping the commission.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

All right.

Can Madame Drouin confirm for this committee that there are no documents being withheld that would assist or provide any insight to Commissioner Hogue in fulfilling her mandate? Can she just answer yes or no to that question?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I cannot say yes or no. Maybe there are other memoranda to cabinet—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

All right.