Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us.

Ms. McClymont, I want to start with you.

Am I correct that you've worked at the Privy Council Office for about 20 years, or at least 20 years?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Yes, Mr. Chair. Tomorrow, actually, I will have 30 years in the government. I started in 1994 at the Department of Canadian Heritage as a management trainee, and I joined the Privy Council Office working in plans and priorities in 2003.

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

Congratulations on nearly 30 years. That's an excellent accomplishment.

You are very familiar with government and how government operates and with your duties as a public servant. First of all, to whom do you report in your current position?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

I am the deputy secretary to the cabinet for senior personnel and public service renewal. I was appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in 2021, and I report through the Clerk of the Privy Council Office.

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

Did you discuss with the clerk your testimony today?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

I certainly gave the clerk a heads-up in terms of how I was going to approach things, some of the questions that we thought would be anticipated, and how best to support the committee in their deliberations.

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

This is getting to where my concerns are. You are a 30-year public servant. You report directly to the Clerk of the Privy Council, yet the actions that you and your office have undertaken are actually contrary to the Constitution. You came here today and you said in response to previous questions that you withheld information from Parliament, that you redacted information that Parliament has the constitutional authority to request.

Do you accept that Parliament has the constitutional authority to call for documents without redactions?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I understand very well and I am following very closely, as a student of public policy, the debate that's actively going on.

I would reiterate my opening comments that we are responsible, as public servants, and that this is an active debate that goes well beyond me and my responsibilities. I understand the law clerk's position and the opposition's position, but I am also bound and swore an oath when I took office as a public servant that I would respect the laws that we are bound by, and we are bound by—

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

I'm going to interrupt you, though.

Part of that oath—part of the oath we all take as parliamentarians—is to respect the Constitution, and the Constitution provides Parliament with the unfettered authority to call for documents. This is laid out very clearly. Beauchesne says very clearly:

Committees may send for any papers that are relevant to their Orders of Reference. Within this restriction, it appears that the power of the committee to send for papers is unlimited.

The law clerk has been very clear. Bosc and Gagnon is very clear.

There's a helpful document here that says, “Based on principles firmly established in constitutional and parliamentary law, a House of Parliament has the full authority to summon and compel the attendance and testimony of any person and to summon and compel the production of any document.” It's very clear. There is no grey matter here. It's very clear. Parliament has the authority to request documents unredacted.

Here we have 100-odd pages with heavy redactions, which are unconstitutionally made, because Parliament has the authority to call for these documents. It's very clear. Do you accept that Parliament has this authority, or is it the position of the Privy Council Office that you are above the Constitution and you have the authority to black out information rather than provide the information duly requested by a committee? Is that the position of the Privy Council Office?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I would just reiterate that it has been the position of consecutive governments that the application of the laws that Parliament passes has to be respected in the production of documents, and that is what we have done here. We have protected information under the Privacy Act, solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidences and sensitive business information, and that's our obligation under the law as public servants.

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

I would make it very clear. There are clear examples within this 44th Parliament where committees have ordered, and individuals have produced, documents that violate even solicitor-client privilege. This power is higher than solicitor-client privilege, and yet the Privy Council Office says that you are above the Constitution.

I find that wholly unacceptable when Parliament, as a whole, as the House of Commons, in these committees passed this, and yet you've taken it upon yourself at the Privy Council Office to block that information that has been duly requested. I think it's highly troubling that this is the position that PCO has taken.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We're turning now to Ms. Bradford.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

I have a couple of initial questions to clarify the GIC appointments.

Ms. Verschuren has been appointed to positions of consequence by both Liberal and Conservative governments. She was appointed by former prime minister Mulroney to a science and tech council back in the nineties. I'm wondering if a PM appointment of that sort would be considered a GIC appointment.

[Donnalyn McClymont]

I'm not familiar with that appointment. It could have been. There is a provision under the Public Service Employment Act that allows for ministerial appointments, so the Prime Minister could have used that power at the time. There are other vehicles for appointments. I'm not familiar with that one, but it is absolutely possible.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Ms. Verschuren was also appointed by former finance minister Flaherty to serve as an economic adviser on his economic council at the height of the 2008 recession. Would that type of position have been a GIC-appointed position, in your opinion?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Again, it would depend on the vehicle that was used at the time. I'm not familiar with it. Some ministers actually have authority under their legislation. I'm not sure if the finance minister does, off the top of my head, but ministers can make their own appointments. It is possible, again, to use the provision I referred to under the Public Service Employment Act to appoint ministerial advisers, so that could have been a vehicle.

There are occasions where individuals serve on a pro bono basis as advisers, but there is no formal appointment mechanism. There are different mechanisms. I'm not sure exactly which one would have been used, but it is absolutely possible, to your question, that it could have been a GIC appointment.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Can you check into those two instances, please, and get back to us in writing with what you find?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

We could, yes.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Can you speak to Ms. Andrée-Lise Méthot's appointment to the SDTC board of directors? I believe she was appointed back in 2016, so you were definitely around at that time. Was she a GIC appointee?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

No, this individual was not appointed by the Governor in Council. As I said earlier, the SDTC foundation was a very novel structure. The members of the foundation actually appointed eight of the directors, and she was one of those eight directors appointed by the foundation itself.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay. She was appointed by the foundation, but not by the board of directors. Is that correct?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

She was appointed by the members of the foundation, through the legislative framework that allowed for the appointment of the other eight directors on the board. That's how she was appointed.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay. That should bring some clarity, then, to my Conservative colleagues.

With respect to the redaction of documents, there's been much made about the documents that are being presented having being redacted. You've been a public servant for 30 years and in your current department since 2003, I think you said.

Under the previous government, prior to 2015, did you redact documents? Was it a common practice then to submit redacted documents?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Over the course of my career, as the member referred to, I have worked on a lot of access to information documents when we provided them either for individual requests coming from outside or for the production of documents for parliamentary requests. Yes, 100%, I would have been responsible over the course of my career for reviewing documents, determining redactions and making recommendations on redactions.