Finance committee  Well, this is discussed in Procedure and Practice in terms of the censure, reprimand and summoning of individuals to the House. The House could consider whether it's a contempt of its privileges and make a finding to that effect. Historically, there has been the authority to summons and issue a warrant to bring an individual into custody and bring an individual to the bar of the House.

Finance committee  No, because it invoked those grounds that the committee did not allow.

Finance committee  The information that was provided excluded cabinet confidence information and included information that was found not to be relevant, so it went beyond the scope of the initial motion.

Finance committee  It has received what it asked for, with the exception of the redactions that I have highlighted in those categories under the access to information legislation, which the committee did not include as valid grounds in its motion.

Finance committee  They do not apply to those requests unless the committee decides to include those grounds in its motion.

Finance committee  It included the ground of cabinet confidence, but the ones I listed—third party information, information on the vulnerability of government computers, solicitor-client privilege, and consultations—were not included. Personal information was included, but it was meant for my office to redact and not the government.

Finance committee  I cannot confirm that, Mr. Poilievre. I have not seen behind those redactions. The motion in November provided that those redactions could be kept by the government when it sent me the new package.

Finance committee  Thank you. Some of these options include having my office review and/or redact documents, as appropriate, to ensure that a claim for confidentiality is justified; asking the party providing the documents to redact certain types of information; requesting limited and numbered paper copies; or arranging for the disposal or destruction of copies after the committee meeting.

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope everyone can hear me well. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, for your invitation to appear today following the motions that were adopted by this committee on July 7 and November 19, 2020, respectively, ordering the production of documents related to the WE Charity and the social enterprise “Me to We”.

Health committee  I don't want to indicate what's possible or not for the government to do. That would be for them to say. I can say that certainly my office can start looking at documents as soon as we receive them in terms of sequencing, but I really can't say what the government can or cannot do.

Health committee  In the instance that you refer to, with respect to the finance committee, we received documents; we looked at what they were, and we reported to the committee as to the concerns we had and the fact that we were not able to do what the House had asked us or what the committee had asked us to do in that instance.

Health committee  My view, Mr. Davies, is that the House has allowed the exclusion of cabinet minutes. The minutes of meetings of the cabinet and its committees are to be excluded from this order, so those would not be considered at all by my office. However, the motion otherwise requests that the documents be vetted by my office for the other three grounds, which are privacy and personal information, national security and interference, or what “could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations”.

Health committee  If they come to my office redacted, I would be in a situation of reporting it to the committee, because it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for my office to vet and to determine whether the redactions are valid. Some of them may seem like valid redactions to us, and sometimes we're almost 100% certain, but for others, we would not be able to know.

Health committee  They're not the same words, obviously, and we would look at any proposed redaction in a given document. That said, the House's criterion says, “information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations between the Government of Canada and a third party.”

Health committee  Your interpretation of the motion does indeed reflect what I noted in my remarks. The motion stated that the grounds related to the confidentiality of the information or possible prejudice to contract negotiations were justifiable. However, the redaction must be approved by me or my office.