Government Operations Committee on April 28th, 2021

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Did they cite in their advice a precedent of other scenarios where this would be the case?

[Paul Glover]

Mr. Chair, again, the advice provided to me is privileged. I interpret that. It is my understanding—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can I ask, through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Glover...?

Mr. Glover, I'll ask you two questions. I don't know this. This isn't a personal thing. I'm just asking. How long have you been in your role in this department? How many times in your role or in your levels of senior management within this department have you seen this proactive use of rationale for cabinet confidence?

[Paul Glover]

Mr. Chair, the answer to that question is that I have been at Shared Services Canada for over two years. In this role, because we do not do a lot, this would be the first time, but as a senior official, this would not be the first time that I have seen this and been told not to speak about when Cabinet may or may not choose to meet and what it should choose to meet on. The attendance, the dates, sir, as I understand it, are confidential.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll accept that, and I'll look for whatever you have in writing.

In your cover letter, Mr. Glover, you stated that you:

...recognize the text of the motion and the privilege enjoyed by members of the House of Commons, and for this reason, should the Chair feel that it remains important to access an unredacted version, we [could] be open to discussing the circumstances under which the confidentiality of [the] sensitive information can be assured.

Given that, how could committee members gain access to unredacted versions of this report, and what are the risks associated with releasing this report unredacted to the public? I guess my third question is this. Understanding that statement, why wouldn't you just have provided it to us under those circumstances to begin with?

[Paul Glover]

Mr. Chair, the answer to the member's question is that I could not presume how you would choose to conduct the study, what you would need and the time frames. In order for me to provide this fully unredacted, I need consent from all of the parties. That consultation takes time, and your letter did not afford that time.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Does the consent of the parties supersede our privileges as members? This is beginning to feel like a prima facie violation of our privilege.

[Paul Glover]

The other factor here is that, even within that, there are some things, like national security and others, where I would not have been able to not redact that. We do not disclose certain information that would, frankly, be a playbook for those people who would wish to attack our networks. That would not be disclosed. I am not in a position to do that.

I respect this committee's right to ask those questions, and I hope that this committee understands my rights and responsibilities to protect certain information.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll just share by way of a closing comment.... This isn't through to you, Mr. Glover.

I just want to share my alarm at this new-found, proactive, hypothetical rationale for cabinet confidence that hasn't gone to cabinet as a way for what I consider to be an increasing violation of transparency and open government from a government that claims to be open by default. I hope that we, as a committee and in a non-partisan way, can find ways in which staff could be instructed.... As I'm to understand, to members of this committee, through the mandate letters of the ministers, they're to be open by default.

I just don't find that to be the case, and I'm startled by the precedent that this is going to now set for other senior levels of management that come before us and say, “Hypothetically, this could be cabinet confidence; therefore, we're not going to share it proactively.”

Those are my concerns, and I look forward to the next round of questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Now we'll go to the second round of questioning.

We will have five minutes with Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Glover, did you talk to the law clerk of the House for legal advice or just to the Department of Justice?

[Paul Glover]

Mr. Chair, I spoke to my legal counsel, who would be from the Department of Justice. I did not—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Not the law clerk of the House....

[Paul Glover]

—speak to the law clerk. I did not.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I want to go over your cover letter and—Mr. Green alluded to it—your comment that you'd be “open to discussing the circumstances”. Do you not find it offensive that here the Parliament of Canada passed a motion requesting information and you're only “open” to following a direction from Parliament?

Do you understand how we view this?

[Paul Glover]

Mr. Chair, absolutely I understand how you view it. I would hope that the members also understand that my responsibility as a member of the executive branch is to protect national security and confidential business information. As others have said, those—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm glad that you're open to discussing following the rules of Parliament.

Let me ask you.... You often mentioned national security as a reason for redaction. On page 104, you redacted contact information for employees and Gartner offices. Is that a matter of national security? Can, perhaps, the Russians or the Communist Party of China not find your offices through Google? This gets to the whole point that, with regard to the items you've redacted, you're making excuses or what I think is false reasoning, but at the same time, you've redacted contact information for national security reasons.

[Paul Glover]

I have redacted that information for national security reasons, yes, and it is not something that someone would just find through Google. Unfortunately—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

They wouldn't be able to find Gartner contact information through Google? Okay.

Let me just—

[Paul Glover]

Mr. Chair, you can find some Gartner information but not all.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Did the contract with Gartner specify information regarding proprietary information that they would not share with us?

[Paul Glover]

Mr. Chair, it did. The contract complies with standard contracting principles and obviously continues to operate under my obligations.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You view it as your obligation. Okay.

Who has—

[Paul Glover]

It's not a “view”, Mr. Chair. It is a requirement.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Who has access to the unredacted report? How many people in your department and at what levels?