Government Operations Committee on May 26th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, your hand is up again. I just want to make certain you still want to follow through now.

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

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, I hear what the discussion around the table is. I really do appreciate what Madame Vignola stated about the fact that we have a responsibility here as members of Parliament. We have a serious responsibility to make sure that we're not going after Canadians, citizens, no matter their relationships, whether with members of Parliament or others.

We have a serious, significant obligation to make sure we're not going after someone just because of their name or because of their relationship. There has to be some basis for looking into this information.

I'm just asking my colleague Mr. McCauley to be forthright, to say why we are looking into this information in the first place. Clearly, this is outside of the bounds of any conflict of interest; the relationship is too distant. That's been made clear by the ruling of the Integrity Commissioner in his exhaustive report, after months of the Prime Minister's family—his mom, his brother and other family members—being dragged through the mud. The Integrity Commissioner's report was quite clear.

I'm trying to understand even a sliver of information. I'd like Mr. McCauley to just be completely forthright and clear. What is the intended purpose here? What is he expecting to find? What is the suspicion here? There has to be some basis for the actions of this committee. We have a limited amount of resources here. We have a limited amount of time. We have a limited amount of resources in terms of meetings, discussions and deliberations. We have to be careful how we utilize those resources.

I'm just asking Mr. McCauley to be forthright and put on the table what his motivation is here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Before we go to Mr. Drouin, just to clarify, I want to make certain we have an amendment that has been proposed. Do we have an agreement on the motion to be amended?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Sure. Let's just move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

If anyone wants to speak against that, then please say so.

Not seeing anything now, I just want to make certain we're speaking on the amendment at this point in time, so that we're clear what we're doing, even though, Mr. Kusmierczyk, you had a question for Mr. McCauley.

Speaking to the amendment, go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the amendment, the reason we raised the personal information is obviously that when we say “open by default”, there has to be some framework that guides that. We wouldn't want personal information being released to everyone. Obviously, I don't think you or anyone on this committee would want to release their personal information about their address. I haven't seen those documents. I don't know what is wrong, what pertains to those particular documents.

I do know there is a non-partisan venue to deal with the redactions when either Canadians or members of Parliament are not satisfied with particular redactions. That is the Information Commissioner. I know Mr. McCauley, again, could have chosen to go to the commissioner to deal with those particular redactions. Now, here we are, having to put an amendment into the motion that was presented to deal with this particular matter. I'm hoping we'll be able to get to a vote on the amendment, but I'm still opposed, somewhat, to the rationale. Despite what Mr. McCauley may say, I have yet to hear a good reason in terms of the rationale for the motion being presented before this committee. I want to make sure that we protect the information of Canadians.

That's why we are asking for this particular friendly amendment, so that no information is being released. I wouldn't want to be part of releasing personal information so anyone can see it. The motion also calls for that particular information to be published on the website, I will remind this committee, in less than 48 hours, in business days. It has to be done by this Monday. I hope this committee will have some sense of passing the particular amendment. I think we should be discussing further the motion at hand.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

I have Mr. Paul-Hus and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I agree with the amendment, since people's personal information must be protected, of course.

I would like to add something, because my anglophone colleagues may not have read the article published inLa Presse this morning.

Mr. Kemper agrees with the Conservatives in calling for all of the information to be made public. He said that he thinks this is a great example of how we need more transparency and accountability in the government.

He went on to say that any expenditure of public funds should be recorded in a permanent register and the identities of the decision-makers should be associated with each entry.

He also said that in the case of the contract he was awarded, it would be clear who approved the decisions, the amount and the purpose.

Mr. Kemper himself said this to the journalist at La Presse. Mr. Kemper does not feel at all attacked by our motion; on the contrary, he thinks it would be a very good idea to really know what is going on and to record the information connected with a contract in a clear and unredacted manner, unlike what we have received.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

We have Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

I think we, as a committee, have a responsibility to protect, in a lot of ways, a certain level of privacy for individuals. Whether a committee summons someone or asks for documents on a particular contract, that pulls that person into the public sphere. I believe that, as a committee, we should meet a very minimum threshold before we do that. Again, there should be a reason given, and I haven't heard one. I don't understand why.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Open your ears, Irek.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Order.

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

With all due respect, Mr. McCauley, you haven't given us a reason other than the fact that this is your will. To me, there has to be an explanation. I think we owe it to Canadians that when we ask for something like this, we're looking into that. We should provide an explanation. Put it on the table and be very clear what that is.

What is the reason? We haven't heard it yet, other than the fact that this is something you are seeking. That's what I'm asking. I think that is the bare minimum threshold we're asking for, knowing that when a committee looks into someone it pulls them into the public sphere. Again, I think that there should be a minimum threshold and that minimum threshold is simply asking or answering the question of why. What is the purpose and what is the motivation here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

We have Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I think the purpose is quite simple. This is the government that has said that “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. This is the government that has said that they are going to be open, honest and transparent with Canadians.

That's the purpose. The purpose is to help this government make good on their commitment to the Canadian public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Harder.

I'm seeing that there are no hands up at this point in time. Therefore, as we move forward, we will first look to make certain that everyone votes on the motion as amended.

All in favour of the motion as amended?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We are voting on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

That's correct. It's the amendment we had agreed to between Mr. MacKinnon and Mr. McCauley.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay. We're voting not on the full motion, just the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

That's correct at this point in time.

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we will vote on the motion as amended.

Mr. Drouin, I see your hand is up.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes.

Mr. Chair, the opposition continues. Now I'm speaking to the amendment itself.

I'm not too—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We voted on the amendment.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm speaking to the motion itself, as amended.

I'm not too preoccupied with what Mr. Kemper has said or not. What I am preoccupied with is whether this information will be used to go on a wild goose chase while we do not use the proper venues that are available to members of Parliament. I have repeated this before. The procurement ombudsman is a good venue to determine whether or not somebody is screaming foul play.

I have heard accusations that we have to provide details of all the emails that are coming through because we want to make sure there is no foul play. Then write to the Ethics Commissioner if you are so certain that there is foul play. That way, we'll guarantee that there is a non-partisan approach to this particular issue.

I have to agree with my colleague, Mr. Kusmierczyk. Mr. McCauley, you have not provided a reason as to why you want to see that particular information. You've said that information has been redacted. Great, then file a complaint with the Information Commissioner.

Now you're asking for information that has been redacted. Thankfully we've amended that particular motion to protect personal information, but if other information comes back and is redacted, then I would strongly encourage you to file a complaint with the Information Commissioner. That's why they're there. These officers of Parliament are there to provide non-partisan investigations into these matters.

We've seen it with the WE affair. For six months, I've heard you guys, time and time again, make accusations about corruption and whatnot and calling the RCMP in July of 2020. It was a “nothingburger”. You've made so many accusations. You can understand why we are somewhat wary as to the reason and the rationale as to why you want to see this particular information.

Mr. Chair, I'll leave it at that, but I have to question the rationale for why Mr. McCauley and the opposition.... They can say sunshine is the best disinfectant. Yes, that's great, but they have gone after the Prime Minister's family before and we know the results. The Ethics Commissioner cleared him. Now, because they weren't successful there, they're going to try to go after Mr. Kemper.

I hope that we don't get to this point in politics. Especially if you are screaming foul play, then get the procurement ombudsman involved. We don't need to go through this committee to get a $12,000 contract and wonder whether the emails and whether something smells fishy in there. Get him involved right away and he'll make that particular determination.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

We have Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry. I thought we were going straight to a vote, so I'll just say this now. When we do get to a vote, I'd like it to be recorded, please.