Government Operations Committee on May 26th, 2021

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I appreciate Mr. Drouin's concerns. Unfortunately, he is so completely off base I'm not sure whether I could possibly even bring him back around to the logic.

At no point does this ask for the contract. At no point would the procurement ombudsman even look at this. We're asking for the unredacted documents. It has no private information. Mr. Kemper even asks that it be released unredacted.

We've seen how Global Affairs, when awarding the Nuctech contract to a Chinese state-owned company, pushed back against concerns from PSPC over security issues. We've seen other redacted documents come through. Just at the last meeting or two meetings ago, we were discussing at great length the redactions of Shared Services on the Gartner report.

This is about transparency. The person it's concerning has even stated publicly, just about a half-hour ago in the media, that he'd like to have the unredacted version.

Some of the things the bureaucrats have redacted are ridiculous. For example, “Mr. Kemper is a [blank] speaker with good knowledge”. Again, it's about transparency; it has nothing to do with the contract. Mr. Drouin, who has been with us for six years on this committee, should know better. It has nothing to do with the contract. It's about the unredacted documents.

It's just two pages of documents, which I can see, from which someone has redacted stuff that clearly has zero to do with privacy, phone numbers, emails, credit cards or commercial confidences. Again, Mr. Kemper himself asks that it be released unredacted.

That's all it's about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

I see Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to say to my colleague, Mr. Drouin, that the opposition may ask the questions it likes about contracts, whatever the amount, be it $12,000 or $12 million. That is our choice.

On that point, I wonder why the Liberals are so sensitive, and why it causes them so many problems, if they think it is a small contract. Why could we not get the documents, which have been extensively redacted?

We simply want to know what is going on. Mr. Kemper is, in fact, the half-brother of the Prime Minister and these are legitimate questions that the opposition may ask. Given the value of the contract, I do not understand why the Liberals are so afraid of providing us with the information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Yes, we do have the right to ask anyone to present the details of a contract. Mr. Kemper was asked to participate in a conference where he has a certain level of expertise that's recognized in the country. He's the president of the Blockchain Association of Canada, and was asked to speak at a blockchain conference.

Even though every MP has a right to ask for these contracts to be brought forward, the question that Mr. McCauley hasn't answered is, why? What is the reason behind this?

Is it simply because there's a relation there? Is that the reason? When you look at why that person was asked to speak at the conference, they clearly have an expertise that's established in that field. If it's just because it's family, I don't think that is a good enough reason, and Mr. McCauley has not provided any reason why we should ask for that contract to be brought forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Drouin, go ahead.

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

My colleague Mr. Paul-Hus has clearly explained the reason why I do not want to get involved in these games.

For almost a year, I have watched you, one by one, in the House of Commons, attack the mother and brother of the Prime Minister even before the Ethics Commissioner's investigation and report were finished. You have continued to attack the Prime Minister's family.

There are rules in politics. You do not attack politicians' families; you leave them out of all that. Unfortunately, you are acting like the Reform Party of Canada, which I watched in action for a very long time during the 1990s.

Because the Ethics Commissioner did not find in your favour, you are continuing your attacks. The Commissioner has made his decision; he cleared the Prime Minister and said he had done nothing wrong, but you are going to keep bringing the Prime Minister's family into it.

Do you think we are boneheads?

I see your game; you have put your cards on the table. I can see them very clearly. That is what I object to. At some point, the process has to be followed. If there are issues or you want to raise questions, I urge you to write to the Procurement Ombudsman. He is responsible for verifying whether there has been a breach in contracts for less than $25,000. He has appeared before this committee. I encourage you to write to him. That way, we will get non-partisan information and we will not need to go through two or three months of political mudslinging aimed at a politician's family.

That is what I object to. I can see in your game, and I object to it. I am going to object to it until we are finished with it, because it makes no sense. At some point, the process has to be followed. We have to agree, at least, to have values and to respect one another.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Kusmierzcyk. Mr. McCaulley has given no reason why he wants to examine this information. What does he suspect?

You are going to raise questions and say that another document has been redacted, despite the fact that you made a request. I would ask Mr. McCaulley a question. Is he asking for unredacted documents? Can he at least include provisions that protect personal information? He seems to have the document already, because he says there is no personal information. He seems to be able to read despite the redacting.

I put the question to my colleagues: is this what is really important at this time? What do you suspect? What reason do you have for making a motion like that, if not to attack the Prime Miniser's family again, even if you were completely wrong on the question of the contract with WE?

I see that Mr. McCaulley and several of my colleagues want to speak. I am going to yield the floor to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

I see Mr. McCauley's hand is up.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I realize that my colleagues across the virtual aisle have to protest, but I'm disappointed that they continue with this misinformation. This has zero to do with a contract. I've stated that before. The motion very clearly states it. Several members have been on this committee from day one with me, and it's unfortunate that they're pushing this misinformation about a contract. This has nothing to do with a contract. It's about documents that came through an ATIP request that I believe were inappropriately redacted. The person associated with this has said to release them. Apparently he believes they were incorrectly redacted as well.

This goes to what I will call the open-by-default lie that the government constantly pushes. We saw it again just recently with the Cisco and Gartner issue. They redacted information for this committee, even though they had already posted it on the PSPC website. We've also seen Global Affairs pushing through contracts with a Chinese state-owned company for security technology for Canada, against the advice of PSPC and despite security issues.

We've seen repeatedly from this government and from the bureaucracy within this government a desire to hide information and be anything but transparent. We just want the unredacted emails, not the contract or the details of the contract. We want the unredacted emails that the subject himself has said to go ahead and release. If there's nothing there, I don't see why the government continues to be unopen by default.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

We will now go to Ms. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Certainly, there is always a danger that an individual, rather than a lack of transparency, is being attacked.

From what I hear today, there are no attacks that target the individual. I would like this to be confirmed or denied. I want to be certain that these attacks are aimed not at the individual, but rather at the lack of access to complete information.

I also want to make sure that the ethical rules of Parliament have not been broken. A parliamentarian may not hire their sister or daughter, for example. We sometimes say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The important thing, in my opinion, is that the person not be attacked.

I cannot do anything about the fact that an individual is a bitcoin expert. If he was advised to become a speaker because he was a bitcoin expert, that is fine.

I simply want there to be transparency, and no personal attacks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

We will now go to Mr. MacKinnon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me rely on Mr. McCauley's good faith and word and ask him perhaps straight up, as I begin my comments, if he would accept an amendment, friendly or otherwise, to his motion that would allow for any and all personal information to be redacted. I think I heard him offer that. I'm not sure, but surely if he's offering it in his remarks, he'd be amenable to including that level of specificity in his motion. If so, I think we would have a good faith motion on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon.

I see Mr. Kusmierczyk's hand is up again.

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

Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to yield the floor to Mr. McCauley to answer that question from my colleague.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Yes, that's fine.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

If the motion can be amended to say that redactions for personal information are permissible, then I think we could be amenable to something like that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Sure, that's fine. We can move ahead and close the meeting, I guess.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Could you then just propose where you would insert that, Mr. McCauley, or would you like me to do that?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It would be “the unredacted documents excluding personal information”.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Okay, I think we can live with that.

[The Clerk]

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chair.

May I ask Mr. McCauley to repeat the amendment so that I can have the text, please?

Thank you.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay, let's see. It would be “send for, from Global Affairs Canada, the unredacted documents excluding personal information relating to the contract”.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks.