Government Operations Committee on March 22nd, 2023

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

It's the material facts. It's the facts that matter in regard to the issue at hand. That would be my understanding.

All that is being presented is facts and not opinions or any other narrative. It's just presenting us with the facts as they've unfolded in terms of what the committee has asked for, what we have received and, in particular, the degree of the redactions. I think that's pretty self-explanatory.

If we've asked for unredacted documents—completely unredacted—and they've been redacted by 50%, 25% or.... I would think that would be what “the degree of redactions” would be referring to.

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

Mr. Chair—if I may, really quickly—that's my concern. Again, I respect the volume of documents that has been provided, and I'm just thinking about the clerk spending all of 2023 going through them just to quantify all the redactions.

I'm just wondering. What's the level of quantification that we're looking for here in terms of describing “the degree of redactions”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The analysts can probably answer that, because they will be doing it.

[Diana Ambrozas, Committee Researcher]

I would just say that going through all the submissions we've received would be an onerous task and would take a lot of time. Just scanning through them.... There are some that are very heavily redacted. You can scroll through them and see page after page of blackouts.

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

Mr. Chair, that's what I'm trying to figure out: to be more specific so that we save the analysts some time. Again, the volume of documents is unbelievable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I imagine we can leave it to the analysts to decide on an appropriate parameter.

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

I just want to make sure that Mrs. Block also receives a satisfactory report.

I guess what I'm asking is this: Could it be simply where the analysts have the latitude to pull samples and say, “This is a heavily redacted document and should never have been this redacted”? Do you want to quantify that 50% of all of the documents have been redacted or 20% of the words are redacted? I wanted to get more specific on that, just to make sure that, again, we save time but also balance it with making sure the report is satisfactory to Mrs. Block and to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to go to Mr. Johns and then Mr. Barrett.

Quickly, on that, I mentioned that the analysts can put in their recommendation for us. They've done similar reports before.

I think part of the issue as well is that we've had departments outright refuse one hundred per cent to give us anything despite the order. We've also seen twice now that DND and CBSA have said, “We'll decide, not Parliament.” As the chair, that is my concern about some of this out-and-out refusing. Two departments said, “No, get lost.” The others have said, “Yeah, we'll get back to you.”

I have Mr. Johns and then Mr. Barrett.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

First, thanks to Ms. Block for tabling this motion.

The only part that we have concerns around is that after “McKinsey & Company”, it says, “that the draft report be considered by the committee in public”.

I did also seek some advice on this. The feedback I got was that doing drafting in public is actually not normal and could set a bad precedent for the future. What was highlighted in the recommendations I got was that drafting the report in public can add unnecessary political theatre to the study. That has permeated some of our meetings already.

Canadians expect the committee to deliver meaningful recommendations to the government. Turning the drafting into what we've seen in the past, which is theatre and I think unnecessary delay, could be a problem for the work that OGGO needs to do. All parties on the committee have the opportunity, obviously, to disagree or to add to the conclusions of the committee's report through supplementary and dissenting reports. That is the norm in any committee I've been on and in any report that I've been a part of. Public disagreements can be shared through those avenues without disrupting the work of the committee.

That's just the feedback that I wanted to relay from the NDP. I really appreciate Mrs. Block's bringing this forward so that we can get the clerk to work on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I appreciate Mr. Kusmierczyk's comments about the amount of work that could be generated from the task of quantifying the number of redactions, but it's so important that we start from a point of understanding that redactions numbering greater than zero are a contempt of Parliament. They're a contempt of what has been ordered of these departments.

The gravity of the situation needs to be driven home. The analysts described how they're scrolling through pages that are all blacked out. As described by the chair, there's 100% unwillingness to co-operate. I think that's important. The number of words versus lines versus pages.... A percentage would be interesting. I think the chair suggested we defer to the analysts in terms of how they define it or break it down. That's not prescribed, but I think it's important we don't just say, “There are some redactions.” There is 100% non-compliance in some cases and, frankly, we had the minister say they were going to strike a balance.

The balance is this: Fully comply with the order or dispute the lawful authority of this committee. I don't believe there is any disagreement, but I think it's very important we have a number and not just a description so the gravity of this is understood. Though the volume of documents is beyond substantial—it's a lot—the number of redactions is beyond unacceptable. I think it's important to quantify that.

I'm sure I've oversold my point, but it's shocking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

There are two things. I want to make sure it's understood that I am putting an amendment on the floor to replace the words “to the House” with “to the committee” and strike—as Mr. Johns mentioned—the last words, “and that the draft report be considered by the committee in public.” I think, again, and for the same reasons he outlined, it would be better to consider it in private.

The reason why I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let me interrupt you for two seconds.

Are we comfortable trying to tackle this together and change it to “in camera”, as Mr. Johns suggested?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

That's just for the drafting part. I want the rest open.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

If you're not, then we'll let Mr. Housefather continue.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I would like a point of clarification. Perhaps, after....

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

If she wants a point of clarification, I don't mind taking—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

It was for Mr. Johns. I don't want to interrupt your intervention by asking for clarification from Mr. Johns.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand.

Basically, Mr. Chair, these two amendments.... I presume that, if I take out “and that the draft report be considered by the committee in public”, it would be normal to have it considered by the committee in camera. I want it to come to the committee, because.... Before I agree something should be referred to the House, I want to understand the scope of the issues and what we've done to make the departments remedy their breach.

For example, I would like to know that the analysts and clerk have looked at this, and that the chair has written to each department in breach, which still didn't do anything. I want to understand, before I agree, that the matter will be referred to the House. I agree with what Michael said, in terms of this: Certainly, if there are heavily redacted documents when the committee ordered unredacted ones, it's not acceptable whatsoever.

This is a separate point and not part of my amendment: I'm also wondering whether, instead of spending hundreds of hours.... What is the list of departments that didn't comply? Can they tell us whether it was hugely non-compliant, or did they just strike out somebody's name and email address for privacy reasons? To me, that wouldn't be an egregious breach.

To clarify, Mr. Chair, my amendment is to replace “House” with “committee” and to strike the last sentence, after the word “Company”. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Great.

I think I can answer for the analysts. Yes, all of our efforts—written and otherwise—to get these documents will be part of the report, as is traditionally done.

Mrs. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I just have a point of clarification for Mr. Johns.

The draft report that's being considered is the report that's being written by the analysts on this one issue. It's not a report on the McKinsey study.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

No, I am aware.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.

I am fine with....