Government Operations Committee on Feb. 20th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I do have Mr. Sousa, Mr. Genuis, Mr. Kusmierczyk, and Mrs. Vignola on the speaking list.

Colleagues, I apologize. I have to suspend just for a couple seconds to fill everyone in on one thing quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are back in session.

We're going to Mr. Scheer.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would respectfully disagree with the connation that this motion would aggravate a situation. We find ourselves in a situation that's already been aggravated.

When a committee sends a summons, we expect that to be respected. We are the court of Parliament. We have the same constitutional rights and privileges in many ways that courts of law have to compel people and papers to be before this committee.

It's not as if we invited the folks at GC Strategies a couple of weeks ago and we just haven't heard back from them yet. There were two official summons with timelines attached to them that have been completely ignored. That is an affront to the role that Parliament plays in holding governments to account on behalf of Canadians, especially on behalf of taxpayers, when we're talking about what the government has done with the money that they forcibly remove from the hands of hard-working Canadians.

When Canadians have questions about why costs went from $80,000 to $60 million, why proper protocols weren't followed and why decisions were made with no oversight and what the Auditor General has described as an accountability void, then it's up to us to dig into that. It's not just something that we can choose to do; this is our obligation. This is the responsibility that we have as parliamentarians.

There are many examples of the House of Commons using precisely this tool, the power to take someone into custody with the purpose of compelling testimony. It doesn't happen every other day. There are no routine proceedings for it, because it doesn't usually happen. Usually people comply, whether they're government officials, stakeholders or literally anybody.

I can read some into the record. I have half a dozen or so examples. Most recently, Speaker Milliken, my predecessor—some of us served under Speaker Milliken—was presented with a situation where there was a witness in an investigation, and it was not clear whether or not they were going to come. The initial request was not honoured, so the Speaker issued a warrant for that witness to appear. That was in 2007.

There's an example in 1913 where a witness who had refused to answer questions before the public accounts committee was ordered to appear at the bar of the House and was taken into custody for his failure.

What we're talking about here are not penalties. It's not necessarily with the view of punishment for failing to apply. It's simply just to get the witnesses to appear so that these questions can be answered and information provided to Canadians.

As for doing this in multiple steps, I really do believe that this has been going on for quite some time. Again I go back to the point that we're not just proposing this because of events or decisions or the lack of appearances one or two weeks ago. Alarm bells were raised around this app, around the ArriveScam program, some time ago. We've had testimony going back months. We had an Auditor General's report that was delivered last week, and we've had now since December these two individuals refusing to appear.

We could have skipped the first part about a third invitation. We could have gone right to the ordering of the Sergeant-at-Arms, because we already know that they've ignored the request, but we want to have one more invitation, and we want these individuals to come within 14 days of the adoption of this order.

This is, to me, the perfect time to do this in this way to ensure that there is a deadline for them to appear with an automatic triggering of a process should they not. This committee has a right, parliamentarians have a right, for their summons to be respected and honoured. These two individuals haven't. They have already ignored those requests. What we're saying is, let's give them 14 days from the adoption of this order to show up and answer these questions, and if not, let's immediately move into the part of the process where we exercise our right on behalf of the Canadians, on behalf of taxpayers, to ensure the presence of people who have been paid by government dollars, by taxpayers' money, who have submitted invoices.

The Auditor General has major questions around it. She told the committee this morning that documents around the decision-making process either didn't exist or were destroyed. That's unbelievable. We need to find out this part of the story. We need to have this information for us to know who is to be held responsible for that, and these two individuals are key to this. They are key central players from the main company that contracted this out.

I respectfully disagree with the connotation that this is some kind of a massive escalation. We are here because of an escalation and twice ignoring of committee summonses. It is time that we move very quickly to get these individuals before this committee. I believe that automatically triggering a process in the House saves this committee time, it saves the House time and it will allow us to get to the answers much more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Before we go to Mr. Green, Mrs. Vignola had stated a desire for a path forward, and Mr. Scheer was suggesting a different one. I'm going to partially fulfill Mr. Jowhari's request for a suspension. I'm thinking maybe we could suspend for 10 minutes for the parties to chat among themselves to see if they can come up with a path forward. If not, we will get to Mr. Green.

We will suspend for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are back in session, everyone. I appreciate everyone's patience.

Mr. Green, thank you for waiting. You're next on the list. Please go ahead, sir.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I had hoped that perhaps there could have been some consultations and agreements found around the room. Since we're back to this discussion at this time in the meeting, I do feel compelled to indulge my friend from the Liberal side on what our powers are as a committee. I think it's important that we recognize that indeed there is a precedent, and it's not just for the powers of our committee. I'm actually concerned about the precedent in which indulging this type of dismissal from attending to our committees might present to future people who want to seek to elude accountability to the Canadian public, and ultimately to our committee.

I would say this to the benefit of those who may not be familiar with our House of Commons Procedure and Practice under Bosc and Gagnon. If you look at chapter 20 in “Committees”, there is a specific reference to “Committee Powers”. In that section there is a subsection that specifically covers “To Send for Persons”. You can reference that online.

For the people who are watching the committee and are interested in what Parliament has the power to do, I would send them to this section, “To Send for Persons”.

I will, for the indulgence of this committee, just reference that:

Standing committees often need the collaboration, expertise and knowledge of a variety of individuals to assist them in their studies and investigations. Usually these [people] appear willingly before committees when invited to do so. But situations may arise where an individual does not agree to appear and give evidence. If the committee considers that this evidence is essential to its study, it has the power to summon such a person to appear.

In that opening paragraph under “Committees”, subsection “Committee Powers”, under the heading “To Send for Persons”, there's footnote 151. It says:

This power, delegated to standing committees by the House, is part of the privileges, rights and immunities which the House of Commons inherited when it was created. They were considered essential to its functions as a legislative body, so that it could investigate, debate and legislate, and are constitutional in origin.

This notion that we don't have the ability to do this I think undermines our power and would potentially set a dangerous precedent. I know that we've had many examples. I've had my staff messaging me at times when this had occurred, referencing back to the WE scandal and previous parliaments when we were trying to provide this type of oversight.

There are multiple paragraphs to the effect of which I've just quoted out of the Bosc and Gagnon. I would encourage all committee members to get themselves a copy and, in a very non-partisan way, uphold and protect the privileges that we have as committees.

If we're going to start making appearance before our committees optional—and I can assure you not just this committee—I could think about the impacts this would have on ethics and on many other committees. People who are inside the physical boundaries of this country are inherently under the constitutional powers that we have here to send for them. This doesn't just limit it to actually having them come and appear before the House.

We also have an unlimited ability, as set out in the Standing Orders, to send for papers and records. This is a government—unfortunately a Liberal government—that, in my opinion, has been negligent in this kind of “open by default” rhetoric that they use, where they also refuse, in many instances, to provide basic records that would provide accountability to the Canadian public, and indeed to our Parliament.

For those who are perhaps unfamiliar with the principles that New Democrats hold on this, know that we will be supporting, I would suggest, not just the ability to send for people, but also for papers and records as they relate to this. It is an important aspect, and one that is deeply protected by constitutional precedence going back to the founding principles, laws and governing orders of this House of Commons.

I'll spare you the other six paragraphs related to that section. I would call on not just our clerk but members of this committee to refer to Bosc and Gagnon, should they ever have any questions about what kinds of powers they have here at committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Mr. Sousa.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

This is putting us all in a rather precarious position because there are matters of confidence within in camera discussions. We don't want to break those rules. We're not here to make public some of the issues that we have been advised of in camera or by legal teams that have also written to us with regard to these matters. In terms of some of the witnesses who are being called before us, without giving them the opportunity to provide.... How should I say this? Again, without breaking the integrity of the in camera discussions that we've had, we're not giving them the opportunity to actually to show us or validate the reasons why they're not able to attend. Then, of course, the RCMP may or may not be reviewing this case and looking for whatever criminality or admissibility that there may be.

Will we, then, as a result of doing some of what we're doing here...not be admissible thereafter? That concerns me, too.

Then we have an investigation under way, which we're trying to complete. We want to be able to use every opportunity that exists for the investigator to take appropriate action. Does this, then, preclude it or prejudice that outcome? Possibly.

I'm just worried about the public confidence that we're possibly compromising because there's certain information that the committee has been made aware of. There are certain advisements, recommendations and suggestions that have been given to us in camera. Now, the opposition members from the Conservative Party have taken it upon themselves to reach out to certain witnesses, have obtained matters of confidentiality before them and have divulged it thereafter in the questioning of other witnesses, compromising again the confidentiality matter and then being put on notice by those matters. Individuals have taken it upon themselves to go forward on things that will compromise, I believe, the integrity of the investigation that we're trying to get to the bottom of.

Even today, members of the committee have been told that there are certain witnesses who are going to be coming to see us this week. We don't know anything about it. However, somehow this information is being shared with the Conservative Party. Nobody else on the committee is being advised of that. That, in itself, is a problem.

This motion was obviously well prepared ahead of the activities today because it was taken upon discretion to proceed on something even before we had our in camera meeting today. Again, that's disturbing.

It is important, I think, that we take a pause and suspend this issue until we have greater understanding, even from the RCMP, in terms of the implications of what may be put forward here today. It's important for us to suspend because I know that people want to make possible amendments to this motion to provide greater understanding, clarity and protection for certain witnesses. They have that right. We should be providing them every opportunity to be protected while we, at the same time, protect the government and the committee members.

We have a duty to ensure that we get to the truth. We have a duty to ensure that we understand everything that's occurred. I would—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make sure I heard that correctly.

Mr. Sousa just said that the role of this committee is to protect the government. I absolutely reject that. The role of this committee is to find out what happened to taxpayers' money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I appreciate that. It's not a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Now that it's coming forward, it's important to distinguish that we absolutely have a duty and responsibility to taxpayers, and we represent the taxpayers. We're here to represent Canadians. We're here to ensure that all Canadians have due process and that we uncover any actions or things that have not been done appropriately.

The Auditor General and the ombudsman have come out with reports. We have an internal investigation that's also coming forward, but I'm suggesting that there are certain members of the committee on the Conservative side who have taken actions on their own accord, which jeopardizes this very issue. It's they who I'm suggesting need protection, because we have to make certain that the parliamentary procedure and the supremacy of parliamentary procedure is not that of individuals but of committees.

All of us in this committee have a responsibility to ensure the positive outcome and success of uncovering these allegations and ensuring that we determine what has occurred and that we do so with integrity. I'm concerned that without more time to put forward appropriate amendments to the motion, and without possibly considering the implications of what is being put forward, we are actually doing an injustice, possibly, by bringing forward certain individuals who have..... Again, I'm cautious, because we are being advised to be sensitive to what we say here in public, and that very issue is at stake.

In certain respects, some of this should be done in camera too. I would caution that if we're dealing with some degree of illness or health or whatever it may be, people need to be protected, and we need to have confirmation before we proceed to demand or to hold someone in contempt or arrest—whatever—without having proper consideration, and that hasn't been provided here.

In this motion, there's nothing that says the witnesses deserve to provide confirmation of their situation. I understand that we want them to appear before us. I believe we all want to understand what has taken place and we already have quite a bit of information to that effect. We also have, as I said, a number of investigations still under way, and we don't want to compromise that activity. We talked at length today about the admissibility of some of the situations that may be before us and that may be compromised as a result of what this motion puts forward and, of course, there's the issue of confidentiality and privacy that's at risk here, too, by bringing forward some of this without taking proper precautions ahead of issuing that call.

We want them here. We want everybody to appear. We don't want to set a precedent that would provide people an opportunity not to, but we have to affirm the situation and make certain that it doesn't then compromise both the witnesses and the stakeholders, nor the investigation that is under way.

I would respectfully request that we suspend this discussion until we obtain greater insight and understanding of what this means, maybe even asking the RCMP or others in terms of what is being proposed here, and if it's being done too expeditiously, maybe it's going to create greater harm. I will leave it at that.

Mr. Chair, I request that we suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Sousa. I don't take that as a formal motion. We're almost out of time, anyway.

I have Mr. Genuis, then Mr. Kusmierczyk and then Mr. Bains.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Much of what Mr. Sousa said doesn't make any sense. I have a couple of points on that.

Number one, Mr. Sousa is very familiar with instances of government scandal. He was part of a government in Ontario during which a gas plant scandal occurred in which people went to jail. I think he should appreciate the importance of parliamentary committees being able to do their work and get to the bottom of what happens. He let the mask slip a little bit when he said that he thinks the committee should be working to “protect the government”. That is not the role of parliamentary committees. The role of parliamentary committees is to—

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I suspect this will not be a real point of order.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

It's a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa, on your point of order.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Just to correct the record, I did not say that we were—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

No, that's not a point of order. Correcting the record and expressing an opinion is not—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will decide that, Mr. Genuis.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks for your comment, Mr. Sousa, but it's not a point of order.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead. Let's be cognizant of our time, please, sir.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Before I go any further, I want to put forward an amendment. My understanding is that this will help us move forward. There have been discussions going on among the parties, and I hope this will help us get to a result.

We want to maintain the integrity of the process and allow committees to do their work, so I move that the motion be amended by adding, immediately after the words “dates and times determined by the chair of the committee,” in both places where they appear, the following, “and with such accessibility accommodations which the witnesses may require”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, could you just slow down a bit in reading that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I can, but I did provide it by email to the clerk.

I'll read it again:

That the motion be amended a) by adding, immediately after the words "dates and times determined by the Chair of the Committee,", in both places where they appear, the following: "and with such accessibility accommodations which the witnesses may request and the Chair agrees to provide,"; and (b) by replacing the word "fourteen" with "21".

That is the amendment. It has been sent to the clerk in writing in one of the two official languages, so I gather that it will be a few minutes before it can be distributed.

This is about trying to work collaboratively on aspects of the process, but the main point, Chair, remains—as I think Mr. Green very ably put it—that this committee, all parliamentary committees, have important powers that they can exercise and, in this case, the committee must exercise those powers in order to get to the truth.

Comments have been made by other members about possible reasons or excuses that various witnesses have made. We've had multiple witnesses make excuses, not just one. We've had various instances of these excuses being made.

These two people, Kristian Firth and Mr. Anthony, are at the centre of this scandal. Their testimony is vitally necessary for this committee to be able to do its work. No excuse has been supported by any kind of evidence or documentation. It's time to stop this charade of more excuses and more asks and to insist that they appear.

The other point I'll make is that this motion is not punitive. This motion insists that the will of the committee be followed. If the people who are summoned comply with this motion, there will be no further consequences. This doesn't propose, for example, to imprison them for six months regardless of whether or not they appear. It simply proposes to use all of the tools we have to insist that they appear and then, after they appear, any consequences associated with this motion disappear. It is just a motion that applies the necessary corrective measure to get the result that we all need so that parliamentary committees can properly do their job.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

We just have a short bit of time left before we lose resources, but I have Mrs. Vignola and then I have Mr. Kusmierczyk on the amendment.