Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green. I wasn't aware of that. I appreciate your bringing that to our attention.

Monsieur Villemure, I have you next on the list.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to table the following motion: That, further to the commitments made in the testimony of October 17, 2022, on the use of public funds related to the Roxham Road Crossing, the committee requires to receive from Mr. Pierre Guay, President of Importation Guay Ltée, the Department of Public Works and Government Services and the Canada Border Services Agency the following documents: (1) The Report on the use of the Hotel Saint-Bernard; (2) The justification(s) for invoking the “national security exception” for each of the leases and contracts;(3) The agreements reached between the federal government and Pierre Guay in the context of the crisis at Roxham Road. That these documents be submitted, in both official languages, in an unredacted format, to the Clerk of the Committee no later than October 31, 2022.

These are the documents that the witnesses have already agreed to provide to the committee. At the same time, I would like to table a small amendment to replace the date of October 31 with November 14.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

The clerk has just reminded me that technically you're not allowed to move an amendment on your own motion. If it's the will of committee members, we can accept the amendment.

First, we need to hear what the amendment is and then we can decide after that.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The amendment would replace the October 31 submission date with November 14, 2022.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, the motion is in order.

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

There's no discussion on the amendment. I think three weeks works out.

My only concern is in relation to the provisions of Mr. Villemure's motion. Perhaps he could explain. In fact, he and I had a discussion and agreed that it would not necessarily be the bodies named in the motion that would be responsible for providing the documents referred to in the motion, but perhaps other people better placed to provide the information.

So I would like Mr. Villemure to explain that to everyone here. It may not be necessary to amend the motion, but we should at least agree amongst all of us to clarify these provisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Before we go to Mr. Villemure, am I hearing correctly that the spirit of what he's proposing is something you can agree with? Do you need clarification, Mr. Fergus? Is that correct?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, it's going to depend on—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let's find out, but I feel perfect. Let's find out from Mr. Villemure.

I have you next, Mr. Barrett.

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

Are we discussing the motion by Mr. Villemure with the November date or the October date? Are we debating an amendment or the motion with the November date?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Villemure, perhaps you can provide some clarification on that. My understanding is that you were looking for the October 31 date. Is that correct?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The motion tabled has the date of October 31. Now, with a parliamentary recess week coming up, we could give some oxygen to the people who have to produce the documents, to make sure that they are produced in a complete way. That is the spirit of the change I am proposing.

In response to Mr. Fergus, it is clear that the documents requested here must be provided by the person responsible for them. If we take the example of the report on the use of the Hotel Saint-Bernard, Mr. Guay, in my view, is well placed to provide it. On the other hand, he is not in the best position to provide the documents on national exceptions. It is therefore necessary for the person responsible for each of the issues mentioned in the motion to produce the relevant documents. We agree that not all the people mentioned have to answer all three questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Does that provide some clarity for you, Mr. Fergus?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

I have Ms. Khalid next, and then Ms. Saks on Zoom.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm just wondering if we've accepted the November 14 date.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Okay. All right.

I have two points I want to raise.

I know Monsieur Villemure and I did have a conversation about this, and I really respect and appreciate the wonderful expertise and passion that Monsieur Villemure brings to the table. I really appreciate it.

We heard from Monsieur Drapeau earlier today that 30 business days seems like a reasonable time to give to departments to be able to produce documents. In this instance, I realize and understand and appreciate, based on our conversation, Monsieur Villemure, that perhaps something a little bit more urgent would be necessary. If I may suggest very humbly and with a great amount of respect for the work that you do, perhaps we can move it to the end of November to allow for those 30 business days.

Then the second point I will make—and again I respect and understand the reason you've put this motion forward—is that I just think there should be a little bit more clarity as to which witnesses are required to produce which documents.

I think you just responded to Mr. Fergus that, for example, number one would be Monsieur Guay, that number two would perhaps be the Department of Public Works and Government Services and that number three would also be the public works department. Would that be something that we are able to just outline specifically, instead of saying, “Here are the witnesses. These are the documents. Now go figure out what you think it all means”? It would be great to have clarity on who is expected to produce which documents. In the event of vagueness or overbroadness, since we know that nobody really responds to anything, perhaps that is something you're willing to consider: to put a witness to each of the three listed items.

Thank you. Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Can I make a suggestion to committee members? It is that if you're proposing November 30, we stick to the issue of November 30 to start and then maybe circle back on some of the other concerns you might have with respect to the witnesses providing documentation.

With regard to the November 30 issue, Ms. Khalid, are you moving that as an amendment? No? You're just—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

It was just a friendly suggestion to see if Monsieur Villemure would accept it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

I'll go to Monsieur Villemure before I go to Ms. Saks on that.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The 30-day suggestion is not bad. We heard the witnesses on October 17. So it seems to me that by proposing November 14, we are respecting the spirit behind the 30 days. I personally see no reason to go further.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just reiterate and be brief in saying that we've just heard extensive testimony on how the timeline is set up for failure. I think in this case, particularly if Monsieur Villemure really does want to get these documents, we would like to see.... Rather than a timeline that is cut too short when, as we heard in the testimony previously, there are just requests for extensions and requests for extensions, if we actually propose a reasonable extension—as described by probably the leading expert on ATIP requests and demanding documents in this country at this time—we'll actually get what we're asking for.

At the request of the chair, I won't dive into the clarity on each section—we can get to that afterwards—but, yes, I do want to see documents.

The other thing that I'd flag is that there has been a precedent in this committee of asking for unredacted contracts from private contractors. That is a complicated precedent in terms of corporate privacy and agreements, and we can expect that when we start to demand corporate contracts, there will be resistance to do that. We want witnesses to come forward. We'd like to have companies be able to come forward in the future and discuss their work, but when we ask for unredacted private contracts.... For a businessman, it does get complex. I know that Public Services and Procurement Canada said it will not disclose those things.

In an effort to not put the cart before the horse and to make sure that we get what we're asking for, I would ask if Monsieur Villemure is willing to consider those—particularly the timeline—at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Saks.

On the timeline issue, I think it's a lesson for all of us as well. So that we don't have to deal with this in the future, any time we request document productions, we should actually apply a date to the request.

In this case, there was discussion at the committee, from what I understand, but there was no actual date. Mr. Villemure is trying to provide that date. He's quite right in the sense that the meeting took place on October 17. He's requesting November 14, which means we're close to that 30-day window. For the future, we need dates. I just want to be clear on that.

Mr. Villemure, I saw your hand up.