Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've listened very carefully to my colleagues. I have a lengthy response that I could provide based on the comments I heard from Mr. Jowhari and Mr. Sousa—particularly those from Mr. Sousa. He didn't identify me, but he certainly made specific reference to the strategy I adopted and the evidence I relied upon. He certainly impugned my integrity and character. Although he has parliamentary privilege within this committee, he certainly does not have it outside of this committee and the House. These are serious allegations he's levelled against me. He used the phrase “obstruction” and “interference” with witnesses. I don't believe Mr. Sousa has a law degree. I do, as my colleague Mr. Lawrence does. He certainly does not appreciate the rules of evidence.
He certainly does not appreciate the rules with respect to talking to witnesses. As I shared with the committee on our last occasion, there is absolutely no proprietary interest in any witnesses, whether they are called on behalf of the Conservative team, the Liberal team, the Bloc team or the NDP team. These witnesses did not have to speak with me. They chose to speak with me. They were not under duress to speak with me. They could have refused to answer any and all questions that I put to them, in much the same fashion that Mr. Lafleur cautioned this committee in his opening statement about how he was here to talk about process. Notwithstanding that opening statement, he indeed answered questions. Sometimes it took me a number of times and rephrasing the question, but I eventually got answers.
To answer Mr. Jowhari's point about why we are doing this, I think that's abundantly clear. This is about unearthing the truth behind the wasteful spending of the $54-million ArriveCAN app, of which $11 million went to a two-person firm that's currently under RCMP criminal investigation for doing absolutely nothing. It acted as the middleman between the CBSA and the real IT professionals, some of whom legitimately did work and some of whom did nothing and were still paid. The procurement ombudsman called that “bait and switch”.
These are horrendous allegations against the Government of Canada. I can see, Mr. Chair, why the Liberals will do everything in their power to shut this down. I have chased this particular scandal over the last several months in a number of committees, and I've been faced with tactics similar to what we heard today: motions to adjourn in order to silence me.
I won't be silenced. Mr. Bains can laugh all he wants, but that's the truth. That's my job as a parliamentarian. With my criminal law and prosecutorial background, that's how I frame my questions. I'm not Perry Mason. I wish I looked like Tom Cruise, but I don't. I thank Mr. Sousa for making that suggestion. My wife might appreciate that, in hindsight.
That's why we're here, Mr. Chair. It's to get to the bottom of this scam—in particular, GC Strategies, which seems to be kryptonite in the hands of the government. Justin Trudeau, our Prime Minister, even said in the House that it was completely illogical, in the procurement activities surrounding the awarding of this contract to GC Strategies, to funnel out $54 million. If the Prime Minister has concerns, why do not all parliamentarians have concerns?
Yes, this is not a court of law. This isn't a criminal court. It's not a civil court. However, it is certainly within Mr. Lafleur's purview to say, “Yes, Mr. Brock, it's a relevant question, but it might compromise my ability to continue the investigation by answering.” He never did that to any of the questions I put to him or to any of the questions that any member put to him on the last occasion.
With all due respect to my colleagues—and in particular to Ms. Vignola, who I greatly admire—I don't see how continuing with this particular witness in terms of getting some basic questions answered is going to compromise the ability for anyone to defend themselves.
Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano both have very experienced counsel working on their behalf. As I suggested to Mr. Lafleur on the last occasion, there is an application in a superior court with respect to reasserting and preserving their legal status and their privilege to make sure they are in a position to participate in Mr. Lafleur's investigation. They've never refused.
I know there has been an exchange of correspondence between Mr. Lafleur and counsel—as recently as today, as a matter of fact. I know there are certain conditions that counsel wants to see established before his clients participate.
Let's not forget something here, Mr. Chair. We both—