Evidence of meeting #101 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you for your apology. I'm doing my job, Mr. Jowhari.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you.
That being said, Chair, I believe the will of the committee is to relieve Mr. Lafleur at this time.
Do you want to speak?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Jowhari is next. Mr. Brock is speaking, and then it's Mr. Jowhari, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Bachrach and then Mrs. Block.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
As I indicated, Mr. Chair, I believe the will of this committee is to relieve Mr. Lafleur of his responsibilities today. I take into great consideration Mrs. Vignola's suggestion. We're not saying never; we're just saying not now.
We don't know how long this investigation is going to take. We're approaching two years since the date that the CBSA received the Botler complaint. We received no update at all from the RCMP, and we don't know, ultimately, if the internal investigations by the CBSA or the RCMP are going to focus on other individuals. As I suggested to Mr. Lafleur, which he disagreed with, Mr. Minh Doan needs to be criminally investigated. There is a serious allegation of the deleting of four years of relevant emails by a person who held the title of vice-president and who is now Canada's chief information officer. If there's anyone who should know how to preserve his IT and emails, it would be Mr. Doan. Mr. Doan appears to be the only one at the CBSA who had a problem with his emails. That's suspicious.
Notwithstanding what Mr. Lafleur said, I'm really glad that we were not in camera—to Mr. Sousa's point—but rather in public because I hope the RCMP investigator, whoever that was, was following this, because there is a strong suggestion that the breadth of those involved in this scam needs to be expanded. We have serious concerns about Mr. Doan. I have serious concerns about Erin O'Gorman, the president of the CBSA, who deliberately misled this committee. Not once but on at least two occasions, she deliberately withheld information from this committee. Although witnesses are never.... Well, I shouldn't say never, but they are rarely sworn to tell the truth. However, when witnesses attend a committee, they are presumed to be telling the truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God—or however it binds their conscience.
I leave with that notion, sir, that this investigation has the potential to be expanded, that there are more individuals involved than simply Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano.
Bearing in mind the will of the committee, I'm moving for a vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The motion was originally from Mr. Sousa to vote to dismiss Mr. Lafleur. We've had several people talk on it. Can we get to that? Then we can move to the committee business on other issues.
February 7th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Well, if everyone wishes to pass, there seems to be a will to do this. However, we can go to the speaking list. That's what I'm asking.
Yes, we have to continue with the speaking list. It appears that we wish to continue.
After Mr. Brock, it's Mr. Jowhari. Then we'll have Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Bachrach, Mrs. Kusie, Mr. Sousa and Mr. Genuis.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's the best pivot I've ever seen. I commend my colleague Mr. Brock for doing such a great pivot and talking about and linking it to ArriveCAN. That's the scope of this study, but it doesn't have anything to do with why we have this witness called here. Linking it somehow to the federal government and to the Prime Minister and all those things is a great pivot. I hope, really, that the media is watching and that Canadians are watching, because they can see what this supposed ArriveCAN study is all about.
Now, I am specifically asking, and our side is specifically supporting asking, the committee to excuse Mr. Lafleur. My belief, and the belief on our side, is that if we actually continue with this, we are justifying what happened in the last meeting and the process we went through. The approach we took was wrong. By having this meeting today, by putting Mr. Lafleur through process questions, and by continuing along the line of some of the comments we got from Mr. Brock, which are directly from this report.... I wanted to know which part. It is actually on page 5 of 71 of the report.
This is not right. Until this study is done, we cannot talk about the fact that potentially some of the witnesses have chosen not to speak or participate in an investigation.
You just revealed that, sir. You just revealed that.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Yes, you did. Go back to the Hansard and read it. That's wrong.
We should not continue with this process. I think we're getting to the vote. On our side, the reason we shouldn't do it is that doing this will help justify the wrongdoing and the approach that was taken. That's number one.
Number two, we agreed to do an ArriveCAN study and to continue to do the ArriveCAN study. We have basically paused 10 studies. I can name them. We have agreed to pause 10 studies. This committee hasn't done anything—hasn't delivered one iota of output for the last four months—because we also thought it was important for us to look at ArriveCAN. The more we dig, the more we realize that there is no ticking bomb. However, with Botler AI it's a different story. Therefore, under the umbrella of ArriveCAN...which our Conservative counterparts are trying to keep alive, because they've built a narrative around it, and they're sinking every day. They said, “Bring Botler AI”. That's fine. We brought Botler AI. Now we're seeing, “Oh, my god, based on this, this is going even deeper than we expected.”
It's not that we don't want to do the study, or we're trying to hide something, or we're trying to protect the government, or trying to protect a so-called $54-million application. I'm not going to go down that road again. We are accused of wanting to stop this study and block all those things, and it's not true. Our behaviour hasn't demonstrated that. We've been active participants on every committee. We've accepted the new curriculum and the new plan, even after the subcommittee voted on doing other stuff. We've given the chair the leverage to be able to call witnesses as it relates to ArriveCAN. We haven't come back one time and said, “Oh, we agreed on this plan and we agreed on this calendar. How come we're not doing it?” We've said, “Fair enough. There is new evidence. Let's follow it.”
The notion that the Conservative side is trying to portray, that we're trying to hide something or block evidence or push this under the rug, is absolutely false. I challenge all Canadians: If you want, call my office. I'll pull the list of the number of committee meetings we've had on ArriveCAN and the number of witnesses we've called. And what have we shown? There's nothing but a bunch of five-minute clips on social media of members, and now even the media is saying, “Oh, my God.”
I will quote what they are saying, just because everybody else quotes the media. By the way, I'm not answering any questions from the media after this, so don't bother coming and asking. What they are saying is, “On ArriveCan, Conservatives switch from prosecution to defence”.
Let's talk about that. If we don't stop this process, it could be perceived.... I'm not a lawyer, so I'm trying to be very careful about my words so that I'm not putting anybody in any position of wrongdoing. If we don't stop this, what could be perceived is that we had access to information. This information didn't line up with perceived strategy. Then we asked who was providing this, and it was CBSA through Mr. Lafleur, so we said, let's call the witness. I'm saying it could be perceived as such: Let's call Mr. Lafleur, and let's challenge him and the credibility of the investigation before it gets out.
That's the wrong perception, because that's not the job of this committee. I don't think any member on this committee would ever do something like that, but that's the perception that could be derived by those who are watching and potentially by media. If they are coming back and they are saying you're switching from prosecutor to defence, could they come tomorrow and say that's the perception? I don't want the media to have that perception.
We are talking as if we are going to shut down this ArriveCAN study. No, I don't want to shut down the ArriveCAN study or the Botler AI investigation because, if after five months of doing our so-called investigation we have not been able to come up with one iota, aside from a couple of wrongdoings.... These are of a serious nature, I agree, and hopefully would lead to process changes and new regulations around multi-levels of contracting, around using standards for résumés and all of that.
There is no bombshell here. There's a lot of wrongdoing, but this wrongdoing seems to be in certain cases. It has been there for a long time, and it's time for it to be highlighted.
By no means is our side saying to stop ArriveCAN. What we are suggesting is a pause. Let's pick one of the other 10 studies now—potentially 11 or 12 studies, as we have a couple of motions—to be able to talk about something so that we could at least have one output before the end of June, after about a year and a half: shipbuilding strategy, air defence strategy, ArriveCAN, outsourcing, Canada Post, you name it. We haven't done anything but ArriveCAN, and we have been supportive. We have been a willing partner, so it's not fair to say that we are trying to push things under the rug.
We will go back to ArriveCAN. We will call witnesses, but I am adamant about the fact that, until the studies have been completed, the AG report is out and RCMP report is completely out, and we have had ample time to read them, every time there's a motion to bring a witness with regard ArriveCAN, I am going to move a motion to dismiss that witness until they are all done, because we are interfering in the wrong way in this investigation that's being done, whether it's administrative....
If I want to debunk some of the comments that my colleague Mr. Brock made, I'll have to refer to some of the contents of this at least 71-page document, which I hope you guys read. If I have to use words in here to debunk those comments, I'm going to run the risk of opening up the line of questioning in such a way that it will reveal the contents of this report. That's wrong. That is absolutely wrong.
Continuing with this is justification of a wrongdoing in our approach. We've agreed on a plan for ArriveCAN. We've been supportive all along. We've pushed everything else out. We will continue with this report when everything is out, and all the witnesses will be called.
I don't know what their strategy is. Why have the Conservatives changed their position? Why are they trying to go down the path of a potentially perceived concept of discrediting a witness who is leading an internal investigation?
If we want to continue answering some of the questions and some of the comments our colleagues on the other side are raising, we will go and open this up. This is not the right time to do that.
Thank you.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you. I'll be fairly brief.
In fact, I'll point out the irony of us calling for a vote that will, as I can count, dismiss the witness. The Liberals won't let us because they want to continue to filibuster, which is a slightly different strategy.
The part about this Liberal government that has been consistent is its scandals. We haven't seen anything in Ontario like this since, perhaps, the Wynne and McGuinty governments. There was scandal after scandal after scandal. We've seen consistent behaviour right from Wynne and McGuinty to Trudeau, which is cover-up after cover-up after cover-up.
It also provides us with a precedent. On SNC-Lavalin, did the committee cease investigating it prior to the RCMP? No. On WE Charity, did the committee stop studying it prior to the RCMP—
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, what is the relevance here to this discussion?
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
That's not a point of order. It's disrespectful.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'll address that. On the question of relevance, I consider it fully relevant.
Continue, Mr. Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you.
We see that with We Charity, once again. There is absolutely nothing wrong. On the Aga Khan, did the committee stop investigating it before the Ethics Commissioner? Then there were the groping allegations. Would those stop a committee from investigating? Absolutely not. The precedent is clear. We have the authority and we have the right. We are a committee of Parliament. We not only have the right; we have the obligation. In fact, it's an abdication of duty to not study this significant scandal.
I'll give you a prediction, Mr. Chair. We will see this government's continued filibustering and avoidance—because they want to avoid this. That's called a cover-up.
Thank you.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've been on this committee for only three meetings now, but I must say, it's been a somewhat bizarre experience. I hope it's not me. I hope things weren't going along perfectly smoothly until I showed up.
I was listening to Mr. Brock's vociferous objection to the motion we have in front of us. I listened for the first few minutes. I think I got the gist of where he was going with it, and then I admit I lost focus and started doing something else on my phone for a brief moment and I missed the “road to Damascus” moment, this turning point, when all of a sudden the play shifted from one end of the ice to the other.
Anyway, this seems to be one of the themes, something I've picked up in this study, that things change very quickly in terms of where people are coming from.
I agree with the spirit of this motion. I think everyone wants to get to the bottom of what happened. I've read through the preliminary statement of fact and I don't think that it would be compromising the investigation to say that what I read I found deeply troubling. I think most Canadians, if they read the statement of fact, would be deeply troubled by what, it seems, has gone on.
I am concerned, however, that if we continued down this line of questioning of Mr. Lafleur, as was occurring at the last meeting when some of the contents of the preliminary statement of fact were disclosed, we would compromise the investigation. I think what most Canadians want is a full, impartial, objective investigation by the proper authorities who have access to all the information, to get to the bottom of what went on—and whether there was misconduct, wrongdoing or criminality—so that the people responsible for that will be held to account for their actions.
The best way we can do that is by letting those authorities continue with their investigation. No one is questioning whether this committee has the right to continue down this path. Obviously we do. Committees have tremendous latitude to investigate what they see fit to and to compel evidence and to produce documents and that sort of thing. However, all of a sudden I find myself in violent agreement with everyone around the table that we should dismiss the witness.
I thank Mr. Lafleur for returning to committee and spending the last hour or so with us.
I hope the investigation takes place in a timely way and we're able to get the answers to the questions that Canadians have about what has taken place.
I do believe that after those investigations have concluded—both the internal investigation by CBSA and the RCMP's investigation—that would perhaps be a more appropriate time for this committee to bring witnesses back, when we have documentation and we have reports in front of us, to ask further questions about where we go from there.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I'll be voting in support of the motion.
Again, I thank you for your forbearance.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It is not a surprise to me at all that the government has asked to dismiss the witness because of the embarrassment of this entire scandal—$54 million for an application, $11 million paid to two individuals working in their basements—and the consistent mismanagement we have seen from this government. Of course they're going to do their best to shut it down at every single step of the way. Of course they are going to have their coalition partner, the NDP, help them shut down this investigation every single step of the way, including having Mr. Lafleur here today, Mr. Chair. This is not at all a surprise to me.
As well, I worry very much about the precedent we are setting in this committee, Mr. Chair. We previously had the—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry. Let me interrupt.
Colleagues, please, can we end the chatter back and forth? I will say that for both sides. Please show respect for Mrs. Kusie.