Government Operations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Answer the question, Mr. Lafleur. Did you advise the RCMP that you uncovered no evidence of bribery—yes or no?

[Michel Lafleur]

The RCMP has the evidence that we have collected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to interrupt here.

We're out of time, but a very straightforward question has been put to you, Mr. Lafleur. Could you please respond in a yes-or-no fashion?

[Michel Lafleur]

As to whether I've specifically told the RCMP that we have found no evidence of...? I'm just seeking clarity on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Could you quickly repeat the question? Then we have to move on to Mr. Sousa.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Certainly.

For the sixth time, I'll repeat the question—very slowly and carefully for you, Mr. Lafleur.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Be polite about it.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I will be, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Botler AI raised concerns regarding bribery involving Kristian Firth and Cameron MacDonald. You raised that as a significant concern in your preliminary statement of fact.

Paragraph 50 of your report indicates—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Quickly, Mr. Brock, ask your question.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

—that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation of fraud. Did you share your opinion that this allegation of fraud was unsubstantiated to the RCMP—yes or no?

[Michel Lafleur]

That's not what the report says.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'm sorry...?

[Michel Lafleur]

With respect, that's not what I say in the report.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I can read it—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to interrupt. I think we will get back to this in the next round, and we will reclarify.

Mr. Sousa, please go ahead.

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

Thank you for appearing here today.

It's infuriating. We have an ongoing investigation. You make clear that you're taking the steps necessary to provide for that investigation so you can have a proper outcome. Some are arguing that you may be withholding information during this process, but in fact you are taking the necessary steps. What's appropriate to disclose now versus what you're going to come forward with at the end needs to be understood, and I presume the line of questioning is to that effect.

However, I also recognize some of the prosecution efforts this committee seems to be playing at throughout this process. Now they're defending the very individuals they prosecuted in the past and made assertions about that they have been dealing inappropriately and in a way that is misconduct. They've made those assertions. They've actually claimed that others—and those individuals themselves—had been lying to this committee. Now they're putting you under the gun for the same issue, yet you're the one doing the investigation.

I'm just trying to comprehend, notwithstanding the antics here, so that we get to the truth. That's what they seem to want, but they're making allegations themselves. Now they're prosecuting those very individuals.... Now they're coming back trying to protect those individuals whom they themselves have accused of lying.

We're not accusing you of anything. Let's be clear. We want to make certain that the investigation takes its proper course and that the results and the outcome are best understood. I'm having some difficulty trying to understand how....

First I have to ask, is it common to use general contractors and then they subcontract? Is that normal?

[Michel Lafleur]

It is something that's allowed within procurement rules, based on my understanding.

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

Do those things come with contracts?

[Michel Lafleur]

That's correct.

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

Then they come before the government in terms of what is being proposed, understood and agreed to during those contracts. Is that correct?

[Michel Lafleur]

It's part of the process.

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

How do you investigate a situation when there are no contracts? There is no contract with the general contractor, and there are no contracts with the subcontractor. The allegations are engaged in those...but there's nothing of legal consequence. How do you proceed to investigate something that doesn't actually have contracts?

[Michel Lafleur]

I can say generally that what we investigate would be around whether the individuals with authority exercise their delegation appropriately, whether the processes were followed and the various procurement policies were respected.

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

Can you explain the difference between an internal investigation and something that the RCMP would conduct?

[Michel Lafleur]

Our investigations are with respect to whether the code of conduct was followed by employees in the course of their duties. The RCMP would be responsible for investigating potential criminality.