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.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
First of all, let me thank Mr. Lafleur for choosing to come back.
I had an opportunity to read the preliminary statement of fact for both Mr. Cameron MacDonald and Mr. Antonio Utano. I am flabbergasted by what's in here and the fact that the RCMP investigation is still going on, the internal investigation is still going on and the AG hasn't finalized her report. We somehow—I am trying to find the right word—thought it would be a good idea—and I was part of the group that voted for it—to have Mr. Lafleur here and to have these documents made available to us. However, that was before I read this document.
That's where I'm going to stop. If I start getting into the level of detail of the content available here.... The investigation is not completed. Even if we limit our questions to the process in general, we could lead the conversation in such a way that might force Mr. Lafleur to make statements that could lead one to deduce...or make certain conclusions that are very risky.
An hour after our last meeting, we received communication from certain legal bodies on how we should be very careful about what information we share about this report, what this report is all about and the role each of the witnesses is playing. This came almost before we even got an email that gave us the link to these documents.
These documents, by the way, were made available in hard copy to the office of the clerk on January 29 in both official languages. For some reason....
It's sad. Had I had the opportunity to read these documents, I would have moved a motion to dismiss the witness. I would not have supported any other activities on ArriveCAN and the Botler AI investigation, or supported our committee calling any witnesses whatsoever going forward, until all those processes are complete. What we are doing is a disservice to justice. I am being very serious about this. I am not a lawyer, but what I read is scary.
I'd love to see the report from the AG. More than that, I'd love to receive the report from the RCMP, because I think there is a big difference between the work the RCMP is doing and the work Mr. Lafleur is doing from an administrative versus legal and corruption...and all of those things. Getting more witnesses here and asking questions in the middle of an investigation, with just a preliminary statement of fact, is concerning. Even the media picked it up in The Globe and Mail, which is basically.... I'll stop there. They are now looking at it and saying—at least the way I read it—“Should we go down this path? Why are we really doing this?”
Just put yourself in the position of the people these reports were prepared for. This investigation is going around.
I don't want to be in any court until all those processes have gone through.
We're turning this committee into a quasi-judicial process. I'm not a lawyer. I'm here to ask certain questions. This is just a sample, and I'll read it again. It's a “preliminary statement of fact”, and this is not from a lawyer; this is from an internal investigation. I'd really like to read the preliminary statement of facts from the RCMP.
The reason we are asking for the witness to be dismissed is that I don't think it's unfair to the process, but I don't think it's fair for Mr. Lafleur to be put in this position while this investigation is still going on. As soon as all the investigations are completed, I'll be the first one to vote that Mr. Lafleur come back.
I want to go back on the record again, saying that the CBSA, Mr. Lafleur, offered to come to this committee in camera, with MPs only, and walk us through this report. I wish I had had the wisdom to accept that at that time.
We chose not to, and I thought, “Oh my God, there's some sort of conspiracy going on.” We were given that opportunity. Now, having the opportunity to just read this, I don't even want to ask a question when I had that opportunity before to have Mr. Lafleur come to this committee in camera and allow us to ask questions. That's why I am strongly opposing any other committee meetings as they relate to ArriveCAN until all those milestones are completed, until we have a report and until we've had the opportunity to look at the report. Then call all of the witnesses back. I want everybody back.
Thank you.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.
I have Mr. Sousa, Mrs. Vignola and Mr. Brock.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
As my colleague has expressed, we all are very concerned about the tone and the situation that has occurred recently in this committee relating specifically to Mr. Lafleur.
We recognize that the committee requested a statement of facts. It was sent in both languages at an appropriate time, back on January 29. At that point, Mr. Lafleur was not on the docket. He was one of the considered witnesses who were supposed to come forward.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm going to interrupt here. That's not correct. We agreed to have him before.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
We hadn't stated the date as to when he was supposed to appear.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
That's my point. We hadn't stated the date as to when he was supposed to appear. He was one of the witnesses we wanted to see.
Now we have the statement of fact before us—not before us but before the clerk in both languages prior. If that had become known and then the witness had been called, knowing that the statement of fact was in hand would have been advantageous to the committee members. It would have given us an opportunity to review and to then put forward appropriate questions and understanding.
Furthermore, there were many occasions when those who are presiding over the investigation called for an in camera meeting because of the confidentiality measures, not to make this a public kangaroo court. There are a lot of people here trying to play Perry Mason or maybe Tom Cruise. Regardless, what we have here are witnesses who are being accused of wrongdoing. Those very witnesses are now going through an investigation, which appears to be contrary to what was initially put forward by the opposition.
My worry is that here's a statement of fact that was provided to the clerk. Somehow, another member of the committee has taken it upon himself to approach the witnesses, approach the very individuals we are deliberating over, and the concern many are facing is the obstruction that is being put forward, the confidentiality matters that pertain and which even the chair has explained are highly confidential.
Yet, it's being made public, and questions are being put to you, as the witness. That ensures that we deliberate over the very issue that is meant to be confidential to protect the witnesses and the integrity of the investigation.
There are a couple of main concerns.
One, there seems to be an obstruction that's being taken on the investigation. There seems to be an interference with the witnesses in terms of its transparency. I'm no lawyer, but for those who are, it would seem to me that it's inappropriate for this committee to go on its own to start to talk to witnesses and go after individuals when they're being investigated. Then we have legal responses by those witnesses coming to us, partly because they're being approached by other members, who, by their own admission, have gone over to these two witnesses. That seems completely inappropriate.
Then there are individuals who have access to this confidential information.
Now, they apparently didn't share it with the chair. They didn't share it with their own colleagues. They just decided on their own that they were going to do this in secret. Only at the time of this committee hearing, where you appear before us, having already had a statement of claim in hand by the clerk, not having it shared with the committee members, which would have made it appropriate for us to ask questions of you.... That unilateral decision to call upon you to become a witness, knowing that you have a statement of fact and relevant information that would be appropriate and important for us to know.... Maybe you wouldn't have been called. Maybe you would not have been called to this committee, because we would have seen in that reflection how confidential the matter was and how inappropriate it would be to have a public discussion on this with you. It should have been in camera, as was already suggested many times, by many others, to protect the substance and the integrity of the investigation.
Now you're called back. Now we're being asked to continue the deliberations over these confidential matters, on which lawyers for the witnesses are saying, “Don't do it,” and on which folks from the CBSA and those who are overseeing the investigation are saying, “Be cautious. You're going to compromise the report.” We have the Auditor General doing a review. You've shared information with the RCMP, who are acting on their own. They're not advising you.
They're not coming forward with this issue, and we don't know what deliberations are being had with the witnesses. We do know from reading the statement of fact.... I went through it very thoroughly, and I do see that there was a reaching out to the witnesses. Notwithstanding what was said, the report makes reference to the fact that the witnesses were both sought after to respond, to enable the witness to make affirmations or refute some items, but then they gave a legal response, and rightly so. They got legal representation, as is appropriate. What's not appropriate is for us around this room to play lawyers, to be doing this as a prosecution ring, to be the means by which to put you and others at risk and then compromise the very investigation that's being put forward. Let the people do their job, and then, if we do have an opportunity to have you back, it's appropriate that those other members....
I know, having spoken to them, that not everyone has had an opportunity to review the statement of fact. Not everyone has had an opportunity to see exactly what is in this report.
The fact is that too few members on this committee have had an opportunity to see it, and it has not been shared with staff, as was decided. We need time to come up to speed on what's been said to then ask you the appropriate questions, and to do so not in public, in order to protect the interests of the witnesses and the integrity of the investigation.
That's it, Mr. Chair.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
We must never forget that we are neither investigators nor a court of law. We cannot and must not take the place of an investigator or a court of law. The only thing Mr. Lafleur can tell us about is the process. However, based on what I've read and the discussion following Mr. Lafleur's appearance on Monday, I realize that the questions we're asking might interfere with the investigation process not only within CBSA, but also within RCMP.
Everyone knows how important it is to me to know the truth, do the research and understand things, so that I can contribute perspectives and solutions that are based on—at the risk of trotting out what has become a well-worn expression these days—common sense.
I do agree that we should invite Mr. Lafleur back. That said, we should do so once the internal and RCMP investigations are done, so as not to interfere, even indirectly, with what's happening now. The investigations must be as impartial as possible. The investigators need to be able to get to the bottom of things, and everyone involved in the situation we are currently studying must be targeted and bear the consequences of their actions.
I may have my opinion, but my opinion shouldn't interfere with the current investigations. This isn't a black-and-white thing; it's all shades of grey. I'm certain there's more than one, two or three people involved in this matter, but the investigations must be carried out properly.
What I just said shouldn't even interfere with the investigation, because I'm not an investigator. We're not investigators or a court of law; we're here to find out what went wrong with a process so we can come up with solutions to improve the process and ensure that taxes paid by Quebec and Canadian taxpayers are used in a rational and intelligent manner.
That's why I agree with letting Mr. Lafleur go and inviting him back to testify once all the investigations are done. That way, we can get the whole story. At that point, we can make sure that the process is duly amended and improved and that our fellow citizens' tax dollars won't be wasted. That's our job.
The motion asks that Mr. Lafleur be allowed to leave and come back later, once the investigations are done. That's the approach that makes sense today. It's the right thing to do, even if we don't like it, even if we have 15,000 questions to ask him and even if we want to get to the bottom of things and get every possible answer. All in good time.
Patience is a virtue. We don't all have it, not all the time. We need it now. We also have to take the time. It's not like we only have 10 pages of ArriveCAN documents to read; it's a few thousand pages. I've read 2,000 so far, but I think that's just the tip of the iceberg.
That's my opinion. I agree that we should let Mr. Lafleur leave for now and come back to the committee once the investigations are done.
6 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
NDP
February 7th, 2024 / 6 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
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—
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
On a point of order, Chair, I think that statement just proves the fact that—
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I lost my train of thought there.
Ad hominem attacks are not appropriate. It's unbecoming, and it's not parliamentary.
