Government Operations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. I know on the Liberal benches they are used to their leader shutting women down and so they do what they see there, and they're attempting to do that here as well.

As I said, we've seen the precedent within this committee of witnesses cancelling or not being able to show up as a result of medical notes. We on this side of the committee bench have come to term it as the ArriveCAN flu, very unfortunately. Now we have another negative precedent being set here today: the dismissal of witnesses who have been called to this committee.

In fact, one member of this committee has said that from now on, they will move to dismiss every single witness brought to this committee on ArriveCAN. Well, they are going to be wasting a lot of time dismissing witnesses, and we're going to spend a lot of time going through this process again and again, which will only lead further to the frustration of Canadians and to evidence of the cover-up that is going on here. It's very clear.

I would also like to say that we on this side follow the evidence where it leads us. Where it has led us here today is to an issue that was brought to light on Monday, which I and my Conservative colleagues have been mentioning all week in the House, that this government is investigating itself. In fact, Mr. Lafleur reports to Ms. O'Gorman, who, as my colleague Mr. Brock pointed out, has been untruthful to this committee more than once.

However, I have bad news for the government. On Monday, the Auditor General will release her report, and guess what? The Auditor General doesn't report to the CBSA or to Ms. O'Gorman, so even if the government wants this to go away, it's not going to go away, because Ms. O'Gorman didn't even have the decency to inform the Auditor General of the RCMP investigation. That's an important piece of information here.

It is of no surprise to me that this government, along with their coalition partner, is attempting to dismiss this witness. I am very concerned about the precedents that we have set within this committee. Again, we follow the evidence where it leads us, and it leads us to a government investigating itself.

It's not going to get any better on Monday when the Auditor General releases her report. There will be even more questions. Canadians will demand that we get answers. This might not be a courtroom, but it is a place where we are accountable to Canadians and finding out the truth for Canadians.

As I said, you might want this to go away, but this isn't going away, because after all this time, we have hardly any answers. Your government created such a mess with procurement. Your government created such a mess with ethical issues, again, starting from the top. You on the other side of the table might want this to go away, but it is not going away. It will continue.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We'll go to Mr. Sousa, but before we do, I'm going to remind both sides to please keep it down. Allow the person who has the floor to continue. That is for both sides.

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.

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

Thank you.

I think Mr. Brock and Mrs. Kusie have just reaffirmed why it's inappropriate to have this witness at this point. There are a number of allegations that have been made, a number of attempts to discredit various individuals consistently and a number of efforts taken to sound as if we're.... It's a lynching that seems to be happening in this room. That is inappropriate, given the investigation under way.

The RCMP have been provided with the information needed to do their own investigation as they see fit. To the point made, the Auditor General will come out on Monday with her report as well. When it comes to the truth, or the myth of truth.... This seems to have been rampant around this room over the last five or six months as we've talked about ArriveCAN. It doesn't sound like we're trying to cover anything up. We're actually having open discussions about it and encouraging those discussions because we, too, want to ensure that the activities of government are done appropriately.

To that end, Mr. Brock referenced the fact that people were getting paid for work they did not do. Well, that's not what the ombudsman said. The ombudsman said that no one was paid for work that was not done, regardless of baiting and switching. There were a number of references made to that. By the way, this is a practice that was also evident throughout the Conservatives' time in government and throughout industry and other sectors of the economy and the world. They take on contracts and move those contracts to do other work as they deem relevant. No one got paid for work they did not do. We'll make that very clear. The ombudsman made that clear, as well.

Then there's Kristian Firth. The member opposite talked about this terrible engagement that's been happening recently. Well, that, too, is not true. The fact of the matter is that Kristian Firth is someone who dealt in procurement under the Conservative regime as well, under a different name. That's been ongoing for some time.

As I said, the deliberations and release of confidentiality that Mr. Brock admitted to in his speaking engagement bring light to the fact that we have to take a pause and protect the interests. It seems as if people are tampering because they have some kind of authority or knowledge, or they have decided they want to do something beyond what they're doing in the House. They want to go further. That's certainly your prerogative. However, when you put at risk the deliberations and the investigation.... Now you're trying to discredit the investigator and witnesses. If you discredit the investigator, we're never going to get to the conclusion.

Thankfully, we are going to have a conclusion. Thankfully, there are a number of people who have all the facts. There are individuals who are reviewing this thing in its entirety. They're not looking at one point in time. They're sure not taking a political lens to it, being partisan about the issue or trying to get political points, video points, clicks on their Facebook or whatever it is they're doing. We need to take action to protect the integrity of the investigation and the results that come from it.

This is why we need to ensure there's some neutrality in the approach taken. This committee is not being at all neutral. They're predetermining and presupposing the issue. That is, in my opinion, wrong. To the point made, I'm no lawyer, but, man, I think I understand that, when you're trying to deal with a situation, protect people's rights and represent all Canadians in the House, you have to take some appropriate measures to ensure no one is prejudiced by some of the actions being taken.

When you look at some of the issues in regard to other governments and other levels.... Oh my gosh, there is a long list of allegations and misguided measures taken by all governments. I'm not going to go into the greenbelt issues, the licence plates or matters relating to other issues. What we need to do is ensure we uncover any wrongdoing, protect those who are engaged and make certain that those who have done wrong are held accountable and exposed. That is important.

The precedent we worry about here, which Mrs. Kusie is talking about, is a precedent of actually dissuading witnesses from appearing, acting as though we're lynching everybody who comes into this place and putting people at risk.

The matter is that we've been doing this for five to six months; we have a number of witnesses who have appeared before us, and we've taken countless amounts of information. The investigators and those who are taking the precautions, including the RCMP and others, are, from what I understand, very concerned with the confidentiality measures, the obstruction that has taken place and the integrity of the investigation, which is put at risk.

I think we wait now until we have the results of those investigations. It doesn't seem effective, what we are doing here, so let's move on to other matters of consequence, like the Canada Post motion, like other things that I know are relevant and that people want to see. We want to see results.

We want to see a resolution to this issue, and that's not obstructing you: You're obstructing. I think the members opposite are actually making it worse.

Let these investigators do their job effectively.

I will support the move to release Mr. Lafleur from this kangaroo court for today and ensure that we not proceed until we get proper results.

That's it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mr. Genuis up next, and we have a hard stop at 7:07.

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'll strike, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

In that case, I have Mrs. Vignola, then Mr. Bachrach and then Mr. Brock.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I'll be brief.

I'll wait until all my colleagues have put on their earpieces so they can understand the extremely intelligent things I have to say.

I think we all generally agree that we should let Mr. Lafleur leave the meeting. Each party has its own reasons for that, if I understand correctly. Nobody wants to stop the ArriveCAN study; that seems unanimous, too. All we're doing is putting it on hold while the investigations take place. We all want the whole story. We all want to understand what happened and come up with solutions—I feel like I'm repeating myself, it's crazy—to improve processes, particularly procurement processes, and to make sure that no one can take advantage of loopholes, if there are any.

At this point, we have less than 22 minutes for committee business. We've all talked about this issue very intelligently and passionately. I therefore move that we now proceed to committee business, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mrs. Vignola. That motion is a dilatory motion and is, I think, perhaps what was intended at the very beginning.

The motion is to proceed to committee business, which would end this and bring us to our next point, which would be our in camera committee business. We'll take a recorded vote.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Bachrach, we have a dilatory motion, so I don't think we can entertain a point of order. It brings us to an immediate vote, and we can't do points of order during the vote.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I was just thinking that Ms. Vignola's intention may not actually be achieved by the motion she put forward, but it's in order, so I'll just vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The motion is to go to committee business. It's a dilatory motion that we have to vote on, and that takes us to the next part of committee business on the schedule, and the agenda was to—

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

What happens to the witness once that happens?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We dismiss everyone from the room, because committee business is in camera. I suspect....

Hold on for two seconds.

For committee business, basically we send Mr. Lafleur away. We can have him come back at a future time at the committee's pleasure—no offence to Mr. Lafleur—when the committee decides he should return.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

We're dismissing a witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's not dismissing the witness. It's effectively dismissing the witness. It's not confirming Mr. Sousa's original motion. It's to move to committee business.

We'll go to the vote right now.

Are we clear on what we're doing? Can we move forward with the vote, everyone?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

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

Just to clarify—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

No, we're moving to the vote. I've said it twice already. It's a dilatory motion, and we're going to the vote.

I think your team will direct you.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

The motion passes. Even I can do that math.

Give me a couple of seconds, everyone.

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.

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

I move that we go back in public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are in public.

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

I move a notice of motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Do you have the motion?

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

I do, and I have it in both languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Would you care to distribute it?