Government Operations Committee on Feb. 20th, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll be brief. I agree with what my colleague has proposed, but I would like to add some clarifications.

I will read from the French version and let the translation experts draft the English version.

Right after “in the ArriveCAN audit,” I would like to add, “In order to see the witnesses in committee to testify, those steps are suggested:”.

My goal is to make it clear that we aren't doing everything all at once, but rather, on a step-by-step basis.

It would therefore read as follows:

In order to see the witnesses in committee to testify, those steps are suggested: First step The Committee recommend…within twenty‑one days…and with such accessibility accommodations the witnesses may request.

The paragraph stays the same, then.

After that, we would add, “Second step:”.

At the beginning of what would become the next paragraph, it would read as follows:

After those twenty-one days, if the Chair of the Committee informs the Speaker and the Sergeant at Arms in writing….

This is simply to show that this is not something that is done all at once and that all possibilities should be exhausted before we go with the nuclear option, as I was saying earlier.

If we make it clear now, we won't have to have the same discussion in three weeks. All the steps are already indicated. What we are asking for is predictable, planned and clear. Perhaps the fact that we are asking the chair to make the necessary accommodations so that the witnesses can testify without jeopardizing their health will make them willing to come before the committee and answer our questions, as long as we remain polite, respectful and civilized.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola.

We have a subamendment offered by you. Just to help us out, are you able to repeat the exact changes that you're offering up in your subamendment?

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

After “in the ArriveCAN audit,” the paragraph would read as follows:In order to see the witnesses in committee to testify, those steps are suggested: First step: The Committee recommend that an Order of the House do issue requiring Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony each to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates at dates and times determined by the Chair of the Committee, but within twenty-one (21) days of the adoption of this Order and with such accessibility accommodations the witnesses may request and the Chair agree to arrange. Second step:After those twenty-one (21) days, if the Chair of the Committee informs the Speaker and the Sergeant at Arms in writing that one or both have failed to appear as ordered,

The rest of it concerns the steps to be taken.

I believe I sent the text to the committee.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Do we have time to put the question on the whole thing before we adjourn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, is your hand up for the subamendment or the amendment?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

My hand is up for the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I had you up for the amendment as well, but let's go on Mrs. Vignola's subamendment, sir.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by stating that we have been studying this ArriveCAN issue now at committee for five months, and everybody around the table is committed to getting to the bottom of this important issue. You'll have to correct me if maybe it was longer than five months we've been studying this issue because it is important, and because Canadians expect us to do this work.

We've had requests for I believe millions of pages of documents related to ArriveCAN and other studies that we've had before this committee and we've agreed to those. Our side has agreed to those. We've had testimony from a wide range of witnesses here, which we welcome. Obviously we had most recently the testimony of the Auditor General, Ms. Hogan. We thanked her for her important work and welcomed those important recommendations that shed light on this issue of the ArriveCAN app.

We had the procurement ombudsman, Mr. Jeglic, as well here before this committee and we heard his important testimony and the results of his important study into this issue. And, of course, we had Mr. Lafleur, who is the CBSA integrity director. I guess that's what you call that position, executive director of professional integrity, testifying as well in terms of the internal CBSA investigation that's taking place. We welcomed that testimony. We absolutely support that testimony, and we took those recommendations to heart because they are important. They talk about a process that is in place that safeguards the integrity of the procurement process, but also safeguards the trust of Canadians in this process. It was really important to hear from all of those individuals.

Every step of the way we, the members of Parliament around this table, have supported every witness, every appearance, every production of documents required. It's important to highlight that every member of Parliament is united around this committee table to get to the bottom of this issue. I do take issue with some of the comments that are made by especially by some of the new members of committee, and some of the existing members of committee, who falsely talk about the lack of spirit of collaboration and co-operation around this table. The facts speak to the absolute opposite, which is that we have been working together.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I'm just wondering if you could poll the room because it looks like all members of the opposition are ready to work together and collaborate and pass the subamendment, the amendment, and the main motion and move this ahead.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's not a point of order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

The member was talking about collaboration. It looks like a majority of the members of the committee are ready and it looks like the Liberals are blocking this motion from passing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I see your point but it's not a point of order.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, you can proceed, sir.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Again, there are hundreds of thousands of pages that we all agreed needed to be produced to help provide facts and to help anchor our discussions and our investigations in facts because we are all committed to getting to the bottom of this important issue.

My colleagues have highlighted the incredible power of privilege for members of Parliament to produce documents and to call in witnesses to testify. We have availed ourselves of that power and of that privilege, and that power is absolute. However, if you actually read some of the rulings throughout history of Speakers Milliken, Fraser and Scheer, you will read cautions that we must use that power responsibly. You see that woven throughout history in the words that the speakers use.

We've never been shy about calling witnesses to testify here. What we're trying to do in this really unique situation that I have not encountered in my four years here and that I surmise Kelly, the chair, hasn't come across it in his 100 years here—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have a point of order.

It's 107 years, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I just wanted to say that this is a unique situation. There really is no playbook for this. At least, I haven't seen it. I think that's why we're trying to work our way through this carefully.

We're trying to weigh the privilege—which is absolute—of members of Parliament to call witnesses. We're trying to weigh that privilege against our legitimate concern for the health of the witnesses. We're trying to find our way here.

The severity of those health concerns—specifically mental health concerns—that have been brought forward by the witnesses has been reported in The Globe and Mail. I think there is a deep concern among members of Parliament, and rightfully so, whenever someone brings forward mental health concerns. As members of Parliament, we are rightfully concerned with the mental health of folks, including when they walk through the doors of OGGO committee. We have to take that seriously, especially if someone has gone out of their way to communicate those mental health concerns directly with the committee. I don't think that we can simply dismiss that out of hand, nor can we attribute to it certain motivations or try to impugn certain motivations for that.

That's what I'm struggling with. We've heard from a lot of witnesses here. I want to hear from Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony. I absolutely do. I think every member of this committee wants to do that.

Again, look at the past. We've shown that we have not been shy about calling witnesses to testify here or to produce papers. You name it; we've supported it.

There's a balance here that we're trying to strike.

It's important to also highlight that the patience and accommodation of this committee is not absolute. No one should be under any impression that we want to extend this courtesy and sensitivity infinitely or far out into the future. We do not. The patience and understanding of this committee has its limits. I don't believe we've reached those limits yet, for two reasons, I would say.

I do believe that the motion in front of us, as my colleague, MP Vignola, has pointed out, is a nuclear button. I believe that it misses a few important steps. I think some of it was alluded to by my colleague previously.

That step included, for example, requesting that the witnesses substantiate the expression of mental health or health concerns that they have. I think this is a reasonable request. I think it's fair to ask, for example, that there is substantiation with medical documentation or a letter of some sort that speaks to that. That is true of the other witnesses who have asked for consideration based on health concerns and health issues.

We absolutely want to make sure that the issue of health or mental health is not used as an excuse to not appear before committee. We're very sensitive to that. We want to make sure that privilege is not abused. Again, having validation, confirmation and substantiation from a health care official is a vital step that I think we have not taken to date. I think it's one that is in our purview to ask for.

I do feel that we should put aside this amendment. We should put aside the original motion for now and, in its place, ask for substantiation and confirmation from health care professionals. At least we would have that documentation on record and in our pockets to be able to inform our decision on what our next steps will be.

I want to reassure the folks who are watching at home that this committee is being very careful with this. We've had meetings and discussions about this issue of how to proceed.

Again, we don't have a playbook on this. This is so unique. We want to make sure that we are able to move forward, that we are able to continue to get the hundreds of thousands of documents we're asking for and that we continue to bring witnesses here who are shedding light on this issue to make sure that we speak with facts not with fiction, as I've always highlighted. We want to make sure that this is what guides our conversations.

There is a balance that needs to be struck here. We're trying to take the need of this committee to get that information and hear the testimony, and balance it with the very real sensitivity with regard to someone who has stated clearly that they are not in a healthy space, that they are in a dark space, as has been reported in The Globe and Mail. I think we need to take that into serious consideration.

At the same time, I think what's really important to keep in mind, as well, is that we do have two ongoing investigations. We have one that we are certain about, and one where, obviously, we don't have a clear line of sight because, again, the RCMP doesn't exactly telegraph its investigation or the contents or direction of its investigation—and rightfully so. It doesn't want to undermine the integrity of the investigation, and it wants to make sure that it is a fulsome investigation that is able to proceed without any tampering, any obstruction and any sort of outside influence.

Again, possibly there's an RCMP investigation. We don't exactly know the entire scope of it, nor will we know the entire scope, because the RCMP is an independent organization. There is no political direction of the RCMP, and that's a good thing.

At the same time, we heard testimony from Mr. Lafleur that the CBSA is also conducting an investigation and that the CBSA has moved from what was a preliminary investigation, a preliminary study, to now a full study because there is evidence that is substantial enough to warrant a full investigation, which is taking place right now. We heard from President O'Gorman that this is taking place, confirming that the CBSA is indeed bringing this forward.

Obviously, the first element that we need to weigh is the health of the individual, but the second element is the integrity of the two investigations that are now taking place. There was some real concern that was vocalized, not just by the Liberal members of the OGGO committee but also by the opposition members, about making sure that we don't do anything here that compromises the integrity and effectiveness of both the RCMP and the CBSA investigations.

We've seen concerns with information being shared from the preliminary evidence of facts—part of which was made public even though it was a confidential document—before this committee actually determined that we wanted to share that information with committee members. I think that's really important because making sure that all of us have the information that we need in a timely fashion is important in terms of our own ability to question the witnesses and be prepared to question the witnesses.

Again, a perfect example of that was quite recently when we, as committee members, didn't have all the information in our hands.

The study, the preliminary study of facts, was not distributed to this committee. All of us were not in a position to ask the important questions of the CBSA executive director for procurement or integrity all the questions that we wanted to ask.

Process matters. I would state that process absolutely matters in this case, in how we go about studying the ArriveCAN app. We have to make sure that the process is also fair. Again, fundamentally here, we want to make sure that we are not in any way influencing the independent investigation by the RCMP. We've already heard about the tremendous, concerning gaps in the procurement process, the lack of documentation that the AG had so thoroughly outlined. There was the lack of documentation, and some of the checks and balances that were blatantly missing. We know that the process needs improvement and strengthening.

We want to make sure that we don't impact the independent investigation of the RCMP because they are digging deeper. They are looking at not just process issues, which is what the AG has found and what the procurement ombudsman has found, and what the CBSA integrity director is finding. It's not just about process, but it goes to something a lot more serious than that. We want to get to the bottom of it. We do not want to impact in any way the RCMP looking at the serious allegations.

Again, we have to be careful here. We want to balance the committee's absolute power and privilege to call anyone we want, to summon anyone we want to produce papers. Over the last five months we have done that. But we need to balance it in terms of protecting the independence of the RCMP investigation and the CBSA investigation, while at the same time, again, demonstrating concern for the health and well-being of individual witnesses.

At the same time, we've had meetings and discussions amongst ourselves. We want to make sure that, again, the issue of health and especially mental health is not being used as an excuse to avoid coming here to testify. Again, that's a very delicate balance here because we don't want to impugn any motives or assign any motives to those folks. I think it's important for us to take that into consideration.

I would say as well, when I look at the original motion.... I know we're speaking to the amendment here, but what the amendment here doesn't address—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

It's on the subamendment to the amendment.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes, that's right. Pardon me.

One of the issues that I have here is that even in the motion, in the preamble, there are sentences here that state things as a matter of fact that are still being analyzed as we speak. I turn your attention specifically, for example, in the motion, to part (iii), that states,

That the Committee report to the House that, given that,

(iii) The Government of Canada has $250 million in contracts with GC Strategies listed on its website,

If we were to agree to that number we would be agreeing to that as established fact, which it's not at this point. We're still trying to figure out the number of contracts that the Government of Canada has entered into with GC Strategies. We've seen correspondence that states that some double counting may have occurred. We want to be sure that number is correct. At the same time, we know that we want to go further than just GC Strategies. We know GC Strategies was established in 2015. However, we know that the principals of that company were actually entering into contracts with the Government of Canada long before 2015.

One of the things that we asked for on the Liberal side is that we expand the scope of what we're interested in looking at.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I have a procedural question for the chair, if you could help me understand something.

Mr. Kusmierczyk has had the floor for about 20 minutes now. Am I correct in understanding that if he continues talking this out until four o'clock, the meeting will be forced to come to an end, and therefore he is blocking this motion from coming to a vote today?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I won't say everything that you've just said, but at 4 p.m., we are out of resources and will be adjourning.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

He is effectively blocking this motion from coming to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

At 4 p.m., we will be adjourning.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, the floor is back to you.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you.

Again, I really do appreciate my colleague Mr. Scheer's joining us here at committee. We've had some important discussions and debates here and, of course, I very much appreciate his contribution to advancing this investigation and this discussion.

Going back to what I was saying, I again take issue with the preamble, because there are things in their sentences that are stated as a matter of fact, which again are still right now under investigation and consideration, and we want to get to the bottom of it, and—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I've listened very carefully to the words of Mr. Kusmierczyk. He's now repeating himself many times over. I just want to flag that because clearly his motive is to drag this out until the meeting is adjourned and therefore we will not get to a vote. Canadians are aware of his strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

I'm sure Mr. Kusmierczyk is aware of what he's going through. We'll allow him to continue, please.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, please.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Again, I definitely take my colleague's observation into consideration, and I very much appreciate his contributions to the discussion around this table and into our investigation of the ArriveCAN app.

Mr. Firth appeared before the committee in November, I believe, and I know there were additional summons that were brought forward. Again, the patience and understanding of this committee are not absolute. There is a limit, but I believe there are steps that need to be taken before we actually get to that limit.

The other thing I wanted to say is if you look at some of the points that are often made by my colleagues around the table, this was an app that was originally meant to cost $80,000. When you look at what the ArriveCAN app is actually about, the original ArriveCAN app was $80,000. If we want to speak factually and ground our discussion in the ArriveCAN app and facts, we have to look at the fact that—according to the CBSA in a document that it published on its website that breaks down the costs—yes, the $80,000 was for the original app, but what we're really talking about here are the additional costs that stemmed from the following.

For example, a Service Canada call centre was stood up and established to be able to receive calls and emails from travellers who were using the COVID health measures and the app. If they had questions for the Public Health Agency of Canada or the CBSA, they were able to contact this call centre. The actual cost of that, based on the March 31, 2023, document that was published, was $8.5 million.

There was data management for the Public Health Agency and the CBSA to collect data, report, monitor and ensure compliance. You have to keep in mind that the app was actually downloaded 18 million times over two years, if I'm not mistaken. There were something like 60 million users. There was a ton of sensitive information that was collected, so you needed to have a data centre that was able to gather that information, share it with all of the provincial health agencies and keep it confidential. That data management cost $7.9 million.

There were also data storage and cloud services to be able to store the data safely, because this was sensitive information. The data storage and cloud services cost $6.4 million.

I encourage the folks listening, including the journalists who are listening, to download what is called the “Border Public Health Measures Cost”. It's a document that's available on the CBSA website that breaks down all the costs of the ArriveCAN app.

In addition to the Service Canada call centre, in addition to data management and storage, there were additional systems on the back end that needed to be stood up and created in order for ArriveCAN to work.

I'll give you one example: cybersecurity. To ensure that all cybersecurity and security measures were met, an additional $2.4 million was spent on cybersecurity. Why is that important? When you're crossing over the border—let's say at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor—and you're sharing your personal health information that you just filled out, you can be darn sure that Canadians want to make sure that information is secure, because it's sensitive information. You can't just treaty it willy-nilly. You need to make sure that when it is shared with the other provincial health agencies, it is secure. That cost $2.4 million—