Government Operations Committee on Feb. 21st, 2024

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

Chair, I am. I thank you, Chair. I appreciate what my colleague is stating here.

Again, I've heard our debates and discussions on this issue. I've heard certain things. I want us to go back to the facts and establish the facts. It's important that we couch our discussions in fact, including for folks who are listening and those who craft opinion and share this information on what we're debating here with the general public.

I think it's really important, before we proceed on this important vote and motion, that we at the same time establish those facts. I'll do this once. I'm not going to do it again.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

Again, I am reiterating the whole concept of lack of relevancy to the motion at hand. This is a motion regarding compelling witnesses to attend committee who have ignored previous summonses to appear. It has nothing to do with educating Canadians—according to my colleague—about all of the circumstances surrounding government spending on ArriveCAN. We know that they wasted $60 million of taxpayer funds. This is clearly an attempt to filibuster on irrelevant issues.

I'm asking, Mr. Chair, that he get to the point and speak to the issues surrounding the motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, I'll turn the floor back to you.

Again, we allow wide latitude in our discussions, but please swing back to the subamendment.

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

I appreciate your latitude, Mr. Chair.

Again, I believe my colleague proved my point by his comments. We want to establish the facts here, and Canadians want to know what the $60 million was spent on. That's what I'm trying to establish here, because it's important as we move forward, especially as we bring witnesses here for questioning, to make sure that our questions are sharp, crisp and based on fact.

I just want to get through this list here, and if I can establish that, we'll move on. Again, I wasn't able to complete that in the last meeting, and I just want to get through it here today.

It was $80,000 to create the original app, the very first initial version, version one. Keep in mind there were 177 versions of this app, as it needed to evolve with the changing situations on the ground.

Service Canada's call centre was stood up, and $6.1 million was the actual cost of that to handle questions related to the app, related to folks who were crossing the border, questions that could be answered by PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and CBSA.

On data management, there was a lot of data collected. The Conservatives often like to say that this app didn't work, but the app was downloaded 60 million times—60 million times. Imagine the mountain of data that was collected. Therefore, as part of the ArriveCAN app, a data management centre was stood up—again, the cost was $7.9 million. The forecast was $5.2 million; the actual cost was $7.9 million. This was for PHAC and CBSA to collect data, report, monitor and ensure compliance with COVID border measures.

You can imagine all that data, the mountain of data collected, used 60 million times. You can imagine that the data needed to be shared not just with CBSA and PHAC, but almost instantly with every single health agency of every province and territory across the country. There was another related cost to that.

There's also data storage in cloud services—again, for 60 million travellers and 18 million downloads over two years, it was $6.4 million for storing the data securely. We all know the error and terror of data breaches. You can imagine someone crossing the border, providing through the ArriveCAN app personal health information, and the need to have security. There was a need to have that data managed in a secure way and shared with hundreds, if not thousands, of other agency partners across Canada through public health agencies, and the need to do that securely. That's $6.4 million for data storage cloud service.

There's IT support. This is a technical call centre for the app for airlines, airports, travellers. That's $5.4 million.

There's security to ensure it meets Government of Canada standards on cybersecurity. That's $2.4 million.

There's accessibility to make sure that persons with disabilities were able to cross the border, travel and utilize the ArriveCAN app. It was an additional $2.3 million to make sure the app was accessible.

There were program and project management costs—

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chair...

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

There were future readiness costs—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Mr. Kusmierczyk. One moment, please.

Go ahead, Ms. Vignola.

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

... with all due respect to my colleague, is the description of the use of ArriveCAN at the height of the pandemic related to the request to appear and the two witnesses' repeated refusal to appear?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, would please come back to the subamendment?

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

Again, going back to the subamendment and the motion we're discussing here, obviously we're talking about the contracts related to ArriveCAN. This is about the contracts related to ArriveCAN. I am trying to establish some facts. When you break down the $60-million cost, what is it about?

When you listen to some of my opposition colleagues, they stated in their discussions here in this meeting today that an $80,000 app became a $60-million app. That is false. That is not accurate. That is not sharing accurate information with Canadians.

What I wanted to do is break down the actual $60 million. Yes, $80,000 was for the original app itself, but the $60 million was for all the other back-end services and centres that needed to be stood up in order to make the app functional.

Why was it important to make the app functional? I'll give you an example.

I'm a border member of Parliament. I have the Ambassador Bridge right in my backyard. Why is that important to me? It's important to me because the Ambassador Bridge is the conduit for one-third of all trade between Canada and the United States. Some $180 billion of goods travel across that border every single year. We're talking about over two million trucks that cross the border, carrying all sorts of goods, whether they're car parts, medicine, food or equipment. That $180 billion Canadian—$137 billion U.S.—that travels across the border is important, because it actually undergirds hundreds of billions of dollars more in economic activity. The seamless travel of traffic across the border is very important, not just to me as a border MP, but also to Canadians who rely on the $180 billion of goods travelling across that border every single day. That's important.

I take issue when I hear colleagues say that it's an $80,000 app that became a $60-million app. That's not accurate. I also take issue with colleagues who say that the app does not work. I've heard almost a dozen times that it doesn't work. Sixty million travellers downloaded it 18 million times. It was used by folks to make sure the traffic travelled seamlessly across the border in my hometown.

The difference is that what the old system, the paper system would have done.... If we didn't have the ArriveCAN app, if we were dependent on the old paper system or even verbally answering questions from the border officers, that would have tied up traffic at that border. If you were to add minutes to every single vehicle that travelled across that border, it would have downstream impacts not just on my community but also on Canadian commerce, Canadian business and Canadians' health and quality of life.

There are certain things we need to establish here when we're talking about this. We take the ArriveCAN issue very seriously here. I've heard this discussion unfortunately being sidetracked by certain comments that are just not accurate. I think we need to get back to the facts. That's why it was important for me to read it.

The total tally, when you look at this document provided by CBSA, is $55 million. We know this number can't be confirmed, because there are serious questions about the accuracy of the documentation. We know there are serious questions about the accuracy of the documentation, the financial tracking and records. That is the real problem. I want us to have a laser focus on that problem and park the politics on the side a little bit when we're having a serious conversation about real challenges in the procurement process in Canada.

I want to read one more thing into the record.

There is an article in The Globe and Mail today by David McLaughlin, who is the president and CEO of the Institute on Governance. He is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in Manitoba.

He writes here, and I want to read this because I think it's really important, that:

By almost any objective measure, the public service has not adapted to meet the heightened demands of citizens when it comes to service delivery.

That's the quote here, to begin with. It's not his quote. Then it has here:

This isn't a quote from last week's damning report on the ArriveCan app scandal by the Auditor-General, but it could have been. It's from a December report to the Clerk of the Privy Council - Canada's top public servant - on values and ethics in the public service.

This is important. These are Mr. McLaughlin's words: “The ArriveCAN scandal was a—”

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Kusmierczyk. I have a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Chair, the debate is on a subamendment, and the member hasn't mentioned the subject of the subamendment, which is GC Strategies or their appearance at committee, in some time. It would be equally irrelevant for me to use this time to opine about Justin Trudeau's $60-million “ArriveScam”, an app that was supposed to cost $80,000 but cost $60 million. I know that the Liberals have a political problem that they're looking to solve with this filibuster, but we need to get back to debate on the subamendment—on which, I might add, the honourable colleague from the Bloc did consult all parties on in advance, so this was shopped around and made available in both official languages—but the Liberals are still shamefully filibustering this accountability mechanism.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, the floor is yours, but can we stay on topic or close to the topic of the subamendment, please?

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

Yes, and I'm almost there. I promise, Mr. Chair. I thank you for your latitude once again. I really do appreciate it. That's the Edmonton kindheartedness showing through.

I'll finish here with this quote from David McLaughlin, president and CEO of the Institute on Governance, who says.... Again, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Barrett, because he made my point for me once again with his comments, in trying to connect this issue to ministers and elected officials.

I want to read here—this is why it's important—from Mr. McLaughlin. This is what he writes:

The ArriveCan scandal was a failure of public servants, not politicians. While ministers are still accountable to Parliament for this failing, the public service was responsible....

That's important. This is what the Auditor General, the procurement ombudsman and the CBSA executive director have pointed to in their work, where they shone their spotlight and flashlight. This is what they found: This is a failure of process at the level of public service. These are shortcomings, failures and significant egregious gaps at the levels of officials, public servants and bureaucrats, and that is what needs to be fixed and where we need to focus.

My colleagues will try their hardest to make that connection with elected officials, but the issue here is that we need to look hard and focus our flashlight, not on politics but on facts. It's the only way we're going to solve this issue and make the procurement process better. The only way that we're actually going to do the report of the AG service and to respect the hard work of the Auditor General is if we are laser-focused on facts and on what the issue is, we put the politics aside for a moment and do the work that Canadians expect us to do here.

With that, I reiterate once again that I appreciate the work of Madame Vignola. She always has a way of listening to the folks around the table, bringing opinions together and trying to find the path forward. I thank her for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

I have Mr. Jowhari next, please.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me pick up where MP Kusmierczyk left off. I'll start with thanking Julie.

Julie reached across the aisle and had an opportunity to talk to everyone. She did indeed reach out to me, and we had a fruitful conversation.

I raised a number of concerns around the preamble and she listened carefully and explored. The changes that she's made to the preamble are something that I'm a lot more comfortable with. I'm not 100% there yet, but I'm a lot more comfortable.

She also took steps to reach out to others. I believe she might have reached out to the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms to try to get some clarification. I did my part as well in trying to understand the scope, the magnitude and the impact of the work of what we were asking, and asking if it is also within the scope of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Does the Sergeant-at-Arms have the mandate or is he capable of carrying out that mandate? A lot of clarification has been made, so thank you, Julie.

I think this is an example of how we should move forward when we want to bring a motion. We circulated this motion beforehand and we had a conversation. We listened to each other's concerns and we worked collaboratively together. Once again, thank you.

The second point is that I want to hear from GC Strategies. I want to hear from those two partners. There are no ifs and buts. I want to hear from them more now than ever, especially with the report that the Auditor General put out. I want to hear from them again when we will be in a position to receive the report for an internal audit that CBSA is doing. I want to hear from them again after any type of investigation, whether to investigate or not, by the RCMP. We are very much interested in hearing from them.

We also heard that there are concerns around health that we need to be aware of. We were made aware through channels, which we cannot talk about because of the privacy and integrity of the situation that we are dealing with. Very much like what Irek said, I also want to hear from the medical professionals that have provided that guidance to the legal bodies. I really want to understand what the impact is of something like this.

As Irek and as Madame Julie have said, this is like a nuclear bomb launch—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Mr. Jowhari. Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

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

All I have heard so far from my colleague Mr. Jowhari are essentially the same talking points as from his colleague.

To get to the point, perhaps Mr. Jowhari and all other Liberal members who want to use the same tactics of filibustering can stop wasting time and simply file their recommendations and concerns to the committee so that we can get to the actual motion itself.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Brock. I'm not sure that's a point of order. I'm sure Mr. Jowhari will take that to heart as he continues.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We'll be on this for a while. Here we go.

Understanding that I'd like to hear from those health care providers, I would also like to actually get an acknowledgement that those health care providers have provided legal guidance and have communicated it with the focus of understanding what the impact of such an action is.

I want them here. It's very simple. We want those two founders to be here and to be answering questions, but we want to make sure that we jeopardize neither integrity nor health, so I need to get a better understanding of that.

What safeguards do we have and what safeguards did we install? We acknowledge that we repeatedly reached out to those two individuals. I can't go into the details, but we've reached out and we have been unsuccessful. This needs to stop, especially now that we can get to the bottom of the one report that we have and we can ask some relevant questions vis-à-vis the AG's study.

What safeguards do we have to make sure? We've talked about accommodation, which is fair, but I'm talking about safeguards for the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms in the pursuit of being able to bring those individuals into custody. Also, while those individuals are in custody prior to appearing at the committee, what safeguards do we have to be able to protect the office and protect the Sergeant-at-Arms, as well as protect the health and well-being of these individuals so that they can show up?

I still have questions. I'm still pursuing trying to get an understanding of, for example, what will happen if the Sergeant-at-Arms comes into a position of bringing those two individuals into custody on a Friday afternoon and this committee doesn't sit until Monday. Are we calling an emergency meeting on Friday night—which I don't have a problem with—and coming in, or are we going to put these individuals in some sort of custody, whether it's going to be through the RCMP...? I don't have an understanding of those questions.

This is a real situation. We've seen how individuals have behaved when they were dealing with health issues and they were confronted with a situation of being arrested. What I'm talking about is not prolonging or filibustering; it's about safeguards. I think we are much closer to those safeguards. The steps that are being discussed are the right steps in looking at health care providers to provide testimony. It could be in writing. I'm not trying to create another 10 ArriveCAN meetings. It could be in writing. We could get legal guidance in writing that those are the terms and these are the health care providers that they need.

Also, I clearly want to understand the implications and I also want to understand the safeguards that we are going to put in place. Passing a motion saying that we'll make sure of accommodation is great, but if we don't pass that motion with an understanding of what those safeguards are and how they're going to be put place, it's a challenge. I'm agreeable to making sure that we use every tool in our tool kit to ensure that these guys arrive and provide the testimony, especially in lieu of the AG, and I totally support making sure that we have safeguards for the individuals as well as for the Sergeant-at-Arms. It's important, and we need to understand that. Pursuing those steps is important, and if we have to move an amendment to this motion, we're working on moving that.

As well, I'll close in probably the next two to three minutes.

I want to go back to the other aspect of what Irek was talking about.

ArriveCAN is labelled as an application that was $80,000, and it mushroomed into $60 million. ArriveCAN's initial intent was for the individual to be able to enter their last name, passport number and the time of arrival. That application cost $80,000. During the emergency time, the government and the CBSA decided that this platform could be expanded. You heard from Irek how it went. The ultimate development costs of an application with 177 enhancements came to roughly around $8 million.

The notion that this was an $80,000 application and all of a sudden it came to $60 million is false. There were never ArriveCAN things like this, because the requirements were completely different. We are comparing apples to oranges. It was never designed for $80,000. There was no plan for an ArriveCAN like that. There were 177 modifications that were coming in at the rate of one every other day. It was planned for $80,000, and the government said okay.

We constantly hear from across the table that this is a Trudeau “ArriveScam” application. First of all, it's not called “ArriveScam”; it's called ArriveCAN. Second, this is not Trudeau's application; this is a Government of Canada and CBSA application. That is the basis for it to exist.

If we want to stop misinforming the public, this is a good time to start. This is not an $80,000 application. This was, at best, when you look at the development.... I'll be ready to argue with anyone about what the cost of these 177 modifications would have been. There's no way it would come to $80,000. The development cost is around $8 million to $9 million. I'm not going to go into all the other support stuff, because Irek has already gone into it.

I want to close with this. I put that challenge in a very obscure way to the Auditor General, and I didn't get an answer. On the weekend I was at a gathering, where I was asked point blank how much an application like that would be worth.

I have someone who also is an expert in e-commerce applications. I put that question to him: If he had an application that had 18 million users, was downloaded 60 million times, facilitated over billions of dollars, and saved lives; and the error of margin was 10,000 among 60 million times—and you go and figure out what that percentage is—what would that application be worth if we were going to sell that application in the market?

It was a simple question. Is it worth more than the cost of the development of $5 million?

He said he would assess that this application would be worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Let's not confuse the cost of the application with the value of the application. Let's not confuse the the fact that CBSA made the decision to develop this internally because they could control it and they could make sure the knowledge transfer stayed there.

Was it a perfect execution? Absolutely not. Is it a good application? Yes.

Please stop saying that this is an $80,000 application that mushroomed to $60 million. Stop calling it a Trudeau “ArriveScam” app. Stop linking inefficiencies in departments during an emergency to government officials with the fishing expedition you guys are going on.

In summary, we will, once the safeguards are in place, agree to amending this motion to ensure that we can have the two witnesses that you are talking about come and provide the testimony that we so desperately are looking for.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you also to Ms. Vignola for her work in trying to find a compromise for this nuclear option, an option that might set a precedent that might cause some concern with regard to those health issues and the precedent that it would set. I appreciate Ms. Vignola's attempt to foster a means by which we can respect the concerns of the witnesses.

They've advised us that there's been legal counsel. We've attempted, I presume twice, to invite the witnesses to appear. Maybe a third time would be appropriate, but the motion before us will have consequences with regard to apprehending these witnesses. It will have implications for us regarding the matters that have been identified by my colleagues and by Ms. Vignola herself, who also appreciates these concerns with respect to the integrity and the privacy of the matter that has been addressed to us. We have been advised by the witnesses and their lawyers to proceed with some caution as a consequence of what has taken place.

The Globe and Mail and other media outlets have already commented on the circumstances of what has occurred—the impact it's had on certain individuals and the conduct by members of this committee who have gone beyond the scope of the committee to address witnesses directly, to circumvent at times the investigation and the investigators and to address matters with independent agencies of government which, by their own accord, do not report directly to a parliamentarian or elected official but to the circumstances at hand, including the RCMP. That's their job. They don't take instructions from us, nor should they.

What we're now trying to suggest is that we are taking the position that we certainly have the right to take as parliamentarians, given the supremacy of Parliament, but with a consequence of this nature in the way it's presented to us today, versus a circumstance that.... The investigation is still ongoing. The process of addressing the allegations of criminality, if criminality exists, is still under way. We need to have that process take place. We need the integrity of that process.

I get the frustration that we all have in terms of having the witnesses appear before us and affirming the concerns and the actions that have been taken by these particular witnesses and by the others who have been discussed and named throughout our deliberations.

However, there's also a responsibility, I believe, as to whether the consequences of some of the actions that we take are going to take will support the investigation. Are they going to enable those responsible to get to the matter at hand? Are they going to be prejudiced by our activities? I don't know the answer, but I do know that the way this motion is put forward—and I really appreciate Mrs. Vignola's attempt to foster something more co-operative, because we're all in agreement about fostering a way to enable these witnesses to appear before us—is that nuclear option. There is a precedent that would occur, and that is ultimately a concern that I think all of us share.

As I go through it, I appreciate that the front end of this motion has been amended to assess more accurately some of the situations that are before us. In other words, the partisan political stuff that's been removed is helpful, because in the way it originally played, it was as though elected officials and others were complicit with the activities of CBSA or others. Again, I'm not presupposing it. The way we were acting assumed that everyone was guilty. We haven't even attempted to determine what actions occurred. There are other matters that we have privilege to receive that address some of that.

There's also the fact that Kristian Firth and others did business with the Government of Canada years before the development of ArriveCAN. Certainly, during the time of the Conservative government, they were quite active in their engagement. We already have a motion that asks to determine and collect those activities to understand more holistically how these things have taken place.

Kristian Firth and others have already appeared before us, and they've identified some of the processes by which they have come to obtain contracts with government throughout the last 20 years, but it's important, given the allegations that are out there, that we get to the bottom of what has taken place relative to the application of ArriveCAN, which is a compilation of many IT initiatives.

The option then to detain the witnesses, to issue a form of an arrest and to supersede the caution that has been given to us relative to the matters of health give us pause. That gives us a reason to be cautious and a reason to offer alternatives, I believe, in the circumstances before us. We still have more results to come to us. We still have the finalization of the investigation to read and to address.

I've considered what has been spoken already by some of my colleagues with respect to the establishment of GC Strategies in the circumstances when the COVID Alert app came to be, the suite of tools and the guidance that was developed by government to slow the spread of COVID. This was to provide opportunities for international trade, to keep businesses going, to enable millions and millions of Canadians to cross the border and, frankly, to be protected from those crossing in.

I look at the establishment and the complexity of the application in the short period of time it was required to be made. Some will say that it was a very simple thing and that it was an off-the-shelf application, but that's just not true. On the initial proposal, the assessment, you can look at it as building a tree house in the backyard that cost $80,000, but this app is like a skyscraper. You had to have contractors and engineers and subcontractors. There was the complexity around different departments and the enabling and assessment of millions and millions of transactions. There was also the complexity of dealing with the privacy issues. There was a lot of complexity and a lot of background in establishing the application and protecting people's privacy.

I am concerned as to the way it reads now, only because of the fact that it may be considered a precedent. We may have concerns with regard to its finality when we go forward. I just want us to be sensitive to what that means, and again I thank Mrs. Vignola for her amendments. I truly appreciate that. I think our colleagues appreciate it.

For those watching, please note that all of us on this committee want to see resolution, and we want to ensure that if there was any misconduct, those things will be addressed. We want transparency. We want accountability. We want people to stand forward in terms of what has taken place. We want to ensure that any application or any processes that did not occur properly are addressed.

Much of that is occurring already with the reports from the Auditor General, the ombudsman and the Information Commissioner, whom we heard from today. I just leave it to the committee to appreciate the precedent and the motion that we're trying to put forward at this point.

I will pass it on to the next speaker for their comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I fully support Mrs. Vignola's amendment and motion.

I like the fact that she quoted Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, because it is the authority on the procedural rules we are supposed to follow at all times.

In my opinion, Ms. Vignola's use of this source is extremely important. It is also important to get to the bottom of things to find out exactly what happened.

I think Mrs. Vignola's motion and amendment are reasonable because it gives you, Mr. Chair, the opportunity to provide for any accommodations the witnesses might require.

With a few weeks' lead time, you can arrange the necessary accommodations. This is entirely reasonable and it is important for the committee to get to the bottom of things.

I lived through the Harper years, when the Conservatives were in power.

For the four years of the Conservative government, committees were completely blocked, so we could not get to the bottom of things.

That's the way it was, whatever the scandal involved: SIST, Phoenix or the G8.

When Harper formed a majority government, his team prevented us from getting to the bottom of things and demanding transparency.

With a minority government now, it makes a difference because our committee may decide to invite the witnesses it wishes to hear from. With reasonable accommodation measures, we will be able to ask questions and get answers.

I should mention as well, Mr. Chair, that the reason we're supporting the motion and the amendments is that this has not been a practice of committees.

I'll give you the best example that I can cite, which was at the Canadian heritage committee when we had Meta corporation. It's one of the largest corporations in the world. We tried to convene Nick Clegg, who is their president of global affairs, and it was simply refused. There was no interest from Meta. Because Mr. Clegg is not based in Canada, there was no way to do a follow-up to compel him to be a witness.

The reality, as you know, Mr. Chair, is that Canadian taxpayers indirectly finance Meta and Google collectively. As the Library of Parliament has indicated to us, over a billion dollars a year in taxpayers' money go to an indirect subsidy. We subsidize the advertising on Meta. There are many problems with Meta, yet members of the heritage committee—particularly Conservatives—didn't want to press the issue of making sure that Meta was convened and forced to testify.

In this case, the amounts involved are smaller. However, the reality is that we still have that responsibility as a committee to convene and bring witnesses forward and make those accommodations that their medical conditions may require.

To give a reasonable period of time makes sense as well. That's what the amendment does. It talks about a 21-day period. It makes sense to do this.

I recall the Harper years. I recall how committees were shut down and unable to do their work when Harper's Conservatives were in a majority. However, I certainly believe that in a minority Parliament we have the ability and the obligation to call witnesses forward to get to the bottom of what happened with ArriveCAN, why so much money was spent and why the paperwork was not done in a responsible way.

I also flag, Mr. Chair, that this dates back to the Harper regime, and that some of the contracts that were given to the predecessor company of GC Strategies were provided during the Harper regime. It's important to question the witnesses about those contracts as well, contracts that date back to 2012 and 2013 with the predecessor company.

For all of those reasons, I'll be supporting the amendment and I will be supporting the motion as amended.

I think this is a measured approach. It gets us to the bottom of the information that we need to obtain on behalf of Canadians. It provides a long enough period for the witnesses to ensure that they are able to come forward, and it provides time for you, Mr. Chair, to ensure that reasonable accommodations are provided for any medical conditions that apply. For those reasons, I support both the amendment and then the motion as amended.