Government Operations Committee on Feb. 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Julian.

I have Ms. Vignola and then I have Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank each of my colleagues for taking the time to thank me. We could go on like this for much longer. I could speak at length, but that is not my intention either.

One of my colleagues talked about mitigation measures and suggested that we all decide together. I am open to that. That said, we have to remember that those mitigation measures are generally suggested by health care practitioners. In the end, we will just have to say yes or no to the measures. The parties in question have to be involved.

As to the precedent involving the Sergeant-at-Arms, this is not recent, but I want to point out that John A. Macdonald was taken into custody. The first prime minister of Canada was taken into custody on order of the Sergeant-at-Arms. I imagine that the witnesses who have repeatedly refused to testify are just as important as our first prime minister. I'm not joking; it is in the books.

The power of a Sergeant-at-Arms to issue arrest warrants dates back to 1543, when the British House of Commons asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to release a Member of Parliament that the City of London had imprisoned. The Sergeant-at-Arms prevailed.

That is the first instance of the Sergeant-at-Arms exercising the power to issue arrest warrants. So there are precedents. There are precedents dating back to long before Canada existed and that are all in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, if you choose to consult it.

In closing, thank you for sharing your thoughts on my subamendment regarding ArriveCAN. This application was not created internally, and a number of subcontractors were needed to make something out of it. It did of course save some time and allowed Canada to continue trading with the United States. It would have been even better if, instead of costing one or two dollars per user, it had cost 15, 20 or 25 cents per user. In terms of final cost per user, one aims for maximum efficiency. That was not the case here.

Some 177 changes were made to the application, but we do not have any information about those changes. We do not even have information about the 25 most important changes. Were they warranted? How were they done? How much time was spent making those changes? We do not know because the documentation was not completed, the Auditor General says. It is not me, Julie Vignola, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, who is saying that. I am telling you what the Auditor General said.

I wanted to make that clear, in relation to my subamendment and the importance of not creating precedents. We are not creating any; they already exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mr. Bains next.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like everyone here, we're trying to get to the bottom of this. I don't want to prolong the discussion too much more. I believe a lot has been said.

I do want to recognize that with regard to GC Strategies in particular and the two people in question, we want to try to keep things confidential when it comes to people's health.

I think, Mr. Chair, you intervened and said to make sure that we're not using certain terms, but it's already out there. It has been reported. It was a large portion of our discussion here on what we need to protect. We need to ensure that those matters of privacy are protected.

We intend on voting yes to Madame Vignola's subamendment. We would just make a friendly change, which would be, “that such accessibility and accommodations that the witnesses may request be agreed by the subcommittee and arranged by the chair”.

If we could please include just a friendly inclusion of this into that subamendment, if all members agree, I would like to put that forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Mr. Sousa, do you wish to speak to this subamendment from Ms. Vignola, or are we done with Mr. Bains?

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

I think Mr. Bains has expressed our friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Perfect. Thanks.

Colleagues, because we can't amend a subamendment, I will seek UC to adopt that. Under the paragraph with the “First step”, but within in 21 days....

Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. We're not going to go ahead. Hold on. We have a point of order from Mr. Julian, and then I have a question from Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to pass the baton to our very dedicated member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Mr. Bachrach, who is now attending.

Thanks for all of your courtesy. I have enjoyed being with the committee today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Julian. I don't think we've seen you here in the eight years—or the 107 years, as Mr. Kusmierczyk has stated—that I have been on OGGO.

Mr. Bachrach, the member from New Westminster has been badmouthing you and your riding the whole time. I'm glad to have you back so that you can set the record straight.

Goodbye, Mr. Julian.

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

It's good to be back. Thank you, Peter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Bachrach, when did you come in on this?

I ask because we're ready....

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

I've just come in a moment ago, but I'm ready to vote if you are approaching the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Great.

We're hoping to have a quick UC to adopt the amendment of “within 21 days of the adoption of this order, that such accessibility and accommodations as the witnesses may request be agreed to by the subcommittee and arranged by the chair”.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Chair, we've just withstood a filibuster of several hours by the Liberals. I have to say that after good faith was extended by the Bloc in negotiating an amended version of the motion, then while Ms. Vignola was thanked 37 times by each of the members for collaborating with them, they still talked for two days on the motion. I don't sense good faith in dealing with this motion.

My fear is that in taking this into a subcommittee.... Am I correct that a subcommittee is in camera?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Generally, we do meet in camera.

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

My concern is that this goes somewhere quiet, behind closed doors, to die. The subcommittee generally acts on consensus. I feel like this is an opportunity for them to kill it behind closed doors.

We just had Mr. Julian, who says he's in favour but spent his time talking about times long before many of us were elected, probably before the last time these powers were used by the House of Commons. I'm a little nervous about that. I'm quite sure that we don't have good faith in dealing with Liberal members on taking this behind closed doors.

This is a mechanism of accountability for two individuals who have twice refused to present themselves when summoned by a parliamentary committee. Twice they have been instructed to appear after having been invited. Then twice they refused a legal summons to appear.

The proposal by Ms. Vignola was very generous. She consulted with all parties. All parties seemed to—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I think my colleague is confused here. The reason I say that is that the subcommittee would gather, as the UC put forward, to talk about accommodations and to agree upon accommodations for the witnesses. That is all. The meeting would still take place in public.

I think my honourable colleague here is confusing the two issues. The subcommittee meeting would simply be to discuss the accommodations for the witnesses regarding—

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

Then what happens if—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're getting off track here—

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

No, we're on track, Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let me finish.

I suggested a UC. We do not have that, so I suggest that we move on. We were at a point where I think Mr. Bains was the last speaker, and we were going to go to a vote on the original subamendment.

Can we do that, colleagues?

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

We won't get to a vote.

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

Chair, I don't need any clarification from Mr. Kusmierczyk. It's quite clear that if there is not agreement in the subcommittee to the accommodation, then the meeting doesn't happen. Having the meeting behind closed doors is the opportunity for the Liberals to kill it, just like they were trying to do with their filibuster.

I don't have confidence in them, so I would be unable to support an element of this motion that removes the transparent nature of public debate and discussion. Good faith hasn't been shown to this point, so that's not a courtesy that we can support.

If there are discussions to have, the discussions should happen in public. If the commitment is that the committee will discuss accommodations in public, then there's transparency, and that is a different conversation we can have. As for closed doors, cameras off, backroom deals where there's an opportunity for the cover-up coalition to engage, I can't abide that.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, that snide comment at the end is absolutely uncalled for.