Evidence of meeting #104 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 cbsa.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to move that the committee continue the debate on Mr. Scheer's motion and the amendment by Mr. Genuis and the subamendment by Madame Vignola.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, that's a dilatory motion, so we'll have a quick vote, unless we're all in agreement.
I see one thumb up. Mr. Julian, are you okay to resume?
(Motion agreed to)
We will resume debate on the motion.
I see Mrs. Vignola.
2:30 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Chair, this morning I sent a proposed subamendment to all committee members.
Mr. Julian, I sent it to Mr. Bachrach, and I hope you received it as well.
Before I introduce the subamendment, I have to ask for the members' unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment that I introduced yesterday.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
You wish to withdraw your subamendment and then issue a new one. Are we fine with that, members?
I see nods. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.
(Subamendment withdrawn)
Now you're going to propose another subamendment. Have you sent it to the clerk?
2:30 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Yes, it was sent to the clerk and to my colleagues.
I want to point out that—
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to make sure everyone has received the copy that has gone out. Can we nod yes or no?
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I would ask Ms. Vignola to read it out.
I want to make sure I know what it says because I have a lot of paper in front of me.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:30 p.m.
NDP
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Yes, she will read it. I just want to make sure everyone has it before she gets into it, as it's a lengthy one.
I'll turn the floor back to Ms. Vignola.
2:30 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much.
I will read it out in French. I want to point out that the page references from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice do not match the English version. I translated them myself, without using the English version of the guide.
I will read out the motion in French, which will be used for the time being:
That the Committee report to the House that, given that, CONTEXT (1) On November 2, 2023 and February 9, 2024, subpoenas to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) were issued to the owners of GC Strategies, Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony. The latter refused to testify before the committee. (2) The Auditor General revealed that GC Strategies might have received nearly $20 million in government contracts for the ArriveCAN application. (3) The data on the open government website is said to be subject to errors, which casts further doubt on the amounts that GC Strategies, in particular, might have received in government contracts since 2015. (4) An RCMP investigation is currently taking place—
2:35 p.m.
Bloc
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'll get you to restart at the third point, once they're ready.
They're ready. Would you mind restarting at the third point?
2:35 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
(3) The data on the open government website is said to be subject to errors, which casts further doubt on the amounts that GC Strategies, in particular, might have received in government contracts since 2015. (4) An RCMP investigation is currently taking place, notably implicating the owners of GC Strategies. REFUSAL TO APPEAR
(A) According to BOSC, Marc and GAGNON, André, The Procedure and practices of the House of Commons, Third edition, 2017, p. 137, “If a witness declines an invitation, the committee may issue him a subpoena by adopting a motion to this effect. If the witness still refuses to appear, the committee may refer the matter to the House, which may then order the witness to appear. If the witness disobeys the order, he or she could be found in contempt.”
a. Still according to BOSC, Marc and GAGNON, André, The Procedure and practices of the House of Commons, Third edition, 2017, p. 81, “The basis of the power to punish contempt, whether it is a contempt of court or chambers, is that courts and chambers must be able to protect themselves against acts which directly or indirectly hinder the exercise of their functions.” i. BOSC, Marc and GAGNON, André, The Procedure and practices of the House of Commons, Third edition, 2017, note 119: “The House itself decides on its intervention when it makes REQUESTS In order to see the witnesses in committee to testify, those steps are requested: First step: The Committee recommend that an Order of the House be issued requiring Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony 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 may agree to arrange. Second step: After those twenty-one (21) days, if the Chair of the Committee informs the Speaker and Sergeant-at-Arms in writing that one or both have failed to appear as ordered. That the House declare the witnesses in contempt and impose the necessary sanctions in accordance with House procedure, including if necessary the special power of the Sergeant-at-Arms to issue an order and take the witnesses into custody. Third step: The Speaker shall inform the House, at the earliest opportunity, of the sanctions imposed and developments in this regard.
I tried to strike a balance with this subamendment. We respect the witnesses and the difficulties they told us about. We are offering them accommodations, while respecting House procedures. No one wants to be accused of intimidating or harassing others. The wording of the subamendment reflects all of that.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Ms. Vignola.
I have a speaking list with Mr. Kusmierczyk, Mr. Jowhari and Mr. Sousa.
If this is on Mrs. Vignola's subamendment, please go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to say thank you to my colleague Madame Vignola for working with us to try to bring a path forward that tries to balance the two interests that we have at heart here.
I want to reiterate that everyone around the table wants to see us get to the bottom of this issue. We absolutely want answers. We believe there are parties to this investigation, in this case ArriveCAN, that have to answer some questions we have. The best way to do that is to come before the OGGO committee and to stand here and answer some of the questions. They are answerable.
We've been studying this issue now for five months, but in the last few weeks we've had testimony from the AG, from the procurement ombudsman and from the CBSA executive director that have raised additional questions. There's no doubt that they've raised additional questions. It makes sense that we want to bring additional witnesses here to answer some of the questions that we have.
On the one hand, we're all united in wanting to do that. We all supported the request to have Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony from GC Strategies come here before the House. We supported that. We want to see that meeting take place. It is important. It is critical that these two gentlemen appear in front of the OGGO committee and face the questions that we have in order to shed additional light as we try to get answers and get to the bottom of things.
At the same time, it's important to emphasize that we did, as was reported...and I want to be careful about what I say here, because this is a delicate situation. I want to be very careful about individual persons' health issues and the sensitive information that has been shared.
I will speak about what was reported publicly, because I feel comfortable speaking about that. There was, of course, information already in a Globe and Mail article that talked about the health challenges of the folks who have been called to appear.
We take those concerns very seriously, and so we're in a situation with the competing interests—the pull and tug, I guess—of the two interests that we have. On the one hand, we want to see the witnesses come here, and on the other hand, we respect the concerns of someone who steps forward and shares their personal health concerns with us. We have to take that into consideration. We're trying to find the balance here.
I stated yesterday, when I spoke about this, that we're trying to weigh a balance here. I believe that the subamendment that was brought forward by Madame Vignola—the amended subamendment or the edited subamendment—does advance us towards a path, but I still don't think we're there yet, and I'll tell you why.
The nuclear button option, as Madame Vignola herself described it, which is asking the Sergeant-at-Arms to take into custody the witnesses, is a drastic move.
I say that because we have not seen a committee utilize that option in a very long time, as far as I know, at least in my recent memory. I know there was an article recently in the National Post about the last time that a Speaker utilized this prerogative of summoning the Sergeant-at-Arms. It says here, if I can read this—because I think this is important—“Former Speaker Peter Milliken used the power in 2007 to force police authorities to hand over arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber to the Sergeant-at-Arms. At the time, the House of Commons ethics committee was looking into the hundreds of thousands of dollars Schreiber had given to former [Conservative] prime minister Brian Mulroney.” This is from the National Post, if I'm not mistaken.
This is not a tool that we use frequently. It's not a tool that is used often. In fact, it's used rarely, in exceptional circumstances. I think we have to sort of be cautious in terms of reaching for that tool.
Do I think it's appropriate in this instance? At this point, I think that there are certain steps that we have not taken. I think that we're missing a few steps before we reach for that exceptional tool. Folks, in essence we're asking the Sergeant-at-Arms to take into custody—arrest—someone who has shared with us, as has been reported, the information that they cannot appear because of serious health issues, on which I'm not going to go into detail because we're trying to respect.... Again, please understand that we're to respect personal privacy here, especially on health issues.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Maybe we can just agree as a committee. We've all read the letter. We'll agree as a committee that we'll just refer to it, for simplicity's sake, as “health reasons” to avoid, perhaps, going past where we need to.
Thanks, colleagues.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, I really do appreciate that guidance, because, again, we're trying to share with folks who are watching and following this case what we're grappling with here. As you said yourself, Mr. Chair, there are the three people who are watching, including your family.
However, it is important for folks watching to understand what we're grappling with here. We're trying to be respectful of personal information, especially related to health. Therefore, we're just going to refer to it as health concerns, health issues or health matters.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
That's what we're trying to figure out here.
I think one of the steps that we suggested or discussed in the last meeting was, I believe, a step before that to have confirmation from a doctor or a physician providing that information to verify or confirm the extent of those health concerns and provide, for example, either a timeline for when it would be appropriate to bring those witnesses to testify at the earliest date, but at the same time to perhaps even spell out some of the accommodations that should be introduced here to accommodate the folks we are trying to bring to committee. I appreciate Madame Vignola's including that in her motion, talking about working with the chair in terms of determining which accommodations need to be brought forward to address some of the health issues and the health concerns here.
I think that's where we're at right now in terms of our conversation. I don't think we're quite there yet in terms of summoning someone who has a health concern or asking the Sergeant-at-Arms to do that. We call it taking into custody, but it sure as heck sounds a lot like arresting, from what I'm seeing there. That seems like a very drastic move. I think we want to find that balance here, and I'm not sure if we're there yet.
Again, I want to emphasize just how absolutely rare it is to utilize this particular power. As has been stated before, committees and members of Parliament have powers, almost unlimited in so many ways, but I think we have to be judicious in how we do that.
I also want to talk a little bit about something that I began talking about yesterday, but I didn't get a chance to finish. It's really important here, because in addition to being sensitive about this particular issue, I really believe strongly that we need to couch our discussions in facts. Around this table, I get that there's a lot of politics at play here. Obviously we know how this works. This isn't anything new under the sun. Folks say things for political advantage.
Facts, for example, are oftentimes used for various purposes, but an issue as important as this gets to the heart of the challenges that are facing our procurement processes. I think it's really important, if we are to be serious and if we are to do the people's work, to fix these issues, to fix the issues that clearly the Auditor General has spelled out in stark light, in black and white. If we are to address these issues, the issues that the procurement ombudsman has spelled out, the issues of process, I think we need to couch our discussions in fact.
Sometimes fact is not the loudest. In fact, I think there's an inverse relationship. When we hear politicians screaming and yelling and whatnot, oftentimes that screaming and yelling is inversely proportional to fact, and oftentimes the facts are sort of quietly established, but we need to speak about those facts.
When we talk about the ArriveCAN app, I hear repeated not just in this committee chamber but in newspapers, on The National, in discussions and repeated by opinion-makers, that the ArriveCAN app cost $80,000 and that the cost of ArriveCAN ballooned to $50 million. I really want to get this on the record, because it's really important, I believe, that we establish the facts here when we talk about this.
Again, it's really important so that we can focus on the issue at hand, which is the fact that processes were not strong enough. There were serious gaps and oversights in processes and documentation. That's the focus of what we're getting at here. I want to really quickly run through this, because it bears repeating, and I didn't get a chance to complete it the last time I had an opportunity to speak.
The document is called “Border Public Health Measure Costs (From April 1, 2020 through to March 31, 2023) ArriveCAN Related Forecast and Actuals”. You can find this one-page document on the CBSA website.
It talks about the fact that yes, the original version of the ArriveCAN app was $80,000. Where did the other costs go to? The other costs include all of the back-end things that make the ArriveCAN app work.
I'll give you an example. A Service Canada call centre needed to be stood up. This was to accept “Calls and emails from travellers on the COVID health measures in general and the app” that could be answered by PHAC and CBSA. The actual cost was $6.1 million, and $7.5 million was forecast for the Service Canada call centre.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
I'm listening very carefully. It's just riveting information coming from my colleague, but now we're getting into areas that are completely irrelevant to the motion at hand.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Brock has a point. We are debating the subamendment. We always give wide latitude, but perhaps you could bring it back to the subamendment.