Government Operations Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further to my colleague's comments—and I agree absolutely with his content—I'm rather disappointed in Mr. Jowhari for conflating a number of investigations when we're trying to establish some independence with respect to those investigations.

We've heard about the internal investigation launched by the CBSA. We've heard evidence directly from the investigator that he is in no way truly independent. We've heard commentary from Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald that they have rephrased the PSF to a “preliminary statement of falsehood” and not facts.

All committee members should remember my opening line of questions to Mr. Lafleur. I challenged him on the basis that he is establishing conclusions on a preliminary basis. Perhaps he should have rebranded the report as allegations and not facts. There's a big difference between a proven fact and an allegation. He's clearly established that he reports to his supervisor, who ultimately reports to the deputy minister, so there's absolutely no independence.

What's more troubling is that the former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, with his decades of public service experience, said that he has never in his lifetime ever heard of mistreatment like that given to these two public servants, who were on a medical leave for some real, legitimate issues related to threats and stress. We heard from Mr. MacDonald back in November about how he was threatened by complete strangers and was essentially ostracized by Justin Trudeau's government and its officials, which is appalling on many levels.

We need to have someone who is truly independent report to the House, taking a look at all the circumstances as to why the government and the senior officials at the CBSA have centred out these two individuals to suspend them without pay while on medical leave. According to Michael Wernick, there's no precedent for that type of administrative manoeuvre. With the evidence that we have heard at this committee, it's abundantly clear that they are being scapegoated, that there are a number of people—senior members of the CBSA, and now with potential ties to ministers.... We heard earlier this week that all the DMs were reporting to their minister throughout the implementation of the ArriveCAN app and also to the Clerk of the Privy Council, which is the ministry of the Prime Minister. Indeed, there is political interference and manipulation in this process that needs to be fully vetted.

If my colleague Mr. Jowhari truly lived up to the mantra that Justin Trudeau pronounced during the 2015 election—that this would be an open government, a transparent government and an accountable government—and truly believed in those values, he would seek a completely independent investigation.

I will definitely be supporting this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Ms. Vignola is next.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I understand my colleague Mr. Jowhari's questions about the number of investigations that are currently under way.

That said, this investigation, however, is not about the ArriveCAN app. Its goal is to find out whether reprisals were taken against public servants in the course of their work, following their appearance before this committee. If so, we want to know what reprisals were taken.

That's pretty reasonable. It's normal. We have just passed a piece of legislation that protects whistle-blowers, so we need to walk the talk. If you are dealing with whistle-blowers, you have to protect them.

In my humble opinion, this investigation is very necessary to ensure that the people who need to be protected are protected and that they do not get threatened in any way, shape or form, like Mr. Sabourin did.

He did ask for help in a number of places, including from his member of Parliament. The only people who responded were Jean-Denis Garon and Julie Vignola.

So I invite you to think about that to avoid being on the wrong side of history.

We want to get to the truth and get a full picture of that truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

Go ahead, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Had we had the preamble and reasoning for launching another investigation, explaining how the scope of this investigation varies from the others and how it complements them, and had it come without the typical soapbox-style blaming of the government around transparency and all of those partisan things, it would have been a much better start. Once again, had we had this motion prepared and sent to us, and had we had an opportunity to be able to talk about it a little bit better....

Given that the scope of this investigation now seems clearly different, worthy and complementary to the others, I'd like to say that we fully support the idea of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner investigating this matter. Probably it would be a good idea for the committee, through the chair, to send a letter to the PSIC asking whether they're investigating, and if they are, if there is a timeline on that.

I will not dignify the comments that my other colleague Mr. Brock has made about our government not being transparent or accountable, dating back to the platform in 2015 when the Prime Minister talked about an open government. What Mr. Brock forgot is that we also said that we will hold a high level of integrity. This is where we are trying to find that balance between integrity and openness, etc. I strongly suggest that we come off the soapbox, start focusing on getting to the bottom of this and stop the rhetoric.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We have Mr. Kusmierczyk, Mr. Sousa and then Mr. Genuis.

Keep in mind our resources.

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

Yes, I will make this very quick.

I too support the motion to ask the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner if they are conducting an investigation. If they are already doing so, then I support their getting involved for some of the reasons that were already spelled out. There absolutely seems to be a conflict, with counter-accusations being made between public sector employees. This almost feels like a street fight between public servants.

We also heard testimony from one of them that they felt that they didn't receive some of the protections that they believe they required for sharing their information and testimony. I do feel that it is right to bring an investigation by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner into this discussion.

I do, however, agree with what my colleague said on two things. One is that I think there is a preliminary step to ask whether an investigation is already being conducted. The reason I want to ask that is that we have to be careful. Those are independent bodies. They are independent actors, the commissioners. They're independent of any political pressure. I want to make sure that we're careful of that and not be seen as influencing them in any way. I think it would be proper to ask whether they are already conducting an investigation. They may have information to bring to light that's important.

The other thing I wanted to emphasize—I've been saying this for the last number of weeks—is that I'd really appreciate it if the members around the table would cool the rhetoric with the political mudslinging and basically preening for the cameras just to get clips. Let us just stick to the facts. This issue is too important. The integrity of the procurement process and confidence in our public service and our public sector are important. I would just ask my colleagues around the table to cool it with the rhetoric and the mudslinging.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Sousa, Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to reiterate that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, even by name, is all about maintaining integrity, and certainly it's not up to public officials to direct these independent bodies to do their job. They've already identified that they have the independence to do so in order to maintain integrity. I mean, we've heard from the Auditor General, the ombudsman and the Information Commissioner, all of whom have a duty and a responsibility, and they take great pride in ensuring that they're not interfered with in regard to the work they do. Let's maintain that integrity, as we should be maintaining integrity throughout these committee hearings.

Even today's overall discussions have an impact on this very issue in maintaining integrity in the investigation by sharing information that was confidential in the first place. I want to reiterate that I think our first step is to ask the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner if in fact they may already be investigating. If that's the case, let's find out before we proceed to make a motion to direct them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Sousa.

I go to Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Taylor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just briefly, it seems that members of the government would prefer if the official opposition took a more tender approach in the discharge of our functions. That's something we'll discuss among ourselves, and we'll report back regarding our conclusions, but unless I misunderstood, it seems that there's agreement on the proposal I put forward, so we're ready to proceed in due course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also agree that an independent investigation by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner is well warranted, based on what the committee has heard to date. I don't believe it's necessary for the committee to first ask the commissioner if an investigation is already under way or that passing this motion would in any way compromise the independence of an investigation or interfere with an investigation that may have already begun.

An investigation by the commissioner, I believe, would be substantively different from the inquiries that have already taken place. The Auditor General focused on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement around ArriveCAN; the RCMP is looking into the potential for criminality; and, of course, the CBSA's review is an internal review, and as has been established already before our committee, is not entirely independent. I think, given the severity of the allegations and the fact that there are disputes over what has taken place, having the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner conduct a full and independent investigation is certainly an appropriate step at this point.

I agree with my colleague that it seems we have a direction as a committee, and I hope that we can now move to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Bachrach.

I was just going to suggest that. We do seem to have the support of the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives, and general agreement from the government side. Are we able to agree to move forward with this?

Mr. Sousa, do you have your hand up?

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

I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you in agreement with everyone else or the only one not...? Do you intend to speak to this, Mr. Sousa? I'm sorry. I know it's tough because it's virtual.

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

Yes, I do. I want to provide one more opportunity to provide a written submission to the Integrity Commissioner to ask whether the matter is being investigated and is within our jurisdiction, and whether such an investigation could be undertaken without compromising the ongoing investigation by the CBSA and the RCMP. I know what we're saying. I know the concerns. We want it, but at the same time I want to make certain that we protect the ongoing investigations that are under way.

I think we should hear from the Integrity Commissioner to reaffirm that and put it in the motion. Yes, okay, let's ask because we want to see it, but let's make certain that we protect the integrity of all of these investigations. I would like to put that into the motion if it's possible, and then agree to it. I don't think it hampers the motion. All it does is reaffirm that in the opinion of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, this will not compromise the integrity of the ongoing investigations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Sousa.

Can we move to a vote, colleagues?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

I think we're almost ready to vote, and I definitely call for a recorded vote on this. I think that's important.

Mr. Sousa brings an interesting point forward, which is to actually bring the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner here to committee so that we can have a conversation about this potential investigation, if this falls within her purview, and maybe ask questions about her work and the process. I don't think that's a bad idea. I think we can do both of those things at once.

We would like a recorded vote on this, but I'd love to hear what other committee members feel about the testimony and bringing her as a witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think we'd be happy to call her as a witness. We can call the vote and then we can prioritize. We have a couple of open days coming up, but we could certainly invite her. It would be wonderful to have her in, period, if that's the will of the committee.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Perfect. I'll take that to mean that I will find time to invite her.

Can we go to a recorded vote?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

Thank you, colleagues, very much.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, thank you for that suggestion.

Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald, thank you for joining us again. We appreciate all your testimony.

Colleagues, thank you for your patience and allowing everyone to go over a bit. For lots of the questions asked, I think it was very important that we got proper answers.

With that, unless there's anything else, we are adjourned.