Evidence of meeting #106 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 benefits.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Yes. It would delete the words, “as well as any government or internal communications from any government body or department related to the COVID Alert application”. Does that make sense, Chair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It would then be “in the context of the COVID Alert application, and that they be submitted no later than March 15, 2024, provided that these documents are free of redactions”. Is that correct?
Conservative
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Naturally, that removes a great deal of information and documentation, and I can understand that.
At the very least, we would have access to communications with Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, in connection with the COVID Alert app and GC Strategies. We wouldn't have access to those of other departments. However, since Health Canada was responsible with PSPC for the COVID Alert app, I would add the communications from Health Canada. That's the compromise I'm willing to make. Instead of seeking all communications from all levels of government related to the COVID Alert app, I would ask for communications between GC Strategies, PSPC and Health Canada.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Are you saying “proposal submissions with GC Strategies and PHAC”?
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
The revised text of the motion would propose that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the committee order the government, Public Services and Procurement Canada and Health Canada, which were responsible for the COVID Alert application, to produce in both official languages a copy of all contracts, communications, memoranda, calls for tenders and proposal submissions with GC Strategies in the context of the COVID Alert application no later than March 15, 2024, provided that these documents are free of all redactions.
Is that clearer to you?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Just to be clear, you're keeping Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment. You're just changing to it to PSPC and Health Canada.
Mrs. Vignola is accepting your amendment, but subamending it to be Health Canada and PSPC.
Is that correct?
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, again, I appreciate that we're working through a compromise here. I think we've shown in previous meetings, including last week's meetings, that we all actually work well together and we find a path forward.
On this one, with all internal communications and all memos, my concern is that we're going to be committing staff and resources to basically going on a expedition every time the word “alert” is mentioned. I think this has potential.... We've asked for the production of papers. This committee has asked for the production of papers in the hundreds of thousands of pages for previous studies.
On our side, we've agreed to a lot of that production of documentation, but I'm looking at what it has delivered compared with what we have asked in terms of the resources and the commitment that's taken. I don't see the cost-benefit of that. The cost is tremendous. Again, it's hundreds of thousands of documents that we have already asked for, which are in the process of being provided, translated, sent out and distributed to the committee.
Again, my concern here is fairly simple. I think we agree with the intent of the original motion. We want to look at the alert app, especially as it pertains to GC Strategies. Looking at the contracts and—as the chair suggested—looking at the RFPs all makes sense, but here we're going to be looking at assigning precious resources and staff to basically go on an expedition. That's what I'm concerned about.
I think we have to be judicious. That's part of our role here. We have to be judicious. If we find something in the contracts or in the RFPs that requires or prompts us to ask for additional information, I think that makes sense, but to do this all at once here at the start of this.... I think the cost-benefit analysis doesn't bear it out. It puts incredible stress and strain on already depleted, stressed and strained resources.
Again, we're not talking about a few pages that we've asked for. We've literally asked for hundreds of thousands of documents to be provided to this committee.
I ask my colleague—who has been very reasonable, pragmatic and patient, I may add, on previous motions that were brought forward—to work with us. We have a motion that I think we could all support. It is always wonderful to see when we have unanimous support. Let's bring a motion forward that is more surgical, more specific and that is balanced—one that doesn't close the door to the additional production of papers if the more refined, surgical and specific motion finds evidence that requires that.
Again, we're not closing the door on an expanded production motion, but let's be surgical, let's be responsible, let's be pragmatic and, hopefully, let's pass this motion unanimously, because we think the spirit of the original motion is a good one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We'll go to Mr. Genuis, but just to be clear, technically Mrs. Vignola's subamendment isn't really a subamendment because it doesn't change Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment. The will of the committee can consider it as such if we choose to.
Mr. Genuis, go ahead.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Before I get into my substantive comments, Chair, I do think we should avoid the kind of procedural fuzziness that has happened previously.
We should have amendments and subamendments that change amendments, and we should have separate amendments that can be moved once previous amendments are defeated, because I think we could get into a situation where there is some confusion about the results.
I think the will of the committee would be to operate in accordance with the established procedures around amendments and subamendments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Let me just interrupt.
We will come back to you, Mrs. Vignola, after we deal with the amendment, and then we can perhaps make a change as discussed.
We'll go back to debating Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
Mrs. Vignola has, I think, tried to engage in a certain spirit around compromise, but fundamentally, I don't think that the Liberal members across the way are that interested in a compromise. They're proposing to amend a document production motion to effectively make it not order the production of the documents that would be required to answer the basic questions involved.
In the absence of an apparent will to compromise from the members across, I think we should just pass the original motion that Mrs. Vignola put forward. The original motion was a good motion. We support it, so let's get on with doing what, I think, the majority of this committee is interested in doing.
The broader picture, Chair, is that, as we prosecute the arrive scam scandal, we see that Liberals are very concerned about resources when it comes to the small matter of producing documents for a parliamentary committee but seem completely unconcerned about the use of the resources involved in the scandal in the first place. Sixty million dollars spent on an app is no problem, according to them, but our trying to get the documents that would allow a parliamentary committee to investigate it is suddenly a resource issue. This is what's going on. This is the burying of information we see from the Liberal government. We have a majority on this committee that wants this motion to pass, so let's just pass it in its original form.
Thanks.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Again, like I said, we're trying to find a balance here. Contrary to what Mr. Genuis has said, we have been good partners throughout, whether it's on the ArriveCAN app, whether it's on the study we just talked about this morning in terms of the Canada Life issue or whether it's this issue. We have been good partners. We're always looking to move forward, and, if we need to produce documents, we agree to it. If we need to call witnesses, we agree to it. We've been good partners every step of the way. That's been our track record. We're trying to do it responsibly, and we're trying to balance it against, again, the stress and the strain that is being placed on resources and translators.
Having said that and upon reflection, I believe that Madame Vignola's compromise is one that we can agree to. We believe that it does restrict the broad scope of the original motion, and it makes the motion much more specific. We want to be able to find a way to move from my amendment to what Madame Vignola suggested.
Is it possible to maybe read out where we're trying to get to and then work with the chair and the clerk to find a path forward for that? Is that okay?
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
This is not on the amendment. This is what your proposing to get to.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm trying to get to this point, and I'm wondering if Madame Vignola would agree to it.
The motion would read, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the committee order the government and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) and Health Canada to produce, in both official languages, a copy of all contracts, communications, memoranda, calls for tender and proposal submissions with GC Strategies related to the COVID Alert application no later than March 15, 2024, provided that these documents are free of any redactions.”
It accomplishes what we're trying to do here, which is basically narrowing in scope a little bit the original motion, which was just so broad, to focus on PSPC and on Health Canada and to tighten it up a bit in terms of the focus of the motion.
Does that make sense?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It does.
To get there, you would have to withdraw your amendment. Then we would redo that.
