Government Operations Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Madam Vignola, and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

I want to be very clear: there is no question of putting this study off indefinitely, of postponing it indefinitely. We all want to get to the bottom of this.

On the other hand, I don't see how it's effective to invite witnesses and look at the documentation if we end up saying that we didn't get the right people to testify or that we need to ask them more questions after discovering other information in the documents provided.

I remind you that our salary and that of the technicians, as well as the committee rooms, are paid for through taxes and taxpayers' money. Taxpayers are already struggling to make ends meet.

I am talking about effectiveness and efficiency.

We have a number of people on this committee, and we can analyze the documents from all angles. Afterwards, we may decide to invite a particular witness to answer our questions. We will ask them specific and sensitive questions, which will help us get to the bottom of this.

If it turns out that these questions need to be put to senior departmental officials or others, that's fine, but it needs to be done in an efficient and cost-effective manner. That's the whole point of it. It's been said that the ArriveCAN application was expensive and didn't work as well as it should have. Finally, we are inviting people to testify, but we don't know exactly what questions to ask them. Once we receive the documents, we say to ourselves that we didn't ask the right questions and that we have to start the process over. At this point, we are the ones who are costing a lot for nothing. What I want is for us to be efficient. We need to get things moving.

If we want to hear from ministers, we will invite them to testify. If we have to invite half the public service, we'll invite all of them to testify.

In my view, we cannot be fully effective if we do not have access to the documents before we put questions to public servants. “Efficiency” and “cost effectiveness” are the key words.

On Thursday, we should not hear from witnesses. As I suggested earlier, we could use that time to properly plan the meetings and to come up with a plan B.

It is not always possible to hear from witnesses on the date we want, but we could have a plan B. Talking to each other is how we'll be able to come up with that plan. We will receive the documents on Monday, October 31. On the following Thursday, we could meet with officials, ministers, or anyone else we find relevant to our study.

In my opinion, that would be more logical, more efficient and more cost-effective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Madam Vignola.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, sir.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Madam Vignola eloquently stated it—more eloquently than any of us could in this situation.

I've been on the committee now for three years. What really sets this committee apart is our emphasis on logic and precision. Madam Vignola mentioned those words in her statement as well.

Again, I think there was a consensus when we were talking earlier that it didn't make sense, didn't make any logic, for us to call witnesses before we have all of the evidence that is required—the written evidence. It just makes logical sense to wait until we have that information.

My comment about railroading was basically, from what we heard from members of different parties around this table, that it didn't make sense to call witnesses on Thursday. Then, under the pretense of time running out for this meeting, all of a sudden we hear that we're going to bring witnesses before we bring the written evidence. That's what I was trying to flag too.

Again, let's be logical. Let's be precise. It makes sense that we get the evidence first, before we call the witnesses. When we get the evidence and hear the witnesses, of course, it makes logical sense, if required, to call ministers—the appropriate ministers—to testify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Next is Mrs. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Chair, I can appreciate that there have been a lot of moving parts, certainly, with a change in membership on this committee, a change in chair and trying to make sure that we have a calendar with meaningful work to do.

Having been a member of Parliament for 14 years, and after sitting on many different committees and undertaking many studies, I find it passing strange that we would expect any public servants to come here with all of the documentation to speak to a study, which we suggested we would like to undertake, without knowing which direction we want to go in.

In my experience, when a committee determines that they want to undertake a study, they start with the public officials. They start with the departmental officials to get an understanding of the issue, to get the background and to understand what has transpired to date. We won't even know who all of the public officials are that we would want to hear from until we have that background.

I think that is truly the spirit in which we recommended that we start with public officials: to get that background to start the study. We will know from there which direction we need to go in and who else we would like to hear from, and then we can zero in on which other officials we may need to call.

I truly believe that is the spirit in which we believed we were inviting the departmental officials to appear first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Kusie is next.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Chair, in terms of the points my colleague Mr. Barrett made about having officials appear, we see how it always does provide us with new information—which I think Canadians need—in an effort to really bring this to light. I don't think we can lose sight of that.

To Mr. Johns' point, I recognize that there are a lot of studies on the books, but I also think it's very prudent of us to always consider those matters that are of the greatest urgency for Canadians. I think that in this case we definitely have a situation where we see evidence—the documents we have, not even necessarily that we have received, but which the media have received and uncovered—brought to light not only for this group but also for other Canadians, perhaps not as clear evidence, but as a great indicator that there might be more we can obtain in having these ministers and other witnesses come here in an effort to shed some light on this. I think we really have to consider that.

I think it's very important that we all take some time in this room to reflect upon what Canadians, our voters, would actually think if we were seen to be complicit in not bringing this information to light as soon as possible. I certainly wouldn't want my citizens thinking that I'm an accomplice to further information being covered up, but rather, being a party to shedding as much information as possible, as soon as possible, on an issue that on a daily basis continues to be reported on since breaking.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I think it's very important that we give some consideration to that, and that we—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Kusie has the floor, please.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm hearing my colleague say that it's unfortunate that I have the floor, which is really hurtful, because I usually think we have nice conversations and interactions—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Mrs. Kusie. I'm going to interrupt you. We have a point of order.

I'm sorry, Mrs. Vignola. I just could not hear what you were saying.

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

I have a point of order.

As we want this study to take place, to have a full and complete analysis, I cannot accept, with all due respect to all of my colleagues here, being told, in barely concealed words, that I am complicit in trying to hide information.

I cannot accept that. I have supported the motion from the beginning. I want us to be able to do a study and see it through to the end. It is not true that I am withholding information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to interrupt, Mrs. Vignola. That's not a point of order, but your comments are very well taken. I would suggest that we all avoid such language.

The floor is still yours, Mrs. Kusie, and then we have Mr. Chong.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize if this was found offensive, but, frankly, it's a risk everyone around this table runs in not agreeing to resolve this as soon as possible.

My goodness, it will be six years in the spring that I've been honoured to be the representative for Calgary Midnapore. I certainly have found many meetings and many forums objectionable in addition to not only the items that have been discussed but the manner in which they've been brought forward and—perhaps even to use my colleague's term—railroaded through other committees I've been on.

Again, I think we just need to really consider that not having those witnesses here as soon as possible really reflects on not only the work of this committee but our work as parliamentarians and, I would say, this House as well.

We are brought here in good faith by our constituents to discuss the most pressing issues and matters, and as I've said, as is evidenced by the information that has been uncovered about ArriveCAN in addition to other issues that, again, my colleague Michael Barrett has brought up, we have recognized the necessity of having these important conversations and meetings to reveal as much as possible as soon as possible.

I for one definitely would like to get to the bottom of this as soon as possible. As is evidenced even by the studies we completed today and the witnesses we had here today, these matters can drag on for, my goodness, years, approaching on decades, I think, if we look to the procurement study we had in the first hour.

We cannot make light of this, that it is possible that we do not put the things that are most important first. As such, I would ask that we really consider that this is a priority for us to get to the bottom of as soon as possible and to continue to call upon these witnesses and uncover more information.

In fact, the government should also take a footnote from one of their departments, because, as I said, there are studies coming out on a regular basis.

I see now that the border agency is reviewing the list after the wrong firm was linked to the app. In fact, we see now that it wasn't just one firm. In fact, there are three firms at this point—hard to believe—but we had ThinkOn, then ENY and then Maplesoft, but then it turned out to be the wrong Maplesoft.

My point, Mr. Chair, is that it should also serve as an indicator that there are people in the government who take this very seriously and recognize that more work and more steps have to be done. I think it's just something we absolutely have to pay attention to when even this agency is recognizing that this is something important.

I'm very fortunate to have the opportunity to follow the news. I don't know Huey, but I do know the news. I have here two owners of the IT firm that we had as witnesses. I see this was also a story, the making up to potentially $2.7 million for hiring the team that helped build ArriveCAN, as reported in the National Post. This is just another example of information that was revealed to this committee as a result of having witnesses.

Again, I'm looking here now at one by Bill Curry of The Globe and Mail. There was another. Was that a CBC article? At least two of the major news houses in the nation think this is of utmost importance for us to be dealing with. I don't think we should take this lightly.

In fact, I'm very interested to see the documents that we will be receiving as to the other third parties who were contracted, or were they? I think that is what we've learned from the research that we've seen so far in the media as to who they were, the amounts that existed and whether they were in fact contracted.

This actually reminds me of when I ran the budget at missions around the world. It was always a three-part test. You had to sign off in three places: first when the order was placed, another when the goods were delivered, and finally when the goods were received. It was a three-part process for the delivery of procurement. These were at single missions around the world, not entire departments or entire projects, but rather at my own mission in El Salvador, for example, where I had to complete this three-step process.

I can say with pride that if you were to look back on the documents of my time in those roles, you would see that we followed these procurement processes to the letter, because we recognized that it was important to do so at the time. This is really another example, when I think back to the importance of demonstrating to the public that we have followed the procedure and that the government has followed the procedure and received value for money. It's something that unfortunately doesn't seem to be resonating with this committee here today.

To talk further about it, I think about.... Sometimes I don't think we've always had success when we've had ministers come to committees in getting the answers that we had hoped for. Other times, maybe we have had success. I would use the examples of our two guests from GC Strategies as the kind of experience where we did find out new information from witnesses who were here. Again, I don't think that we can lose sight of it.

It's interesting. Even as I was going through my own questioning process to the employees from GC Strategies, I was actually having to refresh the procurement process in my mind because I was asking about whether the contract that they themselves received was a sole proprietor contract, with the unique distinction that it was a natural emergency given the pandemic. I do personally accept that rationale, but then, as a sole contractor, when they subcontract, what is the stringency of procurement rules that they must follow? Are they required to do an open RFP or RFQ, or go through a multi-vendor process in an effort to determine the subcontracts?

Do you know what? I think we're going to find out some of that as we continue this ArriveCAN process. That's something that is super fascinating to me, in fact, in this new role as shadow minister for the Treasury Board. Somewhere in my boxes in my basement, I do still have all of my instruction manuals for the position that I held of the management consular officer at the different missions. I would like to go through that and actually refresh my mind of the procurement so that when I come here I can certainly hold these ministers and this witness to the same standards that I was held to as the manager of different missions abroad.

I'm reflecting upon that time and the responsibility that I had as a proud public servant for, my goodness, close to 15 years. I took the responsibility of the public spending very seriously—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

—and I also recall how I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Housefather, on a point of order.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It's about relevance, Mr. Chair.

This is utterly irrelevant to whether or not we wait until after we receive documents to hear from certain witnesses. This has gone so far afield that I have to call relevance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks for your point, Mr. Housefather, although I think it's tradition that we allow a very wide leeway when we are debating issues.

Mrs. Kusie, please continue.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it is relevant. I'm talking about how I, as a public servant, was held to the very high standard of value for money and demonstrating where the money I spent as a public official was actually spent.

I think that's all that we're asking for in this study and

as soon as possible.

I want to go back to another point that Mr. Barrett made, and that was about how difficult it is to land officials. They have very demanding schedules. I think it's very important that we consider how hard it is for them to accommodate our schedules.

In addition, it was just brought to my attention by my colleague here about when this committee, before my time, did a study on the Governor General. At that time, apparently they had officials here before the documents, so apparently there is a precedent for where this has occurred before. This would not, in fact, be the first time. Yes, there is a first time for everything, but this would not be the first time—definitely not.

That's actually a very good point about the Governor General, if we think about the things that were uncovered even on the Governor General's spending. I certainly have a lot of respect for the office of the Governor General. As a former diplomat, I take great care in terms of hospitality, and the necessity to demonstrate good hospitality as Canadians, both home and abroad. Of course, that study indicated that as much as we want to display goodwill and hospitality to others, certainly even that has its limits. I definitely think that we learned in that case.

Of course, we do not want to be penny-wise and pound foolish. Again, I think when we look at some of the expenses, a lot came to light even with that study.

My point, getting back to this, is that was another study where we were able to bring to light for Canadians just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Kusie, I'm sorry to interrupt. I've had a couple of requests for a two-minute washroom break, so I'm going to suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are going to resume. I thank everyone for their patience while we dealt with other business.