Thank you, Chair.
I also thank you for your learned comment on that, because I think it is a good point. You obviously have the experience, as a skilled parliamentarian, and I appreciate your wise counsel on this matter. It goes back to the point of this motion, which will prevent this committee from doing its work. That's the reality. This is preventing it.
I'll go back to the specific points in this motion.
The first is “no more meetings” on ArriveCAN. We'll have one more meeting. You'll note that this actual motion doesn't say which witnesses we'll hear from for that meeting. I think we have a pretty good indication of who we'll hear.
First of all, I think we should be hearing from CBSA president Erin O'Gorman, who reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live sketch where O. J. Simpson tries to find the real killer on the golf course. Ms. O'Gorman came before this committee and claimed she has no clue whatsoever about how ArriveCAN went down—no idea, just can't figure it out, doesn't know what happened or who did what.
She even pushed back against Minh Doan's emails disappearing, saying she didn't know all the information about how that might have happened. Minh Doan, who is the chief technology officer of Canada, couldn't replace a battery on his laptop without conveniently losing all of his emails during the time of the ArriveCAN scandal. No, Ms. O'Gorman can't figure out who gave the order to deliver this contract through GC Strategies—two guys working out of their basement, who, I might add, were required to appear before the bar of the House, which is something that has not happened very often in our history.
The previous time was for another Liberal scandal, the Winnipeg lab scandal. The president was required to appear at the bar and was admonished by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It's interesting, in this case, that the Liberal government took the Speaker, who was elected as a Liberal, to court over that matter.
However, here we have a motion for “no more meetings” on ArriveCAN, regardless of what may happen—a motion that, carte blanche, will prevent us from going further. That's point three. I have a real issue with the guillotine of “no more meetings”.
The next one is interesting because, obviously, when the Liberals were drafting this, they weren't entirely paying attention to which witnesses we've heard from and which witnesses we haven't heard from. “Two [more] meetings be dedicated to...Sustainable Development Technology Canada [to hear from] Zoe Kolbuc”—again, we're happy about that—“Andrew Noseworthy”—we're happy to hear from him—“and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry”.
I would note, though, that the offer to hear from Minister Champagne has been on the table for several months. We have five Liberal MPs on this committee who sit in caucus with the minister. Surely one of them, at some point, could have pulled him aside and said, “Minister, this committee really desires to hear from you on this important matter. Could you find it in your schedule to come to the committee?”, especially since the original mandate letters to each minister in the Liberal government said they ought to make themselves available to committees—not just as a one-off but as a regular course of practice, so they can appear before the committee and be held accountable for the actions of their departments and agencies.
However, what's interesting about point four is who the Liberals left off this list. First of all, Mr. McConnachie, who was deputy minister during the period of the scandal, is left off.