EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates NUMBER 101 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Monday, February 5, 2024 Le lundi 5 février 2024 Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE February 5, 2024 Committee NUMBER 101 NUMBER 101 NUMÉRO 101 101 05 02 2024 2024/02/05 11:00:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des opérations gouvernementales et des prévisions budgétaires Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates OGGO Chair Mr. Kelly McCauley 1 44

(1100) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)) :

I call this meeting to order. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 101 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, the only committee that matters. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, October 17, 2022, the committee is meeting on the study of the ArriveCAN application. Please do not put your headsets anywhere near the microphones, as that could cause potential ear damage to our very valued translators. Before I turn the floor over to Mr.

Lafleur for his opening statement, I will let you know that in the last 20 minutes we will do committee business. We just need to approve a couple of budgets quickly. I'll go to Mr. Bachrach first for his Canada Post motion, as he kindly pushed that back from last time so that we could have our full time with Mr. Jeglic. Mr. Lafleur, we'll start with you, please, for your opening statement. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Michel Lafleur (Executive Director, Professional Integrity, Canada Border Services Agency) :

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I first want to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. [ Translation ] As executive director of the professional integrity division at the Canada Border Services Agency, my responsibilities include providing an independent investigation function for the agency. My team conducts investigations into allegations of employee misconduct and provides management with reports of our findings to allow them to address instances of misconduct in the workplace.

The process of investigating allegations takes time and requires a systematic approach to ensure that all evidence is properly gathered and considered prior to final conclusions being made. [ English ] Policies and procedures relating to internal investigations are issued under the authority of the chief security officer of the CBSA and are aligned with the policy on government security, which requires that we ensure that any significant issues regarding policy compliance, suspected criminal activity, national security concerns or other security issues are assessed, investigated, documented, acted on and reported to the deputy head and other investigative bodies, as appropriate.

I have been a security practitioner in the federal public service for 15 years, working in the fields of intelligence, security screening, misconduct investigations and security operations. During this time, I have conducted, directed and overseen hundreds of administrative investigations, both relating to employee misconduct and as part of reviews for cause of employee security screening. Key to my current role is ensuring the integrity of investigations, procedural fairness and due process for those under investigation.

It is for these reasons that it would be inappropriate for me to speak to you about certain details or matters that remain under investigation. (1105) [ Translation ] As the committee is aware, the current CBSA investigation into allegations first brought forward by Botler AI is still ongoing. I am therefore limited in what I will be able to share about that process. What I can speak about is our investigation process and investigations in general terms. I will answer your questions to the best of my ability. [ English ] Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mrs. Block, we'll start with you, please, for six minutes.

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lafleur, for joining us today to provide testimony on what has become a very lengthy and complex study into not only the ArriveCAN app but now also some investigations that are taking place within the department of the CBSA. I want to confirm this. Have the preliminary findings been made public?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

They have not.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

They have not been made public. After CBSA president Erin O'Gorman referred the Botler allegations for investigation, were you the individual who was tasked with leading this investigation from the beginning?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I am the director responsible for conducting investigations within the CBSA, so yes, my team and I were assigned this file.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Was that right from the beginning?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It was from the beginning, in November of 2022.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Thank you very much. Let me quote from your opening statement: “The process of investigating allegations takes time and requires a systematic approach to ensure that all evidence is properly gathered and considered prior to final conclusions being made.” If that is true, if that is important, can you provide any rationale to the committee as to why President O'Gorman would imply to this committee that Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano were guilty of misconduct? This happened on January 18 of 2023.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I'm not exactly sure which statement of the president you're referring to. I can speak to my process, and we have not yet reached any conclusions relating to misconduct.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Do you think it was prudent to share initial findings with the superiors of those involved in the investigation?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

What I can say is that it is normal in the course of an investigation for our investigators to share information with management so that they may take the administrative measures that they feel are required, pending the conclusion of the investigation.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Did you recommend that the report be shared with the deputy heads of Health Canada and the CRA?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I did.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

You did. When did you become aware of the suspensions of Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I became aware when the matter became public through The Globe and Mail, I believe it was.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

I'll ask again. Do you think it is appropriate to suspend employees without pay when you have only completed an initial statement of fact?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I can't speak to the appropriateness of the decisions taken by other departments. Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald are not employees of the CBSA. I can't make any assessments relating to their employment. What I can say, and I think it's important for the committee to understand, is that it is normal in the course of an investigation to ensure that mitigating measures are put in place when there are potential risks. That is something that is in our processes, and it is why we share information to management during the course of the investigation.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

How do you square that with the systematic approach of ensuring that all evidence is properly gathered and considered prior to final conclusions, if in fact employees have been suspended without pay before a thorough investigation has been conducted?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Management may take any number of administrative measures pending the conclusion of an investigation. I can speak generally. For example, if we're conducting an investigation indicating an employee may be disclosing information inappropriately, management may choose to remove their access to sensitive systems. This is normal in the course of an investigation.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Were MacDonald and Utano allowed to respond before their suspensions?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That decision was taken by their respective departments. I can't speak to that.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Okay. Thank you. We have heard contradictory testimony from President O'Gorman as to when the investigation began. Can you provide some clarity for us? Did it start in November 2022 or January 2023?

(1110) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

We started the investigation as soon as we received the allegations from Botler AI in November 2022.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

It was November 2022. Okay, so it took you nearly a year to provide an initial statement of fact to the president of the CBSA, which happened shortly after MacDonald and Utano gave testimony critical of President O'Gorman before this committee. I would just say that it seems odd that there was a sudden breakthrough in the case against these individuals right after they were critical of some of the actions taken and the testimony before committee. I also want to note that you mentioned in your opening statement that you provide management with reports of your findings. Does this include providing initial statements of fact?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

We provide information to management as it comes up during the investigation. Usually, it is not in a formal format. This was a different case, as they were not employees of the CBSA.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Was President O'Gorman a part of the management team that you provided reports to?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

She did receive a copy of the preliminary statement of facts, yes.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Then she had direct access to the investigation of former employees who publicly criticized her. I'm wondering again if you can provide us with your opinion on whether or not this seems like it compromises the integrity of the investigation? Does it at least not concern you that someone in her position—

The Chair :

You'll have to wrap up, Mrs. Block.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

—who has implied guilt before a final investigation, holds a position in regard to the power to investigate?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Mr. Chair, I can assure this committee that none of the actions taken in the course of the investigation were as a result of any evidence heard before this committee. Our investigation is proceeding in parallel with the work of the committee, but not as a result of anything that you heard here.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lafleur. Mr. Jowhari, go ahead, please.

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Mr. Lafleur. Mr. Lafleur, you've been called as a witness under the study of the ArriveCAN application. For Canadians who are watching today, I'm going to ask some pointed questions, and then hopefully we can get into a more in-depth conversation around the investigation that's going on. Are you conducting any internal investigation relating to the development of the ArriveCAN application?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

ArriveCAN as an application is not something that we're investigating. We're investigating procurement matters around that.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Are you investigating anything around procurement of any direct or indirect activities, whether it's procurement, a complaint or people, relating to the ArriveCAN application?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Some of the allegations that we're investigating do touch on contracts that were used for ArriveCAN.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Thank you. In your testimony, you talked about being limited in what you would be able to share about the process, and you said that you could speak about your investigation process and investigations in general terms. Can you tell us about your investigation process? I come from a management consulting background, and we usually look at the process, we look at the timeline and we look at the outcome. Can you share with us the steps in this process, some of the anticipated outcomes, the timing of these outcomes and who you share these documents with? Are you allowed to share these findings at the preliminary stages?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Generally speaking, when we receive allegations of employee misconduct, we initiate a preliminary review. The point of that preliminary review is to see if there's any evidence to substantiate whether something occurred or not. If we have evidence to substantiate it, we would move forward to a formal phase of the investigation. If there's no evidence to support the allegations, we would close the file. If there's exculpatory evidence at that point, we would, of course, not move forward with an investigation. We try to do that preliminary phase within 45 business days.

Of course, depending on the case, that may go longer or it may be shorter. Once we have made a decision to move to a formal phase of the investigation, we determine the allegations that the employees would have to respond to. Those are detailed in relation to the CBSA code of conduct. The respondents in the investigation are then notified of the investigation of these allegations. We then proceed to witness interviews, and we interview the respondents before finally, once all of the evidence has been gathered, drafting an investigation report with our conclusions.

That report is then shared with CBSA senior management, and they are responsible for addressing any founded allegations of misconduct.

(1115) Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Thank you. Are you in a position to be able to share with us whether you have completed the preliminary review?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

With relation to...?

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

As it relates to the investigation that you are doing.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Yes.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

It looks like there are two stages. If there seems to be some evidence within the preliminary review and within the first 45 days, then you proceed to the second stage, which you call the formal phase. That first phase is completed. There was a determination that it necessitates moving into a formal phase. You have already moved into the formal phase. Can you share with us where you are in the process you identified—the formal process of allegations, meetings and conducting interviews, and then meeting with witnesses and all of that? Are you in a position to be able to share with us where you are in that process?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

We did complete the preliminary review. We have notified the respondents of the allegations against them, and we are proceeding with witness interviews at this time.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

You are in the process of doing the witness interviews.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That's correct.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Is it fair to assume, given the fact that you have moved into a formal phase, that you found evidence that you needed to further explore?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

As I've stated before, that is part of the process. Before moving to a formal phase of the investigation, we have to have some level of assurance that the allegations may have occurred.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Okay. You were very clear on the 45 days for the preliminary review. Is there any timeline established for the formal phase?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Depending on the complexity of the investigation, we aim to complete a formal investigation between 60 and 120 business days. Of course, when we're dealing with more complex files or files that involve potential criminality, those timelines can extend significantly.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Okay, so you establish timelines of 60 to 120.... If there's any potential criminality, then there are no timelines for it.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That's right.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

I only have about 10 seconds. Is there any date established by which you're going to publish your report?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

No. We'll be done when we're done our work.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Thank you very much.

The Chair :

Thank you, sir. We have Mrs. Vignola, please, for six minutes.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lafleur, thank you for being here. Recent newspaper reports have alleged that certain public servants deleted emails. Did they pertain to a sensitive file, specifically Botler AI? In your past investigations, did you often find that emails regarding a sensitive matter had been deleted?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Not intentionally, I would say.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Is there an email management process for supply processes? I am not referring to sensitive files only.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I am not an expert on contracts. As managers, however, we are responsible for ensuring that all of our decisions are documented.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Do all departments document their decisions in the same way or does each department have its own methods?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I am not familiar with that level of detail, unfortunately.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Okay. A whistleblower who requested and was granted an investigation appeared before this committee. We realized that people were protecting each other. That was how it looked at least. With due respect, I would like to know, in cases that appear to be as serious as the present one, whether it makes sense for CBSA to conduct its own internal investigation. Would it not make more sense for the investigation to be conducted by someone outside the agency who is completely independent?

(1120) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

My role is to provide an investigation function which is indeed independent. I do not work for management as such. I would say that we are working for the agency when we conduct investigations. That is how I explain it to my team. A completely independent function would certainly add a degree of assurance, but I am very comfortable with our approach.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

What happens when your investigation is finished? Are your recommendations binding? Is any misconduct that is identified explained and corrected? Are those at fault sanctioned?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Let me clarify something: we do not make any recommendations in our reports. We establish the facts of the matter and draw conclusions as to whether or not the allegations are founded. Once we have completed our report, it is sent to management. It is up to them to decide, depending on the circumstances involved, whether disciplinary action is warranted. That can range from a verbal warning to suspension, and even dismissal in extreme cases.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

So you do not make any recommendations. You draw conclusions as to whether there was misconduct, and management then makes a decision. At the same time, when members of management themselves are involved, management still decides on any action to be taken. In that case, is there not a risk that management would simply give those at fault a slap on the wrist, telling them not to do it again in order to protect the agency's reputation?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

If the investigation pertains to senior managers, the report is sent to the agency's top executives. They are the ones who have to take action and are responsible for the decision.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

So you are saying that your role is not to follow up on the report. Your role ends once the report is submitted. You know, Parliament Hill could be described as a rumour mill. And indeed, there is no shortage of rumours. Let's say there is a rumour that parliamentarians with access to confidential documents on a sensitive matter inform witnesses of the content of those documents or provide them to witnesses. Would that be included in your investigation of the matter? Would such practices be included in your investigation?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

No, not the actions of MPs.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Okay. So you only investigate members of management and public servants and so on.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

My role is to investigate Canada Border Service Agency employees.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Okay. Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Bachrach, go ahead for six minutes, please.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lafleur, for being here with us and answering our questions to the best of your ability. My apologies to the committee if I'm a little slower than usual. The airplane I was on last night from Toronto suffered a cracked windshield in the air. It resulted in a very late night and early morning. Better safe than sorry, though. I certainly don't regret turning back when something like that happens. I thought I'd start my questions around potential criminality. I understand that an RCMP investigation is also ongoing. In your work, Mr.

Lafleur, if you came across instances of fraud or other criminality over the course of your investigation, could you go over the steps that you would take? That's if indeed you were to come across such examples.

(1125) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Yes. The policy on government security's directive on security management, at paragraph 4.1.7, requires us to report any suspicions of criminality to the law enforcement of jurisdiction. When that does occur, we would typically first reach out to the RCMP and have a preliminary discussion to confirm whether our understanding of what occurred may be criminality. Of course, we're not law enforcement, but we do have a responsibility to report that when we see it.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

We had the ombudsperson at our last meeting. I note that, in the CBSA's response to the ombudsperson's recommendations, the CBSA states, “the CBSA is strengthening processes and controls related to procurement planning, contract administration, corporate culture and proactive monitoring to reduce the risk of fraud.” It seems, from that sentence, that they feel there is some risk of fraud that has become evident through the course of these investigations and conversations. Could you talk a little bit about what kinds of instances would constitute fraud in the context of the allegations that are being made in this investigation?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I can't speak to any specifics of the allegations, but what I can say is that any time there is an exchange of money between the government and other parties, there is a potential risk of fraud. People may want to circumvent internal controls to try to get something out of the system. Procurement is one area. Finance is another where that may occur.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

In the context of procurement, could you provide a very generic example of something that would clearly constitute fraud?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I can. There have been numerous cases, sadly, in the past around false invoicing, with either completely false businesses invoicing the government or maybe an employee circumventing internal controls to sign both sides of a transaction. That would be clear fraud. From a vendor's perspective, submitting fraudulent documents could be considered fraud. There can be any number of scenarios.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Is looking for instances of fraud or other criminality within the specific scope of your investigation?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It's within the scope of my duties. I have another function within my team that aims to identify potential fraud, corruption or misuse, using the agency's data through proactive data analytics. As we get into a file like this and we see evidence of potential fraud, we would report that to law enforcement.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Shifting gears a little bit, I know Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald came to committee at a previous meeting. I wasn't at that meeting, but I'm familiar with what happened. They brought a number of documents, and you're familiar with these, I assume. Were those authorized and provided by the CBSA?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I'm not familiar with the documents they would have provided to committee.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Okay. Moving on to the issue of security clearance, one of the issues at play here is the fact that GC Strategies, which had participated in the procurement process, did not have the document safeguarding capability that was stated as a requirement of the procurement. Could you describe document safeguarding requirements for sensitive procurements like the ArriveCAN contracts?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I can speak generally. Again, it's not my area of expertise, but I have some exposure to it as a security practitioner. When we're talking about document safeguarding, it means that the vendor may be required to hold protected information within their physical premises or within their IT systems, which would be different from if they were working solely within a CBSA space where they may have access to systems of ours. However, when they control it, they need to have measures in place to protect it.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

What's the risk of misclassifying document safeguarding capability requirements in a procurement process?

(1130) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I'm sorry. In what regard?

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

If a company that is participating in a procurement does not have the stated document safeguards and capabilities and is given the work anyway, what is the risk at play?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Obviously there's a risk of potential disclosure of that information if it's not kept protected. Traditionally, we're talking about certified filing cabinets, things like that. In more modern times, it means encryption on their systems if they're going to be holding protected information. Obviously, that's—

The Chair :

Gentlemen, thanks very much. We have Mr. Brock, please, for five minutes.

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Lafleur, with all due respect, your investigation in this matter is seriously flawed. You talk about your 15 years of experience working on hundreds of administrative investigations. You highlighted today in your opening statement that your key role is to ensure the integrity of the investigation, procedural fairness and due process for those under investigation. Those under investigation have been targeted by you as Mr. Cameron MacDonald and Mr. Antonio Utano. They're the only two individuals under investigation.

What you have done so far, sir, is anything but to ensure procedural fairness, so much so that they have retained a lawyer. A lawyer has brought an action in the Superior Court of Justice—and you, sir, are named as a defendant, as well as the Attorney General of Canada, the CBSA and Erin O'Gorman—seeking declaratory relief that their rights to participate in this process have been compromised by you. Are you aware of that?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I am aware of that.

Mr. Larry Brock :

That's right. Sir, you don't have a legal degree, do you?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I do not.

Mr. Larry Brock :

No, and you don't understand the difference between a criminal standard of proof and a civil standard of proof, do you?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I do have some understanding of the difference.

Mr. Larry Brock :

It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the criminal spectrum, and beyond the balance of probability on the civil spectrum. You understand the difference between fact and allegation, don't you?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Of course.

Mr. Larry Brock :

However, I have access, sir, to your “Project Helios” preliminary statement of fact, for both Cameron MacDonald and Antonio Utano, and you interchange the concept of fact, which is a proven entity, and allegation. In fact, the title of the document is “Project Helios” preliminary statement of fact. That's misleading, and it's wrong—isn't it, sir—because these are allegations.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

The report itself is a point-in-time document, so—

Mr. Larry Brock :

Sir, these are allegations, allegations brought by Botler AI—yes or no?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

There are allegations that—

Mr. Larry Brock :

They're not a proven fact, are they?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

They are not.

Mr. Larry Brock :

I would suggest to you that you be much careful in the future, as it relates to this investigation and other investigations, and that you understand, sir, the clear difference between an allegation and a fact, because you interchange this throughout your report. The statement of fact, this preliminary statement of fact, was ultimately sent on to the new two departments that Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano are employed by. Is that right?

Mr. Michel Lafleur: They were.

Mr. Larry Brock: You expressed serious concerns, notwithstanding that nobody has been interviewed. Mr. MacDonald hasn't been interviewed. Mr. Utano hasn't been interviewed. Minh Doan hasn't been interviewed. Erin O'Gorman, the president of the CBSA, hasn't been interviewed. Former president John Ossowski has not been interviewed. You've identified a number of key individuals you want to be interviewed, and none of them have provided you with an interview. Have they?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I'm not going to speak as to—

Mr. Larry Brock :

I have the information right before me, sir. It's very clear that none of them has agreed to interview with you yet.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Perhaps I could add a point of clarification there. The report was a point-in-time assessment of the evidence on December 19—

Mr. Larry Brock :

I don't care about a point in time. This is affecting the lives and livelihoods of Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Can I ask my colleague Mr. Brock to allow the witness the same amount of time to respond? The line of questioning is very interesting. I'd just like to hear the responses.

An hon. member: He's not going to run out the clock—

(1135) The Chair :

Both of you, stop. I've stopped the clock, but we've established in this committee that it is the member's time. Please continue, Mr. Brock.

Mr. Larry Brock :

You made conclusions that were so significant that you felt that these were proven facts of serious employee misconduct. They were so serious that you required the RCMP to investigate at least two criminal charges, fraud and bribery. Later on in this report, you declare that there is absolutely no evidence of bribery as outlined by Botler AI in their allegations. Do you remember saying that—

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I do.

Mr. Larry Brock :

—and that to date there is no evidence of bribery? Did you actually share that with the RCMP? I'll bet you didn't.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That we have no evidence.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Yes. Did you share that with the RCMP?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

We have provided information to the RCMP—

Mr. Larry Brock :

Did you share the fact that you have no evidence to support the allegation of bribery with the RCMP—yes or no? It's a simple question, Mr. Lafleur.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I disagree that it's a yes-or-no question. We have provided—

Mr. Larry Brock :

Answer the question, Mr. Lafleur. Did you advise the RCMP that you uncovered no evidence of bribery—yes or no?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

The RCMP has the evidence that we have collected.

The Chair :

I'm going to interrupt here. We're out of time, but a very straightforward question has been put to you, Mr. Lafleur. Could you please respond in a yes-or-no fashion?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

As to whether I've specifically told the RCMP that we have found no evidence of...? I'm just seeking clarity on that.

The Chair :

Could you quickly repeat the question? Then we have to move on to Mr. Sousa.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Certainly. For the sixth time, I'll repeat the question—very slowly and carefully for you, Mr. Lafleur.

The Chair :

Be polite about it.

Mr. Larry Brock :

I will be, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Botler AI raised concerns regarding bribery involving Kristian Firth and Cameron MacDonald. You raised that as a significant concern in your preliminary statement of fact. Paragraph 50 of your report indicates—

The Chair :

Quickly, Mr. Brock, ask your question.

Mr. Larry Brock :

—that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation of fraud. Did you share your opinion that this allegation of fraud was unsubstantiated to the RCMP—yes or no?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That's not what the report says.

Mr. Larry Brock :

I'm sorry...?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

With respect, that's not what I say in the report.

Mr. Larry Brock :

I can read it—

The Chair :

I'm going to interrupt. I think we will get back to this in the next round, and we will reclarify. Mr. Sousa, please go ahead.

Mr. Charles Sousa (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.) :

Thank you for appearing here today. It's infuriating. We have an ongoing investigation. You make clear that you're taking the steps necessary to provide for that investigation so you can have a proper outcome. Some are arguing that you may be withholding information during this process, but in fact you are taking the necessary steps. What's appropriate to disclose now versus what you're going to come forward with at the end needs to be understood, and I presume the line of questioning is to that effect.

However, I also recognize some of the prosecution efforts this committee seems to be playing at throughout this process. Now they're defending the very individuals they prosecuted in the past and made assertions about that they have been dealing inappropriately and in a way that is misconduct. They've made those assertions. They've actually claimed that others—and those individuals themselves—had been lying to this committee. Now they're putting you under the gun for the same issue, yet you're the one doing the investigation.

I'm just trying to comprehend, notwithstanding the antics here, so that we get to the truth. That's what they seem to want, but they're making allegations themselves. Now they're prosecuting those very individuals.... Now they're coming back trying to protect those individuals whom they themselves have accused of lying. We're not accusing you of anything. Let's be clear. We want to make certain that the investigation takes its proper course and that the results and the outcome are best understood. I'm having some difficulty trying to understand how....

First I have to ask, is it common to use general contractors and then they subcontract? Is that normal?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It is something that's allowed within procurement rules, based on my understanding.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Do those things come with contracts?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That's correct.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Then they come before the government in terms of what is being proposed, understood and agreed to during those contracts. Is that correct?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It's part of the process.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

How do you investigate a situation when there are no contracts? There is no contract with the general contractor, and there are no contracts with the subcontractor. The allegations are engaged in those...but there's nothing of legal consequence. How do you proceed to investigate something that doesn't actually have contracts?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I can say generally that what we investigate would be around whether the individuals with authority exercise their delegation appropriately, whether the processes were followed and the various procurement policies were respected.

(1140) Mr. Charles Sousa :

Can you explain the difference between an internal investigation and something that the RCMP would conduct?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Our investigations are with respect to whether the code of conduct was followed by employees in the course of their duties. The RCMP would be responsible for investigating potential criminality.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

You have since, of your own accord, provided the RCMP with an indication of that, and you've given them and released information to them. Have you had any discussions subsequent to that with the RCMP?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Yes, we have engaged with the RCMP throughout the investigation to provide them information, as per their lawful request.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Is it specific to Botler's allegations—

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That's correct.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

—where there were no contracts?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

There was no contract with Botler.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Right. Some here are claiming that maybe you're withholding information from us. Is that true?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

No, not at all.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

The information that you have you've given to the RCMP, but they haven't conducted an outcome. They haven't determined any guilt. Is that right?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That's my understanding.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Have you determined any guilt?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

No, our investigation is ongoing.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

What is there that you can explain to us that would give us comfort that there's some wrongdoing? At this point you're investigating any possibility of that. Is that correct?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

We're investigating the possibility of that, and there have been extensive disclosures to this committee pursuant to your production orders. You have a significant amount of evidence to look at as well.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Right. As you can tell, through these committee hearings we've had a lot of discussions not just around the activities of Botler but other possible allegations that could be made. Of course, the ombudsman came back with a number of recommendations. Are you aware of those recommendations?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I am.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Did you participate or co-operate with the ombudsman during that procedure?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Yes. I have responsibility for security screening for the agency, so we provided information around the security screening questions that they had.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

There were practices that were explained, which I understand have been prevalent over decades, even under the previous government. Is that correct?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It is my understanding that some of the issues raised have been systemic in government for some time.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

I know that some members across have suggested that something has just happened, which is not the case, in terms of providing for.... Especially during the pandemic a lot of contracts were initiated, but then they've subsequently used their services to do other functions. Is that correct? I think they call them swaps, or bait and...whatever they're called.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It's “bait and switch” or something like that. I can't speak to those details.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Have you seen that occur in the past?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I haven't had that many procurement-related investigations, so, no, I have not.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Do you foresee anything negative there? Is there something wrong that's happened? Did the ombudsman say there was any wrongdoing or any misconduct?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I don't want to misspeak. I haven't fully reviewed the ombudsman's report. I do note that they had concerns and that we've taken steps to address those.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Do you know what our response has been in respect to the ombudsman's report? Are you aware of co-operation or recommendations put forward?

The Chair :

Answer briefly, Mr. Lafleur, as we're past our time.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I'm sorry, but do you mean the committee?

Mr. Charles Sousa :

No, I mean the CBSA.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I am aware that we've strengthened procurement practices.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mrs. Vignola, please, you have two and half minutes.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lafleur, I have read so many documents. Did the Botler AI complaint about CBSA include the word “bribery”? I am trying to remember, but cannot recall whether the complaint included that word.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I do not have the report in front of me, but I don't think it included that word.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Okay. I will check again. My memory is quite good, but I don't remember seeing that word. Does your investigation also include all the documents provided to the committee? Some documents were apparently submitted to the committee and later deleted. Regarding emails, for instance, do you have access to emails that may have been provided, but that people later deleted, thinking that they had been permanently deleted?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

For the purpose of our investigations, I have access to all information available to the agency.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

That includes what we received, doesn't it?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Yes, that includes what you received.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

What happens if emails are deleted before you have seen them? How can you access those emails?

(1145) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Since our investigations are administrative in nature, we cannot seize people's computers, for instance. So we know we are limited. When we make a copy of an email account, for instance, we copy just what was in it on that day. Emails are retained by the agency or the government for just 30 days. So emails could still be recoverable, depending on the date they were deleted.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Are you able to recover such emails?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Yes.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Okay. Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

You have 20 seconds.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I'll take it.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I'll pick up where my colleague just left off on this question of the deletion of emails. I think there are many questions swirling around this, and I understand there are aspects of this you probably can't speak to. Perhaps the question I'll ask is this: Over the course of your investigation, is there any correspondence, which has either been referenced in ATIP requests or in interviews with witnesses, that you have not been able to obtain through the avenues available to you?

You mentioned you can't seize computers, but I assume you would have access to the CBSA's servers and central repositories of correspondence. Is there any information that has been referenced—specifically, correspondence that has been referenced in ATIP requests or in interviews with witnesses—that you haven't been able to access?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

The lack of documentation on the procurement files is something that has been noted. I believe the procurement ombudsman speaks to that as well. I have seen no evidence to date—again I'm speaking generally, not about any specifics—of evidence being withheld from ATIP requests or being actively deleted to keep them from our investigation.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thanks for that. One line of questioning that my colleague Mr. Brock brought up relates to this preliminary statement of fact. I haven't seen that statement of fact. However, he made some pretty colourful allegations about your own competency as an investigator. You referenced in your opening remarks the terms of reference under which your investigation is taking place, that there are procedures set out by CBSA for internal investigations. Does anyone check your work as an investigator? Is there any way for us, the committee, to confirm whether or not indeed the preliminary statement of fact followed the protocols and procedures that are established by the agency? How does that process work?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

You can see the policy on government security, which is something that's open to everyone, and the requirements therein related to the sharing of information when there have been concerns raised. We do engage in a yearly quality assurance process through a third party who comes in to look at our work and gives us recommendations with regard to our investigations and in respect to policy, so that is something we have systemically within—

The Chair :

That is your time. Thank you very much. We go back to you, Mr. Brock, please.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Thank you, Chair. Paragraph 50, page 10 of the statement of fact report as it relates to Cameron MacDonald is largely redacted. It starts unredacted as follows: It is important to note that the true motivation behind these actions are unclear and that while the Botler AI complaint appears to indicate that Kristian Firth solicited a bribe for Cameron MacDonald, exhibit 10, there has been no evidence gathered to date in this regard. I'll take it by your non-response, sir, that you don't want to share the truth as to whether or not that important piece of your investigation was shared with the RCMP.

On the issue of deleting emails, Minh Doan, to clarify, has never been the subject of this particular “Project Helios” investigation. Is that correct?

(1150) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

As was published—

Mr. Larry Brock :

Is it correct, sir, that he's not part of the investigation?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

If I could answer—

Mr. Larry Brock :

I'm asking you. Is he part of the investigation or not?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

On December 11, I received allegations, as has been made public, relating to Mr. Doan.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Is he still the subject of an investigation?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That review is ongoing.

Mr. Larry Brock :

That review of whether or not he's going to be the subject of an investigation is under way...? So that's a possibility.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

The review of the allegations we received—

Mr. Larry Brock :

That's a possibility. Is that correct?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Correct.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Minh Doan confirmed this, and ATIPs delivered to CBSA have confirmed that Minh Doan has four years' worth of highly relevant sensitive emails between the years of 2018 to 2022, which not only captures the pandemic and the ArriveCAN scandal, but also the Botler AI investigation that has mysteriously been corrupted. He's not taken responsibility for deliberately deleting that. The approximate number of those emails is roughly seven gigabytes, or 1,700 emails. You would agree with me, sir, that emails are supposed to be—

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Mr. Brock.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

I'm sorry. I have a point of order. I don't believe any of us have actually seen this statement of fact. Do you have a copy you can share with us? We're looking for it, and I don't think—

The Chair :

I'm the only one on the committee who has a copy of it. I think Mr. Brock mentioned—

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Can we have it distributed so that we can—

The Chair :

No. I'll discuss it on Wednesday. I think Mr. Brock indicated he received the information from two of our witnesses who have received it.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Are we not allowed to see it?

The Chair :

I'll discuss it Wednesday. I and the clerk are the only people with a copy of it right now, but I'll address it—

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Did Mr. Brock get it from a witness?

The Chair :

Not from the committee and not from CBSA.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

How did Mr. Brock get it?

An hon. member: This isn't a point of order.

Mr. Charles Sousa: It is a point of order. How is it that certain committee members are receiving it and not all committee members?

The Chair :

This is not a point of order, Mr. Sousa. I have explained to you he received.... He did not.... I'm the only one on the committee who has a copy of it, me and the clerk. No one else has received it from this committee.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Mr. Brock has a copy.

The Chair :

I'm sure Mr. Brock also has copies of ATIPs that are not sent to us. I have copies of ATIPs that have not been sent to the committee. You have emails that have not been sent to the committee because they were sent to you separately. If you were listening, I think you would have heard Mr. Brock at the very beginning of the meeting indicating that he received it from the witnesses, whom I assume are Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano, who did receive a copy.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

I appreciate the clarity. Thank you.

The Chair :

I think it was discussed at the very beginning of the meeting. Mr. Brock, you're at two minutes and 10 seconds, so you have two minutes and 50 seconds left. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Thank you, Chair. Minh Doan at the time was the vice-president of the CBSA. You'd agree with me, sir, that deleting emails is an extremely serious offence.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It would be a breach of the code of conduct to wilfully delete emails.

Mr. Larry Brock :

It's incumbent on an IT professional, as Minh Doan was, to protect work emails dealing with official matters. Is that correct?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It is part of our responsibilities, yes.

Mr. Larry Brock :

The level of seriousness increases depending on the position a public servant holds. In this case, a low-level administrative data-entry individual is vastly different in terms of the seriousness scale from the vice-president of the CBSA when you reference deleting emails. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I would agree.

Mr. Larry Brock :

When was the president, Erin O'Gorman, informed about Mr. Doan's deleted emails?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

We have not concluded that there were any deleted emails.

Mr. Larry Brock :

When was she informed, sir?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

She was informed of the allegations when I received them.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Of the deleted emails...?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

The allegations as I received them.

Mr. Larry Brock :

When was it? What was the date?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

December 11 is when I received them. I can't recall exactly which date I would have—

Mr. Larry Brock :

When was the Auditor General notified of four years' worth of deleted relevant emails?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Again, one point of clarification, I have no evidence that there has been deletion at this point. We are looking into the matter.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Can you answer the question, Mr. Lafleur? When was the Auditor General notified of four years' worth of a vice-president's deleted email account? When was she notified and by whom?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I can say that, during our various engagements with the Office of the Auditor General, we have provided them with all of the information that we had available.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Did you inform the Auditor General yourself, sir, or someone under your control, that the Auditor General received evidence of four years' worth of deleted emails by Minh Doan, vice-president—yes or no?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Again, I'm not sure what you're referencing. I did meet with the OAG—

(1155) Mr. Larry Brock :

Chair, can we get some clarity, please? My questions are very direct, and this witness has a hard time—

The Chair :

Mr. Lafleur, could we ask that you just respond with a direct answer, please? If it's a yes or no, please provide a direct yes or no. Otherwise, please give a direct answer, so that we can move on.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Did you notify the Auditor General of four years' worth of deleted emails?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I notified the Auditor General that I had received allegations to that effect.

Mr. Larry Brock :

When did you notify her?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It was in December after I received the allegations.

Mr. Larry Brock :

In December of 2023...?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Yes, it was in 2023.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Was the Treasury Board Secretariat informed?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

No.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Did you inform the RCMP of potentially four years' worth of highly confidential, relevant emails?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

We are required to report potential criminality. I have no evidence of that at this time.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Wow. You have no evidence of potentially—

The Chair :

That is your time, Mr. Brock.

Mr. Larry Brock :

—deliberately deleting emails. That is not criminality to you...?

The Chair :

Mr. Bains, please go ahead.

Mr. Parm Bains (Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lafleur, for joining us today. On the statement of fact, which we've been talking about in the last few lines of questioning, is that confidential?

Mr. Michel Lafleur: It is.

Mr. Parm Bains: The witness shared it with the member opposite. Is that some type of breach?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I'm not aware of any sharing that would have occurred.

Mr. Parm Bains :

Mr. Chair here confirmed that Mr. Brock received it from a witness. Would that be a breach of any sort in this investigation? Is this, in a way, undermining the investigation that's ongoing? Are they supposed to be talking about this?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I would say that it depends who it came from. Obviously, I would have concerns if that had come from a member of my investigation team.

Mr. Parm Bains :

Mr. Chair just confirmed that it came from a witness—that Mr. Brock directly received it from one of the witnesses. Which witness, we don't know.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

If it was to somebody to whom it was provided, it may be considered their personal information. They are free to share it as they see fit.

Mr. Parm Bains :

Okay, but it's confidential. You just said it's confidential. You can't share it, but a witness can share it.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

If it's about them, they can share it.

Mr. Parm Bains :

Okay. In the scope of your duties, are you concerned...? You mentioned that there's been some things, some systemic issues, with respect to contracts and documentation and these sorts of things. Are you concerned within your investigation now—and you're uncovering things, you're finding things—that there's widespread corruption in your organization?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I've seen no indication of widespread corruption. We provided information to the president in the fall of 2023, after which she took a number of measures to strengthen procurement within the CBSA. I'm comfortable that those measures are serving their purpose.

Mr. Parm Bains :

This incident specifically that you're seeing, is this the first of its kind that's sort of...? In a way, we've been extremely confused. It's been like a tangled web, and there's still a lot of clarity that needs to come forward here. Is this an isolated incident in your time that you've seen?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It is the first time that I see a file of this complexity and seriousness relating to procurement, yes.

Mr. Parm Bains :

If you're looking at the Treasury Board guidelines for discipline, in which circumstances might the presence of public servants at work undermine or impede an investigation, as described in the Treasury Board's guidelines?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I can speak to the Treasury Board standard on security screening, which outlines when an employee may need to be suspended. Speaking generally, it's when they would represent a potential security risk to the organization—to people, information or assets—or to the conduct of the investigation. Again, speaking generally, if someone is under investigation in the workplace and still has access to witnesses, they may try to influence them. That would be a concern, so they may be removed from the workplace to protect the integrity of the investigation.

Mr. Parm Bains :

Seeing as how Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano were suspended, is this one of the risks that you saw or that CBSA is seeing, that they may have access to information and that's why they've been limited to that access and have been suspended?

(1200) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano are not employees of the CBSA. I can't speak to the decision to remove them from the workplace. I can say that, generally speaking, it is normal in the course of an investigation for management to assess whether there is a need to mitigate potential risk pending the conclusion of the investigation. In the case where they have identified a potential risk, they have the responsibility to ensure that temporary measures are put in place to protect the organization and to protect the workplace until an investigation is completed and final decisions can be taken.

Mr. Parm Bains :

We've received some feedback from some of the witnesses who appeared here before, and they've declared that there are some challenges with their health and they're unable to come back. Has this limited your investigation in any way?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I can't speak to any discussions we may have had with potential witnesses. I will say that I have great sympathy for the stress that anyone involved in an investigation—whether it be a witness or someone who is under investigation—may face, particularly with the level of public scrutiny this file has had. I can appreciate how that is extremely stressful.

The Chair :

Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Genuis, please, you have five.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Lafleur, you're tasked with providing an investigation internally into what happened with ArriveCAN. I'm interested in what seems to be the difference in the level of interest you're applying to allegations against different individuals. Your preliminary work, at least, seems to suggest a profound interest in allegations against Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano and a surprising lack of interest against Mr. Doan. I note that Mr. Doan faces serious allegations related to the deletion of documents and that no provisional action seems to have been taken against him, while Mr. MacDonald and Mr.

Utano have been suspended without pay. Could you provide the committee with any explanation as to your relatively much greater attention to allegations against Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano compared to allegations against Mr. Doan?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I would disagree that there's been undue attention given to one over the other. We received allegations from Botler AI in November of 2022. It would be expected for that investigation to have proceeded much further than the new allegations that I received in December of 2023.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Okay. Your explanation is that you received the allegations against Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano earlier, yet Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald received a letter notifying them of the allegations against them on November 27 of this year. That was again, suspiciously, 20 days after their damning testimony before this committee. How are we to understand the fact that allegedly your investigation had been going on for a year, yet they received a letter notifying them of the investigation in November of this year?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

If I can have a minute, perhaps, to explain that timeline, we did initiate an investigation in November 2022. Considering the potential criminality, when we have interactions with police, we do respect the integrity of their investigation and, in this case, we could not proceed with interviews or with notifying the individuals under investigation with respect to the RCMP investigation. Since we're talking about the same witnesses and the same evidence, we were limited in how we could proceed without negatively impacting the RCMP investigation.

That scenario changed when The Globe and Mail issued their report on October 4, 2023. Holding back on our investigation became a moot point at that point, which is why—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

It was still after their testimony on November 7. Even what you just said doesn't make any sense from a timeline perspective. The Globe story you referenced was at the beginning of October, yet it was only after their testimony before this committee that they subsequently heard from you that they were under investigation.

This whole thing is just bizarre in terms of the investigation, because you said the investigation started a year ago, but somehow, it was only within a couple of weeks of their coming before this committee to give damning negative testimony about the government in response to the questions they were asked that they were told they were under investigation and were subsequently suspended without pay. Meanwhile, we had these very serious allegations against Minh Doan, which involve hiding information and deleting emails, and as far as I know there has been no action taken against him.

The clearest difference to me between Mr. Doan and Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano is that Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano gave very blunt, critical testimony,

whereas Mr. Doan obfuscated, prevaricated, didn't answer questions and gave every indication of trying to defend the party line. I get the same impression here: That you, who are subject to the leadership of CBSA, are looking at one set of allegations against one set of individuals and not against others. Maybe the best way to go from that is to ask you, sir, about your own reporting chain of command. You have characterized your investigation as independent, but you're not independent. Are you? You're part of the department. You're subject to the authority of the department and you're movable—reassignable—at any time. Is that correct?

(1205) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Of course, I do not have the independence of the OAG or the procurement ombudsman, for example, but I do have the space and time to conduct my work independently within the agency.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Okay. You would like us to believe that you have space and time to act independently, but substantively, in terms of your role, you are not independent. There are no independent attributes about your role. You even told us that you were informally providing information to your superiors at CBSA on an ongoing basis.

The Chair :

Would you wrap up, please?

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

You are not an independent investigator. You are their investigator, subject to the authority structure within CBSA. Do you think that compromises the integrity of your investigation?

The Chair :

Would you provide a very brief answer, please?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It is normal for departments to investigate matters that occur within their departments.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead, please.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lafleur, for being here with us here today and bringing us your testimony. Over the course of the last number of months, we've heard testimony that there are allegations that CVs were being inflated in order to win contracts. Bona fides were being inflated to win contracts. Is that enough grounds, in your experience, to proceed from a preliminary review to a formal investigation, just on those grounds? If someone is caught inflating CVs to win contracts, is that typically enough to move from a preliminary report to a formal report?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Maybe one point of clarification, if I could, is that I wouldn't be responsible for investigating the actions of vendors, only of employees of the CBSA.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Fair enough. Okay. That's a good answer. I wanted to ask you, how many procurement-related cases have you investigated? You've been doing this for 15 years. Are the vast majority of the cases related to procurement? Is a small subsection related to procurement? I'm just curious if you can speak to that.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It's a very small subsection.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

It's a very small subsection. Okay. In your experience, this case that you're examining right now, how normal is it? How out of the ordinary is it? Can you maybe speak to that and provide us a little bit of context in terms of what we're looking at here?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

My presence before committee today is highly abnormal. As someone who is responsible for conducting an administrative investigation that is ongoing, being asked to speak publicly is not normal, and it is a challenge. I do have responsibility to ensure the integrity of the process and procedural fairness for the individuals under investigation. I also have a responsibility to ensure that our investigation ultimately is able, if there is wrongdoing identified, to lead to accountability. While I have great respect for the work of this committee, it is difficult to answer some of the questions relating to those very pointed points.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I know you can't speak specifically to this case. I understand that, but I just wanted to ask this on the specifics of this case. Are there things you have not seen in your experience in your 15 years that you've seen in this particular case that you're investigating?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Absolutely.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Okay. Can you tell us when the preliminary review was completed?

(1210) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

The preliminary review...it happened relatively quick. I would say that by December of 2022 we had evidence that at least some of the allegations appeared to be substantiated, and we would have been in a position to proceed formally with the investigation at that time, were it not for the ongoing criminal investigation.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

How much time did it take before moving from the preliminary to the formal, roughly speaking? What are we talking? Is it a matter of days—weeks—that you make the switch to a formal...?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Generally speaking, it can take up to seven weeks. We give ourselves 45 business days.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Okay. That's to switch to the formal....

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

That's to move to formal.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Who makes that decision? Is that your decision or does someone make that decision for you and say, “Okay, we want you to move into a formal...”?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

In the normal course of an investigation, it would be the investigator and the responsible manager who would make those decisions.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Okay. In that case, it's you, with management, who make that decision together.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

It's my management team.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

It's your management team.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Yes.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Okay. Gotcha. I actually have a question for the chair, if that's okay. Thank you, Michel. I just wanted to know, Mr. Chair, when did you become aware that a member of this committee had the preliminary statement of fact?

The Chair :

Pretty much today, I understand such details...but I'm not sure if he has the full report. I was intending to discuss the release of the report, because there are some issues around it that we have to decide as a committee. I was going to do it on Wednesday, but I think we're going to move that up in camera right after we finish our committee business.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

You can understand my concerns here. It seems that there are certain members.... I'm not sure whether the other Conservative MPs have access to this information.

The Chair :

I can suggest that this is very often though.... There are certain MPs who have ATIPs and have other reports that others do not have. I think that's up to the members to discuss that with...or to do their research on that.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

No, just as a matter of process, I would expect that at the moment that members of this committee—especially the chair—have information, asymmetrical information, it is distributed, or that at least we are made aware of the fact that the information is now out there. I think that is really important to—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I have a point of order, Chair.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk: —the work of this committee.

The Chair :

That's fine. That is your time, and then we'll discuss the actual distribution of it. Continue your point of order. Go ahead.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Mr. Chair, I think a point is getting confused here. Obviously, if the chair, in his capacity as chair, is sent information for the committee, he should be distributing that in a symmetrical way to all or to none. However, clearly, all of us have different levels of information that we get from different conversations we have. That's extremely normal. Members of the government presumably have conversations with government ministers and government political staff and know things that we don't know, and we have conversations that they are not a part of. Everybody knows things that somebody else doesn't know.

The question is around the distribution of information from the committee. Those things are being conflated.

The Chair :

I appreciate the point of order, but to be clear, I have one copy here and the clerk has a copy. Mr. Lafleur and, I'm sure, a dozen people at CBSA, and I'm sure Ms. O'Gorman, the witnesses and the witnesses' lawyer and however many people it has been distributed to.... We'll continue the conversation about distribution.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make sure that the moment that the clerk and the chair are made aware that the information is out there.... For something as important as this, I would—

The Chair :

I would disagree and I'll end it there, because I'm aware that certain people have ATIPs that have been shared with them that haven't been shared with anyone else, but that's because.... It's something that if someone has done their research and received information that you have not, that's incumbent upon—

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

What I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is that at the moment that you as the chair—or the clerk—is made aware that there is information that is confidential that is being shared, I think it's important that it is shared with the rest of the committee.

The Chair :

I would disagree, but on the distribution of this, we will discuss among ourselves how it will be distributed. I'll explain a bit further why. There are rules around it, but I will disagree with you about that.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Do I have time for Mr. Lafleur?

The Chair :

You have three seconds, so why don't we just move to Mrs. Vignola? I'm going to try to get through the rounds so we can get to our committee business. Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lafleur, during the course of your investigation, did you listen to everything our committee said and verify all witness testimony?

(1215) Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I listened to the testimony, but that was not necessarily to verify what was said.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Was that helpful for your investigation?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Yes.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Okay. Regarding the report on the Helios project, can we assume that the current situation, resulting from a confidential document being released by someone somewhere, was intended to bring the matter up for public discussion? Essentially, can the work of our committee interfere with the conduct of the investigation or undermine its rigour?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

My role is to preserve the integrity of the investigation regardless of what is happening around it.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Does the release of a confidential document increase the pressure on your team or does it raise questions about the integrity of the investigation?

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

I would say that we have to manage the public interest as regards the matter in question. The document in question was requested by your committee, and I understand that you will be discussing it. We would however like that information to remain confidential in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

It is incredible that we are spending so much time on the ArriveCAN file. The application cost a lot of money, but it was just under 10% of the cost of the sponsorship scandal. We fought to have a commission of inquiry into that at the time, but it took a long time. Thank you for being here and for the answers you were able to provide.

Mr. Michel Lafleur :

Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I apologize. I had someone speaking in my ear. Was there a question toward me, or are you done, Mrs. Vignola?

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Mrs. Vignola has again granted her extra time to me.

The Chair :

You have about an extra five seconds.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I'm not sure where this wellspring of generosity came from, but I appreciate it.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Mr. Chair, this has turned into quite a twisted tale here, and I'm trying to follow all of these twists and turns as someone who joined the committee partway through this study. There's a lot of complexity here. We have this preliminary statement of fact that sounds like it's very interesting. Some members of the committee have it. Others don't—

The Chair :

I would not say some, but anyway, go ahead. It's your time.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

It seems to me that some members of the committee have it because they were reading from it and they said they had it, so we're in this strange position where Mr. Lafleur can't give it to us, the chair has it and we're going to discuss, apparently, whether we can see it. It seems to me that it would have been helpful for this line of questioning today for all members of the committee to have it so that together—because we're all seeking accountability here—we could ask questions of Mr. Lafleur, who's the author of the preliminary statement of fact.

It also seems that, having that out in the open, in some ways puts additional pressure on the investigation, but we're already down that path now. One of the interesting things here is that we have these two civil servants, and I wasn't here for their original testimony but I understand that they were subjected to some fairly strong lines of questioning and allegations from my Conservative colleagues at previous meetings.

Now the Conservatives seem to be running interference for these same civil servants, who appear to be giving them confidential information so that they can ask certain questions at a committee where not all members are privy to that information. It creates a very odd dynamic It seems to me that the best way to clear the air is to simply have the preliminary statement of fact on the table and to invite Mr. Lafleur back so we can ask him additional questions about the content of that document.

Frankly, a bunch of us are playing with one hand behind our backs because, for whatever reason, certain witnesses felt that giving those documents to some members of the committee and not to others was going to be to their advantage. We're in a situation where, obviously, these allegations are extremely serious. If the allegations that have been made in the Botler report turn out to indeed be true, this indicates that there is serious wrongdoing amongst civil servants working on the ArriveCAN procurement, and that's something all Canadians should be concerned about. Mr.

Chair, if you grant it, I will make a motion that the committee be provided with the preliminary statement of fact immediately.

(1220) The Chair :

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I have a quick point of order.

The Chair :

You will burn out your time to discuss your motion, to begin with. Also, I would ask again that you wait. I will discuss how we will proceed with it in camera, or we could do it publicly, if you wish. It's up to you, but the—

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

I'd like it to be done publicly, please.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I'm sorry, Chair, but on a point of order, I don't know if the motion will be in order, because I proposed exactly the same motion and the committee adopted that motion early last week, I think, and it had a three-week deadline. I gather we're going to have a discussion about how to dispose of that particular document.

The Chair :

It's a duplicate, actually, of Mr. Genuis' motion from three weeks ago.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

It's a different motion, to be fair. Can I respond, Mr. Chair?

The Chair :

No.

Mr. Garnett Genuis: The committee has orders not to do what you want.

The Chair: Let me interrupt. I have the floor here, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I'll withdraw my motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Genuis is right that basically you're asking for a duplication of a motion that has already been received.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

It's the word “immediately”.

The Chair :

We'll discuss it right now, then, and we may lose the time for your motion, but we're going to discuss it right now with the committee. The request for these documents came in from Mr. Genuis. We agreed. The committee agreed to pass the motion to have the documents provided. CBSA wrote to me, saying, “We will provide one copy only, and it will be under lockdown.” No one would see it. There would be one copy and it wouldn't be translated. We wrote back saying, “No, that's not the motion. You will provide it.” They wanted it held in private for sensitivity reasons.

We wrote back saying, “Please provide it”, and I would take a look. I would read through it to see how sensitive it was, to see if was actually sensitive stuff. I've read through most of it and made notes that I was going to discuss in camera, but we'll do it publicly. I was going to suggest that we distribute it only to the members themselves, not to the wider 48 people generally on our email list. I spoke to the clerk today before the meeting on how we could do that. We would just need a motion.

My suggestion was going to be to propose that we translate it and share it, but only with the members themselves, not with our staff and not with the usual 47 people on the list. That was going to be my proposal on Wednesday. That seems to have been moved up. If you wish to discuss it now, that would be my suggestion—that we share it with only the members. Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Mr. Chair, the issue we're having here is that obviously Mr. Brock is not a regular on this committee and he's had access to this statement. In fact, you were aware that he had it, and you had it, and yet you didn't—

The Chair :

Let me interrupt. I was aware that he had it when he spoke about it, but I have to question whether this is a first—and I'm going to say this to all of you. I'm kind of stunned. It's almost like the first committee. How many times has any of us received reports or emails or ATIPs that haven't gone to everyone—

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Mr. Chair, my question is—

The Chair :

—and yet now, all of a sudden, someone has one and it has to be shared?

Mr. Charles Sousa :

No, no, listen. I just want to understand, Mr. Chair. I apologize that I'm not as astute when it comes to these procedures, but it seems to me that if you were aware that Mr. Brock had a statement of fact and you had it and the clerk had it, and you decided not to then share it with the rest of us, knowing that—

The Chair :

No, that's not the case, Mr. Sousa, and this is the third time I'm saying this to you. I'll repeat it again.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Then when did you know he had it?

The Chair :

You asked that earlier, about 15 minutes ago when he stated at the opening that he had received some information from the witnesses. I am aware that the witnesses and their lawyer have a copy of it. Mr. Lafleur has it and I'm not sure how many other people at CBSA have it, but even if it was shared by the witnesses or by Mr. MacDonald or Mr. Utano, that's their right. It's their right to share it with anyone they want, but that does not mean that you have the right to see it or that anyone else does.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to understand. I'm asking that the committee have the right to have information shared when it is already in the hands of some people and we know that it is. It could have been appropriate for us to expand the sharing of that document—I guess that's my point—so that we all could have seen it.

(1225) The Chair :

I will repeat. As I said earlier, before the meeting started, I discussed this with the clerk. My opinion was that it should be shared only with the members themselves. I asked about the procedure required to do that. Before the meeting started, the clerk advised that it should be done as a motion. My intent was to do it in camera on Wednesday, but now it's been pushed ahead. If you wish, we could do a motion right now to share it with just the MPs, which is what I'm thinking, or we could share it with the broader mailing list, which is the way we generally share other issues.

We could share it with the MPs with the understanding that it would remain confidential, which is what we do with documents. However, if someone shares something that is theirs to share—if they decide to share it with you—that's their business and that is your business. It does not mean it has to be shared with everyone else until the committee decides. We were going to make a decision on this on Wednesday, as I discussed with the clerk at the beginning, and you can confirm that with her if you wish, but that decision seems to have been pushed to right now.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

It seems appropriate. I was just concerned that it has somehow been held off, knowing Mr. Brock had it. However—

The Chair :

I'll repeat this, Mr. Sousa. If you wish us to check with the clerk to reconfirm my discussion with her at the beginning, we will do so, Mr. Sousa. However, I'm getting a bit tired of your insinuation that some people are receiving information inappropriately from the clerk or from me. Mr. Brock is next.

Mr. Larry Brock :

We are wasting such valuable time with this important witness. Given the fact that we have more committee business to undertake, I'm asking that we reserve our right to recall this witness. I think all members will have a lot more questions for this individual, if the motion is passed, about the release of documents. As far as preparation for this particular meeting goes, every member exercises their own unique due diligence. What I do in terms of preparation should not be the standard for any other member. I take this stuff very seriously, as I know my colleagues do.

There's an important point to make here: There is no proprietary interest in any witness. There is nothing preventing any member of the Liberal bench from reaching out to Cameron MacDonald or Mr. Utano on a telephone call and asking pointed questions, which is precisely what I did. I spent some time with both individuals gathering information. I'm not under any legal obligation to share that information with opposing members.

The Chair :

Colleagues, are we ready to make a decision to move on, or would you like to discuss it further on Wednesday? Again, my proposal is to share it solely with the members of Parliament at this committee.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Mr. Chair, can we take a two-minute recess? Thank you.

The Chair :

We'll suspend for two minutes. Please take two minutes maximum, guys.

(1225) (1230) The Chair :

We are back, colleagues. Do we have a decision—

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Mr. Chair, thank you—

The Chair :

—or a request from the floor? Go ahead.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Yes, it's a request. Thank you for offering us a verification. Again, this is just procedural. Can the clerk inform us of the date and time she received the statement of preliminary facts?

The Chair :

It was about a week ago. This is the letter we were talking about last meeting.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Specifically, I mean the document you pointed to and highlighted. What was the time and what was the date when the clerk received that big document our colleague Mr. Brock has been referring to?

The Chair :

We're looking it up.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Thank you.

The Chair :

I think it was probably January 30 or February 1. We'll double-check. We'll suspend for a moment.

(1230) (1235) The Chair :

We are back in. It was on Thursday, February 1.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Who was it copied to?

The Chair :

It was just to me. It went to the clerk, and the clerk forwarded it to me.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

When did the clerk get it?

The Chair :

It was on Thursday, the first, as I said. Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Mr. Chair, I have a serious issue with the fact that you and the clerk had this report, the statement of fact, in your possession very early last week, knowing that the author of the report was coming before this committee today, and yet there was no indication, no communication from you, to let us know that there had been communication from CBSA regarding this report. It takes a second to sit at a computer and say, “Folks, we have Mr. Lafleur testifying on Monday.

This is a heads-up that I have a report in my possession, as does the clerk, that is pertinent to his appearance before this committee.” It takes a split second, and I don't understand the logic behind not sharing that information with this committee so that we as a committee could make an informed decision as to whether we wanted to defer or delay the appearance of Mr. Lafleur and have the opportunity to look at the statement before the author, the investigator, came before the committee. I cannot understand your logic, Mr. Chair.

I have a serious issue with that lack of communication with the members of this committee on such an important issue, and your explanation doesn't fly, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

I guess we'll agree to disagree, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I think it's more important than that. Moving forward, I think it's more important that this committee have the opportunity to have a say in how it conducts its business here. Pertinent, important information was withheld from this committee, and I think we ought to have had a chance to—

(1240) The Chair :

Let me respond. On January 29, you received a letter about the report from President O'Gorman. If it had been as important as you've been stating, you could, as you said, simply have sent a simple email to me asking to have it distributed.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Mr. Chair, we depend on you. You shared with us over the break that you had received the information. You had read through that report. Why were we not given the same privilege?

The Chair :

Mr. Kusmierczyk, every single one of you received the letter on the 29th from Ms. O'Gorman about the report. Certainly any one of you could simply have said at that time, “Hey, let's get the report out.” You could have simply said that on Wednesday or Thursday or Friday or Saturday or Sunday or even this morning, knowing that we had Mr. Lafleur coming. It's not as though it was a big secret. We knew about the report. Mr. Sousa actually referenced this letter at our last meeting, so somebody could have addressed it then if it were all that important. Mr. Genuis, go ahead, and then Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Chair, respectfully, we have Mr. Lafleur before us. I have more questions that I'm willing to ask him, and we have this silly process point from the government, which on the one hand seems surprised that somebody might know something they don't know because of something they might have been sent directly. Also, they don't seem to appreciate at all the legitimate exercise of the chair's discretion. I've been on many committees.

It seems that the issue the chair has articulated is that he sought to get access to the information for the committee, and initially CBSA was trying to not send it or to not have it distributed or to require that people be in a locked room. The chair has undertaken a negotiation process back and forth in order to get the committee access to this document. Let's remember that it was my motion to get us access to this document in the first place.

When I initially put that motion forward, Liberal members said, “Oh, we don't know; we have to wait to receive it in both official languages.” Then I put it on notice and had to bring it back, I think a week later, and that's when we got it approved. If the members of the government were so eager to get access to these documents, then they should have just approved my motion to request it. We have people proposing that we request documents that we've already requested. Look, the chair has put forward a proposal to say he'd like to distribute this document to members.

I think we should approve the sending of this document to members and I'd be happy to have Mr. Lafleur back. I have more questions to ask him and I don't know if I'll get to ask those questions today. I do suspect that this may be the government just wanting to eat up the time that would otherwise be spent asking questions of Mr. Lafleur. I'm ready to get back to work. Let's agree to allow the chair to distribute the documents and let's get back to work.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to this line of conversation around when the chair knew what he knew, how it was communicated to the committee and how we ended up here without the statement of fact with Mr. Lafleur here, I don't think we're going to get anywhere in that conversation. There are things going on. There are strategies being employed. I'm reminded of that famous quote from Casablanca , “I'm shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.”

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Taylor Bachrach: It is what it is. We're not going to change what's already happened. We have to move forward. I think, given that some members of the committee are talking about the statement of fact and reading from it, it would be beneficial to have the whole thing in front of everybody. I have no way of knowing whether it compromises the investigation, because I haven't seen it, but it would seem that putting out portions of it and not the statement in its entirety is not to the benefit of transparency and accountability. I'll leave it at that. It sounds like we're going to have that conversation.

Potentially, we'll have Mr. Lafleur back at a future date once we have the statement in front of us. We are running out of time in this meeting, and I had hoped to bring forward my motion, so if I may, Mr. Chair, I'll take this moment to thank Mr. Lafleur for his time with us today and to move my motion, which has been put on notice, that the committee undertake a study on the loss of postal service in Canada's rural and remote—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I'm sorry. Just on a point of order, I was under the impression that we had a motion on the floor.

(1245) The Chair :

We're still discussing the motion to release this document. Can I address a couple of things quickly?

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Mr. Chair, we are—

The Chair :

There was a motion about releasing the documents.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I made a motion and I withdrew it, but was there previously a motion made at this meeting that was being debated?

The Chair :

Yes. It was about the documents.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

From whom?

The Chair :

Actually.... Well, I had put forward and we were discussing whether we were going to release the documents or not.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Can we have the motion read back?

The Chair :

Yes. Why don't we just.... We'll get to yours, Taylor. Let me just—

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

It's like now we have 10 minutes, Mr. Chair. The question is—

The Chair :

We'll have less if we continue.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

You've just said that there's a motion on the floor. I'm just asking you to read back the motion.

The Chair :

It was a motion to release documents. You cannot take back your motion without UC—unanimous consent.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Mr. Chair, through you, can I ask the clerk what the motion is that we're debating currently—

An hon. member: Yes, and who put it forward.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach: : —and who put it forward?

The Chair :

Going back with the chair, it was you, and you said you withdrew it, but you can't withdraw it without UC and you did not seek the UC, so technically we are on that motion. I think we can probably settle it really quickly and then get to your Canada Post motion, because I want to get to that today.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

You ruled my motion out of order, Mr. Chair. I think that if you check the record, you said that there was already a motion from Mr. Genuis that is duplicative—

The Chair :

I apologize. We apologize. You are correct there. I apologize. We crossed lines here. Can I—

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Apology accepted.

The Chair :

Thank you. That's very kind of you. We do have time. We'll get to that, I promise. Can we agree to hold on for just 30 seconds, please, before we get to that? Now, are you wanting to talk about Canada Post, Mr. Sousa?

Mr. Charles Sousa :

No, it's about the other issue.

The Chair :

Okay. It doesn't look like we will have the 30 seconds. Why don't we get to Mr. Bachrach's motion? He has the floor and it is in order, but I hope we can get back to decide today about whether we're going to release this just to the MPs, as I suggest or, if you wish it, to a larger audience or the larger email chain. We're on Mr. Bachrach's motion, Mr. Sousa.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Issues related to postal service fall squarely within the mandate of this committee. In the region I represent, which is made up of rural and remote communities, there are a lot of concerns about the loss and sustainability of rural postal service, particularly rural post offices. In a recent conversation with Canada Post, I became aware that the financial challenges of the corporation continue to worsen. I expect we'll be hearing from Canada Post at a future meeting, but I am gravely concerned about the future of postal delivery in rural and remote Canada.

This is a lifeline for so many people. People order their medications through the post. Small businesses ship their products through the post. Many seniors who don't have access to technology rely on postal service for communication. Of course, in areas of our country that still lack broadband Internet, postal service is vital for a wide range of government services. I will move the motion that I put on notice with the change of one word. This came from consultations with the chair—

(1250) The Chair :

I will [ Inaudible—Editor ].

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Okay. If we're going to be a stickler for procedure now, I will not change any of the words in my motion but rather read it into the record. I move:

That the committee undertake a study on the sustainability of postal service in Canada's rural and remote communities; that a minimum of 12 hours of witness testimony be dedicated to the topic; that the committee invite the CEO of Canada Post, the president of CPAA, and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement; and that the committee produce a report and table it in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you. [ Inaudible—Editor ] someone who can do the friendly amendment that you just—

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I note, Mr. Chair, based on conversations prior to the meeting, that there are several amendments members would like to make, and I'd be happy to consider those. I feel this is going to take more than the 10 minutes we have left in the meeting, so hopefully we can consider this at our next public meeting and arrive at a motion that meets the needs of everyone around the table.

The Chair :

Perhaps someone can possibly read the friendly amendment you're seeking and include it in your amendment.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I'd be happy to speak about that. In our conversation after the last meeting, you raised questions about the word “sustainability”. I know the word “sustainability” means different things to different people. What I'm getting at here is long-term viability in sustaining postal service in rural and remote Canada. Really, this study is on the loss of postal service. What we've seen over the years, particularly since the moratorium in 1994, I believe—

The Chair :

I will interrupt you there. We'll try to work that into a new amendment and—

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Sure. What I was going to say is that we've seen a lot of post offices lost despite there being a moratorium on the closure of post offices. I'd like to get to that issue specifically. Thank you.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mrs. Block, then we'll go to Mr. Sousa.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Yes, I would like to add to that amendment, if I may.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Excuse me.

Mr. Charles Sousa: Oh, I'm sorry.

The Chair: It's Mrs. Block and then Mr. Sousa.

Mrs. Kelly Block: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be proposing an amendment to Mr. Bachrach's motion. I propose that we replace the words “a minimum of 12 hours of witness testimony be dedicated to the topic” with the following: “the committee hold at least two meetings on this topic, starting with the CEO of Canada Post”. The motion in its entity would read:

That the committee undertake a study on the sustainability of postal service in Canada's rural and remote communities; that the committee hold at least two meetings on this topic, starting with the CEO of Canada Post; that the Committee invite the CEO of Canada Post, the president of CPAA, and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement; and that the committee produce a report and table it in the House.

The Chair :

Excellent. Does someone want to speak on this amendment? Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola. Then it's you, Mr. Powlowski.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

This will be very quick. Two two-hour meetings, or four hours, represent a third of what my colleague suggested initially. That is not enough, in my humble opinion. Many rural regions in Canada are having a lot of problems with the mail. I am thinking in particular about medications that are not delivered. We have been talking about this for years and years, but some reason or other is always raised. Four hours on the topic is not very much. If we want to find reasonable, lasting solutions for people, we should plan at least three meetings, if not four. I humbly suggest this positive and reasonable amendment.

I also think it is extremely important to get an update on the situation. In some places, there are homes that have the same postal code or the same address even though they are in a different village. That is problematic for emergency services and can be fatal in some cases. Canada Post also needs to address this problem, other than passing it off to the municipalities or provinces and saying they just need to change the street names, as if that were a simple matter. So I agree that we should hold meetings about Canada Post. I would suggest however that we say “a minimum of three” rather than “two”.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Powlowski.

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) :

I want to just voice my support for Madame Vignola and Mr. Bachrach's proposal. Two meetings of two hours is not enough. I know that people living in urban areas hardly think of the mail, but having grown up in the country myself, I know that every morning we'd go down to the bottom of the driveway and check the mail. So much happens in the mail, so I agree. The big question is how you can make it sustainable, given the fact that there probably isn't any profit and money to be made in this, but it's an important public service. I think that to properly canvass the issue, we need more than two sessions. I'm going to call for a vote on what you guys want.

(1255) The Chair :

Now we have Mr. Bachrach and then Mrs. Block on the amendment.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that my colleagues have substantive thoughts on the motion and on the issue that we're debating, which is great. It means it's going to be a good study. I would like to have the hours of witness testimony expressed as “hours of witness testimony” as to opposed to meetings. We eat up a lot of time at meetings dealing with other matters. It often cuts into the testimony of witnesses. I had proposed 12 hours of witness testimony, which is six meetings. I would be willing to accept four meetings' worth, or eight hours, of testimony. Perhaps that's a compromise that we can reach.

My concern is that we have four minutes left in this meeting, and I don't believe we're going to get to a vote on the amendment or the main motion. With that, Mr. Chair—I believe it's in order—I will move that we postpone this debate until February 7 at 4:30 p.m.

The Chair :

We're trying to get a few extra minutes to continue.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

If I may—

The Chair :

Hold on just two seconds, please. Are you looking to adjourn the vote on the amendment?

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I can clarify my motion. I believe it's in order, and we can confirm with the clerk.

The Chair :

Could you confirm? Repeat again, please, what your motion is.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Yes. The motion is to postpone to a certain time, that certain time being February 7 at 4:30 p.m.

The Chair :

I think you can vote to adjourn the amendment.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Could we ask the clerk for procedural advice on this? I think a motion to postpone until a specific time is order, is not debatable and must be put to a vote immediately.

The Chair :

Let me deal with it, please. I disagree, but let me, as you're requesting me to do, consult with the clerk. The clerk is saying what I was saying. You cannot do that. You can move to adjourn to a vote on the amendment, but you can't suspend until a certain date or put conditions on it.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Can I ask a question through you to the clerk?

The Chair :

Sure. Go ahead.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

At other meetings, we have had motions to postpone debate until a certain time. That is a dilatory motion that is not debatable and needs to be put to a vote. Is my understanding unclear?

The Chair :

I think you may be wrong, but I will—

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Okay. I'm open to being wrong.

The Chair :

I'll let the clerk address it.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Stephanie Bond) :

Thank you. If a motion has a condition attached to it, it can't be moved while there is a motion on the floor. If it doesn't have a condition, it's a dilatory motion, such as a motion to adjourn debate, but if it has a condition attached, it has to be handled differently.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Can I ask a follow-up question on that for my edification?

The Chair :

Please go ahead.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

My understanding is that a motion to postpone to a specific date or a specific time is a dilatory motion. How can you move a motion to postpone to a specific time without specifying what that time is?

The Chair :

You can't move that because it has a condition attached to it. The clerk's ruled and I've ruled, and you're welcome to.... We can try to get a few extra minutes in, but I'm pretty sure that if you discuss it with your colleagues off-line, we will probably come up with something, because we've seen close to three or four. One was “at least”, and we quite often do “at least” motions, so that we have at least three meetings or four meetings. I think you'd probably find agreement to do that. We can then wrap in the other one.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

If it's discussing the procedural part, no. I've ruled on it. Let's move on. Did you want to move...? We can have the motion to adjourn the debate on Ms. Block's amendment and then we can finish up. Knowing the committee, I imagine if you talk off-line, you could probably come to.... There seems to be close agreement with three or four, at least, and have the motion like that. We could then probably have a new one put on the order today for Wednesday, if you wish.

(1300) Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I'll move to suspend. If we vote to suspend, we will pick up precisely where we left off at our next meeting. My concern is that we pick up where we left off at our next meeting. I know that's not always the case, so I want to be specific about it.

The Chair :

You're looking to suspend the debate on the amendment.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I'm looking to suspend the meeting.

The Chair :

You want to suspend the meeting. I have a solution. I suggest we just adjourn. For Wednesday, our witnesses have stated they're not available, so we will have committee business. We can finish this off on Wednesday, seeing as we have no witnesses.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Mr. Chair, I keep trying to make motions, and I'm unclear whether my motion is in order. Can you rule on whether my motion to suspend the meeting is in order?

The Chair :

It's been suggested that it's.... The advice I'm receiving from the clerk is to move to adjourn it, but I will confirm with her. Hold on two seconds. My clerk has never heard of that, but she will double-check.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I have a point of order, Chair. If we don't have the other intended witnesses available for Wednesday, I wonder if the committee would agree to set aside some time to continue with the lost time for questions to Mr. Lafleur, as well as some time to conclude the matters of committee business, including Mr. Bachrach's motion. I think it's reasonable for that work to finish on Wednesday. It could even be the first item on the agenda, but I would like to have Mr. Lafleur back.

The Chair :

I think someone suggested that, but I don't think we got that far with Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

We were quite limited, frankly, in our time to ask questions because of some of the other interventions.

The Chair :

I have an answer as well. The clerk is stating that it's not a dilatory motion. You can't move to suspend, so I suggest—

Mr. Charles Sousa :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Give me two seconds. Let me finish, please. I'm going to suggest again that if you wish, as we do not have witnesses on Wednesday, we can continue this on Wednesday under committee business. Perhaps we can discuss having Mr. Lafleur for a second hour or 40 minutes that we had for questioning or—

Mr. Charles Sousa :

On this issue—

The Chair :

—if we're fine with that. Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

On this issue, do we need consensus to adjourn? Given that we have ongoing engagement and we have an ongoing motion and we have an amendment to the motion, do we need consensus now, or can we suspend? Do you have the right to drop the gavel without consulting with us to provide for suspension?

The Chair :

We do have a speakers list on Ms. Block's amendment. She was next. Mr. Bachrach has made several attempts. We were trying to accommodate him, but none of the ideas were in order. Really, I was suggesting that we have agreed to an adjournment, but Mr. Bachrach doesn't appear to be in agreement with it. We are probably about another.... We're going to lose our resources in about another four or five minutes, but we do have a speaking list, and Ms. Block is on it.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

I'm trying to understand this procedure now. If there is no consensus to adjourn, we cannot adjourn.

The Chair :

Well, if we don't have resources, we adjourn. I adjourn the meeting. We cannot continue without resources.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

It would suspend until the next meeting, right?

The Chair :

I would just adjourn it. Go ahead, Ms. Block.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Thank you, Chair—

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Mr. Chair, are we really arguing about whether the meeting can be adjourned in accordance with a clearly worded motion allowing for that?

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm sorry, but my

interpretation is not.... Start at the beginning, please.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Are we really arguing about whether the motion is properly worded so that we can adjourn? Some people are saying it is not properly worded to allow us to adjourn. This makes no sense. We have three minutes left. We have to adjourn and talk about Mr. Bachrach's motion again later on. I think we all agree on that. I cannot understand why the committee has been wasting its time on this for the past 10 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1305) [ English ]

The Chair :

I would suggest that you talk to your colleagues, but if we adjourn, Mr. Bachrach can certainly start the next meeting with a motion to reintroduce the motion and we can discuss it then. Mr. Bachrach is trying various procedural approaches to try to extend it, and I appreciate that, but it looks as if we're probably going to continue it on Wednesday anyway, whether Mr. Bachrach likes it or not, through the procedure we're doing. That's where we're at. We have about two or three minutes. We have Ms. Block on the speaking list on her amendment and then we will run out of time and we will adjourn.

I am suggesting that because we're without our witnesses for Wednesday, we'll set aside committee business to continue this, and I will encourage Mr. Bachrach to talk off-line with everyone, with the vice-chairs, so that we can come up with a simple agreement for the motion. This seems to be generally smarter. Ms. Block, go ahead.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Thank you very much. After all of that, I would recognize your very astute observation that I included in my motion “at least two meetings”, as opposed to “a minimum of 12 hours”. Representing a very large rural riding in the province of Saskatchewan, I do recognize the issues with postal service in rural Canada. That is why we are open to this motion, to this study, but I wanted to encourage us to start with two meetings—at least two meetings—and then go forward figuring out where we go from there. I look forward to any off-line discussions that Mr.

Bachrach would like to have with us, his Conservative colleagues, to see if we can come to some sort of agreement on the length that the study should be. Thank you.

The Chair :

If there's no one else on the speaking list, we can vote on Ms. Block's amendment. Do you want a recorded vote, colleagues, on Mrs. Block's amendment?

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Can we have it read back?

The Chair :

Read it back to Mr. Bachrach.

The Clerk :

It's that “The committee hold at least two meetings on this topic starting with the CEO of Canada Post”. (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :