44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 12, 2024 11:00AM
- Feb/12/24 2:42:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the two insiders at GC Strategies worked with the NDP-Liberal government to set the requirements of the arrive scam contracts, which GC Strategies then got.
In other words, the process was rigged. The government massively overpaid for the $60-million glitchy app, because the process was rigged. It was rigged so that GC Strategies got $20 million from taxpayers and did no actual work.
After eight years, it is clear the Prime Minister's arrive scam app is not worth the cost or the corruption. Why did the Prime Minister rig the process to pay insiders and punish taxpayers?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 2:44:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, everything I said is directly in the Auditor General's report, so the minister cannot claim he is listening to that report yet deny what I said.
Well-connected insiders averaged $1,100 per day for working on this contract. After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption. The Prime Minister's arrive scam process was clearly rigged, and now Canadians are out tens of millions of dollars when they can least afford it.
Why did the Prime Minister rig the process to pay insiders and punish taxpayers?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 3:14:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek—
Some hon. members: No.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 4:05:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present a number of petitions to the House on behalf of my constituents.
The first petition I will present today deals with the issue of parental rights. The petitioners note that the Liberal government has sought to involve itself in decisions that should be made by parents and provinces.
They further note that the Conservative leader has criticized the government's attempt at interference in this area and called on the Prime Minister to butt out of provincial decisions. In particular, they reference the New Brunswick policy in this respect.
They say that, in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them much more than any state-run institutions do. The role of the government is to support families and respect parents, not to dictate to them how they should make decisions for their children. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to butt out and let parents raise their own children.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 4:07:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am presenting highlights concerns about the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. The petitioners describe the history of that persecution, including the work done by the late David Kilgour and David Matas on uncovering the horrors of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
The petitioners call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. They ask the Government of Canada to do more to combat this persecution.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 4:07:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am presenting highlights concerns about how the government is attacking freedom of choice in health care as it relates to access to natural health products.
The petitioners note that it is a fundamental right of individuals to choose how to prevent or address illness or injury in their own bodies. They say that Canadians are competent to make their own health care decisions without state interference.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to respect the health freedom of Canadians and reverse the changes the government made with respect to natural health products in the last budget implementation act.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 4:08:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am presenting shares the concerns of petitioners with respect to the government's radical agenda on euthanasia. In particular, the petitioners are raising concern about proposals to expand euthanasia to children.
They note that Dr. Louis Roy of the Quebec college of physicians recommended expanding euthanasia even to “babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes”. The petitioners find that proposal repugnant and believe that infanticide is always wrong. Therefore, they call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to legalize the killing of children.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, next I am pleased to present a petition in support of a Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-257, which would add political belief or activity to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The petitioners identify that all Canadians have a right to be protected against freedom from discrimination, that many Canadians face political discrimination or discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity, and that it is a fundamental right to be politically active and vote without fear of reprisal. They say that it is in the best interest of Canadian democracy to protect public debate and the exchange of different ideas.
As Bill C-257 would add this additional language to the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would protect people from political discrimination and create an environment where people can feel free to express themselves on important issues of the day without fear of reprisal.
Therefore, the petitioners ask the House to support Bill C-257 and defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 4:10:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition that I am presenting raises a concern about a proposal from the government and the Liberal Party in its last election platform to effectively politicize charitable status determinations. The Liberals proposed to deny charitable status to organizations with convictions regarding abortion that the Liberal Party does not like. This, petitioners say, would jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party on matters of conscience.
The government has previously used a values test to discriminate against worthy applicants to the Canada summer jobs program, denying funding to any organization for which the applicants are not willing to check a box endorsing political positions of the governing party. This proposal would amount to a second values test.
The petitioners say that charities and other non-profit organizations should not be discriminated against on the basis of political views or religious values and should not be subject to a politicized values test. Therefore, the petitioners call on the House and the government to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values or the imposition of another values test, and to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 4:11:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition that I am presenting raises a concern about cuts that the government has made to women's shelters, in a context in which we see ballooning spending in other areas. The petitioners point out that women's shelters are, sadly, seeing increased demand and that the high cost of living and the housing crisis have made it harder for women and children fleeing a violent home to find a safe place to live. At a time when the Liberal government is dramatically increasing spending on bureaucracy and consultants, it is cutting $145 million in funding to women's shelters. Therefore, petitioners call on the Government of Canada to restore funding for women's shelters that has been cut.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 5:41:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech and his excellent work. I want to ask him a question about economic reconciliation as it relates to procurement. One of the ways we advance economic reconciliation is that we seek to ensure that government procurement is available to indigenous-owned businesses as well as to businesses owned by other historically disadvantaged communities, and that there are not aspects of the procurement system that are excluding people who have been historically disadvantaged.
One of the problems we have seen as we have unravelled the Auditor General's arrive scam report is that there are systems built into government procurement that are designed to advantage incumbent players; that is, someone has to have had a certain number of contracts with the Government of Canada already. This means that if someone has not dealt with the government before, has started a new business or has had other governments as clients but has have never sold products to the federal government before, they are systematically disadvantaged.
In the past, I have heard from stakeholders asking, for example, why we are not meeting our targets in terms of indigenous-owned businesses' getting government procurement. We then find out, in the context of the procurement ombudsman's report, that one of the reasons is probably that there is a systematic advantage, as a result of the way the system is designed, that steers toward incumbent players and insiders, even if other people have innovative ideas.
I would be curious to have the member's thoughts on how we can advance economic reconciliation by addressing some of the issues in the arrive scam scandal, and more broadly, on what prevents new entrants from participating in government procurement.
293 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 5:51:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has risen on a point of order that is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. If he thinks that the member is mistaken in some substantive point she made in her speech, the appropriate time to raise that would be during questions and comments. We should not be using points of order to make points of argument.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 6:07:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask this member a specific question about anti-indigenous violence and reconciliation. One of the sad, continuing examples of anti-indigenous violence that we have seen in this country has been a series of attacks on churches in indigenous communities. Many churches in indigenous communities, sacred spaces for indigenous Christians, steeped in personal and familial traditions and sometimes containing important community records, have been vandalized or burned down. These acts of arson are not just damaging to property; they are also very dangerous to human life. I have noticed that we have not heard anything from the NDP on these incidents.
Will the hon. member join me in condemning these attacks on churches that we have seen in indigenous communities?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 6:13:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to follow up to my previous question, I thought my question was fairly clear. I characterized those attacks on churches as a form of anti-indigenous violence. That is, somebody has, in many cases, burned down churches in indigenous communities, and I see that as attacks on those communities. I thought that was clear in my initial question, but I will repeat the point. I am in no way making any assumptions or suggestions about who is doing that. I am concerned not only about how those attacks on churches undermine religious freedom, but also about how they are an aspect of destruction of the cultural property of those indigenous communities. We have not heard statements from the NDP condemning those attacks on churches.
Again, in the spirit of condemning anti-indigenous violence, I wonder if the member would be willing to join me, to join us, in condemning those various attacks we have seen on churches in indigenous communities.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 6:37:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's riding has a very large number of indigenous people within it. It is also central to Canada's energy sector, and she spoke a bit about that in her speech in the context of the carbon tax.
It seems to me that when the government talks about reconciliation, what it actually means is listening only to some indigenous people who share its views on resource development and environmental issues, and that in the process it very often ignores indigenous people who are looking for economic reconciliation and opportunity, and who are part of the development of Canada's resource sector. I have posed this question to the government in the past with respect to what reconciliation means in the context of the indigenous communities that are asking for and benefiting from energy development and wanting the projects to proceed instead of being blocked. The response I always get back is essentially that it claims indigenous people agree with it.
We recognize that there is a diversity of perspectives within indigenous communities, but many are involved in the resource sector. I wonder whether the member could share a bit about what she is hearing in her riding on economic reconciliation and the role indigenous peoples are playing in energy development.
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to address the House on Bill C-29. My understanding of the schedule today is that I have about 12 minutes and then we will continue when we next come back to the bill. I know some members are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to ask questions or make comments, but they will sadly need to wait until this bill is next up for consideration.
It has been a pleasure for me to listen to many of the interesting and insightful speeches that have been given by my colleagues. There might have been a few less interesting and insightful speeches given, but I will not name any names.
I wanted to, first of all, identify some of the key aspects of this bill and then drill into a few specific areas around reconciliation. Bill C-29, for those just joining us, deals with the creation of a national council for reconciliation. This is a body that was called for in the calls to action associated with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and it now seeks to, through legislation, give life to that specific recommendation by creating a council that would be responsible for, in various fora, providing advice and recommendations around reconciliation. This specifically responds to calls to action 53 through 56.
I would just note out of interest that we do seem to see a number of these legislative proposals from the government for the creation of advisory councils or bodies that would be representative of some community of concern and provide advice to the government on specific issues. What I always look for in these kinds of proposals is whether these advisory bodies would have the capacity to authentically represent the people they are supposed to represent or whether these advisory bodies are subject to such a level of control by the government that they would be more limited in being able to be representative or operate independently.
I can think of a similar case of the creation of an advisory body on child care, where the government said it was going to create a child care advisory body. In every case, the impulse of the government is to say it is going to create this consultative advisory body that will be an important stakeholder that will inform it of situations on the ground, but then to, at the same time, create a system in which the power of creation of appointment, and maybe in some cases in an ongoing way and in other cases just in the first instance, is by a minister. This obviously creates challenges for that body to be authentically representative or to challenge the government with an alternative conception of how to proceed in a policy area that may be different from what the government is proposing.
If the government says it wants to have an independent body advising it that is going to be championing specific issues such as child care, reconciliation and some other issue and yet it is going to choose the people on that body, then to what extent is that body able to be a meaningful check on what the government is doing? This is an important area of caution in general. I would hope to see, and suspect the framers of the calls to action were more thinking of, a council for reconciliation that could provide that check on government.
I note the legislation, Bill C-29, does identify certain organizations that should be represented on the council. The problem with that is if the minister is still choosing the individual, that there must be someone from this group and someone from this group, or if the minister exercises a greater degree of discretion for a majority of those individuals, again that creates some obvious problems. It is something we need to be cautious about.
I note as well, as my colleagues have, there was no representation for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Members have pointed out in questions and comments it is possible the council might choose someone, in replacing a position, with an affiliation with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but it is also possible it might not. The fact that there are protections for the inclusion of specific voices and not for the inclusion of the voice that represents indigenous people living off reserve is a problem as well, and one that Conservatives have highlighted.
We have also spoken about economic reconciliation, and I will come to that. However, I want to add to the conversation with some reflections on diversity in procurement and on the inclusion of indigenous businesses in procurement. This is something that has been on my mind and the minds of many members today, of course, with the release of the explosive arrive scam report from the Auditor General. This report contains a variety of findings that I know we have had an opportunity to discuss and will have more opportunity to discuss in the House. Basically, the Auditor General found multiple levels of incompetence and corruption in government procurement associated with the procurement of the arrive scam app, with $60 million spent, but no certainty about how much money was actually spent; a complete lack of documentation and tracking; a two-person company that was hired, with no IT experience, to do an IT application; and on and on. Why in the world was this company hired? Who made this decision? We are still asking these questions.
However, the Auditor General's report builds on work that was done by the procurement ombudsman, who identified aspects in the procurement system that are loaded towards insiders. This is important for the discussion that I want to have in the context of the bill before us, which is diversity and inclusion in the context of procurement.
For a long time, there have been asks from indigenous business owners. I have also met with leaders in the Black business community and representatives of other communities, who are saying that they want to see more inclusion of businesses from their community in the procurement system. Governments have talked about this. They have set targets, which they have not always achieved. There has been discussion about whether we should set quotas or targets, how we should do this, and all of that.
However, if we look at the existing system, and this was revealed through the procurement ombudsman's report, we have a situation where there is actually strong protection in place for incumbent businesses. Therefore, we had a situation with GC Strategies, which is not what we think of as an incumbent business. It is not massive; it is a two-person company with lots of close connections with government. It gets the work, it subcontracts and it makes a lot of money in the process. There are a lot of problems there. However, we have this incumbent business with close relationships to the government. Then we find out that GC Strategies sat down with the government to discuss what the terms of the contract were going to be. Therefore, this company has a significant advantage, because it is sitting down with people in government that it has a relationship with, and it says, “We think you should ask for these specifications in the contract.” I think that process is effectively rigged.
The government then puts requirements in, where it says, “You have to have a certain amount of experience of having procured with the government.” This is a structure that advantages existing incumbent businesses with a lot of privilege. If a company is part of a historically disadvantaged community, such as an indigenous business owner or a business owner from another community who does not have the same privilege of access or incumbency in the existing system, then it is disadvantaged. It is not a matter of saying that people who may not have the best product should be advantaged. No, it is actually saying that, if we took out the protections for insiders who are not providing a good product, which is clear in the case of ArriveCAN, then we would probably see more diversity in procurement. If we had a more open, democratic, accessible procurement process where we were not protecting incumbent bidders, I think we would see more indigenous-owned and minority-owned businesses being able to engage in the procurement process.
When we talk about this issue of economic reconciliation, providing jobs and opportunity for people of diverse backgrounds, one easy way to do that is, to coin a phrase, to remove the gatekeepers. We can break down the systems in place that are preventing people who are in a situation where they may not have generational money, privilege or access to government, but who have good ideas and who have started their own businesses, from being able to access government procurement.
Part of economic reconciliation is to authentically democratize procurement to allow the opportunity for more businesses in Canada that have not sold to the Government of Canada before to nonetheless pitch their product as the best product. The other thing we heard from the procurement ombudsman is that they actually had a system for disadvantaging those who present low prices. It is crazy. People who did not ask for enough money when they were selling their product to the government got cut out.
One can imagine how, for someone who has not sold to the government before, but who says that they know what they are doing, that they can build this app, that they have a great product and that they are going to charge less to try to get the business, to still make a decent return but to try to charge less, with the existing system that the government has put forward, that new entrant, who might be trying to pitch at a lower price, is actually disadvantaged in the evaluation system purely because of the low price he has charged.
We want to create jobs and opportunity for all Canadians. Part of how we do that is by removing the gatekeepers that prevent authentic diversity and inclusion in our procurement system.
I might be on the verge of being done. When I come back, I will have more to say about economic reconciliation, jobs and opportunity for indigenous Canadians and how Conservatives will remove the gatekeepers to help make that happen.
I know that there is some discussion of a possible UC motion to allow me to speak more, but I think I will save the surprise for when I come back.
1773 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 7:17:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in follow up to my last session question period rhyme, we will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
Poverty, chaos, and gross food inflationHave become severe across this great nationLiberals they deny it, but these are just factsAnd that’s why the Tories will first axe the tax.You know costs are up if you know how to addSo many young adults must live with their dad While Liberals just think of their photos and combsA new Tory government will build the homes. Deficit spending kills jobs, drives up prices On things ranging from homes to cheap kitchen spices Liberals promise change, but at best they'll nudge itThe Tory party will soon fix the budget.Car thefts, extortion, drugs, deaths and disorder Under the misrule of PM wakeboarder It's getting dire, it is surely past time For some new leaders that will quickly stop crime. This session, these topics on which we'll opine Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime The call will resound across this great nation As people prepare for bright transformation As we prosecute government trespasses Liberals do nothing and sit on their...hands.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/12/24 7:23:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, on this side of the House we want to axe the tax. It seems across the way their priorities are to distract and to axe the facts, so let us insert some facts back into this discussion.
As we seek to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, let us be clear that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax is a failed experiment. The government has spent eight years talking about it and about how raising taxes is going to save the planet. It has not worked. The government has not met any of its environmental targets. The environment minister might be planning on climbing on a roof somewhere again because the government has not achieved the results it promised. It was an experiment, one of trying to force people to pay more to see whether that would fix the environmental problems we have. Clearly, it has failed.
Let us axe the tax instead of taking the government's approach of axing the facts.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
