SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 286 - Feb/27/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/27/24 4:50:04 p.m.
Watch

The member cannot say indirectly what cannot be said directly, and so I would invite the member to be more prudent and perhaps apologize to the other members.

28 words

Mr. Charles Sousa

Feb/27/24 4:50:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House are focused on finding the truth and making sure that those responsible are held accountable—

25 words

Mr. Marty Morantz

Feb/27/24 4:50:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, with respect, you just asked the member to apologize and he did not; he went on with his speech. He called us liars. He needs to apologize or he needs to be removed from the chamber.

44 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/27/24 4:50:25 p.m.
Watch

I would invite the hon. member to apologize so that we can move on.

14 words

Mr. Charles Sousa

Feb/27/24 4:50:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my apologies, I am not suggesting that people lie in this House. However, I am suggesting that we are focused on finding the truth and making sure that those responsible are held accountable. Because the truth is of the utmost importance, I want to set the record straight about some of the less clear messages being spread by the Conservatives. I will give those members across the way the benefit of the doubt for that matter as maybe they confuse the comment sections of their Facebook livestreams with reality. The truth is that the Office of the Auditor General does not investigate elected officials, it investigates public servants. The findings in the Auditor General's report were unacceptable, which is why the CBSA has referred allegations to the RCMP as well as launched an independent investigation. Another theory that has been spread is that somehow an app that was designed as a response to the COVID-19 crisis that served Canadians across multiple digital platforms and systems while addressing privacy, security and linguistic requirements would only cost $80,000. I hope the Conservative colleagues use this opportunity to retract those statements, that is unless they are making a conscious decision to somehow mislead Canadians, because everyone knows that this application never would have cost that amount. In closing, we are taking action. We know that there is more do. We accept all recommendations of the procurement ombudsman and the Auditor General, and we share with Canadians their concern. There is no doubt that the ArriveCAN app was a useful tool in keep Canadians safe, but the allegations related to the procurement of professional services for this app are simply unacceptable. As I have outlined, the government is making important changes to avoid this ever happening again, and we are actively exploring other ways to further strengthen our procurement process. Before I close, I will reiterate that members of the public service should be proud of the way they supported Canadians during the pandemic, particularly with regards to the urgent procurement of critical supplies and life-saving vaccines. The revelations we are discussing today relate to individuals involved in the procurement of services for a portion of the ArriveCAN app, which should not be a reflection of the hard work of public servants during that time of crisis. We owe it to them, to all Canadians, to make this right by safeguarding the integrity of the federal procurement process, and we are committed to doing just that.

418 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/27/24 4:53:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish to give notice that, with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 35, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

43 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Feb/27/24 4:53:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I spend a fair amount of time with that colleague on OGGO on the issue. I appreciate his comments and I take him at his word on his sincerity to address the procurement issues. One of the things that came up from the procurement ombudsman's report is what it calls a bait and switch, where services are proposed but actual services delivered to the government are less than what was in the contract. I wonder if the member can fill us in on what PSPC is doing across the breadth of government to address the bait and switch issues that have been brought forward by the ombudsman.

110 words

Mr. Charles Sousa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

Feb/27/24 4:54:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a good point. We actually did deliberate that during our committee sessions. We also noted that this practice is constant throughout procurement in industry and various other governments, and certainly it was the case in the Conservative government previously. For the portion of the contract that was provided, oftentimes the employer will determine other relevant activities that are occurring, things change and then they are used for other functions, but that is not a common practice. In this particular case, because things were being done so quickly and urgently, I think the ombudsman made it clear that there was quite a lot of that switching that was taking place during that moment of crisis. We need to be careful about ensuring that the work that was prescribed and the reasons they were contracted is what they will ultimately do. That is the case in a contract and subcontract basis, which, as I said, is a very common practice throughout the industry. We are sensitive to the degree of skills and abilities within our civil service to do that work, and when it is not able to, we prescribe outside to do so, and that is what has occurred here.

203 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/27/24 4:55:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, working with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, commonly called the mighty OGGO, is a pleasure. We have ArriveCAN, where there seems to have been some slip-up. I understand that the situation required fast action, but at some point, the slip-ups keep happening. We have ArriveCAN. Before that it was passports. Before that it was the WE Charity. Before that, it keeps going, it was Phoenix. The reason is always the same: We have to move fast, we have to work, we have to get going. At some point, do we not need to stop, look around, shift the focus to people's qualifications and put down the rubber stamp?

119 words

Mr. Charles Sousa

Feb/27/24 4:56:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the Chair is watching us intently and very much likes to address us as “the mighty OGGO”. It is certainly mighty indeed, and the member from the Bloc also does a tremendous and excellent job, and I apologize for not responding to her in French. I wish I could. I am taking lessons, but that speaks to skills. The skill set that you are asking for, and hope the civil service can have, needs to be improved upon. I recognize that I should speak through the Speaker. Maybe she can translate on my behalf to the third official language of the country, as it should be. The member has commented on the degree of competency, integrity and skill sets within the civil service to do the work, and had that been available to us during the ArriveCAN application, we may have been able to expedite things even more quickly, but that did not exist. The resources were not available to us, we had to procure them and go through a contract system and a subcontract system, similar to what has been done in the past, but we have recognized the ability. We should be improving our internal service for that reason.

207 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/27/24 4:58:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really want to talk about the fact that small business has suffered. Over the time that the Liberal government was opening the doors to their friends and their insiders to dole out contracts in a way that was not following protocol, small businesses were left without government contracts. We know right now that the PPE providers who were told by the government that it would purchase that PPE did not get the orders that they were expecting. Right now in my community, one of those PPE suppliers suffered financial losses from the Liberal government not following through with its promises on Canadian-made PPE. Why is it that the government continues to hand out money to its insiders and leave small businesses, like the ones in my community, without purchase orders?

134 words

Mr. Charles Sousa

Feb/27/24 4:59:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I recognize the importance of trying to buy more Canadian and provide more Canadian supplier incentives. Certainly, that is something we are trying to address. I believe that part of the framework, when it comes to selections, especially for the new ones to make them suppliers for our procurement, is something that is being looked at. I appreciate that and we will certainly continue to do our best to improve upon the tens of thousands of procurement contracts that exist in this government every year.

87 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Feb/27/24 4:59:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from OGGO, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I think if we have three OGGOs in a row we will have an OGGO hat trick. I rise to speak on ArriveCAN. As it has consumed my life for the last year, why not continue to speak about it today on our opposition day motion? ArriveCAN to me seems to be a symbol of our government's inability to do procurement right and how the procurement practices of the government have descended into chaos. ArriveCAN we know is a hot mess. We have heard of tens of thousands of emails having been deleted and records lost or perhaps not even kept in the first place. We do not know the final cost of ArriveCAN and there are too many opinions out there as to what it actually cost, whether it was $80,000, $6 million, $60 million or, as the Auditor General has said, we do not have the records to actually say what the final cost is. We have heard of many updates to the program. There were 177. At the same time, we have also heard from the Auditor General and PHAC that the updates were not tested before being rolled out to the public. Of course, we heard of the 10,000 people who were sent into quarantine in error because it apparently was not tested. Whatever the cost was, $6 million, $60 million, one would think it would have been tested. At the same time, we also heard from bureaucrats in the CBSA who said that everything was tested, so we have a problem here. We cannot get a straight answer on what went on with ArriveCAN. I will note that the head of PHAC, when asked about the testing, commented that it was too busy to test it. I can see Air Canada doing that without testing, but can members imagine any other company coming out with an important update that affects the lives of people without testing it? Apparently, the government did not. Again, the problem is that we have not received a straight answer. Getting back to the ArriveCAN set-up, we heard that there were 177 updates. We knew things were changing during the pandemic, but we did not have 177 changes to help people who were coming across the borders, or 177 different ways to identify whether they had been vaccinated or not. It seems to be that the problem was with the procurement process for all of these changes, each one costing more money, willy-nilly done by PHAC or an order in council from the government without any thought to the consequences. As I mentioned in a previous question to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for public works, we heard the procurement ombudsman talk about bait and switch. If people want to know what bait and switch is, the easiest way for me to explain it is this. Basically, companies promise a higher level of services to the government and then substitute a lower level. Perhaps it would be like someone going to a speaker's service to hire a speaker for an event. The service promises to have the Leader of the Opposition come and therefore will charge a certain amount, but perhaps the member for Edmonton West shows up. Even if the speech is not as good, the client would still have to pay the full amount. That is what is happening and the procurement ombudsman has stated that this bait and switch program is systemic throughout the government. We also heard how it started as a program within the Public Health Agency of Canada and then transferred over eventually to the CBSA. The program transferred over the work, but it did not seem to transfer over the accountability. All we get is finger-pointing. We have seen people blaming GC Strategies for bidding on and receiving the work. We have blamed Dalian and Coradix for getting the work. When I say “we”, I mean the system, the government. We have blamed directors general within the CBSA saying that they were responsible for procurement even though that was not their role, and that they were responsible for the contracts even though it is the chief financial officers who signed. We heard today that the system is to blame. Do members know that we have not heard from the government who is to blame. What about the ministers? I have to ask: Where was the Minister of Health in all of this when PHAC was spinning out of control and flashing money at the system without any thought to the taxpayers? Where was the Minister of Public Safety when all these problems were going on with CBSA? Where was the Treasury Board president when, through the supplementary estimates process, money was added? The Treasury Board would have had to approve that submission to begin with. Where was the Treasury Board president to ask where the government was to take responsibility, instead of blaming the contractors or the people within the public service? I want to read a quote from pm.gc.ca, PM meaning the Prime Minister. This is from the website: Open and Accountable Government sets out core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of Ministers in Canada’s system of responsible...government. This includes the central tenet of ministerial responsibility...individual and collective.... This is right from the Prime Minister's website. Anyone can google it right now. It is about ministerial responsibility, yet we have none with this. We have $60 million, perhaps more, perhaps less, spent without a single minister asking once why we were spending so much money, or why we were not testing this program. We should have had several ministers step up when 10,000 Canadians were sent into quarantine in error. They should have followed up and asked why we were not testing it before it was rolled out. Not a single minister stepped up and apologized. Instead, we have public servants being scapegoated, contractors being blamed and a system being blamed, but there is nothing from the ministers. We also heard how PSPC, in its role as procurement officers for the country, pushed back against CBSA for some excessive things in this program. When CBSA thanked them for the advice but still went ahead with that misguided process, PSPC just shrugged and said that it was nice and that it did its part. Doing its part by simply saying it does not like something and walking away shows that PSPC is not taking its role seriously. This brings me back to a similar issue with CBSA and PSPC a couple of years ago with the Nuctech scandal. Nuctech is basically the Chinese screening version of Huawei. Worldwide, it provides screeners controlled by the PRC, and CBSA decided it was going to put those machines in every single one of our embassies around the entire country. They are machines that, once they had screened people, would send that information to the Chinese government. PSPC actually stepped in and said that it was a security concern and that it should not be done. CBSA plowed ahead and did it anyway. Again, we have to ask PSPC what its purpose was if it was not going to stop them and enforce these rules. Funny enough, when it came up at OGGO, when we stepped in and brought this to light, the government's response was to hire Deloitte to do a contract to study the Nuctech issue. There was $250,000 outsourced to a management contractor, and it came up with a 24-page fluff report basically stating not to buy sensitive security tech equipment from despotic regimes. Thank heaven for Deloitte, and thank heaven for that $250,000. Think of how many contracts could have gone to Putin or to Kim Jong-un without the Liberals' and Deloitte's $250,000 to say not to buy sensitive security equipment from despotic regimes. It is clear that the Liberal government does not care about taxpayers' money. It is clear that PSPC, CBSA and the ministers are not doing their jobs to follow the rules, to protect taxpayers' money, to ensure that the rules are followed and that we actually have value for money. The Conservative government will fix this. We will ensure the rules are followed. We will axe the tax. We will build homes. We will fix the budget. We will stop crime. We will fix procurement in this country.

1434 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/27/24 5:09:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member did good in terms of the lines, so the programming worked in that sense, I must say. My question to the member is about something I raised previously with respect to his own leader. The leader of the Conservative Party was the minister ultimately responsible for millions of dollars' worth of grants that went to Coredal Systems Consulting, which is the same company as GC Strategies with just a change in name. The same two individuals are involved in both companies. Does he believe this should also be considered? Many constituents who we represent are wondering how two individuals get to the point where they were able to do what they did through the procurement process. I think that going back to the origins of the company would be a good thing. Would he not agree?

140 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/27/24 5:10:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for moving on from blaming Harper for all of Canada's problems to blaming someone else. When we talk about ministerial responsibility and when the Prime Minister's website talks about ministerial responsibility, they mean current ministers, not past ministers. The gentleman should direct his question to the Minister of Public Safety, the minister of PHAC and the Treasury Board president, and ask why they did not do their jobs to prevent this scandal.

82 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Feb/27/24 5:11:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the ArriveCAN situation is a disaster. In my colleague's opinion, rather than blaming the system, should the government not be questioning whether it is itself responsible or even incompetent?

36 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/27/24 5:11:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is correct. The government should be looking in the mirror and asking what it could do to fix its broken procurement system. Whether it is spending three-quarters of a billion dollars over-budget on the offshore patrol ships that do not work or whether it is giving out billions of dollars to Deloitte and KPMG, the government needs to address the issues, stop pointing outward and start looking in the mirror to see where the issue is, and start addressing the issue.

90 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/27/24 5:12:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing the New Democrats agree with the Conservatives on is that it is always wrong when taxpayer dollars are wasted in unnecessary procurement. The structural problem here is a series of successive federal governments that contract out work instead of using the public sector to provide these services. I was in the House when I watched the Conservatives contract out the Phoenix pay system, which was supposed to save $80 million. It ended up costing over $2 billion, and it does not even work. Now, we see the Liberals contract out this work to ArriveCAN, and we see similar results. Does my hon. colleague not agree with the NDP that it is time we use the talents and the skills of Canada's public servants to deliver these kinds of services, instead of giving money to the private sector contractors who are more interested in profit and the ability to abscond with money than they are in providing real value to the taxpayers of this country?

169 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/27/24 5:13:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree a tiny bit with my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway's comments. There is some value done that cannot be done internally, but there is a lot being done that should have been done internally. I will give an example. The government gave three contracts to Deloitte, at $75,000 per contract, to do RFP fairness assessments for a security contract for the same event on Vancouver Island. This is work that PSPC should be doing: fairness assessments. We do not need to hire outside contractors to tell the government that the work it would be doing follows the rules. The government should just follow the rules, and use the employees we have to ensure the work is done correctly.

123 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Feb/27/24 5:14:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Edmonton West for his amazing work. He is one of the few MPs in this House who takes his fiduciary responsibilities to a whole new level. He actually goes through all the public accounts and makes sure that we are spending money wisely. Here we have, right now, the arrive scam situation with over $19 million going into the hands of two individuals working out of their cottage in the Ottawa suburbs. We have a Westminster system here where there is supposed to be ministerial accountability, so I would ask the member for Edmonton West this: Who is responsible for it? Is it the President of the Treasury Board; the Minister of Public Services and Procurement; the Minister of Public Safety, who contracted the CBSA to go out there and contract the arrive scam and waste $60 million on absolutely nothing; or, is it the Prime Minister himself?

157 words