44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2024 10:00AM
- Mar/22/24 11:55:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we knew that the January deadline for paying back the Canada emergency business account without penalty was threatening the survival of our SMEs. We did everything we could to warn the government. Now it is reaping what it sowed.
The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy reported that the number of insolvency cases climbed by 129% in January. January 2024 was the worst month on record since the office was established 40 years ago. We are seeing a wave of bankruptcies because of the intransigence of this visionless government. What is it going to do today to stop the bleeding?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 11:56:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us talk numbers. In 2023, Equifax had already reported a 44% increase in business bankruptcies. Based on the January 2024 data, this year will be even worse.
No one in the House should consider that acceptable. The government has to be flexible with businesses. It needs to talk to them directly and examine files on a case-by-case basis. It cannot continue to be there just for the sake of it and do nothing as companies go bankrupt.
When will it finally open its eyes and take responsibility for preventing bankruptcies?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 2:05:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to defend the Parliament of Canada, since I hope there will come a day when Quebec no longer has to answer to this institution. However, I have a duty to defend the principles that this Parliament embodies, including respect for the democratic institutions and parliamentary democracy in which Quebec currently participates.
We have been dealing with what could be called a new scandal in recent weeks. This is about ArriveCAN, an app that was supposed to cost $80,000 but may have cost $60 million. We are not even sure. The Auditor General issued a report on the government's management of the ArriveCAN app. In her words, the management of the ArriveCAN app was the worst she had seen in her career. We are finding out that the ArriveCAN file is just the tip of the iceberg. Every time we turn over a stone, we learn something new.
We found out that there were situations where Canada Border Services Agency staff were attending activities to which some suppliers, like the ones we are talking about today in relation to the question of privilege, were invited. The average management costs were $1,090 a day, when an equivalent position in the technology sector costs $675 a day on average. All kinds of shocking details are coming to light bit by bit. Every thread we tug on reveals new information.
The person we are talking about today, Kristian Firth, justified his hourly rate of $2,600 by saying that he did not just work from nine to five. No, we know that his company does not provide any services, as he told us. It does not provide any products to the government, yet Mr. Firth himself said that he submitted over 1,500 invoices monthly.
He says that the amount jumped suddenly. The contract we are talking about here went from $2.35 million to $13.9 million. That is taxpayer money. At the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, of which I am honoured to be a member, the Comptroller General of Canada recently revealed that GC Strategies, the company founded by Mr. Firth, and its predecessor, Coredal Systems Consulting, had obtained nearly $108 million in contracts since 2011.
What we also learned in recent days is that some manual searches enable the government and some departments to find other contracts. This suggests that more than $108 million was paid out. An amount was mentioned, but no one is sure what the correct number is. La Presse indicated that it was $250 million. Several amounts have been mentioned. It is a big problem when we are unable to find out how much a person who has no respect for the democratic institutions of Quebec and Canada is making. How much money did that person get? The government cannot even tell us.
According to what Kristian Firth told the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, he and his associate were pocketing 21%. If we estimate that those contracts were worth $108 million, then those two people, Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony, received 21% of $108 million. That is about $23 million, which is an enormous amount given that no services were provided. If that is not mismanagement of public funds, then what is?
These individuals saw a loophole. Therein lies the problem. They have no respect for taxpayers' money, and they have shown repeatedly in committee that they have no respect for Canadian institutions, which represent Canadians and Quebeckers alike. These same individuals were awarded contracts under both the Liberals as well as the Conservatives, when their firm was called Coredal Systems Consulting. In fact, Coredal, which had been founded some 10 years earlier, was bought out by Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony. Initially, Caleb White was part of it as well. However, the firm changed its name to GC Strategies when there was a change of government.
GC Strategies and Coredal Systems Consulting have the same owners, with the exception of Caleb White, who, for reasons unknown, is no longer involved. GC Strategies received the bulk of its contracts from the Canada Border Services Agency in connection with ArriveCAN.
According to the Auditor General's report, many of these contracts were awarded in a non-competitive process. Emails that recently came to light reveal that Public Services and Procurement Canada had raised a red flag. Despite the pandemic, PSPC noted that it was strange to award a contract worth several million dollars over three years when these individuals claimed that the emergency situation justified them getting a contract without a competition. If the situation was really that urgent, why the rush to award a three-year contract? Something does not add up here.
Even though Public Services and Procurement Canada sounded the alarm, the Canada Border Services Agency, at the behest of certain individuals within the agency, ultimately decided to award the contracts with Public Services and Procurement Canada's approval. Now, unfortunately, PSPC has to make sure that this kind of thing does not happen again and that people like Kristian Firth do not wrongfully cash in on public funds.
Another point I would like to raise is that Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony own a numbered company. That should set off an alarm bell. The fact that they have a numbered company tells us that their business may not necessarily be above board. Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony met in 2010 or so, when they worked for Veritaaq Technology House. The two left Veritaaq Technology House in about 2010. Are members aware that, in 2009, the same firm and the same executives pleaded guilty to bid rigging? Any idea who else was involved? It was none other than the Canada Border Services Agency.
These individuals, employed by Veritaaq Technology House when the company was accused of bid rigging, were already working for Veritaaq Technology House when the judge asked that all Veritaaq Technology House employees, including Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony, receive training on what constitutes bid rigging. Therefore, they were well aware of what they were doing when they drafted the RFP that enabled GC Strategies to win a multimillion-dollar competitive contract for ArriveCAN. Both individuals knew full well what they were doing.
Thanks to the Auditor General's work, we know that these two individuals took part in whiskey tastings, dinners, golf tournaments and dozens of other events attended by Canada Border Services Agency officials, and, let it be noted, not just the two who were suspended.
The pretext of emergency has been raised many times to justify the ArriveCAN affair. During the pandemic, controls were less stringent, and so on. However, the number of non-competitive contracts had risen sharply since 2016, and 2023, which was after the pandemic, saw the highest number since 2016.
Some very serious issues are currently being studied by several committees. It was in this context that the owners of GC Strategies were called to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts heard from the CEO of Dalian, the other company in a very similar situation. Without going into detail, because that is not the subject of today's debate, I would suggest that that individual was also in contempt of Parliament when he refused to answer questions and gave completely contradictory answers from start to finish.
One of my colleagues from the Liberal Party said that she was pleased to see that these people had managed to get all of Parliament on the same wavelength. In other words, she said that we all agree that these individuals woefully lacked respect for the institutions.
Evidently, this question of privilege has been raised in terms of contempt of Parliament. Contempt of Parliament is defined as any act or omission that offends the authority or dignity of Parliament.
The question of privilege raised by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is quite relevant. Kristian Firth finally agreed to come testify again before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, after several attempts. We were even prepared to have the Sergeant-at-Arms force him to come. He agreed to come back to the committee on March 13.
He made a statement and the committee members asked a series of question about his role in the ArriveCAN app. During his testimony, Mr. Firth refused to answer many of the committee's questions, and several times he claimed to be doing so because an RCMP investigation was under way. I should also point out that the CEO of the other company, Mr. Yeo, said that the RCMP had never contacted him. Again, who is telling the truth? In the same investigation related to bid rigging, the signatures used without consent and all the rest, there is a CEO, Mr. Firth, who refused to answer the committee's questions under the pretext that the RCMP was investigating the matter and another who told us in committee that the RCMP never contacted him. Again, who is telling the truth? There are likely several separate instances of contempt of Parliament, there.
For now, I want to focus on what happened in committee that day. Certain statements in Mr. Firth's testimony were challenged as being misleading or untrue. In fact, he was even asked if he had told the truth. Mr. Firth replied that he had made a mistake with the terms “chalet” and “cottage”. Honestly, can we be serious for a minute? Who mixes up terms like “cottage” and “chalet” or whatever? To answer like that with a smile is insulting to the members of the committee, who are trying to find answers to perfectly legitimate questions about where taxpayers' money is going and how it is used.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates pointed out that page 1081 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice says the following about duly sworn witnesses—and, yes, Mr. Firth was sworn in at the beginning of the meeting: “...refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not.” That is what Mr. Firth did; he repeatedly refused to answer questions from committee members.
As a result, and because Mr. Firth refused to answer some questions and the veracity of his answers was in question, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates adopted a motion to raise the question of privilege. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supported that question of privilege. We were at committee, we asked Mr. Firth questions, and we saw that there was indeed contempt of Parliament. I am therefore pleased about the Speaker's ruling, since we agree with it and we agree with the motion that was moved today.
With regard to the amendment, there are a number of factors to consider. The first, as my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said, is that, unfortunately, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs often acts in a very partisan way and could cause delays in what needs to happen anyway. It is up to the House of Commons, the Speaker, to decide whether a person who has committed contempt of Parliament should be brought before the bar to answer members' questions and thus submit to the minimum that is required of someone who respects democratic institutions, which is to answer the questions of committee members.
Let us not forget that members of Parliament represent the people and the population. We get these kinds of questions every day. Everyone is talking about the ArriveCAN affair these days. It is not just here that this is happening. We are not in a bubble. This is everyone's business. Right now, people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Meanwhile, certain individuals and companies are receiving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, providing no services and, worse still, failing to take responsibility.
They are not taking any responsibility in all this. When they do deign to answer us, they do it with a smile. It is very insulting.
We are still thinking about whether the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It is important to understand that the House has the power to decide what will happen to these individuals. We first want to ensure that everyone in the House agrees that there was contempt of Parliament and that these individuals, particularly Kristian Firth, but also Darren Anthony and potentially Mr. Yeo, must answer the questions of Quebec and Canadian parliamentarians. We want to ensure that everyone here agrees that they must appear before the bar and hear the Speaker's decision and ruling on their actions, which are absolutely shameful.
2177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 2:23:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that upholding a degree of decorum is important. However, decorum is needed from both sides.
When someone so flagrantly disrespects members in committee and has no respect for democratic institutions, as I said several times in my speech, they must appear at the bar no matter what, because they are in contempt of Parliament.
If she is worrying at this stage about whether there will be decorum when this person appears at the bar, she is missing the point. Was this person in contempt of Parliament? The answer is yes.
According to the Chair, this individual is in contempt of Parliament and must therefore appear at the bar and answer members' questions. That is what the Bloc Québécois has to say.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 2:25:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are two committees that are conducting a very intense study of the ArriveCAN issue. There is the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which we have talked about at length, and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, of which I am a member. We have been studying this issue for a long time.
It is thanks to the questions that members ask and then relay through the media that the public finds out what happened. It is our work in committee and the responses that we get from witnesses that help us shed light on this story. As we know, it is a wild story. As I said in my speech, certain people disrespected our institutions. They may have stolen taxpayer money, because receiving money and not providing any services in return is called stealing.
The answers we get to our questions are very important for ensuring that democracy continues to work and for building public trust in democratic institutions. That is why a person who purposely refuses to answer questions has to be charged with contempt of Parliament so that this does not happen again. It sends a signal to all witnesses, present and future, that when they appear in committee, they have to answer the questions.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 2:28:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing is important. Whether it happened last year or 100 years ago, contempt of Parliament has been committed. In that context, it does not really matter what will happen from a procedural perspective. Does the fact that this procedure has not been followed recently mean that we need to add an additional step when calling that individual to the bar, as my colleague said?
Does this justify referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs? I do not know. What I do know is that contempt of Parliament has been committed and that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can in fact meet over the next two weeks, even if it has to happen at a time when we are in our ridings to be closer to our constituents.
Perhaps the committee can meet to discuss the matter, but the most important thing to me is this: If the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examines the issue, will it put partisan concerns aside? Will it place the democratic institutions that represent Quebeckers and Canadians above the interests of individual political parties?
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
