SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

Mar/22/24 1:33:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the tools we have today allow for a range of steps. The first step, the one that is taken every day that a committee is in session in the House, is that we invite people to come to committee, whether stakeholders or people who are the subject of the report and played a part in government contracting like this. Then there is the rare occasion where we have individuals who decline. They may have different reasons for declining, but they decline. The committee can insist on that and, of course, issue a summons. It is exceedingly rare and we have to use the power of the full House. All members have to agree to send for those individuals, which was done in this case. The tools are there. I think the power of committees, the important work that we do, will be reinforced should this motion come to pass, because it sends an incredibly strong message about the seriousness with which all members take this matter and all matters that the House lawfully takes up at committee.

179 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 1:34:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary situation. Parliament reflects the will of the people, the will of all Canadians. Parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, have the right and the duty to seek the truth. We cannot allow those who disregard, disobey, disrespect, mislead or lie to Parliament or its parliamentary bodies to go scot-free. I would like to ask the member if he is satisfied with the current process, the mechanisms, the rules and regulations in place that we can use to go after Canadian individuals who disrespect Parliament. If he is not satisfied, are there any changes to the current process, tools or rules he would like to propose?

112 words

Disobey

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/22/24 1:35:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of Parliament and parliamentarians refreshing their comfort in using the tools available to them, this being an important one. Having individuals swear an oath before they come before committee has the same effect as an individual swearing an oath in a court of law. With respect to perjury, members of the public would have an understanding, even through pop culture, as to what the prospective penalties are for the offence. When we have individuals who are flatly refusing to attend or answer questions, we need to use the tools in our parliamentary tool box today. This tool is rarely used because it seems like it has been some time since anyone felt like they had greater power than Canada's 338 elected representatives. That is why I think it is so important that we offer the appropriate remedy in this case, and that is to get the answers for Canadians and admonish the individual who flouted the rules.

164 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Mar/22/24 1:37:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this issue forward. It is an important one for the House to debate. Like all Canadians, I have been watching what has been going on in the proceedings of the government operations committee, and I have been extremely disturbed by the lack of information being provided by this individual. I know the hon. member is involved in several committees, not the least of which is the government operations committee, but, because we are talking obstruction, I want to speak specifically to the obstructive tactics that have been going on in committee by the NDP-Liberal coalition, whether it is filibustering, amendments to motions to water things down or just generally obstructing the ability of the committee to do its work, especially on those committees where they have the majority.

138 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/22/24 1:38:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, making sure that the will of Canadians is reflected in the work that we do requires incredible fortitude. This is what we have had to put forward. As the official opposition, we have to be able to withstand the tactics of a government that has found itself, after eight years, mired in scandal. It is quite plain that it is just not worth the corruption to Canadians anymore. Pressing forward with an issue like this, though it is difficult and might seem uncomfortable to some who might want to send this off to another committee to look at, this has been dealt with at committee. The only thing another committee could do is confirm that there was prevarication, lies and a refusal to answer questions. That is why it is so important that the House is prepared to persevere, stick to it, get these answers and resolve the situation.

151 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/22/24 1:39:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to stick to the normal rotation when it comes to the speaking time of the three other parties after the motion is presented. I would ask you to continue that tradition. Obviously, the NDP fully supports this motion, particularly when it comes to ordering Mr. Firth to appear before the bar of the House to be reprimanded and, more importantly, to answer the questions raised in the 17th report. I want to thank the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his question of privilege, which I thought was solidly grounded in the traditions of the House as he presented it. I thought it was very effective. The reality is that New Democrats intervened at the time to say we believe the conditions were there for a prima facie question of privilege because of the lack of respect for the House. The Speaker's ruling, I think, confirms that, and we are now seized with the debate. It is a motion that allows for the ability of the House to reprimand Mr. Firth, call him to the bar and ensure that Canadians receive answers. We saw with the ETS scandal under the Conservative government there was $400 million involved, and now this scandal under the current government involves $60 million. We need to ensure these things never happen again. Would my colleague agree with the NDP that this is not the kind of thing that any Canadian should be tolerating?

253 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/22/24 1:41:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is devastating for all Canadians to see the waste, scandal and mismanagement after eight years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister. It is so important that parliamentarians recognize the incredible opportunity we have here right now to support this important motion so that anyone else thinking about engaging in some of kind of corrupt practices, cozying up with insiders, cozying up to people who are not forthright and thinking they are going to take the taxpayer for a ride, needs to understand that is unacceptable. Canada's Conservatives will restore ethics and accountability to Ottawa, but anyone who comes before a parliamentary committee must tell the truth and give fulsome answers. If they fail to do that, there will be real consequences. Canadians are still going to get answers because Canada's Conservatives will insist on nothing less.

143 words

Ottawa

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 1:42:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this debate on this question of privilege and the motion that has been put forward by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I want to thank him for bringing this forward. I would agree that this is an extremely serious matter. What we have seen occur at committee is the individuals in question being asked to appear, being summoned to appear, completely ignoring those requests and demands and then, finally, appearing after the threat of arrest was made. This is not conduct that any member of Parliament or any Canadian citizen should expect in order for our democracy to function properly. The committees that support the work in the House of Commons here, that perhaps a lot of Canadians are not completely familiar with, do very important work to inform the House, bringing forward various different proposals, policies and positions from committee members after having the opportunity to sit down and hear from actual witnesses at the ground level. That is why getting information to committee in a timely, co-operative and, most importantly, truthful manner is of critical importance. When we have people who arbitrarily decide that they do not think they need to tell the truth, or they do not think they need to appear, because they do not feel like it or do not want to, then we have a big problem. It is a problem when we are talking about something as serious as this, in terms of how public money was misused by individuals, perhaps in a fraudulent manner. I would agree with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes when he speaks very passionately about the need to get this information and to deal with the individuals in question properly. If we do not ensure that we are doing that, we are basically setting a precedent and opening the door to others who might feel the same way, as though they do not feel obligated to appear before a committee when they are summoned, to tell the truth or to provide information in order for parliamentarians, vis-à-vis their constituents and the Canadian population, to get to the bottom of things. When we look at the ArriveCAN situation specifically, I would like to point out a few things where I perhaps disagree with my colleague who introduced the motion, namely, the fact that the Government of Canada has been seized with this issue since it was brought forward by CBSA and the officials to the minister. As soon as the minister was made aware of this, he directed the appropriate individuals to conduct audits and to figure out exactly what was going on. To suggest this was not the case would be void of reality of what actually happened. Once it was discovered that work needed to be done in terms of getting to the bottom of things and figuring out exactly what happened, the minister and his officials proceeded to ensure that this would happen. As we know, as a result, at least three contracts were suspended by CBSA. Those were contracts specifically with GC Strategies, Coradix Technology and Dalian Enterprises. The manner in which that was dealt with was extremely prudent. It was the proper way to conduct this. I am open to hearing the debate and what people have to say today. My concern about the manner in which the member has brought this forward is how we would conduct this operation, exactly. He wants to call the individuals to the bar. I do not know if that means we dissolve into committee of the whole or something, in order to ask questions. This, quite frankly, is not something that has been done in over 200 years. We really do not have a practice or a proper procedure for doing this. This is why, when I intervened on the question of privilege earlier today, I specifically talked about the fact that we need to establish how we do this. What does this look like from a practical, implementing perspective? I was unfortunate to be one of the participants during the middle of the pandemic when we were in the House. I may have been the only Liberal member who was physically present in the House of Commons when we called another individual to the bar. All we really got out of that was people yelling and shouting and screaming from their seats while the individual stood there and was scolded and chastised. I assume, and I have faith, that the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes genuinely wants to get to the bottom of this and that this is not about political theatre, as that tended to be. That is why I stress the fact that it is extremely important that we develop how we will go about conducting the manner in which we will call somebody, how questions will be asked and how the House will genuinely function during that time, again, given the fact that this is not something we have done in over 200 years. That does bring concern for me. I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I have the amendment here, which I will provide to the Clerk after I read it out. I move: That the motion be amended by: (a) deleting the words “, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the third sitting day following the adoption of this order,”; and (b) adding the following: “provided that, (d) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the procedure for questioning Kristian Firth at the Bar of the House and report back to the House with recommendations within 10 sitting days following the adoption of this order; and (e) Kristian Firth attend the Bar of the House no later than three sitting days following concurrence in the report.”. What I am asking for is that we let the standing committee, very quickly, develop the procedure by which we would entertain the individual and proceed with the individual once they get here, and then also that we add the words to ensure that the appearance occurs within a limited time, three days, as I indicated. That is my amendment and I will submit that to the Clerk.

1075 words

The Speaker

Mar/22/24 1:52:30 p.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments.

8 words

Comments

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/22/24 1:54:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I hope this signifies we will have a consensus on the important consideration around the contempt shown by Mr. Firth to the House, through the committee report and through the question of privilege that we are now debating, that the questions Mr. Firth refused to answer will be answered. It appears that we are getting to a consensus around that fact. That is important, because it is fundamental to the process and to ensuring that we get answers for Canadians and accountability from the government. It seems that the issue to work through is the procedure around that. We will certainly take into consideration the amendment, but as far as the NDP is concerned, what is absolutely vital is that the admonishment be delivered to Mr. Firth and that we have in place a method to get all of the answers that Canadians are demanding. This is fundamental, because it has gone on now for 20 years. There have been procurement scandals, the ETS scandal under the former Harper government, and now the ArriveCAN scandal under the current government, with $59.5 million that was clearly misspent, $19.1 million of it connected to GC Strategies. Would my colleague from Kingston and the Islands agree with the NDP that we need to stop the scandals, whether Conservative or Liberal, and that we need to put in place measures to ensure that this kind of scandal, this kind of misspending, never happens again?

244 words

Harper
Firth

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/22/24 1:56:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we need to ensure that taxpayers get what they deserve and that they are being treated fairly in terms of money being spent on their behalf. Whenever an issue arises through government like we have seen with ArriveCAN, we need to get to the bottom of it on behalf of taxpayers. To that end, I am definitely supportive of what the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has indicated. However, I do want to stress that the reason I put forward the amendment is my concern as to what we will actually get out of the process of having the individual here. That is why I stress that rather than having a debacle, and everybody perhaps not really knowing the procedure and how we are going to deal this because we have not done it in over 200 years, we lay it out clearly and that it is set up so we have a process in place to do that. That is what my amendment is about.

172 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Mar/22/24 1:57:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the last time this was done was in 1913, which is certainly not 200 years ago. I would draw the member's attention to John Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, at pages 70 to 74. Page 71 states: When the witness appears at the bar of the house, each question will be written out and handed to the speaker; who, strictly speaking, should read it to the witness; but on certain occasions a considerable degree of latitude is allowed for the convenience of the house, and questions put directly by members have been supposed to be put through the speaker. The precision with which this is done has already been laid out, not in ancient texts but in the text of precedents that are relevant to this place. A further committee study, further delay, is not what we need. Of course order and decorum will be maintained; that is the role of the Speaker of the House. Of course, like in all institutions in Canada, Canadians have confidence that the Speaker would do it in just that way, a way where decorum is maintained but that we do get answers and admonishment, and that it is done in very due course.

210 words

Witness

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/22/24 1:58:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was 111 years. I apologize; I said 200. It does not change the fact that it was certainly before the member or I was born. It was before the two great world wars, and before the Titanic sank. It was a long time ago. The situation warrants our at least studying to make sure that the manner in which it is done is acceptable. Something that unfortunately was not 111 years ago was the last time we called somebody before the bar. I was in the House when the member was in the House, and despite the fact that he has great assurances that the Speaker will do their job, in terms of maintaining decorum, it was Conservatives who were, in my opinion, outright ruthless in the way they treated the President of PHAC when he came before the bar. We have a precedent from less than two years ago for how Conservatives treat somebody who comes before the bar. I have a lot of respect for the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, but I do not agree with him that decorum just happens. We know for a fact that it did not happen the last time we did this, so it would be very prudent of us to take 10 days to work with his colleagues who sit on the committee, to determine and establish the practice we will use when the individual arrives.

244 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Mar/22/24 2:00:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am living in a old-time movie. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and having seen a number of questions of privilege before, I know that we cannot predict the outcome of what happens in this committee. However, an issue this important should be dealt with here, in the House. I want us to discuss it here. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will not have the last word. I fully understand that my colleague opposite is trying to buy time and create an opportunity for the committee to make an amendment, but I think this needs to be resolved here in the House.

118 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/22/24 2:01:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am proposing. What I am proposing in the amendment is not that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs change the wording or anything like that. We can pass that privilege motion with my amendment here. All it says is that, before the individual appears before the bar, we allow PROC to establish the manner in which the individual is questioned, whether we are in committee of the whole or a regular proceeding. I realize the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes brought forward some suggestions as to how it happened in 1913, and by the way, the Titanic sunk in 1912, so I should not have made that reference, but the truth is, I am just talking about letting PROC establish how that individual is treated when they come here. I am by no means suggesting the individual does not come here.

156 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 2:02:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for all the work he has done on this file. It is extremely important to make sure all of the work we do in this place continues to have integrity. I know that is a mutual commitment that all parties share, and solutions to this challenge have required a multipartisan approach. Despite all the theatrics in the House, the finger pointing, name-calling and everything else, this has been a very collaborative approach. I am hoping the member could speak to the collaborative nature of his amendment and what is necessary to get us to a place where the House can continue the work it is doing with integrity.

118 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/22/24 2:02:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely hope we can get answers on behalf of Canadians out of this, not political theatre, not dragging somebody there just for the purpose of showing a nightly clip that shows another individual being brought before the bar in such a manner. We are doing this so we can actually get the answers to the questions that were not provided in committee. To the point of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, it is to show Canadians that there is an obligation when people are summoned to committee to come and provide the truth, and if they do not, there is recourse to that. I do not disagree with the manner in which the member has put it forward. I just want to make sure our objective here is going to be to get to the bottom of this issue and that we have the right tools in place to do it. I genuinely think this is the correct way. It is the way that Canadians would expect us to do it, and it would be the responsible way that would provide the proper due diligence.

195 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Mar/22/24 2:03:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree with the categorization the member opposite made of when we had the president of PHAC here. I was here, as were other members, and it is untrue that it was not done in a proper format. Parliament is a place that needs to be respected as an institution. I believe we should be able to get answers. Does the member believe firmly we should get answers in the most direct way possible, or is he creating more process?

83 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/22/24 2:04:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is also a place where we ensure things are done in a proper manner to ensure that the right answers are received for Canadians. To his point, I absolutely hope we can remove the partisanship from this and work to getting those answers. To his last point, I most definitely want to get the answers to it, but more importantly, Canadians deserve to get the answers to these questions.

72 words

The Speaker

Mar/22/24 2:05:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-68 Bill C-67 Bill C-34

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act; Bill C-67, an act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024; Bill C-68, an act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne.

99 words