44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2024 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 1:52:30 p.m.
- Watch
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- 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 2:22:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She shared a very detailed account of what happened at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We know a number of committees are looking into this matter.
I also appreciate the fact that my colleague recognizes that there are ways of doing things in Parliament and that proper procedures must be followed. I do not think she would want another incident like what happened in the 43rd Parliament. When a public servant was summoned to the bar here, chaos broke out. People were yelling and screaming. That kind of procedure is not going to get us the answers we need.
My colleague said that the Bloc Québécois is thinking things over. I would like to know what the Bloc Québécois members think matters most in this debate.
153 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
