44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 3:49:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam speaker, we are in a situation where a witness refused to answer several questions put to him a number of times in committee. The main reason for this was the fear that what he said could be held against him, because some members of the committee and the media were leaking what was said in committee to the newspapers. This could be a flaw with respect to witnesses' privileges.
To make sure that this does not ever happen again, might it be important to change some of our operating rules to ensure that, even if the testimony is leaked to the traditional or social media, it remains protected?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 4:34:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have been examining the ArriveCAN file in committee since October 2022, if not earlier.
We have to continually analyze the documents, read mountains of documents and cross-check the information obtained from the documents themselves or from witnesses, so it is a long process. The work would be easier if the witnesses gave us all of the information that we asked for right away. That is the main aspect of parliamentary privilege that was violated in committee several times.
Parliamentary privilege involves the power to get answers to our questions. However, recently, there have been situations where we did not get any answers. For example, we were told that we would not be given the answer right away but that the information would be sent later. There were also situations where the witness said that he could not answer because it could interfere in a potential RCMP investigation. In that case, the witness, a partner of GC Strategies, had not yet been contacted by the RCMP, so his testimony, if it was not part of an investigation, should have been free and voluntary.
That being said, when witnesses appear before a committee, they are sworn in. They have to give the committee members all of the information. They also have to answer all of the questions that they are asked to the best of their knowledge.
When we compare the information we received from the Auditor General of Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and other witnesses with that of GC Strategies, some of that information is clearly contradictory, so much so that we are calling for an extraordinary measure: ordering a witness to attend at the bar of the House of Commons. This is a rarity in Canada's history. It happened one particularly memorable time, when John A. Macdonald was arrested and brought before the House. That was certainly a historic event.
We need to make sure this is done with proper consideration and due process. We do not want to humiliate anyone—I do not, anyway. We do not want to intimidate anyone. We want full answers about public money, the taxes that we and all citizens pay.
I would like to quote from the committee report:
On Monday, October 17, 2022, the committee agreed, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), to undertake a study of the ArriveCAN application.
In the course of this study, the committee chose to invite Kristian Firth to appear before it.
The committee reports the following facts to the House:
Following a refusal of the witness to appear, the committee reported this failure to the House on Monday, February 26, 2024, which resulted in the House of Commons adopting an order for both Mr. Kristian Firth and Mr. Darren Anthony to appear before the committee within 21 days.
I must point out that Mr. Firth, who refused to appear, ended up providing doctor's notes a few weeks ago to justify why he did not want to appear. It took a very long time.
It was only under threat that the men appeared before the committee, despite the committee's offer of accommodations to respect their capacities and needs by giving them breaks when they were tired or when testifying took more effort.
Mr. Firth agreed to comply with the House order and during his appearance before the committee on Wednesday, March 13, 2024, Mr. Firth provided a statement and was asked a series of questions by committee members concerning his role with the ArriveCAN application.
During this witness testimony, the committee was unable to ascertain certain facts from Mr. Firth, who repeatedly refused to answer questions, citing a potential investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a justification for his refusal to respond.
Witnesses in committee have rights, including the right not to have their testimony used against them in a potential lawsuit. Nevertheless, this is the argument that Mr. Firth has repeatedly put forward for not answering members' questions, even, for example, when they asked him the name of the person who had contacted him to request a backgrounder on a potential application. There is nothing criminal about naming the person who asked for information; that is not illegal.
The committee notes that House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, at pages 1078-79, states the following:
Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them.
That information was repeatedly given to the witnesses.
The report goes on to say, “some of the witness testimony provided by Mr. Firth was called into question as being misleading or false”. For example, the Auditor General tells us that GC Strategies probably received $19.1 million in connection with ArriveCAN. However, she also says that it is difficult to track the money, because some of the codes on some of the invoices lack detail, so there is no way of knowing if the work listed on certain invoices was for ArriveCAN or something else. ArriveCAN was not GC Strategies' only contract during the pandemic. GC Strategies says it received $11 million. Maybe so, but in the documents it submitted a few months earlier, the total added up to $9.6 million. We asked GC Strategies to explain the difference between the amount in the documents that were provided and this more recent amount, but its only response was that the company had provided the documents. We were told that the company received $4.5 million per year, but now we are being told that $2.5 million was related to ArriveCAN. That is the kind of information that is not clear.
We are not lawyers, although some members were lawyers in another life. We are not here to act as lawyers. Our role on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is to determine whether procedures have been properly followed and whether taxpayer money has been well spent. It is impossible, however, to determine whether procedures were followed when we repeatedly fail to receive information, even just things like the names of the people who can answer our questions, who can tell us what the procedure was, how it was applied and how it can be improved. We have no answers to these questions.
Some people might think that it is a little ridiculous for us to request this information. In a recent email, Mr. Firth said that it was utterly pointless. However, when it comes to looking after public funds, when it comes to looking after taxpayers' money, no request is silly, stupid or trivial. Our role is to ensure that every penny is spent well and in compliance with procedure. To do that, we need answers, and we have not received them all.
We met with Mr. Firth three times. Following our questions at his first appearance, he sent us a slew of documents, including a list of contracts he allegedly had with the Government of Canada related to ArriveCAN. However, some questions remain answered.
In another slew of documents that followed the second meeting we summoned him to, we still did not get any answers to the questions we had asked him at the first and second meetings. It was not until his third appearance that he partially answered questions. We should have been able to get answers from the start in order for the study process to be complete and transparent. We should not have been forced to request more resources so we could hold two more meetings with the same person, on the same topic, to get more information in order to understand the situation and analyze it more fully. We should have had that information from the get-go, not nearly two years later.
Let us talk about the questions he did and did not answer. At the third meeting, we asked him for the names of public servants he had met with during their business hours at breweries and other locations. He provided the names. We must give credit where credit is due. It is important to be fair and equitable, regardless of what one thinks of the situation. We asked for the names of the contacts for the contracts, and we got those names. We asked for the names of the people with whom he had discussed developing the criteria for the $25‑million contract. The answers to that were more vague. He told us that he had not been involved in developing the criteria. We have emails that prove otherwise. He said that he was not involved in developing the criteria, but that the criteria must not have been all that restrictive, since 40 companies qualified to bid on the contract. Curiously, his company was the only one that bid on the contract, and it won. What is going on? Who is telling the truth? Is the truth in the emails, in the documents, in Mr. Firth's impressions, or in his testimony?
Is it normal for consulting firms to sit at the table and help set out the criteria for a contract they are going to bid on? He said he did not do that, but he also said he cannot comment because the RCMP is investigating. However, he still has not been called as part of that investigation.
What was the purchase price of Coredal Systems Consulting? That is another question that he was asked because, before becoming GC Strategies, the company was called Coredal Systems Consulting. Mr. Firth and two other people bought Coredal Systems Consulting and changed its name to GC Strategies. Coredal Systems Consulting also had several contracts with the government. It is a bit complicated, but basically the company was purchased so that one person's security clearance could be transferred to someone else. Were the security clearances examined? Apparently they were, but we also need to take a closer look at the process in particular. Is it relevant to know how much Coredal Systems Consulting was worth at the time of purchase? I do not think so. I do not take umbrage at the fact that no answer was given to that question, but on principle, when a member asks a question, the witness needs to answer. That is what parliamentary privilege is all about.
We also wanted to know the name of the person who asked GC Strategies to prepare a slide deck for an app in March 2020. We are waiting for the answer. We asked for the names of the company's contacts at the Canada Border Services Agency, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and Employment and Social Development Canada. We are waiting for the answer. According to Mr. Firth, 40 companies qualified to bid on the contract, the one he said he was not involved in developing the criteria for. It is not clear how, but he is the one who got the contract, which ended up being untendered.
What did we get? We got a list of contracts GC Strategies has received since it was created and their nominal value. We got the amounts invoiced to the government and the amounts paid to subcontractors. We got doctors' notes and letters telling us that they hoped the utterly pointless process would now be over. We sensed exasperation. We also sensed a possibility of involving lawyers and the courts. I will talk about that later.
Is this some kind of warning that we should not be exercising our parliamentary privilege to get answers to our questions? I hope not.
However, there is one thing to remember in all this. Witnesses are called to appear and answer difficult questions. Ministers and deputy ministers can testify to that. Just about every organization in government goes before a committee at one time or another. The questions are not always easy.
Can we adopt a more respectful tone when asking questions? Absolutely, yes. Can we ask questions in ways that make people feel respected? Absolutely, yes. Have we always done so in all committees, including the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates? To be perfectly honest, not always. It is deplorable. Could that tone cause a person to feel their integrity is under attack? Possibly. Now, I am not trying to defend anyone in particular, but I am trying to keep things in perspective and find the voice of reason and balance in all this. We need to look inward as well as outward.
Earlier, I asked a colleague a question about the fact that one of the main concerns the head of GC Strategies expressed was that his statements would be used against him on social media and in traditional media, that his children would again be insulted and photographed without permission, that his home would be photographed, and that he and his wife would receive degrading and threatening calls and emails.
I have read some of those emails and they are far from pleasant. Some of them resemble the kind of thing we receive. It is just as unpleasant for us as it is for ordinary Canadians. We therefore need to carefully consider our tone and how we handle information, as well as the scope of our parliamentary privilege. Does posting certain information on social media damage the privilege of witnesses? It might. That is something we need to consider and think about. Informing the public is important. We can say anything, but it all depends on the tone we use and how we do it. We have to look at all sides of the coin—heads, tails and the edge. If we only look at one side of things, we miss a lot of information. That is what looking for balanced information is all about. That is what we must strive for above all in committees of this Parliament.
Was the witness right to withhold information? The answer is no. Was the witness right not to wholly or partly trust the entire committee or some of its members? Unfortunately, I am inclined to say yes, that is, he was right to be afraid that information might be distorted. Nevertheless, our privilege stands. We have to analyze our practices, but our witnesses also need to understand that they have to provide all the information, not just the information they are willing to give us.
2392 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 4:55:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my opinion is just the same as it was when I was elected in 2019, despite the five years that have gone by and everything I have seen since then. In committee, our work should never, ever, ever be partisan. The committee is there to conduct studies for the common good, for the good of the public and for the good of public finances, as far as the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is concerned. The common good has no colour. It is not light blue, dark blue, red, orange or green. It has no colour. That must not change and must not be forgotten.
Yes, it can fun to publish a few words in newspapers or on social media to generate some likes. However, are we in kindergarten, or the House of Commons?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 4:58:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, the committees—
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 4:58:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, thank you. I have a good voice, so when other voices drown me out, that is something.
Yes, the committees need to get answers to their questions. Yes, parliamentarians are supposed to get answers, and witnesses are expected to provide all the information they have. However, in our democracy and in our justice system, we cannot presume that anyone is guilty. We have to presume that they are innocent.
Is it possible that a person providing information is not hiding anything, but finds more information later? Yes, that is possible. Is that the case here? I could not say. The fact remains that when I look at the questions being asked and the answers being provided, I see that one of the main reasons why people refuse to provide information is the fear that the answer will be used against them.
Committee members also have to do some soul-searching about the way they ask their questions and how they speak in public. We are responsible adults. We need to set an example. If our tone is intimidating and accusatory, and if we make connections where there are none, then the person could be concerned that what they say in committee will be held against them, unfortunately. This should not happen.
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:01:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when the government drafts a contract or a call for tenders, it should know what it wants.
If the government hires a company as a consultant to help it describe its needs more clearly, that is one thing. Normally, the government should know what it wants and how to describe it, but let us suppose that some artistic licence is taken.
The company that was hired as a consultant should not be allowed to bid on a call for tenders it helped draft. If that happens, it can give the impression that the company drafted the call for tenders in such a way as to make sure it would win the contract.
It is important to avoid the appearance of this kind of collusion at all costs.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:04:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, allow me to respond with a quote: The misfortune of the historian is to know what happened and to watch history keep repeating itself.
I do not claim to be a historian, but I was a history teacher. We keep ending up in the same situation over and over again.
How can we make sure that it never happens again, regardless of who forms the government? That is not important. Regardless of who forms the government, this must not happen again. Our processes need to be comprehensively reviewed on an ongoing basis, not just when problems surface. That is one possible solution.
We must make sure that the procedural rules are clear and that they are not 375,000 pages long. No one has the time to read and apply all that.
We need to streamline our procedures and make sure they are reviewed.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:36:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are all on the same page when it comes to summoning this individual to the bar and the fact that we need to get the answers we are entitled to. Having said that, my question is very simple. We can say anything, but it all depends on the tone in which it is said. I just want to make sure that such a historic appearance at the bar does not become a spectacle, but rather that it allows us to get the answers to our questions.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:17:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have been working on ArriveCan for several months. I am looking at this not from a partisan angle, but for the long term. For the long term, we seem to have a process that does not work. If we do not fix it, it will not work any better, no matter which party forms government.
Does my colleague believe that the purpose of everything we are doing right now is to improve the process and also to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely and responsibly?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
