SoVote

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

Apr/8/24 11:03:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone here sends their best wishes to Mr. Blaikie and his family. We were debating this question of privilege right before we all left for the two-week constituency break. I first want to say that the NDP was shocked that Mr. Firth would not answer questions. When asked to answer questions before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, he refused. That is unacceptable in our Parliament. That is why we think it is important that Mr. Firth be summoned to the bar of the House of Commons so that we can ask him questions. The problem is that the original motion did not include all the steps we would have to follow to question Mr. Firth. The Conservatives' motion is basically an empty shell. It does not explain the process. The last time this process was used was in 1913. That was a long time ago. There was no simultaneous interpretation in the House back then. We did not have microphones in the House, or even television. The Conservatives' proposal does not provide for any structure, and that is unacceptable. That is why the NDP tried to convene meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs over the past two weeks. We felt it was important to have a framework in place. For the time being, there is no framework. There are ongoing discussions with House leaders. I am optimistic that we will come to an agreement. That is what matters. At the end of my speech, I will explain how the NDP will contribute to the debate if no agreement is reached. We do think it is important to call Mr. Firth to the bar. The Liberals moved an amendment just before the House adjourned for the two-week constituency break. However, that amendment is not acceptable either because it would be several weeks before we would get a chance to question Mr. Firth. The Conservatives have not proposed any sort of procedure. The Liberals are proposing an unacceptable timeline. The NDP is proposing something that will shorten the whole process, if we do not manage to reach an agreement by the end of the day. It is important that we ask questions. Given how much money this cost taxpayers, we need to set up a time for those questions to be asked. That is extremely important. In a few moments, I will explain how other committees managed to ask for and get those answers. Mr. Firth, who refused to provide answers that are extremely important to the committee, to Parliament and, of course, to Canadian taxpayers, must be compelled to provide answers to all of the questions that are asked. Sixty million dollars is a lot of money. The ArriveCAN app is a controversy that we have been struggling to get to the bottom of. Our representative on the government operations committee, the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, has done an extraordinary job. When we see all the articles about ArriveCAN, the questions he has asked are the questions everybody has asked. In the past, we have seen these kinds of scandals. I remember the ETS scandal under the Harper government, which cost Canadians $400 million. Because it was a majority government, there was no opportunity for parliamentarians to get those kinds of answers. It was basically shut down. In this case, in a minority Parliament, the $60-million charge to taxpayers needs to be fully investigated. The fact is that Mr. Firth appeared before the government operations committee numerous times and refused to provide the answers that are so important for Canadians to obtain. The Speaker, in his ruling just prior to us rising for the two weeks in our ridings, saw this as a question of privilege, showing a profound lack of respect to parliamentarians. It is not the parliamentarians that count; it is the profound lack of respect to Canadians. When a witness comes before committee and refuses to answer those questions, it is our obligation to put in place a process so that those answers are obtained. We support the question of privilege. We support the idea of bringing Mr. Firth before the bar of the House of Commons, to oblige him to answer those questions that are so relevant in this scandal, as it was relevant under the Harper Conservatives and the ETS scandal, $400 million that basically disappeared. The fact that, in a minority Parliament, we have the ability to do this is fundamental. That is why New Democrats believe minority Parliaments simply govern better. There is more of that ability to get the transparency and to get the answers for which so many Canadians are asking. We have a $60-million scandal. We had the half owner of the company GC Strategies come before committee and refuse to answer questions, including from my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, that were relevant, pertinent and extremely important overall. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could ask my colleagues for order. I would appreciate that.

848 words

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/8/24 11:10:52 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is extremely relevant. We need to bring Mr. Firth before the bar, but we need to do it in a way that is structured, not a free for all. In 1913, we did this at a time when we did not have simultaneous translation in the House of Commons. The French language was not recognized the way it is today. We did not have microphones. We did not have television. In all those evolutions over the course of the past century and more, we have put into place a variety of procedures that help to carry the messages and the discussions we have on the floor of the House of Commons right across the length and breadth of this land. We cannot agreed with the idea that the Conservatives have, which is to simply put it in front of the House of Commons without any sort of framework. We agree with the principle of bringing Mr. Firth before the bar. We do not agree with the idea that it be done without any sort of structure. That is why my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, really pushed to have meetings at the procedure and House affairs committee over the two-week time when we were in our constituencies so that we could have a framework in place. That has not happened yet. There are discussions among the House leaders, who are all honourable colleagues, and I am hoping that we will come to a resolution through the course of the day. That would be a good thing. However, the reality is that if we do not come to that resolution about putting a framework in, the NDP is then faced with what we saw originally, a motion that did not provide for any sort of procedural process for Mr. Firth to come before the bar and the Liberal amendment that essentially would put it off for a couple of weeks. Given our House calendar, it would be a month delay before Mr. Firth would be brought before the bar of the House of Commons. That is not acceptable either. What the NDP would do, if we cannot come to an agreement, is shorten both periods. We would give the procedure and House affairs committee a very short period of four days to come up with the procedure so we could have Mr. Firth before the bar next week, and shorten the period that the Conservatives asked for. In their motion, it is a three-day period before Mr. Firth is convened. We would shorten that to 48 hours. In both ways, we would be putting in place that framework, doing it in a short time frame that is required, given the extent to which Mr. Firth was unco-operative in the government operations committee, and ensuring Mr. Firth would come before the bar and provides those responses that are so vitally important. This is not a process that has been used often. Since 1913, we have not seen somebody brought before the bar to answer questions. We had the president of the Public Health Agency brought before the bar to be admonished. This is a step up in terms of procedural complexity in ensuring that Mr. Firth can provide those answers that Canadians are looking for around the ArriveCAN app. This would allow us to get to the bottom of things in a way that we were not able to with the ETS scandal under Mr. Harper, the hundreds of millions of dollars that were wasted at that time, because of a majority government. The Conservatives simply did not want to get the answers for which Canadians were looking. Now, in a minority Parliament, we have the ability to get those answers, and that is fundamentally important. The role the House of Commons plays and the powers that it has are extensive. It is unfortunate that often, with majority governments, we do not see those powers exercised in the public interest. I mentioned the ETS scandal as one example of that. With the ArriveCAN app and getting to the bottom of those questions, we have the ability now in a minority Parliament to decide, as members of Parliament, to convene Mr. Firth before the bar of Parliament. I am familiar with another example where it did not come to that because the people who were convened and subpoenaed before committee understood the importance of responding fulsomely to the committee and not try to hedge or stonewall for any protracted period of time. I am referring to the Hockey Canada scandal and the Canadian heritage committee. The reason I reference this is that last Saturday night, I was fortunate to be the keynote speaker, the guest speaker, for the Burnaby Minor Hockey Association in Burnaby, B.C. Attendees wanted to know all of the details around the Hockey Canada scandal. Members will recall that Hockey Canada was convened by the Canadian heritage committee following the horrific revelations of sexual assault in the spring of 2022. It was an all-party agreement. That consensus was one of the moments in parliamentary history when parliamentarians all worked together for the public interest. On June 20, 2022, Hockey Canada was convened. Scott Smith, the former CEO, and other members of Hockey Canada were asked to answer questions. They stonewalled the committee, but further revelations came out, for example, the fact that there was an national equity fund that was being used to provide funding not to support the growth of hockey but rather to pay off, with non-disclosure agreements, many of the victims of horrific violations of a sexual and physical nature. The fact that the information came out after the appearance on June 20, 2022, meant that the Canadian heritage committee then reconvened the same witnesses on July 27, 2022. At that point we asked for and received answers that allowed us to identify that the national equity fund had identified and made payments to 20 victims. There were further revelations following the meeting on July 27, 2022. Members will recall that on October 4, 2022, we convened Hockey Canada for a third and final time. We have the ability as parliamentarians to do that. It was an all-party consensus. We subpoenaed its members, demanding that they come to answer questions. They were forced to reveal information not only on the national equity fund but also on the legacy fund, a second fund that used the money of hockey parents across the country, who scrimped and saved to put their daughter or son into hockey, sometimes at a cost of $1,000 a year, which is a lot of money. The funds were directed to Hockey Canada and spent in a very inappropriate way. All of that came out on October 4, 2022. Members will recall that on October 11, 2022, the entire board of directors of Hockey Canada and the CEO, Scott Smith, resigned. That is an example of parliamentarians' coming together in a unanimous way, in the public interest, to ensure that answers are provided to Canadians. What happened with Mr. Firth at the government operations committee is the opposite. He has been convened a number of times. He has simply systematically refused to answer the questions. Why is that? One can only speculate. In the example of Hockey Canada, it was because answering the questions fulsomely ultimately led to the demise of the CEO and the board of directors. The fact is that they were making decisions that were untenable. That is why it is so important that Mr. Firth be convened before the bar of the House of Commons and be obliged to answer the questions. Whether or not they reflect on himself or he is concerned about somebody else, whatever the reason is, he has refused to answer questions that are absolutely fundamental. It is important for Canadians to get the answers, and it is important that we exercise the powers we have as parliamentarians. Speaking with one voice, as I believe that all members of Parliament will support the question of privilege provided we have the right framework, and hopefully working with the government House leader, the House leader of the official opposition and my colleague from La Prairie, we can come up with a framework that makes sense as to how we structure this somewhat historic precedence not used since 1913, which is extremely important to use today. That is why putting in place the structure is so fundamental. Canadians were shocked by the Auditor General's report with respect to the $68 million. A number of members of Parliament, such as the member for Edmonton Griesbach and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, have contributed to the important work that the government operations committee and other committees have undertaken to get to the bottom of this. However, when there is an uncooperative witness, it is difficult to get the information that Canadians need to have. That is why the motion before us today, with, if needed, an NDP subamendment that would cut all of the procedural times considerably so we could do this as early as next Wednesday, is an important step forward. Provided that we have consensus, we could move forward with alacrity in getting the answers Canadians are looking for. That is a significant step. It is extremely important that we work together if we want to get answers to the questions Canadians have about GC Strategies and ArriveCAN. Over the course of the day, members will be raising points of debate and asking questions. There will be some debate, but hopefully at the end of the day, we will have a consensus, one way or another, on how to set up this unusual procedure. The last time this procedure was used was before Parliament had simultaneous interpretation and French had an equal presence here. It was also before proceedings were televised and microphones were installed in the House. Back then, people had to project their voices, which was easier for some than for others. All that to say, it was a long time ago. Now we need to modernize the procedure. Most importantly, we need to summon Mr. Firth so we can get answers and real information, with complete transparency. That way, every Canadian can draw their own conclusions about this scandal.

1728 words

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/8/24 11:24:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to that question. The first part is putting a framework around how Mr. Firth comes forward. I think there is unanimous support for this. Parliament rises to the occasion; it certainly did in the Hockey Canada scandal I mentioned. I think it is doing so here as well and that there will be an all-party consensus to convene Mr. Firth before the bar. I would hope that we have consensus around how to do it. As I mentioned in my speech, the NDP member for London—Fanshawe tried to convene the procedure and House affairs committee so we would actually be ahead of the ball and the committee could have presented a framework for how Mr. Firth would appear. That did not happen. I am hopeful that discussions today will lead to a unanimous agreement on how to structure it. Where I think I would be in disagreement with the Liberal amendment is the period of time, 10 more days. In real parliamentary terms, that puts it off for the month. I believe, and I think all members agree, that we need to do this as quickly as possible. I am suggesting next Wednesday. I believe we could meet that. This is something that would allow us to get the fulsome answers that the member is speaking about. We all want the answers from Mr. Firth, and this is the way to achieve it.

242 words

Firth

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/8/24 11:27:10 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my colleague before. Concern around double dipping is something that the member for Courtenay—Alberni and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley have raised repeatedly. It is a concern. There is a broader concern as well, which is that with a dedicated public service of people who are very qualified in their positions and who do terrific work on behalf of Canadians, we are increasingly contracting out. It is certainly something that started with the Harper government, has continued under the current government and seems to be increasing every year. I believe, as the Auditor General has pointed to, that what we see is that often money ends up going to the corporate sector when it should be more properly invested in building the kind of public services that Canadians can depend on. We have a public service that is incredibly dedicated, and I think the member would agree with me on that. We see people each and every day who are profoundly loyal to this country and put in enormous amounts of time and effort and contribute their talents and labour to the country. Why are we farming out functions that should properly be done by the public service to corporations that often are inflating their prices? We are not getting value for money for the taxpayer.

226 words

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/8/24 11:30:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to sing the praises of my colleague for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. He has been doggedly determined in every role that he has taken on to ensure that Canadians get value for money and that Canadians get the services they really deserve. I want to congratulate him on being our long-time agriculture critic, and for fighting the good fight against corporate CEOs, who have been dramatically inflating food prices, as our food price critic. He has just been named public safety critic, so he now has three hats, but I know he will perform each role extraordinarily well. Coming back to the issue of food price inflation, I note that we have seen the tendency of both the Liberals and the Conservatives to rely on lobbying and have seen their refusal, really, to call on the big supermarket chains for the grossly inflated food price gouging taking place. I know the member has played a preponderant role in fighting back against that. In B.C., we have an expression: “Liberal, Tory, same old story”. Tragically, the ETS scandal, which was one of the most egregious scandals in Canadian history, was never really fully investigated because the Conservatives had a majority. I think it is fair to say that the Liberals have been in a minority Parliament and have been more amenable to getting to the bottom of the ArriveCan app, which is really important. However, it is $60 million, not $400 million, but it is still important. Every million dollars that is misspent is a million dollars that cannot be spent on services to provide support for seniors, for families with kids and for a wide variety of people with disabilities. We need to ensure that we are effectively using our resources, and this is where my colleague for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford hits the nail on the head. More and more, we are farming out money to corporate consultants at massive expenditures. When the corporate sector takes things on, we see wildly inflated prices. We see this with food price gouging. We see this with gas price gouging with a 30¢ a litre increase over the last few weeks, which is unjustified. However, because there is only a small number in British Columbia that actually provide gas to the market, they can do that with impunity. The member asked what an NDP government would do differently. We are not beholden to lobbyists, unlike the two old parties. We believe in absolutely ensuring that the public gets the best possible services and the best possible supports, including consumer support.

439 words