44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 11:23:13 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that those following the debate could appreciate that the government is just as anxious as any other political entity inside the House of Commons is to get answers. We have seen a great deal of transparency coming from the government towards ensuring a higher sense of accountability.
The member is familiar with the amendment that was proposed by one of my colleagues the other day, which talks about PROC, and we are not saying that it has to be PROC. We are very interested in how the House can best ensure a sense of accountability and the privileges of members, and in individuals who come to committee being compelled to be straightforward and more honest with committee members. It is a fundamental necessity in terms of our parliamentary system. The parliamentary success of being able to deal with issues of this nature depends on honest, straightforward answers coming from committees. Could the member give us his thoughts in regard to that?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 11:33:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to approach today's privilege motion in a couple of ways. The first is to deal with the seriousness of what has been raised over the last couple of days. I like to consider myself, first and foremost, a parliamentarian and someone who truly believes in the parliamentary process.
Winston Churchill often spoke about how difficult things can be at times in a Parliament, but I believe, as he believed, that it is the best system in the world. When I think about what we do here in Ottawa, it is not just what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. We have a number of standing committees that meet on an ongoing basis and that do a great deal of positive, encouraging work. It does not happen all the time, but I would suggest it happens quite often. Through that, the committees do a great service for Canadians.
The NDP House leader made reference to the price of groceries. As a government, we are concerned about the issue of affordability for Canadians. It is one reason we wanted the big five grocers to go before a standing committee. Standing committees are a wonderful mechanism and can be utilized in many different ways, such as budgetary issues, legislative issues or issues of interest to a particular standing committee.
Let us put this into the perspective of what took place during the pandemic itself. When we had the worldwide pandemic, the Prime Minister made it very clear to all Canadians that we would have their backs going through that difficult time. There was a great deal of tax dollars being spent. At the beginning, it could be seen that there was virtually unanimous support for the government on a good portion of those expenditures.
We have, arguably, the best civil service in the world. We were able to put programs in place, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, to provide disposable income for Canadians in every region of our country. We were able to develop programs such as loan subsidies, wage-loss programs, supports for seniors, supports for individuals with disabilities and supports for organizations that were helping Canadians through a very difficult time during the pandemic. There were hundreds of millions of dollars, billions, being spent. It was a whole lot of money to ensure that the civil servants, the contractors and the places we were acquiring the products from, like vaccines and masks, could protect the health and interests of Canadians and our economy.
An overwhelming majority of the work, I would argue that it was over 95%, was done in such a manner that we can all take a great deal of satisfaction in how the Government of Canada stepped up to the plate. By doing that, Canada was one of the first countries not only to get out of the pandemic in decent shape, but also to rebound to the degree to which we have seen well over a million jobs generated, which is higher than the prepandemic levels. That was because we had the backs of Canadians.
When that kind of money is spent and those types of programs are developed, one can anticipate that there are going to be some mistakes. We have before us an excellent example of where there has been abuse. We now have, through ArriveCAN, a high level of interest from members on all sides of the House. I am concerned about it, and I am a Liberal. All members are concerned about tax dollars.
Quite frankly, if one reads the speech by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, then one would think that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the ministers are 100% at fault and are to blame. The member likes to tie the word “corrupt” to it, if one were to read his speech. I would argue that he did a disservice to the House.
Let me give a good example of that. I want to talk about the ETS scandal that the NDP House leader raised. For those who are following the debate, we need to appreciate that within the civil service there are protocols and processes put into place to protect the taxpayer. There is nothing new there. In fact, not only did we have those types of protocols in place but so did Stephen Harper. One will find that those are put into place to protect the interests of not only the taxpayers, but also, in fact, all Canadians. The ETS scandal took place around 2007, and we are talking again about the public service and contracts to the tune of $400 million.
I liked it when the NDP House leader made reference to the fact that there was a majority government under Stephen Harper, versus the minority situation that we are in. In a minority situation, a party has to have a majority in order to get things through. It does not mean that we are not interested in getting accountability. Whether we have a majority or a minority, I think the interest level is still there. It is a good comparison to look back at 2007. Where were the Conservatives back then when they had, using their words, a $400-million scandal at the time? One company in particular had thousands of dollars in bid-rigging fines.
That was a Harper scandal. I could stand up and say “Harper scandal” enough in the hopes that it would get portrayed. It is a little unfair, quite frankly. I do believe there should have been a public inquiry on the issue, given the very nature of what had taken place. When some companies are being fined literally thousands and thousands of dollars, and there is an admission of bid rigging, then, I think there is some justification for an inquiry. The former prime minister, at that time, rolled over it.
Here is the reason I wanted to bring that up. If we look not that long ago in our history, the current leader of the Conservative Party was actually the parliamentary secretary to the president of the Treasury Board during that $400-million scandal. We have the leader of the Conservative Party today being critical of the government of today, and he was responsible, at least in part, as the Treasury Board parliamentary secretary, and chose to do absolutely nothing on the $400 million. That $400 million, in 2007, was worth a lot more than $400 million today.
Take a look at the overall expenditure in terms of contracts back then compared to today and what we did during the pandemic. This issue came up as a direct result of the government being genuinely concerned and providing the types of services that were necessary to have the backs of Canadians. Then, the Conservatives find this issue that we want to get to the bottom of, and we will get to the bottom of it.
At the same time, the lead critic, the leader of the Conservative Party, feels that he can go out and about, calling this a $60-million scandal and trying to tie it directly to the Prime Minister. I suggest the member is living in a glass house. He should go to the washroom, where he might find a mirror. He should look at his reflection and think about what he did when he was the parliamentary secretary of the Treasury Board, which provides the rules, at least in good part, that ensure things of this nature do not happen. What did he do at that time? I would love to hear the Conservatives talk about the ETS scandal and remind the House what their leader did and what his contribution was.
I did not get a chance to look over Hansard from back then. I would not be surprised if today's Conservative leader said no to looking into the matter at hand at that time, although he supported it going through the court process, no doubt. I do not know that for sure. As I said, I have not gone back into Hansard.
Hansard will show how many times I have stood in the chamber to say that the Conservative Party's sole focus is not about Canadians or having the backs of Canadians. It is about character assassination and looking for bumper stickers for votes. That is the Conservative Party of today. If members doubt what I am saying, they should read what the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes had to say when speaking about this motion for privilege.
We have what is arguably the best civil service in the world, with many countries around the world looking to Canada for ways they can duplicate many of the wonderful things that our civil servants provide to our citizens. However, I think we need to recognize that, sadly, we have some bad apples at times. We see that every so often. At times, unfortunately, that can lead to a substantial cost to the taxpayer.
The issue is what to do when that information becomes available. What I have seen is a government, at least in good part, wanting to get to the bottom of the issue. Whether it is from the individual minister, the many different caucus discussions that take place, or the debates that take place either here or at the standing committees, I can tell the House that the interest is there.
I started off talking about what I believe as a parliamentarian and the importance of the institution. When someone is invited to provide testimony before a committee, the expectation of every member in the House, all 338 members, should be that the witness will tell the truth and avoid playing games. We all know that politicians will play games at committees. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that those people who come before committees are providing nothing but the truth. There is clear evidence that that has not been the case in this situation, so what should we do as a House?
As I indicated earlier, the government is genuinely open to how we could best resolve the issue. Unfortunately, once again, this is costing taxpayers a great deal of money. We want to see justice on the issue. It goes beyond the issue of the day to include where we go from here.
The last time something of this nature was brought up was over 100 years ago. As has been pointed out by the NDP House leader, we did not have the modern chamber that we have today.
It is important that, if we are calling someone to the bar in a situation of this nature, we afford an opportunity for questions and answers. That is the reason we are looking for a way to ensure that there is strength in the precedent we are setting, whether for tomorrow or 10, 15 or 20 years from now, and that we have a much more modern process to ensure the importance of our standing committees and the House itself.
I want to see Mr. Firth called to the bar. I want members of Parliament to be able to ask questions and feel confident not only that those questions would be answered but also that the answers would be truthful.
I just want to emphasize that, at the end of the day, unfortunately, things of this nature do take place, and there is a need to have corrective action. That is what we are looking for.
On the issue of contracting out, for those who are following the debate, all legislatures, every province and all political parties, whether it is the national government or provincial governments, rely in part on contracting out. We all have mechanisms in place, protocols and so forth that need to be followed.
When a violation takes place, there has to be a certain level of comfort in knowing that there is going to be accountability for that. This is something that I want to see and that I know the government wants to see. At the end of the day, we look to the Speaker and, hopefully, the House leadership teams of the respective political parties to come up with some sort of consensus.
Let us put the Parliament and the interests of Parliament ahead of the politics. Even given my earlier comments, I believe that we can do that. On this particular issue, we need to start focusing on how we could improve the system. Unfortunately, things of this nature have happened in the past, and there is no absolute guarantee that we can prevent them in the future. However, there are actions we can take to ensure that any future non-compliance or violations could be marginalized or minimized. I am very interested in that, because every tax dollar is an important tax dollar, from my perspective.
At the end of the day, the government's expenses during the pandemic were well-justified, even recognizing the hope that we can get some of that money back. Canadians, as a whole, have been a beneficiary because of the government, and I should not just say “the government”, because we did have the support of other political entities for much of the expenditure we put forward during the pandemic.
2243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 11:55:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would look at it in the sense of the broader issue. Ultimately, by the actions Mr. Firth has taken, he has insulted not only a particular committee but also all members of the House of Commons. There is a great deal of merit to having Mr. Firth appear at the bar, and I suspect that it is only a question of time.
The real issue is how we design or have a mechanism ensuring that, when we have Mr. Firth at the bar, it is not going to be a wasteful venture, we can protect the parliamentary institution and we can get a higher sense of accountability on an issue that we are all concerned about.
As I had pointed out in my comments earlier, I suspect that many parliamentarians would have liked to see a different level of participation in committees when there was a majority government a number of years ago, during the $400-million ETS scandal.
In a majority situation, it was actually quite different. Today, we have an opportunity, through the Speaker's chair, to ultimately develop a process that would do Parliament and the institution a service.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 11:58:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government very much supports the initiatives and thoughts coming through the AG's office. I would be very surprised if there were not already some actions taking place to protect the taxpayer by looking at the ArriveCAN issue and how we can learn from it and looking at ways we can ensure there is a sense of justice for our taxpayers.
I would emphasize that, when we look at the overall contracting that was done, we have to put it in the perspective of time. There was a great deal of money being spent. A vast majority of it was supported by the Bloc party because we wanted to have the backs of Canadians in every region of the country. Unfortunately, there were things that went wrong, and ArriveCan is an excellent example of that.
We need to learn from that and fix the problem. It is not the first time that we have had something of this nature take place. I made reference to the ETS scandal of $400 million. At that time, the leader of the Conservative Party, who was the parliamentary secretary for the Treasury Board, chose to do nothing. We are taking action and we will see more justice on the issue.
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:01:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I guess if I had the opportunity to sit down with some wise people to talk about how we could reform our Standing Orders, one of the standing order changes I would love to see would be how parliamentary committees need to work more on a consensus basis as opposed to a hard vote. The reason is that there is a completely different attitude in a majority situation versus a minority situation. In minority situations, opposition will often combine and work together on issues.
As I pointed out and we have to be aware of it, the Conservative leadership and that regime have been on character assassination since the current Prime Minister was first elected back in 2014 as leader of the Liberal Party. We can even look at when we were the third party and the criticism that occurred. Character assassination has been the Conservatives' primary objective and a lot of that objective is carried out through some of the standing committees. That is why, if we really want to see more positive outcomes from the standing committees in the modern era, I think we need to look at how we build consensus as opposed to using hard votes.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:03:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that in certain situations, like we have with Mr. Firth, we can build a consensus, and there is a consensus: Everyone is saying that we want to have the individual at the bar. However, I think the member underestimates the importance of recognizing majority versus minority. I would refer the member to my home province of Manitoba, where I could talk about the Crocus file and others. There is a difference in a majority—
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:23:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government has been fairly clear in recognizing that what took place in committee is not appropriate. Ultimately we are to see Mr. Firth come before the bar. It is important for us to establish that, as opposed to the false impression Conservatives are trying to give.
When the member starts making accusations about this government and tying it to a scandal, I wonder if he could reflect on the ETS scandal, which involved $400 million. His own leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary for Treasury Board then, which was, in good part, ultimately responsible for it. Does the member think the leader of the Conservative Party should have done more when he had the opportunity to deal with issues like those we are debating today?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:31:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Madam Speaker, in response to my question, the member indicated that Stephen Harper first brought in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, and he was very proud of that fact.
A couple of years later, the current leader of the Conservative Party, then the parliamentary secretary to the president of the Treasury Board, was at least in part responsible for a $400-million scandal known as the ETS scandal. Members can look it up and see that it is true. I am wondering if he would reflect on that and say that the leader of the Conservative Party made a big mistake back then.
I am wondering if the member would agree that we should be focusing, contrary to what I just finished saying, a little more on the bar question, and that it is a good thing.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:34:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the budget comes out, the member will be provided a wonderful opportunity to talk about the budget. It will be coming up very soon, but today we are debating about an individual, Mr. Firth, coming to the bar.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:53:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said that the $60 million for ArriveCAN was a record in Canada. That is just not true. All the member needs to do is take a look at the ETS scandal, which was $400 million, and $400 million is more than $60 million. The parliamentary secretary at the time is the leader of the Conservative Party.
The member made reference to ministers and parliamentary secretaries being plants. I would suggest that maybe the leader of the Conservative Party is a dandelion, one of those yellow weeds that we pull all the time. I think the leader of the Conservative Party might be a little offended by his colleague calling him a plant.
I wonder if the member would like to retract those words and, at the same time, maybe indicate how he believes people who are called to the bar should be questioned.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 1:22:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise only because I know a number of members have made reference to “GC” being the Government of Canada. I do not know to what degree that has been substantiated, and it is a bit of a concern. I do not want to—
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 1:24:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I take some exception to what the member is saying.
When I think about the leader of the Conservative Party, I think it is “do as I say, not as I do.” When the leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary for the Treasury Board, there was a $400-million contract scandal with ETS. I am sure the member is aware of it. His leader was the parliamentary secretary at that time.
When he is critical of the government and blaming ministers on this side, does he not realize that he is also reflecting on his own leader? What did the leader of the Conservative Party do back then on a $400-million scandal?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 1:44:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting. The government has been very clear in terms of its position. It wants to see more transparency and accountability. In fact, we are supporting Mr. Firth's coming before the bar. There is the question of a mechanism to ensure that there is a sense of accountability through questioning, but the member does not necessarily address that issue. She wants to go on the political side, so let me go on the political side.
Can she tell me why her leader, while he was the parliamentary secretary for the Treasury Board, allowed and denied any sense of accountability for a $400-million ETS scandal. He was in a position to do something and he chose to do nothing.
Does she think the leader of the Conservative Party should have been more responsible with Canadian tax dollars when he had the opportunity to do so? If not, why not?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 3:15:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 27 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 3:23:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to table a petition regarding international flights. As we know, our Indo-Canadian community has grown considerably over the last number of years. A part of that has driven a demand to build that relationship, which ultimately sees more people going back and forth between India and Canada. Along with that comes the demand for increased direct flights. That is what the petition is asking for. It is a pleasure that I table it today.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 3:32:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2280, 2282, 2283, 2289, 2291, 2293, 2294, 2297, 2300, 2304, 2306 to 2308, 2310, 2311, 2313, 2317, 2318, 2322, 2323, 2325, 2326, 2328 to 2330, 2332, 2336, 2337, 2339, 2340, 2344 and 2354.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 3:34:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Questions No. 1589, originally tabled on September 18, 2023, Question No. 2002, originally tabled on January 29, 2024, Question No. 2261, originally tabled on March 20, 2024, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2279, 2281, 2284 to 2288, 2290, 2292, 2295, 2296, 2298, 2299, 2301 to 2303, 2305, 2309, 2312, 2314 to 2316, 2319 to 2321, 2324, 2327, 2331, 2333 to 2335, 2338, 2341 to 2343, 2345, 2346, 2351 to 2353, and 2355 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 3:34:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 3:45:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the member knows, the government is very open. It wants to see, and looks forward to, Mr. Firth being at the bar. The issues are going to be how we have questions and answers, and how we heighten the sense of accountability.
However, I am interested in a comment. The member might not necessarily be aware of this, but when his leader was the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, there was a $400-million scandal with ETS. It was a procurement scandal. If the leader of the Conservative Party had done his job back then and had not been successful in the cover-up, we might have seen some rules changed that could have prevented this. Is that a fair comment, on my part?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 4:01:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments that the member has made. What comes to my mind is the fact that we have an individual about which everyone is saying the same thing: We want this individual to come before the committee.
For me, it is about trying to take it to the next step. We have not really experienced this for over 100 years. We want to ensure that there is a very strong, credible aspect to it.
Could the member give some indication, from his perspective, of how he sees the interaction taking place when we have someone called to the bar in a question and answer situation?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
