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 11:28:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, highlighted the ETS scandal of the previous government, a $400-million scandal that dwarfs the current scandal by a factor of six. It is important to underline that, because the Conservative Party likes to look back just eight years, but during its time in government, it demonstrated quite clearly that it was just as capable of running roughshod over basic principles of parliamentary democracy, basic accounting principles, and fairness and accountability for taxpayers. The member was here during that time, so he has first-hand knowledge.
I am glad that during his previous intervention, the member touched on the problem that the current government and many governments have had with consultants. We do have a dedicated public service, but we have many consulting firms that are really acting like vampires, leaching off billions of dollars every single year for items that the public service, a very dedicated group of people, could do. I was hoping my hon. colleague could expand on that a bit further because this is obviously a systemic problem that both Liberals and Conservatives have had to deal with and have not properly fixed. Does my colleague have any ideas about what an NDP government would be able to do, and the principles that we bring forth when dealing with this very important issue on behalf of taxpayers?
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:03:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it seems like the hon. member is very confused because, just a moment ago, he talked about how he enjoyed minority settings. This idea of a consensus is completely irrelevant to the discussion because, at the end of the day, there needs to be accountability out of government. There needs to be accountability at our committees by the public, by people providing testimony.
Does he not agree that in minority settings accountability, the checks and balances in place, needs to be protected by our parliamentary privileges so that people like Mr. Firth cannot thumb their noses at Parliament and stick it to Canadians?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:24:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-2
Madam Speaker, if we are going to go back nearly 18 years in history, let us remember the very first action of the former Conservative government.
Bill C-2, the very first bill introduced by the Conservative government in 2006, was the Federal Accountability Act, an act that directly came as a result of the Liberal sponsorship scandal of the previous Liberal government.
That is the action the former government took to root out corruption and third parties getting rich off of government contracts. We will take no lessons from the Liberals on actions to root out corruption because the first thing the former Conservative government did when it came into power was to put in place the Federal Accountability Act, something that the previous Liberal government failed to do.
130 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 1:00:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to reflect on this. We cannot let him off the hook. I know that when the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni was on OGGO and when I served on it, we got into this stuff. The truth is that the Conservative government also has a long and storied history with the Deloittes of the world, the PricewaterhouseCoopers and all of these others.
I am keenly interested in this. Does the hon. member believe in the value of public sector workers doing public sector jobs with public sector accountability and, if what I am hearing is correct, is it his position today in the House and in this debate that a Conservative policy would be to eliminate the bloat of the parasitic private sector consultancy class, yes or no?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 1:28:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is fascinating that the member is talking about a myopic view of history. It is the member's leader and the members of the NDP who support, at every turn, the corruption of the Liberal Prime Minister and his cabinet, as well as the Liberal backbench. I find it a little rich.
It is time for a government that is willing to roll up its sleeves and do the hard work of administering and stewarding what Canadians expect their government to do.
I am happy to unpack the many practical ways that the member for Carleton has proposed. He has proposed a path forward to increased accountability with a dollar-for-dollar law in terms of spending and ensuring that the government spends within its means to make sure that we are doing what Canadians expect their government to do.
I will not take any lessons; when I point fingers, I am pointing them at a coalition that has propped up one of the most corrupt governments, if not the most corrupt government, in Canadian history. It is time for a change, because that is what Canadians are demanding. They expect the government to work for them and that is certainly not what they are getting from the Liberals and the NDP.
215 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 3:45:38 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 4:15:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member has put on the record. I, for one, not only expect that Canadians would get accountability; it should be a given they will get accountability. Whatever government happens to be in place, of whatever political stripe, has an obligation to look for that accountability.
Part of the concern I have is that we need to take a look at the bigger picture regarding the procurement process. One of the reasons it is important that we maintain the integrity of the system is so we ensure that we do not allow corruption to infiltrate it. That way, we can ensure that Canadians are all being given a fair opportunity and can have confidence in the system. That is the reason why I think that, in a situation like this, having the individual come to the bar is of great benefit.
I wonder whether the member can provide his thoughts on that aspect.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:18:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would highlight that the hon. member seems a little scared. He seems quite passionate to protect something that we should all be wanting to expose.
I am not sure why the hon. member is so defensive of this individual, Kristian Firth, who came and refused to answer questions in this place and who outright lied during other questions being asked. I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels the need to defend Mr. Kristian Firth.
I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels the need to defend that in this operation, GC Strategies was allowed to write its own contract. I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels the need to defend the Prime Minister, the leader of his party, who promised he would spend only $80,000 on this app, yet he spent over $60 million.
I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels the need to defend that there was no transparency, no accountability and that due process was not followed when the app went out for tender, then the contract was secured and the app was built.
I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels that this place can continuously be disrespected and disgraced by a lack of accountability and transparency. I am not sure why the hon. member stands for those things.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:21:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate that question. I think that should ultimately be the goal of this place, that we would get to the bottom of this and that we would understand why these types of scandals are allowed to take place. We at least somewhat know the answer to that: It is a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability. We have seen where the current government, over and over again, has failed to adhere to those principles.
Therefore, it has put Canadian taxpayers at risk and has disgraced this place known as the House of Commons, which is our democratic institution. It is meant to protect justice and the rule of law. It is supposed to protect the Canadian people and to make sure their voices and their dollars count. When we do not insist on that transparency and accountability, then more corruption is allowed to take place.
I appreciate the support of the Bloc Québécois in pursuing this endeavour.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:58:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the motion we just passed unanimously in the House reinforces what I have been saying all day, which is that the Government of Canada very much wants to see accountability on this issue. It is one of the reasons that we wanted Mr. Firth to come before the bar. I have literally been saying that all day.
I also question the motivation factor of the official opposition on the issue, as its members tend to be far more partisan in trying to pin political blame as opposed to getting a better understanding of what has taken place and taking actions to prevent it from happening in the future.
My question to the member is this: Does she agree there is far more value to be had if we take an approach to improve the system?
The system is what needs to be improved. I could go back to when her leader was the parliamentary secretary and there was a $400-million scandal, but I will not go into detail on that. I would ask her whether or not she agrees with my thoughts.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:15:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we just had a unanimous consent motion that in essence shows very clearly how the government demonstrates accountability and transparency, even on this particular file of wanting Mr. Firth to come before the bar. This is nothing new. We have been consistent with regard to accountability and transparency, no matter how the member opposite, in particular, tries to mislead Canadians with certain types of assertions.
Would the member not agree that it would be most beneficial for Canadians if we approached this issue in terms of how we can better prevent these types of things from taking place in the future as opposed to playing the blatant partisan politics that we see coming from the Conservative Party? I think Canadians deserve an honest answer to that.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:19:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, in British Columbia, especially in rural British Columbia, we have a lot of small mills with fifth-generation owners. They understand forestry management. They understand the business, and they have managed to stay in business even during these tough times.
It has been eight years since the government had the opportunity to deal with the softwood lumber issue, and nothing has happened. I think the member is onto something when he talks about how there is nothing in the mandate letter about lumber. If there is nothing in there about lumber, where is the accountability to even move forward on this, other than talking about it in a take-note debate?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
