44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 4:05:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand on behalf of the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and address the motion before us today. Before I begin, I would like to share that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore, although I expect that both his remarks and mine will be eclipsed by certain events happening outside the chamber at this moment.
However, the motion in front of us that we are debating today, as everyone knows, is not a joking matter. This is a very serious matter indeed. When we come up against matters of parliamentary procedure, a lot of these subjects appear somewhat obscure to the people we represent. Goodness forbid if any of them are watching on CPAC right now, when larger celestial events are happening outside, but if they were, I think they would find this topic of parliamentary privilege to be a bit of an obscure one.
Therefore, instead of getting into the weeds and dealing with some of the precedent around this, I want to speak more directly to why this matters to people who are asking questions. They are watching the news and seeing reports of the ArriveCAN scandal and the troubling revelations around that, and they want answers. This motion today is about getting those answers. Those of us honoured to sit in this place have a sacred responsibility to get answers on behalf of Canadians; really, that is at the heart of what we are talking about today.
Of course, we cannot separate this from the larger issue, which is how we ended up with this app costing $60 million. If members read the Auditor General's report and the report of the procurement ombudsman, they would see that the findings in those reports are extremely troubling. The Auditor General found that the people of Canada overpaid for this product. They paid too much, and they did not get the product that they might have had if the process had been better. People deserved value, but they did not get it.
The procurement ombudsman found serious irregularities in the procurement process that people should be concerned about. People deserve fairness. Canadians deserve fairness, but what we saw was a procurement process that was profoundly unfair. I know that my Conservative colleagues have been calling this the “arrive scam app”; it is clever, it rhymes and all that. However, it is really more of a racket; if we look at the company at the heart of these allegations, GC Strategies, we see this two-person IT recruiting company that has found a way to put itself at the centre of so much government procurement in Ottawa and to funnel these lucrative contracts through its little shop, charge an exorbitant commission of 15% to 30% and then have other people do the actual work and deliver the product. That is good work, if one can find it, I suppose, but the company has enriched itself to the tune of millions of dollars. What have the Canadian people gotten? The people got an app that, in some cases, did not work, that the Auditor General has said we paid too much for and that could have been done for a fraction of the cost.
Among the issues that were raised by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman, there is one that is really the most egregious thing. I have been following this since I joined the government operations committee. One of the most egregious revelations was that the GC Strategies company and its principal, Kristian Firth, were involved in writing the criteria for the contract that the company then won. As the procurement ombudsman found, the company wrote those criteria in such a way that, really, only it could be the winner of the contract at the end. It is as if I, as a member of Parliament, helped write a contract for someone who was five feet, nine inches on a good day, if I stand up straight; had brown hair; wore blue suits; and lived in Smithers, British Columbia. Then, at the end of the day, surprise, surprise, Madam Speaker, guess who got the contract. It is the person who wrote the criteria, which were custom fit for their situation. I am making light of it, but that is essentially what is in these reports.
I think, to the people watching back home, that is a profoundly unfair process. What the people of Canada expect is a competitive procurement process where entrepreneurs who hang their shingle out there and do the hard work of putting together proposals, innovating and coming up with new products and services have a fighting chance to get government work. What we have seen here is that the deck is stacked against people like that. It is stacked because certain insiders have found a way to enrich themselves and to ensure that government contracts flow through them.
I think that is wrong, and while it is not the matter that is before us today, it is related to it because the individual whom this motion seeks to call to the bar, which would be an unprecedented and historic event if it takes place, is at the heart of the ArriveCAN issue. I was at the committee when Mr. Firth appeared, and I agree with what has been said in this place about his testimony: He was evasive and prevaricating. As has also been mentioned, he was not the first witness to act like that in front of a parliamentary committee, and I think that is something that should concern all of us.
The gravity of the allegations, the amount of money that is involved and the implications for the larger issue of government procurement make this situation particularly worrisome, and that is why my colleagues and certainly our party are so intent and serious about getting the answers that Canadians deserve.
With respect to Mr. Firth's prevarications and refusal to answer questions, one of the questions the committee had was about his conversations and communications around the writing of the criteria for the contracts that his firm eventually won. At the committee hearings, he essentially said he understood that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was now involved and so he would not answer the questions. I assume it was because he did not want to somehow jeopardize any future investigation by the RCMP that might involve himself, but of course that is not how the system works.
As everyone in this place knows, Parliament is supreme in its ability to seek answers on behalf of Canadians. Witnesses cannot come before a committee and say they are worried they are going to perjure themselves or place themselves in some type of legal jeopardy by answering the questions. That is not a valid excuse. If Parliament wants answers to questions, Parliament gets the answers to the questions. What we see in the motion before us is one of our only options of recourse in a case where a witness refuses to answer the questions of committee.
Mr. Firth said, “I've had a chance to speak with my lawyer, and I'm sticking to my line with regard to the fact this is under investigation by the RCMP; therefore, I cannot interfere with that.” There are several issues with that statement. First of all, the RCMP had not contacted Mr. Firth. He had heard in the media and from members of Parliament that the RCMP was somehow involved, but he had yet to become a subject of the investigation. Even if he had, none of that is an excuse for not answering the questions of Parliament, which remains supreme under the practices and traditions of parliamentary privilege. None of this really stacks up.
As I mentioned in a previous question, I did receive an odd email directly from the individual in question, in which he apologized and then went on to provide all of the same excuses for his behaviour at committee that we have already heard. I do think it is right and appropriate that he be called before the House to answer the questions of Parliament and to explain how this all came to be, how the Canadian people ended up paying for an app that cost $60 million, when the Auditor General has found that it could have been done for a fraction of that. These are some really egregious situations around government procurement, irregularities and alleged misconduct. I mentioned the two investigations that have resulted in reports. CBSA is conducting its own internal report.
I will return to why Canadians should care about all of this. They should care because they deserve fairness, value and a Parliament that is able to get answers on their behalf. That is what the motion is about. I will be supporting it, as will my colleagues. I hope it passes.
1494 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:13:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising today to inform the House that the finance committee will be debating a motion to have Canada's premiers testify on the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax increase. Eight provincial premiers are now opposed to the Prime Minister's carbon tax. I hope all parties will vote yes to allow premiers to testify on the Prime Minister's carbon tax scam.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:30:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it was wonderful to hear PMO speech number two.
It is interesting that we are debating softwood lumber, which is something that has been going on for eight years. It has cost tens of thousands of Canadian jobs, and the United States is holding 10 billion dollars' worth of duties, which is crippling our softwood lumber industry. The Minister of International Trade does not participate in the debate; that shows how important the issue actually is for the corrupt Liberal government.
The trade committee produced a report that said that the only way the softwood lumber dispute would be resolved is through direct head of government negotiations. Therefore, after eight years, the failure for there to be a resolution is because of the failure of the Prime Minister on this file, just like on every other file. Does the member agree with the trade committee that the reason the dispute is not resolved is the failure of head-to-head government negotiation, and that this lies at the feet of the Prime Minister?
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:00:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, on this eclipse day, I rise to take part in a take-note debate, not about the eclipse—we are probably the only place not talking about it—but about the ongoing softwood lumber crisis that has been going on for some 40 years. I have the impression, however, and I say this candidly, that I am wasting my time. I will explain why.
On February 1, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced plans to substantially increase the countervailing and anti-dumping duties it levies on Canadian and Quebec softwood lumber. In the days that followed, shortly thereafter, I requested an emergency debate in the House. We all know the procedure. A written request must be submitted and then it must be verbally requested. The Speaker, of course, refused, saying that other avenues had to be explored first, that a take-note debate should happen first. I thought, okay, I will try for a take-note debate. I went to see my House leader. The Bloc Québécois said it wanted such a debate, and negotiations began. Like the messiah we were waiting for, we finally got it this evening, on April 8, more than two months later.
That is how much interest the government has in this issue. When the Minister of International Trade attended the World Trade Organization's ministerial conference in Abu Dhabi on March 2, did she take advantage of the opportunity to raise this issue? It was not on the agenda. Is that the great team Canada approach that the government is always going on about? I think that I will stick with team Quebec. I will be better off. It is more reliable.
This crisis has been going on for 30 years. The ups and downs continue. On November 24, 2021, the U.S. administration announced that the tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber would double in 2022, going from an average of 9% to 18%. A week or two later, we held a take-note debate here in the House. Admittedly, two weeks is better than two months. The problem is that the forestry industry is not the oil industry or the automotive industry, in other words, it is not a strategic industry for the rest of Canada. While the federal government provides billions of dollars in support for the Canadian oil industry, it provides only millions for the forestry industry, mainly in the form of loans. Lumber will never be one of Ottawa's top priorities, despite the lumbering rhetoric we hear from key officials in successive governments in Ottawa. In fact, that may be the only time lumber is given any attention. The trade war over softwood lumber is an old and never-ending issue. There have been countless missed opportunities to resolve this problem, even though Quebec has done what it takes to meet the international trade requirements. This issue has been ongoing for 40 years.
Let us come back to the last episode of December 16, 2021. We know that a month earlier, the U.S. government announced an increase in countervailing duties. Taking advantage of the fact that the House of Commons had just adjourned for the holidays, the government disclosed the contents of the ministerial mandate letters. The House being adjourned, the opposition cannot react, cannot ask questions, and that is when we saw the mandate letters. As we know, this is an exercise where the Prime Minister puts in writing the priorities he wants to see his ministers work on. When these letters came out, I naturally acquainted myself with the one dealing with my file, the letter for the Minister of International Trade. I saw that there was an entire paragraph devoted to the challenges of U.S. protectionism. I thought that was great. Then I looked for the words “softwood lumber”. I never did find them. I reread the letter four times. They were not there. I did not misread the letter. The words were not there. Ottawa is not even pretending any more that the problem exists.
In 2021 and 2022, when the U.S. Congress was debating the possibility of offering a tax credit for the sale of electric vehicles, but only those assembled in the U.S., which would have had serious consequences, the international trade minister organized a visit to Washington. We supported the government in that. She wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate threatening countermeasures if Congress decided to go ahead. In the case of softwood lumber, however, there was no visit to Washington, no letter, no announcement of retaliation, no assistance programs for the industry; nothing, nyet, a big fat “O” as in Ottawa.
The forestry industry accounts for 11% of Quebec's exports. Our forests are a source of economic development, jobs and government revenue in the form of taxes. The two members seated behind me are actually from forestry regions. They could talk at length about how important forests are to their regions. The tariff war hurts virtually all of the parties. It could increase the price of wood in Quebec and Canada significantly. It could threaten our businesses and the thousands of jobs directly related to the sale of wood to the United States.
Things will be no better in the United States. The National Association of Home Builders in the United States understands that. I have met with association members in Washington, and they understand that very well. They are against these anti-dumping duties because housing prices will go up, denying more Americans access to home ownership despite the Biden administration's claim that access to housing is one of its priorities. Who comes out ahead? The American lumber lobby and a few American politicians attempting to make political hay.
In the aftermath of tariff wars, Canada has repeatedly filed complaints with WTO and North American Free Trade Agreement tribunals and has always won its case. I hear representatives of the governing party tell us today that Canada is going to win again. It is true that we will win again. Spoiler alert—we are going to win again. We might not know the exact moment, much like with the eclipse earlier, but we know that we are going to win. I am announcing it. It is scientific too.
In May 2020, the WTO stated that Washington had not acted objectively or fairly and that its tariffs were unlawful. Free trade agreements impose time limits to prevent disputes from dragging on for an excessive amount of time. The problem is that delay tactics are common. Knowing that they are going to lose their case, the Americans are using every trick in the book to slow the arbitration tribunals' work. For example, they file petitions to waste time or drag their feet when appointing arbitrators. As time goes by, the situation facing our forestry industry keeps deteriorating. We are losing jobs. We are losing money. We cannot modernize. It is as simple as that.
It makes no difference that Ottawa claims to want to challenge the decisions in court; the problem is not going to go away. That said, there have been missed opportunities everywhere. When NAFTA was renegotiated a few years ago, Ottawa could have seized that opportunity to plug the gaps in the litigation process, to strengthen the framework, to avoid excessively long delays when time is our enemy. CUSMA was passed by Parliament in March 2020, yet this issue was not settled.
That was not the only missed opportunity. As I proposed in the House, CUSMA could have included a permanent advisory council on softwood lumber. That would have ensured ongoing monitoring. Not only does the Quebec plan fully pass the free-trade test, it was even designed specifically for that purpose in 2013. This is a good example of what it costs us to not be at the negotiating table defending our own reality. Meanwhile, Ottawa tells us that softwood lumber is a priority and that it is vigorously defending it. This is an eclipse, an eclipse even more obvious than the one we saw today.
1367 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I think a very good point was raised. It is something that is urgent for people in northern Ontario, Quebec and right across the country, but the government has really been dragging its heels on this. The member points out a very obvious example. The fact that we are even here debating it all this time later, after eight years, is perhaps the greatest example of all that the government has been largely ignoring this issue and has been absent from this issue.
As I said, even if we take the government's word for it that it has been working on it, then it is clearly incapable of delivering on this issue because it has had eight years to get it done. It is definitely time for change. The Conservatives are going to bring it home.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
