44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 12:25:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been around the House for a number of scandals. I remember Jean Chrétien's golf balls. I remember Brian Mulroney's bag of money in a brown paper bag in a motel room. I remember Nigel Wright's $90,000 secret cheque to Mike Duffy to help pay off whatever.
The issue about what we do at committee is vitally important. We do not have the power to find guilt, but we do have the obligation to get evidence and to present it to the House to make a finding.
I have sat on committees where we have talked about issuing subpoenas and summons, and while these are tools we do not often use, the government does not like us using these tools. They should only be used very rarely, but if we were to not use them ever, we would lose those tools.
Given what we have seen of the refusal of these witnesses to present and respond to fair questions, this would seem, to New Democrats, to be a good time to use this tool. Does my hon. colleague agree?
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:26:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay well. I know that he will be around for a little bit longer, but I do wish him well on his announcement of his forthcoming retirement from active politics. I am sure he will be involved in other ways.
To his question, he is right. If we do not use the more unique and rare tools the House possesses, they will fall into a pattern of disuse, which is why we, as parliamentarians, must exercise them when the need arises. This is a perfect example of when that need has arisen.
We have witnesses who have shown themselves to be uncooperative at committees and unwilling to attend committees when they have been summoned, which a very strong power. They have only attended when they were threatened with arrest by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
This is a very clear example of the necessity of using this rarely used but nonetheless legitimate tool of the House of Commons to call Mr. Firth before the bar of the House to answer questions on behalf of parliamentarians and, through us, on behalf of all Canadians.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 1:49:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is great to see that the gallery is filling up. I am sure it is for my speech today and not for question period.
I am pleased to rise again on the question of privilege following the tabling of the 17th report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as OGGO. To be up here speaking to this is particularly troubling, and it is part of a troubling pattern we have seen in committee. Witnesses, whether parliamentary witnesses, government officials or not, are ignoring the rights, powers and privileges of parliamentarians to act as the grand inquisitors of the nation.
This particular issue is around the witness Kristian Firth, someone doing business with the government and not answering to the committee. I have to ask, honestly, why would he?
If he has spent any time watching any of the committees on TV or especially watching estimates and operations on TV, he would see that witnesses do not actually have to answer. He would see government witnesses refusing to answer. He would see ministers refusing to answer. If Kristian Firth was watching, he would have seen the Prime Minister's own department, the Privy Council Office, in committee, repeatedly ignoring the laws of the land, repeatedly ignoring orders of Parliament and repeatedly ignoring committee orders to produce documents.
Making up excuses as to why PCO and other departments can ignore the will of Parliament seems to be a very active program within the government. If the government and the Prime Minister's own department, the PCO, can be so blatantly cavalier with committees, it is not surprising that others would do so as well; hence we end up with this privilege debate. There is no doubt that Kristian Firth has seen how government officials appear in committee and has based his conduct on that.
Lines need to be drawn. Parliament's dignity and the will of Parliament must be defended. Parliament and its committees cannot continue to be seen as mere toothless entities to be ignored when questions become inconvenient or embarrassing or damaging to the government or to the witnesses.
I want to clear up a bit of misinformation that has been pushed out there about this witness. It has been stated that he provided all of the information the committee demanded. That is not quite accurate. He provided some of it. Some of it was late, which is fine, because he still provided it, but there was a very specific question he refused to answer, and it is at the crux of the ArriveCAN “arrive scam” scandal.
He had been accused of helping write the work requirements for a contract that he himself then won on a sole-source basis. Mr. Firth was asked to provide this information. I am going to read from the Evidence.
The member from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek asked:
For greater clarity, I'm looking for the individuals or individual that you would have met with in developing the criteria...I'm asking, who did you sit at the table with to develop the criteria for this contract?
Mr. Firth then said that, because it is under RCMP investigation, he refuses. He was sworn in. He was warned of the consequences of not answering questions at the committee. This was his third appearance, so he knew the rules.
Later, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan stated, on a point of order:
I'd like the chair to put the question to you [Mr. Firth], and you have an obligation to answer it, whether you want to or not, because of the rules that apply to Parliament, to its committees and to witnesses who come before it.
...could you put that question to [the witness]...?
I, as chair, stated to Mr. Firth that we would appreciate an answer. I later stated that it was a fair question, and “Would you please provide an answer?”
Again, it came back from Mr. Firth:
...I really appreciate the opportunity...you've laid [it] out clearly, but at this point, we're still remaining with our stance that there could possibly be a pending...investigation.
He refused. In this case, we see, very clearly, that Mr. Firth was given the opportunity to answer the question. He was advised that he had parliamentary privilege, so that he could say what he wanted. He also was aware, as it came up in the committee, that he, at that time, had not even been contacted yet by the RCMP. He was not sure that he was actually under investigation, but he still refused to answer.
I mentioned earlier the government's conduct in dealing with committee orders and privileges and how it leads to such actions. In the McKinsey & Company's study in OGGO, the committee, so the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives, passed unanimously a production order for documents from McKinsey and government departments, demanding all contracts, reports, invoices and emails between McKinsey and government.
McKinsey 100% complied with the order. This is the same McKinsey & Company that had a book written about it called “When [the Devil] Comes to Town”. It is the same McKinsey that helped turbocharge the opioid crisis in the U.S., which it paid close to $1 billion Canadian in fines for. It is the same McKinsey that quite happily works with despotic regimes around the world. It is the same McKinsey that actually worked both sides of the coin on the harms and sales of tobacco, working with governments to sue the tobacco companies while working with the tobacco companies to get around government and push more tobacco sales. It is the same McKinsey that is considered one of the most evil companies in the world.
However, McKinsey complied 100% with the order from the committee for documents. Guess who did not provide the documents as ordered. Guess who comes in second place to McKinsey in following the rule of the land in this country. It was government departments, and I will list them quickly: the Business Development Bank; the Border Services Agency, which is, of course, tangled up in ArriveCan; the Canada Pension Investment Board; Canada Post; Citizenship and Immigration; DND; Natural Resources; Export Development Canada; the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's own department, which came second in complying behind McKinsey; Atomic Energy of Canada; Canada Development Investment Corporation; Employment and Social Development Canada; the Department of Finance; Veterans Affairs; Public Sector Pension Investment Board; and Trans Mountain Corporation.
Three times we brought in the Library law clerk and he explained to these departments the supremacy of Parliament, but they could not understand. McKinsey & Company, which is arguably responsible for the opioid crisis across North America, does understand and did comply, but the Government of Canada not so much.
Here is what some of the officials had to say.
Mr. Matthew Shea, who works for the Privy Council, again, the Prime Minister's department, said that there are privacy acts and information acts that apply above the supremacy of Parliament. He also stated that they are guided by the open and accountable government policy, and that he thinks that personal information and the Privacy Act are something he has to be very sensitive to. Here we have the Prime Minister's own department stating that the Privacy Act and internal policies trump the supremacy of Parliament.
He goes on to say, “A big part, with any of these requests, is the importance of, as a government, our working with the committee to try to find solutions.” It is not actually obeying the rule of law and not actually obeying the supremacy of Parliament, but finding solutions together.
One of my colleagues asked him, “Are you aware that Parliament is supreme in its ability to call for documents?” He said, “I respect the role of Parliament”, but again he has “time-honoured traditions” he has to follow. It is not the law, but honoured traditions.
When asked whether he believes several previous rulings confirm the supremacy of Parliament. PCO's Matthew Shea said, “It's not about whether I agree with the ruling or not. This is the government position”. The government position, as stated by the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's own department, is that we do not obey laws and we do not obey the supremacy of Parliament. He then told Parliament that he could hide basically everything he wants because it could possibly be tied to confidential advice to cabinet.
I realize I am running out of time, so I just want to conclude quickly that it is very clear that the position of the government is leading other witnesses to ignore the supremacy of Parliament. The government enforces the rules. The government must set an example and follow the rules of Parliament. The government must recognize the supremacy of Parliament.
1505 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 3:48:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to the members for Northumberland—Peterborough South and for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, we really are at one of those rare moments I love in this place, when we are in violent agreement. We should be seeing witnesses respect Parliament and answer questions clearly. This may veer from where the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is coming, but it is pretty clear to me that something very wrong has happened within the functionality of the civil service that this could happen at all. I do not see any long figures of partisan engagement. What I see is base incompetence and a chance to make a quick buck, which should never, ever be allowed in the culture of our civil service. Bring it on, and let us get Mr. Firth in here.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 3:51:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today we are discussing an important issue. The Speaker recognized that there might have been a breach of parliamentary privilege stemming from a situation that has been discussed at length in the media. Unfortunately, I find that Quebeckers are not talking about it enough. That will come, however, since, given the extent of the situation surrounding the Prime Minister's ArriveCAN scandal, we are now resorting to taking historic action in the House: summoning a witness to the bar.
For the people watching, I would like to clarify that “the bar” is a golden bar located at the entrance to the House of Commons. Only members of Parliament and pages can be admitted to the House. Exceptionally, someone will be permitted to come to the bar to testify and answer for their actions. The actions for which the witness is criticized are not having answered questions put to him by a committee, lying when questioned by parliamentarians, and not having taken the study of the ArriveCAN scandal undertaken by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates seriously.
The motion is clear. Kristian Firth, one of the two owners, managers and employees of GC Strategies, is being asked to appear to receive an admonishment from the Speaker. This is what is called getting a slap on the wrist from the Speaker. Mr. Firth is being asked to answer questions asked of him and appearing in the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. He is also being asked to answer additional questions that might arise from the questions he is asked here in the House. This is important. The credibility of our parliamentary system depends on it.
The purpose of parliamentary committees is to fuel debates in the House. They are intended to allow members to delve further into an issue, to question people and situations so that we have all the information we need to make the right decisions and pass laws. That is why all of the bills introduced in the House must go through the committee process. The people who table bills must come answer questions in committee. Witnesses may be invited to help us make the right decisions. That helps both the government and the opposition parties.
It is also an opportunity to hold the government to account for its actions. Things happen sometimes, or reports get published like the one from the Auditor General, that reveal the chaos around management of the ArriveCAN application. To date, this application, which should have cost $80,000, has cost $60 million. The exact amount is not yet known. Not even the Auditor General could pinpoint it. Of these $60 million, $20 million went to a company that acted as a go-between. This company was contracted to develop a computer application, but has no IT knowledge. All it knows is how LinkedIn works, and how to connect people so the government can implement its contracts. It is entirely unreasonable to pay millions of taxpayer dollars to companies that serve as fronts or intermediaries and do no work.
Consequently, parliamentarians wanted to find out more. In committee, they questioned the firm GC Strategies. By the way, “GC Strategies” is the name of a private company. It is no surprise that the name starts with the letters “GC”, since the company wants to imply that it has special ties with the Government of Canada, as in “Government of Canada Strategies”. The company demonstrated its lack of rigour in the work it did. Furthermore, it truly sought to squeeze this government for as much as possible.
Witnesses who appeared before the committee did not want to answer questions. They took the summons to appear before the parliamentary committee with a grain of salt, thinking it was no big deal, that they could refuse to answer questions, and nothing would come of it, as has too often happened in the past. Unfortunately, the example comes from on high. We saw this in other parliamentary committees when, in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Minister of Justice was subjected to political pressure to make a decision and could not get answers either from the public servants involved or from the Prime Minister and his team.
He hid behind cabinet confidence to avoid speaking the truth and avoid suffering the consequences. The result is that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner submitted a report. He found the Prime Minister guilty of a breach of ethics. What was the consequence for the Prime Minister? He said he took full responsibility for his actions and would ensure that it never happened again.
It is therefore not surprising that, subsequently, witnesses appear at a parliamentary committee believing it is not a big deal if they do not answer questions, for absolutely nothing will happen. This time, however, we said no. All the parties said no, enough is enough, people have to answer. We should proceed this way so witnesses give the whole truth when they testify and understand the importance of their testimony before a committee, not only for parliamentarians, but also for Canadians.
I myself have witnessed certain situations in the ArriveCAN file. I asked one of the officials to name the company that recommended GC Strategies, and had to ask three questions before the officials finally agreed to name the company GC Strategies. That is completely unacceptable. It is time that the House of Commons, and we all, as parliamentarians, put a stop to this to make sure these kind of things do not happen again.
I want to give a few examples so that people understand the situation clearly. Here is an example of a question Mr. Firth was asked that he did not want to answer. On GC Strategies' website, there is a statement that says, “GCstrategies listen and try to find solutions to my problems vs. selling me a solution to a problem I've never had.” This quote is attributed to a senior executive in the Government of Canada. A senior executive said that about GC Strategies. Mr. Firth was asked who this senior executive was who had so much respect for his company. Believe it or not, Mr. Firth refused to answer that simple question.
However the quote was on the homepage of their website, which, unfortunately, we can no longer find. A search for gcstrategies.ca now leads to a GoDaddy site. The site is no more. Fortunately we have screenshots, which I have in my hands right now, although I cannot show them.
Here is another example. GC Strategies quoted an assistant deputy minister. That is something. That is in the higher echelons of government. Apparently, the assistant deputy minister said that the company took the time to understand their client's business and vision, and so on. It was a glowing comment praising GC Strategies. Mr. Firth was asked who was that voluble assistant deputy minister who was so full of praise and goodwill towards his company. Mr. Firth refused to answer the parliamentarians. Why do we need to know that? Because we need to update the entire procedure, solve the existing problem that allows companies like GC Strategies to develop an app that should cost $80,000 but ends up costing taxpayers $60 million. The owners of the company developed the app out of their basement with no IT knowledge whatsoever.
My colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who is the opposition critic on ethics, was very clear. He has a list of some of the lies told by Mr. Firth. In particular, Mr. Firth was asked whether he had ever lied to a parliamentary committee. He refused to answer. He did not want to lie twice. He was asked which public office holders he met with outside government offices. He refused to answer. That is important, because we need to know who this company’s connections are to find out how it managed to obtain so many contracts when it has so few employees. We need answers to these questions.
Mr. Firth was asked a simple question. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan asked Mr. Firth how many hours he spent working on sending LinkedIn invitations. That is not a difficult question. He could have said one, two, three hours. He refused to answer the question.
This is an extraordinary situation that demands an extraordinary response. For too long now, witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees have ceased taking the work we do in the House seriously. With the multitude of Liberal scandals we are currently dealing with, witnesses need to know that there are consequences to not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a parliamentary committee. That is why I support this motion to call Mr. Firth to testify at the bar.
1489 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 4:54:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member really trying to explain the context of a situation, whether it is the committee, the roles that committee members play or, ultimately, witnesses. I think that took a great deal of bravery to be able to say so, and I appreciate that. I understand the Bloc's position is also to see the witness brought to the bar, which is great.
Often what happens in a committee, especially when we bring in witnesses, is that things sometimes get a little bit too politically partisan. As a result, it can be a disservice to the committee and, ultimately, witnesses. Could she can provide some further thoughts on the potential of partisanship and the impact that has on the whole process going forward?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 4:57:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we completely agree with the Bloc Québécois member on this issue. The integrity of parliamentary committees is paramount. We have seen witnesses appear in committee, including the ethics committee, and not answer questions.
When we call someone to the bar to testify before a committee, we want to send them the message that parliamentarians are entitled to full and truthful answers every time anyone appears before a committee. That is the message we are going to send to the next witnesses who appear in committee. Does she agree with that?
96 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 5:02:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent work and tremendous diligence. There are things that may not be that clear from the outside, but those of us in here can see who is serious about working for the common good. I would like to take this opportunity to tip my hat to her.
We are faced with an extraordinarily appalling situation that unfortunately appears to be a repeat of past history. The previous discussion was about a contract being awarded to the company that wrote the criteria. Funnily enough, that reminds me of the WE Charity affair they managed to hush up. How odd. I am also reminded of other horror stories in our history, like the sponsorship scandal and others.
Of course, we will receive witnesses and make sure we get at the truth. We will get to the bottom of what is shaping up to be a huge scandal.
Once that is done, then what? What do we need to change to make sure we do not go through another scandal like this in two or three years?
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:02:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it has taken us a long time to get to this point. We have exhausted every avenue we have had as a committee to use the tools we have to get to the bottom of this scandal, and time and time again we have been stalled. Witnesses have refused to answer questions and have refused to show up to committee. It is time for the government to be held accountable for its role in this and it is time for Mr. Firth to be held accountable for his role in this. We have had to impose this mechanism because we have been forced to.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
