SoVote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Apr/8/24 3:46:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have two children, an eight-year-old and a 10-year-old. When, occasionally, they do something wrong, one of them will immediately point to the other one when they are guilty. It is amazing. It is called “whataboutism”. That is the base level of the Liberal politics. They will deflect, deny and do anything not to take responsibility. The arrive scam is the Liberal government's fault, and we are going to get answers.

80 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Apr/8/24 3:47:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my friend down the way and I find common cause in this motion that is before us. Part of this motion is about the testimony of GC Strategies at committee, which was unsatisfactory and not consistent with the rules of parliamentary privilege. However, I think there is a larger issue at play here, which is that unless Parliament asserts its specific privileges, we risk getting to a place where no witnesses would have to come to committee to provide responses to our answers. We see this in other cases as well. I came out of a committee meeting today where witnesses were less than forthcoming with information about government programs and the fate of Canada Post. Does the member share my concern that unless the supremacy of Parliament is re-established, the ability of committees to get answers for the Canadians we represent will continue to be undermined?

150 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Apr/8/24 3:48:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree.

4 words

Agree

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

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

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Apr/8/24 3:49:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the vast majority of our civil servants are working their tails off to do what they can to make Canada a better country. This is a big challenge, though. As they say, the fish rots from the head down. We really need to get to the bottom of this to make sure we do not have any more issues such as this.

66 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

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

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Apr/8/24 3:50:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am open to any discussions that might make the process better, but the reality is that a lot of this should be public. Canadian taxpayers have the right to know where their millions of dollars are going. If it is not essential to the national security or to other related issues to keep their privacy, the Canadian public should know what is going one.

67 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Mr. Luc Berthold

Apr/8/24 4:01:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, being myself a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I can tell you that we all tried in good faith to hold a meeting last week to discuss the terms and conditions of the appearance. We wanted to organize a meeting without forcing anyone, based on good faith on both sides. Unfortunately, the Liberal chair of the committee refused to call a meeting so we could analyze the process. If we now have to let the House leaders make the decision, it is because the Liberals did not want us to forge ahead and settle the matter in committee as we should have, with the consent of all parties in the House.

118 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Apr/8/24 4:02:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member and I agree on much when it comes to this privilege motion. Today I received a strange email sent directly to my parliamentary email from the individual in question, in which he apologized and then reiterated all the statements that he has made, laying out why he was not in the wrong. Did my colleague receive such an email, and does he feel that the apology should somehow replace the actions in the motion we are debating today? Having provided this non-apology by email to some members of Parliament, should he somehow be off the hook in terms of appearing at the bar and explaining to the House why he was so willing to ignore the parliamentary privileges of this place?

129 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Apr/8/24 4:03:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is too little, too late. He gets caught. He apologizes. It is the second time he has done it. No, he should appear at the bar of the House of Commons to answer for his lies and why he did not tell the whole truth and only the truth to parliamentarians.

54 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/8/24 4:04:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in terms of one of the contracts that was signed with GC Strategies, GC Strategies actually designed the parameters of the contract and then got the contract later on. Was my hon. colleague aware of that, and could he explain it a little?

45 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Apr/8/24 4:04:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this time, I will answer the question in French, because it is a little more technical in nature. That is precisely where the problem lies. We need to understand how this could have happened. How is it that a company was asked to define the terms of a contract that it itself was awarded by the Liberal government? How could we have allowed this to happen in our system? I sincerely think that the reason is the laxness we have seen on the part of the Liberal government in the past eight years when it comes to the various scandals it has faced. People think they do not have to be afraid and can say whatever they want in committee because there are no consequences. It is time that we put an end to that. To ensure that we can shed light on these situations and on all the other scandals that come out day after day and week after week, we need to adopt the motion of privilege to send a clear message to witnesses that they should not play games with the House of Commons or with Canadians.

192 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Apr/8/24 4:17:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree that is why we should call the individual before the bar. I do not think that will get us all of the answers we need in order to get to the bottom of the irregularities, alleged misconduct, possible fraud and worse when it comes to the ArriveCAN app. I would add that it is one thing to question the contractors who enrich themselves, but another thing to figure out how the problem was allowed to get this bad and how far this problem goes within government procurement. Of course, irregularities and problems with government procurement land at the feet of the minister responsible for the department that procures the contracts and the minister who is responsible for procurement more generally. It happened on the current government's watch. Therefore some, probably most, of the responsibility for what appears in the Auditor General's report should fall at its feet, and it should be accountable for it.

160 words

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

Apr/8/24 4:18:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the question of the individual's appearing before the bar, maybe some people are watching committees, and maybe some of the media are paying attention, but what would the consequences be for a person appearing at the bar in the House of Commons, where the national media pays attention to what is said more than it might at committee, or from the larger audience who may be viewing this? What would the repercussions be for an appearance that may be different than at committee?

87 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Apr/8/24 4:18:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is a fair question. For most Canadians who are not familiar with the fact that we have a brass bar in the chamber, and who do not understand this somewhat archaic and historical tradition of Parliament, it may not seem like an effective way to set things right, but it is the way we operate. It is within our procedures and practices as an institution, and I think it is our responsibility to use every resource we have available to get the answers. I would hope the individual in question has some modicum of respect for this institution, because after all, this is the institution by which we govern this amazing country of ours. As a Canadian, I would hope that his respect for this institution would outweigh his desire to protect his own financial interests or reputation when it comes to his particular business. That is why I hope we get straight answers from him.

161 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 295