SoVote

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

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Apr/8/24 4:20:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was fascinating, accurate and straight to the point. The people in my riding of Trois-Rivières know that I used to work in ethics, so they often ask me questions about this, about what happened with ArriveCAN. People wonder how that could happen, how people can come to committee and give half answers, evasive answers and sometimes even false answers. We are debating a motion that would compel the person in question to come tell his story before Parliament. In these times where people are losing faith in our institutions, are we also seeing the decline of decency in society?

115 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Apr/8/24 4:20:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we are seeing an erosion of decency in society, and I think that erosion of decency also undermines our institutions. In calling the individual to the bar, I think we, as parliamentarians, should also reflect on how we uphold the integrity of this place. Certainly in the five years that I have been here, I have seen plenty of behaviour that does not uphold and strengthen Canadians' trust in Parliament, and that should be of grave concern to us all.

84 words

Mr. Charles Sousa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

Apr/8/24 4:21:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the members opposite who have deliberated over this very issue. The issue of integrity is at the crux of what we are talking about today. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the motion put before the House. I share the disappointment and frustrations expressed by parliamentarians and Canadians with respect to the allegations of wrongdoing in certain federal contracting processes. Protecting the integrity of federal procurement processes, alongside strengthening the management of government operations, is indeed a top priority for us. We support the many studies and investigations under way, including the committee work that has led to the privilege motion we are debating today. Canadians deserve to know how the series of contracts fell into place and what is being done to prevent future wrongdoing. To fully understand what has happened, and thereby take effective steps not to repeat it, we must allow for all investigations to proceed free from political disruption. The motion before us is serious indeed. It goes to the heart of our work as parliamentarians. We represent the people of Canada, and in our service to them we seek honest, expert answers to pressing questions, often at committee. We summon witnesses to committee to provide factual testimony to assist in our work. We accept that not all questions may be answered on the spot, and so we allow for responses in due course. We do not accept the refusal of witnesses to respond. However, for the record, as already stated by my hon. colleague, Mr. Firth has refuted this in his recent correspondence on April 8, today, to the Chair and to members of Parliaments. I have to say that the ArriveCAN issue has indeed raised many questions, most of which can be answered by only a few people. All parliamentarians are concerned about the issue, and certainly we all want to hear the facts. Truthful, timely testimony is needed. If we are to improve our procurement processes and safeguard them against wrongdoing, we must take proper steps. What we are dealing with is a complex system in place. Hard-working public servants exist to ensure that government contracts move forward properly and bring clear benefits to Canadians. In fact, the contractors in question had been doing business with the previous Conservative government, and charges were laid for bid-rigging at the time when the Conservative government was in power, with some of these very procurement processes. We must seek to ensure that federal procurements are transparent and that they do, indeed, hold value for taxpayers. Millions of Canadians are still using the app to this very day. In fact, I had the privilege of using it over the weekend, but in the case of the ArriveCAN contract awarded to GC Strategies, it is clear that the system did not function properly. The government has already taken swift and decisive action to improve the procurement process and hold bad actors accountable. Allow me now to provide the House with a sense of what the government has done and is doing to address potential weaknesses in the federal procurement process, both from an enforcement perspective and from an internal improvement perspective. PSPC has a number of mechanisms in place to prevent, detect and respond to fraud and other potential integrity issues within the procurement and real property transactions. Last year, Public Services and Procurement Canada suspended all delegated authorities for professional services-based task authorizations. This was in order to implement additional controls to strengthen IT procurement and management of contracts. Now, all other federal departments must formally agree to a new set of terms and conditions to obtain access to select professional services that provide supply. The department has also directed its procurement officers to ensure that all task authorizations include a focus on clear tasks and deliverables. All of this helps to improve the procurement process. Last November, at the request of the Canada Border Services Agency, PSPC issued stop-work orders against Dalian, Coradix and GC Strategies, halting the work on all active contracts with the Canada Border Services Agency while the investigations proceed. In March of this year, the department went a step further, suspending the security status of GC Strategies Inc. and Dalian Enterprise until further notice. This effectively prevents the companies from participating in all federal procurements with security requirements. Public Services and Procurement Canada takes protecting the integrity of the procurement system very seriously, and it is a cornerstone of our responsibility for ensuring fair, open and transparent procurements. At the same time as these enforcement actions are under way, the department is making changes internally. To guide our efforts to improve, we are fortunate to have recommendations from two independent studies. They include those of the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman, who made it clear in their recent reports that Canada's procurement system is vulnerable to manipulation by bad actors. PSPC is acting on the recommendations of the Auditor General and the procurement ombud in line with its commitment to an open, fair and transparent procurement process while obtaining value for Canadian taxpayers. Over the past year, PSPC has taken concrete actions to strengthen the oversight of all the professional services contracts falling under its authority, several of which I've already mentioned. We have introduced measures and controls to strengthen the contract management processes with the client departments. Collectively, these measures will help continue to strengthen and enhance federal procurement processes to promote greater competition, particularly in the field of IT consulting services. Government procurement already operates within a framework of laws, regulations, policies, programs and services. However, we know that we can and must always do more. That is why PSPC continues to modernize government procurement practices. One of our long-standing priorities is a sweeping modernization of the procurement system to make it easier, faster and more accessible for suppliers, particularly those from under-represented groups. I am proud to say that we are making progress. The goal is to simplify our processes and improve access. That includes the deployment of our electronic procurement solution, a new system that is shifting a very paper-based approach to procurement into an electronic repository. We are also improving our ability to hold companies accountable for their misconduct while protecting federal expenditures. Our government recently announced the creation of a new office of supplier integrity and compliance, which will take effect in May. The new office will allow the government to better respond to wrongdoing and further safeguard the integrity of federal procurement. It also includes new measures to improve our capacity to take swift action against suppliers of concern. We are deeply concerned by allegations of fraud, which weaken the public's trust in the government. We are committed to taking action against improper, unethical and illegal business practices and to holding companies accountable. At the department level, PSPC fully supports all efforts to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and to take the appropriate steps to address them. The decisions associated with the early development and implementation of ArriveCAN have been a sobering revelation for Canadians. We take our responsibility as the stewards of public funds seriously, and we will continue to review processes and look for ways to strengthen the integrity of our procurement function. Bad actors are and will continue to be held to account.

1226 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Apr/8/24 4:29:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the subject of these discussions is very important. Of course, committees have certain responsibilities. That said, committees also have certain powers. In this case, it is clear that those powers have not been used properly, since individuals have appeared before committees but have not willingly answered questions from committee members. I think there is a very important aspect here that the government is ignoring. Specifically, there was a cost estimate of $80,000, but the bill ended up somewhere near $60 million. I hear government members react much like the rest of us in the House, but the responsibility here falls to the government. My question is very simple. Were any individuals suspended from the Canada Border Services Agency as a result of this gigantic fraud?

128 words

Mr. Charles Sousa

Apr/8/24 4:30:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in fact, the committee and Parliament do have powers and responsibilities to ensure that we ask the right questions, as the member rightly put. When it comes to cost, ArriveCAN enabled us to have a product that is still being used to this day. Some may argue about its ability, cost and value. We certainly are questioning that ourselves, but in regard to any allegations of wrongdoing that have been made, individuals from various departments have been put on notice and have been dismissed without pay until resolutions are made.

92 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Apr/8/24 4:31:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to ask a question of my colleague and friend from the Liberals. I hope he did not spend a whole lot of time preparing that speech last night. I am sure he was up late writing it all out. We really need to address the fact that this motion is to call Kristian Firth from GC Strategies into the House. This is a rare tool that has been used since Confederation and it is only used in the most egregious situations. We have an individual here who tried to make a mockery of one of our committees, who refused to answer questions and who refused to bring about accountability and justify the number of dollars he had personally stuffed in his pockets through the arrive scam app. We are studying this at committee right now: how an organization of two employees sitting in their basement was able to get tens of millions of dollars in government contracts and then subcontract that out to bigger and more professional organizations like KPMG. Will the parliamentary secretary for the department of procurement agree that Mr. Firth needs to come before the bar and be held to account for the way he has undermined our parliamentary institutions and to ensure that this never happens again?

216 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 295