SoVote

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

Madam Speaker, my opinion is just the same as it was when I was elected in 2019, despite the five years that have gone by and everything I have seen since then. In committee, our work should never, ever, ever be partisan. The committee is there to conduct studies for the common good, for the good of the public and for the good of public finances, as far as the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is concerned. The common good has no colour. It is not light blue, dark blue, red, orange or green. It has no colour. That must not change and must not be forgotten. Yes, it can fun to publish a few words in newspapers or on social media to generate some likes. However, are we in kindergarten, or the House of Commons?

138 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

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

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Apr/8/24 4:58:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, the committees—

6 words

Indeed
8212

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/8/24 4:58:22 p.m.
Watch

I must interrupt the member because some members are making a lot of noise. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

21 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

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

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Apr/8/24 5:00:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that it is essential that we are moving forward. We seem to be on the same page on ensuring that we get the answers we need about how we got into this mess in the first place with the ArriveCAN app. I think this speaks to some bigger issues around the process of how money is being allocated to consultants and being contracted out. One thing that came up and that the member mentioned in her speech was this process in which the criteria for this contract was developed by the exact people who would receive the funds and are in question today. Why does the member feel it is a concern that the criteria was developed by the same people who received the funds to follow through on the contract? What does that mean for how Canadian taxpayers' money is being utilized?

149 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Apr/8/24 5:01:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when the government drafts a contract or a call for tenders, it should know what it wants. If the government hires a company as a consultant to help it describe its needs more clearly, that is one thing. Normally, the government should know what it wants and how to describe it, but let us suppose that some artistic licence is taken. The company that was hired as a consultant should not be allowed to bid on a call for tenders it helped draft. If that happens, it can give the impression that the company drafted the call for tenders in such a way as to make sure it would win the contract. It is important to avoid the appearance of this kind of collusion at all costs.

129 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

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

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Apr/8/24 5:04:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, allow me to respond with a quote: The misfortune of the historian is to know what happened and to watch history keep repeating itself. I do not claim to be a historian, but I was a history teacher. We keep ending up in the same situation over and over again. How can we make sure that it never happens again, regardless of who forms the government? That is not important. Regardless of who forms the government, this must not happen again. Our processes need to be comprehensively reviewed on an ongoing basis, not just when problems surface. That is one possible solution. We must make sure that the procedural rules are clear and that they are not 375,000 pages long. No one has the time to read and apply all that. We need to streamline our procedures and make sure they are reviewed.

146 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

Apr/8/24 5:05:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock. It seems that the Prime Minister all too often finds himself at the centre of scandal and corruption, and here we are again. Whether it is the WE Charity scandal, the green slush fund or the arrive scam app, when it comes to doing favours for friends, of course we know that the Liberal government just cannot help itself. It turns out that we are seeing this once again. The government actually promised it would create the app for about $80,000, but then it turned out that close to $60 million was funnelled into that app. It is an app that Canadians did not want and did not need, and ultimately at the end of the day, it did not work. It malfunctioned a good portion of the time, which, of course, had a detrimental impact on 10,000 Canadians during its time of use. What is insane about the contract is that not only did the government pump $60 million, at least, into the app, but according to the Auditor General's report, 76% of those who were contracted to work on the app actually did no work. They collected a robust paycheque but actually did not do anything to earn that paycheque. That seems to be a classic Liberal way of operating. It is important to bear in mind that $80,000 was the promise, but over $60 million was the actual spend, which is 750 times the amount that the Prime Minister told Canadians he would be using. That is a problem in and of itself that deserves accountability, but there is more to the story than just that. It turns out that was the tip of the iceberg. Here we are today, talking about the more. The Auditor General discovered that the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, failed to adhere to policies, failed to adhere to controls and failed to be transparent in terms of its procurement processes and procedures. That then limited competition and, again, resulted in favours being done for friends. Notably, the agency failed to maintain adequate documentation. The Auditor General actually made note of this in her report, stating that she was led on a trail of what seemed to be deception and secrecy. She actually was not able to get to the bottom of it, but she did her best. Of course, we appreciate that because taxpayers deserve answers when it comes to how their money is being spent. One of the things the Auditor General found was that GC Strategies, one of the companies that was contracted to work on this app, actually did not do any work. Rather, GC Strategies found others through LinkedIn and other processes to do the work for it. It just wanted the cash. GC Strategies was permitted to draft its own contract. How is that for competition? It actually drafted its own contract and the government was like, “Sure, it looks great to me. We'll sign off on that.” What we see, though, is that this is not a one-off. We have watched the government over the last eight and a half years operate in this regard over and over again, with a lack of due process, a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability. A few months ago, Conservative members moved a motion to bring the two leads of GC Strategies, Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony, to committee in an effort to hold them accountable. That is really the point of this debate today: accountability. It is the accountability of the government and its illogical decisions, as well as the accountability of one of these individuals, Kristian Firth. This is where I will spend the remainder of my time. It was highlighted in the report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations that Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony, the founders of GC Strategies, actually failed to appear not only once or twice but multiple times when summoned to committee. It was only when they were faced with the prospect of arrest that they eventually complied. That brings us to where we are today, because those two men from GC Strategies finally showed up but Mr. Firth refused to provide answers. It is one thing to take a seat at the table but it is another to actually be productive, and he refused. While he was at committee, he declined to provide answers to the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. When he was asked whether he had previously misled committee, Mr. Firth went mum. Similarly, when questioned about his interactions with public office holders outside of government premises, Mr. Firth again refused to answer. He then refused to answer again when asked questions by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and again when asked questions by the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. Let us talk about defiance. Furthermore, on its website, GC Strategies showcases detailed endorsements and recommendations from senior government officials without giving names, and when asked to disclose those names during that testimony, Mr. Firth again refused to answer. It is not just the refusal to answer that is the problem we are discussing today, but it is also the outright lies. During his initial appearance before the committee, Mr. Firth made false statements regarding his interactions with government officials outside of official settings, and he also lied with regard to money that was spent on hospitality initiatives and on trying to court government officials in order to win the contract. Subsequently, when summoned by the committee to return and to provide further clarification, Mr. Firth chose to evade further questioning and went into hiding altogether. It is worth noting that during Mr. Firth's initial appearance at the committee approximately a year and a half ago, he pledged to provide the necessary answers promptly and agreed to return to committee. However, during his most recent appearance, once again compelled by the threat of arrest under a House order, he assured the committee that he would provide the names of the implicated government officials by the following morning at 9 a.m. However, when the committee started at 10 a.m., lo and behold, they were not provide, and in fact, the clerk had reported back to the committee that Mr. Firth had once again deceived them and would not be providing what he had sworn to. Subsequently, the committee had to resort to threatening Mr. Firth with arrest by the Sergeant-at-Arms to compel his co-operation. Only under this ultimatum did Mr. Firth emerge from hiding. However, even then, he refused to provide straightforward answers to questions that any individual would not normally have a problem answering. It is important to note that Mr. Firth was chosen by the Liberal Prime Minister and given tens of millions of dollars. In fact, he has been given hundreds of millions of dollars since the beginning of the current government in 2015. GC Strategies has benefited from this friendship; there is no doubt about that. However, what is most important today is the fact that Mr. Firth came to committee, was asked questions and refused to answer or just lied altogether. It is important to note that he did this after taking a solemn oath that holds him accountable to this place. He swore that oath the morning of his appearance, and it is meant to uphold the integrity of this institution. His failure to respect that oath and function accordingly then calls into question his respect not only for the elected members of this place but also for the entire Canadian population because it is here that 338 elected members represent those Canadians, and it is those Canadians whose tax money was taken and was used potentially inappropriately. Therefore, we have to get to the bottom of these important questions. When Mr. Firth arrives at committee and altogether refuses to answer those important questions on behalf of Canadians or outright lies, we have a problem. It is then incumbent upon those in this place to hold him to account. With that said, I believe we must work together as the House of Commons to reinstate the confidence Canadians rightfully deserve in this place. Therefore, the motion being discussed today presents a fitting response to the breaches of rules that have occurred. That, of course, is an admonishment. Holding the individual accountable and ensuring transparency would provide the necessary answers to the questions that were rightfully posed. If this motion is approved, the individual in question will be brought before the bar of the House, ensuring accountability and rectifying the transgressions that have occurred. Therefore, today, we are calling on the members of this place, especially the governing party, to vote for accountability and transparency.

1485 words

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

Apr/8/24 5:15:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke amplifies the true motivation as to why the Conservatives have taken this approach. It has very little to do with improving the system and accountability. It has a whole lot more to do with the personal attacks on the Prime Minister. She even said that it was the Prime Minister who chose Mr. Firth to win the contract. The Conservative Party needs to realize a number of things. One of those things is that the types of things we are witnessing today have taken place, and it is not the first time. I was about to say Pierre Poilievre, but I cannot say that. The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was part of a $400 million scandal. He was the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board at that time. He had a very successful cover-up. Had Canadians benefited by not seeing a cover-up by the leader of the Conservative Party—

162 words

Scandal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/8/24 5:16:24 p.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the hon. member for a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Apr/8/24 5:16:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member acknowledged that he is not to use names, but there was no apology, and he simply carried on. It had the same effect. By naming a member's full name and not their title, he essentially got to do indirectly what he could not do directly.

50 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/8/24 5:16:48 p.m.
Watch

I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to apologize.

11 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/8/24 5:16:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize for hurting feelings. I should not have said that. At the end of the day, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

33 words

Apologize

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/8/24 5:17:01 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member apologized and said he should not have said that. That is exactly what he said.

18 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Apr/8/24 5:17:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, he apologized for offending the member. He did not apologize and withdraw his words.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/8/24 5:17:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize, and I withdraw the words. Hansard has my approval to take them off the record, if it would like. The issue here is that the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was the parliamentary secretary for Treasury Board when we had the largest significant scandal. It was the ETS scandal. It was $400 million. Had the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada done his job back then, maybe we would have other protocols that would have prevented what took place during a pandemic, when the government was literally spending billions of dollars to have the backs of Canadians. Would the member not agree that the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada made a big mistake in covering up one of the largest scandals in Canadian history, the ETS scandal?

136 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Apr/8/24 5:18:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would highlight that the hon. member seems a little scared. He seems quite passionate to protect something that we should all be wanting to expose. I am not sure why the hon. member is so defensive of this individual, Kristian Firth, who came and refused to answer questions in this place and who outright lied during other questions being asked. I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels the need to defend Mr. Kristian Firth. I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels the need to defend that in this operation, GC Strategies was allowed to write its own contract. I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels the need to defend the Prime Minister, the leader of his party, who promised he would spend only $80,000 on this app, yet he spent over $60 million. I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels the need to defend that there was no transparency, no accountability and that due process was not followed when the app went out for tender, then the contract was secured and the app was built. I am not sure why the hon. member across the way feels that this place can continuously be disrespected and disgraced by a lack of accountability and transparency. I am not sure why the hon. member stands for those things.

239 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Apr/8/24 5:19:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is rather ironic to see certain elected members, who spoke a few minutes ago about dealing with issues in a non-partisan manner in order to get to the bottom of things, now replying to people from other political parties that this also happened in their government. We need to move beyond that, and I will give the member the opportunity to do so by asking her a fundamental question, which I asked my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou earlier. We are going to bring these people in, and that is good. We will get to the bottom of this and find out the truth about this scandal, which I think is quite serious. However, as I noted earlier, it will probably not be the last. I do not want any more scandals. This is sadly reminiscent of WE Charity and other previous incidents. My question to the member is this. Once we get to the bottom of this scandal, what does she think needs to be done to ensure that it never happens again? When friends give each other contracts and millions of dollars are thrown around, it is ordinary people's money that is being squandered. It makes no sense, and we have a duty to do something to ensure that this never happens again.

220 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 295