44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:21:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate that question. I think that should ultimately be the goal of this place, that we would get to the bottom of this and that we would understand why these types of scandals are allowed to take place. We at least somewhat know the answer to that: It is a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability. We have seen where the current government, over and over again, has failed to adhere to those principles.
Therefore, it has put Canadian taxpayers at risk and has disgraced this place known as the House of Commons, which is our democratic institution. It is meant to protect justice and the rule of law. It is supposed to protect the Canadian people and to make sure their voices and their dollars count. When we do not insist on that transparency and accountability, then more corruption is allowed to take place.
I appreciate the support of the Bloc Québécois in pursuing this endeavour.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I begin my speech, I want to talk a bit about how Canadians cannot afford the higher taxes and inflation that the government has brought on, and they cannot afford the Prime Minister. That is why we have been calling for judicial use of taxpayer dollars. We have been calling for the government to axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234. We have demanded that the government build homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition of receiving federal funding. We have also asked the government to cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down the interest rates and inflation. Conservatives said we will not support the government in its budget unless it does these things, so we will vote non-confidence if the government does not axe the tax; build more homes, not bureaucracy; and cap the spending.
It is the spending that brings us here today. We have seen that the ArriveCAN app, an app that could have cost only $80,000 to produce, ended up costing over $60 million. We have seen some unsavoury contractors taking advantage of the government, but the government also failed to maintain records.
This is a classic case of a time when we see a critical situation. Oftentimes this happens, and it is always very suspicious. There is a crime scene, a camera is recording the crime scene, but during the two minutes the crime happened, the camera seems to be mysteriously turned off, and then the camera comes back on after that. This is again one of these cases where we can smell that something is wrong and see that something is wrong.
We have the scathing Auditor General's report, which says that a massive amount of money was spent, and she cannot find what the money was spent on. She anticipates that 67% of the subcontractors did no actual work, yet here we are with a scandal of grand proportion. It appears that the tape was not running, that the camera was turned off for that period of time. The Auditor General says it could be as little as $60 million, and it could be far more.
We are debating a privilege motion here today. A privilege motion has to do with the ability of members of Parliament to do their jobs. Members of Parliament have particular privileges that are not broadly used by citizens. Taking a seat in the House of Commons is a privilege that only members of Parliament have, but the government has particular privileges as well. The government gets to write the cheques for Canada. It holds the chequebook. That is not an opposition party job. That is a job of the government. Therefore, it is incredibly important that the government maintains control of the chequebook and maintains the scrutiny of where the cheques are going. That is a massive failure, and we are trying to get to the bottom of that.
If we listen to the Liberals, they would have us believe that it is these evil contractors, and I am not denying that, who have been taking advantage of the government, which, by all accounts, appears to be the case, but where were the checks and balances? Where was the trust and verify? Why did it not ask if we were getting good value for money? This has been a common problem with the Liberals for a long time, that whenever they are questioned about a government failure, they point out how much money they have spent on a particular issue, whether it is border security, policing or managing vehicle crimes. They talk about how much money they are spending on a particular program, when the problem only seems to be getting worse.
Contractors have figured out that limiting the money being spent has not been an active priority for the government. Maintaining some sort of fiscal restraint is not something the government has been known for, and contractors have been taking advantage of that, for sure.
Common-sense Conservatives, after eight years of the Prime Minister, are putting forward a plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, and that is really what this comes down to.
We have heard some incredible things that have come out of committee. First is the fact that the Auditor General said that it was incredibly hard to track down what this money was spent on, as the contracts that GS Strategies got were more and more vague as time went on. They were for longer and longer periods of time and for larger and larger amounts of money. However, there have been some other interesting things, such as resumés that had been submitted to get the contracts being forged, which appears to be just straight-up fraud. There was a requirement for experience and qualifications, and GC Strategies admitted that it doctored these resumés to make sure that they fit in order to get the contracts.
The other really interesting thing that happened, which we discovered last week at committee, was that KPMG was approached by the government to do an audit of the effectiveness of the app, but rather than the government contracting KPMG directly to do this audit, the government employee suggested to KPMG that it should approach GC Strategies to do this audit rather than just doing it directly, even though it was the government that approached KPMG. There does seem to be something very interesting going on between the bureaucracy and GC Strategies.
Again, going back to this video camera that, for some apparent reason, seems to have been shut off just when the crime seemed to be happening, interestingly, all of the emails associated with this discussion of the KPMG contract have disappeared. The government employee who had been communicating on this deleted all of his emails and is no longer affiliated with the department that he worked with. I am not sure, but I think he has been suspended from the public service, so we do not have the documents.
Members might say, “Well, that's the actions of one individual” or “Mr. Firth is not answering our questions, and that's the actions of a particular individual”, but I would say that this has been the MO of the government. I remember back in 2015 when the Liberals came into power with the grand slogan of being “open by default”. That is what it said, yet we have seen more redactions, and we have seen the government take the Speaker of the House of Commons to court to prevent documents from coming to this place. We have seen endless amounts of redactions. We have an ATIP process that is completely dysfunctional. We will get an ATIP back, and it will be entirely blacked out. We have also seen the Prime Minister call an election to prevent the Winnipeg lab documents from coming to this place. He first sued the Speaker to prevent it, and then called an election to prevent the truth coming to light on a number of things.
It is not a far leap that, when citizens see the government refusing to answer questions and redacting or not allowing documents to come forth, citizens who are then called before Parliament would not treat Parliament with the respect that is required or would not be as forthright with Parliament as they should be, which is why we are calling on Mr. Firth to come to the bar so he can be questioned on a number of these issues. However, we also want to point out that we wish the government would be more forthright with documentation as well so we can get to the bottom of a number of these scandals.
1322 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:32:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just so that we are clear on this, the government actually supports, which I have been indicating throughout the day, the individual in question coming to the bar. From the very beginning of the ArriveCan app, there have been concerns with the government, and the government has taken tangible actions. We have been very supportive of the Auditor General and the recommendations that came forward, and we continue to look at ways in which we can improve the system.
The challenge I give to the Conservatives, which is why at times I get fairly animated, regards their positioning, which seems to be more partisan and politically motivated, as opposed to looking to improve the system. I am wondering if the member opposite can give an indication as to how he envisions going forward when Mr. Firth comes to the bar because it is a very serious issue.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:32:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope we can restore some trust in our democratic institutions, and that we can make it so that, when people are required to come to committee and are sworn in, they tell the truth and help us get to the bottom of it.
The member opposite wants to cast this narrowly as being about one individual coming to the bar so he can be questioned and we can get the truth from him, but it is likely that, when we get the truth from him, it will only lead us to more questions on the extent of the corruption, the extent of the taxpayer money waste and all of these things. The member may want to narrowly cast this, but this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to investigating the ArriveCAN app.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:33:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. The member mentioned the importance of maintaining our democratic institutions. We have a choice in this place, and I am happy to see co-operation across both sides of the House when someone is seeking to not give the information that was asked for and, in some cases, has fabricated and given testimony that was then proven to be false. We should demand better.
Does the member agree? Does he have further thoughts about how we can work in this place to build Parliament up and not let the important work Parliament needs to do on this matter fall aside?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:34:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is precisely the ability for members to hold the government to account. I hear from constituents all of the time who are wondering what will be done about this. It seems obvious that money was wasted and somebody was defrauding the government. It seems obvious that the government was asleep at the switch, not paying attention to where this money was going and not considering the value for money.
All of those things lead to the derogation of the trust in our institutions. People want to see justice, and when they do not see that justice, they ask what that institution is good for if it is incapable of capturing the thing it is supposed to capture.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:36:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are all on the same page when it comes to summoning this individual to the bar and the fact that we need to get the answers we are entitled to. Having said that, my question is very simple. We can say anything, but it all depends on the tone in which it is said. I just want to make sure that such a historic appearance at the bar does not become a spectacle, but rather that it allows us to get the answers to our questions.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:36:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. That is precisely why this privilege motion has been brought forward.
We are trying to get the answers to who authorized these contracts and what funny business was going on when the government allowed the company to write its own contracts and also suggested that other companies contract through GC Strategies, rather than directly with the government.
These are all important questions that we would like to get the answers to, so we can get to the bottom of this and root out corruption, if there is any.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:37:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I get into my question of privilege today, I just wanted to pass my condolences on to the family of the honourable John Fraser, a former Speaker of the House and B.C. member of Parliament who served honourably for both the Clark and Mulroney governments. I send my best to his family and friends.
I rise on a question of privilege to address what I believe is a matter of fundamental importance to every member in this place. I respect all members' time as valuable, so I will cut to the chase and get to the facts of this matter and why I believe they are of vital importance to all members.
I believe every person in this place understands the importance of Order Paper questions. At some level, we need a mechanism whereby democratically elected members of Parliament can get the truth from our government about its actions. My Order Paper question was not a complicated or a trivial one.
I will summarize my Order Paper question as this: I asked the government how many times it has asked social media companies to censor and remove posted online content. Obviously, my question was very detailed, and it requested specific information, but that is the basic summary of what I asked.
What do members think the answer was that I received? Do members think I got a list of specific requests detailing what departments were involved and the reasons censorship removal was requested and to whom? I did not.
The answer I received from our current Speaker, then in his former capacity as a parliamentary secretary, was the following: “Since January 1, 2016, the Privy Council Office has not made any requests to censor information.” Having heard that, I believe we all can agree that the Privy Council Office was crystal clear: It had never done anything like that.
Here is the problem: Late last week, on Friday, April 5, Allen Sutherland, who is an assistant secretary to the cabinet at the Privy Council Office, testified at the public inquiry on foreign interference. What did Mr. Sutherland say? He told us that, in 2019, the Privy Council Office had requested Facebook to remove a posting about the Prime Minister that appeared on The Buffalo Chronicle. Mr. Sutherland further disclosed that Facebook complied with the request from the Privy Council Office, and the content was subsequently removed from Facebook.
As some members may know, the Privy Council Office believed this post was disinformation that could harm the integrity of the 2019 election. It was also testified that the Privy Council Office was aware of misinformation targeting Conservative candidates. However, in that situation, the Privy Council took no action. It did nothing.
To be clear, I am not raising privilege here to revisit this discrepancy in action. My reason for raising privilege is that the Privy Council Office has fully admitted that, yes, it did ask Facebook to remove and censor a post. The facts show this. Likewise, the facts will also show that Facebook did indeed remove the post after the request from the Privy Council Office. These facts are not in dispute.
I ask every member of this place the obvious question: If the Privy Council Office, by its own admission, asked Facebook to remove a post from social media, how is it possible that, in the answer to my Order Paper question, it could state that it had not made any requests to censor information since January 1, 2016?
One of these things is not true, so which is false? We all know the answer to that question. The Privy Council was dishonest in its answer to the Order Paper question, and the dishonesty was fully signed off on by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, who is now the Speaker.
I am going to ask everyone present this: Does any other MP here care? If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone in this place. If the government can be wilfully dishonest, without accountability, and we, as members of Parliament, do nothing about it, how can we expect to maintain the trust and integrity of the people we serve?
Let us never forget that we elect the Speaker to represent us in this place. It is the Speaker's job to ensure that we, as parliamentarians, have the tools we need to execute our duties as elected members to this place. The Speaker is not elected to shield the government from accountability or to help the government advance its agenda. The Speaker is elected to collectively represent all members of this place and to ensure that this place is accountable to the members and the Canadians we represent by being here. That is how the House of Commons is meant to and intended to work.
Order Paper questions were intended to be a tool for members to hold the government accountable. Order Paper questions were never intended to allow the government to deceive and mislead, which is precisely what happened to me here. Now, the Speaker will have two choices. The Speaker can set a new precedent, take action and say that enough is enough, or he can look the other way and say it is not his job to determine whether the contents the documents tabled in the House are accurate. Sadly, I suspect the Speaker will do the latter and not the former.
This is why Canadians are growing so incredibly frustrated. Even when it is proven that the government has been dishonest with them, those who are responsible will say that it is not their job. However, as a parliamentarian, it is my job to raise the issue of privilege. If we, as members of this House, are unwilling to stand up when our rights to the truth from the government are taken away from us, and if we say nothing, we will only see more of the same. I submit that it is completely and totally unacceptable.
Before I close, I would like to leave members with this thought: We have a government that desires the power to police the Internet and appoint people who would declare what hate speech is and what the punishment for it should be. That would be an extremely powerful and dangerous tool. I am not here to enter into debate. That is not what raising privilege is.
What is not up for debate is that the government, by its own admission, requested a social media site to remove posted online content. Again, I am not here to debate that action. Afterward, the government denied ever having done that in a document intended to provide truthful accountability of its own conduct to elected MPs. The government failed that one simple but critically important task: to disclose the truth of its actions. That point is not up for debate. It is an issue of fundamental importance that should matter to all members of this place.
I humbly conclude my comments and ask that the Speaker approach this situation with the seriousness it deserves and send a powerful message to the government. He can send the message that, in our Canadian democracy, all elected members deserve the truth from their government.
If you rule in favour of my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would be ready to move the appropriate motion.
1231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:45:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to review the member's comments and get back to you.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:45:31 p.m.
- Watch
That seems to be the procedure we have accepted over the last little bit, if not the normal procedure. We will wait for other members to make interventions on this issue, if that is a requirement. We will look at this fully in due time.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:46:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shocking to be standing here in this place and bearing witness to events that, in and of themselves, are difficult to believe. However, when one stacks them all up together, this situation reeks of the Liberal cronyism, corruption and incompetence that we have become all too familiar with under the Prime Minister and his government.
Although my colleagues have so ably made the case throughout the day for why it is important that this motion passes, I am grateful to rise and speak to it and to be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Brantford—Brant.
This motion relates to the study of the ArriveCAN app taking place at the government operations and estimates committee. This study, I might add, started in October 2022. I have been a member of this committee since the beginning of the study, and I have seen the government repeatedly try to obstruct investigations of the app, and, I should say, the government members.
Members in this chamber will surely recall how the government voted against the Conservative motion to have the Auditor General audit the ArriveCAN app. Now that the Auditor General’s report has been released, we know why.
The NDP-Liberal coalition tried to minimize the issue, stall the study and filibuster, but this only served to confirm to Conservatives on the committee that we needed to continue pressing for the truth. We have seen a number of instances of the Liberals on the committee covering up issues, usually supported by their NDP coalition partners.
We can take, for example, the committee’s study on the government’s explosion in contracting with McKinsey, a company that drove the opioid crisis. During that study, the NDP-Liberal coalition members blocked Conservatives from getting these documents at committee for several months. To this day, a year and a half later, we have not received a single one of the unredacted documents we requested. They also blocked a motion to force the disclosure of the documents from coming to the House, essentially killing the study on the outrageous level of outsourcing by the Liberal government.
Despite the many attempts by the Liberals to cover up their arrive scam, Conservatives have pushed forward on the investigation and pressured their NDP coalition partners to hold the government to account. With at least a dozen investigations into the $60-million arrive scam, it is obvious that there is much more to this issue than simply another ineffective, money-wasting government program. The government spent at least $60 million on an app that started with a price tag of just $80,000.
From the beginning of this study, it was obvious that there were far more problems than the outrageous government overspending. During testimony at committee, we have heard allegations of corruption, fraud, forgery, bid rigging, reprisals, destruction of evidence and a large-scale cover-up. The cover-up extends beyond members in this chamber trying to shut down investigations into the scandal, with public servants and owners of companies being involved in the ArriveCAN contracting.
On several occasions, the committee has been forced to issue summonses for witnesses to appear at committee after they refused to attend. After they refused to comply with those summons, we have been forced to invoke powers that have rarely been used since Confederation to force witnesses to show up and testify under threat of arrest. We still have another witness who continues to fail to show up.
The disdain for the powers of Parliament, particularly parliamentary committees, is born, I believe, out of an attitude pushed by the NDP-Liberal coalition. It denies accountability and allows the powers of standing committees to be subverted and outright denied in order to cover up for its failings.
Currently, a dozen investigations have been launched into the arrive scam. We have already had two major reports, published by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman. They have found widespread incompetence and several instances of misconduct and potential criminality, which have been referred to the RCMP.
The Auditor General found a distressing lack of documentation across the three departments involved, making it difficult to determine who made the decisions, how much the app actually cost and where all the money went, or, rather, who got rich.
She also found that Kristian Firth's company, GC Strategies, sat at the table to draft the requirements for a $25-million contract that was later awarded to GC Strategies under the guise of a competitive process. She also found that public servants at the CBSA directed KPMG, one of the largest international consulting firms, to work with GC Strategies. This inexplicable decision cost the government more money and gave GC Strategies a larger profit.
Despite being at the heart of this scandal, Kristian Firth continued to refuse to answer questions at the committee after being directed to do so. He also gave testimony on the amount he claims was paid to his company for the development of the ArriveCAN app, but his number differs from the amounts on the invoices that he provided to the committee. As a result, we have had difficulty getting to the truth regarding Mr. Firth's and his company's actions, as he has both misled and lied to the committee, on top of admitting to submitting fraudulent résumés to a federal department in order to have one of his clients qualify for a contract.
To summarize, this witness has refused several summonses to appear at a parliamentary committee, and after being forced to attend under threat of arrest, has both refused to answer questions and given misleading testimony to committee members. This impedes the committee's ability to conduct its study on the arrive scam and must be dealt with directly and swiftly to ensure that this behaviour is not allowed to become commonplace. If we value the privileges of Parliamentary standing committees to send for documents, call for witnesses and expect truthful and fulsome testimony, we must shut down any attempts to infringe on the rights of Parliament. This is an opportunity for all members in this place to stand up for the sanctity of the institution of Parliament.
I understand my colleagues on the government benches will have a knee-jerk reaction to protect Liberal insiders and cover up for their friends, but this motion must be passed in order to protect the integrity of Parliament and its ability to fulfill its duties. The powers of Parliament are clear, and they are necessary for the functioning of Parliament and our ability to do our jobs. The powers granted to committees are particularly necessary when opposition parties must hold an ethically challenged government to account, such as this NDP-Liberal coalition has shown itself to be with its repeated ethics violations.
I encourage every member in this place to vote in favour of this motion. It is of extreme importance that this motion pass and that we demonstrate that there are consequences for attempting to defy Parliament and the powers granted to Parliament and its committees. Future parliamentarians deserve no less from us.
Conservatives will stand up for the rights and privileges of members and hold to account all those who defy them. I will be voting in favour of this motion and I hope to see my colleagues join me.
1236 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:55:42 p.m.
- Watch
Before I go to questions and comments, I have a point of order.
The hon. official opposition House leader.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:55:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, Special Order or usual practice of the House,
(a) at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment later this day or when no Member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the motion on the question of privilege standing in the name of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes regarding summoning Kristian Firth to the bar of the House and the amendment standing in the name of the member for Kingston and the Islands, be deemed withdrawn, and
(b) the House, having considered the unanimous views of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, expressed in its 17th report, find Kristian Firth to be in contempt for his refusal to answer certain questions and for prevaricating in his answers to other questions and, accordingly, order him to attend at the bar of this House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Wednesday, April 17, 2024, for the purposes of:
(i) receiving an admonishment delivered by the Speaker;
(ii) providing responses to the questions referred to in the 17th report;
(iii) responding to supplementary questions arising from his responses to the questions referred to in the 17th report;
provided that
(iv) during Mr. Firth's attendance at the bar for the purpose of responding to questions, which shall be asked by Members, with questions and answers being addressed through the Speaker,
(A) ten minutes be allocated to each recognized party for the first and second rounds in the following order: Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party,
(B) during the third round, five minutes be allocated to each of the recognized parties with an additional five-minute period for the Green Party,
(C) within each 10- or five-minute period of questioning, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members,
(D) in the case of questions and answers, Mr. Firth's answers shall approximately reflect the time taken by the question,
(v) at the expiry of time provided herein, and after Mr. Firth has been excused from further attendance, the House shall resume consideration of the usual business of the House for a Wednesday,
(vi) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to consider Mr. Firth's testimony at the bar of the House and, if necessary, recommend further action.
421 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:58:16 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 5:58:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the motion we just passed unanimously in the House reinforces what I have been saying all day, which is that the Government of Canada very much wants to see accountability on this issue. It is one of the reasons that we wanted Mr. Firth to come before the bar. I have literally been saying that all day.
I also question the motivation factor of the official opposition on the issue, as its members tend to be far more partisan in trying to pin political blame as opposed to getting a better understanding of what has taken place and taking actions to prevent it from happening in the future.
My question to the member is this: Does she agree there is far more value to be had if we take an approach to improve the system?
The system is what needs to be improved. I could go back to when her leader was the parliamentary secretary and there was a $400-million scandal, but I will not go into detail on that. I would ask her whether or not she agrees with my thoughts.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:00:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear from the member that he supports the unanimous decision by the committee to call Mr. Firth to the bar.
What I can also share with the House is that it has taken us a long time to get here. This study has been going on for 18 months, and what we observed time and time again as we were trying to get to the bottom of the arrive scam scandal was members of his caucus who serve on that committee continuing to try to stall this study, filibuster and keep us from getting the answers that we believe Canadians deserve.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:00:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it seems to me that we are seeing more and more of this kind of attitude, with half answers, evasive comments, a lot of nonsense and a general lack of seriousness.
Does my colleague think that we are starting to see a pattern of refusing to answer questions at committee?
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 6:01:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think what we continue to see is that the Liberal government refuses to take responsibility for its own failures.
The Liberals try to distract and misdirect so that no one will actually focus on their abysmal record. The Liberals and their mountain of scandals are setting records for ethics violations, and that is what they really want to try to distract Canadians from paying attention to. The government members have continually shown disdain for the rule of Parliament by not answering questions and stalling studies in committee and have tried to subvert any attempt to hold them accountable.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
