44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 17, 2024 02:00PM
- Apr/17/24 3:44:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the procurement watchdog found “numerous examples where [GC Strategies] had simply copied and pasted” information to prove the people GC Strategies found to do work on ArriveCAN actually did it.
Has the government asked GC Strategies to repay the money paid to GC Strategies for ArriveCAN?
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 3:50:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the procurement ombudsman found that 76% of resources named in bids on the ArriveCAN contracts did no work and were switched out for other companies. He termed this “bait and switch”, which is often used to sub out expensive subcontractors for cheaper ones, allowing the middlemen to take home more profit.
Did Mr. Firth switch out any of his proposed resources on the ArriveCAN application contracts?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 4:11:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, both the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman found that the criteria for that contract were set in such a restrictive way that only GC Strategies could have been selected as the successful bidder.
Does Mr. Firth not agree that this process is profoundly unfair?
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 4:34:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Firth aware that Mr. Brennan's wife works for Procurement Canada?
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 4:44:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to defend Canada's Parliament, an institution to which I hope one day Quebec will no longer have to answer. Nevertheless, I must defend the principles behind this Parliament, in particular respect for democratic institutions, and therefore of the parliamentary democracy in which Quebec participates.
A few weeks ago, the Office of the Auditor General submitted a report on the management of the ArriveCAN app. To quote the Auditor General, management of the app was the worst she had seen in her career. The ArriveCAN app was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing $60 million. In the same report, we learned that one company composed of two people, the owner of which is here today, pocketed more than $19 million. That company is GC Strategies.
We also learned that the ArriveCAN affair is only the tip of the iceberg. The comptroller general recently revealed that GC Strategies, and its ancestor Coredal Systems Consulting, have obtained contracts totalling $108 million since 2011. Manual searches could reveal other contracts, so it might be even more than $108 million.
We learned in the Auditor General's report and from several witnesses that the witness here today, Mr. Kristian Firth, and public servants participated in whisky tastings, dinners, golf tournaments and dozens of other events. It is normal and healthy in a self-respecting democracy that the parliamentarians responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of the government take a closer look at what may have happened to prevent it from happening again.
That is the reason why the owners of GC Strategies were invited to testify several times in committee. Mr. Kristian Firth refused to answer several questions. He compromised parliamentarians' work by not submitting the requested documents on time. He lied to the committee. In particular, he refused to submit the list of public servants with whom he did business, a list he has just now submitted but that is incomplete based on the testimony we heard in committee.
It is clear that, if that is where we are, there are huge problems with the government's procurement processes. For almost 15 years now, it has been so difficult for companies to pass the preselection stage to do business with the government that small companies that provide no services at all are being paid a commission so that the government can enter into a contract with the company that will actually be doing the work. It is completely absurd.
Here we have a person who took advantage of our broken system and pushed it to the extreme. I will give members an example. When the Canada Border Services Agency identified KPMG as a company with which it could do business and as a company already on the list of pre-approved companies, it contacted KPMG. The contract would be pre-established. That is when a public servant at the CBSA called KPMG to tell them that there would be an intermediary in their contract. The intermediary was GC Strategies. We learned that Mr. Kristian Firth met with KPMG with respect to the contract. That is precisely the problem. Mr. Kristian Firth and his two-person company did not even provide the head-hunting service they claimed to provide. They did absolutely nothing and pocketed $84,000.
My question for Mr. Firth is as follows: Does he think that taxpayers got their money's worth for the $84,000 in this affair?
586 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 4:51:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the first question was specific to what was given to receive contracts by government employees. That is why I said it was zero.
Once the contracts had been awarded through regular procurement practices, they became a client, and we would have frequent meetings to check on the health of the project, whether that was over lunch or whether that was during coffee.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 4:54:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is too bad, because even a recruiter is considered a company employee.
I think that what we are seeing today is that there is a big problem when it comes to procurement and that there is a certain loss of control when it comes to the gifts that are being accepted by public servants. We saw proof of that today.
I think that the CBSA, which was one of the main government bodies that awarded contracts to GC Strategies, must be put under third-party management because Quebeckers and Canadians need to recover the money that was wasted on this company and others.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 4:55:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians across the country and members of Parliament are disappointed, not just in the dramatic failure of the procurement system in our country to address the real issues of value for money, but in that this sheds light on what has been a terrible instance of reporting missing information and lost invoicing. We do not even know the total amount to date.
This is a serious and grave matter facing our country, one that stems back decades now. We heard testimony at the public accounts committee, of which I am a member, several times. Other contractors spoke to us about the tremendous vulnerability that exists in Canada's procurement system and also exists in the lack of investment in our public sector.
According to The Globe and Mail, for instance, since 2017, GC Strategies has received $46 million in federal funding. The flow of tax dollars to GC Strategies has increased steadily each year, growing from $32.6 million in the 2016-17 fiscal year to $80.3 million in the 2021-22 fiscal year.
According to the Auditor General, GC Strategies' ArriveCAN app cost Canadians almost $60 million. The total is still undetermined due to the lack of documentation and of a paper trail, a serious and grave error in and of itself.
On top of that, we have noticed that this vulnerability of our public service and procurement process has created a system in which insiders are able to profit in extreme amounts because of a system that does not have the proper accountability and does not have the proper follow through, albeit, in this particular instance, that there is a lack of proper procurement.
Canadians are rightly disappointed. Not only that, but they are angry at the very real fact that they wake up every single day, go to work, pay their taxes and do everything right, and then are told that the tax dollars they have worked so hard for have not gone to close in the gaps in social or economic outcomes, or for material benefits for Canadians, but have been going towards a dramatic outsourcing of jobs that Canadians in our public service could do.
I recognize that not all IT services, of course, can be dealt with here at the House of Commons or in our public service, but a great deal of them could.
When did Mr. Firth first start doing contracts and business with the Government of Canada?
411 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 5:03:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Procurement Ombud said that “overly restrictive”, “mandatory [solicitation] criteria...favoured [GC Strategies] for “a $25-million contract”. GC Strategies had been involved in the development of their requirements, which were included by the CBSA in a request for proposal for a contract ultimately won by Mr. Firth.
To be clear, Mr. Firth's company, GC Strategies, by evidence of the ombudsman, participated in the recommendations set out in a request for proposal to which Mr. Firth's company applied and was awarded a contract.
Does Mr. Firth understand that the Auditor General concluded in that investigation that there was no evidence to the effect that GC Strategies supplied a proposal even to get this contract?
Can Mr. Firth please explain how the information was requested, who from the CBSA requested the information related to a contract like the one they were a recipient of, and what aspects of that proposal did Mr. Firth supply for requirement?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 5:40:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like, in the last few moments we have here with the witness, to put myself in the position of a Canadian watching this on television, and wondering how this could happen. I think it is clear on a factual basis, and respecting this place and everyone in it, that there has been here, in this example, as the Auditor General has found and as the ombudsman has found, an appalling failure of our procurement process. It is completely unacceptable, and the individuals involved at GC Strategies, particularly Mr. Firth and his partner, have benefited personally from what can best be described as extremely dodgy business practices.
I would like to ask, on behalf of the people of Canada, an obvious question. I am not suggesting there is an answer, but I would like to ask Mr. Firth if he is a member of any political party. Does he donate to any particular party? Has he been involved in currying favour with any party or political parties in this country?
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
