SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 301

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 17, 2024 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 301 - Apr/17/24
Mrs. Julie Vignola
  • Apr/17/24 4:04:51 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, based on what I understand from the answers to my last questions, the public service is currently forced, or feels obliged, to seek out the expertise of certain consultants because it cannot even identify or formulate criteria related to its own needs. That indicates a lack of expertise, and a lack of training. In particular, I would add that it makes no sense for a company that worked on selecting the criteria for a bidding process to be allowed to submit a bid. It creates the appearance of collusion, something that public servants, and companies, must absolutely avoid. That should be avoided. I recommend that the process be reviewed.
111 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)
  • Apr/17/24 4:06:05 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I too am struck by the historic nature of this moment, and I am keenly aware of our responsibility, which is a sacred responsibility, to not only seek answers on behalf of Canadians but also ensure we are not doing undue harm to the individual who is here before us. We must also ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a way that upholds the integrity, dignity and credibility of this place, which lies at the heart of our democracy. I will certainly try to uphold those values in my questioning. We are here because of the serious allegations and revelations surrounding the procurement and execution of the ArriveCAN app, a piece of technology that incorrectly required thousands of Canadians to quarantine, that cost some $60 million and that was procured in a way that both the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman have found was highly irregular and likely connected to misconduct on the part of the government officials who were responsible. There are two main questions of substance that I believe we are seeking answers to today. The first dealt with Mr. Firth's misleading of the committee when it came to the question of whether he had met with government officials outside of work. The first time that question was raised at committee, Mr. Firth replied in the negative, saying that he had not met with officials outside of work. He then later provided documentation that showed he had met with three officials at some half a dozen Ottawa restaurants and breweries. Why did he choose to mislead the committee in the first instance?
269 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kristian Firth
  • Apr/17/24 4:08:12 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, I am fully endorsing the embellishment and the understanding that there were questions that may have not been answered correctly and the understanding that some of them may have been obtuse. That is why I am here today. I will be answering all questions, just as I have been over the last 45 minutes, honestly and to the best of my knowledge.
65 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach
  • Apr/17/24 4:08:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the question, as originally asked at committee, was a simple yes or no question: Had the individual met with government officials outside of work? Mr. Firth replied that no, he had not. My question, which was not provided with an answer, was why he chose, in that moment, to mislead the committee.
54 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kristian Firth
  • Apr/17/24 4:09:03 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, at that time, I did not know how many. Rather than giving a fake answer, I did not know exactly how many people I had met with. I have been doing this for 16 years.
37 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach
  • Apr/17/24 4:09:19 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the question was not how many government officials or how many times. The question was a yes or no question. Had Mr. Firth met with government officials outside of work? Why did he mislead the committee by answering that question in the negative?
45 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kristian Firth
  • Apr/17/24 4:09:44 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, at that time, I thought I did answer it correctly.
12 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach
  • Apr/17/24 4:09:51 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a very difficult time accepting that answer and believing that answer to be the truth. The other question of substance that I believe we are here to seek an answer to is with regard to which government official Mr. Firth discussed the criteria for a contract that was eventually awarded to him. I believe he has provided that name as being Diane Daly. Can Mr. Firth confirm that this is indeed the government official with whom he discussed the contract criteria?
85 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kristian Firth
  • Apr/17/24 4:10:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that.
6 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach
  • Apr/17/24 4:10:31 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think, for Canadians watching, this is really the most troubling of the allegations, that Mr. Firth, on behalf of his company, was involved in setting the rules and the criteria for a multi-million-dollar contract that, strangely enough, his firm was eventually awarded with. To most Canadians, this would look like, and I will not exaggerate, a rigged system that is designed to benefit Ottawa insiders and make it more difficult for entrepreneurs and small businesses in this country to do work for the government. Does Mr. Firth not agree?
94 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kristian Firth
  • Apr/17/24 4:11:13 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the RFP for the contract in question had over 220 requirements involved. We offered up three suggestions, with which PSPC still deemed 40 qualified vendors could respond to, and of which 10 showed interest. I do not see that as overly restrictive.
44 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach
  • 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!
  • star_border
Mr. Kristian Firth
  • Apr/17/24 4:11:58 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I find the ombudsman's comments to be somewhat subjective after the fact. I cannot comment as to why the other 39 people did not respond. People are busy. They sometimes do not have the bandwidth. Also, for the Auditor General to understand that we would be the only people that could respond to this, there are 635 other vendors out there with the corporate requirements and there are wholly 10,000 or 12,000 resources out there with the technical requirements. Unless they are familiar with all of those, it is hard, again, to assume that we were the only people qualified to win this.
108 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach
  • Apr/17/24 4:12:36 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply troubled by the allegations and revelations surrounding the ArriveCAN app. Could Mr. Firth, in his own words, describe what those concerns are, precisely?
28 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kristian Firth
  • Apr/17/24 4:12:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can, to be honest. I do not know the allegations and accusations around the ArriveCAN app. We used the first three national security exemption contracts. Actually, only two of them, the first and the third, were used to build the ArriveCAN application. I am not being disrespectful. I may not understand the question, but I think I am answering it honestly.
68 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach
  • Apr/17/24 4:13:19 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, at committee, when Mr. Firth was asked about which government official he discussed the contract criteria with, he refused to answer, citing the fact that the RCMP was now involved at some level in looking into the circumstances surrounding the ArriveCAN app, yet the rules of Parliament and the laws of Canada do not accept that as a valid reason to refuse to answer a question of Parliament. Does Mr. Firth accept the fact that the rules required him, at the time, to provide a full answer to our questions at committee?
94 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kristian Firth
  • Apr/17/24 4:14:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a result of my admonishment and my understanding of that, I do now.
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach
  • Apr/17/24 4:14:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, in an internal investigation report by the company Botler AI, there is a characterization of a communication with Mr. Firth in which he is discussing the exorbitant commissions charged by his company for the work done by subcontractors. In those communications, he is alleged to have said that it sucks for Canada. Does Mr. Firth recall making those comments?
61 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kristian Firth
  • Apr/17/24 4:14:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any of that content. I cannot recall saying that at all.
17 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Taylor Bachrach
  • Apr/17/24 4:14:54 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, given that Mr. Firth has now been brought before the bar of Parliament, and this is only the second time in our country's history that this has happened, and given the grave concerns of Canadians, I wonder if there is anything he would have done differently in his initial committee appearances to avoid the situation he now finds himself in.
63 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border