SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 301

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 17, 2024 02:00PM
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Apr/17/24 4:10:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that.
6 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Apr/17/24 4:15:19 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely would. I would have answered the questions more concisely, taken more time in giving the answers and provided all written information back to the committee faster.
30 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/17/24 4:15:40 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier, Mr. Firth said that no one has asked him to pay back the commission that he earned. Given that the Auditor General found the government overpaid for the ArriveCAN app, that the app itself did not work and sent thousands to quarantine incorrectly, that the Auditor General has called the record-keeping around those contracts some of the worst that she has ever seen, that 76% of the subcontractors did zero or little work, that GC Strategies bills itself as a recruitment firm but does not recruit, and that Mr. Firth took $2.5 million in commission for very little work, will he give that money back?
110 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/17/24 4:16:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, we were the 24%; we were not the 76%. We did recruit over 50 people to work on the ArriveCAN application and over 100 people in totality at CBSA. The answer is that we did as we were told. We invoiced monthly. At any time, we could have been stopped. This was not that we were given $20 million and then walked away to build an app. This was not our app. We were paid to recruit and find the resources who built the app within 20 days and did subsequent new releases for 18 months on time and on budget.
103 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/17/24 4:16:59 p.m.
  • Watch
This concludes the first round of questioning. Would Mr. Firth like a pause before the House proceeds to the next round?
21 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/17/24 4:17:11 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, yes, I would, please.
6 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border