- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the official opposition
- Conservative
- Mégantic—L'Érable
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $94,201.00
- Government Page
- Apr/16/24 3:03:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister's ArriveCAN app has become the biggest scandal we have seen in the past 100 years. Tomorrow, Kristian Firth will have to come before the bar of the House of Commons to testify because he lied and he protected his contacts within the Liberal government by refusing to give their names.
Two men with no IT skills working out of a basement were given $20 million to develop an app, ArriveCAN. I challenge the minister responsible for this historic level of corruption to rise and apologize for this scandal, which is making Liberal cronies rich at the expense of Canadian families.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 3:51:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today we are discussing an important issue. The Speaker recognized that there might have been a breach of parliamentary privilege stemming from a situation that has been discussed at length in the media. Unfortunately, I find that Quebeckers are not talking about it enough. That will come, however, since, given the extent of the situation surrounding the Prime Minister's ArriveCAN scandal, we are now resorting to taking historic action in the House: summoning a witness to the bar.
For the people watching, I would like to clarify that “the bar” is a golden bar located at the entrance to the House of Commons. Only members of Parliament and pages can be admitted to the House. Exceptionally, someone will be permitted to come to the bar to testify and answer for their actions. The actions for which the witness is criticized are not having answered questions put to him by a committee, lying when questioned by parliamentarians, and not having taken the study of the ArriveCAN scandal undertaken by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates seriously.
The motion is clear. Kristian Firth, one of the two owners, managers and employees of GC Strategies, is being asked to appear to receive an admonishment from the Speaker. This is what is called getting a slap on the wrist from the Speaker. Mr. Firth is being asked to answer questions asked of him and appearing in the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. He is also being asked to answer additional questions that might arise from the questions he is asked here in the House. This is important. The credibility of our parliamentary system depends on it.
The purpose of parliamentary committees is to fuel debates in the House. They are intended to allow members to delve further into an issue, to question people and situations so that we have all the information we need to make the right decisions and pass laws. That is why all of the bills introduced in the House must go through the committee process. The people who table bills must come answer questions in committee. Witnesses may be invited to help us make the right decisions. That helps both the government and the opposition parties.
It is also an opportunity to hold the government to account for its actions. Things happen sometimes, or reports get published like the one from the Auditor General, that reveal the chaos around management of the ArriveCAN application. To date, this application, which should have cost $80,000, has cost $60 million. The exact amount is not yet known. Not even the Auditor General could pinpoint it. Of these $60 million, $20 million went to a company that acted as a go-between. This company was contracted to develop a computer application, but has no IT knowledge. All it knows is how LinkedIn works, and how to connect people so the government can implement its contracts. It is entirely unreasonable to pay millions of taxpayer dollars to companies that serve as fronts or intermediaries and do no work.
Consequently, parliamentarians wanted to find out more. In committee, they questioned the firm GC Strategies. By the way, “GC Strategies” is the name of a private company. It is no surprise that the name starts with the letters “GC”, since the company wants to imply that it has special ties with the Government of Canada, as in “Government of Canada Strategies”. The company demonstrated its lack of rigour in the work it did. Furthermore, it truly sought to squeeze this government for as much as possible.
Witnesses who appeared before the committee did not want to answer questions. They took the summons to appear before the parliamentary committee with a grain of salt, thinking it was no big deal, that they could refuse to answer questions, and nothing would come of it, as has too often happened in the past. Unfortunately, the example comes from on high. We saw this in other parliamentary committees when, in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Minister of Justice was subjected to political pressure to make a decision and could not get answers either from the public servants involved or from the Prime Minister and his team.
He hid behind cabinet confidence to avoid speaking the truth and avoid suffering the consequences. The result is that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner submitted a report. He found the Prime Minister guilty of a breach of ethics. What was the consequence for the Prime Minister? He said he took full responsibility for his actions and would ensure that it never happened again.
It is therefore not surprising that, subsequently, witnesses appear at a parliamentary committee believing it is not a big deal if they do not answer questions, for absolutely nothing will happen. This time, however, we said no. All the parties said no, enough is enough, people have to answer. We should proceed this way so witnesses give the whole truth when they testify and understand the importance of their testimony before a committee, not only for parliamentarians, but also for Canadians.
I myself have witnessed certain situations in the ArriveCAN file. I asked one of the officials to name the company that recommended GC Strategies, and had to ask three questions before the officials finally agreed to name the company GC Strategies. That is completely unacceptable. It is time that the House of Commons, and we all, as parliamentarians, put a stop to this to make sure these kind of things do not happen again.
I want to give a few examples so that people understand the situation clearly. Here is an example of a question Mr. Firth was asked that he did not want to answer. On GC Strategies' website, there is a statement that says, “GCstrategies listen and try to find solutions to my problems vs. selling me a solution to a problem I've never had.” This quote is attributed to a senior executive in the Government of Canada. A senior executive said that about GC Strategies. Mr. Firth was asked who this senior executive was who had so much respect for his company. Believe it or not, Mr. Firth refused to answer that simple question.
However the quote was on the homepage of their website, which, unfortunately, we can no longer find. A search for gcstrategies.ca now leads to a GoDaddy site. The site is no more. Fortunately we have screenshots, which I have in my hands right now, although I cannot show them.
Here is another example. GC Strategies quoted an assistant deputy minister. That is something. That is in the higher echelons of government. Apparently, the assistant deputy minister said that the company took the time to understand their client's business and vision, and so on. It was a glowing comment praising GC Strategies. Mr. Firth was asked who was that voluble assistant deputy minister who was so full of praise and goodwill towards his company. Mr. Firth refused to answer the parliamentarians. Why do we need to know that? Because we need to update the entire procedure, solve the existing problem that allows companies like GC Strategies to develop an app that should cost $80,000 but ends up costing taxpayers $60 million. The owners of the company developed the app out of their basement with no IT knowledge whatsoever.
My colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who is the opposition critic on ethics, was very clear. He has a list of some of the lies told by Mr. Firth. In particular, Mr. Firth was asked whether he had ever lied to a parliamentary committee. He refused to answer. He did not want to lie twice. He was asked which public office holders he met with outside government offices. He refused to answer. That is important, because we need to know who this company’s connections are to find out how it managed to obtain so many contracts when it has so few employees. We need answers to these questions.
Mr. Firth was asked a simple question. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan asked Mr. Firth how many hours he spent working on sending LinkedIn invitations. That is not a difficult question. He could have said one, two, three hours. He refused to answer the question.
This is an extraordinary situation that demands an extraordinary response. For too long now, witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees have ceased taking the work we do in the House seriously. With the multitude of Liberal scandals we are currently dealing with, witnesses need to know that there are consequences to not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a parliamentary committee. That is why I support this motion to call Mr. Firth to testify at the bar.
1489 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 2:24:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are currently witnessing a historic debate in the House of Commons, since it has been over 100 years since someone was called to testify in this way for contempt of Parliament before all parliamentarians.
This is a serious moment, but it is also essential to ensure that the people who testify before committees understand that, when members of this Parliament ask them to appear before a committee and answer members' questions, they must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I myself had the opportunity to take part in a few committee meetings on the ArriveCAN issue. Let us not forget that ArriveCAN was supposed to cost $80,000, but it ended up costing around $60 million. No one can even say how much the app cost because the companies involved refused to hand over all the information.
It is important that we send a clear message that Parliament and its committees will not tolerate witnesses coming here and telling only part of the truth. I think that is exactly what my colleague's speech was about.
I would like her to expand on the importance of witness appearances so that committees can function properly in the future.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:58:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the RCMP appeared on Monday, at the request of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, prepared to testify about the RCMP's investigation into the SNC-Lavalin affair. The commissioner was muzzled. He did not get to say a single word. Why? Because the NDP-Liberal coalition and even the Bloc Québécois voted to adjourn the meeting before the testimony and questions could even begin. It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois, which is preventing us from getting to the bottom of another Liberal scandal.
After eight years, why is the Prime Minister still so afraid of the truth?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/23 3:00:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Liberals are desperate to protect their Prime Minister.
Yesterday, they prevented the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, from testifying on the SNC-Lavalin affair. I was flabbergasted to see that the Bloc Québécois also voted for the cover up to protect the Prime Minister. The RCMP was investigating the Prime Minister's obstruction of justice and SNC-Lavalin's fraud.
When nothing is done to clean up corruption, it is costly. When the Bloc helps hide the truth, it is costly. Voting for the Bloc is costly.
Why is the Prime Minister so afraid of the RCMP? Why does he need the Bloc vote to cover up his involvement in the SNC-Lavalin affair?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 2:46:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's brother is a member of the Trudeau Foundation, as is the Prime Minister himself.
The Trudeau Foundation received a cheque backed by funds from the Communist regime in Beijing channelled through two billionaires who will be reimbursed by the regime.
Alexandre Trudeau accepted the cheque on behalf of the foundation, but the receipt was issued in the name of another company, which directly violates the Income Tax Regulations.
Is the Prime Minister going to let slide this new evidence of Beijing's influence on his government through the Trudeau Foundation or will he ensure that his brother will testify before a parliamentary committee?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/10/23 11:35:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us talk about what is happening right now.
The Prime Minister did not deny that a caucus member was involved in a case of interference by the regime in Beijing. He did not deny that his staff had been informed about this interference when he was asked about it this week. The Prime Minister did not even deny that his party allegedly received illegal money directly from the foreign dictatorship in Beijing.
We now know why he asked his members on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs not to allow Katie Telford to testify. The government is afraid she will tell the truth under oath.
Why does the government keep refusing to allow Katie Telford to testify before a public parliamentary committee?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/10/23 11:34:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office was informed three weeks before the 2019 election that a Liberal candidate had been assessed by CSIS intelligence as having ties to the regime in Beijing.
This week, the Prime Minister did not deny that information. The Prime Minister and his chief of staff were surely briefed about these allegations and this intelligence CSIS provided. We are naturally anxious for the Prime Minister's chief of staff to appear before the committee to tell us what she knows about these briefings.
Will the Prime Minister allow Katie Telford to testify?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/9/23 2:32:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister, foreign interference is more about Liberal security than national security.
Let us be serious. The Prime Minister wants a secret committee with secret hearings to report back to him on things that it has repeatedly told him and that he has always kept secret. However, a special rapporteur, a yes-man on the foreign interference file, is not the way to restore Canadians' confidence in our democracy.
The Prime Minister just said he trusts parliamentarians. Does he trust parliamentarians enough to let Katie Telford testify this afternoon?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:39:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk about the past, then let us talk about 2013. In front of a group of women gathered for a Liberal Party fundraiser, a person in the audience asked the Prime Minister what country he admired, other than Canada. He answered, and I quote: “There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.”
We will not take any lessons from the Liberal Party's past. The regime in Beijing employed a sophisticated strategy to disrupt the 2021 federal election through its diplomats and their proxies. That is what we learned from The Globe and Mail.
Why is he refusing to allow Katie Telford to testify before the committee?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
