- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- Mar/22/24 1:42:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this debate on this question of privilege and the motion that has been put forward by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I want to thank him for bringing this forward. I would agree that this is an extremely serious matter.
What we have seen occur at committee is the individuals in question being asked to appear, being summoned to appear, completely ignoring those requests and demands and then, finally, appearing after the threat of arrest was made. This is not conduct that any member of Parliament or any Canadian citizen should expect in order for our democracy to function properly.
The committees that support the work in the House of Commons here, that perhaps a lot of Canadians are not completely familiar with, do very important work to inform the House, bringing forward various different proposals, policies and positions from committee members after having the opportunity to sit down and hear from actual witnesses at the ground level. That is why getting information to committee in a timely, co-operative and, most importantly, truthful manner is of critical importance. When we have people who arbitrarily decide that they do not think they need to tell the truth, or they do not think they need to appear, because they do not feel like it or do not want to, then we have a big problem. It is a problem when we are talking about something as serious as this, in terms of how public money was misused by individuals, perhaps in a fraudulent manner.
I would agree with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes when he speaks very passionately about the need to get this information and to deal with the individuals in question properly. If we do not ensure that we are doing that, we are basically setting a precedent and opening the door to others who might feel the same way, as though they do not feel obligated to appear before a committee when they are summoned, to tell the truth or to provide information in order for parliamentarians, vis-à-vis their constituents and the Canadian population, to get to the bottom of things.
When we look at the ArriveCAN situation specifically, I would like to point out a few things where I perhaps disagree with my colleague who introduced the motion, namely, the fact that the Government of Canada has been seized with this issue since it was brought forward by CBSA and the officials to the minister. As soon as the minister was made aware of this, he directed the appropriate individuals to conduct audits and to figure out exactly what was going on. To suggest this was not the case would be void of reality of what actually happened.
Once it was discovered that work needed to be done in terms of getting to the bottom of things and figuring out exactly what happened, the minister and his officials proceeded to ensure that this would happen. As we know, as a result, at least three contracts were suspended by CBSA. Those were contracts specifically with GC Strategies, Coradix Technology and Dalian Enterprises. The manner in which that was dealt with was extremely prudent. It was the proper way to conduct this.
I am open to hearing the debate and what people have to say today. My concern about the manner in which the member has brought this forward is how we would conduct this operation, exactly. He wants to call the individuals to the bar. I do not know if that means we dissolve into committee of the whole or something, in order to ask questions.
This, quite frankly, is not something that has been done in over 200 years. We really do not have a practice or a proper procedure for doing this. This is why, when I intervened on the question of privilege earlier today, I specifically talked about the fact that we need to establish how we do this. What does this look like from a practical, implementing perspective?
I was unfortunate to be one of the participants during the middle of the pandemic when we were in the House. I may have been the only Liberal member who was physically present in the House of Commons when we called another individual to the bar. All we really got out of that was people yelling and shouting and screaming from their seats while the individual stood there and was scolded and chastised.
I assume, and I have faith, that the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes genuinely wants to get to the bottom of this and that this is not about political theatre, as that tended to be. That is why I stress the fact that it is extremely important that we develop how we will go about conducting the manner in which we will call somebody, how questions will be asked and how the House will genuinely function during that time, again, given the fact that this is not something we have done in over 200 years. That does bring concern for me.
I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I have the amendment here, which I will provide to the Clerk after I read it out.
I move:
That the motion be amended by:
(a) deleting the words “, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the third sitting day following the adoption of this order,”; and
(b) adding the following:
“provided that, (d) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the procedure for questioning Kristian Firth at the Bar of the House and report back to the House with recommendations within 10 sitting days following the adoption of this order; and (e) Kristian Firth attend the Bar of the House no later than three sitting days following concurrence in the report.”.
What I am asking for is that we let the standing committee, very quickly, develop the procedure by which we would entertain the individual and proceed with the individual once they get here, and then also that we add the words to ensure that the appearance occurs within a limited time, three days, as I indicated.
That is my amendment and I will submit that to the Clerk.
1075 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:15:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing that committees struggle with quite a bit is having those resources. I recognize the fact that the amendment to the motion instructs the House to put all the resources necessary towards the committee, and I hope that is enough; it is a short timeline. The chair of the committee would know how difficult it is, sometimes, to get witnesses to come when they are given a two weeks' notice. Now we are talking about a day or two in order to do all this properly. However, I do have great faith in the people who work here, our interpretive services and the people who translate the documents for us. A lot of people work behind the scenes, and they do this incredible work so that our country can continue to operate in two official languages, as it is supposed to do.
Another thing I will promise the chair is that I will not ask a witness to answer in any particular language. I will allow them to answer in the language they choose.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:05:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from north of the 401 has properly pointed out that Mr. Milliken no longer resides in Kingston and the Islands. He now resides in Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. However, Mr. Milliken was one of the people who felt so under-represented by their MP they demanded that with the new redistribution they once again be included in Kingston and the Islands. We are very excited to see that the commission made that recommendation.
My point is, how am I supposed to go into that room with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe and other Conservative members? They have stated in here that they will be objective, that they are going to look at all the evidence, work on getting witnesses together, bring them in and listen to the evidence, and then they will make a recommendation, but they have already stood in this House and said that they think the only outcome is for the Speaker to resign.
It is absolute hypocrisy. It is just like a defendant going before a judge, and the judge says, “Listen, I know you're guilty, but I want to hear from the prosecution and defence. Put your case forward so I can make a judgment.” That is basically what Conservatives are doing.
If Conservatives want to at least have the appearance of being objective, they should have just said that they support this, that it is the right motion and we should do this. Then they could have let it go to committee and then started putting their hyper-partisanship into it. However, they could not resist for even just a few moments to allow a little self-reflection and say that maybe it is not a good idea to be so partisan right now, that maybe they should at least wait until the committee hears something to suggest, and then they could pick a piece of evidence that would support their predetermined notion.
However, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe could not even do that. He had to get up right away and say that he knows the outcome of this, that the man has to resign, end of story.
I will support this motion. I will vote in favour of this. I will go to the committee. I will listen to the evidence. I will contribute in any way I can. Then, with the committee's work, I look forward to producing a recommendation or recommendations that we can deliver back to this House for the House to act on.
I believe that is why committees are formed. I believe that is what our role is. I look forward to my participation and being able to do that.
456 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 5:07:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is, to be honest, my concern over the matter. The amendment that the second Conservative speaker put forward basically dictates that the work be done by December 14, which is nine days from now. Any of us who have been on committees know the work that goes into finding witnesses, bringing them before committee, listening to the witnesses, making sure they are available to attend, and having the resources, although I do recognize they have indicated the resources are extremely important.
I guess that if one comes from a perspective of already knowing what one believes the outcome should be, then one may as well just ask the committee to report back tomorrow, because one already knows what the outcome will be. I genuinely feel as though we need to have the proper time to be able to do this. I do not think anybody who sits on a committee of Parliament would argue with the view that nine days just is not enough time to properly do due diligence. We will see how Parliament ends up ultimately deciding on whether we, as a collective, think that nine days is enough.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there were 80 witnesses who came before committee to testify in regard to this piece of legislation. That is 80 witnesses, yet the only one Conservatives will quote is Michael Geist. Could this member quote one of the other 79 witnesses, please, just to entertain us?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
