SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 234 - Oct/18/23

Oct/18/23 5:24:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, entitled “Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)”. This piece of legislation was brought forward in the name of the member for Foothills. The bill will be up for third reading at some point, I am sure. I would like to thank all those involved, including the witnesses we had before the committee. It is being reported back with amendment, but I wanted to offer my sincere congratulations to the member for Foothills.

107 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/18/23 5:24:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-359

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-359, An Act to amend the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act (provisional registration and approval). He said: Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up again to introduce this private member's bill. As you mentioned, the title of the bill is an act to amend the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act on provisional registration and approval. I have had the opportunity in this House, over the last six to eight months, to talk about the ways that we could drive competitiveness in the agricultural sector. If members talk to farmers across the country, farmers will talk about the important tools, whether they be new seeds, new feeds or crop protection products, and how we could find ways to leverage the science and trusted jurisdictions elsewhere as part of the regulatory process. The legislation proposes a 90-day provisional registration, where an applicant arriving at Health Canada, CFIA or PMRA would be able to show the science of jurisdictions elsewhere in the world where there is approval. It would allow those regulatory agencies to define what a trusted jurisdiction is. It would allow for provisional registration to ensure farmers have access to these tools in a more timely manner, without compromising public safety or the scientific process that we expect our Canadian regulators to undertake. For the regulatory model that would follow, I envision a moment where there could be a pause on the provisional registration if necessary. However, this bill is supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a variety of stakeholders groups across the country. I would encourage any member of the House to second it. I would encourage any member to perhaps take their name to it if they are higher up on the bid. I will be calling on the government to introduce this legislation in budget 2024.

322 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Oct/18/23 5:27:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, March 20, be concurred in. I will be splitting my time with the prosecutor, the member of Parliament for Brantford—Brant, who will probably do a much better job prosecuting this issue than I will. I want to start by talking about recommendation number 1 from the committee, with respect to looking into the arrive scam app. The first recommendation that the committee put together, in part, is this: That the Government of Canada ensure the safety and security of Canadians by continuing with its ongoing efforts designed to modernize Canada’s borders, including through the use of appropriate digital and non-digital tools.... When we talk about digital tools, what we have learned is that there was some extraordinarily nefarious activity going on with the development of the “arrive scam”, “arrive can't”, app. We call it the “arrive can't” app, because every member in this chamber knows that the app was actually an unmitigated disaster for travellers. It did not work well. It caused enormous delays at the borders. Seniors were unable to use it. People had all kinds of trouble going back and forth across the border as a result of this app. The international trade committee studied this over a series of meetings—

235 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/23 5:29:55 p.m.
Watch

I will just interrupt the member. I hear conversations going on in the House. I would ask people who want to have conversations to go out into the lobby. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

36 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Oct/18/23 5:30:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is what is important to look at: The arrive scam app was not just studied at the international trade committee, which is the subject of the report in the motion we are debating today. This was actually studied several times. It was studied at OGGO, which had a bunch of meetings, on October 20, November 14, November 17 and December 8, 2022. This is in addition to all the meetings that we had at the international trade committee. I am sure members and all Canadians are wondering where I am going with this and why I am bringing these dates and other things up. It is because government officials came and testified at committee about this app on many occasions. They came to the OGGO committee on November 14 and October 20, 2022. We also had government officials from CBSA at the international trade committee. Why is that relevant? It is relevant because it looks as though there was some pretty nefarious business going on with the development of this app. This was first reported to CBSA in September 2021 by the founders of a small, Montreal-based software company, who said that there was something rotten in Denmark. At all these meetings, we had government officials who came to testify from public works, CBSA, Shared Services, Public Safety, customs and immigration, and the Treasury Board Secretariat. At all these meetings, the nefarious goings-on with the contract for the arrive scam app was never raised. It is unbelievable. Everyone knew there was a problem. One may say that this was September 2021, so that maybe did not apply. It was a long time ago. They forgot about it and did not take it seriously, but they then submitted another report to the government with their concerns in November 2022. These meetings kept going on, and not once did the government raise this. In fact, we now know that when the Auditor General was looking into this, the government did not even let the Auditor General know that the contracting surrounding this app was not being looked into. This is a typical Liberal cover-up. What is terrible is that this is not the first time. We could say that the first time the Liberal government made a mistake and did not disclose something, we could perhaps give it a pass. However, the Liberal government has engaged in this kind of corruption on a repeated and continual basis. We can go all the way back to the adscam, where there were bags of money being exchanged, and there was a public inquiry into it. I would think that the Liberal Party and Liberal governments had learned that this is not the way to conduct business. However, in fact, this corruption continued. We only have to look at what has come up with McKinsey, SNC-Lavalin and the WE Charity. We now have an extraordinarily long and wide track record of the Liberal government engaging in purchasing the agreements to develop this app in a way that appears to be criminal in nature. This is extraordinarily damning for the government. Once again, it chose not to follow the proper path but to go down a road of corruption. What makes it worse is that, in the course of studying this app, we heard a litany of witnesses at the international trade committee who said how terribly the app worked. Even when it engaged in this kind of corrupt activity in the procurement of this technology, it did it in such an incompetent way that the app was way over budget. We heard that there were app developers who said they could develop it for a couple of million dollars. The government paid $54 million for an app that did not even work. The backups at the border were unbelievable as people tried to use this app, and this happened over and over again with absolutely no compassion from the government. People who could not fill it in were given no compassion from the government. They were sometimes sent to quarantine hotels. We know what the bills for those quarantine hotels were. We know how people were treated in those quarantine hotels. The arrive scam app is an unmitigated disaster from corrupt conception all the way through implementation to where we are today. It would appear that the government has not learned a single lesson about that because it failed to disclose an ongoing criminal investigation by the RCMP with respect to this app. The Liberals did not disclose it ever at committee. They did not disclose it to the Auditor General. Why was that? It is because the government has a track record and a history of trying to not disclose things. This has also been published in a story by The Globe and Mail on October 3 or 4. What I am waiting for is for the Prime Minister to say once again that the story in The Globe and Mail is false. Members can remember when that happened when we were dealing with the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the story broke about how badly Jody Wilson-Raybould was treated by the Liberal government as she tried to do the honourable thing and be a whistle-blower. The Prime Minister said that the story in The Globe and Mail was false, except it turned out that the story in The Globe and Mail was one hundred per cent true. Therefore, I would suggest that the story we have in The Globe and Mail about more Liberal corruption and more Liberal cover-ups is absolutely true. What a disappointing day this is for Canada.

946 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/18/23 5:38:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to be honest, I am not completely surprised. I was a little bit taken aback that the Conservatives would bring forward yet another concurrence motion on a Wednesday. We have had these discussions in the past where the Conservative Party likes to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Why is it that the Conservative Party always chooses to use concurrence motions on government business days? The Conservatives never feel that they can use it on opposition days. Today, we were supposed to be debating jobs, and the Conservative Party wants to talk about what I would classify as old, political, biased news, which it wants to try to highlight instead of the important issue of jobs. Why is that?

127 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/23 5:39:03 p.m.
Watch

I know some members are wondering about the noise. I did motion to the Sergeant-at-Arms, and he is taking care of it. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

31 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Oct/18/23 5:39:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is okay. I do not mind a little noise. I am going to talk about this question in a couple of parts. First of all, the government always thinks that debate is inconvenient, which is of no surprise because its leader said that he admired the basic dictatorship of China. Of course, in China, there would not be debate on a piece of legislation. Therefore, when the member gets up and asks why we are debating things, it is because, from the top down, debate is inconvenient and the Liberals would rather have things work more like a dictatorship. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy. This is the House of Commons, and we debate pieces of legislation. Second, the member suggests that this is old news. This report just came out two weeks ago. That is not old. It is new. The Liberals are trying to cover it up, and we are not going to let them. The prosecutor is going to prosecute it, and they are going to pay the price.

175 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/18/23 5:40:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in addition to the current scandal involving ArriveCAN, which is being investigated by the RCMP, there is also the whole issue of its implementation and the fact that, once again, consultants were called in who called in more consultants, who called in even more consultants. This was done without using the internal workforce, without recognizing the expertise and skills of our public servants. Does my colleague have anything to add about the importance of using internal staff before calling in consultants, more consultants, and even more consultants?

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Oct/18/23 5:40:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. A huge problem for the government has been its use of consultants. We only have to look at how it used McKinsey for all kinds of things. McKinsey was responsible for the opioid crisis. The Liberals keep giving McKinsey more and more money, and this is what they do. They do not use the public service to get things done; they hire these consultants, their friends and buddies, and it is just corruption upon corruption. It has to stop. I hope the Bloc will be with us on this.

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Oct/18/23 5:41:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my colleague's speech I did not hear any mention about a bunch of other Canadians who tried on a weekend to see if they could build the app, and I think they were capable of it. I am not exactly sure of the details. I was wondering if he could talk a bit about that as well.

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Oct/18/23 5:41:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, only a Liberal government could design an app for $54 million that some people could design in their homes on a weekend, because the Liberals are so incompetent. What makes it worse is that their incompetence also comes with an incredible amount of corruption. A common-sense Conservative government working for the people would never let that happen.

60 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Oct/18/23 5:42:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been looking through this report. Albeit not in its entirety, I certainly see that the government agrees with a number of the recommendations that are in it, and my question to the member is this: Why was this particular concurrence motion so incredibly important, rather than talking about jobs, which Conservatives are always talking about?

59 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Oct/18/23 5:42:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again, for a Liberal government whose leader admires the basic dictatorship of China, debate is inconvenient, and when the opposition picks the debate it is even more inconvenient, because the Liberals want to run the country like a dictatorship. We are not going to let them.

49 words

All Topics

Hon. Kamal Khera (Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, Lib.)

Oct/18/23 5:43:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

99 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater

Oct/18/23 5:43:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just point out that the first round of opening speeches has not even been completed yet—

28 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/23 5:44:03 p.m.
Watch

I believe that this is debate and not a point of order, therefore we will resume debate with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

25 words

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Oct/18/23 5:44:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good citizens and residents of my riding of Brantford—Brant. My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon expressed his disappointment and said that it is a sad day for Canadians. It is a profoundly sad day. In terms of my involvement in this particular study, I was brought on fairly late to the game to participate in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts meeting, because its members wanted more questions asked in probing the RCMP investigation into this matter. Before I get into the substantive part of my speech, it is important to start by reflecting on what the government telegraphed to Canadians in 2015. It telegraphed that it would be the most open, transparent and accountable government this country has ever seen. What has happened over the last eight years? After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He and his government— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Larry Brock: Madam Speaker, my friends can laugh all they want, but this is the sad reality. These are the facts. There has been scandal after scandal. There have been ethical breaches. The Prime Minister is the only prime minister in Canadian history who has been found guilty of ethical breaches not once but twice. It is not only him but also several ministers and other members of the government. We had the WE Charity, Aga Khan and SNC-Lavalin scandals, and the list goes on. Over a year ago, it was discovered that this app, which was so essential to the government to keep Canadians safe, was a complete joke. It was highly ineffective, it was not scientific and, to make matters worse, it cost the Canadian taxpayers $54 million. We did not hear a peep from the government or the Prime Minister with respect to that price tag until it was revealed to Canadians in this House. What did we hear from the Prime Minister? He said he thought that cost was “highly illogical” and reflected “inefficient” practices. He, in essence, conducted his own review. The Auditor General is certainly looking into this, as well as the RCMP now. His review showed that, even given the vast size of the public service, the government could not find individuals among its own consultants to create this app. The public service increased exponentially by the Liberal government, particularly during COVID and beyond. More importantly to the current investigation by the RCMP, the app was contracted for by a very small software company in Montreal, Quebec, known as Botler. No, the government could not do it itself. It had to hire consultants. It has been revealed that there were three such consultants. I am going to name them, because it is important for Canadians to know what the individuals of these companies have done in terms of fleecing Canadian taxpayers. The three companies are GCStrategies, Dalian Enterprises and Coradix. The latter two essentially involve the same directors and CEOs. There are three companies with a grand total of maybe six or seven employees, and they were hired by the current massive government to do the work it should be doing itself in finding individuals to perform the work. The companies do that at a substantial premium, anywhere from 30% to 40%. When Canadian taxpayers take a look at the situation, they are saying to themselves that they are already paying their taxes for the public service. They ask why they need to waste further money to have the government find software engineers in this country. I applaud the bravery of this small software company known as Botler, because it spoke the truth. I want to quote a couple of passages, as reported in The Globe and Mail, that said, “they understand that speaking out could mean their federal funding will dry up and they are taking a big risk without knowing how it will turn out.” One of the directors said, “the issue is wider than Botler.” This is something that affects every single Canadian, every single taxpayer dollar that is taken from very hard-working Canadians who are already struggling financially, which is given and spent through contractors, through improper means. I think that Canadians have a right to know what is going on with their hard-earned money. When I attended, about a week and a half ago, committee during a constituency break week, it was revealed by the Auditor General, the same Auditor General who oversees all public spending and reports to this House, that she had no clue, no idea, that the RCMP were investigating criminality with respect to the contracting of the ArriveCAN app and other such apps. When I asked her if the government had notified her in advance of her learning about this particular investigation, her answer was no. She was profoundly “disappointed”, her word, in the actions of this government, in not notifying her of a very relevant and essential part of her investigation. It is not just, perhaps, ethical issues or improper awarding of contracts. There is now a criminal element to it. I brought to her attention that, according to Botler, this was not just misconduct at the highest level of the senior bureaucracy in this government but that it involved criminality, theft, forgery and fraud. When prosecuted, people will be going to prison for two-plus years for fraudulently fleecing the Canadian taxpayer. This is why not only is my colleague profoundly disappointed, but I am sick over this. This is the government that is not accountable. This is the government that is not transparent. After that damning evidence came out, what did the Liberal-NDP coalition do? It shut down the committee. This was a two-hour meeting agreed to by every member of public accounts and it shut it down. It says the reason was that the Auditor General could not share any further information. That was the furthest from the truth. Members of the Conservative team on that committee were just getting started. We had many more probing questions. They are hiding something and Canadians have a right to know that. That is why I am putting on the record this criminality on behalf of this government. That is why I rose today in the House and asked the question: will this government and will this Prime Minister co-operate with the RCMP or will he continue to hide behind cabinet confidentiality? The motion would be amended as follows, by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following: the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, March 20, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on International Trade with instruction that it amend the same to include reference to; (a) the $54 million hard-earned Canadian tax dollars wasted on the application, (b) the inaccurate evidence government officials provided during the committee's investigation, (c) the serious allegations of fraudulent contract practices that are cause for grave concern, (d) the statement made by the RCMP that they are investigating criminality in the contracts that were awarded, and accordingly, it recommends that the Auditor General of Canada update Canadians on where the money went.

1231 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/23 5:54:16 p.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

17 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/18/23 5:55:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will get to what I really think about the Conservatives' tactics shortly, but I have a question for the member. Given his background, I am sure he would realize that nothing prevents committee members of a standing committee from meeting to determine what they want on their agenda. The member just moved an amendment to send this report back to get the committee to look at x, y and z. Why would his members not just raise that at the committee itself and get it onto the agenda if they felt it was something they could do? I guess it is because then they would not be able to filibuster Bill C-50 today. Is that correct?

120 words

All Topics