SoVote

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

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

Mr. Larry Brock

Oct/18/23 5:56:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is obvious, and it is because of the Liberals' political gains. Whenever it gets too hot or too close to the real truth, they just shut down committees and debates and prorogue Parliament. They have an arsenal of tools that prevent Canadians from seeing the light with respect to the rot in the government.

58 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Oct/18/23 5:57:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was a member of the committee my Conservative colleague alluded to, and we asked the Auditor General about the progress of ArriveCAN. The first question I asked her was whether she had or had not received any information from the RCMP about the fact that it was also investigating the matter. I have a question for my colleague. Why not wait for the final results of the investigation that the House of Commons asked the Auditor General to conduct, rather than interrupting the business of the House?

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Larry Brock

Oct/18/23 5:57:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc friend for the question, but it defeats the purpose by which we agreed to call the emergency meeting. It was agreed upon by all political parties, and although the Bloc did not vote to shut down the committee, the issue is that Canadians deserve to know the truth. Canadians deserve to hear directly from the Auditor General the circumstances behind how she is now going to be expanding her investigation in light of the RCMP investigation. There were so many other relevant areas and questions to put to the Auditor General that were denied by the Liberal-NDP coalition.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Oct/18/23 5:58:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my dear colleague from Brantford—Brant, in his capacity and expertise as a former prosecutor, how he reacted to some of the concerns that were raised throughout this process, including the facts that the RCMP were called in and that the Auditor General was working with the Canada Border Service Agency. It was the CBSA that called in the RCMP and failed to inform the Auditor General of a criminal investigation. Given his background, could he comment on that?

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Larry Brock

Oct/18/23 5:59:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a politician, I am profoundly disappointed. As a Canadian and a taxpayer, I am profoundly disappointed. As a former prosecutor, I think it stinks. As said in Shakespeare's play Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” There is something rotten in the government.

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/18/23 5:59:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when the member was talking about something rotten in the state of Denmark, I thought he was talking about the Conservative Party of Canada. I would challenge the member as to why he has chosen to use the floor of the House of Commons, as opposed to using the standing committee itself. The member knows full well what he is asking for could have just as easily been raised at the standing committee. He is avoiding answering that question. I wonder if he could explain why it is that the Conservative Party is bringing forward this motion today when its full intent was to just have it go back to committee. It could have been raised at the committee in the first place.

125 words

All Topics