SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 258 - Nov/29/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Nov/29/23 7:22:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, J.F.K. purportedly said once that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. From this, we can gather that the decision to hire GC Strategies to build the ArriveCAN app was a failure because nobody will admit to being the one responsible. Nobody wants to claim the parentage of this terrible decision. Conservatives have been persistently prosecuting this case of the arrive scam scandal. The government spent $54 million. It contracted GC Strategies to build the ArriveCAN app. The RCMP is now investigating some of the contractors involved. We have repeatedly asked a simple question: Who is the person responsible for the decision to hire GC Strategies? This is a two-person company. Nobody in the company does any IT work. All they do is receive the contract and then subcontract it. They go on LinkedIn and send messages to people asking them to do the work. They do not do any of the work themselves. They just receive the contract and subcontract it. It is like if you, Madam Speaker, hired me for $100 to paint your fence, and then I went and hired another member to paint the fence for $50. They did the work. You paid me and I collected a whole bunch of money in the middle. That is essentially how GC Strategies operated in this case and in other cases. It does not have the people or capacity to do the actual work. By all indications, it was a terrible decision to spend enormous amounts of public money through GC Strategies for this overpriced, glitchy, ineffective app. We have all kinds of things that have come out during the discussion of this issue. We have doctored resumés that have, in another case, been presented to the Government of Canada. We have systemic questions about how the procurement process works. We also have senior public servants accusing each other of lying about who made the decision. This is quite incredible. We have senior public servants Cameron MacDonald and Minh Doan accusing each other of lying about who made the decision to go with GC Strategies. Again, we have repeatedly, in this House and in committee, asked who was responsible for this decision. I put the question to the Minister of Procurement yesterday, but he did not answer. Under the Liberal-NDP government, over the last eight years, we have seen how everything is broken, but nobody is responsible. Apparently anything that goes wrong is nobody's responsibility. Again, as J.F.K. said, victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. There are a lot of orphans according to the Liberals. They said they did not make the decision and it was external factors. This was a decision of someone in government. Somebody decided this two-man company working out of a basement doing no IT work were the right people to build this app. They were the right people to spend $54 million on. We will continue to ask the government this simple question: Who made the decision? Was it a minister? Was it the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Procurement? Was it a particular senior official? We have senior officials actually accusing each other of lying. They are saying, “It was not me. It was that guy.” The government is ultimately responsible for the decisions made while it is in power. It has been in power for eight years. It is a simple question. I hope the parliamentary secretary will answer. Who made the decision to choose GC Strategies to build the ArriveCAN app?

605 words

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

Nov/29/23 7:26:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite will take an issue, whatever that issue might be, will associate it with the Prime Minister or the government and then will add onto the end of it “scandal”. The member is very consistent in doing that. It does not matter to what degree it is factual. He insists on always putting in the word “scandal” and then trying to associate it with the government. I am not saying there are no wrongdoings. In fact, when the member asked the question and the minister responded, here is what the minister indicated: ...what I am happy to explain to the House is how seriously our government takes allegations of inappropriate behaviour with taxpayers' money and contracting or subcontracting. We are obviously very pleased that the committee is looking into this matter. We are pleased that the Auditor General is also seized with this question. We are also pleased that the Canada Border Services Agency, when these issues came to light, took the appropriate action with internal reviews and, as was appropriate, referred any and all of these circumstances to the appropriate authorities. As the minister clearly indicated, we take the allegations very seriously, and the government is determined to support the work on the matter, whether by the Auditor General or the standing committee. At some point in time, hopefully sooner as opposed to later, we will see allegations substantiated or will get to the bottom of the issue. The government is committed to addressing it. I do not know by whom, but I was provided a letter that I thought was kind of interesting. It was dated in October. I do not know whether it was the member himself, but somebody asked for the RCMP to come before one of the standing committees. I think it was addressed to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The member looks a little puzzled, so I am not too sure if he is aware of it. Maybe the document is in another committee. I am not 100% sure, but the bottom line is that the letter, signed off by the RCMP, indicates what the RCMP understood: ...the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) has adopted a motion calling for the appearance of, among others, Sergeant Kim Chamberland in respect of “reports that the RCMP is investigating allegations of misconduct by three companies involved in the development of the ArriveCAN app.” Contrary to public reporting, the RCMP is not investigating the ArriveCAN matter. The letter goes on and states, in essence, that the RCMP does not think that person would be able to contribute positively or in any way to the committee. I do not know how that was ultimately resolved. I just came by this particular letter and am curious to know whether the member is aware of the facts with respect to it. Suffice it to say, just as I started my comments, I note that the government is being very diligent in going through the process and ensuring that tax dollars are protected.

523 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Nov/29/23 7:29:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in typical fashion, the member has delivered a word salad to the House of Commons that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Somebody in the government made a decision to hire GC Strategies to produce ArriveCAN. The decision was made, so someone had to make it. I did not ever at any point say who made that decision, but I asked the government to tell us who was responsible for that decision. Frankly, the more the government members refuse to answer this basic question, the more guilty they look. My question is very simple. With senior public servants accusing each other of lying about this matter and with aspersions being cast back and forth in the House, the public has a right to know. Fifty-four million dollars was spent on this app. Who made the decision to hire GC Strategies to build the ArriveCAN app?

152 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/29/23 7:30:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the Government of Canada and the minister in question have made it very clear that we take the allegations very seriously. We are very much concerned whenever tax dollars are being inappropriately expended. At the end of the day, these are tax dollars, which are very important dollars, and the government is determined to get to the bottom of this. We will, and there will be a consequence. Billions and billions of dollars are spent every year by government, whether directly by government or indirectly through agencies. The government does the best it can to ensure there is a high sense of accountability for civil servants. A number of allegations have been made. We will get to the bottom of them and there will be consequences.

131 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Nov/29/23 7:32:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, a question that he conveniently refused to answer concerning corruption at the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund known as SDTC. An independent, fact-finding report reveals a cloud of mismanagement, conflicts of interest and self-dealing at SDTC. The report found, among other things, that the board improperly paid out nearly $40 million in so-called COVID relief payments, including funnelling millions of dollars to companies that board members had an interest in. The chair of SDTC, during questioning before the ethics committee, was forced to admit that she funnelled $220,000 to her own company, and then funnelled $120,000 of that into her own personal bank account. She even moved the motion at the board. Incredibly, she claimed it was all okay because she and the board had received legal advice. It turns out that the lawyer who provided that legal advice is none other than a member of the SDTC council. In other words, the lawyer was providing legal advice about conflicts of interest when he, himself, had a conflict of interest. In providing that advice and being paid for that advice by SDTC, as he was, the law was broken, because section 16 of the SDTC act prohibits any member of the SDTC council from profiting from SDTC. Yesterday, we learned that another board member at SDTC had funnelled a staggering $42.5 million of taxpayers' money into four companies that she had an interest in. She enriched herself to the tune of $42.5 million. It is unbelievable. It appears that this only scratches the surface of corruption and mismanagement at SDTC, because according to whistle-blowers, the level of corruption and self-dealing exceeds $150 million of taxpayers' money squandered. Despite the well-documented corruption and mismanagement involving tens upon tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, no one has been held accountable. The chair resigned but not at the request of the minister, and the minister continues to stand behind the corrupt SDTC board. Why? Why is the minister more interested in protecting Liberal insiders who got rich improperly at the expense of taxpayers rather than rooting out the rot and corruption at the Liberals' green slush fund?

388 words

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

Nov/29/23 7:35:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made earlier by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada. I feel that it is important to reiterate and stick to the facts of this case. First, the minister took immediate action to initiate a fact-finding exercise through an impartial third party. That exercise found no clear evidence of deliberate unethical behaviour. There were, however, several incidences in which the organization was not in full compliance with its contribution agreement. Second, to address the inconsistency, including the conflict of interest, the organization has been asked to comply with several corrective measures by December 31. Out of an abundance of caution, financing for all new projects has been temporarily frozen until these measures are in place. SDTC has committed to implementing the corrective measures requested by us on an expedited timeline. Everyone involved is eager to get back to supporting Canadian business. Third, we now have in place an independent legal review by the firm McCarthy Tétrault to examine human resource allegations brought forward by current and former employees of the organization. SDTC has agreed to allow these employees to speak freely without violating any applicable settlement agreements or non-disclosure agreements. Fourth, although I know the party opposite likes to take credit for the AG's decision to conduct an audit since the allegations came to light, we have been in dialogue with the office of the Auditor General on this matter. We welcome the Auditor General's decision to conduct the audit. We will await her report on this matter, which will inform whether further action is necessary. Finally, the decisions of the chair of SDTC's board and of its president to resign were personal ones. It is for us to follow due process and await the results of the AG's audit before making any pronouncements. Taking a step back, in consideration of the facts of the matter, as I have laid them out, I am confident that we are on the right path. With the implementation of the corrective measures, the pending OAG audit, the HR review and the reinvigorated leadership at the organization, we can refocus efforts on supporting our Canadian innovators in the clean tech sector. I take it very seriously when we talk about the Auditor General of Canada. The actions that the government has taken to date, I think, should provide a very high level of comfort to people who would be following this debate. The government is very much aware of it and is taking direct actions to resolve it. I am a little bit disappointed in the member across the way. As with the member and his colleague just prior, who asked a totally different question in another area, again, there is the fascination that the Conservative Party has with words such as “corruption” and “scandal”. It continually wants to raise them. I understand why it likes those two words. I understand it a lot. The bottom line is that the government of the day is very much aware of it and is indeed continuing to monitor. As I indicated in response to the previous question, it is in a position to look at the recommendations and to ultimately follow through when those recommendations are brought forward.

559 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Nov/29/23 7:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary confirmed that the resignation of the chair of SDTC was a personal decision that she did not make at the direction of the minister. This was the same chair who funnelled $220,000 into her own company and then transferred $120,000 of that into her personal bank account. That is corruption, yet it did not meet the level for the minister to call on her to resign. If that level of corruption does not suffice calling for a resignation, what does?

90 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/29/23 7:40:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I disagree. The member opposite in the Conservative Party will look at this whole issue as being one of a slush fund. It is not the first time that they have used the words “slush fund”. We will remember that they also used the words “slush fund” for Canada's child care plan, which saw a massive reduction in child care costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, as all provinces and territories signed on with the government. We have a substantial fund here to support business. The Conservatives say that they support businesses. Often, I find that they will say one thing but their actions demonstrate something entirely different. I wish the Conservatives would get on board and support businesses and our business community.

133 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Nov/29/23 7:41:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the big disappointments from last week's fall economic statement was the lack of action on extending the loan repayment deadline for the Canada emergency business account program. CEBA loans saved hundreds of thousands of businesses across Canada and millions of jobs during the pandemic, but recovery has been slow, particularly in sectors such as tourism. The deadline to repay CEBA loans was extended from the end of 2022 to the end of 2023, but there continue to be calls to extend it once more, to the end of 2024. Last month, the provincial premiers from across the country called on the government to make that extension. Chambers of commerce, including those in my riding, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked for an extension. The NDP and Bloc Québécois have both asked for an extension. Sadly, both the Liberals and Conservatives in this place have ignored those calls and remained silent. Eventually, the government extended the repayment deadline by 18 days. That time will only allow businesses to secure additional loans and take on more debt. I recently met with Anette and Jörg in my riding. They own one of the oldest craft distilleries in the country. They have been in business for years. As many of the small businesses in my riding do, they depend on the tourism industry to be successful, so the CEBA loan program literally kept their business alive during the pandemic. They were on schedule to pay back their CEBA loan until this summer, when wildfires in the interior of B.C. drove the provincial government to close the region to tourism. It was not just that visitors did not want to come to a region that was on fire; they were literally told they could not come. August, one of the two big months for tourism-related business, was a complete writeoff. I also heard from Conrad, who has a family-owned and operated fashion store in Osoyoos. The CEBA loan made the difference in getting his business through COVID. Conrad's business is almost entirely dependent on tourism, and it was also impacted by the wildfires this summer. He did not even get to the break-even point this year, and he cannot pay back the CEBA loan or even buy new stock for next year. The wine industry is a multi-billion dollar industry in the Okanagan Valley. It was hard hit last winter, with an unusually hard and early frost that damaged many vines and even killed vines in some vineyards. Therefore, harvest was cut in half this year, and that impact will be felt next year and years after that when the wine matures. On top of that, most of the 300 or so wineries in the region were also hit by the lack of tourism in August because of wildfires. I had dinner last week with wine industry leaders and learned that many wineries are considering closing or selling right now, because they cannot make ends meet. Some have already closed. The B.C. Craft Brewers Guild reported yesterday that 15% of their members face bankruptcy if the CEBA loan repayment period is not extended. They are impacted not only by the downturn in tourism but also by the inflation that has driven up the cost of everything that goes into their craft beers. Small businesses across Canada are in crisis. We need to support them by extending the CEBA loan repayment deadline. It is not too late.

591 words

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

Nov/29/23 7:45:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is reinforce exactly what the minister said to the member not that long ago with respect to the CEBA loan deadline: That is why we are offering additional flexibilities for small businesses to repay their CEBA loans. This includes a full one-year extension on the term loan repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access loan forgiveness, which is both balanced and fiscally responsible.... We know times are tough, which is why our government is also cutting taxes for growing small businesses and lowering their credit card fees by up to a quarter. We will continue to listen to small businesses, and we will be there for all Canadians. If I may, I would like to pick up on the issue of continuing to be there for small businesses, because I think it is important to recognize that the government, over the last number of years, even prepandemic, was there to support small businesses in different ways. One that stands out to me offhand is the small business tax reduction that was given, a substantial tax reduction in order to support small businesses. When we went into the pandemic, what we saw in a very real and tangible way was direct financial support put into the tills of small businesses and into the pockets of small business owners. We saw that in different forms, whether indirectly through wage subsidies for workers, or through rent support or the small business loans. We are talking about billions of dollars. We made it very clear at the beginning of the pandemic that the government would be there to support small businesses, because we recognize the valuable role they play in modern society here in Canada. They are the backbone of our economy, and the potential is absolutely overwhelming. That is why, from giving the tax break and the supports during the pandemic to being able to extend where we can in a fiscally responsible fashion, we are doing that. I have had the opportunity to visit many small businesses, and one thing I am happy to see is the many programs we put into place to assist them. I constantly get reminded how the government supports have been there and have allowed a business, or even a community non-profit group, to be able to survive; it is because the government was there to have its back. Nothing has really changed. We will continue to be there to support small businesses today and into the future. One needs to look at the fall economic statement, and there are a number of things we can do, whether directly or indirectly. I often say that one of the best things we can do indirectly is to ensure that there is disposable income for Canadians. We do that through different forms of rebates, such as the GST rebate, or through the enhancement of social programs to ensure that seniors or people with a disability have more disposable income. All of that indirectly allows people to support small businesses. In fact, on a personal note, I am sending out my next householder, encouraging people to get out there and use the small businesses in our community. I think we all have an important role.

549 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Nov/29/23 7:48:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I recently asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to calculate the cost or benefit to Canada of a one-year extension to the CEBA loan deadline. I knew there would be a financial cost for the government to carry $40 billion in loans for another year. The PBO said that it would be close to a billion dollars, but I also know that many businesses will go under if they do not get the extension. A recent CFIB survey found that 28% of businesses strongly question whether they could remain in business if they lose the forgivable portion of the CEBA loan. If those businesses go bankrupt, the government could lose over $10 billion in loans it cannot recover. Unfortunately, the PBO told me he could not use the CFIB data and could not find any other data to calculate that loss. However, even if only 10% of businesses go under, we would lose over $4 billion in unpaid loans. More importantly, we would lose tens of thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country.

180 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/29/23 7:50:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am personally very sympathetic to small businesses, which in many ways are the backbone of the Canadian economy. I have more than one family member very much engaged in small business. I believe my youngest brother had a CEBA loan, though I am not 100% sure of that. I understand how important those loans are. I can assure the member that had the government not stepped up when it did, there would have been a huge number of bankruptcies. There would have been a lot more unemployment. It would have been so much more difficult for us to recover coming out of the pandemic. I say that only because I truly believe that as a government, we have been supporting small businesses. The government has some limitations, and that is the reason the minister continues to work closely with our—

144 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/29/23 7:51:14 p.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:51 p.m.)

41 words