SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Sep/17/24 11:08:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be back in the House and hopefully debate things that are of real concern to our constituents. This summer I spoke to many of them, and not one person talked about ArriveCAN, other than to say that they had used it when they came back from a trip and that it actually facilitates re-entry into the country. We heard from the member opposite that this is hard-earned taxpayers' money, and I agree wholeheartedly with that. I wonder if my colleague could address the costs to Canadians of this kind of filibustering and what the Conservative Party has done over the past year in this House, such as having us sit late to hear ridiculous debates on issues that do not matter to most Canadians.

133 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/17/24 11:09:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that many of my colleagues, if not all my colleagues, are very much concerned about the finite amount of time that we have here on the floor of the House. What we have witnessed over the last number of years from the Conservatives is what I classify as a destructive force. They do not want legislation passed, even legislation that is good for Canadians, the people we represent. Whether it is with respect to dental care or what we were supposed to be debating today, the Citizenship Act, the Conservatives are an obstructive force. They do not want legislation to pass. They show no remorse for not recognizing that, as members of Parliament, there is a responsibility to appear to work with government legislation and the government's agenda to at least try to advance it. There is a responsibility for all members with respect to that, but the Conservative Party completely disregards it. All it wants to do is focus on character assassinations. It ties anything and everything to the words “corruption” and “scandal”, and ultimately says nothing about its own policies. Shame on the Conservative members.

196 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

Sep/17/24 11:10:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear from the hon. colleague across the way, who truly is a workhorse in this House. He is here almost every day the doors are open. I commend him for that. I will say this. I find it quite humorous when he talks about disinformation and misinformation and starts to go on these wonderful tirades about these things. I always seem to find that whenever the government disagrees with the opinion of the opposition, it immediately slaps a label on it to try and intimidate and bully into silence anyone who dares to have a different opinion. It does not mean that it is misinformation or disinformation; perhaps it just means that they have a different opinion that needs to be heard, and I think most Canadians share the opinion of the official opposition in this House.

144 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/17/24 11:11:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me provide a quote that the member's leader said to him and his caucus colleagues. He stated: There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high… Our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter If we want to talk about misinformation and lies, I will leave it up to members—

72 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/17/24 11:12:05 a.m.
Watch

I believe I have a point of order from the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

22 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Sep/17/24 11:12:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics following the notice that I gave you earlier today after the report was tabled. Here we go again. Because the time of the House is valuable, I have prepared concise remarks. We find ourselves dealing again, though, with another witness showing blatant disregard for another committee. Earlier this year, we dealt with the woes of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates with Kristian Firth, the key contractor in the Liberals' arrive scam. Today, we have the ethics committee's challenges with the employment minister's sketchy business partner, Stephen Anderson. Recognizing there is significant overlap between the two cases and that you listened very carefully to my detailed submission on Mr. Firth less than six months ago, Madam Speaker, I am going to refer you to the authorities cited in my March 20 arguments on the failure of a witness to answer questions and adopt them for the present purpose. That said, there are some key points to emphasize and some differences between the two cases noted. While Mr. Firth dodged and weaved questions as a witness, Mr. Anderson also did that and defied document production orders. Since this has been a dizzying file, even for those of us who have followed it carefully, because there have been so many carefully scripted denials, which are then smashed to bits by yet more bombshell revelations, a brief chronology might be in order. I am sure that my hon. colleagues are going to be very interested in this chronology. This past spring, Global News broke an explosive story about questionable business dealings, ethics and lobbying centred around the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages and his recent business associates. Understandably, the ethics committee wanted to get to the bottom of the issue and, on May 7, agreed to invite the minister and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to appear as witnesses at that committee. On June 4, Global News reported on text messages that it had obtained, showing that Mr. Anderson had written, “Randy” told him to “be available in 15 for a partner call.” After the minister's appearance that day, when he denied being the Randy in question, the committee agreed on June 11 to extend the study by inviting the minister's business associates, including Mr. Anderson, as witnesses. The committee also adopted a document production order directed to the minister and Mr. Anderson for all “phone records, text messages, iMessages, and all instant messages and call logs from all applications from September 8, 2022”, to be produced within seven days. On June 18, the committee reinvited Mr. Anderson to appear during the week of July 15. On July 17, Mr. Anderson did appear as a witness and trifled with the committee in his answers. A central area of concern was the identity of the so-called “other Randy”. In the September 8 text messages and, as it would turn out, several others sent the same week, Mr. Anderson blamed autocorrect, which struck no less than nine times, and claimed that he could only provide the real name in camera, in secret. The committee disagreed. By the end of that meeting, the committee unanimously agreed to “order Stephen Anderson to produce all of the previously requested documents, in addition to the name referenced in today's testimony, and if those documents are not received by Friday, July 19 at 12:00 p.m., the Chair prepare a report to the House outlining the questions that Stephen Anderson refused to answer in writing and during testimony.” Mr. Anderson failed to provide that information, including the supposed identity of the infamous “other Randy”, though he did provide a bunch of other documents that were unresponsive to the ethics committee's orders, so here we are. While I think we have all lost track of the Ethics Commissioner's revolving door of an investigation into the minister, it is patently clear that Mr. Anderson failed to answer questions and failed to produce records required by the ethics committee. I will also add that there are concerns about the truthfulness of some of the testimony from Mr. Anderson, which may well be a matter for a future report from the committee. Indeed, he freely admitted to the committee that he had lied to Global News, so that much is certain. For today's purposes, we are, of course, concerned with Mr. Anderson's refusal to provide information. Your predecessor ruled on May 11, 2021, on page 7021 of the Debates, about the role of committees in questions of privilege concerning witnesses' evidence, and held that committees must first do the work of considering the issue and then inform the House of their conclusion. That part is now done. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 82, borrowing from a list of established contempts laid out in the 1999 report from the Parliament of the United Kingdom's Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, enumerates established areas of contempt, including “engaging in other misconduct in the presence of, the House or a committee”, “without reasonable excuse, refusing to answer a question or provide information or produce papers formally required by the House or a committee” and “without reasonable excuse, disobeying a lawful order of the House or a committee”. During his July 17 testimony, Mr. Anderson was asked but failed, or refused, to name the “other Randy”, or otherwise protested that he could only provide that information in camera, about 10 times. I asked him. The hon. member for Brantford—Brant asked him. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre did too. Even the hon. member for Ottawa Centre tried and got stonewalled. The hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East asked Mr. Anderson if he would provide the answer in writing, and Mr. Anderson agreed. Then he resiled from his agreement when the member for Ottawa Centre followed up with his own questions. The committee then deliberated on whether to yield to Mr. Anderson's demands and sit in camera. The committee decided not to, but instead adopted the order for him to furnish the written responses that he had once offered to provide. No answer from Mr. Anderson has been received to date, and certainly not before the committee's deadline of July 19. I will note that it is September 17. In fact, the Liberal employment minister's sketchy business partner did not provide responsive records concerning the balance of that document production order or the committee's original June 11 order. In adopting these orders, the committee was exercising its authority, which Bosc and Gagnon described at pages 983 and 984 as follows: The Standing Orders state that standing committees have the power to order the production of papers and records, another privilege that is rooted in the Constitution and which is delegated by the House. In carrying out their responsibility to conduct studies and inquiries, standing committees often have to rely on a wide array of papers to aid them in their work.... The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist in hard copy or electronic format, and that they are located in Canada. They can be papers originating from or in the possession of governments, or papers the authors or owners of which are from the private sector or civil society (individuals, associations, organizations, et cetera). Bosc and Gagnon, in the immediately following passage, get to the heart of the ethics committee's current predicament: In practice, standing committees may encounter situations where the authors of or officials responsible for papers refuse to provide them or are willing to provide them only after certain portions have been removed.... Companies may be reluctant to release papers which could jeopardize their industrial security or infringe upon their legal obligations, particularly with regard to the protection of personal information. These types of situations have absolutely no bearing on the power of committees to order the production of papers and records.... The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records. However, it may not be appropriate to insist on the production of papers and records in all cases. In cases where the author of or the authority responsible for a record refuses to comply with an order issued by a committee to produce documents, the committee essentially has three options. The first is to accept the reasons and conditions put forward to justify the refusal; the committee members then concede that they will not have access to the record or accept the record with passages deleted. The second is to seek an acceptable compromise with the author or the authority responsible for access to the record. Normally, this entails putting measures in place to ensure that the record is kept confidential while it is being consulted. These include in camera review, limited and numbered copies, arrangements for disposing of or destroying the copies after the committee meeting, et cetera. The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and uphold the order to produce the entire record. In Mr. Anderson's case, I believe it is fair to say that the ethics committee, in the end, attempted to reach a compromise, one that Mr. Anderson had, initially at least, agreed to, to get his answer about the identity of the “other Randy”. With respect to the balance of the documents, which had not been produced in response to the June 11 order, Mr. Anderson raised objections, which he vocalized during his July 17 appearance. In response, the committee renewed its order. As such, it is fair to say that the committee chose the third option, rejecting his reasons and insisting on full production, as is its right. That leaves us with the situation that Bosc and Gagnon describe at page 138: If a committee’s request that it be given certain documents is met with resistance or disregarded, the committee may adopt a motion ordering the production of the requested documents. If such an order is ignored, the committee has no means to enforce the order on its own. It may report the matter to the House and recommend that appropriate action be taken. The House is now fully up to speed on the matter, and appropriate action is being sought. That brings me, Madam Speaker, to the point where I say that if you agree there is a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion. I will not keep the House in suspense. As in the case of Mr. Firth, I intend to move a motion that would find Mr. Anderson in contempt and order his attendance at the bar for him to be admonished and to answer questions. This motion would also incorporate the unanimously negotiated and agreed upon procedures for questioning Mr. Firth. One addition would be to include a requirement for Mr. Anderson to deliver up the as yet unproduced records. As you said in your March 22, 2024, ruling at page 21,946 of the Debates: While it is perhaps true that the suggested remedy is not something we have seen for some time, I am of the view that it is procedurally in order. As with the case cited from June 2021, the motion provides for a call to the bar in order to be reprimanded, and a specific remedy to the offence. We must all recall that the House is possessed with truly awesome power and authority to vindicate its role as the grand inquest of the nation. Citations 123 to 125 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, elaborate: 123. Privilege grants considerable punitive powers to the House of Commons. The mildest form of punishment is a simple declaration that an act or an article is a breach of privilege. When an individual has been present at the Bar it has been customary to deliver this conclusion to the culprit in the presence of the House. On such occasions, censure of the individual is usually added to the conclusion that privilege has been offended. 124. Occasionally the individual at the Bar will be given an opportunity to purge the contempt and promise better conduct in the future.... 125. For more serious contempts the House may proceed further. In my March arguments, I quoted extensively from the 1993 to 2013 reports of the United Kingdom's Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege about the need for Parliament to find the institutional confidence necessary to vindicate its authority and impose sanctions in cases of breach, lest accountability to Parliament be reduced to a pious aspiration and institutional weakness cynically exposed. In the end, the House rose to the challenge and unanimously agreed to sanction Mr. Firth, despite some subsequent weak knees and queasy stomachs from some hon. members. I trust that the House will not start giving out free passes to those who think they can trifle at will with Parliament and parliamentary investigations. In conclusion, the 12th report of the ethics committee outlines, I respectfully submit, a contempt of Parliament committed by the Liberal employment minister's sketchy business partner, Stephen Anderson. Parliament deserves to know who the other Randy is. All Canadians, especially those in Edmonton Centre, deserve that answer. We must get that answer.

2312 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/17/24 11:27:29 a.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for submitting the motion. We will take it under advisement. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

24 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Sep/17/24 11:27:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today we are here to talk about the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The report is on the GC Strategies contracts. It requests that the Auditor General conduct a full audit of those contracts. In other words, we want to know what we got for our money. The auditor has already produced a report based on samples of the contracts, but she did not—

73 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Sep/17/24 11:28:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the NDP reserves the right to reply to the question of privilege.

19 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/17/24 11:28:40 a.m.
Watch

There will be time for that as soon as possible. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

17 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Sep/17/24 11:28:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed and extraordinary colleague on the team investigating ArriveCAN and GC Strategies, my colleague from Terrebonne. The Auditor General's report noted omissions in the processes for awarding and monitoring contracts with GC Strategies. We are requesting an additional step: verifying whether taxpayers got their money's worth. I will remind you of a few elements concerning GC Strategies, which also concern everything surrounding ArriveCAN. This reminder is important because it will help us better understand why we are talking about the report, as well as the request it contains. In recent years, the Government of Canada has been awarding more and more contracts to consultants. The number of contracts awarded for consulting services, coordination or outsourcing and the total amounts associated with these contracts have significantly increased, not to say skyrocketed. ArriveCAN was one of these contracts. ArriveCAN got under way between 2015 and 2017. When the pandemic hit, the machinery of government went on overdrive to help Canada Border Services Agency officers manage our borders and travellers once the borders reopened. The problem was that, instead of looking to government employees to see if there was anyone specialized in programming, the work was outsourced. Perhaps we did not have the necessary internal resources. I would be surprised, because a lot of money has been spent in recent years on cybersecurity services, updating the cloud and building telecommunications and Web infrastructures. Still, let us say that no one was available and that we had to outsource. Apparently, not only did we not have any employees specializing in web applications programming, whether Android, iOS or website platforms, but we also had no employees who were capable of searching LinkedIn or other networks to find such specialists. Therein lies the problem. Beyond the fact that millions of dollars were given to a company, it is the shortcomings we must bring to light. It is the process for hiring and monitoring employees. It is about making sure to have the right person in the right place, and ensuring that their competencies are recognized, even if the person is not necessarily where they should be based on their skills. For example, an officer working for employment insurance may well have programming skills, but they were not hired for that. It is quite possible that another officer working for employment insurance has archives-related skills but they were not hired for that. If we do not consider these people's skills from the outset, then, when they are needed, we will be out of luck. We will then hire a consultant who ends up doing a search on LinkedIn and receive 10% to 30% of the total contract amount just for finding people who are sitting around. Are we truly getting our money's worth when this happens? With ArriveCAN, there were problems. Perhaps my colleagues will say that, for the number of downloads and uses, the number of problems was minimal, and in percentage terms that is true, to be sure. Then again, try talking to the 10,000 people who were stuck in a hotel or at home for two weeks and who lost wages because the thingamajig made a mistake and the human being in charge of the thingamajig failed to check whether there was a problem with the machine or whether the person made a false declaration. We should keep in mind that every app is prone to errors. I know that artificial intelligence is all the rage right now, but let us not forget that although AI can learn by itself, it was programmed by a human being, and human beings are fallible. The same was true of ArriveCAN. There is also the fact that this app was imposed on Canada Border Services employees who had not been properly trained, and that this was over and above their other duties. This caused problems at the border, which comes under federal jurisdiction. Earlier, my colleague mentioned the official opposition, which is against anything having to do with social programs, such as pharmacare or dental insurance. We may oppose the way these programs were rolled out, for instance, the fact that they do not respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, and still agree with the principle of insurance. However, if we wasted less money consulting people and recognizing their competencies, the provinces that accept these intrusions into their areas of jurisdiction might have more money. Consultation, particularly when it comes to ArriveCAN and other contracts, like GC Strategies, causes other problems and raises other questions. I mentioned these briefly earlier in my question. The issue is responsibility. Who is responsible? Do we put enough money into training public servants and managers? At some point, a manager needs to manage. If they do not manage, is that one of the reasons why we end up with situations where money seems to fly out the window, as if we thought it grew on trees? Money does not grow on trees; it comes directly out of the pockets of taxpayers who earned it by the sweat of their brow. Let us get back to requesting the Auditor General to do a complete analysis of the situation. She is responsible. She seeks transparency. She seeks accountability. She does not try to point fingers at a guilty party. She works to make sure that processes are applied properly and that taxpayer money is managed responsibly. Responsibility does not mean that someone will lose their job because they made a mistake. Responsibility means that an individual is able to recognize they made a mistake and to present a solution to improve the situation and become more responsible. That is what the 13th report requests.

969 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Sep/17/24 11:37:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me first take a moment to congratulate the new member for Lasalle—Émard—Verdun, Louis-Philippe Sauvé. I suppose I can use his name since he has not yet been sworn in. I congratulate him warmly. He is a very good friend of mine. There is absolutely no doubt that the people of Lasalle—Émard—Verdun now have an excellent representative, and that Louis-Philippe will be an asset in ensuring that our own country, Quebec, finally comes to be. Now to my question for my colleague. I was listening to the Liberal members earlier. They were speaking against the official opposition and talking about dental insurance in a debate about GC Strategies, and that made me think of the City of Montreal. At the time, the city had a mayor who was never around. He was never in the places and rooms where things were happening. I think about that and I wonder: When it comes to responsibility, what are all these shenanigans telling us?

176 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Sep/17/24 11:38:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in response to the question from my esteemed colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I would like to share a story. During my career, when I became vice-principal of a school, I was given two pieces of advice that I did not follow. The first was to never admit having made a mistake. I did not follow it. I am the first person to admit when I am wrong. That is what it means to be accountable. If I never admit that I have made a mistake, I wonder how I could become a better person. The second piece of advice I did not follow was to believe that one cannot be accused of something one has no knowledge of. I have never followed that advice, because if I know something, I would rather say it, take responsibility and ensure, once again, that things get better. Human beings are one of the things that get better, and they also need to improve on a daily basis. The ultimate goal in life is to keep learning every day. To do that, we have to recognize our responsibilities and acknowledge our mistakes.

194 words

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

Sep/17/24 11:39:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am interested in getting the member's perspective in terms of the scope. How far back does one actually go? For example, we know that before it was GC Strategies, some of the same individuals were involved in Coredal, and Coredal had also received government grants. In trying to get a fair perspective on how things evolved to the point they got to, how far back does the Bloc believe we need to go with respect to the individuals and the companies that were involved?

88 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Sep/17/24 11:40:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, the report does include Coredal without mentioning it. However, it should be noted that it was Coredal when these two individuals took ownership. Before Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony took over, Coredal had its own owner with its own contracts. Therefore, we are going back to the point where these two people became the owners of Coredal.

63 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Sep/17/24 11:41:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable and extraordinary colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. It is always difficult to speak after her, given her vast knowledge of the subject. I would also like to congratulate Louis-Philippe Sauvé on his victory this morning. I send out 8,884 thank yous to the people who placed their trust in Louis-Philippe and the Bloc Québécois. They do not have to worry, we are there for them. A few months ago, the Office of the Auditor General submitted a report on the management of the ArriveCAN app. To quote the Auditor General, management of the app was the worst she had seen in her career. The ArriveCAN app, which was to have cost $80,000, ended up costing taxpayers $60 million. In the same report, we learned that one company composed of two people was paid $19.1 million for ArriveCAN. That company is GC Strategies. We also learned that the ArriveCAN affair is only the tip of the iceberg. After putting several questions to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, of which I am a member, the comptroller general revealed that GC Strategies and its former incarnation Coredal had obtained contracts worth almost $108 million since 2011. Manual searches show that there were probably other contracts as well. In other words, at least $108 million was paid in recent years to a two-person company that did not deliver any services. We also learned from the Auditor General's report on ArriveCAN, as well as from several witnesses, that there were whiskey tastings, dinners and golf tournaments, dozens of events attended by public servants. Kristian Firth stood here at the bar of the House of Commons. We called him in. I asked him how many gifts in cash or in kind he had offered public servants. In an arrogant tone, he replied that he had not offered any gifts to public servants. I challenged him. Do whiskey tastings not count? Do dinners not count? Do golf tournaments not count? Mr. Firth replied that yes, there had been certain events. That is what we got from Kristian Firth. We never got a clear answer from him. Worse yet, the government never admitted to any real problems with our procurement system. We are still waiting. That admission should have been made as soon as the report on ArriveCAN was published. A decision should have been made to reform the procurement system. To get back to Kristian Firth, he refused to answer several questions. I gave an example. He compromised the parliamentarians' work by not submitting the documents requested on time. He even lied in committee. In particular, he refused to submit the list of public servants with whom he had worked, a list we have since received but that is incomplete. Clearly, if it has come to this, there are huge problems with procurement. The government has been operating this way for at least 15 years. It is so difficult to do business with the government, to enter into contracts with the government, that some companies—we are talking about GC Strategies, but we know there are others—set up a kind of unit that signs the contract but then delegates the work. In some cases, it is not even the company, it is not even GC Strategies that finds the expertise, but the government itself. Take the case of KPMG, which was considered as a company that could provide services needed by the government. KPMG was called by a government official who told them that the government was not going to sign the contract directly with them, even though it could. The government was going to go through GC Strategies, which ended up pocketing a commission for doing absolutely nothing. What we have here is a company that profited from a broken system and pushed things to the extreme. GC Strategies received most of its contracts from the Canada Border Services Agency for the ArriveCAN app. It was awarded a number of these contracts untendered, while others were obtained via a rigged tendering process. We now have the evidence. A tendering process was rigged so that GC Strategies would be the only successful bidder. In the case of KPMG, GC Strategies received $84,000 while offering absolutely no service as part of the contract between the government and KPMG. Why did the public servant do this? Why does the system allow this? The motion presented for our consideration calls on the Auditor General to conduct a performance audit, on a priority basis, of all payments made to GC Strategies and Coredal, including all contracts with departments, agencies and Crown corporations. As we know, it can be difficult to see what is going on in these agencies and Crown corporations. They consider themselves independent, even though they receive taxpayer money. This makes it difficult to obtain information from them, but that is why they are included in this motion. They too must be accountable. In the case at hand, we would like to know how many other cases there were. The ArriveCAN app is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, we know that there was the KPMG contract I just spoke about, but how many other cases were there like that? How many other times did the government find a company that could provide a service, consultants or people who could truly provide the product the government needed, only to end up with GC Strategies? That is theft. When someone provides no service and receives money for doing absolutely nothing, that is called theft. It is theft of taxpayer money, something the Liberals seem to forget on occasion. Kristian Firth justified his hourly rate of $2,600 by the fact that he was not doing a nine-to-five job. He claimed to have issued over 1,500 invoices per month, maintaining that the amount suddenly increased in the case of ArriveCAN. The contract we are talking about went from $2.35 million to $13.9 million, and again, no service was provided. According to the witness, in the entire history of federal contracts with GC Strategies, the gross margin for all 65 contracts signed with the federal government is approximately 21%. I gave a few examples. GC Strategies was just a shell company that enabled the government to enter into contracts. We do not know why the government used GC Strategies, but the company was pocketing an average of 21% a contract. The two owners of GC Strategies, Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony, met when they were both employees of Veritaaq Technology House, where they worked until 2010. The witness was therefore working for that company when its directors pleaded guilty to bid-rigging in 2009. At that time, the judge ordered that all employees, including Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony, be given training on bid-rigging. However, we now know that they engaged in bid-rigging to win a multi-million dollar contract from the CBSA for the ArriveCAN app. From the motion and from everything I said, it is clear that we urgently need to know the extent of the damage caused by GC Strategies for the government. GC Strategies obtained at least $108 million. How much of that can we potentially get back? In the case of GC Strategies, there has obviously been a breach of trust and theft. That is a strong word that I am using. However, the following is clear. In the report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates that we are discussing today, we may be asking the Auditor General of Canada to study the issue and conduct a performance audit to get a clearer idea, but we are obviously not directing the Auditor General, far from it. We cannot make repeated requests like others do all the time and like a certain party enjoys doing by bombarding the Office of the Auditor General of Canada with requests for studies when it already has so much on its plate. I am therefore adding a bit of nuance because, as the Auditor General of Canada pointed out, she does not have additional funding for all the extra studies she is being asked to do. Nevertheless, and this is the most important point of my speech, the report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was unanimously adopted because it embodies the feelings of our constituents, the taxpayers who felt cheated in this matter. It epitomizes the anger, it must be said, of the people who talk to us back home on the ground about the story of ArriveCAN and GC Strategies. No one understands how this could have happened. We were cheated by a procurement system that needs to be overhauled. It is the right thing to do. I would really like the government to truly take responsibility, as my colleague from Beauport-Limoilou said, and acknowledge the fact that GC Strategies is a perfect example of the fact that there is a real problem in the federal procurement system.

1536 words

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

Sep/17/24 11:50:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's last statements and go to the Auditor General's comments. From what I understand, there was a clear indication the Auditor General found that the government has appropriate contracting rules that are actually in place. The problem is that the rules were not properly followed. When that occurs, there is an obligation for the government to take action. When the government did discover this, there were actions. Internal reviews were done. The Auditor General was brought in. The RCMP is also now looking into the matter. I do not know exactly where it is at in regard to it, but there seems to be a great deal of attention being brought to the issue, and justifiably so. The government has not been shy in terms of recognizing the need for transparency and accountability on the issue. The government believes that there have to be and will be consequences for those who have broken the rules and taken advantage of taxpayers. I wonder whether the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the Auditor General's comments that we seem to have the right system.

197 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Sep/17/24 11:52:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I simply do not agree with my colleague opposite. I think that the government did not do enough, to be sure. Here is an example: At the Canada Border Services Agency, one of the people who partook in whiskey tastings with Kristian Firth was promoted. Is this what taking action means? No. There is a problem in the procurement system. Fiddling around the edges, which was more symbolic than anything else, has done nothing to repair a problematic procurement system. It is too complex, and thus requires a number of firms to go through companies like GC Strategies, which do absolutely nothing. Lastly, we pay far too much for what we get at the federal level.

118 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Sep/17/24 11:52:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the problems we have is the constant outsourcing of communications, studies and consultant groups instead of having those done within the house of the public service. I would like the member's comments with regard to how much outsourcing has been done. It is a significant problem, and if we did those things in-house, we would have more control and, more importantly, accountability.

68 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Sep/17/24 11:53:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is indeed a problem, but it does not necessarily involve hiring consultants. It is normal to hire consultants. Experts are occasionally needed to assist the government on an ad hoc basis. The problem is that the size of the public service increased dramatically. A huge number of public servants were hired, and many more consultants were hired as well. Consulting expenses went through the roof. How is it that this expertise is lacking within the government? Have we not created a sort of federal dependency on consultants, who end up having their contracts renewed, while internal expertise falls by the wayside? This is what I mean when I talk about a procurement problem.

116 words