- Mar/22/24 1:12:08 p.m.
- Watch
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to this important motion.
I am pleased that members from all parties offered responses in the House following the Speaker's careful ruling that we have this opportunity to remind Canadians of the important work that is done here and the important powers that we have here, which allow us to do the work we have been elected to do for Canadians.
This is borne out of the $60 million of corruption, fraud and forgery. This was a situation that saw 10,000 Canadians falsely forced into quarantine, and this is what we get after eight years of the Prime Minister and his broken arrive scam. For nearly 18 months, Conservatives have been holding the Prime Minister's government to account for his $60-million boondoggle.
This app started out with a price tag of $80,000, and through mismanagement and corruption, the price grew to 750 times its original cost. We have seen two-man basement operations, such as GC Strategies and Dalian, make millions off the taxpayer for an app while doing no IT work. We have seen government officials wined and dined for contracts, and we have seen government officials levelling unbelievable and shocking accusations of wrongdoing at each other before parliamentary committees.
We know that there have been substantiated reports of bid rigging and of fraudulent and forged documents being used for contractors to win government business. There are now 12 investigations into this scandal, including by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
We have seen the institution of Parliament attacked by government officials who have lied to committee and by key players in the scandal lying and refusing orders of parliamentary committees. As is referred to in the reports from the Standing Committee on Government Operations, we know that Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony did not attend when summoned the first time, the second time or the third time. Only under the threat of arrest, using the extraordinary powers of Parliament entrusted to us by Canadians, did they finally attend, but that is what brings us here today.
Using an extraordinary remedy to an extraordinary problem, which is ordering the appearance under threat of arrest, we had Mr. Firth do something that has not given rise to the kind of debate we are having now for about 110 years. It seems that this reminder is more important now than ever. We have seen varying degrees of offence but never anything as egregious as this. This stems from Kristian Firth, the principal of GC Strategies, that two-person firm that was paid nearly $20 million on the $60-million boondoggle of the arrive scam. He refused to answer questions and then obstructed the work of Parliament and its committees.
At the government operations committee, I asked whether Mr. Firth had lied to a parliamentary committee before. He refused to answer. I also asked which public office holders Mr. Firth had met outside of government offices. He again refused to answer.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan asked Mr. Firth how many hours he spent sending LinkedIn invitations. Now, this is a key component of GC Strategies' apparent recruitment strategy, if we can believe it, and for what it earned its commissions of up to 30% on nearly $20 million. Mr. Firth replied and refused to answer.
The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek asked Mr. Firth to name his contacts in the various departments that provided GC Strategies with its 134 contracts. Again, Mr. Firth refused to answer. One of the reasons that GC Strategies says that it was able to get these 134 contracts from the government was because of the reputation it built.
On its website, there are very detailed referrals and recommendations from the most senior government officials, without names attributed to them. I asked Mr. Firth to name the individuals who allegedly provided these glowing testimonials that appear on the website, and Mr. Firth refused to answer.
His contempt for Parliament goes back not two weeks, but to his first appearance at committee on the arrive scam nearly a year and a half ago, where he lied about knowing the secondary residence of a senior government official, now infamously saying it was a chalet not a cottage. Even at his most recent appearance at committee, if it could bring one to laughter and not tears, he then said that it was a cabin.
He lied about meeting government officials outside of government offices in that first appearance, and he lied about providing hospitality to government officials. He then refused to return to committee to answer further questions, being summoned by the committee. Instead, he decided to hide out.
I will note that, when Mr. Firth first appeared at committee nearly a year and a half ago, and he did not provide some of these answers, he undertook to provide them immediately and said that he would give a return to the committee.
When he appeared at committee most recently, again under threat of arrest by House order, he said, “I promise” when saying that he would deliver the names of those government officials by the next morning at 9:00 a.m. The committee was called to order at 10:00 a.m. the following morning, when the clerk confirmed and the chair reported that again, Mr. Firth had lied to committee. He had broken a promise while under oath.
The committee had to threaten Mr. Firth with arrest at the hands of the Sergeant-at-Arms if he continued to refuse, as I said, and it was only that threat that brought him out of hiding. Then he refused to answer straightforward questions that anyone with nothing to hide would, of course, have answered.
These are the kind of people who the Liberal Prime Minister is more than happy to hand over millions of dollars to for an app, but who did no work. These are people who casually make a mockery of Canada's House of Commons, Canada's Parliament and the oath they took, a solemn oath that he took that morning at committee.
There is no question that Parliament is the grand inquest of the nation, and it is to have unfettered right to send for people, papers and documents. This means Parliament has the full authority to summon and compel attendance and testimony in Canada, except his Majesty the King and his royal representatives, and to summon and compel the production of documents.
The courts have clearly acknowledged the powers of the House as the grand inquest of the nation to inquire into any matter that it sees fit. As part of the grand inquest of the nation, parliamentary committees are not restricted in the scope of questions that they can pose to witnesses, and witnesses must answer all questions that are put to them.
This latest episode, this latest report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations, is just the most recent development in a scandal that continues to grow and envelop the government through the many investigations that have taken place and are ongoing by independent officers of Parliament, parliamentary committees and, of course, the national police force.
The Auditor General, in a report that was issued against the government's wishes, every member of the government having voted to block the Auditor General from having investigated GC Strategies and the $60-million arrive scam, outlined the glaring lack of oversight and accountability in the procurement and contracting development of this failed app.
The Auditor General found that Canada Border Services Agency documentation, financial records and controls were so poor that she was unable to determine the price cost of the ArriveCAN application. Imagine, the Auditor General, a general with an army of auditors, was unable to give precision on the price of a scandal that is approximately $60 million.
Using the information that was available, the Auditor General estimated the cost as at least $60 million. She found that the CBSA's disregard for policies, controls and transparency in the contracting process restricted opportunities for competition and undermined value for money. She found that the agency, of course, did not have documentation. Why GC Strategies was selected through a non-competitive process in the first place, she does not know and, so far, neither do Canadians.
The Auditor General even found that Kristian Firth and GC Strategies were able to write their own contract in one case that saw the two-man company awarded a $25-million contract.
The officials at IT firms working on arrive scam were playing fast and loose with the security and privacy of Canadians' private information, biometric health information. In one of the original contracts, the government waived the requirement for workers to have the requisite top secret security clearance. GC Strategies did not meet the requirements for another contract, and the government did not see a problem with that.
The Auditor General was unable to find evidence of valid security clearances for multiple workers on the app. It is no wonder Canadians were concerned from the very beginning. It is no wonder that the Privacy Commissioner has launched his own investigation into the app for a second time, the first being related, of course, to the 10,000 Canadians falsely being sent into quarantine under threat of jail.
That raises questions as to what exactly government officials were doing when all of this was going down. They were too busy being wined and dined by contractors, and even being treated to special whisky tastings. They were more than happy to dole out millions of dollars in contracts their hand-picked favourites, like GC Strategies, were looking for. They did not care one bit about the value for money that Canadians were getting for their hard-earned tax dollars.
Now, they are scapegoating some and they are protecting others. They are lying. They are misleading parliamentary committees, right alongside GC Strategies own Kristian Firth. The government has been trying to cover it up the entire way.
We have a situation in our country of a true crisis of the cost of living, with record food bank usage, with millions of Canadians lining up at food banks in record numbers, thousands collaborating on best practices to be able to feed their families out of dumpsters and tent cities by the dozen in communities that, just a few short years ago, could not have imagined such a thing.
All the while, the Liberal government has been allowing insiders to benefit to the tune of millions and to become millionaires off the hard-earned tax dollars of single mothers, young families and seniors. What is the value for money that Canadians got for the millions that the Liberal Prime Minister awarded to these undeserving individuals, like GC Strategies? It was some Google searches, some LinkedIn searches and a campaign to corrupt the procurement system and the public servants who oversaw the awarding of contracts. It is rot and corruption, like the country has not seen in decades.
Who was in charge? We have not seen any ministers stand up and take responsibility.
Only after Canada's common-sense Conservatives pounded on the drum for a year and a half about the rot inside the Liberal government has it finally started to take some action, or tried to confuse Canadians into thinking it is taking this seriously. Every member of the Liberal government voted against the Auditor General investigating the $60-million boondoggle that is arrive scam.
However, in what it described this week as the “first wave” of announcements on fraud in the procurement system, $5 million in fraudulent contracting was reported to the RCMP by the government. It is the first wave. We ask if it is $5 million of the $60 million, but these are new discoveries of fraud now being investigated by the national police force.
The fact that we have seen obstruction from the government and not urgency to address this incredibly serious matter undermines Canadians' confidence in public institutions and creates incredible stress for families who are struggling to get by. We see the laissez-faire attitude of a government that is willing to dole out millions to the elites, while the beating heart and soul of this country, the everyday Canadian, is struggling to make ends meet.
Of course, to add insult to injury, we are just weeks away from a 23% increase to the Liberal carbon tax that will see an increase in the price of gas, groceries and home heating.
The rot and waste in the government goes beyond the $60-million arrive scam. We know that the system of procurement it is overseeing is broken, and we know that this is just one of a long list of scandals presided over by a Prime Minister twice found guilty for breaking Canada's ethics laws. However, today we are faced with, as a House of representatives of Canadians, the opportunity to send a crystal clear message that, when the grand inquest of the nation, Canada's Parliament, summons a person before a committee or when Canada's Parliament invites someone before a committee, we must get the full truth and nothing but the truth.
As such, we are going to defend Canada's institutions. We are going to restore that confidence that Canadians have, and this motion offers an appropriate remedy for the rules having been broken: an admonishment. For accountability and transparency, it offers answers to the questions that were rightfully put to the individual who will, if this motion passes, be brought before the bar of the House.
I invite all members of the House to support this important motion. I know that we have heard affirmation from members of Canada's official opposition, the common-sense Conservatives. I know that we have heard from members of the third and fourth parties, as well as from the Green Party, that they will be supporting it. I look with hopeful optimism that today, after eight years, the Liberal government will do the right thing and vote in support of restoring Canadians' confidence in its oldest and most sacred institution, the place we serve: the true north, strong and free; our country that we love; Canada.
That is why we are voting to restore that confidence, and I call on all members to do the same.
2415 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/24 1:09:55 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That the House, having considered the unanimous views of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, expressed in its 17th Report, find Kristian Firth to be in contempt for his refusal to answer certain questions and for prevaricating in his answers to other questions and, accordingly, order him to attend at the Bar of this House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the third sitting day following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of (a) receiving an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; (b) providing responses to the questions referred to in the 17th Report; and (c) responding to supplementary questions arising from his responses to the questions referred to in the 17th Report.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/24 6:21:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the notice of a question of privilege that I provided the table with following the tabling of the 17th report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
At the outset, I want to note that the government operations committee is actually meeting this afternoon, so our colleagues who sit on the committee may wish to address this with the House tomorrow or possibly Friday.
Last week, Kristian Firth, the co-founder of GC Strategies, a two-person IT firm that does no actual work, finally appeared before the government operations committee to answer for his role and his company's role at the heart of the Liberal government's arrive scam.
The House is well familiar already with the Auditor General's damning report of this procurement fiasco. Other investigations have been popping up left, right and centre by other officers of Parliament, including possibly the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I believe that Bill Curry of The Globe and Mail pegged it at 12 active investigations.
Parliamentarians had questions for Mr. Firth and his partner, Darren Anthony, who had long resisted appearing before committee. That is why the committee, in its 14th report, had asked for a House order to compel their appearances before the committee, backstopped by the authorization of a Speaker's warrant to take them into custody if necessary, and the House unanimously concurred in that report the same day it was tabled.
As I said, Mr. Firth appeared to answer questions, but “answers” are not how I would describe what he gave. That is why, at the conclusion of his appearance last Wednesday, the government operations committee unanimously and without debate adopted a Conservative motion to present a report to the House, “outlining the potential breach of privilege concerning Kristian Firth’s refusal to answer those questions which the Committee agreed to put to him and his prevarication in answering others.”
The area of greatest concern that I want to highlight was Mr. Firth's refusal to say which public office holders he communicated with concerning the crafting of a so-called competitive contract with the Canada Border Services Agency. The House will recall that the Auditor General found, at paragraph 1.56 of her ArriveCAN audit that GC Strategies was involved in developing the requirements set out in the agency's request for proposal. Naturally, parliamentarians wanted to know who spoke with him.
Mr. Firth, however, stonewalled several members, including me, with repeated refusals to answer those questions directed to him, citing an RCMP investigation. When he was pressed on whether he understood the imperative nature of answering questions at committee, he again refused to answer, citing solicitor-client privilege.
On other occasions, in response to other questions asked of him, the witness offered evasive responses, a concept referred to in some procedural texts as “prevaricating”, something which I will elaborate upon in a few moments.
I would draw your attention to a handful of exchanges in committee with Mr. Firth as examples.
I asked whether Mr. Firth had lied to a parliamentary committee before. Mr. Firth answered by saying, “watch my previous testimony.” I also asked which public office holders Mr. Firth had met outside of government offices. Mr. Firth answered, “I'm more than happy to provide that information in writing, but I'm not prepared to do that right now, televised.”
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan asked Mr. Firth how many hours he spent sending LinkedIn invitations, a key component of GC Strategies' apparent recruitment strategy, and Mr. Firth answered, “That has no bearing on this project, does it?”
The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek asked Mr. Firth to name his contacts in the various departments which provided GC Strategies with 134 contracts. Mr. Firth answered, “I'd like to provide all of those details after this meeting, please. I would not like to speak about it publicly, just with how this committee is going.”
I asked Mr. Firth to name the individuals who allegedly provided the glowing testimonials which appear on GC Strategies' website. Mr. Firth answered, “I do know the answer.” He then said that he would provide it “after this meeting”.
As an aside, I believe that the committee is still waiting on Mr. Firth to make good on some of those undertakings, undertakings that he had promised the committee he would answer by 9 a.m. the following morning. The government operations committee might have more to report on that in due course.
I will also add that there are concerns about the truthfulness of some of the testimony from Mr. Firth and other witnesses throughout the course of this committee's study. However, that may well be a matter for yet another future report from the committee. For today's purposes, we are of course concerned with Mr. Firth's refusal to answer questions and his evasiveness on others.
Mr. Speaker, your predecessor ruled, on May 11, 2021, at page 7021 of Debates, about the role of committees in questions of privilege concerning the evidence of witnesses. He stated:
There is no precedent where the Chair has used testimony from a committee without there being a report on the subject.
This aspect of the matter is a concern for the Chair. It is not for the Speaker to untangle the committee evidence to determine who knew what and when. Such an initiative would trespass on the role of committee members and constitute a breach of my duty to act with impartiality. It is up to the committee to continue its own study and to inform the House of its conclusions, if it deems it appropriate, as has been the tradition.
The government operations committee has done its work. It has informed the House of its conclusion that Mr. Firth obstructed it, through his refusal to answer questions and providing prevaricating responses.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 82, borrowing from a list of established contempts laid out in a 1999 report of the United Kingdom Parliament's Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, enumerates established areas of contempt, including, “without reasonable excuse, refusing to answer a question or provide information” and “engaging in other misconduct in the presence of, the House or a committee”.
On August 12, 1947, the United Kingdom House of Commons resolved:
That the refusal of a witness before a Select Committee to answer any question which may be put to him is a contempt of this House and an infraction of the undoubted right of this House to conduct any inquiry which may be necessary in the public interest.
Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, explains, at page 191:
A committee is not restricted in the scope of questions it can pose and a witness must answer all questions put to him, subject only to a point of order by a member of the committee that the question should not be permitted, and with an ultimate appeal of the chairman's ruling to the committee.
Beauchesne's Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, adds, at citation 863:
A witness who is unwilling to answer a question, after stating the reason for desiring to be excused from answering, may appeal to the Chair whether in the circumstances, for the reason stated, an answer should be given.
If you consult the transcript of last Wednesday's meeting of the government operations committee, Mr. Speaker, you will see several instances where the chair was asked, without any objection from the committee, to direct Mr. Firth, on behalf of the committee, to answer the questions. Certainly, no members objected to the questions that were asked.
The chair, having heard the reasons offered by Mr. Firth, nonetheless directed him to respond. The chair also reminded the witness of the protections offered to him by the law of parliamentary privilege.
Perhaps it would also be helpful for the House to be refreshed on those important principles. Beauchesne notes, at citation 109:
Witnesses before committees share the same privilege of freedom of speech as Members.... Nothing said before a committee (or at the Bar of the House) may be used in a court of law. Thus a witness may not refuse to answer on the grounds of self incrimination.
Bosc and Gagnon add, at footnote 681, on page 1080, “As with Members, freedom of speech is extended to the testimony given by witnesses before committees and has been held to include protection from any possible prosecution.”
The reasons behind this important principle are elaborated upon by Bosc and Gagnon, on page 93:
This right [freedom of speech] is also extended to individuals who appear before the House or its committees in order to encourage truthful and complete disclosure, without fear of reprisal or other adverse actions as a result of their testimony. In 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled [in Gagliano v. Canada (Attorney General)] that the testimony of parliamentary witnesses fell within the scope of parliamentary privilege because it is necessary for the functioning of Parliament for three reasons: “to encourage witnesses to speak openly before the Parliamentary committee, to allow the committee to exercise its investigative function and, in a more secondary way, to avoid contradictory findings of fact”.
In 2007, the Federal Court again recognized [in George v. Canada (Attorney General)] that a witness’s testimony before a House committee is protected by parliamentary privilege:
“[A]lthough witnesses before a parliamentary committee are not Members of Parliament, they are not strangers to the House either. Rather they are guests who are afforded parliamentary privilege because, as with members, the privilege is necessary to ensure that they are able to speak openly, free from the fear that their words will be used against them in subsequent proceedings....”
The Court confirmed that parliamentary privilege “precludes other entities from holding Members of Parliament or witnesses before committees liable for statements made in the discharge of their functions in the House”.
However, Mr. Firth persisted in his refusals, citing the RCMP investigation and solicitor-client privilege. Given the latter grounds, it is perhaps important to refer back to Beauchesne at citation 863:
A witness is, however, bound to answer all questions which the committee sees fit to put, and cannot be excused, for example, on the ground that there could be risk of a civil action...or because the matter was a privileged communication such as that between a solicitor and a client, or on the grounds of advice from counsel that the question cannot be answered without risking self-incrimination or civil suit, or that it would prejudice a defence in pending litigation, some of which would be sufficient grounds of excuse in a court of law.
Very similar words appear at page 38.36 of Erskine May, 25th edition.
The fact remains that Mr. Firth was asked questions. He refused. He was pressed to answer by the committee, yet he continued to refuse. That is, I respectfully submit, a contempt of Parliament.
Next, I want to turn to the matter of Mr. Firth's prevaricating evidence. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines the verb “prevaricate” as “speak or act evasively or misleadingly.”
Derek Lee's The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records, at page 180, states that witnesses have been found guilty of contempt by the House or similarly punished by the House for prevarication.
Erskine May puts it, at paragraph 15.5 of the 25th edition, as follows: “In the past, witnesses...who have prevaricated, given false evidence, willfully suppressed the truth, or persistently misled a committee have been considered guilty of contempt.” That entry falls under the heading of “Misconduct of Members or officers of either House”, a phrase found in the list of established contempts found on page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon.
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, fourth edition, also comments in relation to witnesses' obligation to tell the truth, at page 776, saying, “Even to prevaricate before a committee might invite questions.”
In the United Kingdom House of Commons, several committee witnesses in the 19th century faced the wrath of the House when giving prevaricating evidence with a finding of contempt, even committal into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms or at Her Majesty's jail of Newgate.
Example cases may be found. I will not read them all, but the can be found on page 601 of the Journals for August 28, 1835; page 258 of the Journals for February 24, 1848; page 147 of the Journals for April 7, 1851; page 699 and page 742 of the Journals for July 20 and 29, 1853; page 354 of the Journals for July 28, 1857; and page 239 of the Journals for April 23, 1866.
A close cousin of prevarication is the wilful suppression of the truth. On March 3, 1828, a committee of the whole of the United Kingdom House of Commons, which was considering the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, had before it a witness named Jonathan Fox who spent 90 minutes answering most questions with some variation of “I cannot say”.
The witness was asked to withdraw while the committee deliberated. These deliberations, at column 936 of the parliamentary Debates, are insightful. The record reads:
Mr. Alderman Waithman
observed, that the committee could not suffer its dignity to be trifled with in this way. He would appeal to the committee whether this man's answers could be believed. Something ought to be done to support the dignity of the House, which ought not to be trifled with in this manner. He should move, that the witness had been guilty of gross prevarication.
Mr. Bering
asked, how, if the inquisitorial power of the House was to be exercised, that power could ever be exercised if it was treated in this manner? One phrase was perpetually in this man's mouth.... Here was a man...who had entertained the committee for an hour and a half, with the same answer. He had been guilty, in his opinion, of gross prevarication.
Mr. Peel
thought it doubtful whether the witness had been guilty of prevarication; it seemed a wilful suppression of the truth.
The Attorney General
agreed, that the conduct of the witness did not amount to gross prevarication, although it was evidently a wilful suppression of the truth.
Mr. Wynn
confessed that he did not know what prevarication was, if the witness had not been guilty of it.
In the end, the House adopted a resolution that Mr. Fox “has attempted to defeat the investigation of the committee by wilfully suppressing the truth.”
All that to say that Mr. Firth was quite clearly dodging and weaving in his evidence to the committee, desperate to avoid giving answers. He was, to borrow from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary definition, answering “evasively”. Now, based on the authorities I have cited, that is a further contempt of Parliament committed by Mr. Firth.
Normally, this is the point where I would say that I am prepared to move the appropriate motion, but what is the appropriate motion? Bosc and Gagnon comment, at page 150, that “The terms of the motion have generally provided that the matter be referred to committee for study”. Footnote 386 hastens to add, “There have, however, been exceptions to this practice.”
Therefore, what would be the objective of another committee study in these circumstances? The facts are crystal clear. The questions and the refusals are already on the record. Would we ask the procedure and House affairs committee to report back saying, “Yes, Kristian Firth definitely refused to answer those questions, and man, he was really cagey, too”?
Maingot, at page 263, offers the answer, which is this: “nevertheless open in flagrant cases of contemptuous conduct to move that the facts in question constitute a breach of privilege”. He wrote, a little earlier on the same page, “the practice at one time provided that the alleged contemner be brought to the Bar of the House”.
Indeed, that is what the House decided to do in June 2021 after the government defied an order of the House concerning the production of Winnipeg lab documents, summoning the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada to appear at the bar to receive an admonishment on behalf of his agency. Now, these circumstances are a little different when we are dealing with a committee witness providing testimony rather than a document production order aimed at the government.
The House has, since the turn of the century, held two witnesses in contempt for their evidence before committee. In 2003, the government operations committee concluded that the former privacy commissioner George Radwanski had deliberately misled the committee in his testimony and should be found in contempt of the House. However, given that Mr. Radwanski had apologized to the House in writing, in addition to having resigned as an officer of Parliament, no sanctions were applied beyond the contempt finding.
In 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts determined that the then RCMP deputy commissioner Barbara George had knowingly misled the committee in her testimony before the committee and recommended that she be found in contempt of the House, but it ordered no further action on the recommendation of the committee “as this finding of contempt is, in and of itself, a very serious sanction.”
More recently, in 2011, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development provided the House with extracts of evidence given by the minister of international co-operation, which contradicted her statements in the House. Speaker Milliken ruled, on March 9, 2011, that there was a prima facie case of privilege and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which heard from the minister and other witnesses but did not complete a report before Parliament was dissolved.
Those cases involved contradicting answers. We are concerned here with getting answers. Therefore, we must look back further in time for instances when the House addressed similar situations.
In June of 1891, Michael Connolly, a witness before the privileges and elections committee, which was investigating allegations of corrupt practices on the part of a member of the House, refused to turn over documents that he brought with him and was being asked about. This was reported to the House, which in turn ordered him to appear at the bar, where he was questioned, granted counsel and ordered to turn over the documents in question.
In August of 1891, Thomas McGreevy, the member whose corruption was being investigated by the privileges and elections committee, appeared as a witness and refused to answer questions. The matter was reported to the House, which ordered him to appear in his place in the House to answer those questions. Mr. McGreevy did not appear, leading the House to order him to be taken into custody. Despite the Sergeant-at-Arms' pursuit of Mr. McGreevy by train as far as Quebec City, he was not captured but was expelled as an MP the following month.
In 1906, William Preston, a civil servant, appeared as a witness before the agriculture and public accounts committees where he refused to answer questions. Each committee reported the situation to the House, where a motion to summon him to the bar was debated, but a Liberal government amendment that excused Mr. Preston was adopted instead.
In 1913, R.C. Miller, a witness before the public accounts committee, refused to answer questions. The matter was reported to the House, which ordered him to appear before the bar, where Mr. Miller was further questioned but persisted in his refusals to answer. The House in turn found him in contempt and sent him to prison, where he remained until Parliament was prorogued four months later.
Let us be clear. I am not proposing that Mr. Firth be imprisoned for this particular offence. However, we must all recall that the House possesses awesome power and authority to vindicate its role as the grand inquest of the nation.
Citations 123 to 125 of Beauchesne's elaborate the following:
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.
Before anyone worries that this might be an intense approach, the United Kingdom Parliament's Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999, at paragraphs 301 and 302, compellingly explained the need for such powers when confronted by contempt.
301. The first question to be considered is whether contempt of Parliament by non-members should still attract any punishment at all. We believe it should. Take, as an example, the investigatory work of committees. Powers must exist to ensure that committee investigations can proceed, that witnesses will attend and that papers will be produced. Apart from public officials and ministers, many interest groups and representative bodies, and many companies and private individuals, also appear regularly before select committees of both Houses. They almost always appear voluntarily. However, occasionally witnesses are unwilling to appear, or information necessary to an inquiry is not willingly provided....
302. If the work of Parliament is to proceed without improper interference, there must ultimately be some sanction available against those who offend: those who interrupt the proceedings or destroy evidence, or seek to intimidate members or witnesses; those who disobey orders of the House or a committee to attend and answer questions or produce documents. Sometimes the conduct is a criminal offence. Then the criminal law should take its course. In the case of non-members that will normally suffice. But unless a residual power to punish exists, the obligation not to obstruct will be little more than a pious aspiration. The absence of a sanction will be cynically exploited by some persons from time to time.
Some from the Liberal benches might urge upon the Chair in the House the fact that these powers concerning these witnesses had not been used in many decades and, therefore, they might argue that they are now in doubt. They might even object to my referencing precedent longer than their time in the House. To that, I would answer with paragraphs 76 and 77 of the 2013 report of the United Kingdom Parliament's Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which formed part of an analysis on options for enforcing the House's authority, barely 10 years old.
It reads:
76. It is unfortunate that Parliament's restraint has led to doubt about the continuing existence of its powers. They are a part of United Kingdom law and have been so for centuries. In this section we consider the third option, which would involve the two Houses re-asserting their historic penal jurisdiction and setting up procedures for exercising that jurisdiction.
77. The first and most important challenge is to assert the continuing existence of each House's jurisdiction over contempt. This is, fundamentally, a test of institutional confidence. We urge the two Houses to rise to this challenge.
This is why my “appropriate motion” would rise to the challenge and it would do the following: It would find Kristian Firth to be in contempt. It would order him to the bar of the House to be admonished by the Speaker. While at the bar, he would be required to answer the questions which the committee struggled to obtain answers to, as noted in the 17th report, tabled today. Finally, there would be provision for supplementary questions to Mr. Firth arising from the answers that he provided.
The first three items are perfectly consistent with and are modelled upon the order of the House adopted on June 17, 2021, where the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada was summoned to the bar to receive an admonishment and turn over the documents which had previously not been provided. Indeed, Lee writes at page 241, “Where the House finds that a breach of privilege or contempt has been committed by a person, the House may take steps to coerce the offender into complying with the order of the House or committee that resulted in the breach of privilege or contempt.”
Given the distinction here of seeking answers to oral questions, as opposed to the production of papers, I would propose allowing for supplementary questions to be asked. While it has been some time since a witness has been questioned at the bar, the sequence of events would, I respectfully submit, be consistent with the past precedents that I cited of witnesses who had refused to answer questions at committee.
Though the relevant forms and procedures are old and do not neatly fit into our contemporary way of conducting House business, it does not make the idea impossible. Sir John Bourinot, in Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, at pages 70 and 74, explains the procedures for questioning witnesses at the bar for those who want to understand the area better.
In conclusion, the 17th report of the government operations committee outlines a troubling new development in the Liberal government's arrive scam, which I believe amounts to a contempt of the House. Parliament deserves answers about this fiasco. All Canadians deserve to know those answers. We cannot allow the House of Commons to be trifled with or cynically exploited by witnesses who are too clever just by half. We must rise to the challenge. We need to demonstrate our institutional confidence as the grand inquest of the nation.
We must get answers from Kristian Firth about his conduct, which is at the very heart of the arrive scam. If you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, once we have allowed an opportunity for colleagues from the government operations committee to speak to the matter, if they wish, I am prepared to move the motion I outlined earlier.
4464 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 3:04:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the Auditor General asked for in terms of information the government did not even want to provide. That is why it voted against having the Auditor General investigate the Prime Minister's $60-million arrive scam. It is clear that after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is not worth the corruption or worth the cost. That $60 million was for outside consultants. It was not for public servants who needed to act quickly. It is was for Ottawa insiders who were getting rich, being made millionaires, while Canadians struggle and are now lined up at food banks.
The Prime Minister has had weeks and he will not stand up, but we have ordered him to provide the documents. At what time will they be provided?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 3:02:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government has been trying to cover up the full cost of its $60-million arrive scam. After eight years of the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government, they are not worth the cost or the corruption. He has been hiding the documents and we have been hearing the paper shredders, but his homework is due today.
The question is for the Prime Minister. At what time will he respect the common-sense Conservative motion that was passed by the House and deliver all of the documents and the full cost of his arrive scam scandal?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:08:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us say this a little louder for those in the back. We are looking for a commitment from the government to release every page of those documents. After eight years, it is very clear that the Liberals and their NDP-Liberal Prime Minister are not worth the corruption. This is a $60-million scandal, with people in their basements getting paid $20 million and not doing any IT work. Now we have the minister's staff getting paid millions of dollars while Canadians are lined up at food banks.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Michael Barrett: I will ask this loudly so that the minister can hear it: Will they commit, standing in their place, to getting Canadians money back for their corruption?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:06:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Meanwhile, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, Canadians know he is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption.
Just yesterday, we learned that in the Prime Minister's $60-million arrive scam, one of the contractors who was paid millions is actually a bureaucrat for the NDP-Liberal government. That is why common-sense Conservatives passed a motion in this House, demanding that the government produce all the documents on the Prime Minister's scandal. Will he stand in this place and commit to releasing every last page?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 2:50:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the minister and his colleagues thought that the Auditor General's work was so important, they would not have voted against the audit the Leader of the Opposition and common-sense Conservatives voted for. That was how we found out about this $60-million scandal, which has landed at the minister's feet. Now we have the RCMP investigating them. Twice before, the Prime Minister used the powers of the executive to shield himself from criminal investigations with the RCMP.
My question this time is simple. Will the Prime Minister interfere in the investigation again or will he allow the RCMP to do its work?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 2:49:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, he is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption.
Today, the commissioner of the RCMP confirmed that the Liberals' scandal-plagued $60-million arrive scam app is, in fact, under RCMP investigation. We have seen the Prime Minister use the powers of the executive to try to shield himself from criminal investigations, just as he did with his trip to the Aga Khan's island and the SNC-Lavalin scandal, for both of which he was found guilty of breaking the ethics act.
Will the Prime Minister fully co-operate with the RCMP investigation?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:37:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the cover-up coalition is just that. It has an agreement. The NDP support the Liberal government on all orders of things. In exchange for that, the NDP did not get a seat at the cabinet table, but it does have veto power. The NDP also has the opportunity to not support the Liberal government when it is increasing funding to outside consultants, which is exactly this case. That member voted more than a half-dozen times to increase spending, with $20 million going to one outside consulting company.
How many public servants could be hired with the tens of millions of dollars that were spent on the arrive scam that went to consultants making 30%, but did no actual work on the app? Dozens. Where was the NDP? It was in lockstep with the scandal-plagued Prime Minister. It is a shame.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:35:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing that the Bloc took the opportunity more than a half-dozen times to vote to increase the funding to this scandal-plagued arrive scam app. It is so frustrating for Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet.
When the Conservatives were in government, there was no $60 million arrive scam. Spending on outside consultants was less than half of what it has ballooned to, at more than $21 billion under the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption.
As I said, it was not like that before these Liberals and it will not be like that after them.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it sounds like the parliamentary secretary was talking about my Twitter. It is @MikeBarrettON, if he wants to follow it or if he wants to like that post and share it.
Tens of thousands, and in some cases hundreds of thousands, of people are doing that every day. After eight years of the scandal-plagued NDP-Liberal government and its partnership in the cover-up coalition, Canadians are exhausted. They are also out of cash and pretty soon the Liberal government will be out of time.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:22:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, $60 million is the running total so far for the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government's arrive scam. This is a scandal that sees Liberal insiders lining their pockets with tens of millions of dollars while Canadians are lined up at food banks.
I just came from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics where we heard very interesting testimony from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The leader of the official opposition sent a letter of complaint to the RCMP about the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister's $60 million arrive scam. The RCMP commissioner confirmed, just minutes ago, that, yes, the Prime Minister's $60 million arrive scam is under RCMP investigation.
This is a government that has been mired in scandal. This issue, though on its face seems to be business as usual, is shocking to Canadians. It is shocking because one contractor, who worked on the government's failed $60 million arrive scam received $20 million, but that is $20 million out of $258 million that these two guys, working out of a suburban Ottawa basement, have been pulling in, in contracts. The same two guys admitted under questioning at committee that they fraudulently won the bids.
That was not enough for the government to freeze the awarding of contracts to GC Strategies, just like every single one of the Liberal members voted against having Canada's Auditor General investigate the arrive scam. Why did they vote against it? We learned, when we got the report back from the Auditor General, that it was damning, just like the report from the procurement ombud, revealing that 76% of the contractors, whose résumés were used to win the bids for the $60 million boondoggle, did not do any work on the ArriveCAN app.
The accountability that the Liberals look to apply to this measure is the same as having the fox guard the henhouse. They want internal processes, the CBSA, to investigate itself. That does a disservice to everyone. In my community, we have frontline border service officers and managers. Those border service officers work tirelessly to keep our country and our communities safe. They are appalled by what they have seen from the Prime Minister's senior bureaucrats, like the former president of the CBSA, in this shocking waste of taxpayers' money.
I did have a parliamentary secretary in this place one day say that it saved tens of thousands of lives. The parliamentary secretary had to walk that back. There was no data. They just make stuff up. Also, under questioning, their officials at committee confirmed the same.
This scandal has seen explosive testimony at committee with allegations of bribery and extortion, and evidence of corruption, forgery, fraud and threats. After we forced meetings last week, including testimony by the Information Commissioner, the Information Commissioner has launched her own investigation into the Prime Minister's and the NDP-Liberal government's $60-million scandal.
Today's motion is incredibly important because this is going to require the government to report on actual costs. It says something about the complete absence of transparency. The Liberals committed themselves to having the most transparent government in history and having sunshine be the best disinfectant. They need a lot of disinfectant over there because, every step of the way, they have tried to block the answers and the accountability that common-sense Conservatives have pressed for on this massive scandal. We want the actual costs.
Let us break down the name of the Auditor General for a second. She is a general who has an army of auditors, and she could not even get the true costs out of the government because of the paper shredders working overtime every time anyone takes a look at the Liberals and their well-connected friends.
We are going to get all the costs, all the way down the line, and we are going to call on the government to recoup the costs. Last week at committee, senior officials confirmed, when I asked, that there is a mechanism to get Canadians' tax dollars back in this egregious scandal. It is unbelievable that when we have officials lying at committee, when we have clear evidence of criminal acts and when all this evidence continues to pile up, the app was originally billed at a cost of $80,000.
We will hear the hue and cry that it was never going to cost $80,000 and that it could not have been built in a day. I have yet to hear testimony, in all the hours, at all the committees looking at this, that $60 million is good value for money. In fact, the Auditor General confirmed that this was not a value-for-money project, that there was gross mismanagement and that thousands of pages of documents are missing. The government does not know how many documents are missing, just like it does not know the true cost of the app. It is a bit of a problem, and this issue is one that we have been attuned to for more than a year. The government has pushed back on every effort that Conservatives have made on this.
I am pleased that I will be splitting my time to allow for another common-sense Conservative to speak to this egregious scandal.
In spite of the Liberals' protests and their filibuster of a two-day talkathon to try to block the founders of GC Strategies from having to testify at committee, dodging summonses from a parliamentary committee twice, the Liberals, yesterday, voted against the committee motion forcing the founders of GC Strategies to come before the House. They voted against it happening. Again, with common-sense Conservative pressure, we had to give them a mulligan and have a second vote because that member's party voted against accountability and transparency for Canadian tax dollars.
That is egregious, and Canadians are outraged. They are outraged, but they are also hungry and are lined up at food banks in record numbers: two million Canadians in a single month with a third of them being children. They are struggling after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government and its Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption. That is what Canadians see under his government.
However, the good news is that it was not like this before, and it will not be like this after. Common-sense Conservatives have a very straightforward plan. It is to axe the tax, to fix the budget, to build the homes and to stop the crime. That is what Canadians deserve after suffering for eight years under a government that has been mired in corruption and scandal for years.
I look forward to putting the question to the House. We will see if Liberals are again going to work with their cover-up coalition to try to block this very important and straightforward accountability measure from passing. Their attempts before have not stopped Conservatives from working for Canadians. That is what we were elected to do. We are going to continue to provide answers and accountability for Canadians, and we are going to get some of their money back.
1213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 6:14:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a two-person firm working out of a basement in suburban Ottawa was getting $258 million in contracts from the Liberal government, starting mere weeks after it was elected. This has been reported in La Presse and elsewhere. On the arrive scam, of course, this same company got $20 million.
The parliamentary secretary talks about taking action. What happened to ministerial accountability? Who is in charge over there? Conservatives have put forward a very clear plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
While the Liberals are firefighting on the other side of the House, they are not tending to the most basic responsibility to Canadians, which is their fiduciary responsibility. Canadians are lined up at food banks, struggling to get by, and the Liberals are lining the pockets of insiders. Their friends in the cover-up coalition, the NDP, are voting with them every step of the way.
Canadians want to know this: Why will the Liberal government not put Canadians first instead of its own friends?
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 6:06:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize an eastern Ontario legend, George Tackaberry. George has recently won the Lifetime Business Achievement Award from the Brockville and District Chamber of Commerce, and that is supported by the 1000 Islands Community Development Corporation.
To call George Tackaberry a legend is a bit of an understatement. He is a decades-long community leader, a philanthropist and a very successful business owner. Starting in 1957, G. Tackaberry & Sons Construction has grown from a humble family business to a thriving operation throughout eastern Ontario, employing 100 full-time workers and 200 seasonal workers.
It is clear that throughout George's life, he has made it his mission to enrich the lives of people in our community through his philanthropic endeavours. Brockville General Hospital, the Gord Brown Memorial outdoor rink, the United Way Leeds and Grenville, dozens of charities, youth athletic teams, service clubs, parks, community gardens and schools have all benefited from the great generosity of the Tackaberry family.
The Brockville Airport was able to extend its runway to 4,500 feet because of George's donation of materials, time and money. More recently, and near and dear to my heart and everyone in our community, George and his family donated $500,000 to Maple View Landings redevelopment project that will see the Maple View long-term care home greatly expanded and retooled to become a shining example of care for our seniors and the vulnerable in Ontario.
George has a big heart for our community and he has a big heart for all of his passions, and that includes Tack's Toys, his extensive collection of vehicles and equipment, and among them is a limousine of a former prime minister and a former president. What does George do with Tack's Toys? He makes them available for tours for a donation to support local causes.
I congratulate George on the award and lifetime of exemplary service and dedication to our community. Our entire community, our province and truly our country are so much better because of all that he has done.
I want to hearken us back to the first time that I put this question to the government. The number that we were dealing with was different. Since then, we have had an Auditor General's report. The Auditor General has told us that the cost of the arrive scam is at least $60 million, not the $54 million we were talking about before.
Common-sense Conservatives, on the one hand, have said that we will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. On the other hand, we have a Liberal government that is lining the pockets of insiders, while Canadians are lining up at food banks.
For the NDP members' part in the costly coalition, they are doing everything that they can to help them, including voting eight times to continue shovelling money out the door to insiders, including GC Strategies, a two-person firm working out of a basement that received $20 million but did no IT work.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is very straightforward. The Liberals voted against the Auditor General conducting an audit. Will the parliamentary secretary ensure the government's full co-operation and waive any cabinet confidences for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when it investigates?
559 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:58:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it would not fit on a bumper sticker, but that member and everyone over there voted against the common-sense Conservative motion calling for the Auditor General to investigate corruption, and corruption is exactly what they found. That is what they get on that side of the House. On this side of the House, we have common-sense Conservatives who would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
Why did the NDP support the Liberals with the $60-million arrive scam, which saw Liberal insiders working in their basement and getting paid millions while Canadians lined up at food banks? What did the Liberals promise the NDP?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:57:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on one hand, common-sense Conservatives would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. On the other hand, after eight years, we have an NDP-Liberal Prime Minister who is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption, but he needed support for his $60-million arrive scam. Where did he get it from? It was from the costly cover-up coalition NDP.
Canadians want to know, in this scandal that cost them millions, what the Liberals promised the NDP in exchange for its vote to support the corruption of the government.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 11:20:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course the Auditor General is willing and able to do her work, but the problem is that the government refuses to give her the documents she needs to fully account for the $60 million that was spent on this boondoggle. The Liberals, in the past, have used the executive to shield themselves from an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, like they did in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. This time, Canadians want to know who got rich, other than of course those two guys who worked out of their basement and who took Liberal bosses out for fine dinners and whisky tastings.
Will the Liberals join our calls to call in the RCMP to investigate this scam?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 11:19:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the minister said the Auditor General had an important job, but he and all the Liberals voted against her conducting the audit. It was because the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion in November 2022 that we had that Auditor General investigation. Just like that was the right thing to do then, calling in the RCMP is the right thing to do now. This is an $80,000 app that ballooned to $60 million. We have a two-person firm, working out of their basement, being paid $20 million, and wining and dining senior Liberal officials.
Will the Liberals end their cover-up and join Conservatives in calling for an expanded RCMP investigation?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 11:18:12 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, its arrive scam app that was supposed to cost $80,000 cost Canadians $60 million and, just like it, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the corruption. GC Strategies, the two-person team who worked out of a basement, got paid $20 million and did no IT work but did take senior Liberal officials out for whisky tastings and fine dinners, which were not worth the cost and not worth the corruption.
Will the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister join common-sense Conservatives as we call for the RCMP to expand the investigation into this Liberal scandal?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
