Partway through this open letter to Canadians, the Prime Minister says the following:
Our country faces many real and immediate challenges—from a struggling middle class to the threat of climate change. If we are to overcome these obstacles, Canadians need to have faith in their government’s honesty and willingness to listen. That is why we committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in Ottawa. Government and its information must be open by default. Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government to make sure it remains focused on the people it was created to serve—you.
But in order for you to trust your government, you need a government that will trust you. When we make a mistake—as all governments do—it is important that we acknowledge that mistake and learn from it. We know that you do not expect us to be perfect—but you expect us to work tirelessly, and to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.
Before the election, we also made a commitment to bring new leadership and a new tone to Ottawa. Moving forward, we will pursue our goals and objectives with a renewed sense of collaboration. We fully understand and appreciate that partnerships with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments are vital to deliver the real, positive change that we promised you.
To close, I am deeply grateful to have this opportunity to serve you—and every Canadian across our great country. I am committed to leading an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians—
—let me repeat, “accountable to Canadians”—
—lives up to the highest ethical standards, brings our country together, and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds.
Thank you for having faith in me. Thank you for putting your trust in our team.
We will not let you down.
What an absolute joke, an absolute lie. We're talking about fraud in this committee. In my respectful opinion, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed the biggest fraud on this country and Canadians. Everything I read out in the record, he has done the complete opposite. Take that last line about applying “the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds”. Would we be in the mess we are right now, would we have the amount of public debt we have now, if he actually, for one minute, had respect for one dollar of taxpayer money? Would we be spending over $21 billion on outside consultants and contractors with no oversight?
Would we be in the situation where we've expanded our federal public service by 40%, increasing salaries substantially? Have Canadians looked at their level of service across this country and said, “Wow, I've received 40% more in value of services”? I think if all four of you, and Canadians who are watching this right now on my social media, were to contact my staff in my constituency office, they spend all day long either on hold with various departments or dealing with issues that should be handled by our professional public service.
They have very little time to do anything other than government work. I am sure I am not alone in that assessment. I'm sure this is not just a Conservative issue. I'm sure my Bloc friend and colleague, Madame Vignola, would probably concur with me, because I've been talking to various MPs from across this country who are facing the very same thing. I'm sure every constituency of the Liberal bench and the NDP member who is appearing virtually also have similar stories, because that's what's happening. We are not getting value for our tax dollars.
I hear that daily from constituents. I hear that daily from Canadians from coast to coast to coast on my social media. They applaud me daily for my diligence in asking the tough questions. I have often said, “You know, you can take the prosecutor out of the courtroom, but you can't take the prosecutor out of the politician.” It's a strategy and it is a method that I've honed and developed for 30 years. I know that when I ask a question based on that response, there might be another 10 questions I'm going to have to ask. It's like peeling that proverbial onion, and I know that various journalists from across this country have remarked, in my view, very correctly that the rot in this government that this committee and other committees are exposing is just the tip of the iceberg. We have a mandate as parliamentarians and as proud members of the mighty OGGO to ask those tough questions.
This is not political gamesmanship, as Mr. Jowhari has remarked on a number of occasions. It's not acting as a prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, as Mr. Sousa often remarks. It's asking the questions that Canadians have been asking us. I can only speak for myself and my Conservative colleagues, and I dare say I will probably speak for Ms. Vignola: We take our responsibility as parliamentarians extremely seriously. Our role is to listen, to advocate and to seek solutions. The Liberal government bench doesn't want anything to do with it. I made the time to be here as did other members who are physically appearing here. Mr. Jowhari, I had great faith. I saw Mr. Jowhari when I walked into this room. I said, “Great. We actually may complete a two-hour meeting here in the summer.” How disappointing it was to hear, the moment he got the floor, that he wanted to shut this down and prevent any further summer meetings.
Just like Mr. Barrett, I wanted to ask some very relevant and pertinent questions that I think Canadians wanted to hear me ask, and Canadians wanted to hear from you, the officials, as to your thoughts on this. I know my colleague Mr. Barrett mentioned whether or not there was a fear among the Liberal members on this bench that some of the questions we would be putting to you would expose political bias. I'm going to give you an example of what I feel they wanted to shut down. The nice thing about this is I've got the floor, and Mr. Jowhari, all the Liberal members on this committee and Mr. Julian can't shut me down, because there is relevance to what I'm about to put to you.
There's a company called Think Digital. I don't know if all four of you are familiar with it. I'm not expecting an answer, of course. Think Digital is a consulting and coaching firm. Think Digital has received nearly $400,000 in government contracts over the past two years. Nearly half of the contracts they received were sole-sourced. Two contracts were awarded by PSPC.
I'll leave aside the discussion of sole-sourcing, because that literally could take on a life of its own. We know that there are rules that allow sole-sourcing, but we also know, through various reports from the AG and the procurement ombud, that there were serious, serious violations of those rules to allow Liberal-friendly consultants and contractors to receive government funds. A classic example of that was GC Strategies.
Now, maybe this is what they didn't want you to answer: There are Liberal Party of Canada links to Think Digital—surprise, surprise. The CEO of that company, Ryan Androsoff, is a Liberal Party activist and donor to the Liberal Party of Canada. A consultant of Think Digital, Winter Fedyk, made 78 donations to the Liberal Party of Canada and was the Liberal candidate in Regina—Lewvan in 2019. She is listed as a 2023 mentor on the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation website. Trudeau minister Terry Beech appeared on the consulting firm's podcast just three months ago.
Now, on the surface there are red flags galore. You don't have to be a Conservative opposition MP, for the Canadians who are watching this, to ask the big question, “What the hell is going on; do you need to have Liberal ties to secure hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money?” On the surface, it certainly sounds that way, doesn't it?
I would be putting a number of questions to the PSPC. Is there a process? Does the government vet and screen for Liberal Party links before handing out $400,000 in taxpayer money? Does it raise any alarm bells, or the red flags I referenced, that the CEO is a Liberal activist? Does it raise any alarm bells that one of the current employees ran for the Liberal Party and made donations? We already know about the Liberal-friendly linked firm like McKinsey receiving over $200 million since Justin Trudeau took office. Has Minister Duclos asked for a review of firms receiving government contracts that have direct ties to the Liberal Party of Canada?
If you responded, “I'm not aware”, or “No”, I would be asking you if you would be willing to commit to undertaking such a review.
I guess the big question that's on my mind and Mr. Barrett's, and I'm sure on Ms. Vignola's and Canadians', is this: What value did Canadians receive in these contracts? We have two million Canadians using a food bank every month. I attended my own local food bank not too long ago. I was shocked to hear the statistics about the number of people in my community using food banks. Surprisingly, people using it out of necessity were the very same individuals who had once donated. They had once donated when food prices were under control, when we didn't have runaway inflation and when we didn't have the punitive carbon tax that is making life so unaffordable for everyone in my community and in communities across this country.
This is the unfortunate legacy of Justin Trudeau's Liberal government.
Rent prices are out of control. Bank economists are warning about mortgage defaults coming. There are tent cities right across Canada. We have $400,000 to a Liberal friendly company; contracts, half of which were sole-sourced; and a failed Liberal candidate who then gets rewarded at the taxpayers expense. How is that delivering value as per Justin Trudeau's promise in 2015? He lied repeatedly over the last nine years as to how he is delivering for Canadians. It's a mockery of the intelligence of Canadians who now see through this government's jargon, bullet points, talking points and appearances in front of cameras. We often say this government gets an “A” in big, flashy announcements with all kinds of constituents or Canadians behind them, but an “F” for follow-up and for delivering.
We have significant issues with the $10-a-day day care program that is supposed to be benefiting all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Tell that to families in my community who are on wait lists. Tell that to families in the county of my constituency who don't have access to transportation. Tell them to take one of those $10-a-day day care spots.
Let's talk about the problems with the dental care program. Every time we bring up the reality of what Canadians are facing day after day after day, what do we hear from the government?
Take, for example, our Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister Chrystia Freeland, who says that Canada has a AAA credit rating. You tell that to the single mother in my riding who is deciding to go without feeding herself to ensure that she puts food on the table for her children and who goes to Goodwill or the Salvation Army and, through the generosity of other neighbours, picks up some used clothing. She's able to buy clothing, barely, for her children. Do you think when she's struggling at the cashier.... We all know spending $100 on groceries today might net you one to two bags, most likely one bag. Do you think, when she's struggling to pay for those groceries, she has Chrystia Freeland ringing in her ears? “I should be proud that, as a nation, we have a AAA credit rating.” It's tone deaf.
We've been raising these issues with the government every single day in the House. When we're not sitting in the House, we are raising those issues on our social media channels. The government refuses to listen.
The Liberal bench and the NDP bench say, “We've never had it so good as a nation. Trust us.”
Do you know what? I have been in Mr. Sousa's riding. I have been in Mr. Jowhari's riding. I have not been in Mr. McDonald's riding, but I look forward to that opportunity. I've been in Windsor as well, and I've talked to those constituents. They are not immune, and they're not living in silos because they have a Liberal member. They are feeling and facing the same dire economic consequences of this failed Liberal-NDP government.
That's the reality, and those members should be listening to those voices. It's no wonder that all the members of this Liberal bench are facing the prospect of losing in the next election because this is the reality. This is the failed government that they defend day after day, and are doing it today in this shameless example of partisanship.
Justin Trudeau, in that letter to Canadians, talked about having the most ethical government, perhaps the most ethical government this country has ever seen. As my colleague Mr. Barrett articulated, not only does he have the legacy and distinction of being the only Prime Minister to accumulate more debt than any other Prime Minister of this great nation combined, he is the first Prime Minister found guilty of ethical violations. Let that sink in.
The first one was with the Aga Khan for a Christmas vacation. The Prime Minister claimed that thought he was complying with the ethics rules. Clearly, he didn't read the legislation, nor his handlers. We know that the Prime Minister doesn't like to read. That's quite evident. He gets read to by his handlers, so perhaps the handlers didn't take the time to properly inform him that there were obviously some ethical issues in accepting that vacation, but what stands out in my mind....
Even before my career as a parliamentarian I was a political junkie—all my life. I follow it religiously. I could be involved in the most complicated and protracted homicide trial as a prosecutor and I'd always find time to watch the news, to keep up on what's happening in Ottawa. I remember, when the story broke by The Globe and Mail about the interference in the SNC-Lavalin issue, the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye by staring at the reporter's camera and said that the story that broke that morning in The Globe and Mail was false, and that he took no steps to interfere in the decision-making of Canada's first indigenous Attorney General and Minister of Justice. You see, the Prime Minister has a penchant for lying. He's a very good liar, and that's a classic example of a lie. He was cornered. He was caught. He doubled down, stared Canadians in the eye and said, “I didn't interfere.”
The Ethics Commissioner thought otherwise. The Ethics Commissioner interviewed everyone, literally, who touched that particular file, and found in summary protracted interference activity, not only by the Prime Minister but various ministers and the Prime Minister's Office itself, Katie Telford and Gerald Butts, two of his prized handlers—Katie Telford is right now chief of staff, and Mr. Butts is off in New York City. However, what was revealed in Commissioner Dion's “Trudeau II Report”, which I read, is extremely troubling...as a former officer of the court. They're on record, as communicated by former...Privy Council, Michael Wernick.... They confirmed that they didn't want to hear about the law. They didn't want to hear about legalities.
It was just get the deal done. Give SNC that deferred prosecution agreement. Here we have the Prime Minister's chief of staff disregarding the laws of Canada and disregarding the Criminal Code of Canada to get the deal done. That is disgusting. It is appalling. That's why I am just so vigorously entrenched in this whole concept that a national police service, the RCMP, needs to revisit this SNC investigation issue. There is a lot more evidence that they need to consider.
Getting back to the ethical standards, it's no wonder, when you have the Prime Minister so easily breaching our ethical standards, that he sets an example for his entire government. It's no small wonder that various ministers and various MPs, including backbench MPs, have followed suit and have been found guilty of ethical violations. There was a point in time with our Canadian governments that there was a concept of “one and done”. If a member committed an ethical violation and was found guilty, or was even suspected of an ethical violation, that could result in a member's ouster or resignation. Who has resigned in the Liberal government after having been found guilty of ethical violations? Zero. That's because there's no accountability.
When he says in his open letter to Canadians that they're going to make mistakes and that they need to apologize to Canadians and do better, have you heard any heartfelt apologies from the Prime Minister or anyone from the Liberal government? No. They created a culture of incompetence. Canadians are fed up. They were sold a wrong bill of goods.
Former prime minister Stephen Harper tried to warn us. He tried to warn us. All of his predictions about what Justin Trudeau was really about have come true. We didn't listen. I did, but the majority of Canadians in 2015 did not. Here we find ourselves in that situation. That was a line of questioning that I wanted to bring to your attention.
Before I move on from Think Digital, I've actually researched on the open data portal the contracts that were provided to Think Digital. One thing that really concerns me in a contract dated December 13, 2023, for a value of just over $70,000, is the work description: “Tuition fees and cost of attending courses including seminars”. Is the Government of Canada now in the business of providing free tuition and costs to a Liberal-friendly company? It certainly appears that way, doesn't it? That was $70,000.
It wasn't a one-off. I found another example dated March 2, 2022, for $12,870 for fees and the cost of attending seminars and workshops. The government has retained Think Digital and has given them the authority to attend various seminars and workshops to gain greater knowledge and skills at taxpayers' expense.
What about all the other consultants out there in Canada who are playing by the rules? Maybe they're not contributing to the Liberal Party of Canada and not making donations. They're probably going to have to fund those courses and that tuition on their own. However, when you're a failed Liberal candidate, there's a little bit of loyalty that the government will extend to you.
What type of message does that send to Canadians? You're not a Prime Minister for all. You're not looking out for the best interests of Canadians. You're looking out for the best interests of Liberal supporters. If you financially contribute to the Liberal Party of Canada—wink, nudge, wink, nudge—you're going to get your just desserts. You're going to get your benefits. They'll find a way to get it done. “Sorry you didn't win the election, but we'll benefit you. Just stay in touch.” That's the message Justin Trudeau wants to send to his cronies, and that's what this committee wants to examine. That is what this committee needs to examine. That is what Canadians demand this committee examines.
Another area that I wanted to get into is the constituents I speak with and the Canadians from across the country who respond to my social media and are very grateful for the work I'm doing and to my colleagues for exposing the rot in this government. They're saying, “Good job. Keep at it. Keep digging. Keep peeling that onion, but when are we going to get our money back?”
One of the questions I would be putting to you, Mr. Mills—I just need a moment to find it—is this: When Minister Duclos, your minister, with the President of the Treasury Board, Anita Anand, made the announcement in March of 2024 about the three cases of suspected fraud that went to the RCMP, where there was an estimation of $5 million in fraudulent overbilling or activities, the minister is on record as saying that day that his department has “revoked or suspended the security clearances of the contractors and”—this is the emphasis—“is taking action to recover the money.”
That was four months ago. There have been no announcements by Minister Duclos, the Prime Minister or anyone in government about the efforts to collect that money. This is what I'm hearing daily from Canadians: “This is our money that was illegally given to these fraudsters and grifters, and we want it back.”
Just think, globally, if there were an appetite by this failed, tired government to actually recoup those losses, what it could do to our national debt. However, I have concerns. We hear from the Canada Revenue Agency that, despite its ballooning staff force, they don't have the means to collect even the overbilling for the COVID payments, and they're writing off tens of millions of dollars in cases where taxpayer money was wrongly sent to Canadians. You've heard the horror stories of just how fast and furious money was being distributed by this government with no scrutiny and no channels of investigation. “You put the claim in, and we're going to trust you, and we're going to accept it at face value. We don't care if you're in prison; we'll get it to you. We don't care if you're deceased; we'll give it to you. We don't care if you live outside of Canada; we'll give it you.”
Now, after the coast is clear, the dust has settled and we take a look at the tens of millions if not billions of dollars that were wrongly sent to individuals, we don't have the staff. We don't have the proper mechanisms to recover it. That's not good enough. We're a G7 country. My God, we are first world country. Find the tools to get the job done and recover Canadians' money. That's what they expect.
I was going to bring to your attention an opposition motion brought by the Conservatives, supported by the Bloc, supported by the NDP, and I believe supported by independents and the Greens. It was an opposition day motion heard February 27, 2024. This was regarding the ArriveCAN issue. The vote, which passed, was the next day, February 28.
The last aspect of that motion I will read into the record, as follows:
(b) call on the government to collect and recoup all funds paid to ArriveCAN contractors and subcontractors which did no work on the ArriveCAN app, within 100 days of this motion being adopted, and for the Prime Minister to table a report in the House demonstrating that taxpayer funds have been repaid.
This was the will of the Canadian Parliament, voted in favour of by every opposition member—except the government, of course. One hundred days from February 28 would have been June 6. That passed over a month ago. From June 6 to today's date, 46 days have passed. What have parliamentarians heard and what have Canadians heard? Nothing but crickets.
The obvious question to your department is this: Has the minister given you direction? Has the minister adopted a regime to recoup the tens of millions of dollars given to Government of Canada Strategies, also known as GC Strategies, and its grifter Kristian Firth? What have you done? Is it in process? Has the government recouped anything to tell Canadians, “We are the stewards that we said we would be for the taxpayer”?
That's just one example. I personally, along with Mr. Barrett and Ms. Block, really wanted to dive deep into the number of cases that have been referred to the RCMP. I understand it from my past background that the RCMP wanted to attend committee and provide as much information as they could. The end result was that we didn't learn a lot, because they're in the middle of investigations and they want to preserve the integrity. I get that from a legal perspective. I don't get that from a parliamentarian perspective. That's why I kept asking the questions of the commissioner. Could they give us a sense as to how many cases of potential criminal activity, largely fraud-related, the RCMP was currently investigating? They couldn't give me a number, but I asked if it was more than six. I believe it was the deputy commissioner who confirmed that, yes, it was more than six.
We know, because Minister Duclos and Minister Anand confirmed, that three of those cases went to the RCMP. We now know, as confirmed in your responses to my colleague Mr. Barrett, that we have another individual who defrauded the taxpayer for a quarter of a million dollars. That's four.
The question I put to Minister Duclos when he last attended at, I believe, OGGO, left a very sour taste in my mouth. I don't know if he consulted with anyone here, but I was going to ask you.... In fact, some of you may have been seated beside him when he testified. He confirmed very proudly, as did Minister Anand in March, that this was simply the first wave and that other waves would be announced in the very near future. But he went further. He said back in March that 10 to 15 other cases of suspected fraud had the potential of being referred to the RCMP. Those were his words, not mine.
When he attended recently, I believe in early June, I followed up on that. It wasn't a gotcha question. There was no malice behind it. I was being inquisitory and asked the minister, out of the 10 to 15 cases he had announced in March, how many of them had he or his department referred to the RCMP. It was a simple, straightforward and basic question. Of course, in the usual fashion for Minister Duclos, I got a word salad. He wouldn't answer the question. I asked it again. He wouldn't answer the question. I asked him a third time. He wouldn't answer the question. I asked him a fourth time. He wouldn't answer the question. I gave up after my fifth attempt.
Why is it so difficult for you to give me a number? If it's zero, tell me it's zero. Are you still considering? Tell me you're considering. If you referred, tell me what you referred. I'm not asking for specifics. I'm not asking for names. I'm not asking for dollar value. You told Canadians that 10 to 15 were being investigated in the second wave.
Naturally, Mr. Mills, that would be the question I would put to you. I was very disappointed in your minister for his absolute refusal to answer a basic question. I think it's a relevant and important question that Canadians need to know. Maybe we'll have the opportunity at some point in the near future to ask these questions.
I'm glad to see that all four of you are taking notes. When we do meet again, perhaps you'll have answers for us. You'll be prepared to give us responses. Maybe there are details you can't provide to us for confidentiality reasons. I don't know. But at least you've been forewarned. You've had a glimpse into the types of questions we would be asking.
In addition to that, I would be asking you—
