Debates of Oct. 18th, 2023

Bill C-50—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Diversity]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would just point out that the first round of opening speeches has not even been completed yet—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I believe that this is debate and not a point of order, therefore we will resume debate with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

International Trade

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good citizens and residents of my riding of Brantford—Brant.

My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon expressed his disappointment and said that it is a sad day for Canadians. It is a profoundly sad day. In terms of my involvement in this particular study, I was brought on fairly late to the game to participate in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts meeting, because its members wanted more questions asked in probing the RCMP investigation into this matter.

Before I get into the substantive part of my speech, it is important to start by reflecting on what the government telegraphed to Canadians in 2015. It telegraphed that it would be the most open, transparent and accountable government this country has ever seen.

What has happened over the last eight years? After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He and his government—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friends can laugh all they want, but this is the sad reality. These are the facts. There has been scandal after scandal. There have been ethical breaches. The Prime Minister is the only prime minister in Canadian history who has been found guilty of ethical breaches not once but twice. It is not only him but also several ministers and other members of the government. We had the WE Charity, Aga Khan and SNC-Lavalin scandals, and the list goes on.

Over a year ago, it was discovered that this app, which was so essential to the government to keep Canadians safe, was a complete joke. It was highly ineffective, it was not scientific and, to make matters worse, it cost the Canadian taxpayers $54 million. We did not hear a peep from the government or the Prime Minister with respect to that price tag until it was revealed to Canadians in this House.

What did we hear from the Prime Minister? He said he thought that cost was “highly illogical” and reflected “inefficient” practices. He, in essence, conducted his own review. The Auditor General is certainly looking into this, as well as the RCMP now. His review showed that, even given the vast size of the public service, the government could not find individuals among its own consultants to create this app. The public service increased exponentially by the Liberal government, particularly during COVID and beyond. More importantly to the current investigation by the RCMP, the app was contracted for by a very small software company in Montreal, Quebec, known as Botler.

No, the government could not do it itself. It had to hire consultants. It has been revealed that there were three such consultants. I am going to name them, because it is important for Canadians to know what the individuals of these companies have done in terms of fleecing Canadian taxpayers. The three companies are GCStrategies, Dalian Enterprises and Coradix. The latter two essentially involve the same directors and CEOs.

There are three companies with a grand total of maybe six or seven employees, and they were hired by the current massive government to do the work it should be doing itself in finding individuals to perform the work. The companies do that at a substantial premium, anywhere from 30% to 40%. When Canadian taxpayers take a look at the situation, they are saying to themselves that they are already paying their taxes for the public service. They ask why they need to waste further money to have the government find software engineers in this country.

I applaud the bravery of this small software company known as Botler, because it spoke the truth. I want to quote a couple of passages, as reported in The Globe and Mail, that said, “they understand that speaking out could mean their federal funding will dry up and they are taking a big risk without knowing how it will turn out.” One of the directors said, “the issue is wider than Botler.”

This is something that affects every single Canadian, every single taxpayer dollar that is taken from very hard-working Canadians who are already struggling financially, which is given and spent through contractors, through improper means. I think that Canadians have a right to know what is going on with their hard-earned money.

When I attended, about a week and a half ago, committee during a constituency break week, it was revealed by the Auditor General, the same Auditor General who oversees all public spending and reports to this House, that she had no clue, no idea, that the RCMP were investigating criminality with respect to the contracting of the ArriveCAN app and other such apps.

When I asked her if the government had notified her in advance of her learning about this particular investigation, her answer was no. She was profoundly “disappointed”, her word, in the actions of this government, in not notifying her of a very relevant and essential part of her investigation.

It is not just, perhaps, ethical issues or improper awarding of contracts. There is now a criminal element to it. I brought to her attention that, according to Botler, this was not just misconduct at the highest level of the senior bureaucracy in this government but that it involved criminality, theft, forgery and fraud.

When prosecuted, people will be going to prison for two-plus years for fraudulently fleecing the Canadian taxpayer.

This is why not only is my colleague profoundly disappointed, but I am sick over this.

This is the government that is not accountable. This is the government that is not transparent. After that damning evidence came out, what did the Liberal-NDP coalition do? It shut down the committee. This was a two-hour meeting agreed to by every member of public accounts and it shut it down.

It says the reason was that the Auditor General could not share any further information. That was the furthest from the truth. Members of the Conservative team on that committee were just getting started. We had many more probing questions.

They are hiding something and Canadians have a right to know that. That is why I am putting on the record this criminality on behalf of this government.

That is why I rose today in the House and asked the question: will this government and will this Prime Minister co-operate with the RCMP or will he continue to hide behind cabinet confidentiality?

The motion would be amended as follows, by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, March 20, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on International Trade with instruction that it amend the same to include reference to;

(a) the $54 million hard-earned Canadian tax dollars wasted on the application,

(b) the inaccurate evidence government officials provided during the committee's investigation,

(c) the serious allegations of fraudulent contract practices that are cause for grave concern,

(d) the statement made by the RCMP that they are investigating criminality in the contracts that were awarded, and

accordingly, it recommends that the Auditor General of Canada update Canadians on where the money went.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will get to what I really think about the Conservatives' tactics shortly, but I have a question for the member.

Given his background, I am sure he would realize that nothing prevents committee members of a standing committee from meeting to determine what they want on their agenda.

The member just moved an amendment to send this report back to get the committee to look at x, y and z. Why would his members not just raise that at the committee itself and get it onto the agenda if they felt it was something they could do? I guess it is because then they would not be able to filibuster Bill C-50 today. Is that correct?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

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

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was a member of the committee my Conservative colleague alluded to, and we asked the Auditor General about the progress of ArriveCAN. The first question I asked her was whether she had or had not received any information from the RCMP about the fact that it was also investigating the matter.

I have a question for my colleague. Why not wait for the final results of the investigation that the House of Commons asked the Auditor General to conduct, rather than interrupting the business of the House?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc friend for the question, but it defeats the purpose by which we agreed to call the emergency meeting. It was agreed upon by all political parties, and although the Bloc did not vote to shut down the committee, the issue is that Canadians deserve to know the truth.

Canadians deserve to hear directly from the Auditor General the circumstances behind how she is now going to be expanding her investigation in light of the RCMP investigation. There were so many other relevant areas and questions to put to the Auditor General that were denied by the Liberal-NDP coalition.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

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

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a politician, I am profoundly disappointed. As a Canadian and a taxpayer, I am profoundly disappointed. As a former prosecutor, I think it stinks.

As said in Shakespeare's play Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” There is something rotten in the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when the member was talking about something rotten in the state of Denmark, I thought he was talking about the Conservative Party of Canada.

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

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is really rich to listen to the parliamentary secretary talk about avoiding answering questions. They do that every day in the House. That is the bottom line. Something is rotten here. The Prime Minister is hiding something.

Will the member recommend to his leader, the Prime Minister, that he cooperate with the RCMP and waive all cabinet confidentiality?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I should inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

It is interesting to try to get into the minds of the Conservatives. I would suggest that it is dangerous. I am really amazed by the amendment the member has brought forward. Not only have the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that defies logic, but they have brought forward a concurrence motion to filibuster one of the issues that is so important today in Canada, no matter what region of the country.

Under the new leadership, I do not know if Canadians are prepared to risk having the Conservative Party ever become government after seeing the types of behaviours we have witnessed, not only today, but also previously. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-50, legislation that is all about jobs, and the Conservative Party does not want to talk about that. They say that they want to talk about ArriveCAN.

We can see why the Conservative Party stands to says it wants concurrence on x, y and z. It is to prevent government legislation from passing, and then it is critical of the government for not being able to pass legislation or having to bring in time allocation. It is silly, especially when we look at the type of legislation we are bringing forward. Today, as I said, it was all about jobs.

I think of what the mover had to say about this concurrence report, and the seconder. What their speeches had in common, outside of using the word “ArriveCAN”, was the personal character assassination of the Prime Minister. In the speeches they delivered, they both talked about the Prime Minister. One talked about dictatorship, yet this is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. The member across the way, when talking about ArriveCAN, talked about the Liberal leader being a dictator. I guess he is trying to feed the misinformation spin that constantly comes from the Conservative Party.

When the other member stood, all he wanted to talk about was scandal after scandal. That is the way the minds of the Conservatives think. We have seen that since day one. Even when I was in opposition before being in government, they made personal attacks on the leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. That is their focus. I have stood in my place before and said that, while the Conservatives are so focused on character assassination, we will continue to be focused on Canadians, the interests of Canada and building something solid for the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

The principles, ideas and thinking behind the ArriveCAN app supported it in good part. It was the right thing to do. However, instead of the Conservatives wanting to have a healthy debate on issues that are impacting Canadians, they have once again chosen to prevent that debate from occurring. If we read the amendment, we get a good sense of what the Conservative Party is attempting to do.

For those who follow the debate, let me suggest that this particular concurrence motion, which was reinforced by the type of amendment they brought forward, did not need to be debated here. It could just as easily have been brought to a standing committee, because what the members of the Conservative Party are ultimately arguing is that they have some other issues and that they want the standing committee to deal with them.

Nothing at all prevents the House from concurring in the report. In fact, I believe that there are a number of the recommendations to which the government has responded very positively. However, the reality is that this was not the purpose of the Conservatives in bringing forward this particular report. We see the purpose in the amendment they brought forward, because they are not concerned about issues. Their concerns are how they raise the issue of character assassination, which is their real issue. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada today is all about. This is why, as a result, we have a minister who stands up and brings time allocation in regard to Bill C-50. Then the Conservatives say, “Well, there you go. Look at that; they're limiting time.”

I do say, “Shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.” On the one hand, its members try to be critical of the government for not allowing as much time as they would like to see in debate on legislation, yet they bring in concurrence motions. They adjourn debates and they try to adjourn the sessions. There are all sorts of dilatory motions and other actions taken by the Conservative Party in order to prevent debate from occurring. Nonetheless, they feel that they can come forward and say, “You know what? We don't think the government is doing enough to pass legislation”, and be critical of the government for not having a legislative order in place.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The government has in fact brought forward legislation, and we have had to; it was not by choice. Canadians said that it was going to be a minority government, so we work with New Democrats or the Bloc at times in order to be able to bring in things like time allocation. Without that support, we would not be able to pass anything, including legislation from the past that has supported Canadians in a very real and tangible way, from putting money in their pockets to building a stronger, healthier country for our middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. We take this job seriously. We believe that the legislative agenda should be debated, instead of having the constant games that are being played by the official opposition.

The principles behind our border controls and ensuring that we can get traffic going between Canada and the United States is absolutely critical to Canada in many different ways. One can talk about everything from the social side of things in terms of the amount of tourism generated just because of family connections, which contributes to the economics of both countries, to the amount of merchandise that goes between Canada and the United States every day. I believe that Emerson, in my home province of Manitoba, is in somewhere around fourth spot in the nation in terms of two-way traffic between the U.S. and Canada.

I know the importance of trade. On many occasions, I have stood in the chamber and talked about how important trade is to Canada. We have to do what we can to enhance that trade and encourage and provide support so we can have the type of traffic that will meet the demands of today in a very real way. That was the idea behind ArriveCAN, and there are other thoughts and ideas that come. Some stay longer than others—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member's time is up. I am sorry; I got sidetracked and did not pay attention. I am sure the hon. member will be able to add comments through all of this.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been eight long years of having the member stand up all the time for the Liberal caucus, to answer for the mistakes and the corruption in the government.

I have one specific question regarding the Auditor General. When the Auditor General was conducting the audit of the 50-plus million dollars spent on the ArriveCAN app, did the ministers involved in those departments direct the departments not to reveal to the Auditor General that they were under criminal investigation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the member is very much aware that there are all sorts of opportunities for him to exercise those sorts of questions and look at ways in which matters can be studied in standing committees and so forth. This is the challenge I would put to the member across the way. Today, we were actually supposed to be debating jobs and job security through Bill C-50. That is what we were supposed to be doing.

Like the Conservative member who just stood up did, at the end of the day, the Conservatives can continue to focus all they want on the whole area of character assassination. However, I can assure members that whether it is the Prime Minister, ministers or anyone else in the Liberal benches, we will continue to be focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and on how we can build a stronger, healthier country from coast to coast to coast.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we could certainly talk about any number of other things, including bills that we feel strongly about. I agree with that.

That said, there was, and still is, a problem with ArriveCAN. We have an opportunity here today not only to raise the issues, but also to openly discuss solutions in the House.

Does my colleague agree with that vision? What solutions would he bring to the table so that disasters like ArriveCAN do not happen again?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there was a very good, healthy debate that took place at the standing committee. Considering all the reports that come out of standing committees, we would have to sit until midnight 100-plus days a year in order to be able to give the type of debate that many members would like to see on all the different reports.

If there is a need for a follow-up discussion and debate to occur, let us bring it back. The standing committees are still there. Nothing prevents a standing committee from saying, “Let us look at this aspect of a particular report.” Nothing prevents that from happening.

There are all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that, as parliamentarians, we can cover a wide spectrum of issues, but we have a finite amount of time on the floor to deal with the issue of legislation. It is so very important to ensure that it gets debated and voted on, and that it proceeds. It is in the best interest of Canadians. If members want more debate time, we are prepared to see more debate time. However, I can say that things like we saw today really take the air out of the room in terms of being able to have good, healthy debate on government legislation, when the Conservatives are so—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, questions and comments.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General is an officer of Parliament, and the allegation that a department withheld vital information from the Auditor General during the course of an investigation is a very serious allegation indeed for this place. I think it behooves Parliament to hold the government to account and to try to get to the bottom of what went on.

I know that the member for Winnipeg North has taken exception to the idea of doing that through a concurrence debate. I also know that he has far more experience in opposition than he does in government. If the member were on the opposition benches, what method would he recommend that parliamentarians use to hold the government to account in light of this serious allegation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would use the forums of question period and opposition days. I would look at ways in which it could be raised in a number of different standing committees, depending on the severity of the issue. I believe that, in good part, we have witnessed that on this particular issue.

I would challenge members. There are so many issues. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of issues we could be debating on the floor of the House of Commons. We have a responsibility to ensure that we are dealing with the legislative agenda of the government and of private members, and even opposition day motions and things of that nature.