Debates of March 22nd, 2024

Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am rising to respond to questions of privilege. I have some comments, and I appreciate the House's acceptance to allow me to introduce those now to contribute to the previous question of privilege that has been raised here.

This is specifically in response to two questions of privilege raised on March 20. The first matter was raised by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes respecting the 17th report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations, and the second concerns the deliberations on an NDP opposition day motion considered on March 18.

The matter raised by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes concerns a potential breach of privilege concerning witness testimony at a Standing Committee on Government Operations in its study of the ArriveCAN application. As the member notes, the committee unanimously agreed to adopt a motion to present a report to the House outlining the potential breach of privilege concerning Kristian Firth's refusal to answer questions from committee members and his prevarication in answering those questions.

If the Speaker finds that this is a prima facie question of privilege, the government supports sending this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for study. The standard modern practice of dealing with breaches of privilege of the House or of individual members has to be to move a motion to refer a matter to the procedure and House affairs committee. In the case of contempt, the most recent example, which was cited by the member, was to summon the individual to the bar of the House of Commons for reprimand. These are two avenues that have been pursued by the House for the last 100 years. As the chamber that is based on practice and procedure, these are the two most well-characterized ways of dealing with such affronts to privileges of the House and its members. I suggest that there is nothing with the current situation that suggests that we now take a different approach.

I also find it somewhat bizarre that the only precedence that the member used to try to make his case for his proposed motion dates back hundreds of years. I would submit to the House that times have changed since 19th century England, and so have the rules and practices of the House.

On March 21, the member for Beauport—Limoilou intervened on the matter and concluded that a prima facie question of privilege be found and that the member had referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. I agree with the member on both points.

The procedure and House affairs committee is the appropriate committee to which this matter should be referred. Page 966 of the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in relation to the specific mandate of the procedure and House affairs committee, states, “The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deals with...the review[ing] of the Standing Orders, procedure and [House] practice[s] in the House and its committees.” The footnote attached to the quote states, “Should the Speaker find prima facie grounds, it is established practice for the House to refer matters of privilege to the Committee for further study. In his ruling of March 9, 2011, Speaker Milliken reminded the House of this practice”.

I would like to refer to the ruling of Speaker Milliken on March 9, 2011, in which he states:

Before I invite the member for Kings—Hants to move his motion, however, the Chair wishes to explain the procedural parameters that govern such motions.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at pages 146 and 147 states:

In cases where the motion is not known in advance, the Speaker may provide assistance to the Member if the terms of the proposed motion are substantially different from the matter originally raised. The Speaker would be reluctant to allow a matter as important as a privilege motion to fail on the ground of improper form. The terms of the motion have generally provided that the matter be referred to committee for study or have been amended to that effect.

I hasten to add that the powers of the Speaker in these matters are robust and well known. In 1966, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, having come to a finding of prima facie privilege on a matter, ruled a number of motions out of order. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, tells us at page 147, footnote 371, in doing so, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux “more than once pointed out that it was Canadian practice to refer such matters to committee for study and suggested that this should be the avenue pursued”.

The Chair is of course aware of exceptions to this practice, but in most if not all of these cases, circumstances were such that a deviation from the normal practice was deemed acceptable, or there was a unanimous desire on the part of the House to proceed in that fashion.

In cases of contempt, a similar approach has been taken and is supported by precedent for the past 100 years. The most recent example is the Speaker's Ruling on June 16, 2021, with respect to the alleged non-compliance with an order of the House. The Speaker ruled in this case:

As a result, in the opinion of the Chair, the failure to comply with the order of the House of June 2, 2021, constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.

There is one last point to settle. The Chair has read the wording of the motion suggested by the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent in his written notice. It departs considerably from established practice. The scope of this type of motion is limited, as indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 150, and I quote: “The terms of the motion have generally provided that the matter be referred to committee for study....”

A review of the rare exceptions shows that there was a certain consensus on the procedure to follow and, thus, on the wording of the motion....

There are also precedents that support censure. In short, given that the parameters for such motions are clear and that the practice is well established, the proposed motion should be a motion of censure or to refer the matter to the appropriate committee for study.

Even if it were procedurally admissible or if there was a unanimous consent to have these witnesses appear before the bar to be questioned, it is unlikely to yield a different result. Then, the only recourse for the House to take in the matter would be to censure the individual, as in the situation described in the Speaker's Ruling of June 16, 2021.

The Conservatives are trying to set up a new trend. We think that before proceeding with calling the individuals to the bar, and certainly before we start talking about questioning witnesses at the bar, which has not even been contemplated in more than 200 years, the matter should be referred to PROC so that its members may, firstly, review the evidence and make recommendations on procedures, safeguards and criteria for calling and questioning individuals before the bar.

This is a very serious matter, and we cannot operate on an ad hoc basis. We need some clarity on how we should proceed. The House is, therefore, faced with two well-established options in my opinion, to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee or to summon this individual to the bar for censure. That is for the Speaker to choose and the House to decide upon.

Bilingual Documents in the House

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The second matter relates to the deliberation on the NDP opposition day motion that took place on Monday, March 18. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier alleges that his privileges were breached when the government House leader moved an amendment to the motion during the debate and the translation delays prevented members from considering the amendment in French.

I submit that there are two matters to be considered in this case. The first is that the events took place on Monday, March 18 and the member raised the argument two days later. This was not the first opportunity to raise the matter.

Second is the fact that the events of the debate of March 18 simply do not support the allegation raised by the member. The member did not raise his question of privilege at the first opportunity, as required.

Page 145 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

There was no requirement for the member to have time to marshal sophisticated arguments or to substantiate his allegation. If I were to speculate, the member either did not take the matter seriously or did wait to raise the argument on Wednesday for the simple objective of disrupting proceedings related to the consideration of Bill C-29 on that day.

There is no procedural limitation on when an amendment may be proposed to a motion before the House while it is under consideration. The House was under Government Orders when the amendment was proposed. It is a well-established practice that amendments may be moved in either official language.

Citation 552, subsection (3), of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms was addressed this matter. It states, “Every motion that is duly moved and seconded is placed before the House by the Speaker as a question for the decision of the House. All motions must be presented to the Speaker in writing in either of the two official languages.”

I will concede that the amendment was moved later in the day, but this was the result of good-faith discussions between members of Parliament that lasted until shortly before the motion was moved, which is why it was moved in one language.

That is how the House of Commons is supposed to work: rigorous debate and discussions to come to consensus.

It is always the practice of the government to provide all parties with information in both official languages. However, in this case, it was not possible to provide a written copy in both official languages in the time provided, which is why the members of the House were provided with simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings of the House in both official languages.

Third, while the House was suspended to the call of the Chair, the table officers circulated to all parties the text of the amendment in French to ensure that members could understand what had been proposed as an amendment and what they were voting on.

Finally, when the House resumed, after the amendment had been made available in both official languages, the Speaker entertained additional points of order on the admissibility of the motion, which would have offered the opportunity for any member to intervene on the amendment in either official language.

When the Speaker put the question to the House on the amendment, it included text of the motion in French, clearly demonstrating that the text was available in both official languages.

The government strongly believes in the importance of both official languages in the Parliament of Canada. To demonstrate this, the House passed amendments to the Official Languages Act in Bill C-13. Bill C-13 would implement a series of proposals that promote the progression toward the equality of status and the use of English and French. Several provisions of the enactment are therefore concrete illustrations of the constitutional principles set out in subsection 16(3) of the charter.

The facts contradict the assertion by the member that he did not have access to the text of the amendment in both official languages, nor did he meet the test that the matter must be raised at the first opportunity. Therefore, I submit that the matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for his input on two important questions before the Chair, and the Chair will hasten to come back to the House with a decision, at least on one of those issues.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Indian Act

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you to discuss a monumental step forward in our nation's journey toward reconciliation and justice for first nations communities. The proposed legislation, Bill C-38, seeks to amend the Indian Act in response to long-standing concerns voiced by first nations individuals and communities, as well as to address the residual discriminatory impacts highlighted by the Nicholas v. AGC litigation.

For too long, the Indian Act has been a source of division and inequality, its outdated provisions casting long shadows over the promise of equity and unity. Bill C-38 represents a pivotal moment in our collective history, a chance to right the wrongs of the past and lay the groundwork for a future where justice and equality are not just ideals but realities.

The proposed changes would be both comprehensive and transformative. First, the bill seeks to eliminate known sex-based membership inequalities from the act. This would be a critical step toward ensuring that all first nations individuals, regardless of gender, have equal rights and opportunities. By addressing these sex-based inequalities, we would not only uphold the principles of justice and fairness, but would also honour the resilience and dignity of those who have fought tirelessly for these changes.

Second, the legislation aims to address inequities caused by the practice of enfranchisement. This historical practice, which stripped first nations individuals of their status and rights, has left deep scars on communities. By rectifying these injustices, we would acknowledge the wrongs of the past and take a significant step toward healing and reconciliation.

Additionally, Bill C-38 would allow for deregistration from the Indian register. This change would recognize the autonomy and agency of first nations individuals, providing them with the freedom to define their own identities and affiliations. It would be a move toward self-determination, empowering individuals to make choices that reflect their personal beliefs and circumstances.

It is essential to emphasize the gravity of enfranchisement. The process unjustly stripped thousands of first nations individuals of their status, severing their ties to their communities and heritage. Although the practice was abolished 35 years ago, the shadows it cast are long and dark, with its harmful legacy still felt today. The scars left by enfranchisement are not merely historical footnotes; they are also lived realities for many, manifesting in lost connections, identities and rights.

In alignment with our commitment to reconciliation, and guided by the wisdom of first nations partners, our government is dedicated to confronting and eliminating these registration inequalities at a systemic level. Bill C-38 is not just a legislative measure; it is a testament to our resolve to address these injustices head on. By targeting these inequities, we are taking a stand against the vestiges of policies designed to assimilate and erase first nations identities.

Moreover, the bill's commitment to eradicating sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act would address a critical aspect of inequality that has persisted for far too long. These discriminatory practices, embedded in the act, have undermined the principle of equality and fairness. By confronting these injustices, Bill C-38 would be setting a precedent for the kind of nation we aspire to be, one where equality is not just a principle but also a practice.

Let us recognize that Bill C-38 represents a step forward in our journey towards reconciliation. It is a journey that requires our collective effort, commitment and compassion. As we move forward, let us do so with the understanding that true reconciliation involves acknowledging the past, rectifying injustices and working towards a future where the rights and dignity of all first nations peoples are respected and upheld.

Bill C-38 would commit to removing outdated and offensive language found in the Indian Act. Language shapes our perceptions and attitudes, and by eliminating derogatory terms, we foster a more respectful and inclusive dialogue. This change is not just about updating terminology; it is about reshaping the narrative and affirming the dignity of all first nations people.

In our journey toward progress and inclusivity, we encounter a significant obstacle: our legal code, a labyrinth of statutes, some of which date back a long time to a previous era. Among these laws are provisions that no longer reflect our current values, ethics and understanding. Even more concerning, some contain language that is offensive, discriminatory and wholly out of step with today’s standards of respect and equality.

The task before us is not merely administrative; it is morally imperative. To rectify the situation, we must undertake a comprehensive review of our legal system. The review should not only identify outdated and offensive provisions but also evaluate the relevance and applicability of laws in the contemporary context. The goal is not to erase history but to ensure that our legal framework is just, equitable and reflective of the society we aspire to be.

The process requires a collaborative effort involving legal experts, historians, ethicists and, importantly, the community at large. Public consultation would ensure that the process is transparent, inclusive and sensitive to the diverse needs and values of our society. Technology can aid in this endeavour, enabling more efficient review and broader engagement. Moreover, this effort presents an opportunity for educational outreach, helping the public understand the evolution of our legal system and the importance of laws that are just, inclusive and respectful. By engaging in this critical work, we affirm our commitment to democracy, justice and the dignity of all individuals.

The bill includes further required consequential amendments to ensure that the act would reflect the values of equality, respect and justice. These changes are not merely administrative; they are a testament to our commitment to addressing historical injustices and building a more equitable society.

Bill C-38 is more than simply legislation; it is a beacon of hope. It signifies a profound shift in our relationship with first nations communities, one rooted in respect, understanding, and partnership. As we move forward, let us do so with open hearts and minds, committed to the principles of reconciliation and equity.

Together we can build a future that honours the rich heritage and contributions of first nations peoples, ensuring that our nation's legacy is one of unity, justice, and mutual respect. The path to modernizing our legal system is both a challenge and an opportunity. It is an opportunity to reaffirm our values, to strengthen our democracy and to build a more inclusive society. Together let us embark on this journey with determination and hope.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly remember, as the bill came forward, expressions of disappointment that it did not go farther, that it would bring relatively minor changes in the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Crown, and that much more would need to be done. However, I did not hear anyone suggest that it was not a good step forward, though small.

I wonder whether the hon. member can inform us of the extent to which more substantial changes will be coming in the legislative scheme of this country's racist laws.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with her that much more needs to be done. We are taking a step in the right direction; that is the most important thing. We have the intention and have already shown that we are converting our intention into reality by taking this step.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the need for reaffiliation and membership is extremely important and that we must move forward.

My question for my colleague is this. Why, after five years and after everything that has happened, did his government not take action and why is its current action so limited?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are many more things that we could have done and should have done, but the important thing is that we are doing them now.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of Bill C-38, the department estimates that around 3,500 individuals would be enfranchised. That ultimately means that any financial costs of integrating them would be put onto Indian bands.

Section 10 bands have the autonomy to determine membership. Therefore an individual would be able to obtain status from the Indian register after Bill C-38's passage. However, that leads to a question I have, which is whether this would complicate the section 10 process that has been well established. Does the member think that this needs to be studied further or that some amendments or some clarity from the government needs to be forthcoming?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be very honest and frank, I am not very sure as to the specific nature of the question the member asked, and I do not have the answers for it, but hopefully the government will listen to the question and provide some clarity.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do remember that in 2019 there was a bill called Bill S-3, which I thought was the government's answer to all of these problems. Is Bill C-38 not an admission on behalf of the government that it did not get Bill S-3 right?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many times, we may not cover every single thing that we aim to do. Sometimes there may be things that were not covered, but the important thing is that we have recognized it and have come up with the legislation that is before us.

Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Wednesday, March 20, 2024, by the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes concerning the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which was presented to the House earlier that same day.

The subject matter of this report is related to the committee's 14th report, which accused Mr. Kristian Firth and Mr. Darren Anthony of disregarding the rights and privileges of the committee to summon them to appear as witnesses. The House had concurred in that report, which ordered both to appear before the committee, and both have now done so. This new report arises from concerns over the testimony that Mr. Firth furnished to the committee and his refusal to answer members' questions.

Having carefully listened to the members, acquainted myself with the content of the report and consulted the few but clear precedents, the Chair finds the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government raised concerns about the motion that the member has indicated he will move. While it is perhaps true that the suggested remedy is not something we have seen for some time, I am of the view that it is procedurally in order. As with the case cited from June 2021, the motion provides for a call to the bar in order to be reprimanded, and a specific remedy to the offence. Furthermore, once proposed, the motion is subject to the usual rules of debate, and ultimately it is for the House to decide whether it agrees with the motion as proposed.

I would now invite the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to move his motion.

Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

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.

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.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree that there is something downright scandalous about this whole thing. First of all, this is a company that greedily gobbles up all it can without a shred of restraint and, clearly, without a shred of remorse at this stage. When invited to explain himself before a House of Commons committee, Mr. Firth displayed incredible arrogance. The amount of disdain was unbelievable. We know that committees have certain tools they can use to convince or even force uncooperative witnesses to testify, but there are a few who resist, such as the one we are talking about today, Mr. Firth.

I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that committees have enough tools to inspire the authority required to stop this kind of uncooperative witness behaviour. We have seen similar behaviour at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and we saw it this week at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, when a witness had no interest whatsoever in answering questions about the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Do the committees have enough power? Should we not give them better tools so that we do not have to have a 2024 version of a pillory to make witnesses understand that they have to answer the committee's questions?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the tools we have today allow for a range of steps. The first step, the one that is taken every day that a committee is in session in the House, is that we invite people to come to committee, whether stakeholders or people who are the subject of the report and played a part in government contracting like this.

Then there is the rare occasion where we have individuals who decline. They may have different reasons for declining, but they decline. The committee can insist on that and, of course, issue a summons. It is exceedingly rare and we have to use the power of the full House. All members have to agree to send for those individuals, which was done in this case. The tools are there.

I think the power of committees, the important work that we do, will be reinforced should this motion come to pass, because it sends an incredibly strong message about the seriousness with which all members take this matter and all matters that the House lawfully takes up at committee.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary situation. Parliament reflects the will of the people, the will of all Canadians. Parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, have the right and the duty to seek the truth. We cannot allow those who disregard, disobey, disrespect, mislead or lie to Parliament or its parliamentary bodies to go scot-free.

I would like to ask the member if he is satisfied with the current process, the mechanisms, the rules and regulations in place that we can use to go after Canadian individuals who disrespect Parliament. If he is not satisfied, are there any changes to the current process, tools or rules he would like to propose?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of Parliament and parliamentarians refreshing their comfort in using the tools available to them, this being an important one.

Having individuals swear an oath before they come before committee has the same effect as an individual swearing an oath in a court of law. With respect to perjury, members of the public would have an understanding, even through pop culture, as to what the prospective penalties are for the offence. When we have individuals who are flatly refusing to attend or answer questions, we need to use the tools in our parliamentary tool box today.

This tool is rarely used because it seems like it has been some time since anyone felt like they had greater power than Canada's 338 elected representatives. That is why I think it is so important that we offer the appropriate remedy in this case, and that is to get the answers for Canadians and admonish the individual who flouted the rules.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this issue forward. It is an important one for the House to debate. Like all Canadians, I have been watching what has been going on in the proceedings of the government operations committee, and I have been extremely disturbed by the lack of information being provided by this individual.

I know the hon. member is involved in several committees, not the least of which is the government operations committee, but, because we are talking obstruction, I want to speak specifically to the obstructive tactics that have been going on in committee by the NDP-Liberal coalition, whether it is filibustering, amendments to motions to water things down or just generally obstructing the ability of the committee to do its work, especially on those committees where they have the majority.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, making sure that the will of Canadians is reflected in the work that we do requires incredible fortitude. This is what we have had to put forward. As the official opposition, we have to be able to withstand the tactics of a government that has found itself, after eight years, mired in scandal. It is quite plain that it is just not worth the corruption to Canadians anymore.

Pressing forward with an issue like this, though it is difficult and might seem uncomfortable to some who might want to send this off to another committee to look at, this has been dealt with at committee. The only thing another committee could do is confirm that there was prevarication, lies and a refusal to answer questions. That is why it is so important that the House is prepared to persevere, stick to it, get these answers and resolve the situation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to stick to the normal rotation when it comes to the speaking time of the three other parties after the motion is presented. I would ask you to continue that tradition.

Obviously, the NDP fully supports this motion, particularly when it comes to ordering Mr. Firth to appear before the bar of the House to be reprimanded and, more importantly, to answer the questions raised in the 17th report.

I want to thank the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his question of privilege, which I thought was solidly grounded in the traditions of the House as he presented it. I thought it was very effective. The reality is that New Democrats intervened at the time to say we believe the conditions were there for a prima facie question of privilege because of the lack of respect for the House. The Speaker's ruling, I think, confirms that, and we are now seized with the debate. It is a motion that allows for the ability of the House to reprimand Mr. Firth, call him to the bar and ensure that Canadians receive answers.

We saw with the ETS scandal under the Conservative government there was $400 million involved, and now this scandal under the current government involves $60 million. We need to ensure these things never happen again.

Would my colleague agree with the NDP that this is not the kind of thing that any Canadian should be tolerating?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is devastating for all Canadians to see the waste, scandal and mismanagement after eight years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister. It is so important that parliamentarians recognize the incredible opportunity we have here right now to support this important motion so that anyone else thinking about engaging in some of kind of corrupt practices, cozying up with insiders, cozying up to people who are not forthright and thinking they are going to take the taxpayer for a ride, needs to understand that is unacceptable.

Canada's Conservatives will restore ethics and accountability to Ottawa, but anyone who comes before a parliamentary committee must tell the truth and give fulsome answers. If they fail to do that, there will be real consequences. Canadians are still going to get answers because Canada's Conservatives will insist on nothing less.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this debate on this question of privilege and the motion that has been put forward by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I want to thank him for bringing this forward. I would agree that this is an extremely serious matter.

What we have seen occur at committee is the individuals in question being asked to appear, being summoned to appear, completely ignoring those requests and demands and then, finally, appearing after the threat of arrest was made. This is not conduct that any member of Parliament or any Canadian citizen should expect in order for our democracy to function properly.

The committees that support the work in the House of Commons here, that perhaps a lot of Canadians are not completely familiar with, do very important work to inform the House, bringing forward various different proposals, policies and positions from committee members after having the opportunity to sit down and hear from actual witnesses at the ground level. That is why getting information to committee in a timely, co-operative and, most importantly, truthful manner is of critical importance. When we have people who arbitrarily decide that they do not think they need to tell the truth, or they do not think they need to appear, because they do not feel like it or do not want to, then we have a big problem. It is a problem when we are talking about something as serious as this, in terms of how public money was misused by individuals, perhaps in a fraudulent manner.

I would agree with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes when he speaks very passionately about the need to get this information and to deal with the individuals in question properly. If we do not ensure that we are doing that, we are basically setting a precedent and opening the door to others who might feel the same way, as though they do not feel obligated to appear before a committee when they are summoned, to tell the truth or to provide information in order for parliamentarians, vis-à-vis their constituents and the Canadian population, to get to the bottom of things.

When we look at the ArriveCAN situation specifically, I would like to point out a few things where I perhaps disagree with my colleague who introduced the motion, namely, the fact that the Government of Canada has been seized with this issue since it was brought forward by CBSA and the officials to the minister. As soon as the minister was made aware of this, he directed the appropriate individuals to conduct audits and to figure out exactly what was going on. To suggest this was not the case would be void of reality of what actually happened.

Once it was discovered that work needed to be done in terms of getting to the bottom of things and figuring out exactly what happened, the minister and his officials proceeded to ensure that this would happen. As we know, as a result, at least three contracts were suspended by CBSA. Those were contracts specifically with GC Strategies, Coradix Technology and Dalian Enterprises. The manner in which that was dealt with was extremely prudent. It was the proper way to conduct this.

I am open to hearing the debate and what people have to say today. My concern about the manner in which the member has brought this forward is how we would conduct this operation, exactly. He wants to call the individuals to the bar. I do not know if that means we dissolve into committee of the whole or something, in order to ask questions.

This, quite frankly, is not something that has been done in over 200 years. We really do not have a practice or a proper procedure for doing this. This is why, when I intervened on the question of privilege earlier today, I specifically talked about the fact that we need to establish how we do this. What does this look like from a practical, implementing perspective?

I was unfortunate to be one of the participants during the middle of the pandemic when we were in the House. I may have been the only Liberal member who was physically present in the House of Commons when we called another individual to the bar. All we really got out of that was people yelling and shouting and screaming from their seats while the individual stood there and was scolded and chastised.

I assume, and I have faith, that the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes genuinely wants to get to the bottom of this and that this is not about political theatre, as that tended to be. That is why I stress the fact that it is extremely important that we develop how we will go about conducting the manner in which we will call somebody, how questions will be asked and how the House will genuinely function during that time, again, given the fact that this is not something we have done in over 200 years. That does bring concern for me.

I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I have the amendment here, which I will provide to the Clerk after I read it out.

I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) deleting the words “, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the third sitting day following the adoption of this order,”; and

(b) adding the following:

“provided that, (d) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the procedure for questioning Kristian Firth at the Bar of the House and report back to the House with recommendations within 10 sitting days following the adoption of this order; and (e) Kristian Firth attend the Bar of the House no later than three sitting days following concurrence in the report.”.

What I am asking for is that we let the standing committee, very quickly, develop the procedure by which we would entertain the individual and proceed with the individual once they get here, and then also that we add the words to ensure that the appearance occurs within a limited time, three days, as I indicated.

That is my amendment and I will submit that to the Clerk.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments.