House of Commons Hansard #301 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was firth.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Protection Against Extortion Act Second reading of Bill C-381. The bill amends the Criminal Code regarding extortion, proposing mandatory minimum sentences. Supporters argue it combats rising crime and soft-on-crime policies by targeting organized crime and using arson as an aggravating factor. Opponents contend mandatory minimums are ineffective, disproportionate, and hinder efforts to prosecute organized crime leaders, while the Bloc suggests alternatives. 7900 words, 1 hour.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth has made connections and met with public servants for over a decade, wining and dining them for contracts. Officials became comfortable with this system. Officials allowed Mr. Firth to charge millions because they were not willing to follow the rules and used Mr. Firth as their easy way out of accountability.
Who is Mr. Firth protecting in this corrupt system?
Mr. Speaker, I am not protecting anybody. I am just going about my business, like an IT staffing firm does.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, did Mr. Firth review the content of the search warrant executed on his house yesterday?
Mr. Speaker, I skimmed through the six pages, yes.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, did the search warrant specify forgery pursuant to section 366 of the Criminal Code and fraud pursuant to section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada?
Again, Mr. Speaker, I skimmed through it. To answer honestly, I cannot give that answer accurately.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth admitted that he altered two résumés, replacing a two-month internship with 51 months of professional experience. On another occasion, he inflated seven years of experience to 12. He claimed that this was a mistake.
He did not have consent to manipulate the résumés. Is that not correct?
Mr. Speaker, we have mentioned this previously in previous testimonies, but we encouraged the RCMP investigation into the Botler allegations, whether it is fraud over $5,000, because we believe it is going to exonerate us.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, he clearly did not answer the question. I will move on.
How many other times has Mr. Firth altered materials and résumés to the government since 2015?
Mr. Speaker, it is a common practice to engage with a resource to understand, because not everybody's CV or résumé completely aligns with requirements that are coming out. They may have the experience, but we just have to speak with them to qualify that.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a number.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth's actions amounted to forgery under the Criminal Code. He altered résumés to secure government contracts, thereby fleecing the Canadian taxpayer. Is that not correct?
Mr. Speaker, the allegations regarding the Botler résumés were on a contract that had already been awarded, so these were task authorizations. No contracts would have been decided either way by these résumés. It was one business.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth's actions further constituted a fraud on the Government of Canada. Section 380 of the Criminal Code stipulates fraud is “Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means” defrauds the public “of any property, money or valuable security”.
Both offences are punishable by indictment and, upon conviction, he could face a maximum prison sentence of 10 to 14 years. Is he aware of that?
Again, Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to the investigation by the RCMP because we believe it will exonerate us.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth's actions were not accidental but intentional. This was not a mistake. He knew his resources would not qualify for taxpayer monies without manipulating their experience.
Does Mr. Firth think that the Prime Minister or the Liberal cabinet ministers should be at the bar answering questions today, instead of him, or is he willing to go to jail for them?
Mr. Speaker, can I speak to my counsel, please?
Sitting ResumedHouse of CommonsOral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure what the question is there.
Sitting ResumedHouse of CommonsOral Questions
Sitting ResumedHouse of CommonsOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I would like to inform the hon. member for Brantford—Brant, and we will be able to show him this on the record, that actually by the time he finished his question the time he had had already elapsed.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I respect that, Mr. Speaker, but he clearly indicated that he did not understand the question. In terms of fairness to Mr. Firth, he should be afforded an opportunity for me to rephrase the question so he can understand it and respond accordingly.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you started off today talking about the importance of decorum. I do not think it is appropriate for the member opposite to be challenging the Speaker when the rules, as you expressed them, were very clear.
The time has expired. That means we move on to the next person, and he should not be challenging the Chair.