Debates of April 8th, 2024

Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is too little, too late. He gets caught. He apologizes. It is the second time he has done it.

No, he should appear at the bar of the House of Commons to answer for his lies and why he did not tell the whole truth and only the truth to parliamentarians.

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

Madam Speaker, in terms of one of the contracts that was signed with GC Strategies, GC Strategies actually designed the parameters of the contract and then got the contract later on.

Was my hon. colleague aware of that, and could he explain it a little?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, this time, I will answer the question in French, because it is a little more technical in nature.

That is precisely where the problem lies. We need to understand how this could have happened. How is it that a company was asked to define the terms of a contract that it itself was awarded by the Liberal government? How could we have allowed this to happen in our system? I sincerely think that the reason is the laxness we have seen on the part of the Liberal government in the past eight years when it comes to the various scandals it has faced.

People think they do not have to be afraid and can say whatever they want in committee because there are no consequences. It is time that we put an end to that. To ensure that we can shed light on these situations and on all the other scandals that come out day after day and week after week, we need to adopt the motion of privilege to send a clear message to witnesses that they should not play games with the House of Commons or with Canadians.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand on behalf of the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and address the motion before us today. Before I begin, I would like to share that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore, although I expect that both his remarks and mine will be eclipsed by certain events happening outside the chamber at this moment.

However, the motion in front of us that we are debating today, as everyone knows, is not a joking matter. This is a very serious matter indeed. When we come up against matters of parliamentary procedure, a lot of these subjects appear somewhat obscure to the people we represent. Goodness forbid if any of them are watching on CPAC right now, when larger celestial events are happening outside, but if they were, I think they would find this topic of parliamentary privilege to be a bit of an obscure one.

Therefore, instead of getting into the weeds and dealing with some of the precedent around this, I want to speak more directly to why this matters to people who are asking questions. They are watching the news and seeing reports of the ArriveCAN scandal and the troubling revelations around that, and they want answers. This motion today is about getting those answers. Those of us honoured to sit in this place have a sacred responsibility to get answers on behalf of Canadians; really, that is at the heart of what we are talking about today.

Of course, we cannot separate this from the larger issue, which is how we ended up with this app costing $60 million. If members read the Auditor General's report and the report of the procurement ombudsman, they would see that the findings in those reports are extremely troubling. The Auditor General found that the people of Canada overpaid for this product. They paid too much, and they did not get the product that they might have had if the process had been better. People deserved value, but they did not get it.

The procurement ombudsman found serious irregularities in the procurement process that people should be concerned about. People deserve fairness. Canadians deserve fairness, but what we saw was a procurement process that was profoundly unfair. I know that my Conservative colleagues have been calling this the “arrive scam app”; it is clever, it rhymes and all that. However, it is really more of a racket; if we look at the company at the heart of these allegations, GC Strategies, we see this two-person IT recruiting company that has found a way to put itself at the centre of so much government procurement in Ottawa and to funnel these lucrative contracts through its little shop, charge an exorbitant commission of 15% to 30% and then have other people do the actual work and deliver the product. That is good work, if one can find it, I suppose, but the company has enriched itself to the tune of millions of dollars. What have the Canadian people gotten? The people got an app that, in some cases, did not work, that the Auditor General has said we paid too much for and that could have been done for a fraction of the cost.

Among the issues that were raised by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman, there is one that is really the most egregious thing. I have been following this since I joined the government operations committee. One of the most egregious revelations was that the GC Strategies company and its principal, Kristian Firth, were involved in writing the criteria for the contract that the company then won. As the procurement ombudsman found, the company wrote those criteria in such a way that, really, only it could be the winner of the contract at the end. It is as if I, as a member of Parliament, helped write a contract for someone who was five feet, nine inches on a good day, if I stand up straight; had brown hair; wore blue suits; and lived in Smithers, British Columbia. Then, at the end of the day, surprise, surprise, Madam Speaker, guess who got the contract. It is the person who wrote the criteria, which were custom fit for their situation. I am making light of it, but that is essentially what is in these reports.

I think, to the people watching back home, that is a profoundly unfair process. What the people of Canada expect is a competitive procurement process where entrepreneurs who hang their shingle out there and do the hard work of putting together proposals, innovating and coming up with new products and services have a fighting chance to get government work. What we have seen here is that the deck is stacked against people like that. It is stacked because certain insiders have found a way to enrich themselves and to ensure that government contracts flow through them.

I think that is wrong, and while it is not the matter that is before us today, it is related to it because the individual whom this motion seeks to call to the bar, which would be an unprecedented and historic event if it takes place, is at the heart of the ArriveCAN issue. I was at the committee when Mr. Firth appeared, and I agree with what has been said in this place about his testimony: He was evasive and prevaricating. As has also been mentioned, he was not the first witness to act like that in front of a parliamentary committee, and I think that is something that should concern all of us.

The gravity of the allegations, the amount of money that is involved and the implications for the larger issue of government procurement make this situation particularly worrisome, and that is why my colleagues and certainly our party are so intent and serious about getting the answers that Canadians deserve.

With respect to Mr. Firth's prevarications and refusal to answer questions, one of the questions the committee had was about his conversations and communications around the writing of the criteria for the contracts that his firm eventually won. At the committee hearings, he essentially said he understood that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was now involved and so he would not answer the questions. I assume it was because he did not want to somehow jeopardize any future investigation by the RCMP that might involve himself, but of course that is not how the system works.

As everyone in this place knows, Parliament is supreme in its ability to seek answers on behalf of Canadians. Witnesses cannot come before a committee and say they are worried they are going to perjure themselves or place themselves in some type of legal jeopardy by answering the questions. That is not a valid excuse. If Parliament wants answers to questions, Parliament gets the answers to the questions. What we see in the motion before us is one of our only options of recourse in a case where a witness refuses to answer the questions of committee.

Mr. Firth said, “I've had a chance to speak with my lawyer, and I'm sticking to my line with regard to the fact this is under investigation by the RCMP; therefore, I cannot interfere with that.” There are several issues with that statement. First of all, the RCMP had not contacted Mr. Firth. He had heard in the media and from members of Parliament that the RCMP was somehow involved, but he had yet to become a subject of the investigation. Even if he had, none of that is an excuse for not answering the questions of Parliament, which remains supreme under the practices and traditions of parliamentary privilege. None of this really stacks up.

As I mentioned in a previous question, I did receive an odd email directly from the individual in question, in which he apologized and then went on to provide all of the same excuses for his behaviour at committee that we have already heard. I do think it is right and appropriate that he be called before the House to answer the questions of Parliament and to explain how this all came to be, how the Canadian people ended up paying for an app that cost $60 million, when the Auditor General has found that it could have been done for a fraction of that. These are some really egregious situations around government procurement, irregularities and alleged misconduct. I mentioned the two investigations that have resulted in reports. CBSA is conducting its own internal report.

I will return to why Canadians should care about all of this. They should care because they deserve fairness, value and a Parliament that is able to get answers on their behalf. That is what the motion is about. I will be supporting it, as will my colleagues. I hope it passes.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member has put on the record. I, for one, not only expect that Canadians would get accountability; it should be a given they will get accountability. Whatever government happens to be in place, of whatever political stripe, has an obligation to look for that accountability.

Part of the concern I have is that we need to take a look at the bigger picture regarding the procurement process. One of the reasons it is important that we maintain the integrity of the system is so we ensure that we do not allow corruption to infiltrate it. That way, we can ensure that Canadians are all being given a fair opportunity and can have confidence in the system. That is the reason why I think that, in a situation like this, having the individual come to the bar is of great benefit.

I wonder whether the member can provide his thoughts on that aspect.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that is why we should call the individual before the bar. I do not think that will get us all of the answers we need in order to get to the bottom of the irregularities, alleged misconduct, possible fraud and worse when it comes to the ArriveCAN app.

I would add that it is one thing to question the contractors who enrich themselves, but another thing to figure out how the problem was allowed to get this bad and how far this problem goes within government procurement. Of course, irregularities and problems with government procurement land at the feet of the minister responsible for the department that procures the contracts and the minister who is responsible for procurement more generally. It happened on the current government's watch. Therefore some, probably most, of the responsibility for what appears in the Auditor General's report should fall at its feet, and it should be accountable for it.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the question of the individual's appearing before the bar, maybe some people are watching committees, and maybe some of the media are paying attention, but what would the consequences be for a person appearing at the bar in the House of Commons, where the national media pays attention to what is said more than it might at committee, or from the larger audience who may be viewing this? What would the repercussions be for an appearance that may be different than at committee?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is a fair question. For most Canadians who are not familiar with the fact that we have a brass bar in the chamber, and who do not understand this somewhat archaic and historical tradition of Parliament, it may not seem like an effective way to set things right, but it is the way we operate. It is within our procedures and practices as an institution, and I think it is our responsibility to use every resource we have available to get the answers.

I would hope the individual in question has some modicum of respect for this institution, because after all, this is the institution by which we govern this amazing country of ours. As a Canadian, I would hope that his respect for this institution would outweigh his desire to protect his own financial interests or reputation when it comes to his particular business. That is why I hope we get straight answers from him.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was fascinating, accurate and straight to the point.

The people in my riding of Trois-Rivières know that I used to work in ethics, so they often ask me questions about this, about what happened with ArriveCAN. People wonder how that could happen, how people can come to committee and give half answers, evasive answers and sometimes even false answers. We are debating a motion that would compel the person in question to come tell his story before Parliament.

In these times where people are losing faith in our institutions, are we also seeing the decline of decency in society?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we are seeing an erosion of decency in society, and I think that erosion of decency also undermines our institutions. In calling the individual to the bar, I think we, as parliamentarians, should also reflect on how we uphold the integrity of this place. Certainly in the five years that I have been here, I have seen plenty of behaviour that does not uphold and strengthen Canadians' trust in Parliament, and that should be of grave concern to us all.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, I thank the members opposite who have deliberated over this very issue. The issue of integrity is at the crux of what we are talking about today. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the motion put before the House. I share the disappointment and frustrations expressed by parliamentarians and Canadians with respect to the allegations of wrongdoing in certain federal contracting processes.

Protecting the integrity of federal procurement processes, alongside strengthening the management of government operations, is indeed a top priority for us. We support the many studies and investigations under way, including the committee work that has led to the privilege motion we are debating today. Canadians deserve to know how the series of contracts fell into place and what is being done to prevent future wrongdoing. To fully understand what has happened, and thereby take effective steps not to repeat it, we must allow for all investigations to proceed free from political disruption.

The motion before us is serious indeed. It goes to the heart of our work as parliamentarians. We represent the people of Canada, and in our service to them we seek honest, expert answers to pressing questions, often at committee. We summon witnesses to committee to provide factual testimony to assist in our work. We accept that not all questions may be answered on the spot, and so we allow for responses in due course.

We do not accept the refusal of witnesses to respond. However, for the record, as already stated by my hon. colleague, Mr. Firth has refuted this in his recent correspondence on April 8, today, to the Chair and to members of Parliaments.

I have to say that the ArriveCAN issue has indeed raised many questions, most of which can be answered by only a few people. All parliamentarians are concerned about the issue, and certainly we all want to hear the facts. Truthful, timely testimony is needed. If we are to improve our procurement processes and safeguard them against wrongdoing, we must take proper steps.

What we are dealing with is a complex system in place. Hard-working public servants exist to ensure that government contracts move forward properly and bring clear benefits to Canadians. In fact, the contractors in question had been doing business with the previous Conservative government, and charges were laid for bid-rigging at the time when the Conservative government was in power, with some of these very procurement processes. We must seek to ensure that federal procurements are transparent and that they do, indeed, hold value for taxpayers.

Millions of Canadians are still using the app to this very day. In fact, I had the privilege of using it over the weekend, but in the case of the ArriveCAN contract awarded to GC Strategies, it is clear that the system did not function properly. The government has already taken swift and decisive action to improve the procurement process and hold bad actors accountable.

Allow me now to provide the House with a sense of what the government has done and is doing to address potential weaknesses in the federal procurement process, both from an enforcement perspective and from an internal improvement perspective. PSPC has a number of mechanisms in place to prevent, detect and respond to fraud and other potential integrity issues within the procurement and real property transactions. Last year, Public Services and Procurement Canada suspended all delegated authorities for professional services-based task authorizations. This was in order to implement additional controls to strengthen IT procurement and management of contracts.

Now, all other federal departments must formally agree to a new set of terms and conditions to obtain access to select professional services that provide supply. The department has also directed its procurement officers to ensure that all task authorizations include a focus on clear tasks and deliverables. All of this helps to improve the procurement process.

Last November, at the request of the Canada Border Services Agency, PSPC issued stop-work orders against Dalian, Coradix and GC Strategies, halting the work on all active contracts with the Canada Border Services Agency while the investigations proceed. In March of this year, the department went a step further, suspending the security status of GC Strategies Inc. and Dalian Enterprise until further notice. This effectively prevents the companies from participating in all federal procurements with security requirements.

Public Services and Procurement Canada takes protecting the integrity of the procurement system very seriously, and it is a cornerstone of our responsibility for ensuring fair, open and transparent procurements.

At the same time as these enforcement actions are under way, the department is making changes internally. To guide our efforts to improve, we are fortunate to have recommendations from two independent studies. They include those of the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman, who made it clear in their recent reports that Canada's procurement system is vulnerable to manipulation by bad actors.

PSPC is acting on the recommendations of the Auditor General and the procurement ombud in line with its commitment to an open, fair and transparent procurement process while obtaining value for Canadian taxpayers. Over the past year, PSPC has taken concrete actions to strengthen the oversight of all the professional services contracts falling under its authority, several of which I've already mentioned. We have introduced measures and controls to strengthen the contract management processes with the client departments. Collectively, these measures will help continue to strengthen and enhance federal procurement processes to promote greater competition, particularly in the field of IT consulting services.

Government procurement already operates within a framework of laws, regulations, policies, programs and services. However, we know that we can and must always do more. That is why PSPC continues to modernize government procurement practices. One of our long-standing priorities is a sweeping modernization of the procurement system to make it easier, faster and more accessible for suppliers, particularly those from under-represented groups.

I am proud to say that we are making progress. The goal is to simplify our processes and improve access. That includes the deployment of our electronic procurement solution, a new system that is shifting a very paper-based approach to procurement into an electronic repository. We are also improving our ability to hold companies accountable for their misconduct while protecting federal expenditures. Our government recently announced the creation of a new office of supplier integrity and compliance, which will take effect in May. The new office will allow the government to better respond to wrongdoing and further safeguard the integrity of federal procurement. It also includes new measures to improve our capacity to take swift action against suppliers of concern.

We are deeply concerned by allegations of fraud, which weaken the public's trust in the government. We are committed to taking action against improper, unethical and illegal business practices and to holding companies accountable. At the department level, PSPC fully supports all efforts to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and to take the appropriate steps to address them.

The decisions associated with the early development and implementation of ArriveCAN have been a sobering revelation for Canadians. We take our responsibility as the stewards of public funds seriously, and we will continue to review processes and look for ways to strengthen the integrity of our procurement function. Bad actors are and will continue to be held to account.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the subject of these discussions is very important.

Of course, committees have certain responsibilities. That said, committees also have certain powers. In this case, it is clear that those powers have not been used properly, since individuals have appeared before committees but have not willingly answered questions from committee members. I think there is a very important aspect here that the government is ignoring. Specifically, there was a cost estimate of $80,000, but the bill ended up somewhere near $60 million. I hear government members react much like the rest of us in the House, but the responsibility here falls to the government.

My question is very simple. Were any individuals suspended from the Canada Border Services Agency as a result of this gigantic fraud?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, in fact, the committee and Parliament do have powers and responsibilities to ensure that we ask the right questions, as the member rightly put. When it comes to cost, ArriveCAN enabled us to have a product that is still being used to this day. Some may argue about its ability, cost and value. We certainly are questioning that ourselves, but in regard to any allegations of wrongdoing that have been made, individuals from various departments have been put on notice and have been dismissed without pay until resolutions are made.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to ask a question of my colleague and friend from the Liberals. I hope he did not spend a whole lot of time preparing that speech last night. I am sure he was up late writing it all out. We really need to address the fact that this motion is to call Kristian Firth from GC Strategies into the House.

This is a rare tool that has been used since Confederation and it is only used in the most egregious situations. We have an individual here who tried to make a mockery of one of our committees, who refused to answer questions and who refused to bring about accountability and justify the number of dollars he had personally stuffed in his pockets through the arrive scam app. We are studying this at committee right now: how an organization of two employees sitting in their basement was able to get tens of millions of dollars in government contracts and then subcontract that out to bigger and more professional organizations like KPMG.

Will the parliamentary secretary for the department of procurement agree that Mr. Firth needs to come before the bar and be held to account for the way he has undermined our parliamentary institutions and to ensure that this never happens again?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, you have outlined a situation that has concerned all of us on committee—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. parliamentary secretary, but the hon. parliamentary secretary has to speak through me.

I did not say anything.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would let my colleague know that we on this side of the House care deeply about the very issues that are presented before the committee. We care very deeply for the fact that certain questions were not revealed. Notwithstanding that Mr. Firth decided to do so in camera, which was denied to him, and he made reference to that, we do support that he appear before the House to answer those questions. We cannot and will not allow a repeat of those types of activities. We remind the House that these are the same actors who were involved with the Conservative government in the past. They have been at this for some time. We must take every effort to correct it.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering how much faith the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore has that the House will get straight answers to their questions with this extraordinary step we are considering taking today.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member from British Columbia is also a member of the standing committee. I believe that he shares the same concerns that I do. Mr. Firth has already issued a statement today outlining his responses. The extent to which we would hear anything more when he appears at the bar before the House, we would soon see. However, we must take that extra step and I support the motion as a result.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been examining the ArriveCAN file in committee since October 2022, if not earlier.

We have to continually analyze the documents, read mountains of documents and cross-check the information obtained from the documents themselves or from witnesses, so it is a long process. The work would be easier if the witnesses gave us all of the information that we asked for right away. That is the main aspect of parliamentary privilege that was violated in committee several times.

Parliamentary privilege involves the power to get answers to our questions. However, recently, there have been situations where we did not get any answers. For example, we were told that we would not be given the answer right away but that the information would be sent later. There were also situations where the witness said that he could not answer because it could interfere in a potential RCMP investigation. In that case, the witness, a partner of GC Strategies, had not yet been contacted by the RCMP, so his testimony, if it was not part of an investigation, should have been free and voluntary.

That being said, when witnesses appear before a committee, they are sworn in. They have to give the committee members all of the information. They also have to answer all of the questions that they are asked to the best of their knowledge.

When we compare the information we received from the Auditor General of Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and other witnesses with that of GC Strategies, some of that information is clearly contradictory, so much so that we are calling for an extraordinary measure: ordering a witness to attend at the bar of the House of Commons. This is a rarity in Canada's history. It happened one particularly memorable time, when John A. Macdonald was arrested and brought before the House. That was certainly a historic event.

We need to make sure this is done with proper consideration and due process. We do not want to humiliate anyone—I do not, anyway. We do not want to intimidate anyone. We want full answers about public money, the taxes that we and all citizens pay.

I would like to quote from the committee report:

On Monday, October 17, 2022, the committee agreed, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), to undertake a study of the ArriveCAN application.

In the course of this study, the committee chose to invite Kristian Firth to appear before it.

The committee reports the following facts to the House:

Following a refusal of the witness to appear, the committee reported this failure to the House on Monday, February 26, 2024, which resulted in the House of Commons adopting an order for both Mr. Kristian Firth and Mr. Darren Anthony to appear before the committee within 21 days.

I must point out that Mr. Firth, who refused to appear, ended up providing doctor's notes a few weeks ago to justify why he did not want to appear. It took a very long time.

It was only under threat that the men appeared before the committee, despite the committee's offer of accommodations to respect their capacities and needs by giving them breaks when they were tired or when testifying took more effort.

Mr. Firth agreed to comply with the House order and during his appearance before the committee on Wednesday, March 13, 2024, Mr. Firth provided a statement and was asked a series of questions by committee members concerning his role with the ArriveCAN application.

During this witness testimony, the committee was unable to ascertain certain facts from Mr. Firth, who repeatedly refused to answer questions, citing a potential investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a justification for his refusal to respond.

Witnesses in committee have rights, including the right not to have their testimony used against them in a potential lawsuit. Nevertheless, this is the argument that Mr. Firth has repeatedly put forward for not answering members' questions, even, for example, when they asked him the name of the person who had contacted him to request a backgrounder on a potential application. There is nothing criminal about naming the person who asked for information; that is not illegal.

The committee notes that House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, at pages 1078-79, states the following:

Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them.

That information was repeatedly given to the witnesses.

The report goes on to say, “some of the witness testimony provided by Mr. Firth was called into question as being misleading or false”. For example, the Auditor General tells us that GC Strategies probably received $19.1 million in connection with ArriveCAN. However, she also says that it is difficult to track the money, because some of the codes on some of the invoices lack detail, so there is no way of knowing if the work listed on certain invoices was for ArriveCAN or something else. ArriveCAN was not GC Strategies' only contract during the pandemic. GC Strategies says it received $11 million. Maybe so, but in the documents it submitted a few months earlier, the total added up to $9.6 million. We asked GC Strategies to explain the difference between the amount in the documents that were provided and this more recent amount, but its only response was that the company had provided the documents. We were told that the company received $4.5 million per year, but now we are being told that $2.5 million was related to ArriveCAN. That is the kind of information that is not clear.

We are not lawyers, although some members were lawyers in another life. We are not here to act as lawyers. Our role on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is to determine whether procedures have been properly followed and whether taxpayer money has been well spent. It is impossible, however, to determine whether procedures were followed when we repeatedly fail to receive information, even just things like the names of the people who can answer our questions, who can tell us what the procedure was, how it was applied and how it can be improved. We have no answers to these questions.

Some people might think that it is a little ridiculous for us to request this information. In a recent email, Mr. Firth said that it was utterly pointless. However, when it comes to looking after public funds, when it comes to looking after taxpayers' money, no request is silly, stupid or trivial. Our role is to ensure that every penny is spent well and in compliance with procedure. To do that, we need answers, and we have not received them all.

We met with Mr. Firth three times. Following our questions at his first appearance, he sent us a slew of documents, including a list of contracts he allegedly had with the Government of Canada related to ArriveCAN. However, some questions remain answered.

In another slew of documents that followed the second meeting we summoned him to, we still did not get any answers to the questions we had asked him at the first and second meetings. It was not until his third appearance that he partially answered questions. We should have been able to get answers from the start in order for the study process to be complete and transparent. We should not have been forced to request more resources so we could hold two more meetings with the same person, on the same topic, to get more information in order to understand the situation and analyze it more fully. We should have had that information from the get-go, not nearly two years later.

Let us talk about the questions he did and did not answer. At the third meeting, we asked him for the names of public servants he had met with during their business hours at breweries and other locations. He provided the names. We must give credit where credit is due. It is important to be fair and equitable, regardless of what one thinks of the situation. We asked for the names of the contacts for the contracts, and we got those names. We asked for the names of the people with whom he had discussed developing the criteria for the $25‑million contract. The answers to that were more vague. He told us that he had not been involved in developing the criteria. We have emails that prove otherwise. He said that he was not involved in developing the criteria, but that the criteria must not have been all that restrictive, since 40 companies qualified to bid on the contract. Curiously, his company was the only one that bid on the contract, and it won. What is going on? Who is telling the truth? Is the truth in the emails, in the documents, in Mr. Firth's impressions, or in his testimony?

Is it normal for consulting firms to sit at the table and help set out the criteria for a contract they are going to bid on? He said he did not do that, but he also said he cannot comment because the RCMP is investigating. However, he still has not been called as part of that investigation.

What was the purchase price of Coredal Systems Consulting? That is another question that he was asked because, before becoming GC Strategies, the company was called Coredal Systems Consulting. Mr. Firth and two other people bought Coredal Systems Consulting and changed its name to GC Strategies. Coredal Systems Consulting also had several contracts with the government. It is a bit complicated, but basically the company was purchased so that one person's security clearance could be transferred to someone else. Were the security clearances examined? Apparently they were, but we also need to take a closer look at the process in particular. Is it relevant to know how much Coredal Systems Consulting was worth at the time of purchase? I do not think so. I do not take umbrage at the fact that no answer was given to that question, but on principle, when a member asks a question, the witness needs to answer. That is what parliamentary privilege is all about.

We also wanted to know the name of the person who asked GC Strategies to prepare a slide deck for an app in March 2020. We are waiting for the answer. We asked for the names of the company's contacts at the Canada Border Services Agency, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and Employment and Social Development Canada. We are waiting for the answer. According to Mr. Firth, 40 companies qualified to bid on the contract, the one he said he was not involved in developing the criteria for. It is not clear how, but he is the one who got the contract, which ended up being untendered.

What did we get? We got a list of contracts GC Strategies has received since it was created and their nominal value. We got the amounts invoiced to the government and the amounts paid to subcontractors. We got doctors' notes and letters telling us that they hoped the utterly pointless process would now be over. We sensed exasperation. We also sensed a possibility of involving lawyers and the courts. I will talk about that later.

Is this some kind of warning that we should not be exercising our parliamentary privilege to get answers to our questions? I hope not.

However, there is one thing to remember in all this. Witnesses are called to appear and answer difficult questions. Ministers and deputy ministers can testify to that. Just about every organization in government goes before a committee at one time or another. The questions are not always easy.

Can we adopt a more respectful tone when asking questions? Absolutely, yes. Can we ask questions in ways that make people feel respected? Absolutely, yes. Have we always done so in all committees, including the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates? To be perfectly honest, not always. It is deplorable. Could that tone cause a person to feel their integrity is under attack? Possibly. Now, I am not trying to defend anyone in particular, but I am trying to keep things in perspective and find the voice of reason and balance in all this. We need to look inward as well as outward.

Earlier, I asked a colleague a question about the fact that one of the main concerns the head of GC Strategies expressed was that his statements would be used against him on social media and in traditional media, that his children would again be insulted and photographed without permission, that his home would be photographed, and that he and his wife would receive degrading and threatening calls and emails.

I have read some of those emails and they are far from pleasant. Some of them resemble the kind of thing we receive. It is just as unpleasant for us as it is for ordinary Canadians. We therefore need to carefully consider our tone and how we handle information, as well as the scope of our parliamentary privilege. Does posting certain information on social media damage the privilege of witnesses? It might. That is something we need to consider and think about. Informing the public is important. We can say anything, but it all depends on the tone we use and how we do it. We have to look at all sides of the coin—heads, tails and the edge. If we only look at one side of things, we miss a lot of information. That is what looking for balanced information is all about. That is what we must strive for above all in committees of this Parliament.

Was the witness right to withhold information? The answer is no. Was the witness right not to wholly or partly trust the entire committee or some of its members? Unfortunately, I am inclined to say yes, that is, he was right to be afraid that information might be distorted. Nevertheless, our privilege stands. We have to analyze our practices, but our witnesses also need to understand that they have to provide all the information, not just the information they are willing to give us.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member really trying to explain the context of a situation, whether it is the committee, the roles that committee members play or, ultimately, witnesses. I think that took a great deal of bravery to be able to say so, and I appreciate that. I understand the Bloc's position is also to see the witness brought to the bar, which is great.

Often what happens in a committee, especially when we bring in witnesses, is that things sometimes get a little bit too politically partisan. As a result, it can be a disservice to the committee and, ultimately, witnesses. Could she can provide some further thoughts on the potential of partisanship and the impact that has on the whole process going forward?

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

Madam Speaker, my opinion is just the same as it was when I was elected in 2019, despite the five years that have gone by and everything I have seen since then. In committee, our work should never, ever, ever be partisan. The committee is there to conduct studies for the common good, for the good of the public and for the good of public finances, as far as the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is concerned. The common good has no colour. It is not light blue, dark blue, red, orange or green. It has no colour. That must not change and must not be forgotten.

Yes, it can fun to publish a few words in newspapers or on social media to generate some likes. However, are we in kindergarten, or the House of Commons?

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

Madam Speaker, we completely agree with the Bloc Québécois member on this issue. The integrity of parliamentary committees is paramount. We have seen witnesses appear in committee, including the ethics committee, and not answer questions.

When we call someone to the bar to testify before a committee, we want to send them the message that parliamentarians are entitled to full and truthful answers every time anyone appears before a committee. That is the message we are going to send to the next witnesses who appear in committee. Does she agree with that?

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, the committees—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the member because some members are making a lot of noise.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.