Debates of April 8th, 2024

Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

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

I think the hon. member was actually making a point about it not being the Government of Canada. I will let him pursue his speech.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, whether intentionally or by accident, the member just proved the point. The fact is, we have an entity that received $20 million in funding on an app that was originally supposed to cost $80,000, and the company that was contracted is named GC Strategies. The confusion that it has endeavoured to throw at this seems intentional in what we see as an exponential explosion of contracting by the Liberal Party, which was backed by the NDP every step of the way.

That is exactly the point. It manipulated the facts and the truth for its political agenda so it could get contracts or so, when somebody looked through a procurement list, they would see GC Strategies and maybe think that it must be another department under Treasury Board or something like that. That speaks to the exact point, I would suggest, that we need to be making here.

I would reference as well that the Auditor General has done some incredible work in outlining some of the egregious accounting, to say the least, when it comes to this. That is only one more thing on the laundry list. It would be one thing if this were an exceptional circumstance under the Liberal Prime Minister, but the government seems to be quick to run roughshod over accountability, our institutions and, ultimately, over the privileges that are the fundamental backbone of preserving our democracy. Therefore, many Canadians are simply saying that they do not trust the Prime Minister or the government.

It is not an exceptional circumstance. It seems that, every single day, there is a new scandal, a new controversy or something that the government has mismanaged that has led to corruption. One can only jump to this conclusion: It seems that this rot goes from the bottom all the way to the top, and change needs to happen. I will close with that.

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

Madam Speaker, I take some exception to what the member is saying.

When I think about the leader of the Conservative Party, I think it is “do as I say, not as I do.” When the leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary for the Treasury Board, there was a $400-million contract scandal with ETS. I am sure the member is aware of it. His leader was the parliamentary secretary at that time.

When he is critical of the government and blaming ministers on this side, does he not realize that he is also reflecting on his own leader? What did the leader of the Conservative Party do back then on a $400-million scandal?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberals are quick to pivot, deflect and divert when it is under the member's leadership and his Prime Minister, supported by the NDP and the leader of the NDP, that we have seen a doubling of contracts going through the course of the government. This is exceptional in terms of the number in and of itself. What is also exceptional is the seemingly exponential increase in the cost of the simple expenditures of running government. I believe it is 43%, but do not quote me on the number.

We are seeing an explosion in the ability for contractors to intentionally mislead, whether it is what the company does at a two-person firm run out of somebody's basement; what its name stands for, in terms of GC versus Government of Canada; or even the plethora of other contracts that the government seems to be quick to throw money at. They are throwing money out like one would not believe.

We need accountability and answers, and it seems that the member and the Liberals refuse to even allow the conversation to happen. That is why—

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

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to my Conservative colleague, in his remarks, he presented an incredibly myopic view of history.

In my time in this place, one constant feature of the House of Commons has been both the Liberals and the Conservatives pointing the finger over who was worse in government. It is like an extreme parody of pot meet kettle in this place about who had the worst record with scandals.

If we look at the Conservative record, the ETS scandal of $400 million was mentioned, but let us not forget the extreme outsourcing with the Phoenix pay system. If we remember, it was supposed to save the Canadian public $70 million and ended up costing over $2 billion. There are members of the Conservative caucus, who were present during the Harper government, who displayed such flagrant disregard for basic accounting principles that they do not have a leg to stand on.

It is clear that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have equally dirty hands when it comes to outpricing to consultants and flagrant disregard for taxpayers' money.

Given that the Liberals and Conservatives have both displayed such flagrant disregard for taxpayers' money, it is obviously a systemic issue. What proposals do the Conservatives have to fix a mess that both Liberals and Conservatives are equally guilty of making and have thus far been unable to fix?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is fascinating that the member is talking about a myopic view of history. It is the member's leader and the members of the NDP who support, at every turn, the corruption of the Liberal Prime Minister and his cabinet, as well as the Liberal backbench. I find it a little rich.

It is time for a government that is willing to roll up its sleeves and do the hard work of administering and stewarding what Canadians expect their government to do.

I am happy to unpack the many practical ways that the member for Carleton has proposed. He has proposed a path forward to increased accountability with a dollar-for-dollar law in terms of spending and ensuring that the government spends within its means to make sure that we are doing what Canadians expect their government to do.

I will not take any lessons; when I point fingers, I am pointing them at a coalition that has propped up one of the most corrupt governments, if not the most corrupt government, in Canadian history. It is time for a change, because that is what Canadians are demanding. They expect the government to work for them and that is certainly not what they are getting from the Liberals and the NDP.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's theatrics. He is borrowing an end flare of self-righteous rage and indignation.

I also know this member from committee. Is it his position here today that, as a New Democrat at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and other committees that we are on, I am not actively working with them to help hold the Liberal government accountable?

The member would know that at every step along the way, New Democrats are in a confidence-and-supply agreement. We hold the Liberals accountable in the House and at committees. Yes, there are about 26 points in which we are fighting and using our power to win for Canadians, things like dental care, pharmacare and yes, indeed, housing. We are going to win for workers. Those are set aside.

I am taking this personally. To the hon. member, is it his position that at committee, as a New Democrat, I am not working as an opposition member? If that is the case, then he could see a new me at the next committee.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to bring the message to his leader, that it is essential to actually do the work of an opposition party, whether it be in this place or in a committee.

While we disagree on many things, I remember an earlier conversation I had with that member. He shared that at least he could respect Conservatives because he knew we stood for something, whereas he did not know what the Liberals stood for, ever. I would encourage the member to bring that message to the NDP leader. There is no question that the current leader of the NDP has run roughshod over democracy and has supported corruption in a way that makes him just as complicit as every single member of the Liberal Party.

In the circumstances that we find ourselves in the House today, I hope the member will have the intestinal fortitude to vote “no confidence”, and let Canadians make the choice about who should be leading this country forward to do the tough work of actually leading a government that works for all Canadians.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to return a reply.

Speaking of leaders, I want to see if the member has the intestinal fortitude to stand up today and to unequivocally denounce the crackpot, right-wing nut job Alex Jones and his ringing endorsement of the member's dear leader. In the House, the way in which the Conservative caucus kowtows to its leader would make Kim Jong Il blush. It would make the hardest of dictators blush, the way in which they set up their majesty, the hon. member of the opposition.

Will he unequivocally denounce, today, the crackpot conspiracy theorist, mass shooter-denying Alex Jones in the House, or will they continue to cater to the most extreme factions of the right wing within their caucus?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, why are the NDP member and those within the Liberal Party so obsessed with American politics? They are obsessed with American politics, yet a former American presidential candidate spoke at the NDP member's last party convention. It was a failed presidential candidate who spoke at the NDP's convention.

Absurdity comes out of their mouths, whether they are supporting a terrorist group like Hamas or being endorsed by Communists around the world. The Liberals are buddies with dictatorships, like the Communist dictatorship in Beijing with its pet nickname of “Little Potato” for the Prime Minister. We will denounce absurdity because that endorsement is an absurdity. The trifecta of the left in this country is that they are obsessed with American politics and they are trying to bring that sort of Americanization of our political discourse to Canada; it is an embarrassment.

I would suggest that the Liberals should spend more time talking to Canadians. That is what I am doing, and that is what I know the member for Carleton is doing. It is Canadians who are giving a ringing endorsement to the change that is necessary to bring accountability and to bring home a Canada that actually works for the people of this nation.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the good citizens of Calgary Midnapore.

Who is Kristian Firth? Kristian Firth is an individual who is at the centre of this debate here today, an individual who has been called, in contempt of this Parliament, to come and to make amends by providing information that he has not provided to committees, to this House and to Canadians.

Who, really, is Kristian Firth? Kristian Firth is one half of a company called GC Strategies that in 2018 ranked fourth of the fastest-growing companies in Ottawa. The products it offers are IT solutions and consulting. It had a three-year revenue growth of 676.4%. It is no wonder why when we see the scandal of the arrive scam app, a $60 million app that could have been created at a fraction of the price by a group of university students over a weekend.

This individual is wanted here, before the House, for not getting answers for Canadians. I am sure when Mr. Firth started his enterprise, he was like any other well-meaning entrepreneur who wanted to make a dollar to support his family. He has cited incredible stress since he undertook this role, with the scrutiny that he and his partner have come under.

Before I continue, I just want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for Edmonton West, who is also the chair of the government operations committee.

The things Mr. Firth did were certainly unscrupulous. For example, he falsified résumés. He essentially did what we have come to know in the government operations committee as the “bait-and-switch”, where a certain set of information is provided, a contract is won, and then the vendors are switched out, and those individuals who would be completing the work are switched out. He certainly inflated the prices. He has made $19 million on arrive scam, an unbelievable amount. As I said, it was a $60 million app, but it may in fact be even more than that. The Auditor General was not even able to confirm that it was just $60 million, as a result of incomplete documentation. In addition to the bait-and-switch, the falsified résumés and the inflated prices, he made relationships with bureaucrats that many would consider not above bar and, in fact, subject to strong ethical scrutiny.

Kristian Firth is an individual, one partner in GC Strategies, who started a business, who got $19 million in funding for arrive scam, who has now been called in contempt of the House and who has done some extraordinary things. Why is Mr. Kristian Firth being called before the House?

It is evident that it is the incompetence and the unethical conduct of the Liberal government. Without a doubt, that is the real reason Kristian Firth is being called in front of the House. The current government is incapable of taking responsibility for anything it does. It simply cannot say it is the government's fault. Sadly, it is a combination of incompetence and unethical behaviour. It is incompetence that it has had eight years to fix the procurement policy, which the procurement ombudsman said was an absolute shame, an absolute failure, and it allowed this scandal to happen.

It is an ethical breach, as we have seen at every single layer and level of the Liberal government, to the Prime Minister, three times, with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It is no wonder that Kristian Firth thought he could get away with those types of atrocities and that he is being called forward to the House.

We have seen several instances where the current government has not taken its responsibility seriously, or at all, with dismal results and with terrible consequences for Canadians and, in fact, for members of its own party as well.

We recall Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former justice minister, who tried to do the ethical thing with the Liberal government. When shuffled out of her position as minister of justice and given the lesser cabinet position of minister of veterans affairs, she later told Canadians that the Prime Minister's Office had attempted to put pressure on her to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin case. We see that no one has a chance with the current government, not even the justice minister. In a letter, Ms. Wilson-Raybould later thanked constituents, saying she was stepping down from cabinet and looking forward to serving her constituents at that time. However, in her book, she later on came out and said, “I wish...I had never met you.” Those are the words she said about the Prime Minister, who leads the unethical government, who leads an incompetent government that has brought us to this position with Kristian Firth having to come in front of the government here today. In fact, on her way out, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said to the incoming justice minister, David Lametti, “Be careful, all is not what it seems.”

As I said, it is a government that does not want to take responsibility and does not want to have accountability. We see this again with the calling of Kristian Firth. Where else did we see this? We are seeing it with the dismissal of the two lab scientists out of the Winnipeg lab where we had, first of all, a CSIS investigation that showed information such as an X-ray of a package containing vials of a substance that was later found to be mouse protein, but they were labelled as kitchen utensils. As well, there was a trip to China that was a personal vacation. Even a CSIS investigation was not enough for the Prime Minister to insist that all the documents be released around that scandal. That is another another example where we see how the current government does not take responsibility.

It is unethical and does not even have the competence to right the wrongs it makes. It has no capacity to fix this policy, even though it has had eight years. It has no capacity to follow the recommendations of independent investigators of Parliament such as the procurement ombudsman or even the Privacy Commissioner, as we saw in the government operations committee this morning.

Worse than incompetent, the government is unethical. It attempts to cover up its unethical behaviour and to place the blame on other individuals, as the Prime Minister did with the former minister of justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould; as he did with the former parliamentary secretary to international development, Celina Caesar-Chavannes; and as he did with Jane Philpott, and the list goes on and on. Do members see former minister Lametti in the House today? No. He was lucky; he jumped off the bus before he could get run over. That is what the Liberal government does. That is what the unethical government does.

Where else did we see this? If we look at the chair you are sitting in, Madam Speaker, it is the chair of the Speaker. The Prime Minister could not even accept responsibility for inviting a Nazi into the House. Instead, he got rid of the predecessor to that chair.

The government is incompetent and unethical. It cannot take responsibility for anything. It throws everyone and anyone under the bus, and this is the latest victim. It is certainly as a result of his own doing and of his own terrible inaction of not responding to the House. However, it is the Prime Minister who throws those people under the bus. Who perpetuates these lies? In fact, it is the Prime Minister and all the ministers around him. It is all the ministers who showed up in the government operations committee and indicated that they did not know how this happened. It is their deputy ministers. It is Erin O'Gorman, who is just there covering up for the unethical government.

Do members know what makes me the most mad? My colleagues and I, in the next government, after the next election, will have to fix this pattern of unethical behaviour and have to fix all the policies. It is the member for Edmonton West, the member for Barrie, the member for Calgary West and the member behind me for Sarnia—Lambton, who are going to have to come in and clean up this mess.

That is because even though it may be Kristian Firth who is coming to the bar today, in contempt, for refusing to provide answers, it is fundamentally the responsibility, the fault and the blame of the unethical Prime Minister and of the incompetent Liberal government. Frankly, Kristian Firth is just the latest victim in this train wreck in this parade of victims of the Prime Minister and his team.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. The government has been very clear in terms of its position. It wants to see more transparency and accountability. In fact, we are supporting Mr. Firth's coming before the bar. There is the question of a mechanism to ensure that there is a sense of accountability through questioning, but the member does not necessarily address that issue. She wants to go on the political side, so let me go on the political side.

Can she tell me why her leader, while he was the parliamentary secretary for the Treasury Board, allowed and denied any sense of accountability for a $400-million ETS scandal. He was in a position to do something and he chose to do nothing.

Does she think the leader of the Conservative Party should have been more responsible with Canadian tax dollars when he had the opportunity to do so? If not, why not?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech, the government has had eight years to attempt to clean up its act and to right its wrongs, yet it has refused to do so. It just keeps throwing people under the bus, whoever is expedient and opportune to maintain its power, along with its coalition partners, the NDP, who are jumping ship at a rapid rate.

It is just so incredibly rich to speak of times 10 years ago, when the Liberals have had 10 years not only to fix policy but to set an example for Canadians. Guess what: They failed and Canadians are speaking to that. I look forward to a referendum on not only the efficacy of the government but also the ethical standards of the government, which is coming soon.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the synthetic outrage I hear in the House. Certainly, I remember some great Conservative moments. Do members remember when Tony Clement took $50 million of border security money to buy fake boats and gazebos in Muskoka, the ultimate pork barrel scandal? There was Nigel Wright and the $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy, one of the most unworthy political figures we have ever seen in this country but he was a bagman for the Tories.

The issue here is the role of Parliament and the necessity of Parliament to maintain its ability to get evidence. That is what we are here to do. I want to speak of the need to use the tools we have. We do not have the power to find guilt at committee. Our job is to gather evidence and bring it to the House. We are here at the House now on the issue of those who failed to provide the evidence that was required of them. We will certainly support getting this motion through as quickly as possible.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for relieving us of our misery and announcing his resignation. I thank him so much. I truly appreciate that. We are all going to really miss him on this side of the House, or not.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's concern with the number of scandals that are going on. I wonder about the cost to Canadians when we add up the $60 million on the arrive scam, the $150 million missing from the sustainable green fund and the $172 million that went missing under Catherine McKenna.

How do we quantify this for Canadians?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her leadership and mentorship to me during the seven years since I was elected. My seven-year anniversary was April 3. I am truly grateful for that.

The reality is that the price is incredible. We are at a $1.2-billion deficit in government across Canada at this point. We saw a $40-billion deficit in the most recent update of the government. Frankly, I am terrified of the budget and what this means for Canadians. I have no doubt the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be attempting to buy off Canadians once again. We know that it is not going to work.

What I do know is that it will take my son and the member for Sarnia—Lambton's children and grandchildren generations to pay this back. I am very sorry for that, but I am grateful for her.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see that the gallery is filling up. I am sure it is for my speech today and not for question period.

I am pleased to rise again on the question of privilege following the tabling of the 17th report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as OGGO. To be up here speaking to this is particularly troubling, and it is part of a troubling pattern we have seen in committee. Witnesses, whether parliamentary witnesses, government officials or not, are ignoring the rights, powers and privileges of parliamentarians to act as the grand inquisitors of the nation.

This particular issue is around the witness Kristian Firth, someone doing business with the government and not answering to the committee. I have to ask, honestly, why would he?

If he has spent any time watching any of the committees on TV or especially watching estimates and operations on TV, he would see that witnesses do not actually have to answer. He would see government witnesses refusing to answer. He would see ministers refusing to answer. If Kristian Firth was watching, he would have seen the Prime Minister's own department, the Privy Council Office, in committee, repeatedly ignoring the laws of the land, repeatedly ignoring orders of Parliament and repeatedly ignoring committee orders to produce documents.

Making up excuses as to why PCO and other departments can ignore the will of Parliament seems to be a very active program within the government. If the government and the Prime Minister's own department, the PCO, can be so blatantly cavalier with committees, it is not surprising that others would do so as well; hence we end up with this privilege debate. There is no doubt that Kristian Firth has seen how government officials appear in committee and has based his conduct on that.

Lines need to be drawn. Parliament's dignity and the will of Parliament must be defended. Parliament and its committees cannot continue to be seen as mere toothless entities to be ignored when questions become inconvenient or embarrassing or damaging to the government or to the witnesses.

I want to clear up a bit of misinformation that has been pushed out there about this witness. It has been stated that he provided all of the information the committee demanded. That is not quite accurate. He provided some of it. Some of it was late, which is fine, because he still provided it, but there was a very specific question he refused to answer, and it is at the crux of the ArriveCAN “arrive scam” scandal.

He had been accused of helping write the work requirements for a contract that he himself then won on a sole-source basis. Mr. Firth was asked to provide this information. I am going to read from the Evidence.

The member from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek asked:

For greater clarity, I'm looking for the individuals or individual that you would have met with in developing the criteria...I'm asking, who did you sit at the table with to develop the criteria for this contract?

Mr. Firth then said that, because it is under RCMP investigation, he refuses. He was sworn in. He was warned of the consequences of not answering questions at the committee. This was his third appearance, so he knew the rules.

Later, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan stated, on a point of order:

I'd like the chair to put the question to you [Mr. Firth], and you have an obligation to answer it, whether you want to or not, because of the rules that apply to Parliament, to its committees and to witnesses who come before it.

...could you put that question to [the witness]...?

I, as chair, stated to Mr. Firth that we would appreciate an answer. I later stated that it was a fair question, and “Would you please provide an answer?”

Again, it came back from Mr. Firth:

...I really appreciate the opportunity...you've laid [it] out clearly, but at this point, we're still remaining with our stance that there could possibly be a pending...investigation.

He refused. In this case, we see, very clearly, that Mr. Firth was given the opportunity to answer the question. He was advised that he had parliamentary privilege, so that he could say what he wanted. He also was aware, as it came up in the committee, that he, at that time, had not even been contacted yet by the RCMP. He was not sure that he was actually under investigation, but he still refused to answer.

I mentioned earlier the government's conduct in dealing with committee orders and privileges and how it leads to such actions. In the McKinsey & Company's study in OGGO, the committee, so the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives, passed unanimously a production order for documents from McKinsey and government departments, demanding all contracts, reports, invoices and emails between McKinsey and government.

McKinsey 100% complied with the order. This is the same McKinsey & Company that had a book written about it called “When [the Devil] Comes to Town”. It is the same McKinsey that helped turbocharge the opioid crisis in the U.S., which it paid close to $1 billion Canadian in fines for. It is the same McKinsey that quite happily works with despotic regimes around the world. It is the same McKinsey that actually worked both sides of the coin on the harms and sales of tobacco, working with governments to sue the tobacco companies while working with the tobacco companies to get around government and push more tobacco sales. It is the same McKinsey that is considered one of the most evil companies in the world.

However, McKinsey complied 100% with the order from the committee for documents. Guess who did not provide the documents as ordered. Guess who comes in second place to McKinsey in following the rule of the land in this country. It was government departments, and I will list them quickly: the Business Development Bank; the Border Services Agency, which is, of course, tangled up in ArriveCan; the Canada Pension Investment Board; Canada Post; Citizenship and Immigration; DND; Natural Resources; Export Development Canada; the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's own department, which came second in complying behind McKinsey; Atomic Energy of Canada; Canada Development Investment Corporation; Employment and Social Development Canada; the Department of Finance; Veterans Affairs; Public Sector Pension Investment Board; and Trans Mountain Corporation.

Three times we brought in the Library law clerk and he explained to these departments the supremacy of Parliament, but they could not understand. McKinsey & Company, which is arguably responsible for the opioid crisis across North America, does understand and did comply, but the Government of Canada not so much.

Here is what some of the officials had to say.

Mr. Matthew Shea, who works for the Privy Council, again, the Prime Minister's department, said that there are privacy acts and information acts that apply above the supremacy of Parliament. He also stated that they are guided by the open and accountable government policy, and that he thinks that personal information and the Privacy Act are something he has to be very sensitive to. Here we have the Prime Minister's own department stating that the Privacy Act and internal policies trump the supremacy of Parliament.

He goes on to say, “A big part, with any of these requests, is the importance of, as a government, our working with the committee to try to find solutions.” It is not actually obeying the rule of law and not actually obeying the supremacy of Parliament, but finding solutions together.

One of my colleagues asked him, “Are you aware that Parliament is supreme in its ability to call for documents?” He said, “I respect the role of Parliament”, but again he has “time-honoured traditions” he has to follow. It is not the law, but honoured traditions.

When asked whether he believes several previous rulings confirm the supremacy of Parliament. PCO's Matthew Shea said, “It's not about whether I agree with the ruling or not. This is the government position”. The government position, as stated by the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's own department, is that we do not obey laws and we do not obey the supremacy of Parliament. He then told Parliament that he could hide basically everything he wants because it could possibly be tied to confidential advice to cabinet.

I realize I am running out of time, so I just want to conclude quickly that it is very clear that the position of the government is leading other witnesses to ignore the supremacy of Parliament. The government enforces the rules. The government must set an example and follow the rules of Parliament. The government must recognize the supremacy of Parliament.

Inclusive Diagonale des Fous

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a group of athletes from my region who have huge hearts. These individuals will form the first team from the Americas to take part in the “Diagonale des Fous”, a trail running ultra marathon, with a person with a disability. This wild adventure will play out in October 2024 on Réunion Island, following several months of training.

During this legendary race, the captain, Samuel Saucier, who has Louis-Bar syndrome, will lead a team of runners who will have to overcome a number of technical and human challenges. Imagine a person with a disability, determined to live life to the fullest, competing in one of the toughest races in the world in an all-terrain wheelchair called a Joëlette. Imagine 20 or so runners covering a 100‑kilometre trail with an altitude difference of more than 5,000 metres. By tackling this monumental challenge, the participants hope to demonstrate that, together, we can ensure that our society offers equal opportunities to all, regardless of their physical status.

Congratulations to the entire Réseau Autonomie Santé team, who serve as an example to us all. They are so inspiring.

Rwanda

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, April 7, marked a solemn occasion as we observed the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. This year, we also commemorated Kwibuka 30, the 30th anniversary of a tragedy where over 800,000 Tutsi were killed in 100 days of unimaginable violence.

Kwibuka means "to remember". It is a call to honour the victims, support survivors and educate us and others about the history and impact of the genocide. This day reminds us of the devastating consequences of hatred and intolerance, and urges us to reaffirm our dedication to preventing such atrocities.

Let us renew our commitment to a world where the lessons of the past guide us toward justice, compassion and a future free from such horrors.

City of Oshawa

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to recognize the 100th anniversary of the City of Oshawa. As we reflect on a century of growth, resilience and community spirit, we are proud of the tapestry of achievements and shared experiences that have shaped our city.

Oshawa, a name first chosen to represent the original settlement near Harmony Creek, received city status on March 8, 1924. We are the proud home of automotive prowess and pioneering spirit. From the assembly lines of General Motors to our vibrant cultural scene, Oshawa has continued to thrive, fuelled by the passion and dedication of its residents, the true architects of our success.

It has been an honour to serve as Oshawa's member of Parliament since 2004, and I look forward to sharing representation of our city with the new Conservative member for Durham.

Let us continue to nurture the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that has defined Oshawa for generations, fostering a dynamic environment where dreams can take flight and possibilities are limitless.

Government Programs

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, kids who are hungry at school are not focused on learning. We can and we are going to fix this with a national school food program so that over 400,000 kids across Canada do not go hungry at school. It will give parents peace of mind and help kids reach their full potential with healthy lunches.

I thought this would be one idea that we could all agree on, but the opposition just cannot seem to get on board with helping kids out. We are here for parents and kids. The Canada child benefit has already helped lift over 100,000 kids out of poverty, including supporting over 7,300 parents in St. John's East who receive an average of $5,800 a year.

I cannot wait to see the incredible impact of the school food program. There is no better investment for our government than in young Canadians.

Benoît Pelletier

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week we were sad to learn of the passing of the former Liberal member of the National Assembly of Quebec for Chapleau, Benoît Pelletier, a gentleman who was beloved by all. Having had the opportunity to sit with him at the National Assembly of Quebec, I can confirm that. More importantly, no matter how intense his political jousting might have been, Benoît Pelletier never crossed the line of intellectual integrity. That is why he has our utmost respect.

He was one of the most prominent constitutional law experts of his generation. Within the Liberal family he embodied nothing less than the national consciousness of Quebec. He was a true federalist who believed both in the importance of Ottawa respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and in the pride of Quebeckers. Today we are losing one of the last Quebeckers who vigorously defended that perspective, intelligently and in good faith. Our thoughts are with his family and his loved ones, who will miss him very much.

Thank you, Benoît Pelletier.

Income Tax Returns

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is tax season. Across the country, thousands of volunteers are hard at work helping other citizens fill out their tax returns.

In Châteauguay—Lacolle, soon to be Les Jardins-de-Napierville, people at the Centre d'action bénévole du grand Châteauguay and a volunteer organization known as “au cœur du jardin” are rolling up their sleeves and giving citizens some much-needed help so they can qualify for all our excellent programs, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canadian dental care plan, the GST credit, the disability tax credit, the Canada caregiver credit and many others.