Debates of June 4th, 2024

Housing

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about the last two years. We have been at the table since 2015, since we came into power. I know for a fact that co-op housing has been a major priority for our government because I have lived it in my own riding. Co-op housing, under the previous government, was on a downward scale. We have increased funding for co-op housing, and I can say for a fact that we have built over 30 units based on co-op housing funding because we chose to invest in housing. We will continue to choose to invest in housing.

We made an announcement, and I would invite my hon. colleague to speak to the minister. I am not sure which project the member is talking about, but a home is not built in two months. There are obviously conditions that come into play. I know that my hon. colleague understands that. I would invite him to contact the minister to talk about his specific project.

Public Services and Procurement

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, today is an important day in the arrive scam scandal saga, because later today, Minh Doan, who is one of the central figures in this affair, will be testifying before the government operations committee.

He will be testifying for three hours and will be required to answer critical questions about how the decision was made to choose GC Strategies and who was responsible for that decision. He will need to answer questions about significant allegations around the destruction of emails. Since his last appearance before the government operations and committee, there have been revelations in The Globe and Mail that note an accusation of unusual steps that he took that led to the destruction of emails at the Canada Border Services Agency.

There is an Auditor General's report on the arrive scam scandal that shows that there are missing records. There are also allegations filed by a CBSA IT employee that were obtained by The Globe and Mail, allegations of moving files in an odd way that led to the destruction of emails and other critical documents. This has, of course, as The Globe and Mail noted, particular importance given that we are seeking information about what happened with GC Strategies, that is, how it was awarded the contract. One of the deeply suspicious aspects of the arrive scam scandal is that nobody is actually prepared to take responsibility for the decision to choose GC Strategies. There is a flurry of very sharp and public accusations among senior public servants, which speaks to significant and enduring challenges at CBSA.

There are new audits that came out yesterday, new, damning audits from the Auditor General. One issue in particular that we have highlighted has been the government's cosy relationship with McKinsey, the government's constantly funnelling money and contracts to McKinsey, close friends with the government, without the proper processes in place and without demonstrating value for money.

It is another day, another series of corruption scandals and more damning reports from the Auditor General. Whether it is yesterday's Auditor General's report on McKinsey, as well as the green slush fund, or today's hearings that we are going to have with Minh Doan, it is scandal after scandal. After nine years, the Liberal government always wants to blame somebody else. The Liberals always want to say that it is somebody else's responsibility, without any clarity about who is actually going to take responsibility.

After nine years, the Prime Minister bears responsibility. He bears responsibility for a broken contracting system, for the fact that the Auditor General's reports repeatedly emphasize the lack of accountability for the way the government is serving up contracts to its close friends, and for the fact that there is a GC Strategies model. It is not just one company; it is a model that we see growing across government, where a small firm specializes in simply getting government contracts but then subcontracts all of the actual work and takes a big cut along the way.

This is systemic corruption in the procurement process that we have seen in the arrive scam and in multiple other instances. When will the corruption end? Will it be soon, or will it be after the election?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I have heard this before in the House by this particular member, and he has a short memory. I recall procurement processes under the government that he used to work for. They were not perfect. I actually recall—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

We are a lot better.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The member says that they are a lot better, but his government signed a contract with IBM for Phoenix. I would argue that it was not a lot better. He continues to yell, and I get it. He is not happy when we remind him of the Conservatives' record.

Madam Speaker, I do want to thank him for his important question. It is not the first time the member has risen in the House to ask this question. Obviously, as the member is aware, because he was there when I was there, the former minister had no say in this particular contract. It was never brought up for the former minister to sign. The member knows that, but he continues to sling mud in this place, and I really get it. That is all he has.

The CBSA initiated an internal investigation as soon as there were allegations of inappropriate contracting practices. The matter was also referred to the RCMP for investigation. Contracts with three companies involved, including GC Strategies, also had been suspended through a stop work order from PSPC. We expect the procurement processes to be followed properly, and anyone who does not follow contracting rules will face appropriate consequences. This has been, and will always be, the practice of this government.

The procurement ombudsman's and the Auditor General's reports have identified unacceptable gaps in management processes, roles and controls. Some recommendations have already been implemented, and the CBSA is taking further action to ensure that practices are aligned with policies and meet that they the expectations of Canadians.

Need I remind my hon. colleague of the context in which the app was developed? The CBSA needed to develop and launch this app, as quickly as possible, at the request of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after a global pandemic was declared in March 2020. The CBSA was working as quickly as possible to replace a paper process that was not meeting public health needs and that was also impacting the border with significant wait times that disrupted the essential flow of people and goods.

I wish to point out that the Auditor General did recognize, in her report, that the government improved the speed and quality of information collected at the border by using the ArriveCAN app, rather than the paper-based form. The ArriveCAN app was an essential tool at the time to collect mandatory health information, while facilitating travel and trade. The government is taking steps to ensure that all departments are better positioned to undertake projects of this nature in the future.

In wrapping up my remarks, I want to emphasize that this should not detract from the commendable efforts of frontline border officers and all CBSA personnel who diligently serve and protect Canadian citizens on a daily basis in support of our country's economy. The government remains committed to act on the findings of all audits, reviews and investigations. Obviously, as the minister said, if somebody broke the law, they will face the full consequences of the law.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary addressed the question of ministerial accountability for these scandals. I want to drill down on that.

We have had ministers come to committee. They have not always been forthcoming, and there are many ministers we still need to hear from. However, when we have had ministers at committee, they have always tried to present their role in government as that of a passive bystander, a painting on the wall or a potted plant that is there and that hears things, but it is not actually responsible for anything that happens.

I have asked these questions over a series of procurement ministers, various ministers responsible for CBSA. What did they do? Were they briefed about the problems? Were they briefed about the abuses? I understand that ministers do not take every little individual decision, but as these issues were being raised publicly in Parliament and committee, did they issue directives? Did they take action? The answer is always no. They received briefings. They expected other people to solve the problems.

When will they take responsibility?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is coming from a member who worked for Stephen Harper, who sold a bill of goods to Canadians in 2011. He told Canadians that the F-35 project would cost $10 billion, and later, we found out from the Auditor General that it would cost $25 billion. I am not going to take lessons from this guy. He does not know anything about accountability.

If someone broke the law, they will face the full consequences of the law. It is not the member who has the power to condemn these people. The RCMP will get involved, and let the process be the process.

Taxation

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, as we enter the first week of June, with the school year coming to an end, Canadians are very much looking forward to a well-deserved summer holiday break. Our common-sense Conservative motion last week would have given Canadians a break at the pumps so that many families could afford a modest road trip over the summer, but no, it was voted down by the NDP-Liberal government.

A 23% increase in the carbon tax by the government has driven Canadians to the food bank in record numbers across this country. A jet-set international holiday is certainly not in the budget for most Canadians, but the government would limit those same Canadians from the ability to take what I call a modest Canadiana road trip.

The health minister proclaimed that a reasonable Canadian family road trip would end the planet. As I mentioned last week, we all have fond memories of these road trips, such as “are we there yet?” and playing I spy with my little eye. This is what Canadians remember the most on a family road trip. It is the time spent together playing games, laughing, talking and sharing experiences; it is quality family togetherness time.

However, it is not just during holidays. Every day, Canadians face higher costs because of the carbon tax. Businesses in my province reach out to me daily, telling me that the carbon tax and the GST on the carbon tax are putting a huge burden on their ability to do business. Some, in fact, have had to pack it in. Restaurants, in particular, are really feeling the pressure. Some have closed. Others are scrambling to stay afloat because their operating costs are too high and people's disposable income is too low.

This is a recipe for failure for many restaurants. A local restaurant, which I take my family to quite often, is feeling the pinch, with 37% of its total energy bill being carbon tax. That has to be passed on to us customers. How are Canadians getting that money back?

I will give another example. A concrete and gravel operation in Saskatchewan is spending about $700,000 in carbon tax per year. This represents an increase of about $3.50 per unit. That is passed on directly to the customer.

The cost goes up for the customer, and the government tells Canadians that the gas tax rebate will make it all even. However, the math simply does not add up. The government will tell us all day long that Canadians are doing fine, but Canadians know the truth. They are struggling in these tough financial times, and they see a government with no compassion for the hardship it is creating day in, day out.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I have an almost five-year-old in my household who likes to play I spy with my little eye. When we play, however, he cannot see the South Pole. The savings my hon. colleague is calling for with his motion would have Canadians driving to the South Pole and coming back to the North Pole. We know we cannot get there, but it is just to demonstrate the distance families would have to travel during a summer. I drive a lot in summertime because I represent a big riding. I know my hon. colleague also represents a big riding, but I know for a fact he does not drive over 40,000 kilometres and that no family in Canada drives that in a summertime.

Through our carbon rebate, our government is helping families in these provinces cope with the cost of living while encouraging choices that will help Canada reduce its emissions. In so doing, we are ensuring that eight out of 10 households in these provinces receive more money through quarterly payments of the Canada carbon rebate than they pay through carbon pricing.

As members can see, we are making life more affordable for these families. Thanks to our pollution pricing system, a family of four living in provinces where the fuel tax applies can receive up to $1,800 under the base carbon tax rebate this year. We are not just fighting climate change, we are also giving money back to Canadians.

I want to make it clear that the federal government retains none of the direct proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system.

Instead, the government returns the proceeds collected to Canadian households, small and medium-sized businesses, farmers and indigenous governments. As members know, budget 2024 proposes to urgently return over $2.5 billion in fuel charge proceeds from 2019-20 to 2023-24 to an estimated 600,000 small and medium-sized businesses through a new refundable tax credit. This return will make a huge difference for these businesses, and a welcome difference, I should say.

I would also like to remind my hon. colleague that international experts agree that our pollution price mechanism is an effective way to fight climate change. It is important to realize that we are sending a clear message that pollution has a price. By putting a price on carbon pollution, we are encouraging a reduction across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make those changes. To achieve this, we need to maintain a price signal that, over the long term, is necessary for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down. If we were to remove the price signal, we would end up eliminating a powerful incentive to encourage people and businesses to pollute less.

I have not even started talking about carbon adjustment border mechanisms, which Europe is already starting to implement. This will have an impact on jurisdictions that do not have a price on pollution.

On that side of the House, they have no plan to fight climate change. On this side of the House, we have a plan to fight climate change.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Auditor General of Canada released a damning report on the taxpayer-funded contracts that the Prime Minister awarded his well-connected friends at McKinsey. Over the last number of years, the Auditor General has discovered that McKinsey had been awarded $209 million in contracts. Now, 90% of the contracts that the Liberal government awarded McKinsey were given without following the appropriate guidelines. In many cases, it was actually unclear what the purpose of the contract was or if the desired outcome was even achieved. It is a damning report from the AG today. What will this government not do to feed its friends at McKinsey?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am old enough to remember that contracts are awarded by public servants, and I am old enough to remember that the same company made quite a living under the previous Conservative government.

Contracts are given to companies such as McKinsey, PwC, Deloitte and KPMG to advise the government, and I would not necessarily put a red hat or a blue hat. They have done very well under significant governments, but if some have broken the rules, then they should face the full consequence of the law, and that is our position.

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

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:29 a.m.)