Debates of June 12th, 2025

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am going to ask the member to pause momentarily.

I ask the hon. member to keep his earpiece and any electronic devices away from the microphone. I will let him conclude his response.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, my constituents were very much onside with the opposition here, and we want to send a strong message to make sure the last 10 years of fiscal mismanagement are corrected. We hope the government will follow suit in the next little while.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government use of contractors and overspending problem is nothing new. It is even a growing problem. After all, the Auditor General mentions $18 million being paid to private companies for IT services.

Quebec is currently holding a public inquiry on the SAAQclic fiasco. This project went about $500 million over budget. When we compare the two situations, we see that Ottawa can go billions over budget and no one says a word. There is a motion on the floor today, but we need to remember that Ottawa provides hardly any services itself, aside from passports, which it has a hard time delivering.

Rather than having Ottawa invest more and more and take Canadians to the cleaners, what does the member think of the idea of Ottawa tackling the fiscal imbalance and sending money and taxes into the coffers—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Yellowhead has the floor.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, from our end, this is a beginning. This is in regard to one aspect of where the government mismanaged its spending in the past. We know this recent spending means the Liberals are going to have an extra $26 billion in contractors. We cannot continue with that without some better oversight. As we have said before, we need a budget to actually look at some of that spending. We all need to look further at all the government's spending.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard nothing all day today about any steps the government plans on taking for getting the money back. We have heard nothing but comments about gamesmanship or that we should be looking at other issues. Government members seem to forget that the official opposition has a constitutional mandate to hold the government to account.

In light of the explosive AG report released on Tuesday, a damning indictment against this particular government, perhaps my colleague can better explain why it was important to bring this particular motion forward today.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, timing seems to be everything. The Liberal government tried to get ahead of it. It announced Friday, just before it was going to be caught with its pants down, that it would be banning GC Strategies, but it probably already had advance notice of what it would be doing. Dealing with GC Strategies needed to be brought forward right now. This is one of the audit reports. It was only one of nine. There are a lot of other damning issues that we need to address, but this is just the beginning. It is a start with regard to that one audit report.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of all the Canadians who are feeling increasingly skeptical, disappointed and disillusioned with politics across the country. Scandals like the one raised by the Auditor General of Canada are good examples that fuel this feeling of discouragement. ArriveCAN, or “arrive scam”, as many call it, is a government program that was mismanaged. It is a perfect example of wasted public funds, favouritism and profound disrespect for people who work hard to earn a living, pay their mortgage, pay for groceries and transportation, and who pay their taxes respectfully and in good faith so that Canada can prosper.

What do we really owe them? Let us keep in mind that the purpose of the app was to safeguard national security at a critical time in our recent history. The app was supposed to collect personal information, such as contact information, health status, proof of vaccination and even quarantine plans. The app was also supposed to track mandatory quarantines. It was a system of exchange between the government and our citizens. The app was supposed to speed up customs processes and security at our borders, enforce public health policies, limit the transmission of the virus and make it easier for our border officers to do their job. That is a lot. It was also meant to serve as a temporary vaccine passport.

Some will say that there was a crisis, that it was a crucial time, that it was a matter of national security, and that the government should be given a free pass. I will say one thing: If someone's house is on fire and their first instinct is to call their brother-in-law who is a plumber or painter, that means that their instincts are bad and their priorities are out of whack. That is what happened. At a critical time, the government awarded contracts to a two-person company that did not even have the skills to do what was required.

However, Canada has plenty of good, reliable and reputable companies. To name just a few, there is CGI, a great Montreal company with 95,000 employees; OpenText, a Waterloo company with 23,000 employees; and Constellation Software, a Toronto company with 56,000 employees. Perhaps the government wanted to support small businesses. Perhaps that was the objective. Here are a few of those: Cohere, a Toronto company with 300 employees; Appnovation, a Vancouver company with 402 employees; and Nexapp, a Quebec company with nearly 100 employees.

However, the government chose that particularly intense and historic moment to do business with a two-person company, a shell company, despite the fact that Canada's contracting policies are extremely clear. There are six easy steps. First, assess needs. What is the goal? Analyze the risks, the options and the budget, which is still a problem, apparently. Next, issue a call for tenders to evaluate the most suitable companies. Once again, there are technical requirements, deadlines and a budget. Officials receive and assess costing, relevance, the company's experience—sorely lacking in this case—capacity for execution and conflicts of interest. Here again, a lot of these pieces were missing. Then, the government awards the contract to the company that offers the greatest benefit for Canadians, not for its cronies. Lastly, the government ensures delivery. It monitors the execution of the contract and pays when the product is delivered. There is no prepayment for something that has not been delivered.

We are not talking about a mistake here. We are talking about a choice to govern with no rigour, respect, technical skills or transparency. They gave $60 million to a two-person company that did not have the required knowledge, reputation or respect of its peers in its field. It is clear proof of the government's total contempt for Canadians and Canadian families, who were struggling then and are still struggling today with inflated prices thanks to the inflationary policies of the past 10 years.

We are still hearing excuses today in the House. The Liberals say that they put a stop to all that, and so on. However, this reminds me of an arsonist firefighter who lights fires, puts them out and then pats themselves on the back. Contracts are not awarded by just anyone. They are awarded by the government. It must have known exactly what it was doing. This is reminiscent of other Liberal scandals. Take, for example, the Aga Khan affair, involving the Christmas vacation of our former prime minister, who was ultimately the first Prime Minister to breach federal ethics rules.

There was also the SNC‑Lavalin affair. Our former prime minister intervened directly with the Department of Justice to get a deal for a company that had donated money to his election campaign.

Think of the WE Charity scandal, where the Liberals entrusted the management of the Canada student service grant, a $912‑million program, to an organization with ties to the Trudeau family.

Another example from around the same time is the Frank Baylis affair. The former Liberal MP's company secured a $237‑million contract to supply ventilators, which was $100 million more than the cost of similar equipment available at the time.

Think of ArriveCAN. This app was supposed to help Canadians travel while protecting the population from the potential spread of the virus, but it was a failure. The project was a money pit. More than anything, it became a symbol of gross mismanagement of public funds. The revelations speak for themselves: $100 million was pre-approved for a company with only two employees; $59 million was paid without any real traceability; $20 million was handed over for an app that did not even work; there was no certification process; 46% of the money was paid without any evidence of work being performed.

GC Strategies, a two-person company, received contracts from 31 different departments. It got 106 contracts amounting to $92.7 million. When it comes to ArriveCAN, 177 versions were released without any prior testing. That resulted in 10,000 travellers being needlessly quarantined. They suffered lost wages and personal stress for no reason at all. Ethical rules were flouted, and the interests of Canadians were not protected.

If we take a closer look at the history, the first contract was for $2.35 million. I personally contacted firms to see if that made sense. I was told it was far-fetched, but that the first contract was still plausible. In 2022, as the whole world was slowly emerging from the crisis, the government awarded GC Strategies a contract that was 10 times bigger, worth $25 million. GC Strategies' employees won the contract by taking part in creating the contract themselves. First they defined the bid criteria, then they submitted their own bid, and then they got the $25‑million contract.

Here is another interesting fact: GCStrategies billed an extra 15% to 30% profit margin while subcontracting out the rest of the work. No one down the line was working at cost, without trying to make a profit. On average, tech firms expect to make a 15% to 20% profit from their activities. There were six different subcontractors. If we do the math, that means six people each charging a 15% to 20% profit, with another 15% to 30% profit layer on top of that. At that rate, the staggering costs come as no surprise.

Canadians demand transparency, competency and a sense of responsibility. The sound management of public finances rests on three pillars: a transparent and competitive bidding process, strict monitoring of every dollar spent, and real, harsh penalties for anyone who recklessly squanders public funds.

Our motion is clear. We are calling on the government to get taxpayers their money back within 100 days and ban companies like GCStrategies for life. I think we should also add that the people who participated in this wrongdoing should not be encouraged; they should be punished.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague across the way. I would like to welcome him to the House of Commons, because I know this is his first time sitting here.

I want to ask him the same question I asked his colleague earlier. Canadians have spoken in the recent election and have given the government a mandate to address affordability.

Affordability must be a priority, especially for young people, like my colleague, and for Canadian families who aspire to buy their first home or access affordable child care. In addition, there are the many Canadian seniors, particularly those in Quebec, who want access to our dental care plan.

Can my colleague tell us what he heard while going door to door during the election campaign? How will he be able to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I have noticed during my short time here is that there are a lot of smokescreens. Policies are being presented that sound very nice but that do not provide much help.

There is talk of eliminating the GST for first-time home buyers, but that represents a tiny fraction of the population. The major issue is that house prices have skyrocketed. Houses cost $200,000 or $300,000 more, so young people cannot afford them. That is just one example.

Another one is that, today, we were told that measures will be taken against companies like GC Strategies. However, it was the government that awarded the contracts in the first place. The government gives preference to its friends and grants them favours. Then it pretends that it is going to do something about it.

I think it is high time for change around here.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, something one of my colleagues said reminded me of one of the first requests I received from a constituent after I was elected in 2019. This poor mother came to my office with her little one in a car seat. She was no longer getting paid and was in distress. I realized then just how incompetent the federal apparatus is. Other examples include ArriveCAN and the CBSA assessment and revenue management system. There have been issues around managing and wasting public funds.

In March, just before the election, articles were published about the new Cúram platform, which is used to manage the old age security system. The article suggested that the new old age security software might be the next Phoenix. The same kinds of mistakes keep happening, which suggests some degree of systemic incompetence. First it was mothers in distress, and now seniors are in danger of not receiving their pensions.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Conservatives have a perfect solution for all these problems: less government intervention in personal finances and more freedom for the people of Canada.

As we said during our election campaign, we believe that the government needs to be less interventionist and interfere less in order to give people more latitude. If people have more money in their pockets, I think they will be able to make the right decisions to help themselves. They will stop paying for bureaucracy in Ottawa. They will be able to pay for services in their home.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his remarks and for a wonderful speech.

The Liberals want Canadians to believe this was just a one-off misstep in government procurement, but the facts seem to tell a very different story. It seems to be a troubling pattern. In 2020, the Liberal government awarded a multi-million dollar contract to a two-person shell company, which raised eyebrows across the country. However, instead of learning from that decision, the government doubled down. It kept handing out multiple contracts to this company, and some of these contracts were multiple times larger.

My question is this: Should Canadians be outraged at this pattern of Liberal mismanagement?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this type of practice must stop. The motion we are moving today is clear: We want money that was given to Liberal cronies to be paid back. Initially the amount given was $2.35 million and, two years later, that amount was 10 times greater even though, 50% of the time, the company did not even prove that it was able to provide the services it was invoicing.

It is high time for this to happen. We must stop this type of practice in the government and start taking the Conservative approach, which relies on logic, discipline and respect.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in this House. This is my first time of any length to offer my sincere appreciation and thanks to my friends and neighbours across our region, the riding of Portage—Lisgar, for once again placing their trust in me to be their representative here in Ottawa. It is an incredibly humbling experience. It does not matter the party; when members walk into this chamber, we know the weight that that holds. We know the value and the importance of that trust that has been placed in us, so I want to thank them.

I also want to thank my beautiful bride, Cailey, and our wonderful 17-month-old daughter, Maeve. This is a difficult work environment at times. It is demanding, and their sacrifice is vital, just like all of our families are. I want to thank my immediate family, as well as my parents and Cailey's parents for the support they have offered us throughout this process, including the odd better part of the experience, which is taking care of their granddaughter.

I want to thank the family affair that was my campaign: my Aunt June, who ran our office in Winkler; my mom, who ran the office in Portage; and my dad, who led the charge for signs. I want to thank Karen, Martin and Val; Jordan, our EDA president; and all of the EDA members who were involved in the process. I want to thank my core campaign team of Drew, Michael and Don, the guys who were there with me day in, day out on the campaign trail. I want to thank Kenny and Tom, and all of the donors they had to deal with as the finance guys on my EDA and through the campaign. I also want to thank the countless volunteers, whom I wish I could name, and all of those who put up signs. It is a humbling experience.

I will be splitting my time with the member from Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

Now, on to the relevance of today's topic, which is a relatively good motion and, in particular, for a new government, one that is easily supportable. It offers two important ideas that we all, in this chamber, should support. It has been identified by the Auditor General, and by this House, which brought Kristian Firth to the bar to admonish him for the fraud he perpetrated upon Canadian taxpayers, a “once in 100 years" event, we will call it.

Taxpayers deserve their money back. It is not that complicated. GC Strategies took $64 million from Canadian taxpayers to deliver little to no proof of any of the projects, while failing to deliver security clearances for most of their subcontractors. This is a two-person shop in a basement. It is a good gig. I almost want to applaud them for finding a flaw in the system. That flaw is what has been highlighted, appropriately and correctly, by the Auditor General. It is appalling.

What is frustrating to me is that our Liberal colleagues across the way just do not seem to care about that and think it does not really matter because “we are a new government.” I talked to a colleague recently, and he mentioned that my generation seems numb to the scandals, and that is well earned because of the last 10 years of scandals under the Liberal government. We seem numb to $64 million just being blown, with no recourse. We hear, “We understand. We are going to learn. We are going to be better in the future,” but that is not good enough.

Many people are, rightly, appalled at the scam by GC Strategies, including the ad scam app, this $80,000 app that turned into a $60 million boondoggle, that held up people at the border, that forced them into quarantine for two weeks because the app did not function correctly. It was the overpaid, expensive app that did not fulfill its purpose and cost far too much.

There are too many scammers like this. One of the highlights from the AG report is that the owners of GC Strategies are not alone. They figured out a racket, but there are others doing it, too. The rules in place have not been applied, and they need to be applied. I am not willing to let this so-called new Liberal government just walk past that.

We have CRA, which will happily go after a small business owner who is a bit late on a small tax or a dispute. If a little old lady is getting jammed up on her taxes, it will go after her. For the Canadians we were sent here to represent, our Parliament should have the will to push back to get them their money back.

The second part of this very reasonable motion is to ban the owners of GC Strategies from ever being involved in any government contract ever again. The government talks about how it placed a seven-year ban on them, but they could re-form. They are going to work the system, because that is what these guys are good at. They have figured out how to game the system. We should ban them for life.

Both elements of our motion today are entirely reasonable: work to get the money back; and ban the guys who caused the problem. There is no reason to vote against this motion.

Now, I want to highlight one thing. I will tell a story. I have heard a lot today about this being a new government. We have heard that over the last few months, often said by the same people who were here six months ago or five, ten years ago. The same people are saying that the government is new, that they learned their lesson and have changed.

The other day, my daughter Maeve, that beautiful little girl, filled her diaper. When I went to change her, I changed her shirt. I was tired. My wife asked me why I would change her shirt and not her diaper. I said I did not know. That is what it feels like we have changed here. Nothing has changed with the new government. It is the same people and the same advisers. It is the same government claiming it has learned a new lesson, it has learned from the AG report and it is not going to do the same thing anymore. I do not believe it. The problem is that Canadians do not believe it either. They have become numb to it. They have become numb to the scandals and the wasted money, but that does not make it okay.

The easiest thing we can do as parliamentarians today, and the right thing, is to support this very reasonable motion: work to get the money back and ban the people who ran a scam on Canadian taxpayers. When it is time to vote, I encourage all my colleagues to support this very reasonable motion.

Canadians may have forgotten that that is to be expected of us and of government. Let us work to repair that numbness that has been caused by scandal after scandal, waste after waste. We can do better. It starts with a simple motion like this. I want to work collaboratively, just as my Liberal colleagues repeatedly say, with the so-called new government, so let us do it. Here is the opportunity.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, our government has been honest about being ethical in the way that we do procurement, and this matter was actually dealt with last year. It sounds like the member opposite, who came to this House in 2023, wants to stay there, but Canadians have sent us back here to talk about the things that are really important, such as one Canadian economy because we are faced with unjustified tariffs.

Can the member opposite tell the Canadians who elected him and sent him back here whether he is going to support bills that are actually going to help Canadians move their lives forward?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, does the member know how I know it is not a new government? It is the deflection and distraction, the best tactics to try to avoid accountability for the failures. Yes, they happened in the past. That does not mean that there should not be a course correction going forward. There should also be accountability for the policy failures that led to this and the lack of respect for tax dollars. We live in a country where ministerial accountability is supposed to be a real thing. I have seen no accountability from anybody on the Liberal side of the government. That is the numbing effect that Canadians are feeling.

The government should just do the right thing and ask for the money back, demand the money back or find a way to get the money back, and ban the people who did it in the first place.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if you were in the Speaker's chair when I told the House earlier today that June 12 is “Quebec Buy Local Day”. This is the first initiative of its kind in Quebec, and I want to encourage all my colleagues in the House, both the Bloc Québécois and the other political parties, to go buy a local Quebec product. Personally, I always keep a supply of rosemary-marinated eggs from Domaine du Paysan in my fridge. It is a great alternative for people who don't have the time to eat enough protein.

Now, with my little advertising plug over, I have a question for my colleague. I want to know whether he really thinks that the government has taken concrete steps to seek justice in the courts against people who literally stole from and took advantage of taxpayers. Does my colleague think that the government is making every effort to catch the people who abused the system?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of today being that, and I will say, perhaps surprisingly but not shockingly, that in my riding, many of the businesses actually buy a ton of products from Quebec, namely steel, an industry that we support because we are vitally ingrained in manufacturing across North America, and I will try some of those pickled eggs another time.

The Liberals cannot just keep saying “new government” and not do anything about it, ever. That is the reality. They have done nothing to change, other than just saying they have changed. They are still full of corruption, fraud and an unwillingness to fight for Canadian tax dollars, and that is what is embarrassing.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who is far wiser and has been here longer than me.

Is it common to uncover spending scandals like this, by a government that disrespects taxpayers and helps its friends financially throughout the process? Is that a regular occurrence here in Ottawa?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a quick study, with a booming voice, so I think he is going to do just fine in this place. Unfortunately, he will come to learn that, yes, this is far too regular. It does not have to be, but under this current old corrupt Liberal government that we have had for 10 years, it has become far too regular.

I will go back to what I said earlier. The numbness that the average Canadian feels inside is because they are just so accustomed to scandals. They have become accustomed to waste, and that is why I think it is imperative, at least for the opposition parties and what should be the governing party, to step up and say that, especially for a new government, this is not okay.

The Auditor General highlighted complete failures, flaws and wasted money. We can, we should and we must do better.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here all day attentively listening to the debate and the questions and comments from both sides of the House. I have also received several emails and phone calls from the good people of my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, who, quite frankly, are a little perplexed that something that appears to be a no-brainer, a very simple motion, is creating such animosity from the current and old and tired Liberal government.

It is quite simple. The Auditor General has produced a very scathing report on how the Liberal government managed a procurement contract, giving some $63.7 million to two people working out of a basement to produce an app that did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. In fact, the Auditor General goes further in pointing to many irregularities in the way the contract was managed. I dare say the word “fraud” is something we have heard in this House today, and it is true. This company, GC Strategies, took some $64 million and did not produce what it was supposed to produce. The ask of the government by all parliamentarians elected to represent communities from coast to coast to coast is very simple. It is to get the taxpayer money back. We have a responsibility, a fiduciary duty, I would add, as elected members of Parliament to ensure that the taxpayer is made whole and that the money is given back. Also, the company that perpetrated this fraud on the Canadian people should be banned from contracts for life.

Having sat here all day, I ask myself about the purported new Liberal government. It is not new, because I look across the aisle and see all the same faces on the front bench. The Prime Minister certainly made sure to appoint a lot of the people who had a lot of experience dealing with scandals like this over the past 10 years.

There are a few that come to mind. There was the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Two ministers on the Liberal side had the courage to speak truth to power, and they were tossed out. I would remind the House that this was the case in which the former prime minister and his office decided to interfere with the judiciary in holding accountable a company that itself had perpetrated fraudulent activity.

Then, the same Liberals we see here vociferously stood up and defended the We Charity scandal, a billion-dollar boondoggle, with absolutely no opportunity for debate, communication or even presentation in this House of democracy, of the Canadian people.

Last year, the House was besieged with a green slush fund scandal, when the same Liberals purporting to be new today refused to produce a list of who got over $1 billion dollars in funding. Of course, we all know who got the money. It was the same old Liberal cronies, friends and supporters who got the money. Otherwise, they would have no reason for not producing a list of those names.

That is not to mention the ethics violations of the former Liberal prime minister, the only prime minister in the history of Canada to have been found guilty of ethics violations by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner.

To hear from the Liberals today that they decided last Friday, on the eve of the Auditor General presenting her report, to take action to ensure that GC Strategies is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member's time has expired.

It being 6:27 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.