Debates of June 12th, 2025

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like there is a little bit of excitement from the other side. It was actually the member who finally did admit today that when it came to the situation with WE Charity, not a single taxpayer dollar was consumed and that, actually, all the money was here. Today the Conservatives are talking about how they stopped it.

First of all, I want to thank the member for recognizing that the Filipino flag was raised today. I thank him for his work. There is a very active Filipino community in Waterloo.

I have a question, and I would like to hear an answer. The Conservatives refuse to recognize that it is a new administration. The fact is that the election just happened on April 28. What I am—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I do need to give time to the parliamentary secretary to respond.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that on April 28, we elected, for the very first time to the House of Commons, the member of Parliament who is now Canada's Prime Minister, and our Prime Minister is, in fact, committed to ensuring that we build a stronger and healthier economy. Ultimately his goal is to achieve having the strongest economy in the G7. That is where the Prime Minister and the new administration's efforts are going to be. I am very proud of that fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to state at the outset that it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I also want to telegraph that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

Today we are debating our Conservative motion that, given that the Auditor General found that the ArriveCAN contractor, GC Strategies, was paid $64 million and that in many cases there is no proof that any work was completed, the House calls on the government to, one, get taxpayers their money back within 100 days of the adoption of this motion; and two, impose a lifetime contracting ban on GC Strategies, on its subsidiaries, more importantly on its founders and principal partners, Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony, and on any other entities with which those individuals are affiliated.

The simple message is that Canadians want their taxpayer money back. I know that the member for Winnipeg North claims that no one in his riding spoke about ArriveCAN, but I am sure they talked about accountability, transparency and proper prudence in terms of the government's exercising prudence over taxpayer money. He will not talk about that, but that is exactly what the motion is about.

If this is a déjà vu moment, and it feels like a déjà vu moment for me, it is because approximately 15 months ago I stood before your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, who was in the chair, and I gave a speech on a similar motion. It was not worded in the same fashion, but the intent was there to give the government 100 days to inform the House as to what steps it would take to get taxpayers their money back.

That was a result of the Auditor General's releasing a number of damning reports. It is important to note at this point that the Liberal government, the same so-called new government with the same old players who are now saying, through the Prime Minister, that they totally accept the findings of the Auditor General, was the one that opposed the Auditor General's looking into the ArriveCAN scandal, what we call the arrive scam scandal, right from the earliest opportunity.

The messaging is very clear in this. The ongoing Liberal arrive scam saga continues. It is the bad Liberal gift that just keeps on giving. Currently, the Auditor General has released a scathing audit on the top arrive scam contractor, GC Strategies. The two-person, basement-dwelling company, not a brick-and-mortar one, now under RCMP investigation for fraud, received a jaw-dropping $64 million from the Liberals since they took office.

This was not the first time, as I indicated, that the Auditor General had released a report on GC Strategies. The app was designed to cost Canadians $80,000; that is what the same old Liberal government parroted in the House on numerous occasions. In her first report, the Auditor General made it clear that the cost estimate was well beyond $80,000, and in fact was approaching $60 million, but she could not be accurate. Why is that? It is because the paperwork and the shoddy accounting practices of the CBSA were such that she could not examine all pertinent documents.

The Liberals defended the cost of the app in the House numerous times, and quite proudly, but now erroneously have stated that it saved thousands of lives. The truth remains that it was an app that was poorly designed, notwithstanding its price tag, that always broke down and that created countless misery and heartache for Canadians. I would dare say that not one Canadian was saved by the Liberal bureaucratic and administrative boondoggle.

The government's very limited defence involves the plea that the app was developed in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic, that time was of the essence. We heard that numerous times. However, the unique circumstances and demands of the moment scarcely offer a fig leaf to cover what the Auditor General laid bare in that report.

Karen Hogan said, “Overall, this audit shows a glaring disregard for basic management and contracting practices throughout ArriveCAN’s development and implementation.” She further said, “I don't believe that an emergency is a reason that all the rules are thrown out the window.” She proudly concluded that the government paid way too much for that particular app.

The issue is such that the Liberal government has a responsibility, has the legal ability and, according to a government department official responsible for contracting and outsourcing, has the power to get taxpayers their money back. The official testified before a committee that when the government is frauded, they “have the ability to recover the funds from the suppliers, and it's in [their] regular practice to do so.”

This should telegraph to all of my Liberal colleagues that they should stand in support of this ability to ensure taxpayers get their money back. I have since looked at a number of news articles, notwithstanding the member for Winnipeg North's comments that no one is talking about it. Certainly, ripped from the headlines are a number of interesting stories.

First, by Lorrie Goldstein, the heading is, “Ignoring contracting rules costs taxpayers billions: auditor general”. The article reads:

Federal auditor general Karen Hogan on Tuesday reported widespread incompetence in the awarding of government contracts by the public service, resulting in billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money being wasted.

What’s even more alarming is that everyone in the system knows it and no one is doing anything about it.

Given that, what is the point of having an auditor general if every time she exposes incompetence and waste, the government pays lip service to implementing her recommendations and then goes back to doing the same things that led to the issue being investigated by the auditor general in the first place?

In her latest report, this concern arises from Hogan’s deep dive into federal contracts awarded to...GCStrategies.... That was supposed to cost $80,000.

I could literally speak for an hour on this. I have been involved in it for literally three years.

The article continues with some of the key findings:

— in 58% of the contracts examined that were awarded without tendering, federal departments failed to assess whether doing so would have resulted in lower costs to taxpayers.

— in more than 80% of the contracts examined that were awarded without competition or with only one valid bid, government departments failed to verify that the fees paid did not exceed market rates.

— in almost 50% of the contracts examined, federal departments couldn’t show the work was delivered, even though payments were made.

— in 33% of the contracts examined, federal departments couldn’t show the firms contracted were capable of completing the work.

— in 21% of the contracts examined, federal departments lacked documentation showing...security clearances for contractors working on government networks containing sensitive information.

Alarmingly, those department agencies where security clearances were not obtained included National Defence, Global Affairs and the Department of Justice, three of the most important ministries that have an obligation to secure sensitive data.

In essence, the Auditor General concluded that, ultimately, no recommendations were being made, because they need to follow the basic rules, which have been allowed to be not followed for literally the last 10 years, and that, simply, Canadians did not receive value for their money. In essence, I am asking every member to rise, to stand up for their constituents and ensure accountability is here.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am one who oftentimes provides a lot of commentary from this little corner here, but I did appreciate the member's talking through and bringing to light some of the details that should be shared. I would say that constituents in the riding of Waterloo would want to hear them as well. I do hear the concerns and the comments that were raised in the report. I appreciate that this new government has committed to following all the recommendations.

The member made a comment in regard to how, oftentimes, a comment is made, yet there is not enough follow-through. That issue really did bring to light a bit more attention, because we have a new Minister of Government Transformation.

I hear the two points that people want raised the most. With the member's experience and his background in law, as we are spending more on defence and as we are building one economy in Canada, what advice and guidance can we hear from him so that we can ensure the success—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give time to the member to respond.

The member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very thoughtful question from the member for Waterloo. I do not think she is going to like the answer, and I am not going to take credit for this answer. I am actually going to give credit to a journalist from the National Post who reported today on an interesting story about all the items that I spoke to, but the heading, to answer my friend's question, is this: “Job one for Canada in this scary new world is to stop being stupid”.

The answer is to stop being stupid and follow the damn rules. It is simple. It is common sense.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I recognize the member for Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, I would remind our members to be careful of their language during the debate.

The hon. member.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the people in Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies are expecting that this money will be recovered. Obviously, everybody in this House will be voting for this motion. Would you not agree?

What do you propose would happen if some people, perhaps on the other side, do not vote in favour of this motion and do not want to recover the money that has been taken?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Always, questions are to go through the Chair.

The floor recognizes the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.

As I indicated in my speech, one would only hope that there would be unanimous approval for this motion, if all of us live true to our responsibilities to our constituents, which are to ensure that we are delivering value to them.

This has been clearly demonstrated over the last 10 years. GC Strategies is but one contractor, 0.37% of all the money that was spent on outside consultants, which was $64 million. According to Ms. Hogan, it would be naive for us to think that this is only applicable to this one contractor. We are talking about literally billions of dollars.

With that being said, every member should stand for their constituents and ensure transparency and accountability and a plan to pay the money back.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of people on the other side today talk about how it is the “same old government”. That is not, in fact, the case. This government was judged in the court of public opinion, and we got more seats. I would say it is the same old opposition. The Conservatives lost their leader as the choice of the Canadian public.

What are you doing differently to earn the confidence of the general public of this country?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Well I am here, and I will let the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations explain what he is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the members from the same old Liberal government, he may be a new face, but he has inherited a corrupt, rotten-at-its-core government with the same values and same beliefs.

What I am doing differently is that, unlike this member, I stand up for my constituents and I make sure they get value for their tax dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is going on here? We have a 10-year-old government that is neck deep in corruption. It is another week and another Auditor General report denouncing the actions of the government, a government that really wants to profess to be new. It is a new government, but not new people. It is the same people, but they have changed. They have found religion. They are going to do things differently from now on, this same group of people.

As this motion demonstrates, the Liberals have an opportunity to demonstrate the genuineness of their conversion. We have made it easy for them today. We have put forward a motion they can vote for that will show they are in fact different from the way they were before. This is their opportunity. How helpful we are, as a Conservative opposition, to give them an opportunity to demonstrate the sincerity of their apparent conversion by voting in favour of this motion.

I will give a bit of background for those who are just joining us. Today we are debating a motion from the Conservative Party opposition that calls on the government to demand the return of money that was improperly taken by GC Strategies. GC Strategies is a two-person company that received tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. What it does is something called staff augmentation. If I had known about this, I might have gone into that business instead of going into politics, because it is a really good deal.

Here is how it works: A person is hired to do a job, and they hire someone else to do that job but pay them less than the person received in the first place. Let us say I am hired to paint someone's fence, and I am paid $100 to do that. I then hire the member for Waterloo to paint the fence, and I give her $50 of that $100. The person who hired me had their fence painted for $100, and the other member has earned—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Waterloo is rising on a point of order.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that there is no confusion. I do not want to paint the member's fence.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That is not a point of order.

I will let the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical, and a ridiculous hypothetical, but ridiculous hypotheticals are required to demonstrate what has actually gone on in government procurement. For example, someone hires me for $100 to paint the fence. I hire someone else for $50 to paint the fence. I collect $50 for doing, you guessed it, nothing. If this happens over and over again to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, we get kind of a sense of the procurement system that has been operating under the government.

We are talking about GC Strategies today, but it is important for members and people at home to understand that there are hundreds of companies that do staff augmentation work in the IT space alone. We had these two guys working out of their basement, and they had a great business model. They got contracts, then hired someone else to do the work, and they collected a massive fee in the middle. It is not only Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony from GC Strategies who are doing this work; there are hundreds of companies doing staff augmentation for the federal government in IT alone. This is a profoundly broken system.

First, the government makes procurement so complicated, so unwieldy, that almost nobody can understand it, and then we have people who position themselves as experts in nothing except getting contracts. In other words, they are people who have the relationships, they have the access, they know how to host the right whisky tastings for the right people, which is a real thing that happened. They know how to host the right whisky tastings, and so they know how to get government contracts. Once they get the government contracts, they go on LinkedIn and find the people who actually know how to do this work, and then they hire them.

Mr. Speaker, it is like something out of Yes Minister, but it would be rejected by that show for being too unrealistic. This is what actually happens and has happened for the last 10 years under the Liberal government. However, now the government has changed and will never do it again. The Liberals have a new government, with the same people who have nonetheless seen the errors of their ways.

When all else fails in this debate, members across the way say, “Well, yeah, but didn't we win an election? We won an election after all.” Nobody is disputing the results of the election, but I do think it is notable that in order to win the last election, the Liberals had to pretend to be something very different from what they had been for the last 10 years. Their only argument in the election was to say, “Well, Canadians want change, and we've changed too. We'll be nothing like ourselves.” They promised to be nothing like themselves, and that turned out to be a reasonably successful political strategy. However, I think very soon Canadians will discover that the Liberals are actually not nothing like themselves, that they are actually more like themselves than they pretended to be, and that we will see the continuation of these same absurdist procurement policies, things that if presented as the possible script for a television show would be rejected for being unrealistic.

We have people getting hired to hire other people, with a procurement system that is so broken and so complicated that only well-connected insider brokers can understand it. Those well-connected insider brokers receive the contracts, hire the people and collect a massive premium for doing so. This week, the Auditor General came out with a report, having looked in detail into what happened with this one particularly notorious company, GC Strategies, and found there was massive abuse.

One highlight from the committee exchanges we had with the owners of GC Strategies is that they admitted to presenting fraudulent resumés to the Government of Canada in order to get work. It is the old resumé padding that we all tell our children not to do; this is how GC Strategies was getting contracts. They explained what their normal process was. They would get a resumé that may not be compliant with the requirements of the bid, and then they adjusted the resumé to make it compliant.

Let us say the contract required that a person had five years' experience at something, but the person they were proposing to do the work actually only had five months' experience. They would change the months to years to make it compliant and then go back to the original resource, the person who would do the work, and say, “Is this okay with you? We changed the numbers here.” In one case, they forgot to consult the resource before they changed those numbers, and that is where they got caught out, because the resource called them out for it.

Before the committee, Kristian Firth admitted that it was a standard part of their process to adjust people's resumés to make them line up with the expectations of a contract and then check in to see if it was okay. Again, if this was a pitch for a Yes Minister episode, it would be rejected for being unrealistic. However, this is par for the course in the broken procurement system of the Liberals.

To cover for this, the Liberals cycle through different procurement ministers. The same people are cycled around. “Oh, it is a new minister. It is a new minister.” Almost every six months on procurement, it has been a new minister who is not responsible for anything that was previously done. Meanwhile, the previous minister goes on to remain in some influential role in the government. It is a farce and a tragedy, and Canadian taxpayers are getting abused as a result of it.

The Liberals profess to be a new government; they have changed. As I said, today is their opportunity. We have put forward a motion that says GC Strategies should be banned from ever getting government contracts and they should pay the money back. It is not that difficult; if companies abuse contracting rules, falsify resumés and do not actually do the work, then they should pay back the money they took from taxpayers.

If our friends across the way have truly changed, they should vote for this motion. It would be a great demonstration, not just if they vote for it, but if they actually follow through on it. We have had instances where they vote for motions and then do not follow through on them. This is their opportunity to vote for a motion and then act on it. We have been asking them today, are they prepared to vote in favour of this motion?

The Liberals are trying to fill this debate with a great fog of nonsense and distraction. I welcome the member for Winnipeg North and am looking forward to receiving that gust of fog. My question for them is, will they support our motion to pay the money back? If they are the new Liberal Party, then I think they would vote for this motion to order the money back. If they are voting against this motion, then it will demonstrate, of course, that they are the same old Liberals, unchanged as they have always been.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member wanted to hear from one of my dear colleagues, and hopefully there will be enough time.

I listened to the member's comments, and I hear what he is saying. I really do appreciate the fact that he recognizes that Canadians made a decision on April 28 and that he accepts the decision they made. What is interesting to me is that we do have a new government; there is a new government transformation, new processes in place and a desire to do better, to ensure that we have one Canadian economy and that we are fighting for Canadians.

What I hear from the member is really a professional opposition member with 10 years' experience. I doubt he has had any other job that he has done for 10 years.

I would like to hear from the member. How can we as the government, and all members elected to this place, work together to ensure that we are delivering results for more Canadians, rather than just the same old spiel from the Conservatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear such a sharp question from my colleague, because I thought I was very generous in my speech in giving the government this opportunity to vote in favour of our motion. This opposition motion is a gift to the government. We are inviting them to come along with us and vote in favour of getting this money back from GC Strategies. I think this is the kind of offer of collaboration that people are looking for. I would challenge the government; it is supposed to be new.

Here is the point: I suspect the Liberals will vote against this motion in the end, but I would challenge them to do the right thing. The member wants to know how we can work together. Vote in favour of this motion. That is how we can work together. That is what we need.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I am trying to understand.

His party was supposedly contacted by a whistle-blower named Luc Sabourin, who appeared before the committee to explain that he had seen serious irregularities at the Canada Border Services Agency. He mentioned that he had contacted the Conservative Party of Canada, but that nothing had happened, there was no follow up. It took the Conservative Party of Canada years to start asking questions and to bring this forward in committee.

I would like my colleague to simply explain to me why it took years for them to take action to denounce this serious scandal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can say that we did a lot of work with whistle-blowers on this file. I am sorry that I do not remember the individual that the member mentioned, but I can say that we worked really hard with the other opposition parties.

We worked really hard to try to force the government to answer these questions. It was clear that the government was going to take its time answering them, but the opposition parties had to take action to bring about change.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we heard in committee repeatedly from the deputy minister of PSPC that the government is aware of many cases of fraud like GC Strategies, but it is negotiating with the contractors to receive the money back for taxpayers, not demanding it back but negotiating. We heard from a parliamentary secretary today who said that despite the government banning GC Strategies from bidding on business because of the known corruption and the fraud, it will not seek the money until it gets a legal opinion.

Could my colleague weigh in on why the government is fighting Parliament and common sense on getting the money back for Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, this question underlines the problem with the Liberals in regard to whose side they are really on. We can compare the way they treat elite insiders who have abused the rules and taken money from taxpayers versus what would happen to everyday Canadians who might have a dispute with CRA, for example, about what is owed. The gentleness with which the government approaches elite insider contractors, even those who have flagrantly broken the rules, versus how ordinary Canadians are treated, shows that, in fact, the Liberals are persistently on the side of their elite insider friends.