Debates of June 12th, 2025

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his election. I acknowledge that he saw me on television and is now seeing me in person. That is great; that is democracy.

I would like to remind the member that we voted in favour of the tax cuts that were made, because they were largely in keeping with what we would have done. We would have liked to have done more, but we could not.

With regard to the retirement age, my colleague should know that in 2019, 2021 and 2025, our position was always clear: We are keeping it at 65. I would encourage my colleague to refresh the memories of those on his side of the House.

Meanwhile, since he can meet with the chief of staff, the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, he should tell them directly that they really made a mess of handling the GC Strategies scandal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree in part with what my colleague said, although I am deeply concerned about one thing.

GC Strategies used to be called Coredal. This company had over $7 million in government contracts between 2011 and 2015. Who was in power at the time? It was Stephen Harper's Conservative Party. Furthermore, who was in the Department of Transport? It was Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of the Conservative Party. He was parliamentary secretary to the then minister of transport. Coredal was awarded contracts worth over $1 million.

Can my colleague explain to me why there was no concern at that time about a company that would go on to become GC Strategies?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his re-election. If I remember correctly, this is his third term.

Let us not forget that GC Strategies really showed how pathetic it was with ArriveCAN. The cost of the app went from $80,000 to $60 million. That is when we realized that these people were utterly incompetent. When we looked into the last 10 years, we realized that $65 million had been mismanaged. That is why we are asking for our money back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a bit of liberty here, if I may, to address another issue, and then I will get back to the topic at hand.

The heart of Canada's Filipino heritage community will be found in Winnipeg North, and today is a very special day as we recognize Philippine independence. In fact, there is a flag-raising ceremony that will be taking place very shortly on the lawn of Parliament Hill. The Filipino heritage community contributes in every way to all our communities throughout Canada, in every aspect of our society. I just wanted to give that extra plug, especially with the month of June being Filipino Heritage Month.

That is the positive aspect of what I would like to say. I want to try to encapsulate why we are here today debating this particular issue and talk a bit about the motivation and some disappointment. I was rather enjoying the debate we were having yesterday on Bill C-4. We will have a vote on it later this afternoon, after question period.

I wanted to question the motivation, primarily because, over the years, I have seen that the Conservative Party tends to be more focused on the very negative aspects of politics, in terms of things like character assassination or throwing the word “scandal” or “corruption” on anything, and other things of that nature.

It is interesting that we have an opposition day, and the Conservatives have a choice. Good for them for picking whatever it is they want to pick. They picked an Auditor General's report that, in essence, had no new recommendations, other than that it references that we currently have rules in place. I will talk about that in depth. This is an opposition day where there is going to be a vote at the end of the day.

We can contrast that to yesterday, when Conservatives started being critical of the government because the tax decrease we were giving was, from their perspective, not large enough. That is something they started to comment on toward the end of the debate. I would have thought that that would have been a far better motion of public policy, given that we just came out of an election. The Conservatives would have had the opportunity to present their arguments as to how much of a tax break it should have been and why. We do not know what they will do on Bill C-4, but it will come up later today. I hope they vote in favour of it, but they definitely implied that they would have amendments to bring to the bill.

I say that because the opposition has four days of debate, four days on which they can designate the topic. Why would the Conservatives take this particular report from the Auditor General? I suspect it is because they want to go back to their old ways. The newly elected Prime Minister, on April 28, with a new government, has established mandate letters that are exceptionally clear, so that all Canadians can see where the government's priorities are.

Today, because of the motion we are debating, I would suggest to Canadians that the Conservatives continue to be focused on anything that has any whiff whatsoever of any form of potential scandal or corruption, and then they try to tie it to the new administration. We see that in their remarks already today where they try to deny that there is a new administration.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, seriously, let us think about this.

Mr. Speaker, let me give members some food to chew on here with the history of GC Strategies. Mr. Firth is the gentleman the Conservative Party called to the bar. After calling him to the bar, it was like a courtroom inside here, and they declared him guilty. There are some people in the Conservative ranks who would have liked to see him go to jail right away. I remember one member said there used to be a jail in Centre Block. So much for any sort of due process.

That is the Conservatives' priority. Pierre Poilievre made it very clear. Canadians might be concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade, but not Pierre Poilievre. He is concerned with trying to make the Prime Minister look bad while the Prime Minister is out and about and meeting with first ministers, and very successfully, I might add. He has addressed the issue the Conservatives brought up today. There is a new Prime Minister, a new agenda and a new administration that are moving forward, and they are stuck in the past.

The opposition day motion talks about wanting to get money back. I would like to think there is not one member of Parliament in this House or in previous administrations who would want taxpayer dollars to be abused in any fashion. I was glad to convey to members that there is a process that needs to be followed. When it comes to the recovery of funds, where we can demonstrate fraud or overbilling, we pursue it. We are already pursuing GC Strategies, in particular, in court. That is happening. One would not think that, but that is the reality of the situation.

We can combine that with the Auditor's General's report. What does that report say? We agree with the Auditor General when she states that we do not need more rules. We need to ensure that the rules and framework in place are followed by public servants.

Let us go back to the former administration. When this was brought to its attention, what did the minister at the time do? It was to order an internal investigation. Did the former administration ever say no to the Auditor General? Not at all. We supported the recommendations that were brought forward by the Auditor General. The 2024 report had eight recommendations in it, and seven of them have already been implemented. The last one is well under way. That was under the former administration. We are not talking about the current administration, which is different. I see members are already praying on the other side.

I appreciate that we have a Prime Minister who has an incredible history. I like to highlight that as the former governor of the Bank of Canada, the former governor of the Bank of England and an economist, not only does he understand the situation Canada is in today with the United States, but he has made a commitment to building the strongest economy in the G7. That is where his focus is, contrary to Pierre Poilievre's focus.

The voters were correct on April 28. Who knows were Mr. Poilievre's mind would be today if he were sitting in the Prime Minister's chair? Canadians saw through that. That is why we received 8.5 million votes. No prime minister or political party has received more votes than the current Prime Minister did in the last election. However, members opposite want to change the channel. They do not want to talk about what was being debated in the election; rather, they want to talk about GC Strategies and Mr. Firth. Let us talk a little more about GC Strategies, then.

There is a company called Coredal, and in that particular company, members will be surprised to know, two individuals were directors, Mr. Firth being one of them. I noted earlier that Mr. Firth, under that company, actually received contracts under Stephen Harper. Members will not believe this: Pierre Poilievre was actually sitting at the table too. He was sitting around caucus when contracts were being given out to Mr. Firth. There is no reference to that, of course, in the Conservatives' motion.

[An hon. member]

It's not in the AG report.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is all about GC Strategies. When I raised that point, one of the members of the Conservative Party said that Mr. Firth was not a part of GC Strategies at the time. Members might be surprised to know that GC Strategies also received contributions.

[An hon. member]

That is not true.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, GC Strategies was in place in 2015. I will remind my colleague opposite that Stephen Harper was the prime minister for most of 2015. I think it is worth the member looking at it again before he makes that claim from across the way.

What we see with GC Strategies is that the number of contracts did increase. Let us put it in the perspective of time. When it was getting these massive contracts, the world was going through a worldwide pandemic. Governments around the world were spending billions and billions of dollars. Canada was not alone, and yes, GC Strategies did receive many contracts for a great deal of tax dollars. I do not question that, but trying to give false impressions is what the Conservatives are very good at.

At the end of the day, what we will find is that when it was brought to the minister in a tangible way, a minister from the former administration actually took action.

[An hon. member]

Was it ours?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

“Was it ours?” is a good heckle, Mr. Speaker, referring to Stephen Harper. The contracts during the pandemic were under Justin Trudeau, just for clarification for the member opposite. Harper's were well prior to the pandemic, but the point is that countries around the world were investing, and standing behind and trying to protect their citizenry with all sorts of measures, including border controls.

I can remember hearing under the former administration, sitting over here, the Conservatives saying we needed to do more for the CBSA and watch individuals who were coming into Canada. They said we were not doing enough and that we were late on it. They sure dropped that a couple of years after that point.

The political idea behind ArriveCAN was to protect the health and general well-being of the people in Canada. That was the original objective behind it. We have an incredible civil service. I would ultimately argue it is second to no other civil service in the world. In fact, we will find that other countries often look to Canada's civil service, as it is as close to being independent of politicians as one can get compared to any other country in the world, and it does fine work.

I am not going to draw any conclusions in terms of ultimate behaviour, but I suspect, just as in any other working environment, that at times we might get some bad apples. There might have been some things that were overlooked, and it became very clear that this did take place. That is something we all take very seriously.

There are procurements, and contracts are issued out. Tell me about a government in Canada, whether federal, provincial, the current administration, which is very new, the previous administration or the Harper administration, that did not have contracts and procurements. If people want to talk about a real scandal, I would recommend they take a look at the CSEC scandal. That was a real scandal under the Harper regime. Members can do a Google search to find it. The bottom line is that if people want to look at a political scandal, they should look at the Harper and Pierre Poilievre scandal that took place shortly after they were put in government. Trust me, I have a lot of information on that scandal, which involved hundreds of millions of dollars. Google it. People will find it. It is an interesting read.

What we are talking about here is billions of dollars being spent during a pandemic. Whether it was the former administration or the current Prime Minister's administration, we want accountability for every tax dollar out there. I believe the Prime Minister understands the importance of transparency and accountability, and I believe that Canadians respect that fact because of the type of work he was doing prior to becoming an elected politician. I am grateful that he did make the decision to run, because I believe he is the right person at the right time in Canada's history to bring Canada together and build one strong Canadian economy. That is what I believe we should be debating, actually. After all, that is what was talked about at the doors.

I will look to my colleagues and ask them this: When they were knocking at the door, did anyone bring up ArriveCAN? I can honestly say that not one person out of the approximately 100,000 people I currently represent today brought up the issue of ArriveCAN when I was knocking on thousands of doors. The most common issues brought up at the door were, in fact, Donald Trump, tariffs, trade and genuine concern about the economy. That was the number one issue, and that is what the Prime Minister is dealing with today.

While the Prime Minister is dealing with that issue, we have before us Pierre Poilievre's idea of what Canadians are most concerned about: a report that was brought forward by the Auditor General. Two things really stood out, in my mind, and I will reference one: We do not need more rules; we need to ensure that the rules and framework in place are followed by public servants. There are two aspects of that statement. One is that we do not need more rules. The second is that we need to ensure they are being followed by public servants. I believe that the sense of professionalism within our civil service agrees with that statement.

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister's Office and the civil servants dealing with procurement processes have been made fully aware of the report, and I do not think there is any disagreement. I am pretty sure there is not. In fact, we have a Prime Minister who has even taken action to expand the role of the minister who is going to be charged with these responsibilities. We are anticipating that there will be significant procurements. After all, we just heard the major announcement that military expenditures are going up, to 2%.

I believe I am running out of time. I do not know if the opposition would give me leave to continue on. I do have a few more thoughts. Otherwise, I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We are out of time, regrettably.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot. The ArriveCAN failure went from $80,000 to $60 million. Would the member say it was a failure? Was there a failure in the system?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the political idea of protecting Canadians' health and well-being during a worldwide pandemic was a good idea.

Unfortunately, when billions of dollars were spent, some things did not go the way I would have chosen them to go under the previous administration. However, I honestly do believe we are on the right track to making sure we have a more effective system so Canadians will be satisfied.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I noted something interesting in the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North. He said that he never once heard his constituents talk to him about GC Strategies during the election campaign. I understand that because, throughout the election campaign, the Liberals lulled everyone to sleep with fear of Donald Trump and tariffs. They fed that fear so well that there was no room to talk about anything else. There was no longer any room or interest in raising the many ways this outgoing government had proved to be incompetent.

This honeymoon, this sort of bubble that the Liberals have thrust Canadians and Quebeckers into, is still going strong. That is why we are doing this work today, to bring back to the fore the scandals that are unacceptable and attributable to the mismanagement of this government, which is the same government as before. There is no denying it. Their leader may have changed, but they are still the same Liberal government.

Does my colleague think that the measures the government has put in place could provide a framework for the management of public contracts? Does he seriously think that we are going to buy the idea that these measures are enough to make us feel comfortable and secure with how public funds are managed?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things I would like to say, but let me read something verbatim about this so maybe the person will have a better appreciation. This is with respect to strengthening the requirements for the procurement of professional services, which take effect almost immediately, on July 1. Measure 1 is entitled “Value Cap on Task-Based Informatics Professional Services and Task and Solutions Professional Services—Task contracts”. Another measure is “Duration Cap on Task-Based Informatics Professional Services and Task and Solutions Professional Services—Task Contracts”. The third measure is entitled “Amendment Cap on Task-Based Informatics Professional Services and Task and Solutions Professional Services—Task Contracts”.

The point is that there are many different actions that the newly elected Prime Minister, with the administration, has already taken on the file, even given the government's focus on and goal of building one strong Canadian economy, the strongest in the G7. We can do other things too.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite his speech about how this is a new government and a new face for the Liberals, the member for Winnipeg North has once again shown us through his repeated and often very frequent interventions that these are the same old Liberals with the same old scandals and the same old tendencies.

Why is the member for Winnipeg North unable to commit to saying that his government will reimburse Quebec and Canadian taxpayers for the GC Strategies scandal?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have already addressed that particular question, but I want to pick up on the idea of the new government, new Prime Minister and new administration. If we take a look at the reality of what is happening today in Canadian society and reflect on the political leadership in the chamber today, there is only one new leader, and that is the Prime Minister of Canada, and that is a new administration

Members of the New Democrats and the Conservatives might not like that fact, but I like to think that, at the end of the day, it is a different administration. All one needs to do is look at the priorities and focus of the Prime Minister compared to those of the previous administration or Stephen Harper's administration. The New Democrats and the Conservatives might not like it, but that is the reality.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I enjoy fiction storytelling time in the House whenever the member for Winnipeg North gets up. It is quite remarkable what lengths the Liberals are going to in trying to distance themselves from their past, the corruption and the tired old Liberal government. The member just has to take a look at today's proceedings to see how many times he has actually stood up and claimed it is brand new, compared, perhaps, to any new members.

Earlier, one of the parliamentary secretaries made a statement that from now on they were going to follow the rules and were going to act with integrity. I gave him a chance to correct the issue. Could the member opposite inform us why, just now, after 10 years of the tired, corrupt government, the Liberals are vowing to act with integrity and offering to follow the rules on procurement?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I could actually draw attention to more so-called corruption and scandal-type issues with a direct link to Pierre Poilievre than the member can to the current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister was just elected, for the very first time, on April 28. We can contrast that to the career politician Pierre Poilievre and a huge number of scandals. If I am provided leave, I could list at least 20-plus scandals under the Stephen Harper regime or administration, in which Pierre Poilievre was not only Harper's parliamentary secretary but also sat around the cabinet table. He was there from the very beginning of all the corruption back then.

Does the member want to compare newness? Pierre Poilievre is not new when it comes to politics and the House of Commons.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question previously on the ArriveCAN file, which went from $80,000 to $60 million. I got answers. We ended up in the billions of dollars. I would like to go back to that. How did we go from $80,000 to $60 million? What went wrong? If the government is going to correct it, it must be able to tell us what went wrong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister's focus is on ensuring that we have more accountability and transparency, and he has taken actions to be able to demonstrate that in terms of procurement.

One of the things I would emphasize is that over the coming years, we are going to see a lot more money spent on procurements because of the commitment to build a stronger, healthier Canadian forces. We have made the commitment to 2%. The Prime Minister is very keen on moving forward, and we have confidence in the civil service to ensure that justice is done in regard to GC Strategies.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first say that I appreciate the member's recognizing—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!