Question Period

Monsieur le Président, qui va payer pour cette orgie de 50 milliards de dollars de nouvelles dépenses inflationnistes? Ça ne va pas être ceux qui ont des fiducies privilégiées pour cacher leur argent, comme le premier ministre ou les milliardaires qui l'invitent sur des îles privées. Eux autres vont cacher leur argent. Qui va payer? C'est la même personne que d'habitude. C'est vous qui allez payer; vous qui perdez votre maison à cause des taux d'intérêt qui augmentent, vous qui payez trop de taxes, vous qui ne pouvez pas nourrir vos propres enfants. Pourquoi payez-vous pour lui?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, who is paying for this $50-billion orgy of new inflationary spending? We know who will not pay. It will not be those with trust funds that protect their money, like the Prime Minister, nor the billionaires who invite him to their private islands. They will hide their money. Who is going to pay? It will be the same people, as always. The ones who will pay are the ones who are losing their homes because of rising interest rates, who are paying too many taxes, who cannot feed their own children. Why are you paying for him?

Monsieur le Président, c'est le neuvième déficit en neuf ans sous ce premier ministre. Il n'en vaut pas le coût, comme toujours. Il avoue que le Canada n'est pas un pays juste pour les jeunes générations après neuf ans sous son gouvernement, qui a doublé le coût du logement, doublé les loyers, doublé la dette nationale. Pourquoi s'attendre à un autre résultat avec la même approche, qui a échoué?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this is the ninth deficit in nine years under this Prime Minister. He is not worth the cost, just like always. He admits that Canada is not a fair country for our young generations after nine years under his government, which doubled the cost of housing, doubled rents and doubled the national debt. Why does he expect a different result when he is using the same failed approach?

Mr. Speaker, who pays? Who pays for this latest $50-billion orgy of spending by the costly Prime Minister? We know who will not pay. It will not be those with trust funds that protect their millions of inheritance, like the Prime Minister, nor the billionaires who invite him to their private Caribbean islands. They will hide their money. Who will pay? The ones who will pay will be the welder or the waitress who cannot pay their mortgage because he has inflated the mortgage rates. Canadians will pay because he carbon taxed their food, and now they cannot feed their kids. Why should they pay for him?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to blame the world for the problems that he caused. He doubled the debt, doubled the rent, doubled mortgage payments, doubled the needed down payment, and now he is doubling down on the same costly mistakes that have made life unaffordable for Canadians. When will the Prime Minister realize he is not worth the cost and that repeating the same thing nine times and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity?

Mr. Speaker, he is the ultrawealthy. He hid his family fortune in a tax-sheltered trust fund so that he would not have to pay the same taxes as everyone else. He vacations with the ultrawealthy on their private islands in tax-preferred locations where they can hide their money and avoid paying their fair share here in Canada. Now, he is paying off the ultrawealthy by spending $54 billion on debt interest, more than on health care. Why give more money to the ultrawealthy bankers and bondholders instead of the nurses and doctors?

Monsieur le Président, les services de garde sont une compétence du Québec et des provinces. L'assurance dentaire, le cas échéant, serait une compétence du Québec ou des provinces. L'assurance-médicaments, c'est la même chose, de même que les infrastructures municipales et le logement. Le premier ministre a une fascination pour les compétences du Québec et des provinces. Je veux demander au premier ministre s'il a déjà considéré, pour vraiment aller dans ce qui l'intéresse, d'être candidat comme premier ministre dans sa province préférée: l'Ontario.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, child care falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Dental insurance, if applicable, would be a jurisdiction of Quebec or the provinces. The same goes for pharmacare, municipal infrastructure and housing. The Prime Minister is obsessed with the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he has ever thought of running for premier of his favourite province, Ontario, to really get into something that interests him.

Monsieur le Président, je ne suis pas convaincu que le gouvernement du Québec dit la même chose que le premier ministre du Canada. Je suis quand même pas mal fier d'être Québécois. Dans mon cas, je suis tellement fier que j'ai confiance dans le Québec. Je pense qu'il devrait être un pays. Je ne suis pas sûr que le premier ministre ait le même niveau de confiance. Est-ce que le premier ministre reconnaît que toutes ses ingérences dans les compétences du Québec et des provinces sont financées exclusivement par le sempiternel déséquilibre fiscal?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that the Quebec government is saying the same thing as the Prime Minister. I myself am very proud to be a Quebecker. I am so proud, in fact, that I have confidence in Quebec. I believe it should be a country. I am not sure whether the Prime Minister has the same level of confidence. Does the Prime Minister recognize that all of his meddling in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces is funded exclusively through the never-ending fiscal imbalance?

Mr. Speaker, young people see right through the Prime Minister. They know they are getting ripped off and they know the reason for it. Today, rent has doubled, grocery prices are sky-high and we are paying some of the highest cellphone bills in the world. The reason is corporate greed. The Prime Minister refuses to take it on and the Conservatives are afraid any time we mention corporate greed because they want to defend those corporations. When will the Liberals finally take—

Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker, I know what happened. Any time I talk about corporate greed, the Conservatives get really upset. We are taking on their masters, so they get upset about it, but I will be careful not to say too much because I know the Conservatives get so angry when we mention corporate greed. Young people are seeing that they are getting ripped off with rent. They are getting ripped off with groceries and getting ripped off with the high cost of cellphone fees, and they know it is because of corporate greed. The Conservatives do not want me to talk about this, but will the Liberals take on corporate greed, which is driving up the cost of living?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not once mention corporate greed, which is driving up the cost of living. Les jeunes se font arnaquer à l’épicerie et ils le savent. Ils voient Loblaw et Metro faire des profits records et le budget libéral d’hier ne fait rien pour régler ça. Il continue d’enrichir Loblaws et Metro avec les cadeaux d’impôt des conservateurs de 60 milliards de dollars. Pourquoi le premier ministre prend-il encore le bord des PDG plutôt que celui des jeunes?

Hansard translation: Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre n'a pas mentionné la cupidité des grandes entreprises une seule fois, alors qu'elle contribue à la hausse du coût de la vie. Young people are getting ripped off at the grocery store, and they know it. They see Loblaws and Metro raking in record profits, and yesterday's Liberal budget does nothing to address that. It continues to line Loblaws' and Metro's pockets with the Conservatives' $60‑billion tax gifts. Why does the Prime Minister keep siding with CEOs instead of with young people?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants people to know that the status quo is unacceptable, that Canada has become an unfair country where young people, an entire generation, cannot afford a home and families cannot afford food. If he finds out who has been running this place for the last nine years, there will be hell to pay. Will the Prime Minister complete his investigation and tell us who has been in charge for the last decade?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has got to stop getting his facts from his incompetent housing minister's Twitter account. This is the same guy who, as immigration minister, lost track of a million people. When I was housing minister, we built 92,782 new apartment units, with an average rent of $973. How many apartments will the Prime Minister build at the price of $972 a month this year?

Mr. Speaker, we will cut the rent. When I was the minister of housing, we paid half as much for rent in Canada as we pay today. On the question of the Prime Minister's ambitious housing plan, I decided to read all about it in the Liberals' 2015 platform. They said, “We will make it easier for Canadians to find an affordable place to call home.” That was nine years ago. They have doubled the cost since that promise was made, and then they repeated the promise yesterday. Why would we expect the same promise, with the same programs and the same Prime Minister to be kept this time?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is going to turn public buildings and land into housing. I wonder where he got that idea. Let me quote, “We will conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing”. That is from his 2015 platform. Now, nine years later, he can only point to 13 homes on those public lands. Yesterday, he promised a “rapid review” of all the federal land portfolios. How rapid, another nine years?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister blamed immigration for housing costs and the immigration minister who caused it all. Then he made that minister responsible for housing. Since that time, the minister has had a $4-billion housing accelerator program that he admits will not build any specific homes. In fact, since it began, housing starts have gone down this year, and his housing agency says they will go down next year and the year after that. How is it that the Prime Minister can spend $4 billion on a housing accelerator program that decelerates homebuilding?

Mr. Speaker, it was solved when rent was $973 a month, until he came along, but this is more proof that he is not worth the cost after nine years. He is blaming the whole world. If the world were to blame for the housing problems in Canada, then why is it that housing here is 50% to 75% more expensive than in the United States? Why is it that housing costs have risen faster than in any other G7 country relative to incomes? Why is it that we have the fewest homes per capita, despite having the most land and the most lumber? Why is that? Is it him?

Monsieur le Président, par son budget, le premier ministre se trouve à reconnaître que les sujets vraiment importants pour les citoyens sont dans les compétences du Québec et des provinces. Il utilise donc grossièrement le déséquilibre fiscal par lequel il a beaucoup plus d'argent que ce qui devrait lui revenir, alors que le Québec et les provinces en ont moins. Est-ce qu'il reconnaît que, pour compléter son exercice sur le dos des compétences du Québec, il abuse grossièrement du pouvoir de dépenser implanté par l'ancien premier ministre Trudeau?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, with his budget, the Prime Minister is recognizing that the issues that are really important to Canadians fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Therefore, he is shamelessly using the fiscal imbalance, thanks to which he has a lot more money than he should, while Quebec and the provinces have less. Does he recognize that, to implement his budget at the expense of Quebec's jurisdictions, he is grossly abusing the spending power instituted by former Prime Minister Trudeau?

Monsieur le Président, il est tellement main dans la main avec le gouvernement du Québec que ce sont les conservateurs qui recrutent à la CAQ. Le premier ministre admet-il qu'en ne respectant pas ses obligations, il est responsable de 6 milliards de dollars de déficit à Québec, que, dans ses 40 milliards de dollars, il est responsable de 8 milliards de dollars sur le dos des Québécois, et qu'il vient d'endetter en un an les Québécois de 14 milliards de dollars de déficit?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is working so hand in hand with the Quebec government that the Conservatives are recruiting from the CAQ. Will the Prime Minister admit that, by failing to meet his obligations, he is responsible for a $6-billion deficit in Quebec City, that he is responsible for making Quebeckers shoulder $8 billion out of his $40-billion deficit, and that he has just put Quebeckers $14 billion in debt in one year?

Monsieur le Président, selon son idéologie centralisatrice, le premier ministre a déclaré que le logement est une responsabilité fédérale. Les résultats sont donc entre ses mains. Montréal a vu une augmentation de 200 % du coût des loyers depuis les neuf ans au pouvoir de ce premier ministre, qui n'en vaut pas le coût. Après toute son ingérence dans les compétences du Québec et des autres provinces, il a réussi à gonfler le coût du logement. Va-t-il prendre la responsabilité et le blâme personnels pour avoir gonflé le coût du logement?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, because of his centralizing ideology, this Prime Minister has declared that housing is a federal responsibility. That means the results are his responsibility. Montreal has seen a 200% increase in rental costs over the nine years this Prime Minister has been in power. He is not worth the cost. All his interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces has only succeeded in inflating the cost of housing. Will he take personal responsibility and shoulder the blame for inflating the cost of housing?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that this is all about fairness. I am going to take him at his word and read the story of Emily, who told the Toronto Star that she could afford a home in 2015 with a mortgage of $2,000, but after the Prime Minister's inflationary deficits ballooned mortgage rates, she lost her home and now she rents a small apartment for $4,000. It is so small, she says that she can smell her own neighbours. Has the Prime Minister been fair to Emily?

Mr. Speaker, that was exactly the promise he made nine years ago. He said that Emily would not have to pay any more, that some rich guy would pay, but since then, his trust fund has not paid any more taxes. The billionaires who host him on private islands do not pay any more taxes, as they hide their money abroad, but Emily is paying. She is paying $4,000 a month for an apartment that is so small she says she smells her neighbours. Is the Prime Minister treating Emily fairly?

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, Emily had a home with a mortgage payment of $2,000. Now she has an apartment with a rental payment of $4,000. How can he possibly suggest she is better off paying twice as much to rent a place than she was, under Conservatives, owning one?

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians have heard the Prime Minister's broken promises for years. Seven years ago, he promised to fix the housing crisis, but what did he do? He built luxury apartments that no one can afford, and he let speculators drive up the cost of homes. We know he has never had to worry about making the rent. Does he regret the bad decisions he has made that have put us in this mess?

Mr. Speaker, there is something very wrong when a Prime Minister does not have a problem keeping the Conservatives' $60-billion corporate handout but denies indigenous children the dignity of safe housing and decent schools, and denies communities the same access to good roads and clean water. How can the Prime Minister look indigenous people in the eyes after putting the greed of CEOs in front of the needs of indigenous families?

Mr. Speaker, too many children are going to school on empty stomachs, and that is not fair. It was our Liberal government who enhanced the Canada child benefit and brought home our $10-a-day child care and many other supports Canadian families rely on. Could the Prime Minister inform the House of the next steps of our plan to support middle-class families in getting ahead?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton South for her hard work. While the opposition leader is taking cues from his lobbyist entourage on how to make the rich richer, we are investing in programs to help middle-class Canadians. Yesterday's budget includes a national school food program. It is expected to provide meals for more than 400,000 kids a year and save the average family as much as $800 per year in grocery costs. This is what the Conservative leader has already announced he will be voting against.

Mr. Speaker, after nine years and much spent, there has not been a single meal served. What the Prime Minister has served up is a tax on the food of the very children he claims to want to help. It is a tax that will cost every single middle-class family more than they get back in rebates, according to a scientific study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is a tax he increased by 23%. If he really wants to stop the hunger for one in four kids in schools today, will he axe the tax?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks anyone who puts gas in their car is rich and needs to be made poor. He thinks any single mother who is not already pouring water in her children's milk is too rich, and he wants to make her poorer. He thinks that families who are heating their homes in big, cold Canada are too rich, and he wants to make them poor. That is a bit rich coming from the guy who stuffed his family fortune in a tax-sheltered trust fund and helps his billionaire island friends avoid paying their bills. Why does he not stop taking from the have-nots and giving to the have-yachts?

Mr. Speaker, it is not the opposition from the Conservatives that he needs to worry about. It is the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said, “On the carbon tax in particular, the prime minister has tried to bait me at times with certain ad hominems and name-calling, almost. But look, we have a very different opinion on the carbon tax” and “I wish the prime minister would understand that. He's being very sclerotic in his approach on this ideologic marriage that he has to this [carbon tax]”. Will the Prime Minister end his ideological marriage with the carbon tax so that Canadians can eat, heat and house themselves?

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed, in fact, that six out of 10 Canadians pay more in carbon tax than they get back in rebates. One hundred per cent of middle-class or middle-quintile Canadians pay more in tax than they get back, with it being especially bad for rural and suburban Canadians. Now, we have two-year highs in gas prices all across Ontario. Ontarians are being punished because of a 23% carbon tax. They can thank the Prime Minister every time they fill up the tank. Why will he not axe the tax so that Ontarians can afford to drive to work?

Monsieur le Président, non seulement je ne crois pas que le premier ministre est main dans la main avec Québec, mais je crois qu'il a la main dans les poches des Québécois. Il abuse grossièrement du déséquilibre fiscal. Il abuse grossièrement du pouvoir de dépenser. Il creuse un déficit épouvantable que les Québécois vont devoir payer, et payer longtemps, dans le seul but de sauver la peau électorale de son gouvernement et la sienne. Est-ce qu'il comprend que je dénonce ce gouvernement et ce budget face aux Québécois?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to believe that the Prime Minister is working hand in hand with Quebec. On the contrary, I believe he has his hand in Quebeckers' pockets. He is blatantly abusing the fiscal imbalance. He is blatantly abusing his spending power. Furthermore, he is racking up an appalling deficit that Quebeckers will be paying off for a long time to come simply to save his government's skin, and his own skin, in the next election. Does he understand that I am condemning this government and this budget as it concerns Quebeckers?

Monsieur le Président, si vous avez 10 minutes, je vous demanderais d'expliquer au premier ministre ce qu'est la fonction d'une opposition dans un Parlement. À plus forte raison, ça vient tellement naturellement à un Québécois. Le premier ministre fait des ingérences dans tout ce qu'il imagine comme compétence au Québec, et lorsque le Québec veut utiliser un petit morceau de la Constitution, la disposition de dérogation, pour protéger ses propres compétences, c'est un scandale du côté des libéraux. Le premier ministre abuse de son pouvoir contre le Québec et je continuerai à le dénoncer.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if you have 10 minutes, I would ask you to explain to the Prime Minister what purpose the opposition serves in Parliament, especially since it comes so naturally to a Quebecker. The Prime Minister is interfering in all of Quebec's jurisdictions, and yet the Liberals think it is outrageous for Quebec to want to use a tiny piece of the Constitution, the notwithstanding clause, to protect its own jurisdictions. The Prime Minister is abusing his power at Quebec's expense, and I will continue to speak out against that.

Monsieur le Président, même un ancien chef des néo-démocrates a plus de gros bon sens que le premier ministre actuel et le chef néo-démocrate actuel. Thomas Mulcair a noté hier que le gouvernement en place va dépenser 54,1 milliards de dollars pour l’intérêt sur la dette, c’est-à-dire pour les banquiers. C’est exactement ce qu’on récolte avec la TPS. Chaque sou que les Canadiens dépensent en TPS, ce n’est pas pour les services, c’est pour des banquiers. Le premier ministre trouve-t-il ça normal?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, even a former NDP leader has more common sense than the current Prime Minister and the current leader of the NDP. Thomas Mulcair said yesterday that this government is going to spend $54.1 billion on interest on the debt, in other words on bankers. That is exactly how much is collected with the GST. Every penny that Canadians spend on GST is going not toward services, but toward bankers. Does the Prime Minister think that is acceptable?

Mr. Speaker, austerity is what people are living every day when they cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves after nine years of the current Prime Minister, but when people pay the GST they assume they are getting something in return. It turns out that they pay $54.1 billion in GST and it costs them $54.1 billion in interest on the national debt. Does the Prime Minister realize that not one penny from the money Canadians pay in GST goes to valuable services? It all goes to pay wealthy bankers.

Mr. Speaker, we propose less for bankers and bondholders, and more for doctors and nurses. This year, for the first time in over a generation, the federal government will spend more on interest for the national debt than we do on health care. After the Prime Minister doubled the size of the debt and grew health spending slower than the previous Conservative government, why is it that he wants to give 54 billion hard-earned Canadian tax dollars to wealthy bankers and bondholders, and not doctors and nurses?

Monsieur le Président, les travailleurs qualifiés et les entrepreneurs du Canada constituent notre plus grande ressource. Tirer parti de leurs idées, de leurs innovations et de leur travail acharné est un moyen essentiel de maintenir notre place à l’avant-garde des économies avancées du monde. Le premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre des nouvelles mesures annoncées dans le budget qui soutiendront non seulement nos travailleurs, mais aussi l’économie canadienne?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Canada's skilled workers and entrepreneurs are our greatest resource. Capitalizing on their ideas, innovations and hard work is an essential way to keep our place at the forefront of the world's advanced economies. Can the Prime Minister tell the House about the new measures announced in the budget that will support not only our workers, but the Canadian economy as well?

Monsieur le Président, je remercie le député de Vaudreuil-Soulanges de sa question et de son travail acharné. Le budget d’hier est un engagement clair à investir dans notre avenir et dans les talents des travailleurs canadiens. Cependant, le chef conservateur a dit qu’il allait voter contre le soutien aux entreprises canadiennes de technologies propres, voter contre nos investissements en intelligence artificielle et voter contre les gens qui travaillent sur les chaînes d’approvisionnement en véhicules électriques. Alors que nous investissons pour que chaque Canadien réussisse au XXIe siècle, le chef de l’opposition veut nous ramener à l’âge de pierre.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges for his question and for his hard work. Yesterday's budget is a clear commitment to investing in our future and in the talents of Canadian workers. However, the Conservative leader has said that he will vote against supporting Canadian clean-tech companies, against our investments in artificial intelligence and against people working on the electric vehicle supply chain. While we are investing to ensure that every Canadian succeeds in the 21st century, the Leader of the Opposition wants to take us back to the Stone Age.

Mr. Speaker, David Dodge, proud Liberal and former Liberal appointee as governor of the central bank, said that this would be the worst budget in over 40 years. It turned out that he was right. We have had John Manley, a former Liberal finance minister, who said that the Prime Minister is pushing on the inflationary gas pedal. We now even have Bill Morneau condemning the government of which he is a former finance minister. Why is it that so many Liberals have come to the conclusion that this Prime Minister is not worth the cost?

Mr. Speaker, all the adults in the Liberal and NDP parties are saying that this budget is irresponsible. We have John Manley, former Liberal finance minister, saying that this Prime Minister is pushing on the inflationary gas pedal. David Dodge, renowned Liberal, is saying that it could be the worst budget in four decades. Bill Morneau, if members remember him from before he became “Bill no more”, said that this is a troubling budget. Even Tom Mulcair says that there is too much going to debt interest. Is this not like the NDP-Liberal marriage? The parents went away, and the rambunctious, reckless kids went and trashed the place.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who is doing personal or partisan attacks against this Prime Minister's agenda. It is his fellow Liberals and New Democrats. It is his coalition partner, who simultaneously attacks everything he does and then enthusiastically stands up to support it. It is the Prime Minister, who attacks his immigration minister for letting the system get completely out of control and then attacks himself for doubling housing costs, making life so unfair. If they are so busy attacking themselves and their own record, why do they not just call a carbon tax election, so that Canadians can vote them out?

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing from young people in my riding that home ownership is just out of reach—

Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing from young people in my riding that home ownership is just out of reach. The 2024 budget puts forward the government's housing plan to build more affordable homes faster and to make it more affordable to buy or rent. Can the Prime Minister please share with the House how the government plans to support young people?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Skyview for his continued advocacy and hard work. We have put forward the most ambitious housing plan in generations. Our plan will help build more student housing on or by campus, link infrastructure dollars to housing conditions to ensure new apartments are built near public transit, make it easier to save up for a down payment and qualify for a mortgage. While the leader opposite has no real plan, we are delivering for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, $200 a month is what the Liberal government thinks Canadians with disabilities are worth. The Liberals said that their long-overdue Canada disability benefit would end poverty for persons with disabilities, but what they have offered is not even enough for groceries for a month, yet the Liberals did manage to keep giving $60 billion to rich corporations, just like the Conservatives before them. It is unacceptable. Will the Prime Minister use his power and increase the Canada disability benefit immediately?

Mr. Speaker, in line with the question just asked, we were also shocked to see $200 a month, as if that could lift people living with disabilities out of poverty. In what world is $200 a month enough? At the same time, the red dress alert initiative will be given $1.3 million over three years. When we have stolen sisters versus stolen cars, the cars get $47 million right away. Can the Prime Minister explain? Is this fair? Is this just?

It being 3:20 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, April 8, the House will now proceed to the appearance of Mr. Kristian Firth at the bar of the House. Colleagues, the Chair would like to make a brief statement in regard to the historic moment that is about to take place. Indeed, the last time an individual was summoned to the bar of the House to answer questions dates back to 1913, well over a century ago. Conformément à l'ordre adopté le 8 avril 2024, après que M. Firth aura été escorté à la barre de la Chambre par le sergent d'armes, la présidence fera lecture de l'admonestation. Par la suite, la Chambre et M. Firth prendront part à une séance de questions et réponses. The process for questioning, specified in the House order, is as follows. First, questions and answers shall be addressed through the Speaker. Second, 10 minutes will be allocated to each recognized party for the first and second rounds in the following order: Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party. Troisièmement, pour le troisième tour, cinq minutes seront allouées à chacun des partis reconnus et une période additionnelle de cinq minutes sera accordée au Parti vert. Quatrièmement, pendant chaque période de dix ou de cinq minutes, chaque parti peut allouer du temps à un ou à plusieurs de ses députés. Fifth, in each question and answer period, answers shall approximately reflect the time taken by the question. In addition, should Mr. Firth require a moment to consult with his counsel prior to responding to a question, or for other delays of a similar nature, the Chair will stop the clock. As well, as discussed with House leaders, provisions are in place for brief suspensions between the rounds of questioning to allow Mr. Firth a pause, if he chooses to avail himself of them. En outre, comme lors des autres délibérations de la Chambre, la présidence tranchera les questions de procédure au fur et à mesure qu'elles se présenteront. Au terme de l'interrogatoire, la présidence permettra à M. Firth de se retirer; la Chambre reprendra alors les travaux prévus à son horaire habituel. Finally, colleagues, I wish to remind members that it is incumbent upon all of us to conduct ourselves in a manner befitting of this occasion and to uphold the dignity of the House. I therefore ask for everyone's co-operation in respecting our rules of decorum. I now ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to admit Mr. Firth at the bar of the House. [And Mr. Kristian Firth being present in the chamber:]

Mr. Kristian Firth, please remain standing until I invite you to be seated. You are attending the bar of the House for being found in contempt for your refusal to answer certain questions and for prevaricating in your answers to other questions before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. You are here today, by order of the House, for the following purposes: First, to receive an admonishment for your refusal to respond to questions posed to you by the committee; second, to provide responses to the questions referred to in the committee's 17th report; and third, to response to supplemental questions. The privileges of the House of Commons are enshrined in The Constitution Act, 1867, and in the Parliament of Canada Act. This includes the right to institute inquiries and to require the attendance of witnesses. Under the Standing Orders of the House, they are also exercised by its committees within their respective mandates. These privileges, enjoyed by the House collectively and by members individually, are essential in the discharge of our duties. The House has the power, and indeed the obligation, to reaffirm them when obstruction or interference impedes the House's proceedings and the ability of members to carry out their parliamentary duties. That is precisely what the House has ordered the Speaker, as the guardian of these rights and privileges, to do today: to reprimand you, to reprimand your contempt for refusing to answer questions put to you by the committee and for prevaricating other questions. For all these reasons, on behalf of the House of Commons, I admonish you. In addition, the House orders you to respond to the questions you refused to answer in committee, in whole or in part, and to respond to any supplementary questions. Mr. Firth, I would like to remind you that you must answer all questions that are posed to you. I would also like to remind you, and everyone listening, that everything you say as part of these proceedings is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be used against you in any other forums. The Chair is aware that you have been briefed on this process. You may now be seated. The House will now proceed to the first round of questions. Each recognized party will have 10 minutes. I wish to remind hon. members again that all questions are to be addressed through the Chair. The hon. Leader of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I did. I consulted yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am. I am not supposed to participate in any activity that would call any undue stress to myself, being diagnosed with having acute mental health flare-ups, being actively under therapy and being on medication.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, could the member ask the question again, please?

Mr. Speaker, we shared it with the Clerk.

Oh, oh!

Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government House leader is purposely causing disorder in this House. Mr. Speaker, you just asked every person here to keep their conduct calm and within the dignity of the House for these extraordinary proceedings. The member is saying that things were in a medical certificate that were not there. We had a House leaders' discussion on this. Now he is using the opportunity to attack the official opposition. This is inappropriate, and it causes discord in the House; it will cause disruption on a continuing basis. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to please ask the government House leader to conduct himself within the dignity and within the four squares of this extraordinary situation and not continue down this path.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for you, as Speaker, to understand how we got here. It is important to know that the witness was offered accommodations that have been granted; should there be further accommodations requested, in terms of breaks or any type of need to consult with any professional, we have signalled our absolute co-operation with that. These are very similar to the accommodations the witness requested when it took months for him to respond to a committee invitation and further summons. These were the same accommodations that were provided when he finally testified just recently, and that is how we arrived at where we are today. The dignity of the House and the ability for parliamentarians to do their jobs on behalf of taxpayers, many of whom lost every single cent they had during the lockdown, and on behalf of the thousands of Canadians who were ordered into quarantine because of this app, essentially—

Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker, ArriveCAN was supposed to cost taxpayers $80,000, but the NDP-Liberal government rewarded consultants and insiders, who got rich on taxpayer dollars for an app that nobody wanted. The app erroneously forced more than 10,000 people into house arrest. It did not work, and the Auditor General said it cost at least $60 million. ArriveCAN is now under 13 federal investigations. Two middlemen who do no IT work got rich in a corrupt system under the NDP-Liberal government. Some, including the witness today, became multi-millionaires. GC Strategies is a two-person company, and it claims to find people who actually do the work by using LinkedIn. Nearly $20 million for ArriveCAN is what the company was paid, roughly $2,500 per hour. The people have been paid $100 million since forming GC Strategies just after the Liberal Prime Minister was elected. This is eight years under the Liberal Prime Minister. The Liberal government has been ordered to collect and recoup all funds paid to ArriveCAN contractors and subcontractors who did no work on the ArriveCAN app. Has the government asked Mr. Firth to repay the money paid to GC Strategies on ArriveCAN?

Mr. Speaker, no, they have not.

Mr. Speaker, the procurement watchdog found “numerous examples where [GC Strategies] had simply copied and pasted” information to prove the people GC Strategies found to do work on ArriveCAN actually did it. Has the government asked GC Strategies to repay the money paid to GC Strategies for ArriveCAN?

Mr. Speaker, when we did our assessments, we found that the numbers provided by the ombudsman from public works were inaccurate. We have not been asked to pay any money back.

Mr. Speaker, for how many contracts did GC Strategies copy and paste the exact same information?

Mr. Speaker, we have never copied and pasted to win any contract.

Mr. Speaker, we know from committee testimony that Mr. Firth has admitted to doing exactly that. Today, media reports that Mr. Firth's property was raided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. What crime are they investigating?

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. There was a search warrant, not an arrest warrant, for my property to obtain electronic goods surrounding the Botler allegations.

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have also confirmed that GC Strategies and ArriveCAN are under police investigation. Has the RCMP contacted Mr. Firth about allegations related specifically to the Prime Minister's $60-million arrive scam?

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has reached out to us only regarding Botler.

Mr. Speaker, in the search of Mr. Firth's home, did the RCMP take only electronic devices, or were there documents, cellphones or any other information?

Mr. Speaker, I was not at my premises when the search was being done, so I cannot comment on that. I do not have that information.

Mr. Speaker, does Mr. Firth know if the property of his partner, Darren Anthony, has been searched by the RCMP?

Mr. Speaker, as of this morning, it had not.

Mr. Speaker, GC Strategies is two guys in a basement taking 30% commissions on multi-million dollar contracts that they add no value to, but they have endorsements from senior NDP-Liberal government officials. On the endorsements, who was the Government of Canada chief information officer who offered a quote?

Mr. Speaker, yes, please.

Mr. Speaker, GC Strategies is two guys in a basement taking 30% commissions on multi-million dollar contracts that they add no value to, but they have endorsements from senior NDP-Liberal government officials. On—

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the official opposition approaching this with some dignity. There is no NDP-Liberal government, so I expect he would ask his questions in the appropriate form, please.

Mr. Speaker, this company has done no work on the multi-million dollar contracts it has been given by the Liberal government, supported by the NDP. On the endorsements on the company's website, who was the Government of Canada chief information officer who provided an endorsement?

Mr. Speaker, we gave that information over, and the name was Paul Girard.

Mr. Speaker, are all of the subcontractors that GC Strategies uses Canadian companies?

Mr. Speaker, can I get clarification? Is that period, or during the ArriveCAN application?

Mr. Speaker, it is the subcontractors used on Government of Canada contracts.

Mr. Speaker, every company that we represent and we work with for government contracts have valid Canadian security clearances.

Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer to the question I asked. Does Mr. Firth have any knowledge of or involvement in the reviews for the ArriveCAN app on either the Apple store or the Google Play store being artificially amplified or paid for, any knowledge at all?

Mr. Speaker, I know those services exist, but I have no knowledge of whether or not they were executed.

Mr. Speaker, I will give the remainder of my time to the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, please.

Mr. Speaker, the procurement ombudsman found that 76% of resources named in bids on the ArriveCAN contracts did no work and were switched out for other companies. He termed this “bait and switch”, which is often used to sub out expensive subcontractors for cheaper ones, allowing the middlemen to take home more profit. Did Mr. Firth switch out any of his proposed resources on the ArriveCAN application contracts?

Mr. Speaker, we were part of the 24% that did not. Every resource we proposed that were called out for task authorizations were given to the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, through you, has Mr. Firth ever engaged in bait and switch in any of his contracts with the Government of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, we were asked to replace resources all the time depending on whether there were discrepancies with their experience, whether they were not working very well, or whether or not they needed to move on to another project. They are contractors, so we replace resources frequently under the guidance of the client.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General found in her ArriveCAN report that Mr. Firth sat at the table with public servants to draft the requirements for a contract worth $25 million that he was later awarded and, thereby, was setting the price. Through you, what are the names of those public servants?

Mr. Speaker, that name was provided in the questions, and the government official's name was Diane Daly.

Mr. Speaker, that is in direct contradiction to the name that was submitted by Mr. Firth as a direct answer to this question from me at a committee last month. Why is the answer changing today?

Mr. Speaker, the question posed to me was who did I speak with in May 2022, prior to the contract award, and that was the procurement lady, which was the name I gave. Subsequently, there was a question by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that was posed very similar to the hon. member's, which was who was I engaged with at CBSA when discussing suggestions, and that was Diane Daly.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General also found that the CBSA advised KPMG, a multinational consulting firm, that it would be a subcontractor under Mr. Firth's two-person middleman company. At committee, the deputy auditor general confirmed this would allow Mr. Firth and GC Strategies to take an additional 20% cut of the contract, despite not even doing the work to get KPMG as a subcontractor. How many times have public servants provided him with subcontractors?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question. It is common, once one has an existing contract in place, for a client to engage those services to help bring on a subject matter expert they would not otherwise have access to, or typically, because contracting takes quite a long time, to actually bring them in if it is a time-sensitive deliverable.

Mr. Speaker, I will take that to mean that public servants have provided him with subcontractors many times.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am not being elusive. I do not know the answer to that question.

Monsieur le Président, je commencerai cette période de questions en rappelant certains éléments de mon discours de la semaine dernière. Je rappelle que nous nous retrouvons malheureusement devant une situation historique causée par différents problèmes. Parmi ces problèmes, notons la non-concordance de certaines informations que nous avons reçues, non seulement entre elles, mais aussi avec d’autres informations reçues d’autres sources. Ajoutons à cela la longueur des délais pour recevoir des réponses écrites et des documents demandés qui était anormale et qui, dans certains cas, est allée jusqu’à près de 18 mois. Cela étant dit, je tiens à dire que les réponses ont été reçues, bien qu'avec délai, avec du temps et avec insistance. Comme je le disais, mes questions d'aujourd’hui auront pour but de comprendre les processus, de situer les failles dans la fonction publique, son fonctionnement et ses procédures. Je ne suis pas un tribunal et je n’ai aucune intention d’en être un. J’invite les gens à ne pas se transformer en tribunal populaire, à ne pas se laisser impressionner et à se centrer sur notre rôle: trouver les failles du système, de l’organisation, des processus, et ce, afin de colmater ces failles. Il est important de préciser que ces failles ne datent pas d’hier. Plusieurs processus ont été mis en place il y a plusieurs années, notamment par Mme Ambrose, ministre conservatrice de l’époque. Voici ma première question: j'aimerais connaître quelles sont les compétences et la formation nécessaires pour être recruteur de talents.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will begin this question period by reminding members of some of the things I said in my speech last week. Sadly, we are dealing with an historic situation caused by various issues. One of those issues is the inconsistencies in some of the information we received from the witness, as well as the inconsistencies between that information and the information we received from other sources. Then, there is the time it took to receive written responses and requested documents, which was unusual and, in some cases, took as long as 18 months. Having said that, I must point out that the responses were received, although they were delayed, and it took some time and urging. As I was saying, the purpose of my questions today will be to understand the processes, and to identify flaws in the public service, how it operates and its procedures. I am not a court, and have no intention of being one. I urge members not to become a people's court or be taken in, and focus on our role: find flaws in the system, organization and processes in order to correct those flaws. It is important to specify that these flaws have been around for a while. Several processes were put in place years ago, including by Ms. Ambrose, the Conservative minister at the time. Here is my first question: I would like to know what skills and training are needed to become a talent recruiter.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I understood the question. There is a series of things. There is building a network, which can be, just through years of experience, working with clients, working with resources, understanding their skill sets, understanding their availability and understanding what their per diems are. There are a lot of things that have to be put into place to understand if somebody is perfect for a role. Again, do they have the right experience? Do they have the right skill set? On top of that, as well, is understanding how they respond to RFPs. We are a small shop. I mean, I do not think that is a surprise to anybody here. Myself and my business partner, we had to understand how to look for RFPs on Buyandsell.gc.ca, how to respond to them, how to recruit for them and how to fulfill our obligations once the contracts have been awarded. Then there is invoicing and time sheets, everything that goes from a 360° desk.

Monsieur le Président, il est difficile de se faire un nom, de se faire connaître au sein de l’énorme appareil gouvernemental. J’aimerais connaître comment l’entreprise du témoin a réussi à s’imposer en tant que référence incontournable dans le recrutement de talents pour le gouvernement du Canada.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to make a name for oneself, to become known in the huge government machinery. I would like to know how the witness's company has managed to establish itself as a key player in recruiting talent for the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the question. I am not sure we are recognized as a benchmark. We were in a good position to respond and help with the ArriveCAN application, with having resources already on the ground and already having them CBSA security-cleared, which, in itself, takes a long time. However, that is not typical. At that point, I believe we beat out competition from two to three other firms. Members heard in testimony recently from AWS, Microsoft and BDO that they did not have the capacity to build the app. Although I understand it may look like we are the benchmark, we are not recognized as the benchmark with the federal government.

Monsieur le Président, je parlais de ce qui s'est passé bien avant ArriveCAN. Je parlais de ce qui s'est passé dès les premiers pas de GC Strategies comme entreprise reconnue par le gouvernement du Canada. Comment cela s'est-il déroulé? Comment la compagnie a-t-elle pu faire sa marque?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about what happened long before ArriveCAN. I was talking about what happened at the very beginning, when GC Strategies first became a company recognized by the Government of Canada. How did that happen? How did the company make its mark?

Mr. Speaker, for the first two years GC Strategies was in business, we actually were building corporate requirements. We were trying to get onto supply arrangements like TBIPS, SBIPS and ProServices, and all the mechanisms to go after business. Granted they were bluebirds, which basically means we had no idea these things were hitting the street. Then, shortly after winning the first two or three, one then starts getting corporate requirements, people start identifying the company as being good at one thing or good at the other, and then, at that point, one starts building credibility and so forth.

Monsieur le Président, ainsi, si je comprends bien, les premiers contrats qu'il a reçus, il les a reçus avant même de savoir exactement comment ça se passait. Si je me souviens bien, ces premiers contrats ont été accordés dès 2015, lors de la fondation de GC Strategies. Malgré le fait qu'on ne savait pas exactement comment ça se passait, on a réussi à avoir des contrats. J'aimerais comprendre cela.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, so, if I understand correctly, the first contracts he received, he received them before he even knew exactly how it all worked. If I remember correctly, these first contracts were awarded back in 2015, when GC Strategies was founded. Despite not knowing exactly how it all worked, he managed to get contracts. I would like to understand that.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I understood what the process was for responding to RFPs, but, for the first two years, we were working in building our credibility through other companies, like other subs who were working with the private sector. At that point, we had built the confidence in our network and our understanding of how many resources we had access to with specific skill sets, so that we felt comfortable going after the RFPs that were being put out by the federal government.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que le témoin croit que les fonctionnaires en général, notamment avec ArriveCAN, ont respecté les règles, les procédures et les politiques liées à leur position stratégique et privilégiée au sein de l'appareil étatique dans la négociation des contrats dont son entreprise a été la bénéficiaire?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, does the witness believe that civil servants in general, and those working on ArriveCAN in particular, followed the rules, procedures and policies related to their strategic and privileged position within the government apparatus when negotiating the contracts his company won?

Mr. Speaker, can I please have that question repeated?

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que le témoin croit que les fonctionnaires ont respecté les règles, les procédures et les politiques liées à leur position stratégique et privilégiée au sein de l'appareil étatique dans la négociation des contrats pour GC Strategies?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, does the witness believe that public servants complied with the rules, procedures and policies related to their strategic and privileged position within the government apparatus in negotiating contracts for GC Strategies?

Mr. Speaker, again, without sounding elusive, and that is not why I am here at all, I do not have the answer and cannot comment on that. I am not privy to every meeting that happens and every conversation that happens.

Monsieur le Président, je comprends que le témoin ne connaisse pas les règles de la fonction publique. Toutefois, est-ce que, à un moment quelconque, un fonctionnaire avec qui il était en lien lui a dit qu'il ne pouvait pas faire certaines actions qui ne respectaient pas ses règles à lui en tant que fonctionnaire?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the witness is not familiar with the rules of the public service. However, did any public servant with whom he had contact tell him, at any time, that they could not do certain things that did not abide by the rules that apply to public servants?

Mr. Speaker, no, they did not.

Monsieur le Président, il a été mentionné, notamment par la vérificatrice générale, que les membres de la compagnie GC Strategies avaient participé à l'élaboration de critères pour un contrat qu'ils ont finalement remporté. M. témoin croit-il que toute entreprise ayant participé à l'élaboration de critères devrait se retirer d'un appel d'offres?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it has been noted, particularly by the Auditor General, that people from GC Strategies helped develop the criteria for a contract that they ultimately won. Does the witness believe that any company that participates in developing criteria should withdraw from a call for tenders?

Mr. Speaker, from previous testimony that came from Amazon and Microsoft last week, I believe it is common practice to offer suggestions, because typically clients are not always best informed when it comes to writing RFPs or putting requirements together, whether it is cloud computing for Amazon or Microsoft. It is common for government officials or technical resources to ask for specific suggestions, understanding what skill sets and what technologies they would have to be privy with to be working on an application or working on projects.

Monsieur le Président, d'après ce que je comprends des réponses à mes dernières questions, actuellement, la fonction publique est obligée ou se sent obligée d'aller chercher la spécialisation de certains consultants parce qu'elle ne serait même pas en mesure de déterminer les critères et de formuler les critères en ce qui a trait à ses propres besoins. Il y a là un manque de spécialisation, il y a là un manque de formation. J'ajouterais notamment qu'il est illogique qu'une compagnie qui a œuvré à établir des critères puisse soumissionner à un appel d'offres. Il y a là une apparence de collusion dont les fonctionnaires ne doivent absolument pas se prévaloir, et les entreprises non plus. C'est à éviter. Je recommande qu'on révise le processus.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, based on what I understand from the answers to my last questions, the public service is currently forced, or feels obliged, to seek out the expertise of certain consultants because it cannot even identify or formulate criteria related to its own needs. That indicates a lack of expertise, and a lack of training. In particular, I would add that it makes no sense for a company that worked on selecting the criteria for a bidding process to be allowed to submit a bid. It creates the appearance of collusion, something that public servants, and companies, must absolutely avoid. That should be avoided. I recommend that the process be reviewed.

Mr. Speaker, I too am struck by the historic nature of this moment, and I am keenly aware of our responsibility, which is a sacred responsibility, to not only seek answers on behalf of Canadians but also ensure we are not doing undue harm to the individual who is here before us. We must also ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a way that upholds the integrity, dignity and credibility of this place, which lies at the heart of our democracy. I will certainly try to uphold those values in my questioning. We are here because of the serious allegations and revelations surrounding the procurement and execution of the ArriveCAN app, a piece of technology that incorrectly required thousands of Canadians to quarantine, that cost some $60 million and that was procured in a way that both the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman have found was highly irregular and likely connected to misconduct on the part of the government officials who were responsible. There are two main questions of substance that I believe we are seeking answers to today. The first dealt with Mr. Firth's misleading of the committee when it came to the question of whether he had met with government officials outside of work. The first time that question was raised at committee, Mr. Firth replied in the negative, saying that he had not met with officials outside of work. He then later provided documentation that showed he had met with three officials at some half a dozen Ottawa restaurants and breweries. Why did he choose to mislead the committee in the first instance?

Mr. Speaker, again, I am fully endorsing the embellishment and the understanding that there were questions that may have not been answered correctly and the understanding that some of them may have been obtuse. That is why I am here today. I will be answering all questions, just as I have been over the last 45 minutes, honestly and to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, the question, as originally asked at committee, was a simple yes or no question: Had the individual met with government officials outside of work? Mr. Firth replied that no, he had not. My question, which was not provided with an answer, was why he chose, in that moment, to mislead the committee.

Mr. Speaker, at that time, I did not know how many. Rather than giving a fake answer, I did not know exactly how many people I had met with. I have been doing this for 16 years.

Mr. Speaker, the question was not how many government officials or how many times. The question was a yes or no question. Had Mr. Firth met with government officials outside of work? Why did he mislead the committee by answering that question in the negative?

Mr. Speaker, at that time, I thought I did answer it correctly.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very difficult time accepting that answer and believing that answer to be the truth. The other question of substance that I believe we are here to seek an answer to is with regard to which government official Mr. Firth discussed the criteria for a contract that was eventually awarded to him. I believe he has provided that name as being Diane Daly. Can Mr. Firth confirm that this is indeed the government official with whom he discussed the contract criteria?

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that.

Mr. Speaker, I think, for Canadians watching, this is really the most troubling of the allegations, that Mr. Firth, on behalf of his company, was involved in setting the rules and the criteria for a multi-million-dollar contract that, strangely enough, his firm was eventually awarded with. To most Canadians, this would look like, and I will not exaggerate, a rigged system that is designed to benefit Ottawa insiders and make it more difficult for entrepreneurs and small businesses in this country to do work for the government. Does Mr. Firth not agree?

Mr. Speaker, the RFP for the contract in question had over 220 requirements involved. We offered up three suggestions, with which PSPC still deemed 40 qualified vendors could respond to, and of which 10 showed interest. I do not see that as overly restrictive.

Mr. Speaker, both the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman found that the criteria for that contract were set in such a restrictive way that only GC Strategies could have been selected as the successful bidder. Does Mr. Firth not agree that this process is profoundly unfair?

Mr. Speaker, I find the ombudsman's comments to be somewhat subjective after the fact. I cannot comment as to why the other 39 people did not respond. People are busy. They sometimes do not have the bandwidth. Also, for the Auditor General to understand that we would be the only people that could respond to this, there are 635 other vendors out there with the corporate requirements and there are wholly 10,000 or 12,000 resources out there with the technical requirements. Unless they are familiar with all of those, it is hard, again, to assume that we were the only people qualified to win this.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply troubled by the allegations and revelations surrounding the ArriveCAN app. Could Mr. Firth, in his own words, describe what those concerns are, precisely?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can, to be honest. I do not know the allegations and accusations around the ArriveCAN app. We used the first three national security exemption contracts. Actually, only two of them, the first and the third, were used to build the ArriveCAN application. I am not being disrespectful. I may not understand the question, but I think I am answering it honestly.

Mr. Speaker, at committee, when Mr. Firth was asked about which government official he discussed the contract criteria with, he refused to answer, citing the fact that the RCMP was now involved at some level in looking into the circumstances surrounding the ArriveCAN app, yet the rules of Parliament and the laws of Canada do not accept that as a valid reason to refuse to answer a question of Parliament. Does Mr. Firth accept the fact that the rules required him, at the time, to provide a full answer to our questions at committee?

Mr. Speaker, as a result of my admonishment and my understanding of that, I do now.

Mr. Speaker, in an internal investigation report by the company Botler AI, there is a characterization of a communication with Mr. Firth in which he is discussing the exorbitant commissions charged by his company for the work done by subcontractors. In those communications, he is alleged to have said that it sucks for Canada. Does Mr. Firth recall making those comments?

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any of that content. I cannot recall saying that at all.

Mr. Speaker, given that Mr. Firth has now been brought before the bar of Parliament, and this is only the second time in our country's history that this has happened, and given the grave concerns of Canadians, I wonder if there is anything he would have done differently in his initial committee appearances to avoid the situation he now finds himself in.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely would. I would have answered the questions more concisely, taken more time in giving the answers and provided all written information back to the committee faster.

Mr. Speaker, earlier, Mr. Firth said that no one has asked him to pay back the commission that he earned. Given that the Auditor General found the government overpaid for the ArriveCAN app, that the app itself did not work and sent thousands to quarantine incorrectly, that the Auditor General has called the record-keeping around those contracts some of the worst that she has ever seen, that 76% of the subcontractors did zero or little work, that GC Strategies bills itself as a recruitment firm but does not recruit, and that Mr. Firth took $2.5 million in commission for very little work, will he give that money back?

Mr. Speaker, we were the 24%; we were not the 76%. We did recruit over 50 people to work on the ArriveCAN application and over 100 people in totality at CBSA. The answer is that we did as we were told. We invoiced monthly. At any time, we could have been stopped. This was not that we were given $20 million and then walked away to build an app. This was not our app. We were paid to recruit and find the resources who built the app within 20 days and did subsequent new releases for 18 months on time and on budget.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I would, please.

Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais demander au témoin quelles sont les allégations de Botler AI qui ont mené à la fouille de sa résidence cette semaine par la GRC.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the witness what allegations were made by Botler AI that resulted in an RCMP search of his home this week.

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the allegations. There were six points on the search warrant and they were not very specific to any specific allegations, but from previous testimony, I am understanding that it was fraudulent billing and résumé fraud.

Monsieur le Président, le témoin, M. Firth, est ici à la suite du scandale libéral de l'application ArriveCAN du premier ministre. C'est une application qui devait coûter 80 000 $, mais qui a coûté 60 millions de dollars. Est-ce que le gouvernement libéral, qui a versé des dizaines de millions de dollars pour du travail qui n'a pas été fait, a contacté M. Firth?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the witness, Mr. Firth, is here in the wake of the Liberal scandal involving the Prime Minister's ArriveCAN application. It is an app that was supposed to cost $80,000 but ended up costing $60 million. Did the Liberal government, which paid tens of millions of dollars for work that was not done, contact Mr. Firth?

Mr. Speaker, there was no English translation for the member's question.

Monsieur le Président, le témoin, M. Firth, est ici à la suite du scandale libéral de l'application ArriveCAN du premier ministre. C'est une application qui devait coûter 80 000 $, mais qui a coûté 60 millions de dollars. Est-ce que le gouvernement libéral, qui a versé des dizaines de millions de dollars pour du travail qui n'a pas été fait, a demandé à M. Firth de rembourser l'argent ou est entré en contact avec lui pour trouver une façon de le faire?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the witness, Mr. Firth, is here in the wake of the Liberal scandal involving the Prime Minister's ArriveCAN application. It is an app that was supposed to cost $80,000 but ended up costing $60 million. Did the Liberal government, who paid tens of millions of dollars for work that was not done, ask Mr. Firth to reimburse the money or contact him to find a way to do so?

Mr. Speaker, no, I was not contacted.

Monsieur le Président, le témoin, M. Firth, a soit refusé de répondre aux questions, soit menti au comité parlementaire après que nous ayons appris que le gouvernement du premier ministre l'avait rendu multimillionnaire sur le dos des contribuables. Est-ce que le témoin peut affirmer aujourd'hui à la Chambre qu'il n'a jamais menti en comité parlementaire?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the witness, Mr. Firth, either refused to answer questions or lied to the parliamentary committee after we learned that the Prime Minister's government had made him a multimillionaire on the backs of taxpayers. Can the witness affirm today in the House that he did not lie before the parliamentary committee?

Mr. Speaker, again, acknowledging the fact that I am being admonished and am making history right now, I think I have acknowledged the fact that I made mistakes in the previous committee.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que M. Firth peut nous dire quand précisément il a menti?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, can Mr. Firth tell us exactly when he lied?

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact information. Again, I am not being elusive. I just cannot allude to which questions, what time and which month.

Monsieur le Président, je comprends que le témoin a menti à plusieurs reprises en comité et c'est pour cela que nous sommes ici aujourd'hui pour tenter de découvrir la vérité. Est-ce que M. Firth peut nous confirmer qu'il a volontairement évité de nommer ses sources au sein du gouvernement libéral pour protéger son payant modèle d'affaires, qui résulte du laxisme direct du gouvernement libéral en matière d'approvisionnement?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the witness lied repeatedly in committee and that is why we are here today to try to find out the truth. Can Mr. Firth confirm that he purposely avoided naming his sources within the Liberal government to protect his lucrative business model, which resulted from the Liberal government's lax procurement processes?

Mr. Speaker, no, I did not.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que M. Firth peut nous confirmer que les trois citations sur le site Web de GC Strategies étaient anonymes à la demande des auteurs de ces citations?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, can Mr. Firth confirm that the three quotations on the GC Strategies website were anonymous at the request of the authors of those quotations?

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that was requested.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que ces personnes ont reçu des avantages quelconques pour autoriser GC Strategies à utiliser anonymement leurs commentaires?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, did these individuals receive any benefit for allowing GC Strategies to use their comments anonymously?

Mr. Speaker, no, they did not.

Monsieur le Président, je vais partager mon temps de parole avec la députée de Calgary Midnapore.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth just admitted that the RCMP raided his house, relative to Botler AI. When Mr. Firth introduced Botler AI to his consultant colleague Mr. Vaughn Brennan, he had them email Mr. Jeremy Broadhurst, the former chief of staff for the Minister of Finance and the current Liberal campaign chair. Did Mr. Brennan regularly set up Mr. Firth's contacts with elected officials, ministers and their chiefs of staff?

Mr. Speaker, that is news to me. I have never engaged Vaughn Brennan to get any meetings with senior government officials.

Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Firth aware that Mr. Brennan's wife works for Procurement Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I was as of the third testimony when that was brought to light, but until then, I was not aware of it.

Mr. Speaker, what benefits did Mr. Vaughn Brennan provide Mr. Firth that furthered their professional relationship?

Mr. Speaker, Vaughn Brennan never provided anything outside of the work that we would give him on a per diem time and material basis for a government department.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth submitted that he was meeting with government officials outside of government offices. Where did Mr. Firth meet Paul Girard, the former CIO of TBS?

Mr. Speaker, I have met Paul Girard at the Starbucks on 99 Metcalfe.

Mr. Speaker, what did Mr. Firth discuss at this meeting?

Mr. Speaker, with Mr. Girard's position, and I had two contracts within his directorate, it was just understanding how the contracts were going, thanking me, thinking the resources were performing well, understanding if there were any issues and just general chief information officer duties.

Mr. Speaker, where did Mr. Firth meet Monsieur Philippe Johnston, former CIO at NRC?

Mr. Speaker, it could have been Bâton Rouge, which was underneath where his department was, or it could have been a coffee shop.

Mr. Speaker, what did Mr. Firth discuss at this meeting?

Mr. Speaker, at that time, it was very similar to Mr. Girard. We had contracts within Mr. Johnston's department. I think it was just a health check on the contracts, making sure that my resources were performing. If they were not, then they would let me know this and we would replace them.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth has made connections and met with public servants for over a decade, wining and dining them for contracts. Officials became comfortable with this system. Officials allowed Mr. Firth to charge millions because they were not willing to follow the rules and used Mr. Firth as their easy way out of accountability. Who is Mr. Firth protecting in this corrupt system?

Mr. Speaker, I am not protecting anybody. I am just going about my business, like an IT staffing firm does.

Mr. Speaker, did Mr. Firth review the content of the search warrant executed on his house yesterday?

Mr. Speaker, I skimmed through the six pages, yes.

Mr. Speaker, did the search warrant specify forgery pursuant to section 366 of the Criminal Code and fraud pursuant to section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada?

Again, Mr. Speaker, I skimmed through it. To answer honestly, I cannot give that answer accurately.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth admitted that he altered two résumés, replacing a two-month internship with 51 months of professional experience. On another occasion, he inflated seven years of experience to 12. He claimed that this was a mistake. He did not have consent to manipulate the résumés. Is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, we have mentioned this previously in previous testimonies, but we encouraged the RCMP investigation into the Botler allegations, whether it is fraud over $5,000, because we believe it is going to exonerate us.

Mr. Speaker, he clearly did not answer the question. I will move on. How many other times has Mr. Firth altered materials and résumés to the government since 2015?

Mr. Speaker, it is a common practice to engage with a resource to understand, because not everybody's CV or résumé completely aligns with requirements that are coming out. They may have the experience, but we just have to speak with them to qualify that.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking for the number.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a number.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth's actions amounted to forgery under the Criminal Code. He altered résumés to secure government contracts, thereby fleecing the Canadian taxpayer. Is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, the allegations regarding the Botler résumés were on a contract that had already been awarded, so these were task authorizations. No contracts would have been decided either way by these résumés. It was one business.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth's actions further constituted a fraud on the Government of Canada. Section 380 of the Criminal Code stipulates fraud is “Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means” defrauds the public “of any property, money or valuable security”. Both offences are punishable by indictment and, upon conviction, he could face a maximum prison sentence of 10 to 14 years. Is he aware of that?

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to the investigation by the RCMP because we believe it will exonerate us.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth's actions were not accidental but intentional. This was not a mistake. He knew his resources would not qualify for taxpayer monies without manipulating their experience. Does Mr. Firth think that the Prime Minister or the Liberal cabinet ministers should be at the bar answering questions today, instead of him, or is he willing to go to jail for them?

Mr. Speaker, can I speak to my counsel, please?

Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure what the question is there.

Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker, I respect that, but he clearly indicated that he did not understand the question. In terms of fairness to Mr. Firth, he should be afforded an opportunity for me to rephrase the question so he can understand it and respond accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you started off today talking about the importance of decorum. I do not think it is appropriate for the member opposite to be challenging the Speaker when the rules, as you expressed them, were very clear. The time has expired. That means we move on to the next person, and he should not be challenging the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, does Mr. Firth think that he should be solely responsible for this scam, or should the Prime Minister, the Liberal cabinet ministers and certain members of the Liberal back bench be at this bar facing legal consequences?

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I do not want to be elusive. I cannot comment on this; it is kind of speculative. I am not sure what I can do here.

Monsieur le Président, loin de moi l'idée de vouloir défendre le Parlement canadien, institution à laquelle j'aimerais qu'un jour le Québec ne réponde plus. Néanmoins, je me dois de défendre les principes que ce Parlement incarne, notamment le respect des institutions démocratiques, donc de la démocratie parlementaire à laquelle le Québec participe. Il y a quelques semaines, le Bureau de la vérificatrice générale remettait un rapport sur la gestion de l'application ArriveCAN. Pour reprendre les mots de la vérificatrice générale, la gestion de l'application a été la pire qu'elle a vue dans sa carrière. L'application ArriveCAN était censée coûter 80 000 $ et elle en a coûté 60 millions. Dans le même rapport de la vérificatrice générale, on apprenait qu'une seule entreprise de deux personnes, dont nous avons le propriétaire ici présent, a empoché plus de 19 millions de dollars. Cette entreprise, c'est GC Strategies. Ce que nous découvrons aussi, c'est que le dossier d'ArriveCAN est seulement la pointe de l'iceberg. Le contrôleur général a récemment révélé que GC Strategies et son ancêtre Coredal Systems Consulting avaient obtenu des contrats totalisant 108 millions de dollars depuis 2011. Des recherches manuelles permettent au gouvernement de trouver d'autres contrats. Ce sera donc peut-être même plus que 108 millions de dollars. D'autre part, nous apprenions, dans le rapport de la vérificatrice générale et dans plusieurs témoignages, que le témoin ici présent, M. Kristian Firth, et des fonctionnaires du gouvernement ont participé à des dégustations de whisky, des soupers, des tournois de golf et des dizaines d'autres événements. Il est donc normal et sain dans une démocratie qui se respecte que les parlementaires chargés de s'assurer d'un bon fonctionnement de l'État regardent de plus près ce qui a pu arriver afin que cela n'arrive plus. C'est dans ce contexte que les propriétaires de GC Strategies ont été invités à témoigner à plusieurs reprises en comité. M. Kristian Firth a refusé de répondre à plusieurs questions. Il a compromis le travail des parlementaires en n'envoyant pas les documents demandés dans les délais. Il a menti en comité. Il a notamment refusé de transmettre la liste des fonctionnaires avec qui il faisait affaire, liste qu'il vient de transmettre, mais qui est incomplète au vu des témoignages que nous venons d'entendre en comité. Il est clair que si on en est arrivé là, c'est qu'il y a d'énormes problèmes en matière d'approvisionnement de l'État. Depuis maintenant près de 15 ans, il est tellement difficile d'entrer dans la présélection des entreprises avec qui le gouvernement peut faire affaire que des petites entreprises ne livrant aucun service reçoivent des commissions pour que le gouvernement entre indirectement en contrat avec ceux qui vont réellement effectuer le travail. C'est totalement absurde. Ici, on a affaire à une personne qui a profité d'un système qui est déjà brisé et il l'a poussé à l'extrême. Je vais donner un exemple. Lorsque l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada avait identifié KPMG comme étant une entreprise avec qui elle pouvait faire affaire et qui était déjà inscrite sur la liste des entreprises préapprouvées, elle a contacté KPMG. Le contrat de travail allait être préétabli. C'est alors qu'un fonctionnaire de l'Agence des services frontaliers a téléphoné à KPMG pour lui annoncer qu'il y aurait un intermédiaire dans leur contrat. Cet intermédiaire, c'est GC Strategies. Nous avons appris que M. Kristian Firth a rencontré KPMG dans le cadre de ce contrat. C'est précisément le problème. M. Kristian Firth et son entreprise de deux personnes n'ont même pas livré le service qu'ils prétendent livrer, c'est-à-dire un service de chasseur de têtes. Ils n'ont absolument rien fait et ils ont empoché 84 000 $. Ma question pour M. Firth est la suivante: est-ce qu'il pense que les contribuables en ont eu pour leur argent, pour leurs 84 000 $, dans cette affaire?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to defend Canada's Parliament, an institution to which I hope one day Quebec will no longer have to answer. Nevertheless, I must defend the principles behind this Parliament, in particular respect for democratic institutions, and therefore of the parliamentary democracy in which Quebec participates. A few weeks ago, the Office of the Auditor General submitted a report on the management of the ArriveCAN app. To quote the Auditor General, management of the app was the worst she had seen in her career. The ArriveCAN app was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing $60 million. In the same report, we learned that one company composed of two people, the owner of which is here today, pocketed more than $19 million. That company is GC Strategies. We also learned that the ArriveCAN affair is only the tip of the iceberg. The comptroller general recently revealed that GC Strategies, and its ancestor Coredal Systems Consulting, have obtained contracts totalling $108 million since 2011. Manual searches could reveal other contracts, so it might be even more than $108 million. We learned in the Auditor General's report and from several witnesses that the witness here today, Mr. Kristian Firth, and public servants participated in whisky tastings, dinners, golf tournaments and dozens of other events. It is normal and healthy in a self-respecting democracy that the parliamentarians responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of the government take a closer look at what may have happened to prevent it from happening again. That is the reason why the owners of GC Strategies were invited to testify several times in committee. Mr. Kristian Firth refused to answer several questions. He compromised parliamentarians' work by not submitting the requested documents on time. He lied to the committee. In particular, he refused to submit the list of public servants with whom he did business, a list he has just now submitted but that is incomplete based on the testimony we heard in committee. It is clear that, if that is where we are, there are huge problems with the government's procurement processes. For almost 15 years now, it has been so difficult for companies to pass the preselection stage to do business with the government that small companies that provide no services at all are being paid a commission so that the government can enter into a contract with the company that will actually be doing the work. It is completely absurd. Here we have a person who took advantage of our broken system and pushed it to the extreme. I will give members an example. When the Canada Border Services Agency identified KPMG as a company with which it could do business and as a company already on the list of pre-approved companies, it contacted KPMG. The contract would be pre-established. That is when a public servant at the CBSA called KPMG to tell them that there would be an intermediary in their contract. The intermediary was GC Strategies. We learned that Mr. Kristian Firth met with KPMG with respect to the contract. That is precisely the problem. Mr. Kristian Firth and his two-person company did not even provide the head-hunting service they claimed to provide. They did absolutely nothing and pocketed $84,000. My question for Mr. Firth is as follows: Does he think that taxpayers got their money's worth for the $84,000 in this affair?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this is common practice for people with existing contracts. They get subcontractors to come through their company, because typically the time to procure directly, even if one is one of the 635 vendors who could do work with the government, takes too long. Again, I was not aware of the file and what the urgency was and the deliverables, but I did know timelines were very tight. My assumption, and again this is being speculative, was that they were leveraging the contract I had, because it needed to be done quickly.

Monsieur le Président, ce qu'on a entendu en comité, c'est que les fonctionnaires faisaient absolument de leur mieux pour que les contrats soient octroyés rapidement. C'est d'ailleurs pour cela que beaucoup de contrats ont été octroyés de manière non concurrentielle. Encore une fois, nous avons des témoignages contradictoires. D'après M. Firth, pourquoi le fonctionnaire a-t-il accepté de simplement prendre le téléphone, appeler KPMG pour dire qu'il y aurait un intermédiaire et que celui-ci allait recevoir 84 000 $ sans rien faire? Pourquoi est-ce que le fonctionnaire a fait cela selon lui?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, what we heard in committee is that the public servants did everything they could to make sure the contracts were awarded quickly. That is why many contracts were awarded non-competitively. Once again, we are hearing contradictory testimony. According to Mr. Firth, why did the public servant agree to simply pick up the phone and call KPMG to tell them that there would be an intermediary and that that intermediary would be paid $84,000 to do absolutely nothing? Why does he think the public servant did that?

Mr. Speaker, again, not being elusive, I cannot comment on why somebody picked up the phone in a government organization and made a call.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que M. Firth a un chiffre en tête pour les nombreux cadeaux, que ce soit en argent ou en nature, qu'il a offerts à des fonctionnaires fédéraux?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, does Mr. Firth have a number in mind for the many gifts in money and in kind that he offered the federal public servants?

Mr. Speaker, that number is zero.

Monsieur le Président, si je résume, M. Firth n'a jamais payé pour un café, n'a jamais payé pour un restaurant, n'a jamais payé pour un tournoi de golf et n'a jamais payé pour une dégustation de whiskey, malgré tout ce que nous avons entendu lors des témoignages?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to summarize, Mr. Firth never paid for a coffee, never paid for a restaurant meal, never paid for a golf tournament and never paid for a whisky tasting, despite all the testimony we heard.

Mr. Speaker, I have admitted I would go out and I would invite government employees to lunches or to coffee, understanding that if they were to show up, they had already gone through their regular chain of command and already asked permission to accept that.

Monsieur le Président, nous avons un bel exemple de contradiction. On passe de zéro à oui, il y a eu des cafés, des restaurants, des tournois de golf, des dégustations de whiskey et on en passe, avec des dizaines de fonctionnaires fédéraux. Je répète la même question. À combien s'évalue, que ce soit en nature ou en argent comptant, ce qu'il a octroyé à des fonctionnaires fédéraux?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here is a good example of a contradiction. We went from zero to yes, there were coffees, restaurant meals, golf tournaments, whisky tastings and on and on, with dozens of federal public servants. I will repeat the same question. How much, in money or in kind, was given to the federal public servants?

Mr. Speaker, the first question was specific to what was given to receive contracts by government employees. That is why I said it was zero. Once the contracts had been awarded through regular procurement practices, they became a client, and we would have frequent meetings to check on the health of the project, whether that was over lunch or whether that was during coffee.

Monsieur le Président, pourquoi faisait-il cela si ce n'était pour obtenir des contrats du gouvernement fédéral?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, why do that if not to obtain federal government contracts?

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for a health check on how my resources are performing and whether, also, I need to replace any if they are not.

Monsieur le Président, les personnes avec lesquelles il prenait des cafés et faisait des dégustations de whiskey, les avait-il préidentifiées comme étant des personnes qui pouvaient lui octroyer des contrats ou étaient-ce simplement des personnes qu'il rencontrait dans la rue?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, had he previously identified those with whom he was having coffee and tasting whisky as people who could grant him contracts, or were they simply people he met on the street?

Mr. Speaker, they were clients whom we engaged with once we had won the contracts.

Monsieur le Président, c'est ce qu'on appelle offrir un service payé en nature pour obtenir un contrat. C'est la définition même. Passons à la question suivante. M. Firth a justifié son taux horaire de 2 600 $ l'heure par le fait qu'il ne travaillait pas juste de 9 heures du matin à 17 heures. Est-ce qu'il considère que les Canadiens et les Québécois en ont eu pour leur argent avec les 2 600 $ l'heure qu'ils ont payés pour soi-disant énormément d'heures du temps de M. Firth?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is clearly providing a service paid in kind to obtain a contract. It is the very definition of it. Let us go on to the next question. Mr. Firth justified his rate of $2,600 per hour by saying that he did not work just nine to five. Does he think that Canadians and Quebeckers got their money's worth with the $2,600 per hour they paid for Mr. Firth's so-called huge number of hours?

Mr. Speaker, the hours that we were quoting were specific to ArriveCAN. We had 22 other departments and other contracts we were working on at that time. I would like to also remind everyone that we were picked. We did not solicit. We provided services; over 50 resources were in there and delivered on 170 releases on the application.

Monsieur le Président, M. Firth et M. Anthony se sont rencontrés dans l'entreprise Veritaaq, qui a d'ailleurs été accusée de collusion dans les contrats en 2009 alors que M. Firth travaillait dans cette entreprise. Le juge qui avait regardé l'affaire avait ordonné que tous les employés reçoivent une formation anticollusion. Est-ce que M. Firth a retenu quelque chose de cette formation?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony met at Veritaaq, which was accused of colluding on contracts in 2009 while Mr. Firth was working there. The judge who looked into the matter had ordered that all employees receive anti-collusion training. Did Mr. Firth learn anything from that training?

Mr. Speaker, in 2009, at Veritaaq, I was a recruiter. I was not involved in the sales cycle whatsoever, so I do not think I had training in 2009.

Monsieur le Président, c'est bien dommage parce que même un recruteur est considéré comme un employé d'une entreprise. Je pense que ce que nous voyons aujourd'hui, c'est qu'il y a un gros problème en ce qui concerne l'approvisionnement et qu'il y a une perte de contrôle en ce qui concerne les cadeaux qui sont acceptés par les fonctionnaires, comme nous en avons eu la preuve aujourd'hui. Je pense donc que l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada, qui a été un des principaux organes du gouvernement à octroyer des contrats à GC Strategies, doit être mise sous tutelle parce qu'il faut que les Québécois et les Canadiens récupèrent l'argent qui a été dépensé en trop dans cette entreprise et dans d'autres entreprises.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, that is too bad, because even a recruiter is considered a company employee. I think that what we are seeing today is that there is a big problem when it comes to procurement and that there is a certain loss of control when it comes to the gifts that are being accepted by public servants. We saw proof of that today. I think that the CBSA, which was one of the main government bodies that awarded contracts to GC Strategies, must be put under third-party management because Quebeckers and Canadians need to recover the money that was wasted on this company and others.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the clock can be stopped. Can I have the question again, please? It was not coming through on my headphones very well.

Monsieur le Président, est-il d’accord que si des fonctionnaires n’ont pas respecté les procédures internes, ceux-ci devraient donc perdre leur emploi et, si c’est un problème généralisé à l’Agence des services frontaliers du Canada, que cette agence soit mise sous tutelle?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, does he agree that any public servants who did not follow internal procedures should lose their jobs and that if this is a widespread problem within the CBSA, then that agency should be put under third party management?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if any wrongdoing is found, there should be repercussions.

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians across the country and members of Parliament are disappointed, not just in the dramatic failure of the procurement system in our country to address the real issues of value for money, but in that this sheds light on what has been a terrible instance of reporting missing information and lost invoicing. We do not even know the total amount to date. This is a serious and grave matter facing our country, one that stems back decades now. We heard testimony at the public accounts committee, of which I am a member, several times. Other contractors spoke to us about the tremendous vulnerability that exists in Canada's procurement system and also exists in the lack of investment in our public sector. According to The Globe and Mail, for instance, since 2017, GC Strategies has received $46 million in federal funding. The flow of tax dollars to GC Strategies has increased steadily each year, growing from $32.6 million in the 2016-17 fiscal year to $80.3 million in the 2021-22 fiscal year. According to the Auditor General, GC Strategies' ArriveCAN app cost Canadians almost $60 million. The total is still undetermined due to the lack of documentation and of a paper trail, a serious and grave error in and of itself. On top of that, we have noticed that this vulnerability of our public service and procurement process has created a system in which insiders are able to profit in extreme amounts because of a system that does not have the proper accountability and does not have the proper follow through, albeit, in this particular instance, that there is a lack of proper procurement. Canadians are rightly disappointed. Not only that, but they are angry at the very real fact that they wake up every single day, go to work, pay their taxes and do everything right, and then are told that the tax dollars they have worked so hard for have not gone to close in the gaps in social or economic outcomes, or for material benefits for Canadians, but have been going towards a dramatic outsourcing of jobs that Canadians in our public service could do. I recognize that not all IT services, of course, can be dealt with here at the House of Commons or in our public service, but a great deal of them could. When did Mr. Firth first start doing contracts and business with the Government of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, my first contract would have been in 2011.

Mr. Speaker, what are the names of Mr. Firth's various companies that have contracted or subcontracted with the Government of Canada since that time?

Mr. Speaker, I probably cannot remember them all, but I will do the best I can. I am sorry, but can I get a qualification for that question, please?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask for a qualification. Should I be speaking about my companies or the companies that we have subcontracted work through?

Mr. Speaker, I am inquiring as to the names of the companies that he has been the owner or co-owner of since 2011, while he has been doing business with the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the only IT staffing firm I have had is GC Strategies, as an owner. We were not part of Coredal.

Mr. Speaker, does Mr. Firth believe that the work his company, GC Strategies, has done in relation to ArriveCAN was good money for Canadians' dollars?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the team we put forward, again, as attested to by AWS, Microsoft and BDO, were the only ones at that point that had the capacity to build this application, so I would say yes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth, in the past, has spoken about his worries or concerns, or even at times perceived rejection, of the Auditor General's report, in particular to this fact as well in regard to value for money. What does Mr. Firth have to say in relation to the Auditor General's report on value for money?

Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the report. Again, it is the inputs that were given to the report. There is a big delta between the $19.1 million the AG's report claimed that we used to build the application versus the $11 million, but because of the financial system and the tagging for other projects associated, because these contracts were pandemic response contracts and were not specific to the ArriveCAN app, I can understand why there is the discrepancy.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that when our public service does the job, they are doing it knowing the most important piece to that is the outcome for Canadians and making sure that the service is truly up to the standard that Canadians expect. When we outsource that work, when we take that job away from the public sector and when we take it away from those who work for the good of our country, it comes with a price. It comes with commission, and it comes with profit by the private sector in this particular instance. How much money did Mr. Firth take home from these contracts?

Mr. Speaker, again, I am not being elusive, but I do not have that exact number in front of me. I'm sorry.

Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to not be able to supply such a number when, as a matter of fact, the company would be responsible for issuing invoices or issuing the amount owed to them. It would also be up to an owner of a company to administer and to have paperwork for their employees, including themselves, if they are paid. Does Mr. Firth suggest that he has not paid himself or that he has not kept track of payments to himself? If not, how can we, in this chamber, get this information, and would he supply it in writing later?

Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question, but I just do not have the answer in front of me right now. I was not given a set of questions that would be coming at me in the next hour and 20 minutes. I'm sorry.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask the hon. member to repeat it please?

Mr. Speaker, would Mr. Firth supply the amount he took home from government contracts?

Mr. Speaker, I think that information has been provided to the committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth and his partner, Mr. Anthony, have both made accusations that the Auditor General's report is false and that she is lying. He gave clarity to my question in relation to some of the numbers supplied. In addition to those numbers that were supplied, what other areas of that report would Mr. Firth contest?

Mr. Speaker, off the top of my head, the numbers one is the one that has caused the most media attention, so that would be the one I would be more focused on to make sure it was corrected.

Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Procurement Ombud said that “overly restrictive”, “mandatory [solicitation] criteria...favoured [GC Strategies] for “a $25-million contract”. GC Strategies had been involved in the development of their requirements, which were included by the CBSA in a request for proposal for a contract ultimately won by Mr. Firth. To be clear, Mr. Firth's company, GC Strategies, by evidence of the ombudsman, participated in the recommendations set out in a request for proposal to which Mr. Firth's company applied and was awarded a contract. Does Mr. Firth understand that the Auditor General concluded in that investigation that there was no evidence to the effect that GC Strategies supplied a proposal even to get this contract? Can Mr. Firth please explain how the information was requested, who from the CBSA requested the information related to a contract like the one they were a recipient of, and what aspects of that proposal did Mr. Firth supply for requirement?

Mr. Speaker, I would like a quick clarification on the question. The Auditor General identified no proposal for the national security exemption ones, not the one we are discussing right now.

Mr. Speaker, in what capacity was Mr. Firth involved in developing and contributing to the CBSA requirements for the ArriveCAN contract?

Mr. Speaker, I have previously mentioned there were 220 requirements in that RFP. There were three suggestions we put forward, understanding that they would need to know the technology stack and the types of resources they would need. From that point onward, that was everything. The 220 other requirements were all public information that could be obtained through Buyandsell.gc.ca or through any other RFP that has hit the street. On top of that as well, it was PSPC that still deemed 40 qualified vendors who were responding to this RFP.

Mr. Speaker, can Mr. Firth please explain the process, in particular the timeline of events, that enabled Mr. Firth's contribution to that RFP?

Mr. Speaker, I was approached in May 2021, I believe, for suggestions and understanding of what kind of requirements they would need for a team to continue the work, and I believe the contract was awarded a year later. There was no conversation between those.

Mr. Speaker, does Mr. Firth believe that to be a conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker, I do not. Again, these were three suggestions of 220 that went through multiple levels and went through multiple departments before being awarded and evaluated.

Mr. Speaker, yes, please.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth said today that he was completely unaware of connections between Vaughn Brennan and senior Liberal staffer Jeremy Broadhurst and was completely unaware of connections to senior Liberals, but Mr. Firth received a text on February 1, 2021, that was subsequently reported in The Globe and Mail, which specifically described the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister's office, where Broadhurst was chief of staff. Does Mr. Firth want to correct his earlier response?

Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge, and I cannot remember sending that text message.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth received a text message on February 1, 2021. It was reported in The Globe and Mail. That report in The Globe and Mail, along with other information, sparked subsequent hearings at the government operations committee. Is Mr. Firth claiming he did not read that article or the text?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember that text message, and I cannot remember that article.

Mr. Speaker, this is a final chance to tell the truth. Will the witness tell the House about any connections and relationships between him and Jeremy Broadhurst or, that he is aware of, between Vaughn Brennan and Jeremy Broadhurst? He received texts. It is in The Globe and Mail. Will he tell the truth?

Mr. Speaker, again, I do not know of any communications. I do not remember that text message. I have not seen the article.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth claimed today that it is common practice for clients to request and to receive suggestions about the content of RFPs from those who bid on them. How many times, since 2015, has GC Strategies provided these kinds of suggestions to government clients regarding RFPs that it then bid on?

Mr. Speaker, again, without being elusive here, I do not have that number. I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, will the witness undertake to provide a response to that question in writing to the Speaker and to the government operations committee within 14 days?

Mr. Speaker, we were spoken to previously. Do we have to provide information to the House?

Mr. Speaker, the witness has asked if he has to provide responses. I would submit to you that the whole reason he is here is that he has refused to provide responses. This is why the House is taking this matter so seriously.

Mr. Speaker, will the witness provide the response, in writing, to the question I have asked, which he claims to be unable to answer? Will he provide it in writing, within 14 days, to the Speaker and to the committee, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, yes, I will.

Mr. Speaker, why did the government go to GC Strategies for this sort of advice? How did GC Strategies become a favoured contractor and adviser regarding RFPs to the Government of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I got my first contract in 2011 and have done that subsequently by just responding to RFPs. It is flattering to be a recognized person who can provide requirements and help for the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, it is very flattering indeed. According to committee testimony, Mr. Firth received $2,600 per hour spent working on ArriveCAN. That is substantially more than the earnings of an average NHL player. It is very flattering that they came to him for advice. It is very flattering that he was paid so much. Does he see this as a reasonable rate of compensation for what he did?

Mr. Speaker, again, in the testimony, they were quoting hours towards ArriveCAN. We had 22 other departments and 20 other contracts we were working on at the same time. It is impossible for me to spend 250 hours on one contract when I have to service and maintain other projects with other clients.

Mr. Speaker, is the witness involved with any other companies?

Mr. Speaker, just my holdco, which is the 50% owner of GC Strategies.

Mr. Speaker, what is that holdco, and does it do business with the Government of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, my holdco is a numbered company that was used to register the name GC Strategies.

Mr. Speaker, does it do business with the Government of Canada directly?

Mr. Speaker, it does not.

Mr. Speaker, the witness discussed the health of contracts outside the office with Paul Girard, Treasury Board CIO. Did he discuss replacing resources or increasing resources at that time?

Mr. Speaker, I have had many conversations with Paul Girard. I cannot remember every single one of them.

Mr. Speaker, did he discuss new contracts? Since he claims to be unable to answer that question, will he respond to it in writing as well?

Mr. Speaker, sorry, I thought I did answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, in meetings outside the office with Paul Girard, did they discuss replacing resources or increasing resources? Did they discuss new contracts? If the witness is unable to answer that question, will he provide a response in writing?

Mr. Speaker, I will respond in writing. I do not have every conversation with Mr. Girard catalogued.

Monsieur le Président, tantôt, le témoin a mentionné qu'il avait contrefait deux CV, mais c'était seulement après l'attribution de contrats. Est-ce que c'est exact?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the witness said earlier that he had altered two résumés, but only after contracts were awarded. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said that earlier.

Monsieur le Président, je suis convaincu que oui. J'étais là, je l'ai entendu. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi il dit qu'il n'a pas dit ça. Tantôt, un conservateur lui a demandé s'il avait contrefait deux CV et il a dit oui, mais après l'obtention de contrats. Est-ce que j'ai mal compris?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I am sure he said that. I was there, I heard him. I do not understand why he is claiming that he did not say it. Earlier, a Conservative asked him if he had altered two résumés and he said yes, but after he was awarded contracts. Did I mishear that?

Mr. Speaker, I did not say I doctored two résumés. I said that the business was already won. I did not amend any résumés to win any contracts, and the résumés were for a task authorization that was already won business.

Monsieur le Président, alors il n'a pas mentionné qu'il avait modifié les CV à la suite de l'obtention des contrats?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, so did he not say that he altered the résumés after the contracts were awarded?

Mr. Speaker, I have never amended a contract.

Monsieur le Président, tantôt, le témoin nous a dit que les fonctionnaires recevaient des émoluments de toutes sortes, mais seulement après l'attribution de contrats. C'est ce qu'il nous a dit.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the witness told us earlier that public servants received all kinds of compensation, but only after contracts were awarded. That is what he told us.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not understand the question.

Monsieur le Président, tantôt, la députée de Terrebonne a demandé si M. Firth avait déjà donné des sommes d'argent, des avantages en nature, des cadeaux à des fonctionnaires. Le témoin a dit qu'il l'avait fait, mais seulement après l'attribution de contrats. Est-ce que c'est exact?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Terrebonne asked whether Mr. Firth has ever given any money, benefits in kind, gifts to public servants. The witness said that he had, but only after the contracts were awarded. Is that accurate?

Mr. Speaker, we do not give gifts and do bribes to win contracts.

Monsieur le Président, le témoin a mentionné tantôt qu'il avait payé des repas au restaurant ou des choses comme ça à des fonctionnaires, mais il a dit qu'il avait fait ça après l'attribution de contrats. Est-ce que c'est vrai?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the witness mentioned earlier that he had picked up the tab at restaurants or things like that for public servants, but he did that after the contracts were awarded. Is that true?

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. Once the contract has been awarded, one wants to have a relationship with the client to understand if one's resources are doing a good job, or, if they are not, to try to pivot and move as fast as possible to replace them. The fact that the invitation went out and the officials showed up suggested that they followed the code of conduct and that they had already asked permission from their superiors.

Monsieur le Président, pour le témoin, le fonctionnaire, c'est le client. Est-ce bien cela?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, to the witness, the public servant is the client. Is that it?

Mr. Speaker, if we are doing government business, that is correct.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que c'est possible que, quand on donne des émoluments quelconques après un contrat, ce soit avant un autre contrat?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, is it possible that when emoluments are given after a contract, they are given before another contract?

Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be before another contract, but that does not mean it is for me.

Monsieur le Président, il y aurait donc une entraide entre plusieurs personnes comme le témoin. Est-ce bien cela?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there was mutual support between several people like the witness. Is that it?

Mr. Speaker, it was inaudible for the translator.

Monsieur le Président, si vous me le permettez, je vais tirer une conclusion à partir de ce que nous avons entendu aujourd'hui. Il est normal pour l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada de faire affaire avec GC Strategies et de lui donner 19 millions de dollars sans qu'on constate que les employés de GC Strategies ont des compétences exceptionnelles ou qu'ils ont les compétences nécessaires à l'obtention ou à la divulgation d'un contrat. On doit aussi accepter le fait que les fonctionnaires reçoivent des cadeaux, mais ce n'est pas clair si c'est avant ou après l'obtention de contrats. On doit aussi accepter que GC Strategies aide à rédiger des contrats d'appel d'offres parce que l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada n'a pas les compétences nécessaires pour connaître ses propres besoins et ses propres critères quand vient le temps d'élaborer des appels d'offres. C'est très inquiétant. On est supposé trouver ça normal qu'une personne reçoive 84 000 $ pour rien. Le témoin a vraiment mentionné qu'il n'avait rien fait pour avoir ces 84 000 $, mais que c'était normal. Maintenant, on se demande c'est la faute de qui. C'est peut-être la faute de l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada. C'est peut-être la pointe de l'iceberg, mais ce n'est pas normal. La vérificatrice générale a mentionné que c'était la pire tenue de livres qu'elle avait vue de toute sa vie. Ce n'est pas normal. Actuellement, l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada travaille sur un système d'enregistrement des importations, soit la GCRA. Le comité de la Chambre des communes mentionne qu'il y a plusieurs irrégularités. C'est inquiétant que cette agence continue son travail après ce qu'on a entendu aujourd'hui. Visons davantage l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada et la responsabilité du gouvernement pour faire en sorte que cette agence soit mise sous tutelle et que nous entamions des démarches pour récupérer l'argent des contribuables qui a été dépensé pour des raisons que nous ne comprenons pas.

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will draw a conclusion based on what we have heard today. There is nothing unusual in having the Canada Border Services Agency do business with GC Strategies and give it $19 million, without ascertaining that GC Strategies' employees have any exceptional skills or the skills needed to obtain or disclose a contract. We also have to consider it acceptable for public servants to receive gifts, although it is unclear whether this occurs before or after the contracts are awarded. We also have to accept that GC Strategies helps draft calls for tenders because the Canada Border Services Agency lacks the skill to identify its own needs and criteria when it comes to developing calls for tenders. That is very disturbing. We are being asked to believe that paying someone $84,000 for nothing is normal. The witness actually said that he had not done anything to earn this $84,000, but that it was normal. Now people are wondering whose fault it is. Perhaps the Canada Border Services Agency is to blame. This may be the tip of the iceberg, but it is not normal. The Auditor General noted that it was the worst record-keeping she had ever seen. That is not normal. Now the Canada Border Services Agency is working on an import registration system, known as CARM. The House of Commons committee has found a number of irregularities. It is worrisome that this agency is continuing its work after what we have heard today. Let us focus more on the Canada Border Services Agency and the government's responsibility to ensure that that agency is put under third-party management and that steps are taken to recover the taxpayer money that was spent for reasons we do not understand.

Mr. Speaker, I am good.

Mr. Speaker, now that Mr. Firth is aware of the powers of Parliament, I wanted to ask whether he regrets not answering the questions that were asked of him, not once, not twice, but three times at the government operations committee.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I sent that in writing to, I believe, all members of Parliament prior to coming here, with apologies for that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know this: Did Mr. Firth meet with any members of Parliament during the process for the RFP for the contract for ArriveCAN or during the contract process?

Mr. Speaker, no, I did not.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know this: Has Mr. Firth, outside the committees where he has been brought formally, ever met or spoken with any members of Parliament, regardless of which party?

Mr. Speaker, can I speak to my counsel for a few seconds, please?

Mr. Speaker, no, I have not.

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, Mr. Firth has not had any private conversations, at any point, with any member of Parliament over the period of the committee hearings. I am not talking about at the committees themselves; I am talking about private conversations, hallway conversations, phone calls or anything of that nature.

Mr. Speaker, I have not.

Monsieur le Président, on n'avait pas vu un tel scandale depuis le scandale ETS, sous le régime Harper. Le scandale ETS avait coûté 400 millions de dollars aux contribuables canadiens. À l’époque, un gouvernement conservateur majoritaire était en place. Les conservateurs avaient tout fait pour que les Canadiens et les Canadiennes n'obtiennent pas les réponses qu'ils cherchaient. Ce scandale conservateur n’a jamais été résolu et on n’a jamais eu les informations. Or cette fois-ci, puisque nous sommes dans un Parlement minoritaire, nous sommes en train d'obtenir les réponses en lien avec le scandale ArriveCAN. C’est quelque chose d’extrêmement important. Il s’agit des pouvoirs parlementaires que nous avons. Dans un gouvernement majoritaire, comme on l’a vu sous le régime Harper, il n'avait pas été possible d’avoir des réponses sur les 400 millions de dollars versés par les conservateurs sans la moindre transparence, mais nous avons aujourd'hui la possibilité d’obtenir plus de réponses, et je trouve ça important. Si j'ai bien compris, M. Firth a parlé plus tôt du fait qu’il avait influencé trois éléments seulement sur les 220 exigences de ces contrats. Est-il en train de dire qu’il n’a pas influencé le contrat ou est-il en train de dire qu'il n'a pas influencé le contrat autant qu'on le prétend?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have not seen a scandal like this since the ETS scandal under the Harper government. The ETS scandal cost Canadian taxpayers $400 million. The Conservatives had a majority government at the time. The Conservatives did everything they could to keep Canadians from getting the answers they were looking for. This Conservative scandal was never resolved and we never got the information. However, this time, since we have a minority Parliament, we are getting answers about the ArriveCAN scandal. That is extremely important. It is because of the parliamentary powers we have. As we saw under the Harper regime, with a majority government, it was not possible to get answers about the $400 million the Conservatives had spent without any transparency at all, but today, we have the opportunity to get more answers, and I think that is important. If I understood correctly, Mr. Firth stated earlier that he only influenced three things in the 220 requirements of the contracts. Is he saying that he did not influence the contract, or is he saying that he did not influence the contract as much as is being claimed?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is correct to both of those. I had no influence at all on the contract award, and I had no influence on the ArriveCAN scandal.

Monsieur le Président, M. Firth a parlé plus tôt du fait qu’il avait bel et bien falsifié, changé les curriculum vitæ. Selon les témoignages en comité, on aurait dit qu'une personne avait 13 ans d’expérience, alors que ce n’était pas vrai. D’autres informations concernant ces gens auraient aussi été falsifiées. Je veux poser deux questions. D'abord, est-ce que M. Firth regrette le fait que ces curriculum vitæ ont été falsifiés? Ensuite, le gouvernement fédéral n’a pas demandé jusqu'à maintenant le remboursement de ces montants controversés. M. Firth est-il prêt à rembourser au public canadien les montants qui sont controversés dans l’octroi de ces contrats?

Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Firth mentioned earlier that he did in fact falsify or alter the résumés. According to what we heard in committee, one person was said to have 13 years of experience, when that was not true. Other information about these people was also falsified. I want to ask two questions. First, does Mr. Firth regret the fact that those résumés were falsified? Second, to date, the federal government has not asked for the questionable amounts to be repaid. Is Mr. Firth prepared to reimburse Canadian taxpayers for the questionable amounts of these contracts?

Mr. Speaker, the Botler contract was in no way related to the ArriveCAN application. Furthermore, I made a margin of zero dollars on the Botler opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this historic, unprecedented occasion. I would like to put this question to Mr. Firth. I know he will not have them with him at the moment, but will he provide to Parliament and the operations committee the full list of all website domains that he has registered or requested to be registered in pursuit of his business as an IT staffing firm?

Mr. Speaker, yes, I can do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to review some of the answers that Mr. Firth gave earlier today. To the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, when asked if he would have liked to have answered differently when he thinks back and reflects on his answers to committee, his answer was that he wished he could have answered more concisely. I would like to put it to the witness that no one has accused him of answers that were verbose. He has been accused of answering, and found to have answered, in ways that were evasive and dishonest. Would he like to amend his answer to say he wishes he had answered honestly in the first instance?

Mr. Speaker, again, as a result of the admonishment, I see there are a lot of mistakes I have made. That is why I am here, so the answer would be yes.

Mr. Speaker, in response to questions from the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, Mr. Firth similarly had said earlier today, “I made mistakes.” Is it correct to say that, when the witness says “I made mistakes”, he is acknowledging that he behaved in ways that amounted to a contempt of Parliament by being deliberately misleading, evasive and dishonest? I would suggest that most Canadians would not consider these to be mistakes, but deliberate efforts to mislead Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, they were mistakes. I have a lot of respect for this, and this was not to be deliberately misleading.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, in the last few moments we have here with the witness, to put myself in the position of a Canadian watching this on television, and wondering how this could happen. I think it is clear on a factual basis, and respecting this place and everyone in it, that there has been here, in this example, as the Auditor General has found and as the ombudsman has found, an appalling failure of our procurement process. It is completely unacceptable, and the individuals involved at GC Strategies, particularly Mr. Firth and his partner, have benefited personally from what can best be described as extremely dodgy business practices. I would like to ask, on behalf of the people of Canada, an obvious question. I am not suggesting there is an answer, but I would like to ask Mr. Firth if he is a member of any political party. Does he donate to any particular party? Has he been involved in currying favour with any party or political parties in this country?

Mr. Speaker, no, I have not.

Mr. Speaker, I am pursuing evidence that the witness gave to the government operations committee on October 20. It is a very interesting skill set that the witness has, to obtain these various contracts. Mr. Firth said, “Between my business partner Darren and me, we have 30 years of experience dealing with IT companies, whether we are dealing with independent consultants or we have had the luxury of dealing with true subject matter firms. [We] build a network in which we know the people”. Is it the case that the business experience that gained him millions of dollars, to his personal benefit, amounts to him having an extensive Rolodex of people in the Ottawa area whom he entertains?

Mr. Speaker, it has afforded us the luxury of having a large Rolodex of resources we can use and get them contracts from the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, given the experience here, and knowing that the witness has health challenges, all I can ask is this: Is he not ashamed?

Mr. Speaker, do I have to answer that?

Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed.