OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 286 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, February 27, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 27, 2024 DEBATES No. 286 No. 286 N o 286 Volume 151 286 27 02 2024 2024/02/27 10:00:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1000) [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations

Mr. Terry Sheehan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation in the 21st bilateral meeting in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, from August 27 to 30, 2023, and the Canada-China Legislative Association and Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting their participation at the 44th general assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in Jakarta, Indonesia, from August 6 to 10, 2023.

Committees of the House Public Accounts

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Hydrogen’s Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. I believe there will be a dissenting report coming from the official opposition shortly. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table the Conservative dissenting report to this report. Conservative members on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts demand action be taken, given the incompetence of government ministers when it comes to building a hydrogen industry in Canada. The commissioner found that the government's plan is not transparent or clear and that it relies on policies that have not been announced and are not in effect. The truth is, the Liberal government does not have a real plan or real strategy to make hydrogen a greater part of Canada's energy supply.

Instead, both departments relied on unfounded assumptions, incomplete modelling and faulty data to present an ideal scenario that is not realistic. Our Conservative dissenting report provides five recommendations that demand accountability through accurate costs, a consistent framework and a real long-term plan. Aspirations are not a plan.

Protecting Canada’s Natural Wonders Act

Hon. Gudie Hutchings (for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change)

Bill S-14. First reading moved that Bill S-14,

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations , be read the first time. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[ Translation ] Petitions Pornography

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I have the honour to present two petitions on behalf of residents of Châteauguay—Lacolle concerning the fight against online harms to children. These residents have noticed that there is a growing number of reports of Canadian children being exposed to online sexual extortion and as well as other serious harms via unfiltered access to platforms that either directly or indirectly subject children to sexually explicit material and the risk of being targeted by online child predators.

The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to immediately table comprehensive legislation addressing the issue of online harms to children that will support parents and guardians in protecting children from online predators and unwanted exposure to sexually explicit material as well as holding technology companies accountable for ensuring any online platform accessible to children is safe for children. I am also tabling a second petition on the same subject.

(1005) [ English ] Ukraine

Mr. Ali Ehsassi (Willowdale, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this House is fully aware, this weekend marked the second anniversary of Putin's unprovoked and illegal war on Ukraine. Given the unspeakable violence Putin has unleashed on Ukrainians, which I can speak to as someone who has been there three times since the war started, I am incredibly proud to present a petition today that I have received from citizens across Canada. As members are aware, we have welcomed over 210,000 displaced Ukrainians to Canada, pursuant to the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel.

I know I speak on behalf of every member in this House when I say that they have been contributing to our communities from sea to sea to sea. The petition I have been asked to present is to ensure that there is no uncertainty insofar as their future prospects are concerned or delay in implementing a PR pathway program for them.

The petitioners are calling upon our government to provide Ukrainian nationals displaced to Canada in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine with a streamlined pathway to permanent residence, which would address those who are not beneficiaries of the family reunification pathway announced on October 23, 2023.

Pakistan

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present here today. The first one is in recognition of International Mother Language Day, which was celebrated last week. I want to highlight Sindhi speakers in Pakistan. There are over 60 million speakers of that language; however, it is not recognized by the Canadian consulate in Karachi or the high commission in Islamabad. The petitioners are looking to have their language recognized, as it is a beautiful language that is spoken by a great number of people.

Meharbani .

Medical Assistance in Dying

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have today is in regard to medical assistance in dying. The petitioners are seeking the end of the idea of expanding medical assistance in dying to those with mental illness as a sole underlying condition. The petitioners are looking for the government not just to delay it, but to stop it altogether.

Farmers' Markets

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present this petition today. It is supported by the Canadian Farmers' Markets association. I also want to thank all farmers and farmers' markets from coast to coast to coast. The petitioners who have signed this petition are calling on the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 66 and initiate a national program for all provincial farmers' market nutrition coupon programs. This would match provinces that already contribute to their farmers' market nutrition coupon programs and help provinces that do not have these coupon programs with program development.

They also cite that farmers' markets are a key tool for COVID-19 recovery, small business incubators, domestic system and food security builders, and local economy community builders. Farmers' market coupon programs are a key support for new market development and for existing markets and their provincial associations.

A national program would create more food security and resiliency by giving vulnerable people access to healthy, locally grown foods and dietary education, while positively impacting the physical and mental health of participants by increasing the amount of diversity of fruits and vegetables they consume. This has been done in British Columbia. It has been done very well.

(1010) Military Chaplaincy

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present my first petition here on public prayer in the Canadian Armed Forces. The recent directive that was issued to military chaplains banning religious symbols and public prayer at ceremonies, such as that for Remembrance Day, actually undermines religious freedom. This, ironically, is one of the very values that our men and women in uniform have fought to defend. These petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to affirm the right of public prayer in our Canadian Armed Forces.

Employment Insurance

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting this morning is with regard to Bill C-318 . Adoptive and intended parents are at a disadvantage under the current EI system, and all parents are deserving of equal access to parental benefits. Bill C-318 would deliver equitable access for parental leave for adoptive and intended parents alike. Actually, the Speaker has ruled that the passage of Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation. These petitioners, citizens of Canada, call upon the government to support adoptive and intended parents by providing the royal recommendation that is needed for Bill C-318.

Natural Health Products

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the intelligent people from the common-sense riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in addition to those from Nipissing—Timiskaming, Kanata—Carleton and Nickel Belt. The petitioners are calling upon the government to repeal the regulations with respect to the restraints on natural health products that were passed last year. The reason is that millions of people rely upon them. Taking vitamins and other health products prevents them from getting sick and having to take pharmaceuticals. The people really would like those regulations repealed.

Contraception

Mr. George Chahal (Calgary Skyview, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition demanding universal access to free contraception, which has gathered thousands of signatures. This policy is based on sound economics; it would save taxpayer dollars; strengthen individuals, families and communities; and make life more affordable for everyday Canadians. Reproductive rights are human rights. We have seen access to reproductive care being restricted in states and countries led by Conservative ideologues.

Currently, in Canada, British Columbia and Quebec provide coverage for contraceptives; others, such as my home province of Alberta, led by a Conservative ideologue premier, do not. Now is the time to ensure that access to contraception always remains secure in Canada. A federal policy for universal access to prescription contraceptives would be an important step in protecting reproductive rights in Canada.

Needle Exchange Program

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of correctional officers in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and the surrounding areas who are concerned about the prison needle exchange program currently being operated by Correctional Service Canada. I have heard about this in the institution in Battle River—Crowfoot as well. Drugs and drug paraphernalia are considered contraband in prisons, yet the government is forcing correctional officers to simply turn a blind eye and allow dangerous drugs to be used in prisons.

These correctional officers are calling on the government to immediately cancel the prison needle exchange program, stop permitting the use of illicit drugs in Canadian prisons and focus on efforts to help inmates recover from their addictions. It is an honour to present this petition in the people's House of Commons today.

Indigenous Affairs

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Pickering—Uxbridge, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to put forward a petition on behalf of Madame Rousseau and students at Uxbridge Secondary School. There are over 647 signatures. Madame Rousseau and her students learned about indigenous peoples in this country and want to bring to the government's attention the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They specifically want to raise calls to action 2, 9 and 19, which call for data that is necessary to measure the completion of these legacy calls.

They also point out call to action 30, which asks the government to eliminate the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in prison. They want to ensure that the government is moving ahead with truth and reconciliation and these calls to action. I am very proud that the students in my riding at Uxbridge Secondary School have raised this and brought it forward to our government.

(1015) Health Care

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I present a petition that I have tabled previously. It places emphasis on what I believe is the backbone of Canada's health care system: nurses. The petitioners are asking for governments to co-operate in order to deliver better health care results and support nurses wherever they can. Interestingly enough, it also refers to the high cost of pharmaceuticals and the need for government to work with other governments to put into place affordable medications, leading toward a national pharmacare program.

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

The Speaker :

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Business of Supply

(1020) [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—ArriveCAN App

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

moved: Motion

That, given that,

(

i) the Auditor General's ArriveCAN audit determined that the app cost taxpayers at least $60-million, but concluded it is "impossible to determine the actual cost of the application",

(ii) the Procurement Ombud found that in 76% of ArriveCAN contracts, some or all of the contractors' proposed resources, such as subcontractors and employees, did not perform any work,

(iii) GC Strategies, an IT company that does no actual IT work, was paid nearly $20-million in relation to the ArriveCAN app,

the House:

(

a) call on the Prime Minister to table in the House of Commons, no later than Monday, March 18, 2024, a report which details the complete direct and associated costs concerning the ArriveCAN app incurred to date, including the total amounts paid to contractors and subcontractors, broken down by contractor or subcontractor, and the value of staff time represented by the salary, bonuses and other expenses paid to all public servants who worked on the app, in relation to all expenses respecting,

(

i) research and development of the app,

(ii) management and storage of the data collected by the app,

(iii) software development, testing and maintenance,

(iv) training for government employees for using and troubleshooting the app,

(

v) call centres used for the app,

(vi) ArriveCAN-related communications with travellers by e-mail or text message,

(vii) market and opinion research,

(viii) advertising,

(ix) public relations,

(

x) merchandise, gifts and promotional material,

(xi) processing of security clearances,

(xii) travellers' expenses after being wrongfully directed by the ArriveCAN app to quarantine,

(xiii) the services of legal counsel involved in contract negotiation, litigation arising from procurement or the use and implementation of the app, and the numerous investigations conducted related to the app,

(xiv) any other costs related to the ArriveCAN app; and

(

b) call on the government to collect and recoup all funds paid to ArriveCAN contractors and subcontractors which did no work on the ArriveCAN app, within 100 days of this motion being adopted, and for the Prime Minister to table a report in the House demonstrating that taxpayer funds have been repaid.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles . After eight years, this Prime Minister and the costly coalition with the Bloc Québécois are not worth the cost or the corruption. After eight years, everything costs more. This government's inflationary taxes and deficits are driving up the price of essentials so much that two million people a month depend on food banks. That number is incredible; it is unprecedented. After eight years of this Prime Minister, work does not pay. People make it, he takes it.

After eight years of this Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled. They have even tripled in Montreal, the city the Prime Minister represents in the House of Commons. When the federal government prints money, causing widespread inflation, and funds local bureaucracies to prevent construction, adding to demand while squeezing supply, that causes a crisis. For the first time in Canadian history, young people cannot even dream of being able to buy a home. It now takes 25 years to save up enough money for a down payment in Toronto. Before this Prime Minister, people could pay off their entire mortgage in 25 years.

After eight years of this Prime Minister, with the Bloc's support, people are living in tents in almost every major city in this country. Homeless people are trying to survive in tent cities and on the streets. We have not seen this kind of thing since the Great Depression. What is the Bloc Québécois doing? Bloc members vote for every single one of this Prime Minister's economic policies. They voted to raise the tax on gas by 17¢ a litre over the next few years. They voted in favour of all the government's spending.

The Bloc Québécois gave the green light to all of the estimates, where discretionary money is allocated by the House of Commons. It is also interesting to note that, generally speaking, those expenditures are centralized. The money is spent in Ottawa, by Ottawa, for Ottawa and is not part of the transfers to the provinces that are already established in legislation. We are not talking about health care spending or other transfers to the Quebec government.

We are talking about operational and discretionary spending imposed by this out-of-control Prime Minister, which has led to a doubling of the national debt, the worst inflation in 40 years and massive waste. Consider the ArriveCAN app, or arrive scam, as we call it. It should have cost $80,000. When the Prime Minister came to the House of Commons asking for tens of millions of dollars, we wondered what was happening. We had been told it would cost $80,000. Now the Prime Minister wanted another $24 million. It was bizarre. Naturally, we voted against it.

However, the Bloc Québécois said no problem, it was just another $24 million, and they voted in favour. When the scandal was exposed by the Auditor General of Canada following the Conservative motion I moved in the House over a year ago, the Bloc Québécois members suddenly announced that they were outraged by the waste they had voted for. A journalist asked them why they had voted in favour of spending an extra $24 million on an app that should have cost $80,000. I will quote the Bloc Québécois whip. What he said is truly astounding: (1025) “We're not going to scrutinize everything the government spends.

We're just going to tell the government, ‘Go ahead, spend the money’.” What is the point of the Bloc? Its only purpose is to encourage the government to take Quebeckers' money, spend it as it sees fit and waste it, while single mothers in Chambly, Saguenay and Trois‑Rivières struggle just to feed their kids. They have to pay taxes for this waste because the Bloc supports the government's spending. That is why the common-sense Conservative Party is demanding all the details on this spending. The Auditor General said she could not even say how much was spent on arrive scam.

She said it was at least $60 million, but there are documents missing. We must get hold of all these documents, which is why we are moving a motion in the House today demanding that the government produce all the documents associated with arrive scam, so we can see all the costs and the extent of the corruption. Seventy-six percent of contractors did no work at all. One company with four employees that is headquartered in the basement of a cottage received $250 million. It does no actual IT work, but it received IT contracts. We need to know the truth.

The government is spending $21 billion on outside contractors. We are going to do away with that to save money and redistribute it to Canadians through lower taxes. Our priorities are as follows: We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. These are the Conservative Party's common-sense priorities, and we intend to keep our promises to everyone. [ English ] The NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption.

After eight years, his inflationary taxes and deficits have doubled the national debt, have driven inflation to 40-year highs and have driven two million people to food banks, a record-smashing number. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, work does not pay. People make it, and he takes it. After eight years of the Prime Minister , housing costs have doubled, mortgage payments have doubled, rent has doubled and down payments needed for an average home have doubled. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, we have crime, chaos, drugs and disorder.

He is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption. Nothing could be more emblematic of this waste than the arrive scam app, an app that was supposed to cost $80,000 but went up to at least $60 million. What did the NDP do when it found out that the Prime Minister needed more money for his app? It voted for that money. Even though it knew full well that the app was supposed to cost $80,000, it voted for at least $24 million additional dollars for an app that did not work. About 76% of the contractors did no actual work.

The prime contractor got IT contracts even though it does no IT work, and it is headquartered in the basement of a cottage. That is part of a $21-billion boom in outsourcing by the government, a 100% increase in external consultants that costs $1,400 for every single Canadian family, which are federal taxes for consultants: $1,400. Today, we call for all the details on arrive scam to be released. The Auditor General says she does not know how much was spent. It was at least $60 million. That is why we want the government to be obliged by the House to release all the documents, all the costs and to tell the truth.

We want to know everybody who got rich through this corruption and how much Canadians actually had to pay for. We are going to get rid of that app. We are going to cut back on outside consultants. We are going to cap spending, cut waste, and balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates, because our common-sense priorities are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. It is common sense. Let us bring it home.

(1030) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, can we imagine that bumper sticker? They are going to fix the budget, they say. Allow me to tell—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Deputy Speaker :

Order. I am having trouble hearing the hon. member. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, that is actually code for the Conservative hidden agenda. We talk about the MAGA Conservatives. We can talk about the far right, headed by the leader himself. Over the weekend, I watched a YouTube video by Donald Trump that was saying something like “We are common-sense conservatives.” The Conservatives should look in the mirror. Today we have the common-sense Conservatives saying they would fix the budget, which is really a hidden agenda that means cuts: cuts to the civil service and cuts to social programs. Will the leader of the Conservative Party be honest with Canadians and tell us exactly what it is he plans on cutting?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, yes I will: We will cut arrive scam. We are going to cut the $21 billion given to high-priced consultants, which has gone up by 100%, doubling under the government. We will cut the $35-billion Canada Infrastructure Bank that has not built any infrastructure. We are going to cut the billion-dollar green fund that has not actually delivered any green technology, of which $150 million has already been misplaced and misappropriated. I could go on, but I am being extremely specific because it is so easy to list the waste that we would cut.

The member said that all of these things, axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime, should be made into bumper stickers. They will be made into bumper stickers because we have a very easy-to-understand, common-sense agenda, and there will be vehicles right across this country that will share that agenda. He said that it is hidden. How could it possibly be hidden if it is going to be on a bumper sticker?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members are all worked up. I get it. Today is their opposition day. I am going to try to ask the Conservative leader a direct question, but I have no illusions. I do not expect an answer because he plays exactly the same political games as the Prime Minister : He refuses to answer difficult questions and tosses around political slogans. Still, I will give it a try.

When the member for Carleton was parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport, from 2011 to 2013, his department awarded $6.5 million to the owners of GC Strategies, the same persons currently involved in the ArriveCAN matter, but operating under a different name back then. Could the Conservative leader tell us what that money was used for and how it was spent?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to look at all of the contracts given to individuals and businesses. There was no arrive scam at the time. We could not foresee that, 12 or 13 years later, there would be a scandal involving a business operating under another name. I know that the former Conservative government did spend the money, but I would add that, during the years he is talking about, we were spending half as much on outside consultants. We were spending less on bureaucracy, less on outside consultants. Yesterday, I was in Saguenay.

People wanted to know why this member of Parliament votes for the Prime Minister and against the interests of Saguenay. He votes for higher taxes on gas and diesel for trucks. He votes for higher taxes on small businesses. He votes for all of the Liberal government's inflationary spending, including all the arrive scam spending. He should have stood up and apologized to his constituents for having voted to throw their money out the window in support of the Prime Minister's arrive scam.

[ English ]

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with this: It was actually the Conservative government that cut IT staff in the public service. We saw outsourcing go up with the big six companies; it doubled under the Conservatives. We saw it quadruple under the current Liberal government. It has become unequivocally clear that the corporate-controlled parties, both Liberal and Conservative, are continuing to go to the highly paid private sector to give it taxpayer dollars to provide services that could be provided by the public service.

We put forward a motion, as New Democrats, to expand the study beyond ArriveCAN, as we know GC Strategies started doing business with the government under the Harper regime. We asked to expand it to look at all outsourcing, including Deloitte, which went from $97 million doing contracts with the Government of Canada to $275 million. My question to the Conservative leader is this: Why is it that the Conservatives will not let us expand the study? It has been a year since the motion passed. Is it because Peter MacKay is a director at Deloitte or is it because Pierre Pettigrew is a director at Deloitte?

We know that it is the corporate-controlled parties that are blocking us from having a real look at what is going on—

(1035) The Deputy Speaker :

We are out of time. I will allow the hon. leader to answer.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, let us start with “corporate-controlled”. The NDP-Liberal government is corporate-controlled. It voted together, including that member, to double the amount of money spent on outside consultants. He voted to increase outsourcing by $11 billion, 100%. He voted to make his constituents on Vancouver Island spend $1,400 per household on outside consultants. Conservatives voted against every single nickel of that outsourcing. We are the only party in the House that can say that. All three costly coalition parties voted for those things. We are going to cut the outsourcing. We are going to save the money.

We are going to deliver common sense for the common people by axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, today we are introducing a motion for debate in the House. This motion invites all sitting members from all parties, the 338 members of the House of Commons, to do some serious soul-searching. Let us think back to the pandemic. Let us think back to the report that the Parliamentary Budget Officer released after the pandemic. He said that there had been $500 billion in COVID-specific spending, but he could not explain where $200 billion of it had gone. In the report, he says that, although spending was needed during the pandemic, there were amazingly few controls.

This first report highlighted something very important. He was unable to explain $200 billion in spending. We may now even be able to see that some of the remaining $300 billion in spending was a bit fishy. Another very important person involved in scrutinizing what happens to public funds is the Auditor General of Canada. Last year, the Conservative Party asked the House to vote. In November 2022, the Auditor General was asked to investigate ArriveCAN. ArriveCAN seemed a little strange from the start. It is a tool intended to track people's movements and obtain information on their vaccination status.

In theory, it should not have cost much. However, we eventually became aware that something was wrong. It was costing a lot of money to create something that should not have been all that complicated. When certain information was brought to light, particularly concerning contracts with some odd people, it was decided that an investigation was in order. The Auditor General did her job. She spent almost a year and a half trying to get answers.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of Canada’s Auditor General, who is appointed to work independently to verify and examine everything concerning the administration of public funds in relation to a particular file. She released her report two weeks ago, saying she was discouraged and was unable to carry out her work. From what she could see, at least $60 million was spent on this app, but it could have been more, because she could not find the supporting documentation. She could not find the contracts. When she did find an invoice, there were no details.

It simply listed an amount of a few million dollars, and the cheque was sent out. She was really depressed to see how public funds were handled in this file. In addition to the Auditor General, the procurement ombud did his own analysis, and our motion today mentions that too. He released a report a week or two ago, stating that 76% of the companies involved in the ArriveCAN file had performed no work. That means that $45 million was paid to people who did not even do any work. It is one scandal after another. When the Auditor General's report was released, I said it was the tip of the iceberg.

I was sure more would be found and that this was not over. Today, we want to shed light specifically on ArriveCAN. We have a great deal of information showing that there was outright corruption. At what level was the corruption happening? Who did it? How did they do it? We do not know, but we want to know. That is why we need to get to the bottom of this matter. I expect everyone in the House to support the motion that the Conservative Party is putting forward today. There is nothing remotely political about the Conservative Party's motion.

It is a motion containing three specific points with specific queries about documents. This is simply an effort to shed light on the matter, so that the House can get the documents and information necessary to understand what went on in with ArriveCAN. Last week, I sat on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The Auditor General was there. The deputy minister of procurement and the assistant deputy minister of departmental oversight also attended. I asked the latter, whose office is in charge of oversight, a question concerning ArriveCAN, and she did not know what to say.

She started giving me a vague answer. I told her that I did not want a written answer that did not mean anything. I wanted a real answer. I asked a question, which appears in the record of the meeting. I asked her if, when she heard about this issue a year and a half ago, everyone in her office started banging their heads against the wall wondering what was going on.

(1040) We could see that no one really knew what was going on. Another thing to take into account is that there are people in offices who have specific oversight functions, but still do not know what is going on or, in any case, do not appear to know or do not want to know. I do not know what to make of all this. The point is that the federal government’s overall management of public funds is troubling. As I mentioned earlier, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Let us keep in mind that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did not even know where $200 billion of the budget deficit had gone.

We are now dealing with the ArriveCAN scandal, an app that cost $60 million when it should have cost $80,000. There are a lot of questions about government spending in general. We also learned other very important facts. Minh Doan, the Prime Minister’s chief information officer at the Information, Science and Technology Branch, apparently deleted tens of thousands of emails concerning ArriveCAN. Why would he have deleted tens of thousands of emails documenting discussions between the people who were managing ArriveCAN if there was nothing to hide? That is another problem we have to solve.

That is one of the reasons why the House of Commons needs to examine this issue in depth. This morning we learned something else about the member for Québec, the current Minister of Public Services and Procurement . During COVID-19, he was the president of the Treasury Board and therefore responsible for issuing contract management directives. I even asked him some questions at the time at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates about contract management. The minister did not seem to know how to answer. He often offloaded questions to his deputy minister.

Since last summer's cabinet shuffle, he is now the Minister of Public Services and Procurement. According to La Presse, the minister's briefing book contained some sensitive items. The minister was told to pay attention to the shipbuilding strategy with Davie, the F-35 file and other issues. However, there were no notes about ArriveCAN. At the time, the Auditor General was conducting an investigation into a matter related to the procurement of federal government contracts. The ArriveCAN file was not even part of the minister's briefing. He was not even told to pay attention to it or that it was a sensitive issue.

That is another question that needs to be explored. Why is it that when someone leads a department, they do not get any notes on a file that is being investigated by the Auditor General? There are so many questions, which is why our motion is very clear. I will close by referring to the mandate letter issued to the member for Québec when he was president of the Treasury Board. In the mandate letter, the Prime Minister clearly states:

I also expect us to continue to raise the bar on openness, effectiveness and transparency in government. This means a government that is open by default. It means better digital capacity and services for Canadians. It means a strong and resilient public service. It also means humility and continuing to acknowledge mistakes when we make them.

That last sentence is what I would like to hear from the government. I would like it to acknowledge that it made mistakes. Since the tabling of the Auditor General's report, we have yet to hear the government express a modicum of regret. On the contrary, it tries to put it off, saying it will do better in the future. These mandate letters are useless because all we see is scandals and the government does not seem to want to acknowledge the truth.

(1045) [ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about accountability, what he has said is not really true. We need to put this into perspective with respect to what was taking place in a worldwide pandemic. Governments around the world were responding as much as they could. In Canada, I would like to think that we provided the types of supports that Canadians and businesses required, and there were all kinds of government expenditures. We have a civil service, which is second to no other, and there is a process that needs to be followed, particularly for procurement.

When the government has been made aware of issues related to it, it has been very transparent about it. Internal work has been done. Things have been pointed out by the Auditor General, and the government is working to rectify those issues. Is it not a responsible way for a government to react when it finds out, to take specific actions? That is exactly what this government has done.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, I have here the transcript of a committee meeting that I attended on June 16, 2021. At that meeting, I asked a question about an April 2020 memorandum indicating that Treasury Board would be relaxing the rules for awarding contracts to speed up the process during the pandemic. In June 2021, the worst was over. We were regaining control. I asked the committee if we could take back control, and I was told that there were too many important investments to make and so on.

We were already asking questions at that point and we could see that there were things that were not working. We understand that the situation was complicated at the beginning of the pandemic. However, after a year, we could also see that we needed to take back control. There were also other questionable contracts, but I will not get into that right now. Something went wrong. That much is clear.

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy debating with my colleagues. We may not always share the same opinions, but I enjoy a debate based on facts. Since 2015, the Bloc Québécois has voted against every Trudeau government budget and every Trudeau government economic statement. Knowing this, when the Conservatives say that the Bloc Québécois supports all of the Trudeau government's spending, would my colleague, hypothetically, without naming names, agree with—

The Deputy Speaker :

This is the third time. I would like to remind the member that we must say the Liberal government or use another wording. The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe :

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. The Bloc Québécois has not supported any of this government's budgets or economic statements. I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who is a respectable man. If a politician—and I am not naming names—were to say that the Bloc Québécois supports all of this government's spending, would he not be shamelessly lying to the public?

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague by saying that, with respect to the issue being discussed today, the Bloc Québécois voted for the appropriations, knowing full well that they were intended for ArriveCAN. There were two separate appropriations of $12.5 million each. That is why it is so strange to see the members of the Bloc Québécois react by saying that what they voted for is scandalous. The House leader of the Bloc Québécois said that that was normal, that they did not have time to look at everything and that the money had to go out. That is what happened.

(1050) [ English ]

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, we saw outsourcing to highly paid consultants double under the Conservatives, including GC Strategies owners, who were formerly operating under another company. We saw the Conservatives bring in the Phoenix pay system. It was supposed to save $80 million, but it has cost $3.5 billion. Therefore, we cannot give credit to the Conservatives that they are going to lead the path with respect to taking on highly paid consultants. I brought forward a motion at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates a year ago to expand the study to include the big six corporations.

We saw Deloitte go from $97 million last year to $275 million this year. In fact, it did $11 million worth of business in Canada in 2015 and now it is up to $275 million. However, it did not want to look at it. Why? Because the corporate controlled parties have a former Liberal cabinet minister, Pierre Pettigrew, as a managing director. They have a former Conservative cabinet minister, Peter MacKay, as a managing director.

When will the Conservatives stop protecting their former ministers and their Conservative insiders, and will they start taking a look at all of the outsourcing and actually try to fix this problem?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer a question about Phoenix. It is true that it was the Conservative government at the time that launched the project, because it would take time to change the payroll management system. However, let us recall that the Liberal government came to power in fall 2015 and that, in March 2016, it decided to activate the Phoenix system despite the fact that the deputy minister and everyone else told the government that the system was not ready and that there was still work to do. Since it was in a hurry, the government decided to activate the Phoenix system in March 2016.

Consequently, we will not accept responsibility for deploying a system that was not ready. That decision was made by the Liberal government.

[ English ]

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by taking a moment to state that this government expects all public servants to act in the manner that represents the values and ethics code for the public service, including the obligation to serve public interests under the law. I can also tell members that the CBSA is comprised of dedicated and talented employees who are united in this effort to improve processes and maintain Canadians' confidence and trust as they continue to deliver on their important mandate.

I would like to extend my thanks to the Auditor General and the procurement ombud along with their respective teams. They undertook a tremendous project to dig deep into the complex procurement activities as it unfolded for the development of the ArriveCAN app. Their efforts are not wasted, as they are shedding light on an important issue that has a widespread impact across government. Both have pointed to significant gaps and shortcomings in the procurement processes, record keeping, roles and controls at the CBSA.

The agency has assured the government that these recommendations, as set out in both reports, will serve as goal posts to addressing the gaps and concerns raised. The CBSA has accepted all the recommendations and has already started implementing action plans in response to the recommendations set out in the reports.

These plans reflect the work of the CBSA that it has already undertaken to date and the work it will be doing moving forward to ensure that all of its procurement actions are aligned with policies and processes, that the CBSA continues to operate transparently, that it has stronger regard for the value for money when outsourcing work and that all employees operate in a manner consistent with the CBSA code of conduct and public sector values and ethics. Most notably, the CBSA has so far created the executive procurement review committee to approve contracts and task authorizations.

This is providing more oversight on the contracting activities. Second, it will require employees to disclose interactions with potential vendors, which will increase transparency. Third, the CBSA has increased the capacity of its procurement group both to oversee procurement activities and establish a centre of expertise. It will act as a single window to help employees if they have questions or do not understand their authorities and obligations. These examples are just a starting point of the CBSA, which continues to implement the action plans in response to the Auditor General's recommendations.

The CBSA recognizes that maintaining the trust of Canadians is paramount and will endeavour to do so by improving its internal management and ensuring that public policies are followed. Canadians deserve to have trust in their institutions and in the public service. The CBSA is working with Public Services and Procurement Canada to improve its procurement practices to ensure strengthened controls, oversight and stewardship over contracting. So far, these discussions have led to its new procurement improvement plan.

The agency already started to strengthen its processes and controls related to procurement planning, contract administration, corporate culture and proactive monitoring to reduce the risk of fraud, and more is to be done. The CBSA is responding quickly to move forward in the right direction. One of the steps taken involved launching an internal audit of all contracting at the agency. It has also increased its oversight over the issuing of contracts and task authorizations. The CBSA is also now requiring employees with contracting authority to retake procurement certification courses.

Although these are simple steps, they will certainly improve the stewardship of contract administration within the agency, while still providing critical services to Canadians across the country. I would like to use my time to also address concerns that have been raised around the value-for-money aspect of ArriveCAN, with the acknowledgement that the gaps in policies and controls existed in the procurement process. We do have to remember that the paper system was slow and costly and was not meeting the information requirements of public health officials.

While we cannot disregard the very legitimate concerns raised in the Auditor General and procurement ombud reports over these allegations, there are still some positive aspects of the ArriveCAN app.

(1055) Last week, the AG appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and said that she does not think the value should be quantified. She acknowledged that there was some value in digitizing the old paper system at the border. The OAG's 2021 report on border measures covered this as well. I will quote from the AG's appearance last week.

I would add that there is also an enduring value to this application, as CBSA has now springboarded off what was done here to automate the border, something they had been working on before the pandemic. They used this as a sort of springboard to go there. There is some sort of enduring value left, post its use during the pandemic.

On this side of the aisle, we can agree that things could have unfolded a lot better. I do note that the pandemic context is an incredible management challenge, but this is absolutely no excuse to throw policy and procedure out the window. What we have learned in that regard is unacceptable, and I am glad to see that CBSA is taking that very seriously. Across government, departments were called upon to be fast and flexible in providing services to Canadians, but this bias to action should not have come at the price of sound stewardship.

Then, as now, public servants need to remain focused on documenting decisions and taking care of basic management fundamentals. I can report that the CBSA has already made changes to address this, and we will take further action to ensure management practices are aligned with policies and deliver value for money going forward. In order to avoid restrictive requests for proposals, the agency's new executive procurement review committee will look at the mandatory criteria in contracts to ensure that they are not overly restrictive.

In addition, contracts above $1 million need to be approved by the CBSA's executive committee to ensure they do not undermine the fairness and openness of the bid solicitation process. The CBSA is reinforcing government spending requirements and has already curbed its use of management consultants. The CBSA will continue to adjust our procurement governance and supporting documents so that they act as a quality control process to ensure mandatory criteria are not overly restrictive and do not undermine the fairness and openness of the bid solicitation process.

A culture change in procurement is happening and is necessary. I think that all members can agree that federal procurement is difficult to understand, but we can all understand that it needs to be done properly. Again, we would like to thank the Auditor General and the procurement ombud for their work. These reports, along with the work of various standing committee studies on this matter mean that Canadians can rest assured that procurement in Canada is being examined and the results should be a positive net gain for taxpayers as we think of what kind of work we outsource and how.

I have acknowledged that we need to get to the bottom of what happened in this case, and we can also ensure that we tighten procedures to prevent the procurement process from any wrongdoing in the future. I think all parliamentarians should be concerned about the details of this situation. However, after listening to several speeches already in this House today, I do question the sincerity of the Conservative Party, which will say anything to grab power. Their actions do not actually match the tough talk that they often speak in this place.

With my remaining time, I would like to demonstrate to Canadians that while we are deeply committed to fixing the procurement process, the tough talk of Conservative members in this place is all talk and not actually based in reality. I think Canadians need to get a picture of how deep this procurement issue goes. In questions, my hon. colleagues have raised the fact that GC Strategies, which is at the heart of this issue, went by a different name previously, or merged from, Coredal Systems Consulting Inc..

With the remainder of my time, I would like to read into the record all of the contracts issued by the previous Conservative government using this very same company that it now claims to be Liberal insiders.

(1100) They include the following: April 1, 2015, total value over $541,000 for technology consultants; March 3, 2014, over $2.3 million for consultants and a programmer-analyst for Transport Canada while the Leader of the Opposition served as parliamentary secretary; March 26, 2013, over $1.8 million for Transport Canada; November 28, 2012, over $287,000 for management consulting; October 29, 2012, over $968,000 for telecom consultants; October 17, 2012, over $140,000 for other professional services not elsewhere specified; October 17, 2012, over $233,000 for other professional services not elsewhere specified; March 29, 2012, over $213,000 for management consulting; March 1, 2012, $675,000 for information technology consultants; August 9, 2011, over $24,000 for training consultants.

It continues: July 29, 2011, over $24,000 for a sole-source contract for IT consultants at the same company that the Conservatives claim does not do any IT work as I am reading out all of the IT contracts that they approved; July 29, 2011, over $24,000 for sole-source contracts for Transport Canada; May 24, 2011, over $129,000 for Public Works and Government Services, for a procurement tool; and October 26, 2010, over $21,000 for management consulting at Fisheries and Oceans.

Although this issue is deeply concerning, in regard to what happened here, we can see that the procurement issues are pervasive and it is why this review is absolutely necessary. It is why we committed to doing the work to fix the procurement process to put in better oversight and transparency. However, when Conservatives talk tough, Canadians should know that their actions are very different.

(1105) Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague make some quotes about $24,000 contracts and $100,000 contracts. This is a $20-million middleman contract. It is absurd and it was done with no accountability, no contracts and nothing of any sort to show what the money was for. It was a shovelling of taxpayer money into the pockets of a few chosen so-called IT consultants who are really just middlemen. It is something that is beyond the realm of what Canadians see as acceptable. Would my colleague please address the fact that this needs to be explored; but also explain to the House why her party filibustered, obfuscated and tried to hide this from Canadians for almost two years?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Speaker, we did no such thing. While the member opposite stands up and defends his party's record, let me just point out again April 1, 2015. While his leader sat around the cabinet table, their government approved $541,000 in IT, technology and telecommunications consultants for the very same company that the Conservatives are criticizing. I acknowledge that there is a need to get to the bottom of what happened here and to fix the procurement process, but when Conservatives talk with outrage, we should know that it is very fake, given their record.

I would ask for unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, the Coredal-Conservative contracts in this House so the members opposite can see just how much money they spent.

The Deputy Speaker :

Does the hon. member have consent?

Some hon. members: No.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I would call for a bit more decorum in the House. First, I think it is important to say that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this motion as a matter of principle. The leader of the Bloc Québécois was the first to call for an independent inquiry, the implementation of a reimbursement procedure and oversight of the agency. The leader of the official opposition is merely blowing smoke by saying that his party reacted when it saw the $12 million. I am sorry, but the truth is that no one on this side of the aisle was aware of this before the Auditor General’s report.

The proof is that the only time ArriveCAN found its way into an appropriation bill is in a note to the supplementary estimates (

C) for 2021-22, on which we voted at the end of the year, in March 2022, in the form of Bill C-15 . If the Conservatives noticed this when we studied the supplementary estimates (

C) for 2021-22, why did they not oppose any of the appropriations? If they had, we should have voted on this appropriation in particular. Instead, all the parties voted in favour. The Conservatives are blowing smoke, but this kind of thing should never happen again. What I want to know from my colleague is whether her government will finally call an independent inquiry so that we can see all of the ramifications in connection with these two cronies.

[ English ]

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that all parliamentarians should be very concerned about what we have learned. I thank the hon. member for his advocacy on this. We do support the ongoing investigations. There are several, in terms of the Auditor General. There is now the Information Commissioner, who we also support. The CBSA has acknowledged that it will work with them. As I said in my speech, we do want to get to the bottom of what happened here.

The agency has already put in place a number of measures to improve the procurement process but it is also very open and willing, based on the further investigations that happen and based on the further work of the House and the committee, to implement recommendations that will ensure that this does not happen again. I acknowledge my hon. colleague pointing out the smoke and mirrors from the Conservatives, because they raise no such issue except when they think it benefits them politically, except, again, as I pointed out in my speech, those in glass houses, given their history with this very company.

(1110) Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, while we are hearing Conservatives and Liberals fight over who started with which highly paid consultant and who spent more, we actually need to get to fixing the problem and have that conversation. This is just the tip of the iceberg, in terms of what is going on at CBSA and ArriveCAN. This is not just deeply concerning, as my colleague talked about. This is outrageous. We saw Deloitte go from $11 million in outsourcing in 2015 to $275 million, PricewaterhouseCoopers from $20 million to $115 million, and KPMG from $3.9 million to $48 million. It has gone up 546%. It doubled under the Conservatives.

It has skyrocketed under the Liberals. This is on top of layers and layers of commissions that these big firms are taking, including GC Strategies. They talk about cutting outsourcing by 15%. It will put them at only 464% above when they started in 2015. When are we going to see a full investigation, broadening beyond the ArriveCAN app, which includes all of the big six and all of the outsourcing?

When are they actually going to demonstrate that they have a plan to cut the outsourcing and put those services and those jobs back through the public service, so that taxpayers are not paying these lucrative, highly-paid consultants tons of profits on the taxpayers' dime?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I mentioned in my speech that the CBSA has already put in place conditions to cancel or no longer move forward with management consultants. There is more work to be done, based on the results of some of the work done in multiple reports. I also want to point out that one of the things highlighted by the AG was the fact that the CBSA routinely approved and paid invoices that contained little or no details of the work completed. This is a very serious issue, an issue that, again, the Conservatives seem outraged about, yet they themselves did the same with the very same companies.

To my hon. colleague's question, this is why CBSA has also initiated a full review of CBSA procurement practices. It is because we want to make sure, as I said in my speech, that Canadians see value for money and that there is transparency in the system. This is not something that just happened overnight, but we are committed to fixing it and giving that assurance to Canadians.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that unanimous consent was not given to table these very important documents, which are very revealing of how the previous government managed things. I am also shocked by the obvious cozy relationship that existed between the previous Conservative government and this firm, and the very lax contracting policies that left us documents with words such as “work unspecified”. Does the member not feel that perhaps this cozy relationship and these lax practices might have emboldened GC Strategies going forward?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has posed yet another question about this situation. That is why I am happy to see that the CBSA and the commissioner are working with all agencies to look into this. In fact, they have also reported any concerning allegations to the RCMP. As my hon. colleague raised, this company has a long-standing history with the Government of Canada under the previous Conservative government, so perhaps it became very used to working in this system. I do not know, but I do think it is important that we not only get to the bottom of this and look at what happened here but also, more importantly, fix procurement across the system.

(1115) [ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, we are gathered—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[ English ]

The Deputy Speaker :

We are restarting the debate with another member, which is an opportunity for that person to present without interruption. [ Translation ] The hon. member for Beauport-Limoilou.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here today to discuss a Conservative Party opposition motion. While we expected to have another of many motions on the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec and represents less than 0.15% of inflation, it was a wonderful surprise to see that we were going to talk about something else. Honestly, that feels good. Today's motion is on the ArriveCAN application, a matter that has been before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for study since October 22 and for which I have the pleasure of reading every document that we receive.

In fact, I have prepared a table of contents, and, so far, these documents represent 27 pages of table of contents. That will give members an idea. What is more, I have not even finished it all yet. I also want to point out that my hon. colleague from Terrebonne , who is also examining the ArriveCAN app at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, is the next speaker. I will be sharing my time with her. So far, we have met with 46 witnesses and received two briefs, as well as tens of thousands of pages of documents. Just to give members an idea, the table of contents so far is 27 pages long.

Naturally, I have not read it all yet. Reading is one thing, analyzing is another. Connecting each piece of information to form a cohesive and coherent whole will take more than five minutes. It will take more than a 15-second sound bite on social media. Why introduce this motion today if the subject is being studied in committee? Some of us may be wondering. This is one of the questions I will attempt to answer in my speech by giving an overview of the situation as we understand it so far. I will talk more about what ArriveCAN is and about what has happened since 2022, in other words, about what we have learned.

ArriveCAN is an app that travellers were obliged to use for declaring their vaccination status at customs. The first contracts for ArriveCAN date from 2017, long before the pandemic. The aim of these contracts was to create an app that would facilitate declarations at Canadian customs. The health aspect was added to the app in 2020. That is when everything appears to have started going off the rails. How much was the app supposed to cost at first? So far, the answer appears to be $80,000. In 2022, it was to cost around $250,000, after a team of young programmers copied the app.

The team told us in committee that copying an app is much easier than starting from scratch but that, even if they had created it from scratch, applying the security codes and updates, it would not have cost $54 million, the number that was being bandied about at the time. We are now at a cost of $59.5 million. After that, we found out more about ArriveCAN and its cost. Our investigation revealed that consulting firms had been given hefty contracts. What did these consultants do? Essentially, they turned on their computer, accessed LinkedIn to find specialists and listed them along with their daily fees.

Incidentally, the consultants invoiced between $1,000 and $1,500 a day for specialists. However, we found out through the ombud that 76% of the people on the list of IT specialists submitted by GC Strategies never worked on the app. Other specialists, who were not on the original list, and with who knows what qualifications, did the work. I hope people are following me. That is essentially what the consulting firms did. At the end of the day, they invoiced 15% to 30% to submit names. In short, 15% to 30% of the daily fees invoiced were for specialists who did not end up working on the app.

(1120) That reminds me. Remember the two guys who set up a company and, within seven days, had a $237-million contract for 10,000 ventilators? They took that contract and gave it to Baylis Medical, a company owned by a Liberal MP who lost his seat in the 2019 election. If we apply that same percentage, 15%, which is the minimum, that means those two guys pocketed $40 million seven days after starting their business. That sounds a lot like GC Strategies, but in this case, things started well before the pandemic. Things started in 2015 for GC Strategies and in 2007 for Coredal Systems Consulting.

That is the Canadian dream, being a consultant and having an extraordinary ability to find people on LinkedIn. There are similarities there. People set up a business in their basement, take a quick look around and end up with millions of dollars in their pocket at the end of the day. This is all strangely reminiscent of a system that we need to study, analyze and investigate. GC Strategies is not the first of its kind. Its predecessors include companies such as Coredal Systems Consulting and FTI Professional Grade. This is a big deal.

The Auditor General says she has never seen worse record-keeping than in the ArriveCAN books. That is a big deal. Today's motion is about accountability. Yes, the opposition certainly has a role to play in drawing attention to information like that. However, it is not up to Julie Vignola alone, or the member for Terrebonne or a small research team to sift through tens of thousands of pages to find every item related to ArriveCAN. At some point, accountability is also the government's responsibility. It knows where it invested taxpayers' money.

Speaking of taxes, it would be nice if companies hired by the government did not use tax havens, which may be the case for one company that got millions through the ArriveCAN contract. I would encourage everyone to read today's La Presse. We are being criticized for voting in favour of ArriveCAN. I will point out the estimates in question. ArriveCAN is mentioned in the supplementary estimates (B), 2021-22, on pages 2-2 and 2-82. ArriveCAN is also mentioned in the supplementary estimates (C), 2021-22, on page 1-19. These budgets were voted on as a block.

If we had voted against them, like the Conservative Party members did, we would have been voting against the construction and management of indigenous women's shelters, against financial support for festivals and tourism, against community revitalization, against financial support for mental health and against support for Afghan nationals, support that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was screaming for in the House. We also would have been voting against the procurement of PPE. There is a problem.

We agree with the motion, but we also need to put the CBSA under third-party management, because whistle-blowers have been warning of serious problems for quite some time, particularly regarding passports, and members of both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have turned a blind eye to these problems. It is time to put this agency under administrative supervision. We will vote yes, but we need to go even further.

(1125) Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague and for the work that the Bloc Québécois does on matters of finance, because we both think that it is important to manage the public purse wisely. I am afraid that the aspersions she is casting on Frank Baylis, a former Liberal MP, are not correct at all. Mr. Baylis chose not to run in the 2019 election. His company was created by his mother, a new Canadian who arrived from the Caribbean Islands in the 1940s. She was a nurse and she started this company to distribute medical products. Today, it is worth billions of dollars. Mr.

Baylis did not need to get contracts. He helped someone in the sector, a Conservative donor, who wanted to help by providing ventilators. I would like my colleague to apologize for what she said about the hon. former member.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not name the member, I simply named the company. Second, I did not lie because FTI Professional Grade Inc. did indeed receive a contract seven days after the company was created. It then transferred that contract to Baylis Medical. Seven days after it was created, that company, FTI, received a $237-million contract for which we can assume there was a 15% to 30% commission. So I did not make anything up. All one needs to do is follow the paper trail in the newspapers as well as the budgets and contracts allocated during the pandemic.

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Quebec, but I have other comments and questions about other companies that received a lot of grants and contracts from the Liberal government during the pandemic. In my opinion and that of my colleagues, the Liberals hid behind the pandemic to hand out a lot of money to their friends. Is the member aware of the other contracts like the one that went to Medicago? What has been happening with Medicago from the time the contract was awarded until now?

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Mr. Speaker, when the pandemic started, we might recall that, in terms of vaccine procurement, the federal government put all its eggs in one basket. It reached an agreement with the Chinese government, but the agreement fell through. We were left in the lurch, with no access to vaccines. Then the Government of Canada decided to diversify its potential pool of vaccine producers, including Medicago, but not without some risk. Some producers, not just Medicago, failed to deliver vaccines for various reasons and, unfortunately, the Government of Canada lost its deposit payment.

Following a decision by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Medicago no longer exists. A decision was made. Yes, we lost money, but it could have easily turned out in our favour. There was a race to be the first to manufacture vaccines and get access to the market.

(1130) [ English ]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I was on the committee that looked into the spending. We looked at Baylis Medical. We looked at Palantir. We looked at WE Charity. We found no evidence on Baylis. There were certainly many questions about WE, but the question about the spending on ArriveCAN, to me, is a question of a lack of oversight. The $59 million could have been spent on 32 different contractors. Where was the accountability? Even in the midst of a pandemic, when we were trying to get money out the door to get tools that could help, this is an issue of a fundamental failure of oversight, and I think that is the question we need to focus on.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Mr. Speaker, unless we keep our eyes on the big picture, spending can easily get out of control. That is true for individuals, and even truer for governments. We are dealing with a situation where the government not only lost sight of the big picture, but also seems to have spent recklessly without making any checks at all. The problem also relates to problems the agency has been having for a number of years.

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, nearly two weeks ago, the Auditor General released a scathing report regarding the government's handling of the ArriveCAN app. The Auditor General said that the management of the app was one of the worst examples she has seen in her career. Now we are learning that the ArriveCAN file is just the tip of the iceberg. The purpose of the app was for people to register travel with the CBSA in the context of COVID‑19. The app was supposed to cost $80,000. Another company said it would have cost about $250,000 to develop.

We are talking about an app that cost only $12 million in France for a population of 70 million people. I could name other examples where this app cost far less in other countries. Unfortunately, in Canada, it cost nearly $60 million. I mentioned the tip of the iceberg. The fact is, the Auditor General and her team could not even put an exact figure on the cost of the app. That is where the problem starts. That is the crux of the problem. It has to do with a procurement process that was completely disregarded.

The Auditor General and the procurement ombud have come forward with some pretty serious allegations that Public Services and Procurement Canada and other departments simply did not follow what is supposed to be an exemplary procurement process worthy of a G7 country. Here are a few examples. The average daily cost for this app was about $1,090,

whereas it is usually around $675 for IT positions. We already know that the companies that billed their services to the government billed nearly double what it should normally cost. Here are other examples. In roughly 76% of applicable contracts, the human resources detailed in the winning bid did not do any work. In other words, huge contracts were signed that included resources who, at the end of the day, never did any work. We have an entire department that is supposed to do its job when it comes to the procurement process and is supposed to have processes that work and are followed.

In both cases, that work was not done. Here is another example: 18% of the invoices submitted by contractors that were audited by the Auditor General were not supported by adequate documentation to determine whether they were related to ArriveCAN. That is why, from the outset, I said that they did not even know how much ArriveCAN cost. It is inherently problematic. There is such a lack of documentation that one might think we were in a third world country. Having audited procurement processes in developing countries myself, I think that they have better procurement processes than we do. It is shameful.

There is a second level to this. Serious misconduct is suspected. In her report, the Auditor General indicated that she noted situations in which Canada Border Services Agency employees who were part of the ArriveCAN project had been invited to dinners and other activities by suppliers. There is no evidence that the perks that these public servants received were reported to their superior as they should have been. That is something that we do as parliamentarians. If we receive a gift, we report it. We are closely scrutinized, and that is how it should be.

Obviously, the top priority of public servants is to serve the public. Public servants know that, when they accept their position, they must serve the public to the best of their abilities. As a result, they must report any appearance of a conflict of interest. That is essential when a person enters the public service. There has been a lot of talk about GC Strategies. Let us not forget that GC Strategies was known as Coredal Systems Consulting back in the Conservatives' day, and it too received contracts. However, we have also heard about another company called Dalian.

According to what we learned this morning, the owner of Dalian—another company that received millions of dollars for the ArriveCAN app—has bank accounts in tax havens. No surprise there. Receiving that much money but providing little or no service certainly raises questions about misconduct. That is where things stand now. We must let the RCMP do their job. We also know that the owners of GC Strategies have numbered companies. I just wanted to share that. Numbered companies allow for a lot of leeway. Again, we will let law enforcement agencies investigate that.

There are some serious questions about misconduct here. One thing is certain, companies like Dalian and GC Strategies had contracts under the Conservatives. Whether we are talking about GC Strategies or Coredal Systems Consulting, these companies had contracts. However, there is another thing. The contracts with these consultants, these two companies in particular, simply skyrocketed starting in 2017. The increase started in 2016 or 2017. Companies such as Dalian received hundreds of contracts from the federal government.

Where did the federal government, the Liberal government, lose complete control of its public service, its public servants, its departments? Was it a lack of leadership? Was it recklessness? That is what we are trying to understand in this story. Again, ArriveCAN is just the tip of the iceberg. The number of contracts awarded on a non-competitive basis has also skyrocketed. Under this government, the problem is systemic. Expertise is being lost. On the one hand, we have the Conservatives.

During their reign, they eliminated positions, cut public services, reduced the number of public servants and hobbled public servants' and departments' internal expertise. On the other, we have a Liberal government and its slew of middle managers. Many of those jobs were cut. They may no longer have the internal expertise, but they want to do development. They are zooming around all over the place trying to do development. They end up relying on external consultants like Dalian and GC Strategies to do the work that the government should be doing. The number of these contracts is growing by leaps and bounds.

(1135) We are not just talking about competitive procurement here. We are talking about the awarding of a huge number of non-competitive contracts. In 2023 alone, 27% of contracts were awarded non-competitively. Do members know in which department that happened? It was at Public Services and Procurement Canada, the department that is supposed to set the example and that is supposed to have processes and ensure that they are followed. Such was not the case since 27% of the contracts awarded by Public Services and Procurement Canada were awarded non-competitively.

How then can we guarantee that the government is providing proper services for every dollar spent? Let us remember that we are talking about taxpayers' money. Perhaps some people are so far up their ivory tower that they forget that they are managing taxpayers' money. What is more, when contracts are awarded non-competitively, there is no guarantee that they will be effective or managed properly. We see that Public Services and Procurement Canada did not even follow up on those contracts, and it is not the only one. The CBSA also has a lot to account for.

I have given examples of poorly monitored procurement and talked about how serious misconduct is suspected. Basically ArriveCAN is just the tip of the iceberg. The Bloc Québécois will support this motion. However, as my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou said, this motion may not go far enough. Our leader was the first to call for a public inquiry. The Canada Border Services Agency may be the worst, but we do not need to look far to see that quite a few problems exist elsewhere. Perhaps it should be put under administrative supervision.

In any case, a lot more needs to be done to get to the bottom of this, because there really is a widespread problem. We saw it with the spending on McKinsey. Ultimately, McKinsey was not necessarily the problem. The Liberal government may have lost full control of the departments, leading it to become dependent on consulting firms to the point where it has now lost all control. Part of the blame lies with the Conservative government's irresponsible actions, including cuts to the public service, which created a need for outside expertise.

To conclude, Quebeckers can see that they will have an irresponsible government if the Conservatives come to power. They also see that the Liberals are an irresponsible government that is incapable of managing its departments. Fortunately, we have other options in Quebec. We have the best option, which is to leave and govern ourselves, because, strangely enough, we do not hear of many cases like ArriveCAN in Quebec. In fact, Quebec's app cost a fairly reasonable amount, about $10 million, which is not the case for Canada's app.

I would like to end on that note and on the fact that, in Quebec, we are far better at managing our own affairs. If we have to choose between the plague and cholera, we prefer our country, by far.

(1140) Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. At the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, she provided a very good

summary of what we heard from the Auditor General of Canada. I think she would agree that this work is very important and that the work of the Office of the Auditor General absolutely has to remain independent. My colleague pointed out that the Conservatives made deep cuts to the public service and that there is a lack of expertise. Does she agree that we should increase the size of the public service, with all that that might entail, or is there room for consultants? I believe my colleague herself has worked with consultants in her distinguished career.

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. This gives me a chance to say that the Liberals have already considerably increased the size of the public service. Although they increased the size of the public service, they ended up with essentially operational positions responsible for managing the consultants. All the expenses to get expertise have gone up. Often the work is duplicated. Sometimes consultants are hired to do the work that an entire team could do internally. We see inefficiencies everywhere. The problem is more widespread. We need to consolidate the public service and finally provide better services to the public.

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. In her speech, our Liberal colleague talked about the contract awarded to GC Strategies, a company formed in 2015. We have heard that this company had a number of contracts with the Government of Canada before that. However, the company did not exist before 2015. What does that mean?

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for throwing me such a softball, so to speak, since it is really quite simple. The two people who founded GC Strategies had already founded a company called Coredal Systems Consulting. That company has had contracts with the Canadian government since 2007, so under the Conservatives. In 2015, they dissolved Coredal and transitioned that company into GC Strategies. That information is very easy to find on the open government website. It was a typical name change that just happened to coincide with a change in government.

(1145) [ English ]

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, we know that what is happening with ArriveCAN and at CBSA is just the tip of the iceberg. At the government operations committee, I put forward a motion to expand the study to include the big six highly paid consulting firms. When I put forward that motion, members should have seen the room. Everybody in the corporate control parties ran to their phones, saying to hold on. They were checking in with their friends at the big corporations, including, I am sure, the managing directors at Deloitte, who are both former cabinet ministers from the Liberal Party and from the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives delayed the vote on the motion not once, not for two meetings, but for three meetings. They finally got confirmation and a go-ahead from their corporate-controlled headquarters at Deloitte that they could support the motion. We knew that the Conservatives would never allow that study to happen and to be expanded. Does the Bloc agree that we need a full investigation that goes well beyond what is going on at CBSA and with the ArriveCAN app and that we need to look at all the outsourcing, especially since it has gone up 546% over the last eight years and has doubled under the Conservatives?

We need to get to the bottom of it, and fix this problem.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné :

Mr. Speaker, yes, we do agree because we want to get to the bottom of the matter. A committee could look at everything that has been done with large companies, but the members would drown in the sea of hundreds of thousands of pages of contracts that we do not necessarily have the training to understand. We need to call for a public inquiry. We need outside people who are trained to do this kind of work to come in and get to the bottom of the story. As I mentioned, and as my colleague said, ArriveCAN is just the tip of the iceberg. We do not know where taxpayers' money is going, and that is shameful.

[ English ]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise, and I will be sharing my time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni . The question of how public money is spent or misspent is a fundamental question of an obligation for parliamentarians, because the Canadian people do not need to pay attention to everything that happens in Parliament. However, they need to know that there is accountability and that we respect their hard-working money being spent properly and through the right channels. I have many years of experience in the House dealing with all the smut and corruption files that have come along.

I was elected in my first year as the Liberal government was telling us that Jean Chrétien's golf balls were going to keep the country together. Fortunately, the Canadian people did not believe that. That was the first scandal I witnessed. I have lost track of all the scandals. We can take misspending and put it into various categories. There are simply the tawdry ones, like with Bev Oda, who seemed to rack up as many bills as possible every time she travelled until people finally became fed up.

There was the issue with Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright, where Mike Duffy was claiming all kinds of outrageous claims because he was a bagman and raised money for the Conservatives. We were presented with this bizarre case that it was okay to offer a secret bribe, but it was a problem to receive the bribe. Those scandals did not just belong to the Conservatives. There was Mac Harb, a Liberal, who had this amazing grifter scheme.

He was not eligible for travel, so he bought this dodgy little broken down cottage just 100 kilometres outside of Ottawa because if he lived 100 kilometres outside of Ottawa, he could hit up the taxpayer for all kinds of travel, even though, I was told, there was not even running water at that cottage. Mac Harb had to pay back $231,000. People deserve to be outraged by that abuse, and it raised questions in the Senate of where the accountability is to make sure that the people who are there are doing their jobs.

I remember Tony Clement and the $50 million that was taken out of border funds so that he could buy sunken boats and build a fake lake in Muskoka. That was an abusive process. It was not criminal; it was an abusive process. There was the issue with Arthur Porter, which was one of the more concerning scandals I have witnessed over the years. Stephen Harper appointed him as head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and made him a privy councillor.

We then, of course, found out he was involved in what CBC said was “the biggest fraud investigation in Canadian history”, and he ended up dying in Panama in a jail. Those are elements of criminality, “griftership”, tawdriness and of people just misusing the public funds. The ArriveCAN thing needs to be put in perspective of the time, and then analyze it from there. When we were hit with the pandemic, we were dealing with a completely unknown crisis that none of us had faced, and there was certainly a need to get a response out the door quickly. Who did the best job at that? It was our public servants.

They basically spent that Easter weekend in 2020 creating a program to get the CERB dollars out to people who were not able to work and to keep them going. It was the Public Service who did good, amazing work during that time. However, there were a number of scandals that came up during that period, and ArriveCAN fits into that because it is a question of the lack of oversight and accountability. Certainly, Canadians deserve to know how a contract worth $59.5 million, divided up through 32 companies, for a program that did not work was allowed to go ahead. We ask ourselves how that was possible.

I would like to share with my colleagues some of the recommendations that came out of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which looked into some of the other elements. We looked at Baylis Medical, at Palantir and at the Kielberger brothers. At the time, again, the government wanted to get a youth program out. There was $500 million to $940 million set aside for the Kielberger operation without competition and without very clear oversight.

What the committee found was that the incredible access Marc and Craig Kielberger had into the inner workings of government gave them an advantage no one else had. I would encourage any of my colleagues to read the Ethics Commissioner report on the former finance minister, Bill Morneau. It makes for a pretty shocking reading that these guys had an all-access pass into the corridors of the Liberal government and were not even registered to lobby. That certainly was a major factor in bringing down Mr. Morneau.

(1150) I want to raise this because if we have these scandals, we need to learn from them. We need to learn how money was misspent. We need to learn why there was no oversight, so that this is not repeated. Otherwise we become a laughingstock of repetition of failure from insiders, from misuse of public funds and from contracting out. With respect to the contracting out that was to be done with the WE group, I am going to read what the all-party committee said. This is not my opinion but that of all of the political parties that participated. It reported this back to Parliament:

The Committee was unable to find any due diligence reports that actually tested the credibility of the claims made by the WE Charity. This group had never undertaken a project close to this magnitude and it remains unclear whether they had the means to ensure that students across the country could be put to work with credible results.

It was going to be given $500 million initially, and there were no due diligence reports that we could find anywhere. Then we found out that the money was going to be funnelled to a shell company initially set up to deal with some of its incredible real estate holdings. How is it possible that the Government of Canada would transfer between $500 million and $940 million to a shell company? Who was taking the enormous risk then? It was the Canadian people. I am going to read from the all-party committee report again:

The Committee is of the view that the decision of the Liberal government of Canada to sign a contract worth over $500 million with a shell company “WE Charity Foundation” is deeply troubling. The WE group stated they used the shell company to limit their liability. In reality, this procedure had the potential to put a huge investment of taxpayers funds at risk because the deal was with a shell company with no assets.

How does a G7 country sign on to something that concerning? I am raising this because of the whole thing about ArriveCAN and the Auditor General's not being able to find anything on how the money was spent. One of the most disturbing factors is that after 10 months of study, we had to report to Parliament that we had no idea how the finances of the supposed children's charity worked. We could not tell the Canadian people who controlled its multitude of corporations. We did not even know all the companies that it controlled.

We could not tell the difference between its so-called charity work and its for-profit work, or tell what its ownership structure was, yet the government, without doing due diligence, was going to sign over between $500 million and $940 million. The report states:

The Committee notes that over the 10 months of its study, it was unable to get a clear picture of the financial structure of the WE group. We were unable to ascertain a clear division between how monies flowed through the charitable wing and their for-profit operations. We were also denied information on the ownership structure of their multitude of side companies. If the government of Canada is to sign future contracts or contribution agreements with WE Charity, its affiliates or subsidiaries, such clarifications must be required.

I raise that because we are looking at a very similar thing that happened with ArriveCAN. Where was the oversight? This is the other question I am going to end on. We spent 10 months trying to get the CFO of WE to testify, just to tell us what was happening. We were told not only that he was on medical leave but also that he had a brain aneurism that, if we asked him questions, might cause his death. Certainly nobody in Parliament was going to wish that someone die under the pressure, but the WE group could not come up with anybody else who could explain its very complex financial structure.

On May 15, 2021, we received a letter from Mr. Li saying that he was too sick, had not been doing any work and was completely uninvolved, yet we found that in that period, in the state of California, there was a registration renewal in November 2020 on which he signed off as CFO. There was a New York state filing on which he signed off as CFO, an Internal Revenue Service report in 2020 and a Washington State report. All of these were signed off on by Victor Li, yet our committee was told that he was so fragile and sick that he could not even read documents.

We were not in a position to do a criminal investigation, but we had to report back to Parliament that there had been a major failure of fundamental accountability. Has the government learned lessons from what happened with the WE brothers, or do we have to repeat these tawdry, dumbed-down abuses of public funds because the accountability mechanisms that should have been there were ignored and the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook? I will be here all week.

(1155) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, for me there are a couple of issues, and I will very quickly break it down. There is the procurement process, but there is also, from my perspective and what I think my constituents would be saying to me, the question of how one company gets into a position in which it could do what GC Strategies actually was able to do. Part of it is that we have to look at the origins of the company, which had actually been around for many years; it was under a new name, of course, as it had been under Coredal. I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect.

To what degree should we be looking at how a company could surface and get into a situation like we find ourselves in today?

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think the member should be asking the minister in charge of the file how the heck that happened. The issue is that the government is giving out enormous sums of money to groups like McKinsey, which has a very dodgy record on everything from opioids to articles in the United States saying that this is the company that destroyed the American middle class. Nonetheless, we give them millions of dollars even though we have a trained civil service that is dedicated and can do the job.

I cannot imagine that ArriveCAN would have gotten off the ground as far as it did if we had mechanisms in place. However, I want to be fair. I do not have a problem that the government tried to get ArriveCAN, and I do not have a problem that it tried to bring in people to get it done, because we were in unprecedented circumstances. My problem is where the heck was the oversight once it began to realize that this thing was not going to work?

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Of the many speeches he has given in the House, that is the one I liked the most. I will even accept his criticism of previous governments, because Canadians want to see transparency in the way their dollars are spent, including with every government that sits in the House. However, I would ask the member about what happened during the pandemic and all the contracts that were given out. The government was dealing with a lot of its insider friends, and more or less said, “Let's not let a good crisis go to waste.

Let's set up corporations to get a whole bunch of money out the door.” Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent by the government in unaccountable ways. We have only scratched the surface here, and every time we land on something, it takes two years to actually show some transparency, because of committee obfuscation, delays, etc. I ask the member whether he would actually step up and tell his party, in light of another $50-million scandal, which is five times what the Jean Chrétien scandal was that brought down his government, that he would consider withdrawing his support for the obviously corrupt government.

(1200) Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, if I were to go back to Timmins—James Bay and say, “Hey, guess what, the Liberals screwed up again, and this time it is ArriveCAN, so we are not going to go ahead with national dental care and we are not going to go ahead with pharmacare”, I would get laughed out of the room. My focus is that we are going to force the government to deliver on things that are absolutely making it twist in the wind, thanks to a few percentage points over the Liberals in the polls right now, as they never would have come to the table on national pharmacare.

On these scandals, the Canadian public expects us to go beyond synthetic outrage to say, “What happened?” and “How was that money spent?”. As I said earlier, I was part of the investigation into Baylis Medical. I did not find anything that was problematic. If I had, I would have said so, but I did not. However, with the WE group we found major problems. We found major problems with ArriveCAN. As my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni , said, we need to scratch the surface on all contracting now, because there is an amazing amount of taxpayers' money that is being misspent through this process.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree, at least within the opposition parties, that this is a real mess. As we have said, we will unequivocally support the Conservative motion. That said, I would like to ask my colleague if he would agree that the Conservative leader has been rather quiet about the fact that, while he was parliamentary secretary to the transportation minister, his department awarded $6.5 million to the owners of GC Strategies.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I have a lot of questions about the Conservative leader's positions. For example, to me, his decision to vote against supporting Ukraine was unacceptable. The leader of the Conservative Party claims to be the leader of accountability, except when it comes to connections to lobbyists. With the Conservatives, it is an open bar for lobbyists.

[ English ]

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in support of this motion today. I am going to speak to the broader issue of outsourcing and what New Democrats have been trying to do from the beginning in terms of revealing and bringing an end to the rampant outsourcing to highly paid, external, for-profit consulting firms that are making money hand over fist. Earlier I talked about how, under the former Conservative government, we saw the number of highly paid consultants double. Under the Liberal government it has gone up 546% to the big corporations, to the six highly paid consultant firms.

What we want to do is stop these profits and the economic leakage happening in our country, and bring that work back to the public service. We saw the Conservatives with their Phoenix pay system that was supposed to save taxpayers $80 million. It has cost us over $3.5 billion. Talk about a failure. I find it laughable when Conservatives are up in the polls and they want to force an election. They want us to go from one corporate-controlled party to another. That is not good enough. What we need to do is actually fix the problem. There is waste worth billions of dollars. It hurts the public service.

It also hurts the morale in the public service when it sees a company like GC Strategies, which is two guys who do not have an office or staff but probably have two bar stools at a local bar dedicated to them, getting $59 million in government contracts. What we learned at government operations committee is that they get a commission between 15% and 30%; let us call it 20%. These two guys made $11 million just in commissions. Neither of them is an IT specialist. They are headhunters. This is easily a job that should be brought in-house and not done by external consultants.

We know that ArriveCAN is just the tip of the iceberg. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that this is deeply concerning. It is not just deeply concerning; it is absolutely outrageous, and it needs to end. I want to compare the over $21 billion in outsourcing, and by the way, the Liberal government wants to make us feel good by cutting 15% of outsourcing. It has gone up 546%, but the Liberals are going to cut it by 15%. Does that gives everybody at home a lot of comfort? I do not think so.

Let us think about what the $21 billion in outsourcing could have done for building hospitals or schools, or providing a pharmacare plan that is going to cost $10 billion or a guaranteed livable income for seniors and people living on disability, the most marginalized people in our society. With ArriveCAN, we saw what was an $80,000 app skyrocket out of control. As my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay cited, money needed to be spent in terms of the emergency response to COVID. We absolutely support that, but not the outrageous runaway train. We put forward motions and ideas.

We tried to actually look at the outsourcing procurement problem. We put forward a motion at the government operations committee to ask the Auditor General to look not just at ArriveCAN but also at all outsourcing and buy-and-sell decisions by the Government of Canada. Initially the Conservatives were hesitant to support my motion, but they did. Then they took the motion and brought it to the House on an opposition day to call on the Auditor General to look at ArriveCAN. However, we need to go bigger than that. I supported that and am glad I could work with the Conservatives on it.

Let us face it: The Conservatives gutted the public service. This is when outsourcing started. Michael Wernick, the former Privy Council chair, showed up at the government operations committee. He cited that it was cuts in leadership and training that led to the start of the outsourcing that happened under the former Conservative government. Those were critical, huge cuts. They were very costly, as we can see now as the government goes to outside consultants to provide that leadership. I will talk a little about that.

We put a question on the Order Paper to look at the government's spending on outsourcing consultants. One instance we found was that Natural Resources Canada spent over $600,000 to advise the government on how to cut outside consultants. It used an outside consultant to give it advice to cut outside consultants. One cannot make this stuff up; it is that outrageous. This is what we are seeing.

(1205) Let us talk about the history of outside consulting and the need to invest in public servants. We saw the previous Conservative government privatize the Phoenix pay system that was brought in. It was supposed to save $80 million a year. It has actually cost us $3.5 billion. The ArriveCAN scandal pales in comparison to what has happened with the Phoenix pay system. What we keep seeing are continued sole-sourcing structures of outsourcing, which ensure that companies like GC Strategies are the only ones that can properly bid.

We heard at committee about GC Strategies actually altering résumés to help companies qualify and get task authorizations. These are security clearances that are pretty critical and important to the safety of our country. We are also concerned about how they misused indigenous set-asides. They hired a company on an indigenous set-aside that was not indigenous. The owners of that company were embarrassed when they found out, because they believe in reconciliation. They believe that money that is dedicated for indigenous procurement should go to indigenous companies. We want to get to the bottom of this.

We talked about outsourcing doubling under the previous Conservative government. It has more than quadrupled under the current government. We are literally seeing the corporate-controlled parties let the foxes run the henhouse. Today we see the Liberals and Conservatives fighting over who hired whom, who started the whole mess with consulting, who spent more on the same consultants. It is a big problem. What we need to do is to stop the layering of commissions. We need to take action and solve this problem. There should not be a layering of commissions.

We learned that GC Strategies got a contract and then subbed it out to another contractor, who subbed it out again. We saw cases in which Dalian and Coradix, another two-person outfit that was making millions of dollars, subbed out to GC Strategies, which then subbed out to somebody else. They took commissions along the way. We heard from the deputy minister that there is no limit on commissions. We could see that commissions could be 60% to 70% of a bid. This is an economic leakage that is out of control, and it is a self-perpetuating cycle in terms of outsourcing that reduces public service capacity.

I want to say that that layering is like the biggest pyramid scheme I have ever seen. Someone gets a contract, subs it out and takes a cut. Then they sub it out to the next person. They are all friends. These companies with two staff and no offices are something that seems to be coming up, and that was just with CBSA. We need to look beyond. We wanted to look at Deloitte, for example. It went from receiving $11 million in contracts in 2015 to $275 million. We wanted to look at PricewaterhouseCoopers, which went from $20 million to $115 million. This is just since 2015.

I put forward a motion to expand the outsourcing study to include the big six. Madam Speaker, you should have seen the room when I put forward that motion. Everybody ran to their phones. The corporate-controlled parties were checking in with their head offices, making sure it was okay to support this motion, and they delayed it. They delayed the vote on it, and then the Conservatives decided to delay it one more time. It took three meetings before they supported it. The reason they supported it was that they knew that it would never see the floor.

We are close to the anniversary of expanding that motion, and we have not gotten to the bigger study. I find it kind of odd, given that a former Liberal cabinet minister, Pierre Pettigrew, is a managing director at Deloitte, and a former leadership contender in the Conservative Party, Peter MacKay, is a managing director at Deloitte. No kidding that they do not want to study it and put it under the microscope, and they do not want the Auditor General taking a look and doing a deep dive. These big corporations are just like the smaller ones, like GC Strategies. They get the bid, sub it out and take a cut.

They are not doing a lot of the work. We want to fix this. We will keep fighting for that. We want to put a cap on commissions. We want integrity in procurement, and that includes making sure that all bids are competitive, instead of this sole-sourced business. We want to end and prevent the misconduct that is taking place. We want to stop our public dollars from turning into private profits. In terms of looking at indigenous set-asides, they actually need to go to businesses that are indigenous-owned and indigenous-operated and delivering services.

The New Democrats are here to actually bring solutions and try to fix this problem, so that we can get the support to Canadians who are struggling right now.

(1210) Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we do keep records of who voted for what during budget deliberations, so I would ask this member how he can go back to his riding, when he voted eight times to ensure that GC Strategies got tens of millions of dollars. He talks about the corporate parties. He literally is propping up the Liberal government to ensure the ad scam continues. GC Strategies is still getting money because of his vote. It is actually quite embarrassing.

Mr. Gord Johns :

Madam Speaker, what is embarrassing is that I just outlined that the Conservatives are making sure that we are not putting their former—

An hon. member : Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I will remind the hon. member that he had an opportunity to ask a question. He should not be talking when he is trying to get the answer. If he has other questions and comments, he needs to wait until the appropriate time. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni .

Mr. Gord Johns :

Madam Speaker, as I was going to say, what is embarrassing is that the Conservatives continue to protect their friends at Deloitte, including their former leadership candidate, Peter MacKay, and, just like the Liberals, they do not want to talk about it. They are both corporate-controlled parties. They are trying to mislead us again. Those votes were about allocating $4.6 billion for COVID rapid tests and vaccines. They were about millions of dollars for a national child care program and funding for affordable homes and women's shelters.

It is no surprise that the Conservatives voted against those things, because that is what Conservatives do. They cut and gut the services people rely on. We will not take any lessons from the Conservatives, who gave over $7 million in contracts to the former owners of GC Strategies. They also created the Phoenix disaster, which was supposed to save taxpayers $80 million but cost us $3.5 billion. We have been fighting since the beginning to get to the bottom of the ArriveCAN scandal and to reduce the use of wealthy private consultants. We will not stop, and not just on ArriveCAN and not just on CBSA.

We need to look at the whole of government. We need an investigation into all of the outsourcing, something that is being blocked by the Conservatives, a Conservative-led committee, a Conservative chair who will not allow this motion to come back so that we can look at the whole picture. They do not want to look there.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, just very briefly, the outsourcing issue is something that governments both present and past, at the national level and at the provincial level, have actually been involved in. All political parties participate in it. I suspect that one would even find New Democratic administrations that have outsourced to Deloitte and Touche, just so that is on the record. The amounts might vary, obviously.

If we take a look at everything that has been done on ArriveCAN, a number of standing committees have been investigating it and thousands of pieces of information have been provided; we have had departments internally and we have had independent offices of Parliament looking at it. I am wondering if the member feels that there is still a need to continue to try to create more information on the file.

(1215) Mr. Gord Johns :

Madam Speaker, we need a mechanism and tool to do a full investigation. Right now, the Conservatives are focused on ArriveCAN because it is a “gotcha” campaign. They are not actually trying to fix the overall problem with outsourcing. My colleague talked about an increase in outsourcing, but like I said, Deloitte went from $11 million in 2015 to $275 million, and I can assure my colleague that there is no New Democrat government in this country that has seen such an outrageous increase. This is not just deeply concerning, like the Liberals call it.

This is outrageous, out-of-control spending on highly paid consultants. It is an economic leakage, work that should be done by the public service, and money that could be spent supporting people who are struggling right now.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, we are seeing yet another big mess coming out of the cross-party consensus within the Ottawa coalition, as I like to call it. It is the fact that Ottawa keeps delegating important aspects of policy decisions and government decisions to big companies, some of which, like McKinsey, have fingers in many pies. In this case, a company with only two employees was entrusted with the task despite a 40% increase in the federal public service.

It is a cross-party consensus because, although this is currently a Liberal scandal, we might say that it really started when the member for Carleton was parliamentary secretary for the Department of Transport from 2011 to 2013. His department awarded $6.5 million to the owners of GC Strategies, the company involved in the ArriveCAN affair. It was called something else at the time. Does my colleague not think that the Conservative leader is staying pretty quiet on this?

[ English ]

Mr. Gord Johns :

Madam Speaker, I will say it. They are hypocrites. Let us face it. Conservatives started the outsourcing and the out-of-control situation that we are in. They cut public service. They outsourced IT. They started the Phoenix debacle that was supposed to save $80 million but cost us $3.5 billion. It is absolutely outrageous. What we are trying to do, and I will say that we have been working really well with the Bloc, is actually fix the problem, but we are being blocked by the corporate-controlled parties from conducting a full investigation and examination of this outrageous outsourcing to highly paid for-profit consultants.

Mr. Warren Steinley :

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the member just called the Conservatives hypocrites. I wonder if he would like to retract that, because, by his own words—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

That is a point of debate. The hon. member did not attack an individual member. He spoke about the party as a whole. I do want to remind members to please be mindful. It is causing a bit of a disturbance when individuals use adjectives that cause disorder, but the point the hon. member raised is a point of debate. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek .

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for New Brunswick Southwest . The arrive scam boondoggle has rightly put the government’s mismanagement of taxpayer dollars in the spotlight. At one point everyone in the government wanted to be associated with the ArriveCAN app, touting it as one of the greatest things a government had ever accomplished. Now, with the Auditor General's report, nobody wants to take accountability for this mess, and it is no wonder. As we have discovered, we h