MPs are moving to bring ArriveCan contractors to the House of Commons for a formal reprimand from Speaker Greg Fergus.
On Friday, Fergus Just in case GC Strategies’ Christian Firth violated parliamentary privilege when he refused to answer certain questions during a committee appearance earlier this month.
Following Mr Fergus’s sentence, Conservative MP Michael Barrett tabled a motion asking MPs to order Mr Firth to appear in court in the Commons and be publicly reprimanded.
Barrett said Firth was “interfering with the work of Congress and the committees” by refusing to answer questions from members.
“These are people who casually mock the House of Commons,” Barrett said, referring to Firth and GC Strategies.
Mr. Firth appeared before the House Government Operations Committee two weeks ago to testify about his involvement in GC Strategies and ArriveCan.
According to the Comptroller’s Office report, the soaring cost of the project (estimated at about $60 million) was due in part to the government’s over-reliance on external contractors such as GC Strategy.
The same report found that GC Strategies was involved in developing the requirements that were later used in the ArriveCan contract. The contract was worth $25 million and was later awarded to GC Strategies, according to reports.
A separate report by Canada’s Procurement Ombudsman found the criteria used in awarding the $25 million contract were “overly restrictive” and “significantly favored” GC strategies.
During his committee appearances, lawmakers repeatedly asked Firth which government officials he worked with to develop standards for the contract. Mr. Firth said he had not been contacted by police, but evaded such questions, citing the ongoing RCMP investigation into ArriveCan.
A public recommendation in the House of Commons is a very rare measure, having been implemented only five times since the early 1900s. This is called “brought in front of the bar” in reference to the brass rail intended to prevent strangers from entering the room.
Former MPs Ian Waddell and Keith Martin were reprimanded by the Speaker in 1991 and 2002 respectively.
If Barrett’s motion passes, Firth would become the third private citizen to receive a recommendation since 1913. The most recent incident was in 2021, when the then-Public Health Agency of Canada appeared in the House of Commons after the agency failed to provide documentation. He addressed the committee on the dismissal of two scientists at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.
Support for admonishing Mr Firth appears to come from all parties in the House of Commons. But part of Ms Barrett’s motion – that Ms Firth would have to answer further questions when she appears in the House of Commons – raised concerns among some Liberal MPs.
Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen questioned how Mr Firth would answer questions in the House of Commons.
“What concerns me is the method. [Barrett] “It’s just the way we conduct this operation that has moved this forward,” he said.
Gerretsen recommended that the House Procedures Committee investigate the matter and report to lawmakers before Firth is subpoenaed.
Barrett responded that there is a process in place to have the chair read written questions submitted by members.
“Further investigation by the committee or further delay is not what we need,” Barrett said.
The House adjourned on Friday to vote on the motion. Lawmakers plan to resume consideration of Barrett’s motion when the House reconvenes on April 8.