Michael Barrett
Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as Canada prepares to celebrate its 159th birthday, we have every reason to be proud of the country we call home. In Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, that story is written into our landscape. The Rideau Canal helped build a young nation. The Thousand Islands became one of Canada's great treasures.”
“Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Seniors Month, I was pleased to join with MPP Steve Clark to host our first annual Seniors Expo. This week at New Hope Church in Brockville, in partnership with Senior Support Services Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, we welcomed more than 160 seniors and dozens of exhibitors.”
“It was a wonderful way to bring our community together, share helpful resources that support seniors and their families, and recognize the incredible contributions of our seniors. I want to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who built our country and built our community. Happy Seniors Month.”
“The question is whether taxpayers got good value for money in this $200‑million deal over 10 years, and we need to be clear about that. It is not about sovereign launch capability.”
“Number three, what did taxpayers receive for the first year, given that Maritime Launch says the agreement is retroactive to April 1, 2025? It is being paid $20 million per year, and the first payment of $20 million was due before March 31, 2026.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is the question that my hon. colleague has raised. This is what we have asked the government to demonstrate, and we are opposing the $20 million for this year's use because it has failed to do that. It is not about the aspiration. It is about the execution. What is the value for money that taxpayers are getting here?”
The complete record
Every one of 258 lines we hold for Michael Barrett, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 6.
“We will oppose the things that are not good for Canadians, support the things that are and propose solutions to the problems that Liberals have created.”
“Mr. Speaker, we all want Canada to succeed, and that is why we will hold the Prime Minister accountable for his promises, compared to the results. Do his words match his deeds? He promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet we have seen shrinking growth, high unemployment, rising food prices and worsening debt. He promised that he would double homebuilding, but it has fallen, and he is adding more bureaucracy that has not built a single home. He promised that after 10 years of Liberals driving up costs, crime and chaos, he would be different. Sadly, whether it is unemployment, the cost of living, homebuilding, tariffs, crime or immigration, it has gotten worse. It is more broken Liberal promises from another Liberal prime minister. Conservatives are here to help.”
“Mr. Speaker, during the member opposite's presentation, we heard him talk about Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper was the prime minister more than a decade ago and had great success in developing Canada's economy. However, for the last 10 years, it was that member and his Liberal government, with Justin Trudeau, who introduced legislation that stymied the growth of Canada's economy and sent billions to dictatorships and to the United States. The member is here talking about a new government but also wants to talk about Justin Trudeau and his success. Can the member stand up and say that he is proud of the work of Justin Trudeau and that he stands with Bill C-69 and the other job-killing bills that he passed with that government?”
“Mr. Speaker, unlike the Right Hon. Prime Minister , I am proud to have served our country in the Canadian Armed Forces in uniform. The Prime Minister seems to do whatever he thinks he can get away with. He voted for the Liberals' ban on gas-powered cars, while Brookfield is heavily invested in the EV supply chain. We know that he used offshore tax havens in the Caribbean to avoid paying Canadian taxes. His own department will not even say whether he set up conflict of interest screens. Instead of maligning people who serve the country in uniform, why does the Prime Minister not stand up and come clean about his conflicts of interest?”
“Mr. Speaker, last night we learned that the Prime Minister has an entire department of bureaucrats trying to manage his conflicts of interest, but they cannot even tell us whether the Prime Minister has set up a conflict of interest screen, which means that the former chairman of a multi-billion dollar investment firm is sitting at the cabinet table and could be taking decisions that personally improve his financial standing. He has been Prime Minister for 100 days, but he is still jumping through ethics loopholes. Why will the Prime Minister not stop hiding the truth from Canadians and come clean? What are your conflicts of interest?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member will have to excuse us if we do not take the party that has been known for serial ethical law-breaking at its word when the Minister of Housing , who said house prices do not need to come down, is sitting in a $2-million penthouse on a multi-million dollar real estate fortune while he is telling Canadians that they are okay to just stay in their parents' basements. Canadians want to know why the minister was not transparent, did not answer the question in committee of the whole and did not answer the question when the member previously asked. We do not think that he answered it honestly when he gave an answer to the Ethics Commissioner. Why will the minister not come clean and tell Canadians the truth?”
“Mr. Chair, with $222 billion in new spending authorities requested by the President of the Treasury Board, it is absolutely unacceptable that the minister came this evening without any information. I have one final question. Was the minister ever briefed on the ArriveCAN scandal?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister has failed to answer even simple questions when I have given him ample time to do that. Does the Treasury Board have any mechanisms in place to make sure that work is completed before payments are made?”
“Mr. Chair, what is not appropriate is for a minister to refuse to answer questions when the opposition is looking to determine if we can have confidence in his department and when the Liberals are looking for $222 billion in new spending authorities, which is the exercise that we have this evening in this committee of the whole. How did the Treasury Board, the minister's department, allow payments of $60 million for what is known as the arrive scam to be paid to GC Strategies without documented deliverables?”
“Mr. Chair, that is an unacceptable answer. I am not asking the minister about criminal proceedings. I am asking the minister about his department's failures to enforce the rules that are specifically under his mandate. He refused to answer my first question, so my next question is this: On what basis was GC Strategies, which had no technical capabilities, pre-qualified as an IT contractor based on the rules set out by the department the minister oversees?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time three ways. What percentage of pre-qualified IT contractors have no technical abilities, like the admitted fraudsters at the two-man, basement-headquartered GC Strategies?”
“Mr. Speaker, unsurprisingly, the member is correct in her discernment of the facts. The issue we are dealing with here is one that was reviewed by the Auditor General. The Auditor General was the one who made the finding we have here today, and that is the basis for this motion to get the funds back. There has not been any evidence presented to independent officers of Parliament about this type of grift or fraud in the period that the parliamentary secretary had indicated, but as I said, if they are supporting us getting more of Canadians' tax dollars back and preventing future frauds, let us do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good question. [ English ] It has been a difficult time for Canadians, when we look at the last 10 years, but of course, as the member indicated, it is not just limited to the last 10 years. We saw that with the Liberal sponsorship scandal as well. We absolutely need to have rigorous processes in place, and it is encouraging to hear the Bloc is going to support the motion, because we have to get that accountability. When we now see that the opposition has a majority on committees, there is a real opportunity for opposition parties to ensure we hold the government to account at public accounts, at the government operations committee and at all government-chaired committees as well. We look forward to working with my colleague to make sure we get that accountability for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, if it is the position of the government that it would like to take a look at the contracts that occurred over that period of time, and there is a finding that there was fraud on the government, that work was not delivered, that security clearances were not in place, anyone involved then should be banned for life from doing business with the Government of Canada, and let us get that money back too. However, today, the question is, is the government going to support this motion? Any government speakers rising today should indicate how far back we want to go to get Canadians their money back. I do not think there should be a limit, because we must get value for Canadians.”
“If it is, then it is time for the Liberals to let us smell that new-car smell, that new-government smell; rise above the partisanship, the instinct to oppose this for the sake of opposing it; and vote for this common-sense motion. Let us get Canadians their money back, get accountability by banning these contractors. Let us show Canadians that when we tax them a dollar, it is going to go as far as it can, and if someone takes advantage of the Government of Canada and Canadians, we will not let it stand.”
“What we are asking for is reasonable, but it is also the minimum expectation that Canadians have of us, as Parliament: Within 100 days of the passage of this motion, the government would get Canadians their money back and not simply let it stand that the company involved in this fraud not be allowed to bid on government contracts for seven years; rather, the company, its principals and subsidiaries would have a lifetime ban from doing work for the Government of Canada on behalf of Canadians. This is what Canadians expect of us. We will hear the rise of all kinds of partisan hackles over the course of today, but this is a great opportunity. We are going to hear that it is a new Liberal government.”
“Anyone who has ever had a project done at home, if they get a deck built at their house and they put a deposit down and the work is complete and satisfactory, they pay the contractor and thank them for their hard work. What is going to be shocking for Canadians is what we saw here; in 46% of the contracts, there was no proof of work delivered, but the government paid in 100% of the cases. It is unacceptable, and we know it is because no household would do it, no small business would do it and certainly the Government of Canada should not have done it.”
“The contracts this company was awarded required security clearances. I use the term “company” loosely as these were a couple of guys working in their basement, getting multi-million dollar IT contracts from the Government of Canada, but they were not IT experts. Some of the departments they worked for included public safety, CBSA and national defence. The Auditor General found that in 50% of contracts requiring security clearances, departments cannot prove that these workers, subcontractors for GC Strategies, had the security clearance, and in over 20% of contracts, workers were actively on the job without a valid security clearance. The Liberal government is not one that takes security seriously if this is what it deems an acceptable procurement practice.”
“The Liberals and the cabinet, which is the executive responsible for this project, this massive boondoggle, voted against having the Auditor General take a look at it. Why would they not want the investigation if they were so proud of the project and it had worked as intended? Of course, they knew that it was a corrupt process, and they did not want it to come to light, but we did our work in holding the government to account, checking its homework, and we found the errors. We found the grift that had occurred. It is not just about the nearly $100 million in contracts that GC Strategies was awarded, as a company owned by Mr. Kristian Firth and Mr. Darren Anthony; it is about the procurement processes that were not followed. Let us take for example the imperative of security clearances.”
“This was the app the government originally pegged at costing $80,000. It ultimately cost many orders of magnitude more than that, in excess of $64 million. Value for money just was not there. For context and for new members to this place, it is important to note that when the official opposition initially raised concerns about the ArriveCAN app, the Liberals said that the app worked great, that it worked as intended and that they received value for money and had no regrets. They paraded people through committee over and over again with that refrain, but it turns out that simply was not the case. (1010) The then leader of the opposition, Mr. Poilievre, called for an Auditor General investigation, and there was a vote in the House.”
“As the Liberals have the weight of the entire public service and have all the extra resources that come with serving in government, there are incredible responsibilities to get things right, to make sure they get value for taxpayers and to make sure that when mistakes are made, they are corrected, and that when value is not received, it is corrected. What we saw in the Auditor General's reports this week confirms what Canada's Conservatives had raised the alarm bell about in the previous Parliament. On a range of issues the Auditor General looked at, she found that there were massive cost overruns and in fact negligence by the Liberal government, specifically in the use of the contractor GC Strategies, which was the preferred contractor in what is now known as the arrive scam scandal.”
“I do not know how many people work at the Department of Finance, but there are a lot; there are thousands of them. In 2018, a budget was tabled in the House, and the member for Edmonton West, on his own, in doing his due diligence reviewing the budget, found that the minister of finance and the ministry made an error of about $150 million. The hon. member was able to correct the homework of the government, the minister, their staff and the entire ministry when they laid that budget on the table. When we bring things before this House, it is because we have done our due diligence and because we are going to do what we have always done, which is punch above our weight.”
“The Prime Minister, perhaps in jest but certainly exposing his lack of familiarity with members of the official opposition, said that the member for Edmonton West did not understand how things worked in this place and did not know the difference between a budget and estimates. I want to offer a bit of history to the Prime Minister, because it is really important the Prime Minister understands who is holding him to account. The member for Edmonton West has an office complement that is the same size as those of all members in this House. Ministers, of course, get much larger offices. They get politically exempt staff, and they get access to full departments. The member for Edmonton West has a couple people who work in his office, just as the rest of us do.”
“Before I get into the substantive portion of my remarks and making a case for the imperative of getting Canadians their money back and having a lifetime ban for the contractors involved and the principals of the contracting firm in question, I want to inform the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Edmonton West . It is a privilege to split my time with this member. We often talk about His Majesty's loyal opposition being a government in waiting, and interestingly, there was an exchange recently between the right hon. Prime Minister , who is new to this place, and the member for Edmonton West , who is an experienced parliamentarian.”
“Motion moved: That, given that the Auditor General found that ArriveCAN contractor, GCStrategies Inc., was paid $64 million from the Liberal government, and in many cases, there was no proof that any work was completed, the House call on the government to: (a) get taxpayers their money back, within 100 days of the adoption of this motion; and (b) impose a lifetime contracting ban on GCStrategies Inc., any of its subsidiaries, its founders Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony, and any other entities with which those individuals are affiliated. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address this important matter for Canadians, following the report by Canada's Auditor General.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister knows that it is working exactly as it should, because the Liberals do not know that about any of the work GC Strategies did. For $100 million, no deliverables can be proven, no security clearances were done, and the minister is talking about the company's not doing work in the future. That is fine, but what we want to know is about the work it did not do in the past that Canadians paid $100 million for. Will the minister stand up and tell us when, what date, Canadians are getting their $100 million back?”
“Mr. Speaker, today's Auditor General report reveals the shocking contempt that the Liberal government has for matters of national security. It cannot demonstrate that security clearances were held by 50% of the contracts that it awarded to GC Strategies. In more than 20% of the cases, contractors were working without the required clearances. It did not check before the work began. It does not know if the work got done. There were no security clearances for the workers, but it cut the cheques anyway. Then, the Prime Minister gave the ministers responsible a promotion. Will the Prime Minister stand up today and tell us when we get our money back?”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have consistently voted against all of the inflationary spending and the Liberals' half measures that would see those savings vaporized by their continued inflationary spending. We will keep voting against them unless we see a responsible budget from the government for once. Moms and dads, small businesses, single Canadians and seniors all have to table a budget; they have to live by a budget, so why is it that the Liberals, while food prices are going through the roof and moms are having to water down the milk they give to their babies, will not just table a budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, today Conservatives have tabled a motion in the House that the Liberal government finally put forward a fiscally responsible budget. The Prime Minister says that he wants to be held to account based on what Canadians are paying for their groceries, but instead of putting forward a budget or bringing down grocery prices, he has introduced a half-trillion dollars in what we can only assume is more inflationary spending, with Canadians expected to pay an additional $800 in groceries this year over what they paid last year. Our ask is very simple for the Liberal government after 10 years of its inflationary spending: Table a budget.”
“Bring friends, meet new faces and support this fantastic addition to Kemptville. It is more than a place to grab a drink. It is a destination that is worth the stop.”
“Mr. Speaker, if anyone is travelling this summer and finds themselves on Highway 416 near the town of Kemptville, be sure to visit the Kemptville Brewing Company. I had the privilege of joining their grand opening on June 3, alongside outstanding entrepreneurs Nathan Devries, Kurtis Devries, Braden Dukelow and Jocelyn Major. Their passion and dedication have brought something truly special to our community. Set in the beautiful North Grenville countryside, Kemptville Brewing Company is already becoming a local favourite. For anyone keen to sample small-batch craft brews or enjoy delicious comfort food, my go-tos are a can of Caddy's Choice and a wood-fired pizza, or they can experience live music and trivia nights. It is the perfect way to unwind and enjoy the vibes of our region. This summer, make a point to visit.”
“Mr. Chair, I have asked the minister a number of questions seeking specifics on the bill prioritized as number two in the order, the first bill put forward in the Parliament. The minister has not been able to provide any of the details that would satisfy some of the most pressing issues facing our country right now. Where does it say in the legislation that we will repeal any of the laws passed by the Liberals that have weakened bail conditions and that have allowed dangerous offenders to stay on our streets?”
“Mr. Chair, that seems like an incredible missed opportunity, I can tell members, at all ports of entry, including those in my district at Johnstown and Lansdowne. Minister, you said, “The actual crimes, the actual issues around bail are quite sound and they are embedded [and] codified in law right now.” I have two questions for you: Do you think that current bail laws in the regime are working? Do you believe that Canadians feel safe?”
“Mr. Chair, the government is spending $342 million a year to collect legally registered firearms from licensed, trained and tested hunters, farmers and sport shooters. How much money is being dedicated specifically to interdicting firearms at the border?”
“Mr. Chair, I would encourage the minister to get either numbers or some information, or we could both go to those ports of entry and take a look for ourselves, to see the lack of infrastructure to scan the cans that are coming across the border at those two locations. How many firearms have been seized at the land borders between Canada and the United States?”
“Mr. Speaker, it was the current Prime Minister who said that the metric that he should be judged by is the price of food at grocery stores, and prices are up and so is food bank use. We have been calling relentlessly for the Liberals to put a budget in front of the House. In fact, Parliament has spoken and has said that the Prime Minister must put a budget forward this spring. The Prime Minister has not delivered on his promise to lower food prices or deliver affordable food. Will he at least respect the will of Parliament, respect the majority of members of the House who have called on him to produce a budget so we can see that plan?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that we should judge him by the prices at the grocery store. Well, beef, apples, rice, infant formula and so many things are all up in price. Do members know what else is up? It is food bank use. Canadians have to budget, especially during hard times, so that is exactly what they expected from the self-described “man with the plan”. Canadians need to see a budget from the Liberal government so that they can see what the plan is to reverse 10 years of Liberal tax increases and the effects of its inflationary spending. When will we see a budget?”
“Canadians have no information because the Prime Minister is stonewalling, refusing to be transparent with Canadians. Will he come clean with Canadians today? Will the government House leader commit to transparency for a change and tell Canadians what they need to know about these investments?”
“Mr. Speaker, let me quote the government House leader. He said that on that side of the House, they have always followed the rules. He sat in cabinet with former prime minister Justin Trudeau, who broke those laws twice, as did other members of cabinet. We cannot take him at his word. He also says that the reporting on Radio-Canada was a conspiracy theory. Well, it is a fact. The Prime Minister , the leader of the Liberal Party, set up these funds that were headquartered in Bermuda to avoid paying Canadian taxes, headquartered above a bicycle shop. We need to know if the Prime Minister is going to be the beneficiary of deferred compensation from those funds, when he stands to improve their performance based on decisions he can take around the cabinet table.”
“Will the Prime Minister be the beneficiary of deferred compensation payments from those funds at Brookfield? Will the Prime Minister finally just take his obligations seriously and tell Canadians the totality of what that blind trust looked like at the time it was set up?”
“What we want to know is this: What did the Prime Minister put into his blind trust, and is the Prime Minister going to be receiving deferred compensation payments? Finally, we need to know if the Prime Minister has ever been invested in funds that avoided paying taxes here in Canada. I would like to know if we can just get a clear answer. The government House leader has four minutes to tell us how seriously the government is going to take these ethics laws and that there is going to be a change in tone and tenor from the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he do that? Was the Prime Minister invested in funds that were avoiding paying taxes? Will the government House leader admit that the Prime Minister had set up funds that were headquartered above a bike shop in Bermuda?”
“The Prime Minister has an opportunity to provide that transparency to Canadians. In response to my question in question period, we heard the government House leader say that Canada has stringent ethics rules and the Liberals take them very seriously. Canadians have no idea what the Prime Minister put into those blind trusts, but the Prime Minister knows what he put into those blind trusts. We do not know how much deferred compensation the Prime Minister will realize based on the performance of those funds that he set up, but he knows. That deferred compensation is not something that can be placed in a blind trust. It will be paid out based on the performance of those funds, and the Prime Minister has a real way to impact their performance based on decisions that he makes at the cabinet table.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was Radio-Canada that first reported that the Prime Minister had co-founded an investment fund worth over $25 billion, combined from two funds. These investment funds were not headquartered here in Canada; they were headquartered above a bicycle shop in Bermuda. Why would investments be headquartered in Bermuda? Why would they be headquartered above a bike shop? It is because they are avoiding paying Canadian taxes. We have raised questions that the Prime Minister can answer, that the Prime Minister should answer and that the Prime Minister must answer. After 10 years with the last government and Justin Trudeau breaking our ethics laws multiple times and presiding over a cabinet that saw repeated breaches of our ethics laws, Canadians are looking for leadership, for honesty and for transparency.”
“Mr. Speaker, in spite of some of that performance, I welcome my hon. colleague back to the House. He knows it better than most, as he spends an awful lot of time in the chamber, and he is here to serve his constituents as well. It is important that the leader of the opposition be able to do his job. As past opposition leaders have said, the framework set up by the Trudeau government was one that would have disadvantaged the leader of the opposition in his ability to hold the government to account, and he has a constitutional obligation to do that. For our part, we are going to continue holding the government to account.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my hon. colleague to this place. He was obviously a keen observer of what went on over the last 10 years, and it was not an encouraging time for Canadians. The serial ethics law-breaking that we saw with Justin Trudeau was an example that was set, and unfortunately followed by other members of his cabinet. Hope springs eternal, and I am very optimistic that we will see a change in tack from the new Prime Minister , and there is an opportunity. However, there are unresolved issues, including the Prime Minister's yet having to declare to Canadians on a few important issues, including whether his investments were held in offshore tax havens and not paying his share of taxes for the important services that Canadians need. There is still an opportunity for the Prime Minister to set a new tone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member and congratulate him on his election victory. It is important that there be accountability. What we saw over the last 10 years, as is evidenced by the change in direction by the leader of the member's party, is a complete reversal or commitment to reverse on many of the very things that his colleagues and his party perpetrated on Canada over the last 10 years. What they broke needs to be fixed, and there needs to be accountability for that. The best way for the member to contribute, and for all members to contribute, is to make sure that there is a sound plan. However, half a trillion dollars in spending, which has been chucked on the table this week looking for a rubber stamp from parliamentarians, is not a plan. It risks the same kind of economic vandalism that we saw over the last 10 years.”
“He has taught me so much about why it is important to deliver for future generations, just as his generation did for us. I love this country. I am so proud to be back representing the people of my community. I am going to work incredibly hard for them, just as I know members will in this place. We are looking forward to seeing a plan from the government and are calling on them to deliver that today. I thank all Canadians.”
“We want them to have that spending power and to have the freedom that is the result of the hard work that they have put into building our country. It is an awesome responsibility that we have, but we, as a Parliament, need to demonstrate that there is a plan. Our role, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, is to hold the government accountable. What we want from the government is a plan so we can scrutinize it and give the best results possible to Canadians. It is why I take the time away from my family. It is why I want to serve my community. I would be remiss if I did not mention someone. He was not able to join for my swearing-in this time, because of his health. My 96-and-a-half-year-old grandfather, Francis Barrett, is a proud Canadian. He served with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and he loves this country.”
“It states: ...we urge Your Majesty’s advisors to include a firm commitment to present to Parliament an economic update or budget this spring, before the House adjourns for the summer, that incorporates measures aimed at unleashing Canada’s economic potential, including full accountability of Canada’s finances, with respect for the areas of jurisdiction and the institutions of Quebec and the provinces. That is what Canadians are expecting. That is not a new amendment, but this is what Conservatives are expecting. We want to work in collaboration to get these things done for Canadians. We want to cut taxes. We want to build homes. We want safer streets. We want to eliminate those lines at the food banks. We want Canadians to have spending power. When they are working one and two jobs, they are building our country up.”
“Of course, how are we going to take care of those who have served? How are we going to take care of our veterans? What does that look like in a budget? We need new CBSA officers to protect our borders and to protect Canadians from threats on the other side of our borders. We need frontline police officers. How are the Liberals going to fund those programs? What are they going to do to keep Canadians safe in their communities by keeping repeat violent offenders off the streets? We need to see those details in a budget. The Conservatives have put forward an amendment, and that amendment is absolute common sense.”