44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2022 11:00AM
- May/30/22 4:53:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have seen in the past that when the government got into trouble, it prorogued Parliament to end one scandal and called an election to block another scandal. What does the member think the government will do this time around to prevent us from getting to the heart of this scandal?
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:53:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is right. There is no end the Prime Minister and the government will not go to to cover up their misdeeds and their corruption.
When I look back at Motion No. 11, I wonder how quickly the Prime Minister, the government or any minister of the Crown will rise and simply call an end to discourse and debate prior to the planned end of the sitting of this Parliament. I am fearful that they will use extreme measures to continue to—
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 4:54:14 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. There is no more time left and I even gave the hon. member a couple more seconds there.
Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not too sure exactly where to begin. There is so much that one could start with, in regard to this particular motion that has been presented by the Conservative opposition. What it does is clearly show and amplify the silliness and the destructive force of the Conservative Party of Canada here in the House of Commons.
We can talk about consistency. The only consistency I have witnessed from the Conservative Party over the last number of years, including the days when I was in opposition and Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, was the character assassination of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, even before he was leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. All one needs to do is look at Hansard, the production of papers that clearly show what is being said inside the House of Commons.
When I was in the third party with the leader of the Liberal Party, if we review some of those S.O. 31s and the comments that were coming out, the Conservative Party was focused on personal attacks of the then leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. We went through an election back in 2015. All we have to do is take a look at the negative ads that were out there against the leader of the Liberal Party, and then take a look at the first few days after we took office back in 2015, to see that the Conservatives continued the personal attacks.
They expanded it. They started to include every minister they could possibly think of. They looked for the little rocks to try to uncover, amplify, distort and create issues that clearly were there for one reason and one reason alone, and that was to attack personally the Prime Minister and the leadership of the Government of Canada. They have spent a great deal of resources, both time and finances, whether it was justified or not, and it is always the latter, from my perspective.
I have stood in this place before and I have indicated, as other members of the caucus have indicated, that as much as the Conservative Party wants to spend all of its time and effort on character assassination, we will continue to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way by remaining focused on what is important to Canadians.
When the Conservatives first started attacking the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance back in 2015 and 2016, we might recall some of the initiatives we had taken. Coming out of the 2015 election, we made it very clear that our number one priority was going to be supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it, while at the same time providing supports for those people who are in need. When we talked a great deal about that and took initiatives to support that, we still had the Conservative Party playing in the mud.
I remember the Conservatives saying, and they have referenced this in the last number of weeks, that the former minister of finance had a villa in France and it was not declared, and there was a ruling that came from the Ethics Commissioner that it should have been declared. They really like to ramp that up.
However, it was shortly after the federal election when there was a news article in which the then minister of finance was publicly talking about the cottage he had in France. It is not like he was trying to hide something from the public or was trying to not be transparent. How is it a secret when the media are already aware of it? Yes, it should have been listed in a document, which we are all expected to fill out, and the Ethics Commissioner pointed that out. As such, like with other rulings from the Ethics Commissioner, who does more than just look at government members, a decision was made, and when that decision was made, we accepted it and acted accordingly.
We have respected the institutions that we have as parliamentarians, but from the Conservative Party's point of view, it is more about how they can build up the Conservative spin, how they can try to mislead Canadians in many ways and how they can turn it into government corruption. That is what it is all about, and that is the reason, in part, that they have a fixation on the issue of character assassination. This is why, as I have very much indicated, when we talk about the motion before us, the Conservatives want to bring something back to a standing committee of the House for the purpose of focusing the attention of the House of Commons on it.
In many ways, they want to focus purely on fabrications and issues that, quite frankly, have been discussed, debated and moved on from, whether through apologies, time or an election. Some of the stuff they talk about happened three Conservative leaders ago, but that does not cause them to lose their focus. I think it is important that we ask ourselves why we would want to continue to go in the direction the official opposition wants us to go. I would suggest that we need to do what we have been doing, and that is to remain focused.
I talked about 2015 when the Conservatives were being critical and making all sorts of allegations, and often they were allegations that they would only say inside the chamber but not outside of it. Their personal attacks were often attacks against family members as well. When that took place, I witnessed first-hand, as did other members, the Prime Minister indicated that they could continue their attacks on him as the prime minister, but, as he said, “We will stay focused on Canadians”. We would take both the budgetary and legislative measures that were ultimately there to support Canadians.
As I said, in the first mandate with regards to the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class, we addressed many of the inequities, whether it was the tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest or support for children and seniors, which literally lifted hundreds of thousands out of poverty. We heard from the Minister of Finance earlier today the overall number of people who have been lifted out of poverty. We also had the tax break for Canada's middle class. These are the issues that we have brought forward, much to the chagrin of the Conservatives, who want us to be focused on their agenda.
If we fast forward, we went through another election in 2019. Once again, we saw the Conservatives preoccupied with the idea of trying to paint a picture of the need for change because of corruption. At the end of the day, we were given yet another mandate. Shortly after that mandate, we saw the need for us to work as a team toward the battling of the pandemic.
We put in a great deal of effort as a government to work with Canadians and a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including other provincial governments, indigenous governments, community leaders, school divisions, municipalities and people as a whole. We were very much working with health care experts, looking at science and remaining focused on getting us through the pandemic.
There was a very small window during which even the Conservative Party seemed to realize it was in the best interest for us to do that, but it sure did not last very long. It lasted maybe a couple of months, and then the Conservatives wanted to get back to the gutter. It is unfortunate, but the moment they started in that way, we continued with our focus. This is what we continue to do today.
Why now have the Conservatives brought forward this motion? What is the purpose of it? They will tell us it is because they want it to go to a standing committee and that they want to talk about ethics and so forth, again and again. That is no doubt one of the reasons it is important for them to try to change the focus of what is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons.
What were we supposed to be debating today? I had the opportunity earlier today to provide comments on Bill C-18. Prior to me speaking on Bill C-18, we had to time allocate the legislation. We had no choice but to bring in time allocation. One of the things we have learned is that the Conservative Party does not have any desire to see legislation pass through the House of Commons.
When Conservatives see co-operation coming from other political entities in the chamber, they get upset. They do not seem to understand that with the third mandate, which put us in a minority situation, it is just not the Government of Canada or the Liberal Party that was given the mandate. Opposition parties also have a responsibility in a minority government.
The Conservative Party, I would argue, has failed to meet up to the responsibilities Canadians entrusted them with back in September. We have seen that in the behaviour of its members, especially in the last few months.
I have more years of parliamentary experience in opposition than I do in government. I was in opposition for 23 or 24 years, and hopefully I will be able to match that in government. I have never seen such a destructive force as the Conservative Party's approach in dealing with legislation. Today we are supposed to be talking about and debating Bill C-18. Let me remind my Conservative friends that Bill C-18 is an election platform issue that even the Conservative Party supported back in September.
I believe all political entities in the House recognized that having news agencies and reporters and news based on facts were of critical importance to our democracy, and that we needed to take on those tech giants. The former leader of the Conservative Party, not the interim leader but the former leader—
An hon. member: Which former leader? There are so many of them.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is somewhere in the tool box there. He will find it, I am sure.
At the end of the day—
1737 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:10:20 p.m.
- Watch
Order. There are side conversations on both sides, and I would remind members to let the hon. member who has the floor speak. He still has another four minutes, and I am sure that people will be anxious to ask questions and to comment.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:10:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the point is to emphasize that this is good legislation. The former Conservative Party leader did support the principle of it. Second reading is about debating the principle of it. Let us get it to committee. Everyone supports it, yet the Conservative Party has shown no indication of a will to see the legislation pass. We have seen that with other legislation. Instead, the Conservatives want to play political games inside the chamber.
An hon. member: It is called debate.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, they can call it what they will, but it is games. It is political theatre. It is to prevent legislation from being ultimately debated and passed.
On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more debate time, but when the government brought in Motion No. 11 to give them just that, what did they do? They voted against it. On the government benches, like many Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we work past 6:30 in the evening, so we were saying, “Let us have more debate time in the evenings.” The Conservatives said no. They want more debate time, but they just do not want to work late.
They say they want more debate time on government legislation, but when the government brings forward legislation, what do they do? They try to adjourn debate on the legislation. Heck, they will try to adjourn the proceedings of the day. They want to go home early. Sometimes, they will move that another member of their own caucus be heard so they can cause the bells to ring and they do not actually have to debate. Go figure the silliness that comes from the Conservative Party of Canada today. Instead of having a debate on the legislation that the Conservatives are saying they want to have more debate on, they bring in concurrence motions, which prevents hours of debate. When it comes to opposition days, do they ever bring in concurrence motions? No, because they want their debate time on their agenda.
The Conservative Party is not doing what it was given to do in the last federal election. The responsibility of being the official opposition does not mean it has to be a destructive force, and that is what we are witnessing: a destructive force content on character assassination. That is the Conservatives' focus, and it really is quite unfortunate because there is so much more they can be doing, even as an official opposition.
They do not have to agree with everything we are doing. They can critique. They can be as critical as they want on a wide variety of policy issues. The New Democrats will support us through critical votes, but they are also some of our greatest critics because they understand the role that they were provided in the last federal election. I only hope that more and more of the Conservatives would come to the realization that they have more of a role to play than providing destructive character assassinations in the House of Commons today.
512 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that was one of the most fanciful speeches I have ever heard from the member. It was amazing. He lives in a parallel universe.
The Liberals brought in time allocation on Bill C-18. Their job is done. It is going to get voted on. Now he is making this big pitch about how we should be debating Bill C-18 and saying we are being obstructionist, but the vote is going to happen regardless.
The government got its wish; its job is done, so now we should get to a vote on this concurrence report and have the debate, because he has done his job. For the first time in eight months, the member actually got something done for the Liberal government. Time allocation was brought in, and he made this big fanciful speech about how we are obstructionist.
I am wondering if the member could lay bare some of the facts that happened today, such as the government bringing in time allocation and curbing debate on Bill C-18 after one Conservative member got to speak. The rest of the member's speech was about nothing. Could the member please put the facts on the table for Canadians about what has actually happened in the House of Commons today?
My constituents in Regina—Lewvan would like to hear a Liberal answer a question. For once, could he please be truthful about the fact that he did get Bill C-18 to where a vote is going to happen? Then we can move on and debate something as important as ethics in the government.
268 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to be very clear to the residents of Regina—Lewvan, the Conservatives do not want to pass Bill C-18. They would like to put up as many speakers as they can in order to filibuster the bill virtually endlessly.
The government brought in time allocation this morning, and when the minister stood up, we saw a number of Conservatives stand in their place to say they wanted to have more debate time on Bill C-18 and to ask why we were preventing them from having more debate time. Then when they were provided more debate time on the bill, which we are supposed to be debating right now, what did they do? They prevented debate knowing full well that it will be coming to a vote because time allocation was brought in.
The Conservatives really need to understand what they are doing. I do not think they understand it. If they want more debate time and the government provides more debate time by sitting later in the evening, why not be happy with it and accept it? Why not allow for orderly proceedings? House leaders could sit down and opposition members could say they understand we have to pass legislation. Then we could have some time for this debate, maybe an extra few hours in the evening, and work it out in negotiations by talking about it, while acknowledging that there is a responsibility for the government to pass legislation and a responsibility for the official opposition to contribute to the debate in a positive, constructive way.
262 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:17:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am a little discouraged to see the tenor of the current debate on procedures and the reason for the motion.
We have the opportunity to discuss a matter, the infamous WE Charity scandal, which we could not discuss before because the government prorogued Parliament. We could not discuss it when we returned to the House because the government threatened to call an election if we ever spoke about it again, which led to the NDP blocking the resumption of the study of the WE Charity file.
This leads me to wonder why my colleague opposite is not even able to debate the issue that is currently before the House. Is he so fearful of the collusion of the Prime Minister and WE Charity, and their notorious $1-billion contract, that he is doing everything he can to avoid discussing it?
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:18:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am never fearful of any sort of debate, whether it is on the behaviour of the Bloc party in federal elections regarding opting in and opting out or it is on a Conservative Senate scandal. Whatever it might be, I am open to those types of debates.
We have limited time as a government given our legislative agenda, but opposition parties have opportunities. The Bloc, for example, during its opposition days, could bring up any sort of debating option it would like. If it wants to debate a specific issue, it could do that. It could use its opposition day as an opportunity, just as the Conservatives could.
However, that is not the real reason this motion is being debated today. The real reason the motion is being debated is to prevent debate on government legislation. It was anticipated that today, being a Monday, we would be debating government legislation. Typically, that is what would happen, unless it is a designated opposition day.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my friend from Winnipeg has laid bare the reasons we are debating a concurrence motion on an ethics committee report instead of what we had planned to be doing this afternoon, which is dealing with Bill C-18. I am wondering why he has contributed to the delay tactics by offering a speech at all at this time.
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debates that take place inside the House. Having been able to listen to the arguments being presented by the Conservative Party, I think it is important that the people who follow the types of debates that take place in here have a truer reflection of reality as to why things are taking place in the manner in which they are.
I truly believe that, at the end of the day, this debate will continue to take place, for the next little while anyway, not necessarily because I want it to take place, but because this is something the Conservatives want, as opposed to talking about Bill C-18. That is the reason they moved the motion. We will have to wait and see if others stand to speak.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:21:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we heard a lot from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot about the erosion of democracy and the erosion of institutions.
I am wondering if the member might be able to share with us his concerns about the rhetoric being shared about firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada and about questioning our democratic institutions. Could he share how that contributes to the erosion of public confidence in our institutions, along with some of the chicanery we are hearing from the Conservative Party right now?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:21:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member raises a valid point. We see an extreme right that seems to be surfacing or the rebirth of the Reform Party, primarily coming out of the west, I suspect, where there are a number of fairly eager individuals wanting to see the Conservatives take that far-right turn.
It is interesting that one of the leadership candidates, whom I think is a front-runner, had some very bold statements with regard to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Without me saying it, I would suggest that members of the Conservative Party talk to the member for Abbotsford, whom I understand has been sanctioned for speaking the truth with regard to the silliness of the member for Carleton's comments. I will let members pass judgment on their own leadership candidates.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:22:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can understand why the Liberals and the parliamentary secretary find it so inconvenient to talk about. They find it so inconvenient that in 2020, when the WE scandal broke, they ran away by proroguing the House to avoid talking about it.
My question is this.
Ethical and democratic issues are so important in Parliament. Why do we not use this debate on the ethics committee's report, even if it is not the debate that the member would have wanted, to answer these perfectly legitimate questions?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:23:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is because, as the Prime Minister himself has indicated, despite what is coming from the Conservatives and, at times, the Bloc members, we are going to continue to remain focused on budgetary and legislative measures that ultimately reflect campaign platforms and the ideas that we hear from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is where our focus is as a government, and that is why the Prime Minister continues to remind all of us, in particular within the Liberal caucus, about how important it is that we continue to remain focused on issues that are important to all Canadians.
If the Bloc believes that this is the most important issue that Canada is facing today, it has opposition day motions and is more than welcome to bring it up at that point. My preference is to talk about the government's legislative agenda and the types of things that I know Canadians are most interested in, whether it is the pandemic, the middle class—
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:24:42 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:24:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to take my time, because the whole day I have had the opportunity to rise a few times in order to ask where we are going with the whole situation. I think that today we understand that we have to seize these opportunities.
During my first term, I was introduced to and given the role of critic on issues pertaining to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I was very lucky. Not only did I learn a lot, but I understood it as well. I am going to make use of my experience to increase awareness. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge those in the galleries. It feels good to see people.
I look at my colleagues here, and few of them were here during these months of debate, filibusters and misunderstandings so that we would ultimately have a report that gives yet another failing grade to the way that the pandemic was handled. It is important at the outset to recognize that when a unique event happens, we need to roll up our sleeves and say what we are doing now and where we are going.
There was a major challenge, namely the economy, but health was a challenge as well. That was an ultimate goal, that we needed to respond quickly.
I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but at this hour, I am having trouble concentrating. I am someone—
243 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:26:43 p.m.
- Watch
I must interrupt the hon. member very briefly.
I would ask members to take their conversations out to the lobby, please.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:26:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I usually have notes, but I have pulled out my report, which is now a year and a few months old. Here it is with the highlights.
Of course, we must acknowledge the work that was done with the ultimate goal of helping all Quebeckers and Canadians to get through the pandemic. That said, some of the things that were done warranted review. This review, which took several months, concerned a grant that, at the beginning, was very worthwhile. It was a student grant to thank young people who volunteered.
We remember that most seniors who were 60 or 70 and older had to self-isolate more than others. There were staff shortages, so young people were asked to get involved in their community. The purpose of the grant was initially to recognize the work being done on the ground to save lives or to help ease seniors' feelings of loneliness. The rationale for the program made sense.
However, when we saw that the program had been put together astonishingly quickly, we wanted to take a look. We quickly realized that there was no call for tenders. I am a businesswoman, and I have been dealing with projects all my life: I am well aware that the bigger the project, the longer it takes to consider it, to receive bids, and to choose carefully. However, this program was put together so quickly that the tenders were not there.
We then decided to dig deeper. That is why the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics looked into how and why this contract was awarded to WE Charity. The first reason given by the government was that it was unable to manage the program because of the need to quickly respond and reward these young volunteers during the summer months. It was a rather extraordinary summer when we had to react quickly. We had no idea what was going to happen the next year, either.
There were two previous reports from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I will repeat this for those who are listening and want to have the timeline of events. In 2017, we heard about the Prime Minister's family visiting the Aga Khan's island. The Prime Minister unfortunately received an initial reprimand from the commissioner. However, mistakes can be made and apologies can be accepted.
That said, members will recall the SNC-Lavalin affair of 2019. I myself suffered reprisals at the ethics committee because we wanted to take another look and dig deeper into the SNC-Lavalin report. There was pressure to hold back information about what was done in the SNC-Lavalin case. We remember the pressure put on the former justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould. Unfortunately, for the second time, the Ethics Commissioner found that there was an ethical failure.
Obviously, we ask ourselves questions and reflect. The more we consider the issue, the less proof we find that our executives and our leaders deserve our trust. When I meet with students, those who will take over from us, I tell them that it is important to be trustworthy. Again and again, I asked for proof that we could trust in the actions taken to manage the pandemic.
I should point out that I also got lucky because it was the first time I experienced a filibuster. I spent hours at committee. Obviously, there are not hundreds of Bloc Québécois members to replace one another. I can assure the House that I remember it well, those 40 long hours spent talking about something. For anyone watching us, yes, it does happen.
Of course, in 2019 and 2020, when we heard about how this Canadian grant was being managed, without a tendering process, we dug a little deeper. We wanted to understand how such a large grant, worth $910 million no less, could be awarded so quickly to an organization that was already known to have ties to the Prime Minister's brother, mother and wife, and this was soon proven, although that is not to say that the organization itself did not have a legitimate purpose.
Of course, any time I receive a gift or special treatment, the first question I have to ask myself is this: What is the intention behind this gift? The second question I have to ask is this: Do I have to disclose that I have received special treatment or a gift? As members, we all know the sanctions we face if we accept gifts worth over $200. This one was worth $200,000. Taking a moment to stop and think about it should have been the first reflex.
Of course we then went over the contract. I thought of my organizations, which struggle to provide services to the community with only a few thousand dollars. The contract that was granted to the WE Charity was initially worth $19 million. Shortly thereafter it rose to $43.5 million. We thought that rise was rather quick, and when we looked at the contract we wondered about the organization's ability to provide services both in English and in French, both in Quebec and in every province in Canada. The answer is that WE Charity was providing a unilingual service only. That, of course, was another concern.
On July 2, the Prime Minister defended the government's decision to entrust that organization with managing the program. According to him it was the right thing to do. On July 3, unfortunately, the then minister of diversity and inclusion and youth announced that the WE Charity would no longer be administering this student grant program. That is why we proceeded with the investigation. That is also why on July 9 and 10, we put on the table all the elements that I previously mentioned.
In fact, in all the weeks and hours that followed, at no time was anyone able to clearly demonstrate that the government had done a conscientious and trustworthy job with taxpayers' money. That was not done. The conflict of interest finally came down to this: What constitutes a friend? Can we receive, obtain, award contracts?
There was definitely reason to go further. When the government felt the heat—on July 30, as we all remember—the Prime Minister unsurprisingly denied any wrongdoing, even though he was aware that the perception of this large contract, along with its implications, could lead to questions. At that point, I explained to my constituents that when the pressure is on, we have to take a step back and find a solution. I was also introduced to the idea that if we do not know how to work through a situation, we prorogue. Proroguing is like taking a break, when we try to put everything behind us and pretend that nothing happened, so that we can start over. That break lasted six weeks. In fact, I worked for part of the summer. As legislators, we were in the process of building up trust, but the August 18 prorogation forced us to stop everything for six weeks. Then, where do we start up again?
We wanted to keep going. I distinctly remember moving a motion to carry on with the House's routine proceedings while at the same time having a special committee, which would have been a great way to not waste time. I think we have been wasting too much time for months. We could deal with a whole lot more social issues than we are at this point.
The Liberals were responsible for 27 irregularities. I also have to say that, on the ethics front, we looked into the purchase of medical ventilators. Members may remember former Liberal MP Mr. Baylis, who scored a $237‑million contract. We wanted to know how Mr. Baylis, who was in the automotive business, got into the ventilator business. The same goes for Palantir.
We had to dig a little deeper to make sure these activities followed the rules, with tenders, and that taxpayer dollars were being used appropriately. The committee tabled 23 recommendations in June 2021. We wanted to pursue the matter, but unfortunately, we encountered more reactions. It was time to call an election. Prorogation's time was up. As we all know, that is what happened.
For this reason and several others, it is important to discuss those recommendations here and now. This is about using tax dollars appropriately, making sure this does not happen again, and making it clear that everything has to be squeaky clean. Unfortunately, these three incidents, what happened in 2017, 2019 and the WE scandal, suggest that the government is not trustworthy.
1453 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
