44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2022 11:00AM
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
- May/30/22 5:39:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 465 to 488.
22 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:40:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for her clear statement, which provided a timeline of events that, let us be honest, happened a very long time ago, and that the Liberals tried several times to sweep under the rug.
I would like my colleague to tell us about the wrongdoing that was seen during her committee's study and the important recommendations that came out of it. Does she have one or two recommendations that she would like to bring to the attention of the House so that we can avoid this kind of disgraceful conflict of interest in the future?
I am asking on behalf of the honest, hard-working citizens who pay taxes that end up being squandered on cronies. I would like her to tell us about it.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:40:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I said something about it right at the beginning.
How is it that if a member makes a mistake by not reporting that they received a gift or perk worth $200 or more, that is not a violation? When billions of dollars are involved, why are there not violations?
Of course, if the violation involves a few thousand dollars, that is not a user fee. For starters, it is not enough to say that a situation needs to be analyzed, reported and publicized. It also needs to be ultimately considered a violation. That is something we discussed.
Another one was contracts awarded without a particular process, or untendered contracts. For example, non-profit organizations that collect as little as $10,000 have to bang out endless tenders just to serve their clients. Conversely, parliamentarians in government do not have to deal with that. They are above that.
Those are two examples from all the recommendations.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:42:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing when the Bloc seems to want to follow the lead of the Conservative Party. That is what we are seeing in this situation. If the Bloc, along with the Conservatives, feels so passionate about this particular issue, why does the member believe the Bloc or the Conservatives have not used any opposition days to talk about this specific issue?
Does the member really believe the real purpose of bringing forward the concurrence report was just to try to have a discussion this afternoon on this issue as opposed to talking about government legislation, which is now very limited in terms of the number of people who are going to be speaking to it? There are going to be nowhere near as many people speaking to it because the Conservatives brought forward this motion.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:43:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that it is easy to say that we stand with someone, that we are joining forces with someone else, that we are voting in favour of something or that we have changed our minds. We have seen a lot of things this afternoon, but what it all comes down to is finding out what is important for us to know.
My answer to my colleague is that the Conservatives hit the nail on the head and it was important for us to see things through to the very end, so that is what we did. I demonstrated that.
What is shocking is that, at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which is supposed to be trustworthy and above the fray, people realized that the hours and hours of filibustering were a way of showing that the government was hiding its head in the sand. Perhaps it was really embarrassed and maybe even ashamed, like we were.
Obviously, I will say that, so far, I have not become corrupt, and I will make sure that we do the right work with the money and that we use it wisely. Regardless of whether it comes from the government side or the official opposition side, we will be there to support anything that is important to Quebeckers and that serves their interests.
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:45:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am fairly certain that, during her discussion this evening on this topic, the member made reference to the fact that Frank Baylis was involved with the automobile sector. That is absolutely false. I am wondering if the member can inform the House as to where she got that information, because my understanding is that Frank Baylis never was employed or worked in the auto sector.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
