SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 234 - Oct/18/23

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

Oct/18/23 6:01:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I should inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is interesting to try to get into the minds of the Conservatives. I would suggest that it is dangerous. I am really amazed by the amendment the member has brought forward. Not only have the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that defies logic, but they have brought forward a concurrence motion to filibuster one of the issues that is so important today in Canada, no matter what region of the country. Under the new leadership, I do not know if Canadians are prepared to risk having the Conservative Party ever become government after seeing the types of behaviours we have witnessed, not only today, but also previously. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-50, legislation that is all about jobs, and the Conservative Party does not want to talk about that. They say that they want to talk about ArriveCAN. We can see why the Conservative Party stands to says it wants concurrence on x, y and z. It is to prevent government legislation from passing, and then it is critical of the government for not being able to pass legislation or having to bring in time allocation. It is silly, especially when we look at the type of legislation we are bringing forward. Today, as I said, it was all about jobs. I think of what the mover had to say about this concurrence report, and the seconder. What their speeches had in common, outside of using the word “ArriveCAN”, was the personal character assassination of the Prime Minister. In the speeches they delivered, they both talked about the Prime Minister. One talked about dictatorship, yet this is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. The member across the way, when talking about ArriveCAN, talked about the Liberal leader being a dictator. I guess he is trying to feed the misinformation spin that constantly comes from the Conservative Party. When the other member stood, all he wanted to talk about was scandal after scandal. That is the way the minds of the Conservatives think. We have seen that since day one. Even when I was in opposition before being in government, they made personal attacks on the leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. That is their focus. I have stood in my place before and said that, while the Conservatives are so focused on character assassination, we will continue to be focused on Canadians, the interests of Canada and building something solid for the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. The principles, ideas and thinking behind the ArriveCAN app supported it in good part. It was the right thing to do. However, instead of the Conservatives wanting to have a healthy debate on issues that are impacting Canadians, they have once again chosen to prevent that debate from occurring. If we read the amendment, we get a good sense of what the Conservative Party is attempting to do. For those who follow the debate, let me suggest that this particular concurrence motion, which was reinforced by the type of amendment they brought forward, did not need to be debated here. It could just as easily have been brought to a standing committee, because what the members of the Conservative Party are ultimately arguing is that they have some other issues and that they want the standing committee to deal with them. Nothing at all prevents the House from concurring in the report. In fact, I believe that there are a number of the recommendations to which the government has responded very positively. However, the reality is that this was not the purpose of the Conservatives in bringing forward this particular report. We see the purpose in the amendment they brought forward, because they are not concerned about issues. Their concerns are how they raise the issue of character assassination, which is their real issue. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada today is all about. This is why, as a result, we have a minister who stands up and brings time allocation in regard to Bill C-50. Then the Conservatives say, “Well, there you go. Look at that; they're limiting time.” I do say, “Shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.” On the one hand, its members try to be critical of the government for not allowing as much time as they would like to see in debate on legislation, yet they bring in concurrence motions. They adjourn debates and they try to adjourn the sessions. There are all sorts of dilatory motions and other actions taken by the Conservative Party in order to prevent debate from occurring. Nonetheless, they feel that they can come forward and say, “You know what? We don't think the government is doing enough to pass legislation”, and be critical of the government for not having a legislative order in place. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The government has in fact brought forward legislation, and we have had to; it was not by choice. Canadians said that it was going to be a minority government, so we work with New Democrats or the Bloc at times in order to be able to bring in things like time allocation. Without that support, we would not be able to pass anything, including legislation from the past that has supported Canadians in a very real and tangible way, from putting money in their pockets to building a stronger, healthier country for our middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. We take this job seriously. We believe that the legislative agenda should be debated, instead of having the constant games that are being played by the official opposition. The principles behind our border controls and ensuring that we can get traffic going between Canada and the United States is absolutely critical to Canada in many different ways. One can talk about everything from the social side of things in terms of the amount of tourism generated just because of family connections, which contributes to the economics of both countries, to the amount of merchandise that goes between Canada and the United States every day. I believe that Emerson, in my home province of Manitoba, is in somewhere around fourth spot in the nation in terms of two-way traffic between the U.S. and Canada. I know the importance of trade. On many occasions, I have stood in the chamber and talked about how important trade is to Canada. We have to do what we can to enhance that trade and encourage and provide support so we can have the type of traffic that will meet the demands of today in a very real way. That was the idea behind ArriveCAN, and there are other thoughts and ideas that come. Some stay longer than others—

1170 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/23 6:11:38 p.m.
Watch

The member's time is up. I am sorry; I got sidetracked and did not pay attention. I am sure the hon. member will be able to add comments through all of this. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

42 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Oct/18/23 6:11:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been eight long years of having the member stand up all the time for the Liberal caucus, to answer for the mistakes and the corruption in the government. I have one specific question regarding the Auditor General. When the Auditor General was conducting the audit of the 50-plus million dollars spent on the ArriveCAN app, did the ministers involved in those departments direct the departments not to reveal to the Auditor General that they were under criminal investigation?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/18/23 6:12:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the member is very much aware that there are all sorts of opportunities for him to exercise those sorts of questions and look at ways in which matters can be studied in standing committees and so forth. This is the challenge I would put to the member across the way. Today, we were actually supposed to be debating jobs and job security through Bill C-50. That is what we were supposed to be doing. Like the Conservative member who just stood up did, at the end of the day, the Conservatives can continue to focus all they want on the whole area of character assassination. However, I can assure members that whether it is the Prime Minister, ministers or anyone else in the Liberal benches, we will continue to be focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and on how we can build a stronger, healthier country from coast to coast to coast.

166 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/18/23 6:13:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we could certainly talk about any number of other things, including bills that we feel strongly about. I agree with that. That said, there was, and still is, a problem with ArriveCAN. We have an opportunity here today not only to raise the issues, but also to openly discuss solutions in the House. Does my colleague agree with that vision? What solutions would he bring to the table so that disasters like ArriveCAN do not happen again?

79 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/18/23 6:13:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was a very good, healthy debate that took place at the standing committee. Considering all the reports that come out of standing committees, we would have to sit until midnight 100-plus days a year in order to be able to give the type of debate that many members would like to see on all the different reports. If there is a need for a follow-up discussion and debate to occur, let us bring it back. The standing committees are still there. Nothing prevents a standing committee from saying, “Let us look at this aspect of a particular report.” Nothing prevents that from happening. There are all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that, as parliamentarians, we can cover a wide spectrum of issues, but we have a finite amount of time on the floor to deal with the issue of legislation. It is so very important to ensure that it gets debated and voted on, and that it proceeds. It is in the best interest of Canadians. If members want more debate time, we are prepared to see more debate time. However, I can say that things like we saw today really take the air out of the room in terms of being able to have good, healthy debate on government legislation, when the Conservatives are so—

224 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/23 6:15:13 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, questions and comments.

10 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Oct/18/23 6:15:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General is an officer of Parliament, and the allegation that a department withheld vital information from the Auditor General during the course of an investigation is a very serious allegation indeed for this place. I think it behooves Parliament to hold the government to account and to try to get to the bottom of what went on. I know that the member for Winnipeg North has taken exception to the idea of doing that through a concurrence debate. I also know that he has far more experience in opposition than he does in government. If the member were on the opposition benches, what method would he recommend that parliamentarians use to hold the government to account in light of this serious allegation?

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/18/23 6:16:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would use the forums of question period and opposition days. I would look at ways in which it could be raised in a number of different standing committees, depending on the severity of the issue. I believe that, in good part, we have witnessed that on this particular issue. I would challenge members. There are so many issues. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of issues we could be debating on the floor of the House of Commons. We have a responsibility to ensure that we are dealing with the legislative agenda of the government and of private members, and even opposition day motions and things of that nature.

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (deputy House leader of the government, Lib.)

Oct/18/23 6:16:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us just be frank about what is going on here. Today, the Speaker of the House of Commons basically told the House, including Conservatives, that we have to behave ourselves. Conservatives are upset about that. They tried to prevent him, on a number of occasions, from giving that statement today. Now, they are using this tactic in order to slow down the House, because they are frustrated and upset. It is actually behaviour for which I would scold my five-year-old and my seven-year-old, but that is actually what is going on in the House of Commons right now, demonstrated by the Conservative Party of Canada. In the next eight or nine minutes, I will demonstrate why I believe this to be the case. For starters, the Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion to bring forward. I have had the opportunity, since we started debating this, to have a look at the motion. There are six recommendations in it. The government agrees with five recommendations, and accepts and acknowledges the sixth one. The Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion. At least they could have picked something that is slightly more controversial. This is a concurrence motion on a report about which the government has already put in writing that it agrees with over 80% of it. This is about trade relations. It is important for the public who might be tuned in right now and watching this to fully understand what is going on here. The government had put on the Order Paper that we would be talking about Bill C-50, sustainable jobs, today. That is what we were supposed to talk about. There is a whole other issue that I do not have time to dive into, about why Conservatives are not interested in sustainable jobs, but let us just park that for a moment and focus on their objective today. The government said that this is what we were going to talk about. The House commenced at 2:00 p.m. today. The Speaker, a brand new Speaker, tried to rise to give a statement about how he plans to conduct the House, in terms of decorum. He cited numerous references of other Speakers, including, at great length, what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said when he was the Speaker, and he just established a benchmark for what the Speaker expects from the House. Conservatives heckled, made points of order and did everything they could to prevent the Speaker from even giving that statement, which I think was incredibly petty. Then we got to the point where we were supposed to go to Government Orders and start the listed item for today. There is an opportunity in Routine Proceedings to put forward a concurrence motion. This basically sucks up anywhere up to three hours of House time. Conservatives looked at the clock, and they knew that if we started this concurrence motion, the three hours would expire before the House needed to adjourn, and the government would not get to dealing with its business today. That is the Conservatives' objective. That is what they did. However, the motion they did it on I find to be so perplexing. It is a set of recommendations in a committee report about our borders, particularly postpandemic. I did not really read it or even know it existed before the concurrence motion was put on the floor. There are many committees submitting many reports, and I was not aware of this one. However, I did take the opportunity to have a good look at it since then, in the last 40 minutes or so since we started debating this. Here is recommendation 1: “That the Government of Canada ensure the safety and security of Canadians by continuing with its ongoing efforts designed to modernize Canada’s borders.” It goes on to list how to do that. The important thing is that the government agrees with the recommendation and accepts the recommendation from the committee. Recommendation 2 reads as follows: “That the Government of Canada enhance its efforts designed to increase domestic and international awareness that Canada has removed COVID-19–related public health measures.” There is nothing the Conservatives would want more than to do that. Again, the government agrees and says it is a good recommendation, that we need to make sure that the world knows Canada is open and ready for business and tourism, that this is a great recommendation and that we should move forward with this one. The government agrees with that recommendation. Recommendation 3 is “[t]hat the Government of Canada ensure that international bridge authorities and commissions, as well as duty-free stores in Canada, are eligible for federal financial support if the Government decides to close—for any length of time— the borders that Canada shares with the United States.” This is the one thing the government responded to and said it acknowledges but that it might not be as simple as how it is being portrayed. For example, the government did assist with the tourism sector quite a bit. The government also assisted with businesses, as we know. The government assisted in many different ways, including trying to reopen borders that Conservative supporters were trying to close. The government did a lot to ensure that we supported businesses throughout the pandemic. Although the government acknowledges the recommendation, it said that it is a bit more complex, as there are various sectors involved, and that this needs to be looked at more closely. It certainly did not outright reject the recommendation. Then there is recommendation 4, which says, “That the Government of Canada enhance safety and security, reduce delays and backlogs, and improve processing times at Canadian ports of entry”. Once again, the Government of Canada agreed with that recommendation. Also, I am sorry. There were not six recommendations; there were five. We have the fifth recommendation, which the government agrees with. My point is that there were five recommendations, and the government agreed with all but one but did acknowledge that it was important and tried to explain what the government was doing about it. What the public needs to know is that 99.9% of the time that somebody in this House moves concurrence on a report from a committee, they agree with it. They are basically saying that this report is so important that it is not enough to table it for the government, even though the government already responded to it: They need to force Parliament to vote on it so they can solidify the support of this House and not just the committee. That is what they are saying. Why do I point that out? I point that out because the Conservatives put this forward as if they support it, because one only puts forward a motion of concurrence if one supports it, and then turned around moments later and put forward an amendment to basically wipe the entire report clean as if it did not exist, sending it back to committee. I could not put together a scenario in which the Conservatives would look more petty than we have right here, right now on the floor of the House of Commons. I am sorry the Speaker told the Conservatives today that they have to behave themselves, that it is time to play nice, that they cannot be heckling and making up fake names for ministers, shooting them out like this is some kind of wild frat party. The reality of the situation is that maybe a little decorum is required in this House from the Conservatives, as day after day we hear personal attacks and name-calling. The Speaker did the right thing by pointing that out. Then what do they do? They act worse than I expect of my children with the games they play and with what they are doing right now to delay talking about a very important piece of legislation on how we create, manage and ensure that sustainable jobs are here for the future of Canadians. How many times have we heard Conservatives talk about jobs and needing to make sure that we put the right groundwork in place for jobs? Just two days ago, a minister of the Crown went to my neighbouring riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington to make the announcement of 600 sustainable jobs. These are sustainable jobs. This is the bill we are talking about. This bill is about how we ensure there are more of those jobs throughout our entire country. How do we continue to attract clean-tech jobs from Germany or Belgium, as we see with Umicore, and bring them right here to Canada? I think this is very petty. It is very unfortunate, but for eight years I have been watching it occur time after time.

1499 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Oct/18/23 6:26:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would point out that the debate is on the amendment, which the member did not comment on too much. However, I want to focus on the amendment, which deals with the fact that the RCMP had to be called in to deal with this scandalous ArriveCAN app and the fact that the Auditor General herself was not notified by CBSA officials, despite the fact that she is actively auditing that department. I am wondering if the member for Kingston and the Islands would join me in condemning the acts of the government officials who failed to notify the Auditor General of Canada about a criminal investigation occurring within that department.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/18/23 6:26:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the report does not even speak to that. That should show us how incredibly petty this is. The report does not even speak to it, yet the Conservatives are basically saying that we should delete this report and send it back to committee to study this new issue. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, the committee can decide of its own inclination if it should study the issue. It is completely unrelated to the report. The member knows it. He knows the procedure of this House better than the vast majority of the people here given his experience, and he knows exactly what they are doing. The fact that he just got up and asked me that question is kind of ridiculous.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Oct/18/23 6:27:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is almost Halloween. Our colleague is trying to scare us, putting on a shocked schoolgirl act. The Liberals cannot believe the Conservatives' approach. In fact, they are one and the same. When one side is not obstructing, they are moving closure. I cannot remember how many gag orders there have been in the last two years. We should be talking about important things, including Bill C-50, which deals with sustainable jobs. We could talk about housing. We could talk about the cost of living. We could talk about seniors. We talked about that earlier; we voted on an important bill. There is so much we could be talking about. With the Conservatives filibustering and the Liberals imposing gag orders, one wonders where Canadian democracy is headed.

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/18/23 6:28:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is only one member who I think I compete with for the most animation in this House and it is that member. He was just critical of the government having to move closure, but certainly he can understand, based on what the Conservatives are doing today, why we end up having to move closure. Before I got to this House and heard the stories about closure, I used to think it was anti-democratic. I did not understand the nuances of how the House worked and why it was necessary to do it. It is absolutely necessary because Conservatives play games like this.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Oct/18/23 6:29:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for demonstrating, however accidentally, how great a tool concurrence motions can be to bring to the attention of members of the government issues that heretofore they had no idea about and recommendations from committees they had not heard anything about. I think that is an important tool for members of this House to use to bring to the attention of members of Parliament, and indeed the government, things they have been working on at committee. Therefore, I am loath to disparage concurrence motions. I think they have an important role to play here. However we got here, and whatever is going to happen at the end of the debate, the fact is that we are spending the next bit of time talking about this, including an amendment that raises the question of a department having hid from the Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, a criminal investigation into the very thing she was investigating. I wonder, given that we are spending the time anyway, if the member might take this brief opportunity to say something meaningful about the substance of that allegation.

195 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/18/23 6:30:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am certainly flattered that the member sees this as an opportunity to make me aware of what he perceives to be a very important report. However, I do not know if it is worth tying up three hours of the House's time to do that. If the member really wanted to inform me about it, he could have just brought it over to me and told me that I should look at the report, as it is really important. He did not do that, nor did any other member. They tabled a report, just like everybody else. We all have our own issues that we are passionate about. I am very passionate about the environment. I follow just about every report that comes out on it. The member knows that. The reality of the situation is that we do not get to see or read every report. If anybody in this House claims that is not the case, then I certainly would like to know about their skills in being able to do that.

178 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/18/23 6:31:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Terrebonne. Here we are again to talk abut the ArriveCAN app. There would not have been so many questions—logically—if there had not been any problems, including with the contract. I will not argue the reasons why the Conservatives decided to bring the report to the House now and ask for three hours of debate. I will not go there. I am not in their shoes and do not intend to be, ever. Rather, my goal is to raise the problems that cropped up with ArriveCAN and help make concrete improvements to procurement practices and the customs and practices of the machinery of government. It is a question of efficiency. It is also a question of saving money, the money that helps create programs and applications—ArriveCAN in this case. It is not money that grows on trees. It is money that comes from taxpayers. It is our money from our taxes. Let us not forget that we are nothing more and nothing less than trustees of the tax money that taxpayers pay the federal government every year. As trustees, we have a duty to manage this money responsibly. Was the ArriveCAN app developed in a responsible way? We have a duty to ask the question, because what we see and what we know so far is that it was not done either responsibly or well. An application initially expected to cost $80,000 with updates ended up costing $54 million. That is some increase. An app designed to make it easier for people to get through certain border controls on arriving in Canada is not a bad idea. This is the 21st century after all, and if we can cut through the red tape to help things run more easily at the border, so much the better. “More easily”, however, does not mean less securely. We need to ensure both. The problem with ArriveCAN is much the same as with other contracts. In the case of ArriveCAN, two guys won the contract. They said they knew people, so they assigned some of the work to others. The committee realized that no one really knew whether everyone had gone through security screening or whether due diligence had been done. There are a lot of questions that have not been answered. We were told yes, it was done, but it was more of a yes to get us off their backs. We do not want that kind of a yes. We want a definite “yes, that was done”. However, we are still not not sure about that yet. We are talking about an app that stores personal information, and the government is not sure that the people who developed it had the necessary security clearance. This is not the first time this has happened. My colleagues spoke a bit about it earlier. Think about the WE Charity, for example, or the contract awarded to a non-existent company. That company did not exist 10 days before it was awarded a contract. It was founded by two guys. As soon as they got the contract, what did they do? They gave the $237 million to Baylis Medical, which belongs to a former Liberal MP who lost his seat in 2019, if memory serves. A $237-million contract was awarded to a company that existed for only 10 days. I already said it, but the Canadian dream is not bad. Not just anyone would be able to pull that off. I am not sure whether Rockefeller himself managed anything like that. Once again, we have two guys who got awarded a contract and gave it to others to develop an application, supposedly because the federal government could not find one person among its 340,000 public servants who specializes in application development. It is 2023. This happened in 2020. That is a problem, and that is what I want members to think about. How is it that 1% of the population works for the federal government and that not one person in that 1% of the population specializes in application development? Our public servants are trained. They have security clearance. They are capable of doing the work we ask them to do at a lower cost and in a much safer way. We are currently faced with a situation involving allegations of identity theft, fake resumés, contract theft and fraudulent billing. That is not trivial. Where are the controls that should have been applied when this contract was being awarded or monitored? Given the allegations filed with the RCMP, there is no trace of that. How is it that officials who knew that the RCMP was conducting an investigation failed to inform the Auditor General? Nothing is clear or transparent about the situation with ArriveCAN and other contracts. This needs to be said loud and clear. People do not want secrecy, they want transparency. We are not asking for the app's source code. We want to know where, how and on whom our money is being spent and who is spending it. With ArriveCAN and in the consultations we did in committee—the powerful Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, as the committee chair would say—we heard from unions, university researchers and civil servants. We were astounded to learn that the unions had not been consulted, even though their members were the ones who were supposed to be making sure that things were working and following up with people at the airport. They were supposed to ensure that everything moved quickly so that things did not drag on and there were no delays. However, they were not consulted at any stage, either in the development of the app, the request for the exact need at the borders, or even the updates. At no point were they consulted, yet they were the ones who had to help passengers, use the ArriveCAN app and live with it on a daily basis. It seems to me that it would make sense to include the end users when developing an app. As I have already mentioned, this was a private contract. There was no due diligence. Who are these guys? Who are the other parties involved in the contract? Are these people solvent? Are they reliable? We do not know. It seems to me that this expression has come up a lot in my speeches over the past four years. We do not know because we never get an answer. The people we are asking do not have any answers either. No due diligence was done to determine whether the app could be created and managed internally. The government did not even ask whether anyone could create an app. A contract was awarded immediately. It does not take 15 years to ask whether we have in-house developers. Normally, when someone is hired, their skills are well known. With the millions of dollars we spend on IT in Canada, no one ever tried to find out whether there was anyone capable of developing apps. ArriveCAN has simply brought to light a whole host of problems inherent in the federal machinery, and those problems need to be dealt with at the source. People might wonder why we are taking three hours to discuss a committee report. However, this committee report is just one small tree in a forest, and we cannot forget to see the forest for the trees. Here, the forest is the current federal government's inability to assume its responsibilities towards its own public servants, towards its citizens, and towards—

1295 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/18/23 6:41:46 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but the member's time is up. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

19 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Oct/18/23 6:41:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Auditor General indicated that, in the context of her work, two departments had not informed her that criminal investigations by the police were under way. I would like the member to tell us what she thinks about this fact that has come to light. What does she think about the importance of this report and the vote to refer it committee for this study to continue?

76 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Oct/18/23 6:42:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a worrisome situation. People who are called to answer questions from the Auditor General need to be transparent and honest and report any fraud that may have occurred. These people who are required to do so failed to do so and that means that there is an internal culture that needs to be changed, and fast, for the good of the entire population.

67 words

All Topics