SoVote

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

Jun/6/24 12:36:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, putting the SDTC issue aside, over the last 20 years, it has provided all sorts of opportunities for companies across the country. It has provided opportunities for start-ups wanting to expand, created green jobs and allowed Canadian companies to be leaders in the world in technology. We recognized it was important to dissolve the board and transfer it to the NRC. Does the member have any thoughts with regard to NRC taking over the responsibilities to ensure that we can continue to provide the funds that are necessary for our environment?

94 words

Mr. Brad Vis

Jun/6/24 12:37:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in terms of the first part of the member's question, the big scandal here is that the government has let down small businesses and the innovative sector in Canada. The government has discredited start-ups in this country that legitimately rely on SDTC to bring their technologies to market and commercialize new and innovative technologies that will protect the government. Today we see a clear case of administrative injustice at a level we have not seen very often in the history of our country. The Auditor General's report is like nothing I have ever read. There is case upon case of the government clearly allowing conflicts of interest and for insiders to have money in their pockets at the expense of Canadian companies, which deserve so much more.

132 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/6/24 12:38:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, among the reports by the Auditor General that came out yesterday, there was one that talked about McKinsey. We know that when subcontracts are awarded to private companies, that contributes to a loss of expertise in the public service. It is the same thing with the closure of Sustainable Development Technology Canada. We do not know where the workers with expertise in sustainable development will end up. There is an even greater risk that we will lose this expertise in the public service. I would like my colleague to tell us whether, in general, we should support the public service more and stop delegating so we can keep more expertise within the government.

115 words

Mr. Brad Vis

Jun/6/24 12:38:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in respect to the workers at play here, it was the former Conservative government that brought in stronger enforcement for whistle-blowers. We need to protect members of the public service who see an injustice and are willing to stand up for Canadian taxpayers. In this case, we really did see that. While we did see a level of incompetence and disregard for public money at Industry Canada and at SDTC, the positive thing is that there were public servants and officials willing to step up to protect Canadian interests.

92 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Jun/6/24 12:39:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had a lot of confidence when we came into this Parliament that we would get serious about the climate crisis. Canada has the ability and the leadership to have a clean energy economy, yet we are still waiting on the investment tax credits long after the Deputy Prime Minister promised them. We are seeing green slush funds, yet, all the while, the government focused on giving $34 billion in taxpayers' money to build a pipeline for Pathways Alliance. The Liberal government never blinked once when it came to building that pipeline, but when it came to putting the solutions on the ground for a clean-tech economy, it was more willing to help its friends than to live up to the obligations that the Prime Minister made as a solemn promise to the Canadian people back in 2015.

141 words

Mr. Brad Vis

Jun/6/24 12:40:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the debate today is not about pipelines, although I am very pleased to see the Kinder Morgan pipeline completed. That is going to do a lot of good for the Canadian taxpayers. I am glad that project is finished. However, what we are talking about here today is a very serious issue, an Auditor General's report that clearly outlines cases of a conflict of interest. It says the Liberal government failed in its duties to the Canadian public to administer public funds, both transparently and in a way Canadians would expect from their officials.

97 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Jun/6/24 12:41:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have a billion-dollar green slush fund. This is from a government that claims it is serious about the environment, yet it takes a billion dollars and finds every possible way to line the pockets of Liberal insiders with that money. It is incredibly disappointing for Canadians, who once believed in the NDP-Liberal government, but they have seen, after nine years of the Prime Minister, his broken promises and his insider dealings, that he is just not worth the cost. We know, from the Auditor General's bombshell report this week, that he is not worth the corruption. How many conflicts of interest do members think we could find at the billion-dollar green slush fund? Would it be one, two or three? I am going to give members the number in a second. First, let us talk about two conflicts of interest. One is the hand-picked chair, Annette Verschuren, who was hand-picked by the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister. She is under investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We also have another hand-picked Liberal appointee, Guy Ouimet, who is under investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Is the number two? Is the number 90? There were 90 conflicts of interest, where $76 million in funding was awarded to projects where there were connections to the Liberals' friends appointed to roles within the SDTC, the slush fund. The Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest. It is unbelievable, as it was with the Auditor General's report into the government's failed $60-million arrive scam. The NDP-Liberal government will do everything it can to avoid accountability. We heard from the minister that he was going to take tough action, and as soon as the Liberals found out, they were going to get to the bottom of it. They have been dragged, kicking and screaming, this entire time. Finally, this week, we thought we had some signs of life in terms of accountability from the minister when he shut down the corrupt slush fund, but he just rolled it into his ministry to make it a little harder to track, and he was hoping that nobody would notice the grift continuing to go on. Was there an Auditor General report on the billion-dollar slush fund because the Liberals wanted to check on what was going on at the arm's-length organization? No. Conservatives had to call for there to be an investigation. Like with the $60-million arrive scam, we took a vote in the House. We heard from the Liberals that anyone who broke the rules would be held accountable, that they took it all very seriously and everything was above board. Of course, it was not. The Prime Minister, his front bench and all of his MPs voted against accountability when they voted against an Auditor General report, which uncovered massive corruption in that case. Of course, the RCMP needs to investigate here. Why? It is because of the alleged and potential criminal wrongdoing, just like we saw going on with the CBSA, the arrive scam, and with the Botler project. After Conservatives raised the matter, and the truth started coming to light, the RCMP start kicking people's doors in. It involved dragging people in front of the House of Commons because they were lying to parliamentary committees. That is not acceptable, and it is certainly not going to do anything for the environment, just as not a dollar from the billion-dollar slush fund was intended to do. Members will hear the Liberals say in responses today that the Conservatives set this whole thing up. They are telling on themselves because they say that Conservatives do not take care of the environment, but we wanted Canadians to be able to innovate in this space. We wanted there to be a partnership with government, but after nine years of the Liberals in government, they just turned it into another piggy bank for their buddies to line their pockets. We saw that with the CEO, who had to resign in disgrace, and the directors, who had to resign in disgrace. They were paying themselves bonuses instead of supporting the innovators, but that is very much the hallmark of what we expect from a tired government that seems to be found in these cases of corruption almost weekly. We had the minister from Edmonton this week claim that he wholly owns an Alberta numbered company that owns 50% of a company called GHI, which he seems to have been continuing to operate. He is a cabinet minister, so that is, of course, against the law. The text messages that were revealed in Global News talk about “Randy”, “Randy” wanting a partner and there needing to be a partner call. The minister has been very clear. He says it is another Randy, and we want to know who that is, but he did not come to committee to tell us. He did not come to committee to say that it is, for example, Randy Smith. He said that he does not know who that is. I asked if he does not own half the company. He claimed that, no, he does not. I asked who owns half the company. He said that it is Alberta 12345678. I asked who owns that company. He said that he does. Even on straightforward matters, Liberals cannot tell the truth. Every week, sometimes multiple times a week, we find scandals with the government. Why is the hand-picked board chair at the billion-dollar slush fund being looked at by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner? She voted to give herself $220,000. How does that help the environment? What does that do for Canadians in a cost of living crisis? I have said before that the Liberals are not worried about the lines at the food bank; they are worried about lining the pockets of Liberal insiders. We have learned that the member for Calgary Skyview was told of corruption at the green slush fund by whistle-blowers in 2022. I checked the Hansard. He did not talk about it in here, and if he talked about it in his caucus with the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, the Prime Minister did not seem too worried about it. Neither did the minister, who gets very animated when we talk about this subject and claims that Conservatives are attacking a sacred institution. It is sacred to Liberal insiders who are getting fat off of the pork that the Liberals are shovelling into this organization. I want to offer a quote from a senior public servant who was captured in an audio recording that was released by a whistle-blower on this. The officials knew how bad it was, so we know the minister knew how bad it was. The public servant said, “It was free money”. He also said, “That is almost a sponsorship-scandal level kind of giveaway”. It is as bad as the 2000s-era sponsorship scandal under the Chrétien Liberals, and it barely raises an alarm bell after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. Conservatives want accountability. That is why we asked for the Auditor General to investigate. Conservatives want Canadians to be able to have confidence in their public institutions. That is why the RCMP needs to be able to see the documents, in full, from the billion-dollar slush fund. It is $120 million in ineligible payments, and Canadians want their money back.

1270 words

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

Jun/6/24 12:51:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is no other member in the Conservative-Reform party who continuously harps on this one issue more than the member. Whatever the issue is, he will just add the word “scandal” to it. Whether it is real or not, that is his job. Members can take a look at this and try to look at what actually transpired, contrary to what the member tries to give a false impression of. When it was discovered, the government did take actions. Those actions ultimately led to the national Auditor General taking a look at it and issuing a report. When the report came out, there was a consequence. That board no longer exists, and now it is going through the NRC. I wonder if the member would like to reflect, as maybe he overuses the word “corruption”, because he uses it all the time. I would not mind doing a contrast between Stephen Harper and corruption versus our—

164 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/6/24 12:52:27 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

13 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Jun/6/24 12:52:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the Liberals are tired of me talking about their corruption, they should stop being corrupt. The parliamentary secretary, the Liberals and the Prime Minister did not ask for the Auditor General to investigate. I want to refresh the member's memory. Conservatives had to call for an emergency meeting to have this issue raised to the Auditor General. Conservatives had to do that. The process gets obstructed every step of the way by the Liberals, who want to cover up their corruption. If they do not like being called corrupt, they should stop all the corruption.

99 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/6/24 12:53:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are in 2024, 19 years after the Auditor General's 2005 report that covered the 10 years of the Conservative government. Despite that, Sustainable Development Technology Canada still exists. There is a certain loss of control over public funds. That has never been resolved. The Conservatives are trying to create a Liberal scandal with today's motion. I would like to make a scandal out of the new Conservative Liberal coalition because, honestly, this issue transcends parties. Ultimately, the federal government's mismanagement is not just a Liberal problem, it is a Conservative one as well.

99 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Jun/6/24 12:54:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have good news for my hon. colleague from the Bloc from the Office of the Auditor General. In the year 2017, the Auditor General offered a clean bill of health to Sustainable Development Technologies Canada, which was established by the former Conservative government. What happened after that was an Auditor General report that looked at the period thereafter, when the NDP-Liberal government was in power. What happened? Corruption happened. Call in the Mounties.

77 words

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

Jun/6/24 12:55:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the response of the government is incredible to Canadians. It is not just about this issue or this scandal, as there have been so many this morning. At the security and public safety committee meeting this morning, they were trying to figure out foreign interference. Certain MPs were involved in foreign interference and foreign entities on our own soil. The member for Pickering—Uxbridge said boo hoo, we should get over it. That was a perfect response. When we look at this scandal, this epic scandal for Canadians, of course the Liberals say to get over it, that they will fold it into the government and there is nothing to see here. However, there is much to see. Should Canadians get over it?

126 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Jun/6/24 12:55:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously, those were very concerning comments raised by my hon. colleague, the member for Bay of Quinte. Of course, Canadians should not get over a question of foreign interference and people acting in the interests of foreign state actors while serving in the House of Commons. This is a scandal that is incredibly important that Canadians should have transparency on. They want the RCMP to be able to review these documents. Canadians need to be able to get their money back. It is $120 million. Let us get serious.

91 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Jun/6/24 12:56:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I took the advice of the Deputy Speaker this morning, and approximately one hour ago, I wrote to the Speaker to provide notice of a matter of privilege regarding the troubling statements made in the House on Tuesday evening by the member for Saskatoon West. As outlined in my letter, and as I had started to say this morning, there are two issues at play. First, there is an issue of appropriateness of the member's comments. They were troubling. They were hurtful. What is more, they were made during a debate about systemic racism. However, the member has apologized, so I am going to keep the comments to the second matter, which is still unresolved. That matter has to do with what was said in the chamber and what is now recorded in the official record. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 1227: The Debates are published under the authority of the Speaker of the House. They are compiled using the audio recording of the proceedings as well as information provided by Parliamentary Publications staff stationed on the floor of the House. It is imperative that members have confidence in what is recorded in the Hansard. The member for Saskatoon West very clearly said that an indigenous Canadian was “more likely to reoffend” because of his “racial background”. He has admitted that and has apologized. I will read into the record what appeared in the blues and what was heard at the time: “ Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.” As the member noted in his apology, and at his request, Hansard represents the same speech differently. It reads, “Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend regardless of his racial background.” Changing the record from “because of his racial background” to “regardless of his racial background” might seem like a small change, but it fundamentally alters the meaning of what was said. The former linked criminality to one's race; the latter does the opposite. Likening criminality to one's race is rooted in racist tropes often used in regard to indigenous individuals. It is highly disturbing and racist. It is of paramount importance that the Hansard be an accurate record of what happens in this place, and it is important that the rules around editing the blues be respected, as stated on 1228 and 1229 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice: The availability of the blues on the House of Commons’ internal website permits Members and their authorized delegates to use the web page or email to submit suggested changes for Parliamentary Publications editorial staff to consider. Members may suggest corrections to errors and minor alterations to the transcription but may not make material changes to the meaning of what was said in the House. In his apology, the member noted that he had requested that the Hansard be changed in a way that I believe is inappropriate and is outside the scope of what should be allowed. The meaning of the member's words was very clear, yet the official record has now been altered. Just last month, the member for Lethbridge raised a question of privilege regarding the Hansard's being modified without her being informed. In raising the matter, the member cited Bosc and Gagnon as well as Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada in arguing that such changes to the blues could be considered falsifying papers belonging to the House. I will not repeat those citations right now, but they remain relevant. The Speaker considered the matter, and stated on May 30 that, “it is understood that the revisions should not alter the substance and the meaning of the members' statements in the House.” The substance and the meaning of the member for Saskatoon West's statement in the House were, without a doubt, altered. I would also note that, from time to time, members seek unanimous consent of the House to correct the record. Such a remedy not only ensures that it is the decision of the whole House rather than an editorial decision as to what is entered into the record, but also ensures that there is an official record of the change being requested and being granted. Taking responsibility does not entitle the member to whitewash what actually happened. I would ask that the member reflect upon this, and I would ask that the official record actually reflect what occurred, what we all heard and what the member has admitted to having said, rather than being rewritten to avoid accountability and responsibility.

822 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/6/24 1:02:09 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for bringing that to the attention of the Chair. It will be taken under consideration, and it will come back to the House if necessary.

33 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Jun/6/24 1:02:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on the opposition motion in today's debate. I was here this morning when Parliament opened, and I listened to the opening statement by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, if I am not mistaken. I listened intently and heard what he had to say. The hon. member and others referenced our government's programs that were put in place during the pandemic, when approximately 60,000 Canadians passed away due to COVID, to help Canadians. I wish to state that I will be splitting my time with my wonderful friend, a great mentor and someone I look up to very much, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek. During the pandemic, we put in place a number of programs, such as the emergency wage subsidy and the CERB, and we assisted businesses with rent payments. The economy was frozen because of the pandemic, and I do not back away for one moment from having the backs of Canadians, businesses and our economy so that we could recover without any scarring. We know the members of the official opposition would not have had those programs and would have left Canadians to fend for themselves. They would not have had the backs of Canadians. In no way would they have demonstrated leadership. They probably would not even have recommended vaccines. If they were ever to get into power, who knows if they would even recommend measles or polio vaccines for our children because we know they do not believe in the science. I remember, if I am not mistaken, that during the debate on Brexit, the hon. member who spoke this morning was in favour of Brexit and against free trade. I wonder if he would be in favour of the CETA agreement at this point in time in his career. It is so disappointing to listen to. We, as parliamentarians, have the privilege here in the House of Commons to pontificate, to say what we wish and to thank our colleagues and our residents for their great work. We are here to do good work. However, sometimes I wonder why hon. members will mention the name of an individual, in this case, my former colleague Frank Baylis, but will not mention that individual's name or the accusations outside of the House. To me, it speaks a bit to the word “shame”, and I could use stronger language, but I want to be polite. When members mention the names of former parliamentarians or any Canadians in a disparaging way, they should have the courage or the gumption to say it outside. It is amazing how some folks in the official opposition will say unseemly things about individuals but will not say them outside of the House because they are covered under privilege. I would love for them to say those things outside to see what would happen the next morning or thereafter and to hear the apology they would have to issue. To be honest, I think it is almost cowardly. I am thankful for this moment to rise and speak to the motion of the hon. member for Carleton regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada, an entity that has been around for over two decades and has funded over 500 companies. Our government is committed to providing support to clean-technology innovators and entrepreneurs. The recent announcement by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry that sets out the transfer of SDTC over to new management at the National Research Council will ensure the continuity of support for Canadian clean-tech companies, will restart funding for eligible projects and will maintain the economic and environmental objectives of the SDTC tech fund. This will help advance the commercialization of clean technologies and, in so doing, will support Canada's climate goals. As a Government of Canada organization, the NRC is subject to a stringent oversight of its personnel and its finances, and it enjoys an excellent reputation, built over many decades, for the delivery of programs and services to innovative businesses, including in clean tech. In fact, the NRC's industrial research assistance program, commonly known as IRAP, originated in 1947, just after World War II, to assist Canadian companies. Canadian clean-technology companies are crucial to ensuring that Canada and the world meet their 2030 and 2050 climate commitments. The government's support has enabled Canadian companies to become global leaders in clean technologies and in the fight against climate change. We are also creating thousands of high-skilled jobs across Canada. Members may ask why this particular funding is a priority. Not just in Canada but in general, there is an acute and long-standing funding gap in the economy at the pre-commercial development and demonstration stage. This gap results from market barriers, including the low maturity of new technologies and the financial sector's aversion to the risks associated with bringing new technologies to market. Pre-commercial development of clean technologies is often less attractive to investors due to technical uncertainty, long lead times to market, unproven management teams, uncertainty regarding the pricing of environmental externalities or the substantial upfront investment required to demonstrate a new technology on a commercial scale. To address this, continued programming to incentivize the development and demonstration of pre-commercial clean technologies is needed. It is crucial that public investment remain focused on supporting Canadian innovators in the clean-tech sector, no more so than now. Companies are generating jobs and developing world-class environmental technologies to address the impacts of climate change on our economy and our environment. The government's decision to transfer SDTC programming to the National Research Council would enhance governance and oversight, provide stability for current projects and SDTC employees, and ensure continued support for homegrown clean technology innovations. I rise to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Carleton concerning Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC. Our government is committed to providing support to clean-technology innovators and entrepreneurs. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry recently announced the transfer of SDTC programming over to new management at NRC. This will ensure the continuity of support for Canadian clean-tech companies by restarting funding for eligible projects and by maintaining the economic and environmental objectives of the SDTC technology fund. This will help advance the commercialization of clean technologies and support Canada's climate goals. As a Government of Canada organization, the NRC is subject to stringent oversight of its personnel and its finances. It enjoys an excellent reputation, built over many decades, for the delivery of programs and services to innovative businesses, including those in clean tech. In fact, the NRC's industrial research assistance program was founded in 1947, just after World War II, to assist Canadian businesses. Clean technology companies are crucial to ensuring that Canada and the entire world meet their 2030 and 2050 climate commitments. The government's support has enabled Canadian companies to become global leaders in clean technologies and in the fight against climate change, while at the same time creating thousands of high-skilled jobs across Canada. My fellow members may wonder why this particular funding is a priority. Not just in Canada but in general, there is an acute and long-standing funding gap in the economy at the pre-commercial development and demonstration stage. This gap results from market barriers, including the low maturity of these new technologies and the finance sector's aversion to the risks associated with bringing new technologies to market. Pre-commercial development of clean technologies is often less attractive to investors due to technical uncertainty, long lead times to market, unproven management teams, and uncertainty about the pricing of environmental externalities or the substantial upfront investment required to demonstrate a new technology on a commercial scale. To solve this problem, we must continue to fund programming to incentivize the development and demonstration of pre-commercial clean technologies. As I finish up, I look forward to continuing my participation in the debate in questions and comments. We are here to provide accountability and transparency to our constituents at all times. We all should do that as members of Parliament, including in this case with SDTC. I applaud the measures taken by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the steps taken after the Auditor General's report. I regard the Auditor General's report as having a high degree of value and service.

1424 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/6/24 1:13:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the member spoke almost the entire time and never even mentioned the Auditor General's report, which found that 123 million dollars' worth of contracts violated the conflict of interest rules at the green slush fund, the SDTC. We are talking about 76 million dollars' worth of projects that were given to Liberal friends and insiders. We also know that 12 million dollars' worth were actually ineligible for funding and were in violation of conflict of interest policies. I have been here a long time, 20 years, and I was here at the tail end of the adscam under the Chrétien Liberals. We have now witnessed, since the Prime Minister came to power, the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the WE scam, arrive scam and now the green slush fund scandal, just to name a few. Is this Liberal incompetence? Is it Liberal corruption? Is it Liberal complicity? We are calling for a RCMP investigation because the current issue is a breach of trust as well as fraudulent behaviour. Would he agree that we have to call the RCMP in here? Is it the responsibility of, and does it falls on the head of and under the accountability of, the Minister of Industry, or is it, again, Scott Brison's problem?

217 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/6/24 1:14:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, SDTC is and was an organization at arm's length from the government. Whatever lapses there were in governance were pointed out. I did also read the Auditor General's report. If contribution agreements were signed between parties that did not meet the bar of certain thresholds, they have been identified. I wish to thank the Auditor General for their work. There needs to be transparency and accountability. The conflict commissioner is investigating on that part. Again, this entity, SDTC, has existed for 20 years and has funded 500 companies in the Canadian clean-tech sector. We need to look at the entire picture, but I do very much appreciate the Auditor General's work, all of the organization's work over the years and the reports issued to date.

135 words

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ)

Jun/6/24 1:15:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will ask my colleague to state his position on the very short 14-day deadline for the production of the documents that need to be translated. This is a good opportunity for the Liberal government to redeem itself, given the affronts Quebec has suffered in recent weeks on the subject of the French language. Can my colleague state his position and explain to our Conservative colleagues that 14 days is not enough time to have the documents translated into both official languages?

85 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 326