44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear what I am hearing this morning. I thank my colleague across the way because it was high time.
My thoughts are with a few organizations in Laurentides—Labelle, such as l'Ombre‑Elle and Passe‑R‑Elle, because this has been their plea for many decades. What we are hearing this morning is a start on two levels, specifically in terms of the interpretation and implementation, and I commend that.
I just heard my government colleague mention that it was just the start of the continuum. Will any money be transferred to these organizations to help these women and families?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have not been a member of the House for all that long, so I would like someone to explain to me what has been happening here over the past few weeks.
I would like to start by saying that we want to work to find solutions to what is happening to our media. The groundwork was laid during the previous Parliament, and we knew where we wanted to go. However, the Liberals called an election and we had to start over. The previous bill that has now become Bill C-18 still contains some of the same elements with no changes. However, we need to find a solution, and we need to do it fast, because billions of dollars are being lost and we need to protect freedom of expression and our media.
There is one other thing. I would like the member opposite to explain to me the point of these incessant motions. Not a day goes by that I do not have to try to explain to my constituents and even to my children what is happening with the legislative process in this session of the House.
I would like to know what we can expect in the coming days. What is the point of constantly challenging democracy, when we have a duty to debate each bill fully?
224 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will rephrase my question. I was giving a passionate speech, and I did not know whether I had 60 seconds to ask my question.
We obviously want to have a solution.
The solution is what is proposed in Bill C‑18, which incorporates certain aspects of bills C‑10 and C‑11. The groundwork has been laid, and this should be acknowledged.
My questions are as follows: What is going on? What can we tell our constituents?
As it stands, we have had only two hours of discussion and debate on such an important bill. I expect to hear an answer from my colleague across the aisle, because this is not the first time this has happened, and my hunch is that it will not be the last. I would like an explanation.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is my last question. I certainly understand that all the questions about the process we are going through will not be answered.
I heard the minister. The Bloc Québécois is not just here to oppose things. We will vote in favour of things that are good for Quebec, and, obviously, we believe that Bill C‑18 is extremely good for Quebec.
Nevertheless, if collaboration is so important, why was the Bloc Québécois not consulted so that we could reach an agreement ahead of time? This is not our first time allocation rodeo. Over the past few weeks, closure has been all the rage. Again, the question is, how did we get to this point? Are the Liberals short on inspiration or on strategy?
136 words
All Topics
- 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 5:26:52 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 5:40:59 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 5:43:34 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 5:45:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will do what the government never does, which is admit that it may have made a mistake.
What I was trying to do was make the connection. It may not have been the auto industry, but I do not have my notes and I apologize for that. How was it so easy for a former MP to claim to specialize in ventilators so he could secure a $237‑million contract? That is what we wanted to highlight.
I retract what I said, and the changes can be made. The point I was ultimately making was about why there was no effort to be transparent in advance.
We now have to spend time on this. I should mention that I did some research while the member was asking the question. On March 24, 2021, there was an opposition day on this topic, which might help my colleague opposite who was wondering, but I did not have that information earlier.
That said, the answer is that we are doing it, but I do not think that is enough because we worry about what comes next. Three times is already far too many. One plus one plus one is three, and three strikes is an out. That sums up our feelings about the government in 2022.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:47:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the member brought up contracts because—
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:48:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we are experiencing right now has been going on for hours, and why is that? It is because it is a very sensitive subject, I admit.
The objective is due diligence when it comes to contracts. A number of experts told the committee that it is important to take the time beforehand to check things properly.
As I said at the outset, just a few moments ago, why is it that some organizations that might be struggling are accountable to no end, when the government, which has a structure that could be described as extraordinary, is able to turn around quickly and offer $500 here or an emergency benefit there? It is a huge system.
Ultimately, there is no reason why the experts and officials in each department should not be working proactively to ensure that we have all the elements needed to make reasonable and ethical decisions.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 5:50:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would turn that question back to the member. Why have we been working for weeks under a gag order and time allocation when we should actually be debating this in great detail? That is for him to answer. We will talk more about this later.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
