44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 1, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/1/23 10:05:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during question period in recent weeks, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the government about the awarding of a contract to replace the Aurora aircraft without a call for tenders.
On November 24, I myself was told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence that a decision had not yet been made. In answer to the first question that I asked on November 24, the parliamentary secretary said, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. We need to replace the CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft. However, we need to replace them with something that will serve the operational capability of the armed forces. No decision has been made yet.
The parliamentary secretary's second answer was even more specific. She said, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear today. No decision has been made.
A few days later, on November 28, in answer to my questions, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement said, and I quote:
...I thank our colleague for acknowledging the expertise of aerospace workers not only in Quebec, but also in Canada. That is why the decision we will soon be making is an important one...
Given the responses from the minister and the parliamentary secretary, it seems clear that we were meant to believe that the government was still examining the issue and that the Privy Council had not yet decided to award Boeing the contract without a call for tenders.
However, a day later, in an article in La Presse published on November 29, we learned that the government had made its decision. The article was entitled “Ottawa set to award sole-source contract to Boeing”. This article also stated that La Presse had been informed by government and aerospace industry sources that the decision had, in fact, already been made by the government the week before, that is, prior to when we were told that it had not yet been made.
If we look at the calendar, this means that the government made its decision between Monday, November 20 and Friday, November 24. From this information, it is clear that, by the time the answers were provided by the minister on November 28 and the parliamentary secretary on November 24, the decision had already been made to choose Boeing without a competition.
The government's answers to the Bloc Québécois's questions were therefore incorrect and had the effect of misleading the House. I also submit that the House was not alone in being misled. The entire aerospace industry was also misled, including industry stakeholders in Quebec, which are closely monitoring this matter and demanding that a request for proposals be issued so that all companies get a chance to compete and submit better proposals to the government. The government led them to believe that a decision had not been made when it knew this was not the case.
I should point out that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement cannot claim in his defence that he was unaware that the decision to favour Boeing and avoid a request for proposals had already made, since he, as minister, is directly involved in the government's procurement process.
Madam Speaker, I should also inform you that on November 9, the Standing Committee on National Defence completed a report that was tabled in the House on November 24, calling for the government to issue a request for proposals. The report reads:
That, considering the joint statement of the respective Premiers of Quebec and Ontario dated November 7, 2023, concerning the public procurement of the CP‑140 Aurora replacement by the federal government, the committee is of the opinion that the government must proceed by way of a formal request for proposals before awarding any procurement contract of the new Canadian multi‑mission aircraft.
I would like to point out that the Liberals all voted in favour of this motion at the Standing Committee on National Defence.
Madam Speaker, we are therefore appealing to your informed judgment and to those same democratic rules that must always form the cornerstone of everyone's parliamentary work.
In conclusion, it appears that the government's answers were inaccurate and had the effect of not only misleading the House, but also calling into question the veracity of the answers obtained in response to questions asked in the House. The government has an obligation to set the record straight for Quebeckers and Canadians.
The hope raised by the government's answers, which indicated that the decision had not yet been made, contributed to the discontent felt by everyone in the Quebec and Canadian aerospace industry when they learned that the decision had in fact already been made by that time.
814 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 11:36:58 a.m.
- Watch
I have a riddle for you, Madam Speaker. Do you know what a lack of vision is?
It is awarding a $10‑billion aircraft contract to Boeing when a Quebec company has the expertise to fulfill that contract. It is giving Quebeckers' money to Quebec's biggest aerospace rival without a call for tenders. It is belittling our industry in front of all of its partners by not even deigning to look at its offer. It is flying blind as the only country among the big players without a national aerospace policy. It is kowtowing to Washington rather than defending Quebec's interests.
Why is Ottawa fundamentally incapable of having a vision for our aerospace industry?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during my speech, I will come back to the Bloc Québécois's position on the bill. For now, I would like to ask the member a question.
Does she not get the impression that perhaps a bit too much discretionary power is being given to the minister and that, conversely, there may not be enough checks and balances?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 2:00:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-353. This is a vitally important measure for protecting the rights of our fellow citizens, but the text of the bill raises some crucial questions and legitimate concerns.
When the member for Thornhill introduced her bill, she said it would “strengthen Canada's ability to deter, minimize and resolve instances of hostage-taking by increasing governmental power to levy sanctions, by establishing a family liaison office and by providing incentives for foreign co-operation.”
The bill states that its purpose is “to enable the Government of Canada to take restrictive measures against foreign nationals, foreign states or foreign entities that engage in hostage taking or arbitrary detention [of Canadians]”, “to ensure that families of such hostages and detained individuals receive timely information and assistance”, and “to encourage individuals to cooperate with the Government of Canada to secure the release of such hostages and detained individuals.”
The minister responsible for enforcing this bill would be the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In keeping with its commitment to defending the rights of all human beings, the Bloc Québécois recognizes this bill's laudable intent. It seeks to fight against arbitrary detention, protect citizens who have been taken hostage and provide vital support to the families involved. However, it is important to recognize the substantial flaws in the bill as it now stands.
The very essence of the bill deserves to be commended. It seeks to take restrictive measures against acts of arbitrary detention or hostage takings committed by foreign entities. This bill also highlights the critical need to help the families of hostages and encourage co-operation for their release.
The bill seeks to take restrictive measures against foreign nationals, foreign states and foreign entities that engage in hostage taking or arbitrarily detain Canadians, Quebeckers or eligible protected persons. The Department of Foreign Affairs will also have to provide assistance to the families of such hostages and set up programs to encourage co-operation for the release of these Canadians and Quebeckers. The bill will make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
That being said, the bill creates grey areas and raises concerns that need to be addressed. The Conservatives claim that it will protect Canadians and Quebeckers detained abroad based on unfounded accusations, but they should realize that the bill would not have stopped the recent detentions that had the whole world holding its breath. The bill implicitly refers to the two Michaels and the Meng Wanzhou saga, but it would never have prevented their detention.
The bill also gives the government the power to pay money to individuals who provide information on or help hostages. This could have the opposite effect because kidnappers could figure out a way to indirectly receive payment from the federal government, even if the government does not pay the ransom. In other words, ironically, this could create an incentive to take hostages. The bill has some major flaws, including the possibility that Canadians and Quebeckers could be forbidden from providing goods or services to foreign states. That could expose ordinary citizens to severe and unfair consequences, like significant prison sentences of up to five years.
Moreover, the discretionary power granted to the government without an appropriate judicial review mechanism raises legitimate concerns about the potential for abuse. The bill is overly broad in scope and lacks appropriate judicial review mechanisms. It gives broad powers to the minister without any real judicial checks and balances. It is essential to recognize the importance of this issue while also considering the potential implications of this bill.
A thorough committee review is imperative to address glaring gaps and ambiguities that could lead to unintended consequences. That is why we will be voting for the bill at this stage.
We have a responsibility to protect the rights of our constituents while avoiding the legal and diplomatic pitfalls that could result from this legislation. We must work together to strike a balance between protecting Canadians and Quebeckers and maintaining international relations.
The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the fundamental principle underlying this bill, while urging the House to make substantial changes to guarantee its enforceability and its consistency with the democratic values that we defend.
Bill C‑353 will have to be studied in committee and amended; otherwise, the Bloc Québécois will probably not support the bill at third reading, if it gets that far. That being said, again, we support it at this stage.
In closing, we must join our efforts to draft a bill that will preserve the rights of our fellow citizens without compromising our international relations. To ensure we get this bill right, we must carefully study it in committee and make crucial adjustments so as to strike this delicate balance between protection and co-operation.
832 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
