- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
- Feb/14/23 11:10:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are many things we have often heard about in the House, and I would remind members that simply repeating something without adding anything new is just tedious.
That said, earlier, we heard that the government needed the services of consultants to provide expertise, which is a good idea. However, we should not forget that when the public service is depleted of its expertise, there is unfortunately no choice but to hire highly paid people to replace what was already working.
I would like my colleague to tell me if she agrees with the fact that, over the years, the government got rid of its expertise, which made it possible to hire McKinsey.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 4:45:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is touching on something interesting. When I walk around Trois-Rivières on the weekend people stop me in the street. They are aware of my experience as an ethicist and they ask me how is it that there is such a group of.... I will let my colleagues fill in the blanks.
People are very worried about what is going on because of inflation and everything else. They do not know what to do and they are begging us to do something.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 4:43:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit the nail on the head. This goes beyond procurement. This is about confidence in government, in the government's integrity. That is a problem. I would actually take this one step further than my colleague.
Many consulting firms do business with the Government of Canada. People have mentioned Deloitte and KPMG. These two firms sell advice. McKinsey sells influence. That is not the same thing. There should be stricter rules governing influence.
I think it is currently an open bar kind of situation. Nothing is being done to find out what McKinsey does, what it has contributed, how much it cost and why it could not have been done some other way. There is zero accountability at the moment. The point is that they are selling influence, not advice.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 4:41:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the committee is already working on this. Let the committee do its job.
However, I have to admit that everything we are learning worries me. I believe that it is beyond the scope of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which is going to examine the actual contracts.
Today, I want to speak to my concerns about the very integrity of the government. Perhaps other committees will do other work, but this is a concern that I do want to present to the House because, for me, it goes beyond the issue of procurement. Procurement is one thing. There are rules. Were they followed? We shall see, but contracting out a public policy to an unelected organization concerns me.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 4:31:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.
Today's debate is a passionate one. People clearly feel strongly about this issue. I will start off with a quote from a French author I really like: “'Bad' people are not the ones who do the most evil in this world. Rather, it is the incompetent, the negligent and the gullible. 'Bad' people would be powerless without so many 'good' people.”
My question is, who are the good people, and who are the bad? Philosophically, I think only fools judge without knowing, but there are times when it is important not to appear foolish. The McKinsey saga has been quite the roller coaster ride, with surprises around every corner: contracts that were never tendered, a contract with a 2100 end date and no registry of lobbyists entry.
There is so much here that arouses suspicion. Like it or not, even in good faith, there are reasons for mistrust, yet the government's actions should inspire confidence. In this case, this much doubt adds up to mistrust.
It is not unusual to do business with a consultant. I myself was a consultant for 25 years. There are even valid reasons for doing so. I will outline three, or actually four, if incompetence is involved.
First, when there is an immediate lack of expertise and no time to develop it in-house, one must seek that expertise externally. That transfer of expertise is valuable.
Second, when facing a unique situation that will not be repeated, one might look for a band-aid, a temporary solution. That is valid.
Third, when a certain level of expertise is lacking, a consultant can provide it for a limited time. That is valid.
These three reasons are valid. There are no other reasons to use a consultant, except for incompetence, the fourth reason I mentioned earlier.
The example of the Business Development Bank of Canada was mentioned earlier. That astounds me. A new president and CEO was appointed on August 10. She was not just anyone. She was a former Canadian ambassador to France and Monaco, who had previously worked at the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal and at Sun Life. She had quite a resumé. She did what all political appointees do. She asked McKinsey what she should do.
Honestly, I thought that the expertise came with the appointment. I thought that was part of the package. It turns out that it is not. I think the requirement for being president of the Business Development Bank of Canada is to be able to contact McKinsey. At least that is what it seems like. It seems that contacting McKinsey is a natural reflex for this government.
However, no one elected McKinsey. We are talking about private sector people from a bona fide company who are developing public policy for the government. If McKinsey is involved it is a done deal. McKinsey has earned a reputation over the years with an admittedly excellent research system. This research system was often built on pro bono assignments on the backs of other people, which is a special kind of hoodwinkery.
I wonder: What is McKinsey doing? This firm cannot know more than everyone else about everything, at all times, everywhere in the world. That would be astonishing. The only other explanation is that McKinsey is God or the Holy Spirit, pick one.
One thing is certain, McKinsey has made itself indispensable to many. The opioid crisis in the United States was mentioned earlier, but I will not go there.
Last fall I met with leaders of the French Senate when I was staying in Paris. They presented me their report, which I could show you, were it not so astoundingly thick. The French Senate showed that McKinsey was setting up shop with weak leaders.
They work pro bono. They do not register with the lobbyist registry. In fact, they found the loophole in the rules that allows them to circumvent the spirit of the code. Then they take charge of creating public policies that advance a vision of the world, the vision of McKinsey, an unelected organization.
It is ironic because, by subcontracting certain responsibilities, the government has somewhat privatized Privy Council. That is problematic because McKinsey is not accountable to Canadians, and that is not ideal. The Senate of France spent dozens of meetings questioning people. All they discovered was that automatically resorting to that organization was not a sound practice.
Of course, over the years, the obsession with balancing the budget resulted in the public service losing certain strengths. That said, the three reasons mentioned earlier remain valid. However, they still came to the conclusion that there had to be transparency around contracting and that information should be published about the list of suppliers, the nature of the contracts and their cost as well as accountability regarding what happened, what they did and the outcome. That was one of the recommendations. They also recommended that there be better oversight of the use of consulting companies and that their code of ethics be enhanced.
If I may say so, the ethical rules of consulting firms can sometimes be scary. In fact, a consultant's first commandment is to make sure that the contract is profitable for the consultant. The second commandment is to make sure that the contract is renewed. As for the third commandment, see number one.
I will say it again: Hiring a consultant is not the issue. However, it is extremely unethical to contract out public policies to unelected officials who suggest the terms—terms which, if we are to believe what we have learned, no one was able to challenge. Whole swaths of public policy have been subcontracted to McKinsey without any accountability, for McKinsey or the government.
In my mind, McKinsey is not the enemy. In some ways, I am more concerned about government management. Public enterprise fulfilled a request. However, what concerns us in the reports is the lack of transparency. Why was this done without tenders, for example? There may be good reason. We need to find out.
This feels a bit like subcontracting the nation-state, and that scares me. It scares me because McKinsey, which does business all over the world with all kinds of countries, with China as with the United States, with Russia as with Ukraine, becomes, in a sense, a supranational government. Basically, McKinsey has more data than most governments on both sides, but McKinsey was not elected. We need to be very clear about that.
When a government cannot even develop its own policies, there is a name for that. It is called incompetence. I think the government before us today is a tired government that cannot even be bothered to govern anymore.
The Liberal government wanted a majority, but it does not have one. Personally, I would have liked to be an artist, but I am not. Maybe I should ask McKinsey what it takes to be an artist. They could help me. The Liberals need to try to rise above partisanship and act like a government.
I will close by telling the House about an adage that, as an ethicist, I have lived by all these years, and it has to do with light and darkness. It goes something like this: Any action that needs darkness to succeed is probably more unethical than an action that can stand the light. In the case of McKinsey, I have realized that darkness is at play.
1263 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 12:38:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his passionate speech.
If the Bloc feels that the awarding process is flawed, it may be because things are not clear or because that is a habit with the Liberals. In this case, we should not confuse slander, which is an untrue accusation, and the truth.
My question for the member for Winnipeg North is this: How can he defend the indefensible?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 12:07:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful comments.
What does he think of the secrecy surrounding the ArriveCAN app and the fact that we have to search for and find answers and that this all seems to have been done in secret?
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:11:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work.
There have been numerous scandals over the years. Contrary to what the member for Kingston and the Islands said, I was not born at the time of World War II, but I remember it. I was not born at the time of the Peloponnesian War either, but I remember it too.
The only way to restore confidence is to expose what happened and enable people to understand, to fully comprehend what is at stake.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:09:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member from Hamilton-Centre for his question. I work with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and his perspective is always refreshing.
First, Canada has the worst whistle-blower protection regime. Under the current regime, there is no way of knowing whether one person made 40 complaints or whether 40 people made one complaint. It is really anonymous and confidential. Second, the more specific the complaint, the easier it is to determine who the whistle-blower in question is. That is what we want to focus on right now. Under the current regime, the whistle-blower is done for in every case.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:08:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his question.
In Quebec, people trust the Bloc Québécois.
25 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:07:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. Quebeckers' trust in the Liberal government is waning.
Given my past experience, I noticed that the culture of secrecy and cover-ups seems to be part of the Liberal Party's DNA, and that is a problem. Whether we are talking about the sponsorship scandal or things that happened before that, all of these cover-ups and this secrecy are not conducive to building trust, and yet trust is exactly what is needed today.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 10:58:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was saying that the worst obligation for a prince is always having to cover things up.
Unlike the Conservatives, who were not pleased to speak to our motion last week, I am pleased to speak to the Conservative motion this morning. I am pleased to talk about it.
A lot of attention has been given to inflation. However, I will look at this from another angle, specifically, from an ethical perspective. Ethics is about doing the right thing. Currently I am concerned. I am concerned because the articles we read in the media leave us with a lot of questions. They leave us hanging. They pique our interest and then fail to report on what really happened with ArriveCAN. I am concerned and this is why.
For several years now, the government has made a habit of outsourcing its services. Many services have been outsourced to the private sector. Here we are talking about GC Strategies. Again and again, private firms are benefiting from the government's decision to let go of the expertise it should have internally. By outsourcing its services, the government is draining departments of their expertise, thereby becoming vulnerable to the whims of its outsourcers. I recently read a book about the McKinsey firm entitled When McKinsey Comes to Town. Companies like McKinsey advise governments and, on some level, influence public policy despite the fact that they are not elected. I am therefore concerned. I am concerned that the government is outsourcing this procedure and the related expertise.
GC Strategies knows all this. The company is a two-person intermediary that finds resources elsewhere. Without this intermediary, however, the government of Canada could not act. I am a little concerned about that as well. I wonder what that company had that the departments in question did not. Outsourcing worries me. I am concerned that companies are influencing public policy and making choices that governments should be making.
On several occasions, the government has shown a culture of secrecy and cover-ups. Secrecy means preventing others from seeing and knowing, and to cover up is to make believe. The government's culture is often to make us believe something other than the truth. We are kept in the dark. Essentially, there are some files, of which ArriveCAN is a prime example, that show us how secretive the government's intentions are. It does not want us to understand. I am concerned about this culture of cover-ups.
As they say, people who know they are serious tend to be clear, while those who want to look serious tend to be secretive. I think this applies here.
Basically, when I look at ArriveCAN from an ethics standpoint, what strikes me is the fact that they talk about trust. Trust is the foundation of life in society. Without trust, we are constantly asking questions, which, incidentally, is what we are doing now. Trust means not having to provide proof. When there is no trust, we need a facsimile or substitute: transparency.
When trust is not possible, we must content ourselves with transparency. However, trust is more important. Transparency enables us to see behind a policy, but trust enables us to live together. Montaigne talked about loving without hate and hating without love. That is what trust is, the ability to work hand in hand without always having to provide proof.
The thing I dislike about ArriveCAN is the constant need for proof, the constant need for one party or another to introduce a motion or go to committee to demand an explanation about what was done because we do not understand. It is never particularly clear.
When trust is not possible, we must content ourselves with transparency. When the government engages in dissimulation, it prevents us from seeing its intent. It is on the verge of lying. I am not saying that it is lying. What is lying? It is making someone do something they would not have done had they known the truth.
I travelled to Rwanda this summer, and I had a hard time entering my information in ArriveCAN. When I returned to Canada, no one even asked to see it. That is how useful it is. I was a little taken aback.
Once again, lying is what hinders communication between two entities. The government is not quite lying, but almost. That is when we need to act ethically. When we are lost in a fog of uncertainty, a grey area, we need to act ethically, which means that, in a discussion such as this one, I am going to focus a little less on myself and a little more on others. I will think about others. In a situation like this, I know that I am going to have to be open-minded to understand what is at issue.
Above all, acting ethically means doing the right thing even when no one is watching. I have a story about this from classical philosophy. There was once an emir who had a ring adorned with a small diamond. By twisting the ring on his finger, he could become invisible. Well, he lost the ring, of course. It was found by one of his slaves, who put it on, twisted it around and went off to the harem. The rest can be imagined, but in all the excitement, the ring twisted back around and he became visible again. Let us say he had a rough day after that.
This is what I mean: Acting ethically means doing the right thing even when no one is watching. We, the opposition members, including the Conservatives who moved this motion, are watching. All we see is secrecy. We are not okay with that.
I would like someone to explain why the government used such a strategy, specifically an outside business that subcontracted its services. I do not know much about IT services, but I do not see how something would start at $80,000 or $250,000 and end up costing $54 million, even though I understand that there are many things included in the cost breakdown. It seems to me that an organization as large as the Government of Canada should be able to do such work itself without resorting to this type of middleman.
I am curious and I would really like some help understanding this situation, shedding some light on it and getting rid of the secrecy. That is what I want, but I am not sure we will be able to do it.
I will quickly conclude by saying that, beyond the fact that the ArriveCAN app appears unnecessary, as I did not use it when returning to Canada, I find it outrageous that money is being spent frivolously and that we often accept it and just let it go.
Paul Valéry, an author that I really like, said that it is not the wicked who do the most harm in this world. It is the maladroit, the negligent and the credulous. The wicked would be powerless without a certain quota of the good.
It is time for the good people to stand up and say that enough is enough. I would like to get to the bottom of this.
1210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 10:58:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to wash the member for Kingston and the Islands' mouth out with soap since I have had enough of his constant lack of respect.
I will begin by saluting my constituents in Trois-Rivières.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne if she gets here in the next 10 minutes.
The worst obligation for a prince, may be—
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/22 2:44:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, every time we ask the government for the Roxham Road contracts that it refuses to disclose, it responds that to the government, and I quote: transparency is critically important.
That is a rather Orwellian response. Refusing to disclose contracts out of concern for transparency is not that far removed from being told that war is peace.
I am blinded by all that transparency. Seriously, hiding public contracts is not transparency, it is secrecy.
Can the government actually be transparent and simply disclose who it gave taxpayers' money to for Roxham Road? People have the right to know.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/22 2:29:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, honestly, we are not talking about top secret documents here. We are talking about leases signed for land, trailers and hotel rooms.
By refusing to disclose all the contracts tied to Roxham Road on a questionable pretext, the government is the one sowing doubt. The government is the one whose actions are reminding us of the billions of dollars awarded without a call for tenders to the big Liberal family during the pandemic. The government is the one suggesting that there is something to hide.
Why wait to be forced to be transparent? Why not simply disclose the contracts?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/22 2:28:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the decision to make Roxham Road and all its facilities permanent raises some serious ethical questions.
We know that the government awarded two Liberal donors at least seven contracts without a bidding process. We have no idea if there are more.
Since the government refuses to disclose all the contracts, this afternoon, I will be asking the Standing Committee on Ethics to investigate the ethical aspect of awarding contracts.
If the government has nothing to hide, it should disclose these documents itself. Will it make public all the federal contracts tied to Roxham Road?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 2:39:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, by renewing the lease for these border facilities, the government is making it clear that it has no plan to shut Roxham down for at least five years.
This obviously comes with a price tag, and I am sure it will reassure no one to hear that a Liberal is benefiting from the deal. The federal government signed the lease without a tender in 2017 with a donor who contributed around $23,000 to the Liberal Party. The lease was even renewed for five years, again without a tender. This is a huge problem with a simple solution.
Why not shut down Roxham instead of jumping right into another Liberal ethics scandal?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
