Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is good to be able to address the committee after the meeting this past Friday, and it's good to see all of you, some of whom I've seen over the past few days in the House.
We find ourselves in a unique position here. I don't think it would be out of line to say that over the last number of weeks the current Liberal government has been rocked by yet another scandal.
In the context of this scandal, we have faced as a nation an unprecedented pandemic requiring tremendous action by all levels of government, which have, rightfully so, provided aid to Canadians at a time when they have been in desperate need. I would state boldly that I don't think there's a person in this country, and maybe not even a person in the world, who hasn't been affected in some way by COVID-19, but when you look at what provides the strength of our nation—the democracy, the foundations of who we are—we look to institutions like Parliament, and we look to governments at all levels, in legislatures and city halls, and expect them to work in our best interests.
Unfortunately, we have seen over the last number of weeks that the best interests as defined by the current government and members within that government clearly have not been in the best interests of Canadians. There were personal ties to that, and those ties have—I mentioned this word earlier—rocked this government. More importantly, Madam Chair and members of this committee, it has rocked the trust that Canadians expect to be able to put in their leaders, especially at a time of such an unprecedented crisis.
I was proud to be one of the members who signed the letter that did in fact recall this committee with a motion to try to get to the bottom of exactly what has happened here. I know that other committees are also doing important work, but it is key that we have these debates and these discussions and, ultimately, that Canadians get the answers they deserve, because the trust that is required in a democracy has been shaken.
A saying that I've heard often is that trust is easily broken and hard to earn. I think it's important to acknowledge there has been a great deal of trust that's been broken. My colleague Mr. Barrett talked about this, and I think I'll mention at different points in time some of the other scandals that have eroded the trust that Canadians should have in their government. I don't exaggerate when I say that I hear from constituents each and every day about the fact their trust in government has been truly shaken. We need to do something about that. It is incumbent upon every member of this committee, and every MP, quite frankly, to ensure we do everything we can to restore the trust that has been shaken.
Madam Chair, what I'll do is outline briefly, from my perception and informed by the hundreds of conversations I've had with constituents over the last number of weeks, their feelings on some of the issues that we are moving through today. In fact, I had a conversation with one of the Liberal cabinet ministers. I was very appreciative that after a comment in question period—this was back a number of months ago—a minister would follow up with me. I hadn't heard back in a week or so, so I had my staff reach out to her office.
I had a number of conversations back and forth and then that minister did in fact reach out. I was very appreciative of that. I think that during this crisis all members would agree that quite a bit of work has been done together. We have shown that we can put politics aside when we are working for the best interests of Canadians.
I had a series of issues that I brought forward to this minister about various programs. People were falling through the cracks. One issue was the Canada summer jobs program.I don't have the numbers in front of me, but there were hundreds of last-minute applicants to that program. All of us as MPs have had experience with that program in a way that sees true benefit to our communities, especially during a time like we find ourselves in now.
When the government adjusted some of their rules I quite frankly was optimistic that that program would be able to benefit the organizations, small businesses, in my community, and the more than 60 self-governing municipalities across my beautiful constituency.
That minister mentioned something. Instead of making the Canada summer jobs grant larger, there was this new program that had at that point just recently been announced. It was going to take the place of it. At that time I shared my concerns that I wasn't sure it was going to work, especially in a rural constituency where quite a few of the organizations that were applying for the Canada summer jobs grant would have involved a student either moving or having to commute. It would have incurred costs. A volunteer incentive, although we encourage volunteerism.... Throughout this crisis we've seen an incredible level of volunteerism, whether it be helping out neighbours.... I've heard many stories come through my constituency office showcasing the best of what Canada is all about.
The Canada summer student grant was meant to be a kind of replacement for the Canada summer jobs grant. Although I shared my concerns, of course, the minister said that she would note those, and that was the end of the conversation. I do give credit for the fact that the minister did reach out to a member of the opposition to deal with concerns with a number of the government programs.
Then we fast-forward to when this program was announced, and we ended up getting—like all the MPs I'm sure did—the information about how people should apply. We started sharing some of that information with folks who had asked us to keep them updated and whatnot, but then it started to smell.
It's unfortunate that this would be the case, because this program, well-intended or not, was meant to benefit students. It started to smell, and we saw over the course of a number of weeks some incredibly troubling revelations. The government had brought forward a program with an organization that was maybe not even capable of managing that program. There were close connections to the Prime Minister himself, and his family.
I would take a moment here to note that the allegation made by the members opposite—a number of them we heard at length, and there are a few different members here today—was that somehow it was the goal of the opposition to go on a “witch hunt”—one of the terms used—to drag the Prime Minister's mother or brother, or whatever the case was, before this committee.
I would hope that since the last meeting, the members opposite would have actually read the motion and the letter that called this committee back, because it had nothing to do with bringing the Prime Minister's mother or family members before this committee. It does have to do with the issue that I referenced in the beginning, which is trust of our institutions.
When you're the Prime Minister and are afforded all of the authority associated with that high office in our dominion, it comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility. Certainly, Conservative members don't want to see family members of politicians dragged before this. However, we do expect that for a high office-holder in this land, whether a minister—like the finance minister and the very troubling allegations that have just recently come out—or the Prime Minister himself, or quite frankly any of us, if there are connections that cause a shaking of the trust in our democratic institutions, Canadians deserve answers.
As was clearly articulated on the other side, we all run for office not to get our family members involved in the political battles that take place in the capital. However, when those who hold offices make decisions—whether they involve those family members or not—scrutiny needs to be applied.
I'll reference a senior who called my office who had not yet received the GIS. That senior had been watching the news that morning and noted to me how $300,000 was worth more than their home and was more than they had ever made in any particular year throughout their entire life. They were frustrated that it seemed to them that the Liberal politicians were just in it for themselves and those closely connected to them. That's where it comes back again to the shaking of trust.
As I referenced before, trust is easy to break, but hard to earn. I would go as far as to suggest that we need to be very diligent that we move forward in a way that helps restore that trust to Canadians. I want to get to the amendment at hand because I think that Canadians.... We have to be willing to work diligently to ensure we have that clear understanding, because as we move forward with the scandal, we saw that there was a new revelation each and every day, it seemed. The Prime Minister's apology, after it was revealed the dollars involved and his family members involved.... We had questions about who authorized this, where the money was going and what seemed like almost a Ponzi scheme of referrals and references and various aspects of what happened to move forward.
We see very clearly that lack of transparency throughout the entire system. There's been a breaking of trust. When we have the opportunity—all of us, as members of Parliament and members of this committee—to bring clarity and to help restore that trust that Canadians expect in their institutions, I think we need to do everything we can to ensure that light is shone and that answers are found. We need to ensure that we have a clear objective to demonstrate to all Canadians that we are doing what's in their best interests and that it's not for our personal benefit that we have put our names on a ballot, but that we come to the capital to debate the pressing issues of our land for Canadians' best interests.
The amendment, Madam Chair, is important to differentiate the conversation that led up to it. I would move a subamendment, if the clerk would indulge me. I apologize that my French isn't good enough to assist in this.
I would just like to add two words to ensure, as I've outlined, the trust issue, that we have a clear ability to shine light on everything that's happened in this scandal, to ensure that light is shone.
The subamendment I would move is that, after the words “provide the records to the”, I would add ”committee and the Ethics Commissioner”, so that we can move forward in ensuring that Canadians get answers on this ever-evolving and.... In fact, I find it quite staggering.
Madam Chair, I'm a fairly new member of Parliament. It's been, certainly, an interesting and educational number of months to have first been elected. It has impressed upon me the importance of our institutions and that we get to the bottom of all aspects of this.
I have much more that I would love to say. I mentioned that I'll get to some of the testimony that we heard. I took fairly detailed notes, because it felt more like a university class last week. I must reference the Latin specifically. I admit I did not study Latin, but I did study Greek and Hebrew, two other dead languages—Greek, in terms of the ancient Greek. Now, I studied it. That doesn't mean I remember much of it.
Certainly there is much more I have that I could say, but my final comment....
Is the clerk making the additions I need to make in terms of the amendment to the amendment?
