Thank you very much, Chair.
Indeed I want to continue, really, with the purpose of this intervention, which is to look at specific Canadian businesses. I think, in my reading of this article, you can see that I'm very much concerned with those businesses that have stepped up to the plate to help with pandemic relief. Indeed, the mobilization of Canadian business, large and small, I think is equivalent to the war effort of World Wars I and II, of World War II specifically, when that was a key factor in the Allies' winning of the war.
We are all keenly aware of the effect COVID-19 is having on our businesses. They are on the front lines, as is everyone else, with regard to the effects of the pandemic.
I speak to residents, business owners and employees of businesses in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle every day. I wish I could be speaking to more of them today. Many of them have come to me. Some who have never ever had occasion to call upon their federal MP in the past have done so over the last eight months, as much to offer a hand as to ask for a hand up, depending on their situation. I know that we're all very much aware of how some sectors have, in a way, benefited from the pandemic while others have been completely demolished. I will leave it to other colleagues to speak more specifically to the kinds of macroeconomic effects of COVID.
It is germane and it is important to these business owners, whether or not they are personally affected, that we as a government continue to focus, to provide the leadership in combatting the pandemic and in planning remedies to assist with the economic recovery to follow. I think that we need to focus on that work. That is what it's all about now. Everything we do must be contributing to advancing that work.
It certainly does not mean that the work of the government goes unchallenged or without review. I think that the reviewing of pandemic spending and the decisions around how the funds are spent is a good use of our time.
When we adjourned on March 13, back in the early days of the lockdown, we certainly did not take that decision lightly. We recognized that, as a country, we were embarking on a national battle, the likes of which we had not experienced since the Second World War. In terms of death and destruction there is no comparison, but the overwhelming national response that was required from the people of Canada during this pandemic is said to be similar.
I'm very proud, especially during this week of remembrance of our veterans, that Canadians are stepping up to the plate. We are being tested, and not without.... There have been ups and downs. There have been challenges to that response, but I dare say that every Canadian wants to do their part.
The emergency spending in response to the pandemic will definitely be under review, not just by Parliament but by the Auditor General and all relevant officers of Parliament. This is essential. I was proud to have served on the public accounts committee as one of my first roles back in 2015. I think we can rely on the good work of our parliamentary officers to do that investigation, to do those reviews and to bring them in front of parliamentarians so that we have that transparency, especially during this difficult time. I think Canadians, and certainly my constituents, while they may not refer directly to the steps that we know are in Parliament, expect that there would be accountability for the spending.
When we look at Mr. Angus's motion, I think the initial thrust of it is relevant, although normally it would be the finance committee, I would think, that would focus on the spending aspects as they're currently unfolding, such as how and where the money is to be spent. In passing, I do hope the finance committee is able to get to its very important work of looking at pre-budget consultations.
As to the relevant control mechanisms about who got a particular contract and the process of its awarding, well, that could be studied by government operations and estimates. That's another committee that I also had the privilege of serving on. These are good experiences for new members. It's good to serve on the different financial committees. I would think that for this committee, it's perfectly fair for us to undertake a study into the safeguards put in place to ensure that no conflicts of interest were present during the spending of pandemic funds. I also think it's appropriate for us to review spending from a privacy angle to ensure privacy laws were respected, and from a lobbying front to ensure that lobbying regulations were followed.
As an overall focus and area of study, we could really get some good work done by looking at the pandemic from this angle. I am having a tough time with the singling out of the Canada student service grant and the matter of Baylis Medical in particular. It would be my opinion that to group all these matters together, including Palantir, would be to presuppose an outcome. I am gathering that my opposition colleagues are trying to build a narrative around each of the items listed in the motion, trying to surmise that something irregular occurred, that somehow rules were broken.
That's their prerogative, Chair. I can understand that questions can be asked, but I do resist and wonder.... When we listen to Mr. Barrett, for example—he hasn't really been speaking out too much today, but we certainly have heard him at past meetings—one would assume that corruption has run rampant and unchecked. We know that this is simply not the case.
I also contend that there is a relevance matter, as these are all very separate items. They're just loosely tied together via this motion. It's sort of like a grocery list.
In my opinion, this is being done simply to sow confusion with the public.
This brings me back to this idea, the presupposition of guilt, because it's so obvious that the opposition—