Debates of Oct. 4th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which relates to the speech that he gave on this subject last Friday.

This is a matter of ethics. We are are talking about people who were appointed to a board of directors and who voted to give money to their own companies, companies that pay them a salary. That makes no sense at all. The bare minimum that is expected of anyone who represents a foundation or another organization on a board of directors is that they must not put themselves in a conflict of interest like that. It does not make any sense.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the important role played by the whistle-blowers who informed the media, Parliament and the government of this situation.

I deplore the fact that the government did not introduce any legislation to properly protect whistle-blowers. Why did this sort of bill have to come from the Bloc Québécois? A Bloc member introduced a bill in the House to tell the government that enough is enough and that whistle-blowers play an important role. They are the ones who inform us of wrongdoing and scandals, and the least we can do is protect them.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member stated that the arm's-length bodies, 15 foundations, as he mentioned, were created and funded by the federal government. He said there was a loss of control over the funding that goes to organizations like SDTC. However, in the later part of his speech, he referred extensively to the Auditor General's report, and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's report on the issue related to SDTC. Is it not contradictory?

In fact, Parliament has control over the funding that goes to these foundations, to other organizations, Crown corporations, and we have the mechanism to see that it is administered properly. When it is not, as in this case, there is a mechanism that kicks into process and that is what we are dealing with.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nepean for his excellent question. I thank him for raising these issues.

What we are saying is that the goal was to reduce transfers to the provinces and keep more money for the federal government, but to conceal it using the mechanism of foundations. That is what former Treasury Board president Marcel Massé said himself. In order to make the money vanish from the federal government's balance sheet, it could not be under the government's direct control. That was the fundamental problem, the same problem that Sheila Fraser raised in 2005. It was very serious and very important. That was a time of budget cuts and forced austerity, when fewer services were being provided to the public. Times were hard.

There may be indirect validation mechanisms after the fact, which is what we are talking about here. For the Bloc Québécois, however, this is clearly insufficient. These foundations manage money generated from taxes and taxpayers' income tax. It is managed not by the government or by the elected members of the House, who are accountable, but rather by foundations.

The fact that there are then validation mechanisms, after all the foolish mischief is done, is clearly insufficient. This is not how taxpayers' money should be managed. That is why we are calling for these foundations, the mechanism conceived by Marcel Massé, to be abolished.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague is going to be simple. We have been debating this question of privilege that was raised here in the House for a long time, a week or two. This situation is a result of the government's stubborn refusal to hand over the documents. If the government had allowed the documents be tabled in the House, Parliament would not be paralyzed like this.

I have been asking myself the following question, and perhaps my colleague can answer it. Why is the government willing to set aside its entire legislative agenda to prevent these documents from being produced?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. What is the reason for that? There are several hypotheses. However, what it boils down to is that an order was made. The House asked the government to produce documents, and the government did not do so.

Does it really bother the government that it cannot introduce any bills? Clearly, this government is tired and has run out of ideas. It does not have any more ideas for bills. Perhaps, the government is actually happy not to have to come up with anything new.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Since the time provided for debate has expired for today, the House will resume consideration of the privilege motion on Monday, October 7, at 11 a.m.

The hon. member for Joliette will have four minutes remaining for questions and comments.

Pursuant to Standing Order 94, I wish to inform hon. members that Private Members' Business will be suspended on that day.

It being 2:30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)