House of Commons Hansard #375 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was documents.
International Day for the Elimination of Violence against WomenRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I thank all members for participating in this very important debate.
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 29 minutes.
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, which is in relation to the motion adopted on Thursday, November 21, regarding the appearance of the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 37th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Friday, March 22, be concurred in.
I will be sharing my time.
I think colleagues know about my general fondness for poetry, so as I move this motion with respect to Liberal corruption and double-dipping, I thought I might elevate the conversation by briefly reflecting in verse on last week's events:
He sought to increase his fee
By pretending that he was Cree
What an obscene joke
Shared an address with coke
Wait, not Cree, but Métis
What a corrupt and insane notion
He sure caused quite a commotion
Edmonton Centre is fired
Calgary Skyview may be hired
Could we see a porch pirate promotion?
For his false indigenous boast
The minister now is toast
Texts regarding the other Randy
Now that sure was handy
Calgary eyes a minister for Canada post
Will this scandal cause a prime ministerial shift?
Or will he just run off to watch Taylor Swift?
We need a new direction
And a carbon tax election
To end this corruption and grift.
It is great to see colleagues from all parties applauding that verse.
We are debating concurrence with respect to the 37th report of the public accounts committee, a very short report that puts forward a very simple proposition. It says, “That the committee report to the House that it calls on the government to prohibit any government employee from simultaneously working as an external contractor.”
It is really incredible that this even needs to be discussed, because the whole point of contracting out work is that the expertise or the ability to do the work does not exist within the public service. Conceptually, the argument is that if we do not have someone inside of the public service who can do a particular job, maybe there is a case for contracting out to an external company to do the work. Maybe there is some logic to that. However, we found that there are cases where the public service is contracting out to somebody who is also a public servant, which is incredible. The government will say it does not have expertise internally, so it goes outside of government to contract with an external company, and that company is owned and operated by someone who is inside the public service. It obviously makes no sense.
We found out that David Yeo, benefiting from the arrive scam scandal contracts, was, according to his LinkedIn page, simultaneously a government employee and a government contractor. We asked him at committee how it was that, according to his LinkedIn page, which is not exactly a private source so someone could have checked it, he was simultaneously a government employee and an external contractor, and that this did not line up with the timelines that he presented to the committee. He said that LinkedIn was not an authoritative source, except that it was his own LinkedIn page, which he controls. We therefore had this contractor and government employee telling us we could not really believe the things he wrote on his own LinkedIn page.
It was in the context of testimony from David Yeo at the public accounts committee and revelations by public servants that we heard this is actually allowed. According to the rules of the Liberal government, someone can simultaneously be an outside contractor and a government employee. I put forward what I think was a common-sense motion to say that the committee report to the House that it calls on the government to prohibit this. There is no need to contract out the work if there is somebody inside of government who can already do that work. Opposition parties do not always agree, of course, but all three opposition parties thought this was common sense. However, the Liberal members on the public accounts committee voted against the motion. They said, “Wait a second; we are not so sure now ”, and they voted against it.
Now will be the chance for all members of the Liberal caucus to vote on double-dipping. Should we allow people who are government employees to simultaneously be outside contractors to the government, or should we end this practice so that we are contracting out as little as possible? Certainly, we should not be contracting out to people who are already in. This absurd practice of double-dipping should end. That is why we put forward this motion. It has the support of a majority of the House, and I hope to see it pass today. We will see how the Liberals vote when they have the chance.
We found more recently that double-dipping is not just a phenomenon that involves lower-level folks. These are still insiders in a substantial sense, but are at a lower level within the pecking order, folks like David Yeo. We also found out that the former minister of employment, the member for Edmonton Centre, not only had double identities, but was involved in double-dipping. He owned a company that was bidding on contracts with the federal government while also being a minister in the government. He has a company, Global Health Imports, that according to text messages he was directing while in cabinet. He was a minister of the Crown, and he owned and directed a company that was bidding on work from the government that he was a part of. He was making a generous salary from the taxpayer as a cabinet minister and was also double-dipping through this pandemic profiteering company.
This is a company, as members will recall, that falsely claimed to be indigenous-owned. The former minister himself made all kinds of contradictory claims, finally admitting that it was not true that he had any kind of indigenous identity. However, in the process, the Liberal Party claimed that he was indigenous, and his company claimed to be indigenous-owned based on claims he had made and claims the Liberal Party had made on his behalf. This false information was put forward to try to allow this company, owned by a minister of the Crown, to double-dip and benefit from contracts that came from the government. It is really unbelievable the extent to which the former minister went in misrepresenting his identity and to which the Liberal Party supported him by misrepresenting his identity, and he has continued to benefit from his ownership of Global Health Imports.
It is important to emphasize for the House that this scandal is not over. The minister has now left cabinet and has said that he would like the opportunity to defend himself and respond to the allegations. That is great. I think he should have the opportunity to come to committee and testify and answer important questions, because we certainly need to get to the bottom of what happened here. However, the company he owns is still eligible for government contracts in spite of the fact that we now know, as the minister has admitted, that the claims made by Global Health Imports that it was Indigenous-owned were totally false. Despite knowing that this was an instance of indigenous identity fraud, that company continues to be eligible to bid for government contracts.
It is, frankly, disgusting that the Liberal government does not take the growing problem of indigenous identity fraud seriously. It is very serious, and does not just apply to procurement. Having engaged with many indigenous leaders on this issue over the last few months, I know there is a broad-based concern about indigenous identity fraud. People who are not indigenous, often elite insiders seeking more power and benefit for themselves, pretend to be indigenous in order to gain some kind of advantage. It could be access to academic opportunities, access to platforms and recognition, or any number of things. In this case, we are talking about access to government procurement, which are opportunities that were supposed to be aside for indigenous entrepreneurs. However, now we have people pretending to be indigenous who are not indigenous trying to steal those opportunities. The minister's company did this.
Although the minister is out of cabinet, he remains a member of the Liberal caucus and his company continues to be eligible for these contracts, so the double-dipping persists. It is time to end double-dipping, end the corrupt grift that has gone on under the government and stop the member for Edmonton Centre's company Global Health Imports from double-dipping and bidding on government contracts. It is time to have a new government that stands for the interests of everyday Canadians.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague outlining, through this motion, that the government “prohibit any government employee from simultaneously working as an external contractor.” That completely makes sense. It is logical. This should have been happening years ago. It should have been happening under the Harper government.
My concerns around outsourcing are serious, and I have raised them many times at the government operations committee. We have seen companies such as Deloitte receive $11 million when the Harper government took over its majority back in 2011, and that tripled to $38 million. Now it is over $200 million. Can members guess who sits as managing directors of Deloitte? It is former Conservative justice minister Peter MacKay and former Liberal cabinet minister Pierre Pettigrew.
We need to stop all of this outsourcing to former politicians, as well as to former employees leaving the federal government service. Does my colleague not agree?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, this motion is about policies that allow outsourcing to people who are inside the house. It obviously does not make sense to allow outsourcing to people who are already inside the house.
It sounds to me like the NDP members are saying that they would oppose any instance whatsoever of the government using outside contractors. We have said that there has been a significant growth in spending within the public service and there has also been a significant increase in outside contractors. There are people hired to hire other people, and there are instances of people being brought in to provide strategic advice, such as those at McKinsey, which should be provided by those within the public service.
We think we can cut down on the abuse of this outsourcing, and there are obvious instances of corruption, the misuse of this, that can clearly be eliminated. That is what we have committed to tackle right away.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the member brought forward a motion of concurrence and spent most of his time talking about a completely different incident. It is interesting in the sense that we have been witnessing, for the last four or five weeks now, a multi-million dollar game being played by the Conservatives, at a great expense to Canadians.
The member once again, and I suspect he might have the record for the most motions for concurrence of a report being brought before the chamber, continues to use this as a mechanism to filibuster and prevent substantive legislation and other issues to come before the House. I am wondering if he could indicate to members how he justifies this self-serving, Conservative leader-driven policy that Conservatives have of abusing the chamber.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member suggests I may have the record for moving the most reports for concurrence of any member. I want to thank him very much for those kind words. It is very gracious of him to acknowledge my work in that regard. I am very proud of having had the opportunity to put important motions on substantive policy issues before the House.
In this particular case, I spent my entire speech talking about the issue, which is double-dipping. We could end this right now. The government could commit to ending all double-dipping. The government also does not seem to like the debate over the privilege issue. We could end that right away if it would just agree to hand over the documents.
This is a minority Parliament. If we have a majority of the House wanting to see something, ordering the government to do something, the majority of the House should have its way. When the majority of the House says that it wants to see the documents, those documents need to be handed over. When we have the majority of the House saying that the government should end this double-dipping, the government should comply with that.
We end up with a deadlock in the House when the government, which is representing a minority of the seats, and a very small minority in public opinion, nonetheless insists on defying the wishes of the House and of the people of Canada. That is where we are right now, and the member needs to reflect on how his government is refusing to listen to Parliament and the people. If it did listen to Parliament and the people, if it ended double-dipping and handed over the documents that were ordered, then it would be a straightforward matter of proceeding on to the next order of business.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, when my flight was landing last night, at about 10 o'clock, I got a text from our party saying it wanted me to speak on a concurrence debate. I said, “Which debate?” It said, “The scandal”, so of course my first reaction was, “What scandal?”
Was it the green slush fund scandal, where the government was funnelling $400 million to Liberal insiders, and where board members and executives admitted they purposely ignored conflict of interest issues? Today in public accounts, we had the vice-president from SDTC, and she is also on the executive of the SDTC. She stated she knew about the conflicts, but that it was not her job to do anything about them. She knew for years about the conflicts, but she stated that they were someone else's job to deal with. Then, the Liberals moved a motion to kill the study. Before we could even debate the motion, they moved a further motion to move the debate in camera, so they could hide their closure motion and the debate from Canadians.
Here we have a privilege debate that has been tying up Parliament for eight weeks now. The Liberals are trying to kill the study as well. We also found out that this would stop the industry minister and the environment minister from appearing before the public accounts committee on the green slush fund, even though they had been called months ago to attend. They are both refusing.
Of course, the environment minister, as we are aware, owned shares of a company called Cycle Capital, one of the companies that his friend, who is a founder and co-owner, used to bilk taxpayers for millions and millions of dollars, despite having a clear conflict of interest. However, that was okay because the minister's partner said that she and the minister only benefited a little from the corruption. It was only several hundred dollars.
I want to read from the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act. It states in subsection 12(2) that “no director shall profit or gain any income or acquire any property from the Foundation or its activities.”
Here we have the minister of environment's partner violating the act itself, and the Liberals voted to shut down the motion. The minister of environment and his partners stuff their pockets with taxpayers' money, and the Liberals moved to stop the investigation, but it turns out that was not the scandal we wanted to talk about today.
I wondered if it was the sister scandal of the green slush fund, the net-zero accelerator, where the government gave $8 billion to corporations it turns out were not eligible. Canadian dollars actually went to a company that produces cars with Uyghur slave labour. This company has also been named as a war sponsor for Putin's war against Ukraine for supporting Russian finances, but the government gave money to it through the net-zero accelerator. I have great news for Canadians: They are subsidizing Putin's war against Russia thanks to the government.
We also found out that a company receiving money from the net-zero accelerator is being sued right now because it was using the money to pay off ISIS. Canadian taxpayers' money is going to a multi-billion dollar international company that is diverting the money to ISIS so it can operate in Syria. However, it was not that scandal.
Perhaps it is the “other Randy” scandal, where the former minister of employment continued to do business with shady business partners while in cabinet when, of course, the rules say he cannot. Of course, he denied that and blamed the other Randy, perhaps the same other Randy who claimed indigenous status to bid on government business contracts and the same other Randy whose business shared an address with someone who was tied up in cocaine trafficking. Stephen Anderson, the other Randy's partner, is probably somewhere out there expressing extreme disappointment in his choice of business partners, but it was not that scandal either.
The scandal I was being asked to speak to, of course, was ArriveCAN, where the Liberal government paid millions to well-connected shady middlemen for nothing, to do no work, for an app that did not work. It was an $80,000 app that ballooned to about $60 million, and we do not know how much more. The Auditor General cannot even track how much because of the poor record-keeping. For this app, the government paid GC Strategies, a well-connected duo, $15 million to merely outsource the work to other consultants.
What was the Liberal reaction when we first brought up this egregious use of taxpayers' money? We had the government claiming that we were vaccine deniers if we thought ArriveCAN was a waste of money. There was nothing about the warnings of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money going out the door, nothing about the shoddy oversight and nothing about companies writing their own requirements for sole source contracts to be given to them. No, if we were disagreeing with any of it, we were anti-vaxxers.
Apparently, the Auditor General, to the government, is an anti-vaxxer. If we were concerned, of course, about cost overruns, insiders getting rich and an app that sent 10,000 people into quarantine in error, yes, we were vaccine deniers. The app error that sent the 10,000 people, by the way, was not even checked to see if it was working correctly before it was released by the government. In committee, CBSA admitted that it did not even check the update to see if it worked before sending all those people in.
When people got angry and started confronting the government about this, it changed its mind. It was no longer calling us a vaccine denier if we had a problem with ArriveCAN. It was that ArriveCAN was saving lives.
The member for Mount Royal said, “Madam Speaker, we will not apologize for an app that saved lives. [It] was put in place at the beginning of [COVID].” We had the member for Oakville North—Burlington say that it saved lives. The member for Eglinton—Lawrence, when he was minister, said that it saved thousands of lives. We put this question to the Public Health Agency, and they came back and said that, actually, it did not save lives, but it helped it keep track of paperwork.
What is amazing, after all of this, is that the government gave an award to CBSA for purchasing. They gave them an unsung hero award, which was awarded to the procurement team for the purchase and development of ArriveCAN. The Liberal government would give an unsung hero award to the iceberg that sank the Titanic or perhaps to Andersen Consulting for their great work on Enron.
On the report itself, I want to read a few things. This is the from the “At a Glance” section of the report of the Auditor General on ArriveCAN:
Overall, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and Public Services and Procurement Canada repeatedly failed to follow good management practices in the contracting, development, and implementation....
The Canada Border Services Agency’s documentation, financial records, and controls were so poor that we were unable to determine the precise cost of the ArriveCAN application.
These were three of the largest departments managing this. Members can think about that. We think it is $60 million, but it could be a lot more. The Auditor General, even with all of her resources, cannot determine, because of the mess of the government, how much was spent and wasted.
The [CBSA]'s disregard for policies, controls, and transparency in the contracting process restricted opportunities for competition and undermined value for money....
We also found deficiencies in how the [CBSA] managed the contracts [and a lack of concern] about value for money.
Further, it says:
...we are concerned that essential information, such as clear deliverables and required qualifications, was missing. We found that details about the work performed were often missing on invoices and supporting time sheets submitted....
This gets to the root of ArriveCAN, but also of the green slush fund and all the other scandals. Taxpayers are being defrauded. The Auditor General stated very clearly. The evidence has stated as such and we heard as much in committee. It is time for the government to come clean.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that over the last number of weeks, Conservatives like to talk about scandals. They have come up with a number of different types of them. However, what they always avoid talking about is the record of their own leader of the Conservative Party, when he in fact sat around the cabinet table, directly involved in scandals himself, let alone being in contempt of Parliament. There are so many other things.
There is a booklet I often refer to, Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power. It talks of scandals, corruption and abuse of power. It does not even have the ETS scandal in it. It is a pretty good-sized book, with lots of pages.
Would my colleague across the way not agree that behaviour from the past is a good way to reflect on what the leader of the Conservative Party would really be like if he were Prime Minister, given the number of scandals he was directly involved in, such as trying to prevent people from being able to vote?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the behaviour of the present. There is the green slush fund, where $400 million of taxpayers' money went to Liberal-connected insiders. There is the Minister of Environment, a co-owner of one of the largest recipients of the slush fund. His partner stated to committee that it was okay because they barely defrauded taxpayers of anything. The member opposite should confront the issues of today and fix these issues instead of squandering his time in the House, floundering and looking to blame others in the past.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, the whole thing has been a gravy train for Liberal and Conservatives insiders, and not just insiders. I highlighted earlier that Peter MacKay, a former Conservative cabinet minister, and Pierre Pettigrew, a former Liberal cabinet minister, are sitting as managing directors at Deloitte, which has gotten over $1.2 billion from the government.
The issue skyrocketed under the Conservatives. In fact, outsourcing doubled under the Harper government and has quadrupled under the Liberal government. Former staff, the former president of the CBSA, moved across, finished his time serving the Canadian public and went to work for PricewaterhouseCoopers. It went from $32 million in outsourcing to $115 million in one year. It has to stop.
I have had the fortune to work with my colleague, chair of the government operations committee. The NDP has been wanting Deloitte in front of that committee because of the gross amount of money, $275 million, in government outsourcing a year. It was $11 million in 2015. However, the Conservatives and the Liberals have teamed up, and they blocked the government operations committee from bringing in Deloitte to testify about what is happening, who is involved, why the out-of-control outsourcing is happening and why Canadian taxpayers are being milked in this way.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my time with my colleague on the government operations committee, the mighty OGGO. He brings up a lot of valid points.
We are not blocking Deloitte; we are just seized with other scandals at the moment. Perhaps if he would stop supporting a Liberal government that stumbles from scandal to scandal and would vote with us to bring it down, then we could get back to the business of fixing the government.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the member for Edmonton Centre. Unfortunately his business is still active on the list. Does the member think it is correct?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, no, it is not correct. In the government operations committee, we asked repeatedly whether the member for Edmonton Centre and GHI are still able to bid on government business.
GC Strategies, embroiled in the ArriveCAN scandal, has been banned from bidding on government business. The Liberals for some reason refuse to ban the member for Edmonton Centre's company from bidding on lucrative government contracts.
Pablo Rodriguez Independent Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not get many opportunities to rise in the House these days, but this will be the last time. Although I am officially leaving the party in January, not today, this is a deeply emotional moment for me as I rise to deliver my last speech in the House.
I remember my maiden speech. It was on October 13, 2004. I was seated at the back, over there. I was up against the curtains. I was a bit thinner, my hair was a bit darker and I was very nervous. That was a little over 20 years ago. That maiden speech was the start of a great adventure, but at the same time, it was the end of the long journey that led to me becoming an MP.
I want to let you in on a secret, Mr. Speaker, but it has to stay between us. I have politics in my blood. It is in my DNA. I must say that my father is partly to blame for that. I have talked about it in the House before. In Argentina, my father ran for governor in our province. He opposed the military-controlled government. He was also a lawyer for political prisoners, who, most of the time, were simply student leaders or mothers of missing children who were standing up to the government. He was poisoned and he was tortured on several occasions. One night, while the whole family was sleeping, two bombs went off in our home. We were all injured, my parents, my sisters and me. We survived, but we all knew that it was just a matter of time before we were killed, so we left Argentina. By some miracle, we managed to escape.
We arrived in Quebec, in Canada. No one in the family spoke a word of English or French. We lost everything when we fled Argentina. We had nothing when we arrived here. We left with just a few suitcases for two parents and three children. In the beginning, my parents cleaned houses, mostly in Outremont. I went with them to help. We were regulars at the food bank and the Salvation Army. I remember wandering the aisles picking things out and buying them with very little money.
Through hard work and perseverance, my parents became professors. They both went back to school. My father got a PhD. They became professors at the Université de Sherbrooke and stayed there for over 20 years. I cannot tell you enough what great role models they were for me. We know that things are not easy, but they are always possible in our society, when a person puts their heart into something, works hard and makes an effort. They deserve credit for that, but it is also thanks to the helping hand offered by Quebeckers, who gave us a warm welcome, that we were able to heal our wounds and get back on our feet.
I remember a conversation I had with my father right after we got here. He had survived torture and bombing. He had lost friends. He looked at me and said, “son, Canada is a welcoming country, a land of opportunity, and you can do anything you want here, but do not go into politics”. That time, I did not listen to him. However, on another occasion, he said, “human beings do not have a perfect set of tools to change the world and improve society, but the best tool they have right now is politics”. That time, I did listen to him.
I first became involved in politics as a student leader in high school and then in college and university. My commitment really deepened when I started campaigning with the young Liberals in the Quebec Liberal Party. It was a fascinating time. Several of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and from all over—I am thinking of one of my Conservative colleagues—were there. That was shortly after the Meech Lake accord failed. In my opinion, it was a huge mistake to reject that agreement. It was the early nineties, and we had the Allaire report, the Bélanger‑Campeau Commission, the Charlottetown accord referendum and the 1995 referendum on Quebec sovereignty. I was a spokesperson for both referendums. The younger set were not very supportive of the Quebec sovereignty referendum. I remember, because I gave speeches in Saint‑Hyacinthe, Chicoutimi, Sherbrooke, Saint‑Jérôme, pretty much everywhere. It was a very lively and exciting time, and I will never forget it.
Over time, I continued to be active in politics, at both the provincial and federal levels. I had been on the scene for a long time when I stood for election in Honoré-Mercier in 2004. I thought I had it made. I thought I knew what politics was and believed I had been doing it for a long time. However, when I saw my face plastered on a pole for the first time, I froze and realized it was true. I know everyone here felt that way. I know I did. People feel it the first time they see their face on a poster, because it changes absolutely everything. That is when I realized that even though I had been politically active, I still had a lot to learn. I certainly can say I have learned a lot.
I want to thank the man who gave me that first chance, Paul Martin. I want to thank him for trusting me and believing in me. Without Mr. Martin, I would never have been here.
One thing I am most proud of is the passage of my private member's bill, Bill C‑288 , almost 20 years ago. The law required the government of the day, the Harper government, to report on its efforts to reach the Kyoto targets.
Pablo Rodriguez Independent Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Green Party of Canada.
For me, it was a tangible opportunity to create a better future for my daughter and for the generations to come. The government of the day did everything in its power to defeat my bill. Thanks to our work with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, however, we managed to do the almost impossible: We got a bill passed. This is proof that not only can we change things politically, but that everyone wins when we work together, because that is possible to do.
In politics, we often get the opportunity to work with exceptional people. There are some worthy men and women on both sides of the House. I have developed a deep respect for and genuine friendships with some of them. I am thinking in particular of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who is a true gentleman. I am thinking of my friend from La Prairie, who is also the Bloc Québécois House leader, not to mention my friend, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the NDP House leader. I would like to remind him that it was thanks to his party, thanks to the orange wave, that I lost my job and wound up on vacation in 2011. I thank him very much for the time to rest. I say that in all sincerity, because I learned more from that defeat than I ever did from my six electoral wins.
There are so many lessons to learn from losing an election. I was pigheaded. I lost on May 2, so on May 3, I hit the reset button. On May 3, I started over, because I wanted to reflect on the reasons for our defeat. I wanted to rebuild the party. I wanted to reconnect with the people of Honoré‑Mercier, who had said “thanks but no thanks” this time and taken a pass on me.
Around that time, I became friends with a passionate young politician with great hair, who went on to become the leader of the party. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his trust, his advice, and above all, his friendship. Together, we won. We won the party's leadership race, and we won three elections, meaning three consecutive victories in Quebec in 2015, 2019 and 2021. That is not too shabby. The Speaker was part of that too. Together, we have made progress for Quebec and Canada. I want to say to the Prime Minister that it was an honour to serve alongside him. I thank my friend.
I would like to take a moment to thank the people who choose public service but work behind the scenes. The first such person is Geneviève Boisvert, the manager of my constituency office. Now she is mad at me because she hates being thanked publicly, but I have to do that because she has a special place in my career, and I owe her so much.
To everyone who has ever worked with me, whether in the riding, in the whip's office or the House leader's office, whether at Canadian Heritage, Transport or the lieutenant's office, I just want to say thank you very much, from the bottom of my heart, truly and sincerely.
Their advice made my job as an MP and a minister much easier. Their friendship has made it much more enjoyable and quite often really, really fun, I have to admit. I love those guys and I thank them so much.
To the public servants, the House of Commons staff from the kitchen to the pages, I thank them for choosing to serve our most prestigious democratic institution.
Then there are those who mean everything to us. No words can express how much I owe to Roxane and Béatrice. Words are not enough. Roxane and Béatrice know how much I love them and how grateful I am for their support, advice and encouragement. None of this would have been possible without them. Today, I want everyone to know what amazing women they are. I admire them so much. I love them.
In all the years I have been here, I have always fought for Quebec. Every time I studied a file or had to make a decision, I asked myself whether it was good for Quebec. I truly believe that defending and promoting Quebec's interests is an ongoing job. As the Quebec lieutenant, I was able to speak for the regions and state their challenges and priorities. I worked with the caucus chair on issues such as building the new Champlain Bridge, including Davie in the shipbuilding strategy and deploying high-speed Internet throughout the province.
I had opportunities to participate in negotiations with the Government of Quebec on issues like health, housing, and child care spaces, which really improved people's living conditions. Both as the Quebec lieutenant and as minister of Canadian heritage, I fiercely defended the French language and Quebec culture by standing up to the web giants, because protecting and promoting our culture also means ensuring the vitality of our identity as a nation.
I also made it my duty to stand up for the local press and a strong, autonomous and independent free press, which is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. I led these fights alongside the member for Drummond and the NDP House leader. I thank them both from the bottom of my heart.
Like my father before me, I sincerely believe that we can tackle every issue and challenge that people face. For that to happen, however, people have to be able to trust their leaders and institutions. That kind of trust must be earned. We all have to earn it collectively.
As my colleagues may know, on September 19, I crossed the Alexandra Bridge to launch my bid for the leadership for the Liberal Party of Quebec. That is where it all started for me, back when I was young and thought I knew everything. That is where I will continue to fight for Quebec. Over the past few years, I have spent a lot of time talking to people from all over the place. They have made it clear that, despite the current government's fine promises, nothing is better now than it was before. In fact, it is quite the contrary.
I think that, as Quebeckers, we deserve better than a government whose go-to solution is the politics of division. That is why I decided to join this race, together with my family, and it was with my family by my side that I crossed the bridge. In crossing the bridge, I am leaving behind my friends and colleagues in caucus and in cabinet. I am leaving behind my pals from Quebec, including the Speaker. These are people I really adore. In crossing the bridge, I am leaving this seat that I longed for and dreamed about so much, that I worked so hard to win and that has made me so proud.
In crossing the bridge, I am leaving behind a big part of my career and my life. I would say that I did my best. It was far from perfect, but I gave it my all. I did it with conviction. I did it with pride, to the best of my ability, with a deep love for the House, for democracy, for Quebec and for Canada.
My first remarks in the House were addressed to my constituents in Honoré-Mercier, and so my final remarks will be, as well.
Without my constituents, without their friendship, their generosity and their trust, none of this would have been possible. The last 20 years have been an honour for me. It has been an honour to serve them. It has been the honour of my life, and I can never thank them enough.
[Member spoke in Spanish]
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, I love decorum. Do not take this personally, but I am going to turn my back to you so I can speak directly to the member for Honoré-Mercier.
We met for the first time on August 5, 2015. It was through the media, because we had 10 debates during the 2015 election campaign on a program called 24/60. I was always pitted against the member for Honoré-Mercier, so we spent our first 10 meetings constantly bickering. Although he says he is not looking for a fight, he was looking for one in those days. I proudly defended the Conservative government's record, while he did his best for the Liberal Party. We also know how that turned out.
I want to commend my friend, the member for Honoré-Mercier. His personal story is very inspiring for everyone. He told it earlier. He is the son of immigrants who were forced out of their country because of armed violence. When he arrived here in Quebec, in Canada, he did not know who Guy Lafleur or Beau Dommage were and he only spoke Spanish. Within a few years, he could speak three languages, he could break down every one of Guy Lafleur's plays, and he knew all the words to every Beau Dommage song. I hope I am not giving away a secret, but he told me that his happiest moments in politics were when he was the heritage minister. He is a musician at heart, an artist, and he has a passion for life. I know that he is going to apply the same qualities and ambitions in another territory. No one is perfect.
His political career was a little different. He chose to get into politics. He made a choice. He said earlier that losing might have been the best thing that ever happened to him in politics. He won six times and lost once. I won six times and have not lost yet. I am not saying I would like to lose, far from it, but apparently it is a great learning experience. He lost the Honoré‑Mercier riding once, so that proves that no one's seat here is guaranteed. Anyone can be hit by a wave out of nowhere that carries us all to a new place. It can happen to anyone. It happened to the member for Honoré‑Mercier.
Faced with an ordeal, we have two options. We can crumble, lie low and whine, or we can stand up, tackle the situation head-on and come out victorious. That is what he did. Oddly enough, he was not appointed to cabinet right away. I must admit that I was quite surprised, and I was not the only one. I remember very clearly that Jean Lapierre said, with deep affection for the member for Honoré‑Mercier, that he might not have been appointed minister, but he still did a good job.
He served as minister of Canadian heritage and then as minister of transport. He was also the leader of the government in the House of Commons. This made him my counterpart, since I had the honour of serving as House leader of the official opposition under Erin O'Toole, and I can vouch for one thing: He was not looking for a fight. We talked often. We talked a lot, in fact. We were able to have discussions. Sure, in politics, it might look like we argue all day. That happens sometimes, or often. We always think we are right and the others are wrong. The truth is that we need dialogue and interesting conversations.
However, I must say one thing. He has been pretty sneaky lately. Over the past year, he has often risen in the House to talk about what is happening in Quebec, but he never let on to me what was going on with him. I thought that was a bit secretive of him. We will see what Quebeckers decide to do in this situation. If things work out, I would be very honoured to welcome him to the riding of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent, which is not so far from the National Assembly. I know my way around that place, so if he wants some advice, I would be happy to talk to him about it.
In closing, the member for Honoré‑Mercier and I do have some things in common. We are both sons of immigrants. Some might say that our hair looks the same, but I do not have a beard like him. We also both have children. We both have the privilege of being fathers. Our children, his daughter and my daughter, have the same name. I want to say hello to Béatrice. I also send my regards to the entire family sitting in the gallery. My daughter's name is Béatrice, in case that was not clear. My regards to them and to everyone who is here for him today. What a beautiful sign of the friendship and affection they feel for him as their father, husband or colleague.
There is one thing that truly unites the member for Honoré-Mercier and me, and that is our passion for Canada.
I wish my old friend every success for the future.
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member for Honoré-Mercier said that he learned a lot from his defeat. Unfortunately, the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent has never lost, so we do not know what his limitations are. I have lost three times, however, so I am a very learned person.
It is an honour for me to rise to bid farewell to our colleague from Honoré-Mercier. For a long time, he was part of the Liberal government that keeps interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. We, in the Bloc Québécois, have often said that if anyone wants to look after Quebec's affairs, then they should just go to Quebec, so I thank the member for Honoré-Mercier for listening to the Bloc Québécois. Some say that the Bloc Québécois is not good for anything, but now members can see that we have our uses.
The member for Honoré-Mercier is the Mini-Wheat of the House of Commons. As members know, Mini-Wheats have one side that is frosted and one side that is healthy. The member has a rabble-rouser side and a wise side. Since I was the House leader of the Bloc Québécois when he was the government House leader, I got to know his wise side and, unfortunately, I got to know his rabble-rouser side too, as one can imagine. Let us just say that he liked to fan the flames and put on a show in the House. Honestly, we liked that. Even if the member for Honoré-Mercier did tend to do that, he does not have any enemies that I know of. Everyone thinks he is funny and kind, and we do too.
I want to say that I did not rise to speak because I like to pick fights. He often referred to Bloc Québécois members as grumpy smurfs because we are blue at heart, but that is not why I rose to speak.
I know I am not allowed to say his name in the House, but the member has a strategy I call the “Pablo technique”. He is cunning. During question period, I often have a block of two questions, and he knows that we have blocks of two or three. During his first answer, he goes easy on us because he knows there will be another question. In response to our last question, he then goes on a rant. That is when he makes us pay. He knows we cannot respond, even if what he is saying makes no sense. That is the “Pablo technique”. I do not know if anyone in the Liberal Party has caught on, but if the Conservatives end up on the other side at some point, I imagine the technique will have its fans, that is for sure. That is his fiery side.
He also has a wise side, which I know and appreciate. He is an upstanding man, like the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. They are cut from the same cloth. They are men of their word, great men. When it was time to put partisanship aside, the member for Honoré-Mercier would raise his hand. It was time to discuss and make progress on the issues.
I was the Bloc Québécois House leader, and I still am. My colleague was the government's political lieutenant in Quebec at the time. I do not know if he remembers this. One of the first times we met, I introduced myself and told him that I was his natural ally. I told him that I was the Bloc Québécois House leader and that my one and only goal was to protect the interests of Quebec. It was simple. His job, as I understood it, was also to stand up for Quebec's interests, since he was the government's political lieutenant in Quebec. I have to say that any time he, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and I discussed things and worked together, Quebec came out ahead. Many Quebeckers do not realize how many problems we solved together.
Things were intense during the COVID-19 crisis. I cannot even count the number of times a day we talked. I was talking to the member more than I was talking to my own wife. We were always on the phone and it was not always easy. I remember that the member for Honoré–Mercier told me that we were building a plane in mid-air. I thought it was pretty straightforward, but I suppose that was not always the case. Obviously, we had work to do. We had to roll up our sleeves, and that is what we did.
I always enjoyed working with my colleague. I have a great deal of respect for him. Unfortunately, sometimes, we talk about the member for Honoré–Mercier to people who do not come to Parliament Hill or who do not know him and they only see his rabble-rouser side. They find it to be a bit too much or something. They say that he is a piece of work, but I tell them that he is actually a great guy. I will never forget the work that we did together. Obviously, he loves Quebec in his own way, and I love Quebec in a different way. We need to respect the fact that we have differing opinions. We were supposed to go get a beer. He told me that at one point. Of course, he will get a Canadian and I will get a Blue, but we can still go get a beer and drink to our friendship. I hope that one day, we will do that.
I have learned a lot from my fellow House leaders. When I got here, I was appointed House leader of the Bloc Québécois, but I had no experience as an MP, so I was a little stressed out. I watched my colleague from Honoré-Mercier and later my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, and I learned a lot from them. I did not say it to my colleague from Honoré‑Mercier because I do not want his head to get too big. At some point, he may start thinking too highly of himself.
Obviously, it is hard for me to wish him a bright future, and understandably so. I hope the video clip of what I am saying today will not be used in Liberal ads during the 2027 election, because that would not go over well at all. I just wanted to spread it on a little thick and I am letting myself do that because he is leaving, and the least we can do is say something nice. Personally, I have known three great Argentinians: Diego Maradona, Lionel Messi and Pablo Rodriguez.
I want my parting words to him to be, “Until our next squabble, my friend”.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased to make this speech today. When it comes down to it, after the member for Honoré-Mercier takes his leave, the House will be diminished in a way. We will certainly miss him, because he established a truly respectful way to deal with everyone.
After a political career that has lasted for a number of decades, the member is leaving the House without a single enemy. This is a remarkable achievement. He has treated every member in the House with respect. We are all fans of his to varying degrees because we understand that, fundamentally, he has respect for Parliament and for each and every one of us.
He also has fans right across the country, including a constituent of mine, who insists to this day that the member for Honoré-Mercier and the most interesting man in the world in the Dos Equis commercials are the same person. My constituent continues to insist on that.
He made remarkable changes. For my part, when I think of the member for Honoré-Mercier, I think of March 13, 2020. At that time, he showed his leadership and his respect for the institution, but also his respect for all Canadians. That is the day we closed Parliament during the pandemic. We made the decision together. We all left the House of Commons together. The House leader of the Bloc Québécois was there, as was I and the member for Honoré‑Mercier, who was the government House leader at the time. We spoke to the media.
Let us recall the context. Parliament was not sitting and everything we did had to be done by unanimous consent. This was an emergency, and things had to be done for people across the country. To me, that was when the member for Honoré‑Mercier, as the government House leader, truly changed things, because we had to work together. Bills had to be passed unanimously. At times we had to work until midnight, and each time, his leadership and his respect ensured that we could make all these important decisions to make it possible for people to have something to eat, for businesses to stay open, for people to keep their homes. All these things were, in large part, tied to our colleague's leadership, because he respected the institution and everyone who was involved. He truly knows how to bring people together. He knows how to listen to people and find a way to see things through. He demonstrated that many times both during and after the pandemic.
My colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent talked about the member for Honoré-Mercier's greatest work as minister of Canadian heritage. That is another example of him showing a great deal of respect for those who criticized him, including myself. I do, however, disagree with my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. For me, his most striking work was what he did as government House leader. He also then showed the same ability to bring people together in the other departments he oversaw. He loves his riding, there is no doubt about that. He loves Quebec, which he has demonstrated throughout his career. He loves Canadians, which he has shown time and again in all the work he has undertaken.
We wish our friend nothing but the best. I wish him the best of luck in his next adventure. He will be sorely missed.
Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have gathered together today to pay tribute to a man whose commitment, wisdom and determination have marked not only this institution, but also Quebec and our entire country.
I thank my friend, my colleague, the member for Honoré-Mercier. He has dedicated many years of his life to serving our fellow Canadians. His career is a shining example of what the word “devotion” truly means. He has risen to complex challenges with admirable tenacity, and his actions have left an indelible mark on our shared history. His vision has led to remarkable progress in a variety of areas. Thanks to his leadership, we have been able to overcome obstacles and build bridges where once there seemed to be nothing but barriers and walls.
Apart from his political achievements, we will never forget his integrity, compassion and willingness to listen. He has stayed true to his values. Today, I salute not just a colleague, but a friend who is a brother, a mentor and an inspiration.
I know my friend, my colleague, the member for Honoré‑Mercier. He has a will of iron, strong, ambitious, and robust, especially when it comes to protecting the interests of Canadians. His legacy will continue to guide us. He is a role model to us all.
I can finally thank him from the bottom of my heart for standing up for Quebec and Canada. Many, many, thanks for defending the French language in Canada.
I thank my colleague.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my friend, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, that this is not a happy speech. It is a rather sad one.
I worked with our colleague from Honoré‑Mercier when prime minister Stephen Harper was leading a minority government and it was possible to get things done. That was when the member for Honoré‑Mercier and I became colleagues and friends.
This is a sad moment, but it is good that we are still MPs together, because someone among us has everyone's respect.
I thank my colleague, the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. I could not agree with him more. However, to my colleague from La Prairie, I think it might not be the Bloc Québécois for our friend. Maybe it is the Green Party now, because the way forward will be green, I hope.
To my dear Liberal colleague, there is not much more I can say.
Our colleague has clearly had a tough life.
I think of his childhood in Argentina in a time of conflict.
His father was tortured.
I cannot imagine how hard it was in a time like that, with the junta killing people. It was a hard childhood to have. As my colleagues have said, he came here without a word of English or French, as a little guy speaking only Spanish. Now here we are.
Everyone here in the House of Commons is paying tribute to our colleague and friend. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby said, everyone here likes him. That is extraordinary. What a track record for an MP, a politician in our country. The only thing I can say is that I will miss him.
I hope that we will work together in the future, perhaps when I am prime minister. I always dream big.
I want to say thanks to our friend Pablo. It was no small thing to get a private member's bill through that protected Kyoto, for as long as that bill lasted. I am really grateful to my colleague and friend, and I think we are all going to miss him.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
Colleagues, there is a saying in politics that we are never so happy to see someone as we are on the day that they arrive and on the day that they leave.
I can say that that is not the case for the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier, who has shown that the House of Commons is a special place, where we can see the unanimity and collegiality that exists among us and the friendship that we have with one of our peers.
I commend the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier. He is a long-time friend. We have known each other for nearly 31 years. I have to say that he is right. He did have darker hair, but he still had a beard even then. He was a bit thinner, but just as handsome and elegant.
He loves his nation and his country to his core. I learned a lot from him. Everyone has said it: We will miss him. We will really miss my dear friend.
I want to thank him for everything that he taught me and for all the work that he has done here in Ottawa.
I wish him nothing but the best.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Ethics; the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Housing; the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, Health.
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to spend much time with the member for Honoré-Mercier, but I wish him the best of luck in Quebec City. We are both of Latin American origin, so we share a certain heritage and pride in Latin America, which is often evident in Quebec society. Again, I wish him the best of luck.
Today, we are talking about a report from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on which I have the honour of serving as vice-chair. The purpose of the report was to look a little deeper into ArriveCAN, but more specifically to address an issue raised during the ArriveCAN study.