Meili Faille

[Political Financing, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to spending $1 million over and above the limits allowed by the Canada Elections Act in 2005-06, the Conservatives tried to use a lobby group as a front to attack the Liberal government.

During that same election campaign, a law firm with ties to the Conservatives approached the organization Lost Canadians about financing an advertising campaign developed by Conservative strategists.

Do these tricks not prove that the Conservatives were prepared to do anything to gain power, including violating the Canada Elections Act and using fronts?

[Foreign Affairs, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Abousfian Abdelrazik is asking to be taken off the UN Security Council's 1267 list, since he has been cleared of any suspicion.

My colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, wrote to the Prime Minister about this three months ago. The Prime Minister replied that he would transfer responsibility for this file to the Minister of Public Safety. This week, that minister wrote to us indicating that he was transferring the file to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This game has gone on long enough.

Who will give this file some serious attention to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik is removed from that list?

[International Pediatric Cancer Awareness Day, February 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the diagnosis of childhood cancer is a significant source of stress for parents. As the organization Leucan has noted: “To deal with the requirements of the hospital environment and support their child, parents must take important decisions, including the decision to take an employment leave.” The length of treatment and an unclear prognosis can turn acute stress into chronic stress. It becomes nearly impossible to handle professional or financial difficulties.

As a modern, empathetic society, it is our responsibility to ensure that these parents have an environment in which they can concentrate solely on their child's recovery.

On International Pediatric Cancer Awareness Day, it is important to take action to help parents with a child suffering from a serious illness so that they benefit from better support, such as compassionate care leave, which the Bloc Québécois has been calling for.

[Petitions, February 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to present a petition from my constituents regarding Ste. Anne's Hospital. The petitioners are calling for the eligibility criteria for veterans to be expanded to include members of the allied forces.

[Petitions, February 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present three petitions, including two petitions regarding the operations of Canadian mining companies abroad. People across Quebec, including some of my constituents, are calling on the government to urge the Secretary-General of the United Nations to develop an international mechanism for obtaining prior consent, freely given with full knowledge of the situation. Consent should be a prerequisite for all exploratory projects.

[Child Soldiers, February 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, February 12 is International Day against the Use of Child Soldiers. There are an estimated 300,000 child soldiers around the world. One-third are young girls whom militias have kidnapped to use as maids, cooks and sex slaves, but also as killers. A taboo subject, these girls have a hard time reintegrating into their community when they are released.

The signatories to the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including Canada, are called on to treat soldiers under the age of 18 as victims and to ensure their full social reintegration and their full physical and psychological recovery.

Omar Khadr was a child solider who was enlisted by his father and arrested in Afghanistan at age 15 and who has been held in the U.S. prison in Guantanamo ever since. Canada has completely abandoned Mr. Khadr and trampled on his rights, creating a dangerous precedent according to UNICEF.

This Conservative government encourages other countries to reintegrate their child soldiers; perhaps it should clean its own house first.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2011]

Regarding the Competition Bureau’s investigation, initiated in 2005, and the charges in 2009 against information technology (IT) services companies against which Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) has levelled allegations of anti-competitive bid-rigging: (a) what are the names of the people from PWGSC, the Competition Bureau and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) who engaged in discussion or correspondence regarding the investigation and, if applicable, for each communication, (i) when did the communication take place, (ii) at what stage was the investigation, (iii) what matters were discussed, (iv) was there consensus on the action to take, (v) what is the description of the consensus; (b) during the period from June 1, 2008 to July 31, 2008, what are the names and titles of the people who made inquiries to the Competition Bureau about the stage of the investigation from (i) PWGSC, (ii) the Competition Bureau, (iii) the PPSC, (iv) Canada Border Services Agency, (v) Transport Canada, (vi) the Prime Minister’s Office; (c) were inquiries made to the PPSC or the Competition Bureau by people other than those identified in (b) and, if so, what is the name of each person and the date of the inquiry; (d) did the PWGSC Deputy Minister discuss the inquiry with the PPSC and the Competition Bureau and, if so, (i) when did these discussions take place, (ii) what was the content of these discussions, (iii) was the lawsuit brought by one of the companies named in the charges discussed and, if so, what is the name of the company; (e) can Competition Bureau lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (f) can PPSC lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (g) for the period from June 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, (i) what recommendations were made to PWGSC by the lawyers identified in (e) and (f), (ii) what are the names of these lawyers, (iii) were these lawyers informed of a lawsuit against PWGSC brought by one of the companies named in the Competition Bureau charges; (h) were Mr. Denis Pilon and Mr. V. Chénard, lawyers named by the government in a criminal case, denounced by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; (i) regarding the PPSC’s hiring of Mr. Denis Pilon, (i) what was the date of hire, (ii) what are the names of the people who made recommendations or suggestions or commented on the hiring of Mr. Pilon, (iii) who made the decision to ask Mr. Pilon to handle the file on the IT companies named in the Competition Bureau charges, (iv) were Mr. Pilon’s political activities for the Conservative Party declared and, if so, who informed the PPSC of these activities; (j) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the quality of work performed by the companies involved in the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) what was the assessment of the various departments of each company, (ii) what was the title of the document containing the studies or audits, (iii) on what date were these studies or audits done; (k) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the market impact of the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) on what date were these studies or audits done, (ii) what was the title of the document containing this information, (iii) what were the key findings and recommendations; (l) regarding PWGSC’s plan in December 2008 and January 2009 to debar the companies that allegedly rigged bids for IT services, (i) who, within PWGSC, the Competition Bureau or the PPSC, proposed this idea, (ii) was the basic principle of Canadian law that a person is innocent until proven guilty discussed, (iii) did the person responsible for the debarment decide to disregard the principle set out in (ii), (iv) did PWGSC subsequently assure one or more of the companies in question that they would not be debarred and, if applicable, what companies and why, (v) did PWGSC warn one or more departments that these companies might be debarred, (vi) after withdrawing its threat of immediate debarment, did PWGSC inform one or more departments to act as if nothing had happened with these companies, while awaiting the court’s decision, (vii) did PWGSC urge one or more departments to do whatever was necessary to prevent these companies from accessing business opportunities or contracts, (viii) for each circumstance in (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii), on what date did the communication take place; (m) did PWGSC senior officials provide instructions to avoid sending written information on certain lawsuits that risked being the subject of a possible access to information or privacy request and, if so, who gave this instruction and for what reason; (n) can the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the departments involved confirm that they still have all the evidence in their possession; (o) were the companies named in the Competition Bureau’s charges subject to greater scrutiny regarding their commercial activities with the government and, if so, (i) what are the names of the PWGSC employees given this task and (ii) which departments were contacted; and (p) is PWGSC involved in evaluating the proposals or in the contract adjudication process and, if so, (i) to what extent are PWGSC public servants involved, (ii) what is the objective, (iii) what follow-up and communication procedures are in place between PWGSC and the departments regarding these cases, (iv) is there a document describing these procedures, and (v) have these procedures largely been followed?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 13th, 2010]

With respect to the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) contract for Engineering and Technical Services (ETS): (a) for each task to be completed under this contract, did the contractor perform the task as stipulated in the contract and, (i) if not, for each of the uncompleted tasks, what are the reasons for which the tasks were not completed and what are the details of the paragraphs of the contract that were changed, (ii) if yes, when did the Department confirm the work had been completed for each task; (b) what measures did the Department put in place to ensure that the contractor respected the contract; (c) has the contract already been audited; (d) how many reports did the contractor provide with a progress update on the tasks; (e) when were the reports in (d) presented to the contracting authority and what were their titles; (f) who was responsible for monitoring and approving the transition from the former contractor to the current contractor; (g) what measures were taken by the contracting authority to verify progress on outstanding tasks; (h) did the contractor inform PWGSC of its staffing plans, which included using people hired by the former contractor; (i) ten business days after the contract’s start date, (i) how many CVs had been provided, (ii) what were the names of the people suggested by the contractor and how many of them then worked on the contract; (j) was the ETS contract changed and, if yes, what changes were made and on what dates; (k) was the contractor paid for all the services provided before the end of the transition period; (l) regarding the drafting process for the request for proposal, (i) what is the detailed explanation of the process and the milestone dates, (ii) who were the public servants who participated in drafting the request for proposal; (m) regarding the proposal evaluation process, (i) what is the detailed explanation of the process, (ii) what exactly does the “reconfirmation” step consist of, (iii) who were the public servants who participated in evaluating the proposals and approving the choice of contractor; (n) what are the names of the people or specialized companies that participated in drafting the request for proposal and how were these people or businesses selected; (o) what are the names of the people or specialized companies that participated in evaluating the proposals and how were these people or businesses selected; (p) what are the names of the people or specialized companies that participated in the contracting process and how were these people or businesses selected; (q) did the evaluation documents and relevant computer files remain in the possession and under the control of public servants during (i) the drafting of the request for proposal, (ii) the evaluation of proposals, (iii) the awarding of the contract; (r) can the Department confirm that it still has all the documents in (q) in its possession; (s) regarding the services of a fairness monitor for this contract, (i) who made the decision not to use the services of a fairness monitor for this contract, (ii) when was this decision made, (iii) for what reasons was a fairness monitor not retained; (t) as to a forensic audit, (i) who decided not to refer this file for a forensic audit after allegations of interference and conflict of interest were raised, (ii) when was this decision made and for what reasons; (u) did the office of the Minister of PWGSC, the Minister himself, or his deputy minister have discussions with public servants regarding the content of the request for proposals for ETS, the evaluation of the proposals or the contracting process and, if applicable, (i) what was the purpose of these discussions, (ii) who instigated the discussions, (iii) when did these discussions take place; (v) during the period from February 6, 2006, to June 24, 2008, did the Minister of PWGSC announce he was in a conflict of interest and, if yes, (i) when and with respect to what file, (ii) what was the nature of the conflict of interest; and (w) did PWGSC require that the references submitted by each of the bidders be checked and, if applicable, (i) who was responsible for carrying out the reference checks, (ii) when were the checks done for each of the bidders, (iii) who identified the mention of a company associated with the bidder, (iv) what were the reasons for approving a bid with references to an associated company, (v) was Innovapost Inc. identified in one of the bids?

[Public Safety, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are quite right to be wary of the Conservative plan to create a Canada-U.S. security perimeter. All we know about the plan is that it was negotiated in great secrecy. The federal government is preparing to share personal information about individuals with the American authorities.

Can the government tell us if its plan, which is to be made public in January, has been approved by the Privacy Commissioner?

[Public Safety, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail has obtained the Conservative government's communications plan designed to make Canadians and Quebeckers swallow its plan to harmonize Canadian and U.S. border controls. The Conservative government believes that the general public underestimates the terrorist threat.

Does the government not think that this security perimeter should be established in a more transparent manner, and that a more balanced approach to security and freedom should be adopted?