Christine Normandin
Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Prime Minister 's record so far. He betrayed the climate. He betrayed our culture by leaving billions of dollars on the table. He made multiple concessions to Donald Trump with nothing to show for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we take stock of this parliamentary session, there are two things that Quebeckers will remember. The first is how the Prime Minister betrayed the environment by putting an end to Canada's fight against climate change and by pushing the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign.”
“Mr. Speaker, July 1 is fast approaching and, when it comes to tackling the housing crisis, there is a prominent local figure who stands out from the crowd and refuses to give in to fatalism.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are confusing their parliamentary majority with the right to do what they want, when they want. The time allocations never seem to stop, which is especially odd considering that their bills are certain to pass.”
“Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for the work of Parliament. He is ramming through draconian laws using closure. He is concentrating all powers in hands of cabinet. He is using those powers to deregulate industry for the benefit of primarily American companies or to suspend certain laws.”
“His dreams are never an end in themselves, but rather the starting point for great achievements. As he prepares to welcome a new addition to his family, I send him my warmest wishes for happiness. Just like his projects, this new adventure holds great promise for the future. I would like to thank Jean-François.”
The complete record
Every one of 373 lines we hold for Christine Normandin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“The sooner this is done, the better. Of course we should not cut corners, but the longer we wait, the more things fester. As the saying goes, he who hesitates is lost. That is no less true when it comes to foreign interference.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Obviously, nothing should be done in isolation when it comes to foreign interference. I certainly appreciate Bill C-25 . However, is it sufficient on its own? Will it alone be enough to counter foreign interference? Obviously, it will not. We cannot resolve everything through a single bill that targets something very specific, namely the Canada Elections Act. Foreign interference takes many forms. Yes, it manifests itself through elections, obviously, and that is the very heart of the matter, but it is not the only way, and we must not view it through a narrow lens. On the issue of the registry, people have expressed frustration at the time lag between the introduction of the bill, its passage, the implementation of the registry, and the appointment of a commissioner.”
“It would also be more democratic, as I suggested, because the government's contribution would be tied to the number of votes, not to party donors' ability to donate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I've already commented on that, but one proposal for public funding that we felt would be a reasonable compromise was to bring back the per-vote amount that used to be allocated to each party. That ended under Stephen Harper. At the time, it was about $1.75 per vote. One idea would be to reinstate that at $2. We could certainly discuss the particulars, but, hypothetically, if it were reinstated at $2 per vote, since there are roughly 19 million voters in Canada, it would cost about $40 million per year. It would be roughly equivalent to the tax credit for contributions to political parties. If the government eliminated that tax credit and spent the money on per-vote contributions, it would be a wash.”
“I commend the work that was accomplished, and I expect it to continue in the same way moving forward, with healthy, constructive discussions ultimately leading to a bill that is unanimously supported, agreed on and approved by all the parties.”
“I believe that on some matters, we must set partisan differences aside and work for the common good. I expect that this will be the attitude adopted by all members who will be working on the bill in committee. It has certainly been on display here and was also mentioned by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs during its study of the longest ballot. The questions put to the various stakeholders truly reflected a desire to improve the situation and rise above purely partisan ends, with some exceptions. Of course, from time to time we need to spice things up a little. On the whole, however, the process was very constructive and very collaborative.”
“When it comes to renaming constituencies, we typically trust that the members proposing names have also used this process to ensure that the name they are submitting truly reflects the will of the people. I therefore defer to my colleagues from other parties who are also suggesting changes to constituency names and trust that they did the groundwork on the name change and factored in the reception it received. I can assure the House, however, that our members were truly committed to ensuring that the name genuinely reflected the will of their constituents. I am getting to the end of my remarks on the bill. I would once again like to commend the government for its openness regarding this bill and particularly for its willingness to work collaboratively on issues as sensitive as foreign interference.”
“The name changes proposed by the Bloc Québécois are the result of consultations held with the public, with local councillors and with elected representatives from the various regional county municipalities, or RCMs. One of the tools used by the Bloc Québécois to gauge what voters in a constituency think of a particular name proposal is the use of mass mailings, which is an excellent tool available to parliamentarians for taking the pulse of the public and gauging their views on various issues. I know that my colleagues who proposed these amendments carried out this exercise beforehand. They consulted their constituents and ensured that the name they were proposing truly reflected the will of the constituents and also truly represented their constituency.”
“We think it should be lowered to $500 to avoid larger contributions, particularly from foreign actors. (1130) Finally, on the issue of changing constituency names, MPs from various parties have proposed a list of new names for their constituencies. In the case of the Bloc Québécois, there are three. Allow me to list them. We would like the constituency of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon to be renamed Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent; the constituency of Jonquière to be renamed Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets; and the constituency of Rimouski—La Matapédia to be renamed Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques.”
“Parties would ultimately receive the same amount of funding from the government, but in a much more democratic way. For example, when I give $400 to the Bloc Québécois, I am forcing the government to give $300 to the Bloc Québécois. I am influencing where the public funds will end up, meaning which party will get the money. If we change the system, funding could be tied to the democratic will of Canadians. The amount of funding would depend on how Canadians vote, not on which parties' donors have the deepest pockets. I think that limiting tax refunds and using the money to fund political parties based on the number of votes they receive would be a more authentic democratic exercise. We could also limit the maximum donation per contributor.”
“It is worth noting that this kind of amendment can be done at no cost. I want to suggest a potentially useful course of action. Currently, when someone donates money to a party, they can get a tax receipt. For example, if they donate $400, they are eligible for a tax credit of up to $300. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates this costs the government approximately $35 million to $45 million annually, depending on the year. Obviously, during an election year, people give more, so the cost to the government is higher. Between elections, the cost is slightly lower, which explains the wide range of the estimate. If the concept of tax refunds were replaced with funding of about $2 per vote, for example, the cost would be $40 million.”
“I am eager to see how that balance can be struck. I also want to make sure I fully understand the amendments proposed in the bill with respect to protecting the identities of individuals who attend or organize these very private and exclusive fundraising events. I am open to discussion as long as two objectives can be met: first, transparency concerning the funding sources and the private and exclusive fundraising events that are being held, and second, the protection of the people who organize them, including the protection of their personal information and addresses. That said, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, we would have liked the bill to address the issue of bringing back public funding for political parties. In a context of foreign interference, we believe that would have been a good idea.”
“Trudeau, during private receptions, in exchange for $1,500, the price of admission. A short time later, it was noted that Wealth One Bank had gotten the green light to become a chartered bank. A connection was thus established between the access these businessmen gained to the Prime Minister at a cocktail party or an exclusive gathering and the bank's subsequent approval to become a chartered bank. These select gatherings are sometimes held in private homes, and the guest lists are limited but can sometimes include lobbyists, so there is a risk that access to an elected official could be exchanged for money and party funding. However, I understand that it is important to protect people's private addresses, particularly from doxxing, when personal information is shared for malicious purposes.”
“One issue that we have with the bill involves the whole concept of what could be called cash for access, and I look forward to hearing greater clarification about that in committee. (1125) There is a very delicate balance to be struck between the need for transparency in the process of providing donations in exchange for access to decision-makers and the importance of protecting individual privacy and security. Some of the information I received during briefings and discussions seemed to contradict my own interpretation of the bill. That is why I am eager to learn more in committee about the ultimate purpose of this measure. I will explain. Before that, however, I want to point to an example to explain cash for access. In May 2016, the Globe and Mail revealed that Chinese businessmen had access to the then prime minister, Mr.”
“I am happy that requirement is not in the bill because that monetary burden could have had an impact on candidates, including me. In 2019, I was beginning my career. If I had been required to pay $1,500 to run for election, I may not be here today. When I ran in 2008‑09 as a young student, I would not have been able to do it. If political parties had to pay that amount, it could be too heavy a burden for some smaller parties. For example, in order to run 343 candidates at $1,500 a head, a third party would have to spend half a million dollars simply to run candidates. That would also limit the number of parties and candidates who would want to run as independents. In our opinion, that would be a needless and excessive burden. We are pleased that it is not in the bill.”
“What do we do with the signature that has to be removed? In any case, the Chief Electoral Officer also told us that it would take a fairly long time to compile the signatures and that a candidate should not be prevented from running if they have many signatures on their nomination papers. Would limiting the number of so-called bogus nominations in an election really have a positive impact? One has to wonder. We do not think that it is the best idea to limit nomination papers to one signature per elector. It has more drawbacks than actual benefits and no real impact on the final number of candidates running in an election. One thing we are glad to not see in the bill is the requirement for individuals who want to stand as candidates to make a financial deposit. That issue was discussed in committee.”
“One has to wonder if this is putting the onus on the right person, the elector, rather than on the candidate or the group of candidates who want to collect signatures. The elector will be required to remember whether they have signed more than one form and to choose the form they will sign. They will also be prevented from signing more than one nomination form even if they would have liked to see two different candidates on the ballot. Furthermore, some electors are used to signing an opponent's ballot in order to have democratic debates. I have done that myself a few times. There is also a risk of harming bona fide candidates. The Chief Electoral Officer told us that if signatures appear on two different sets of nomination papers, for example, then it would be basically impossible to know which papers were signed first.”
“We also agree with the idea of creating an offence for soliciting or inciting someone to sign more than one nomination form in the context of an organized operation. We also agreed with the idea of having penalties for collecting signatures on nomination papers that do not bear the name of the candidate. We completely agree with that. However, for a number of reasons, we do not fully agree with the idea of requiring that electors only sign one nomination form. This may be perceived as a breach of ballot secrecy. A person who is told that they can only sign one nomination form may perceive this as a desire to support a specific candidate even though, in principle, that is not the case; the idea is to support the possibility for someone to be a candidate.”
“The longest ballot had so many names that it was becoming problematic and difficult to handle for some individuals, resulting in higher costs, so the choice was between the lesser of two evils, namely, a very long ballot or a blank ballot. Parties agreed that this issue had to be dealt with. We agree with most of the measures to address the issues, including the fact that an official agent should only be able to act on behalf of one candidate per riding, even though they can represent several candidates in different ridings. No one had any objection to this, which is common practice, to an extent. The fact that one official agent could represent several candidates in the same riding ultimately brought to the fore the ridiculous nature of the longest ballot initiative.”
“While we welcome the fact that there is good voter participation and that people want to get involved and stand for election, unfortunately, as we have seen in the past, the electoral process has been taken hostage by candidates that do not actually want to be elected or to convey a message. They used their candidacy not for the right reasons, but to divert the election from its true purpose, jeopardizing part of the electoral process. (1120) Some ballots have had a long list of names, including more than 200 in the riding of Battle River—Crowfoot, which meant that it took longer to count votes, ballot boxes filled up ten times faster, and electors were forced to write in the names of candidates on plain ballot papers.”
“Penalties are also being increased and new ones involving disinformation and deepfakes are being created. This is a timely issue. The bill will ensure that it will no longer be possible to misinform electors about polling locations or the conduct of an election. It will ensure the democratic process follows its course. All of these changes proposed in the bill are quite welcome. Our main reservations have to do with the issue of the longest ballot committee, which has been the subject of discussion. The issue was discussed in committee and, basically, all parties are in agreement.”
“For example, the bill bans donations, financial consideration or any other consideration in exchange for voting for a candidate. As my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne mentioned, sometimes, it is harder to win a nomination contest than an election in some ridings where electoral history makes the outcome largely predictable. As such, it is great that the rules have been extended to nomination and leadership contests. The bill also seeks to strengthen transparency around the sources of donations to prevent donations from anonymous, opaque sources or hostile foreign third parties. The bill bans the use of cryptocurrency and prepaid credit card contributions to make it easier to trace and identify funding sources. We welcome these aspects.”
“We know that foreign interference exits. There have been lengthy committee studies and hearings, including with Commissioner Hogue, who reported on this issue. The bill would introduce measures to strengthen the Canada Elections Act and add offences to address interference to influence an elector to vote for a certain candidate or to dissuade them from voting altogether, which would have an impact on the potential outcome of an election. We welcome those measures. We also welcome the fact that it gives a nod to events in Quebec and what is commonly know as the “anti-brownie bill”. We also welcome the fact that rules that were already in place for regular general elections have been extended to nomination and leadership contests.”
“I would like to outline our views on this bill in four parts. First, there are the points on which we agree. In fact, the government House leader has spoken about them at great length. I would also like to raise a few concerns regarding certain aspects or questions on which we would like more information in committee when the bill is referred there. I will briefly touch on what we would have liked to see in the bill. Finally, I think I will be the first to mention that the bill also includes a provision changing the name of certain ridings. I will briefly address that toward the end. Nevertheless, we agree with a large part of this bill. We are quite satisfied with many aspects of this bill, including the firm commitment to address the issue of foreign interference by expanding offences tied to influencing an elector.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the government House leader and the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River for their highly informative and interesting speeches. I would also like to thank the government for taking the time, with this bill, to consult the opposition parties and listen to the different suggestions and recommendations that we made. The bill seeks to reform the Canada Elections Act, and nothing is more important than the public's trust in its democratic institutions. That trust is exactly what this bill seeks to strengthen, and the highly collaborative approach that was taken actually helps to do just that, because all members of Parliament are participating in the process. This is not something that can be done unilaterally and I commend the way in which this bill was introduced.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with funding going to English-language regional news outlets, but it should not come out of French-language media outlets' funding. If outlets are added to the independent local news fund, money should also be added. We would obviously not have this problem if the Prime Minister had not abolished the digital services tax. The government could have provided decent funding for all our media outlets through the web giants' fair share. Since the Prime Minister is depriving our media outlets of this revenue, will he top up the fund?”
“Mr. Speaker, regional news is in jeopardy, and this is even more true for regional news in French, which is why the independent local news fund, or ILNF, is so important. Ever since the CRTC allowed 15 English-language stations from the Corus group into the fund, the share of funding going to French-language media has plummeted. The only two eligible French-language groups have lost nearly half of their funding, which has dropped from 26% to 14%. Obviously, the solution is for GAFAM to contribute to media funding, but first, regional news in French must survive. Will the government increase the fund?”
“Mr. Speaker, instead of expressing disappointment with Michael Rousseau, the Prime Minister should lead by example. Instead, he is likely the only prime minister in half a century not to have a francophone speech writer. His government has made unilingual English appointments, starting with Governor General Mary Simon. It was under the Liberals that the federal public service became the worst economic sector in Quebec in terms of ability to work in French. Does the Prime Minister understand that the example he sets encourages the Michael Rousseaus of this world?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he was very disappointed with Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau for expressing his condolences in English only. However, he has no business being disappointed. Three years ago, his government voted against requiring leaders of companies like Air Canada to be bilingual. His government is being sued by the organization Droits collectifs Québec because it is not complying with its own Official Languages Act. His government is investing every penny of its official languages plan in promoting English in Quebec instead of French. How can the Prime Minister be disappointed in a situation for which the federal government is primarily to blame?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, you have nonetheless prevented a member from asking a question simply because it was related to a party's mandate. I want to reiterate that, in this instance, MPs cannot be dissociated from their role as party members because, as such, they are voting at the convention and giving themselves a mandate. When viewed in that context, the question was entirely relevant. I submit to you that refusing to allow that question demonstrates a bias and a kind of partisanship that do not become you.”
“What matters is the question and the content of the answer. I would also point out that, in the context of what we are discussing, the person making the request is important. At the upcoming Liberal Party convention, the members of the House sitting before me, who, I assume, are all members of the Liberal Party, will all have the right to vote at that convention and will essentially be granting themselves a mandate through the vote they will cast on the issue and the proposal—”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, you rejected a question from my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord . The underlying intent of that question was to determine whether the government plans to veto the notwithstanding clause. I would argue that the answer to that question pertains specifically to the administration of the government, regardless of who asks the question. By your logic, I would not be able to ask a question regarding the administration of the House as soon as I point out, for example, that the question was also raised by the National Assembly of Quebec. For example, if I were to ask a question about whether the government will call a public inquiry into Cúram, and if I mention that this is also a request from the National Assembly of Quebec, I would be barred from doing so.”
“However, some negative consequences have been identified, including the fact that voters who are told that they are only allowed to support one candidate could call into question the secrecy of the vote. Voters might feel, indirectly and implicitly, that they are backing a candidate in order to cast a vote for them rather than to simply allow them to stand. Voters who are still undecided would also not have the opportunity to support two candidates in order to see them face off in a debate, for example, so that they can decide on the best choice among the candidates on the ballot. We therefore respectfully maintain that limiting the number of signatures a voter can provide on nomination papers is not a measure that will resolve the issue of excessively long ballots. On the contrary, such a measure would have unintended consequences.”
“Perrault, the current Chief Electoral Officer, said that there would not necessarily be enough time to cross-reference the signatures to determine whether any of them appear on nomination papers associated with an organization seeking to have a large number of candidates run in an election and also on the nomination papers of candidates not affiliated with such a campaign. In any case, both witnesses suggested that a candidate's nomination should not be rejected even if they have many signatures. Therefore, limiting the number of signatures would not prevent multiple valid nomination papers from being filed or prevent a large number of candidates from ending up on the ballot.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the collaborative approach it has taken to ensure that elections run smoothly, which unfortunately has not always been the case. The Bloc Québécois supports all of the recommendations in the report except one, and that is the recommendation that seeks to limit the number of nomination papers a voter can sign to one per voter. We respectfully submit that if this new rule were to be implemented, it would not limit the number of candidates running in an election. Mr. Kingsley, the former chief electoral officer, and Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is happening at the Supreme Court goes beyond political allegiances. Yes, secularism is being debated today in relation to Bill 21, but there is also the notwithstanding clause, and that is far more significant. That clause enabled us to require that signage be in French in Quebec. The notwithstanding clause has enabled us to pass no fewer than 41 Quebec laws throughout history, all of which are linked to our identity and social progress. Do the Liberals realize that attacking the notwithstanding clause is tantamount to attacking everything that makes Quebec what it is?”
“Mr. Speaker, what is happening today at the Supreme Court is the ultimate constitutional power grab. The Government of Canada is not content to simply attack state secularism by challenging Bill 21. It wants to prevent Quebec from passing any law that Ottawa does not like by limiting the use of the notwithstanding clause. The Liberals are using the highest court to undermine Quebec and diminish the will of Quebeckers for all time. Do they understand that this would be the biggest setback for Quebec's autonomy in 45 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 9, the government proposed a take-note debate on the conflict in the Middle East in response to requests from the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party. It has been eight days since the Ali Al-Salem military base was attacked by Iranian missiles. It has been eight days, and the Liberals have not seen fit to mention it to parliamentarians. The information was made public by La Presse. We would not know about that today were it up to the Liberals. Are there other attacks like this that the government is trying to hide from us, and why should we trust it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Ali Al Salem Air Base was the target of an Iranian missile strike on March 1. This military complex is home to Camp Canada, a Canadian Armed Forces operational base. In other words, on March 1, Iran targeted Canadian military personnel. The government, the Minister of National Defence , the Minister of Foreign Affairs and, of course, the Prime Minister , were aware of this attack on the Canadian Armed Forces in Kuwait. Why did the government fail to inform parliamentarians and the public about this attack?”
“Mr. Speaker, Cúram is a financial disaster, but for thousands of seniors, it is also a human tragedy. Some people are having to go into debt to pay their rent, buy groceries and pay their bills. The government keeps defending its decision to replace an outdated system with a malfunctioning system. Cúram has left thousands of seniors worried and anxious since it was first introduced. Will the government, especially the Prime Minister, finally accept responsibility and take this situation seriously?”
“Mr. Speaker, 85,000 seniors have been having problems receiving their OAS payments since the new Cúram computer system was implemented. One federal public service union is even describing Cúram as the new Phoenix. Cost overruns for implementing Cúram are already approaching $5 billion, 10 times more than SAAQclic, which caused a real scandal. When we raise these issues, the minister accuses us of fearmongering. Is the Prime Minister taking the Cúram fiasco more seriously than his minister? Will he launch an inquiry?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals could have avoided the Cúram fiasco by looking at the problems it has caused all over the world, because this has been going on for 20 years. They also could have listened to the Auditor General who noticed that the costs were skyrocketing in 2023. Perhaps they could have also listened to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which looked into this in 2023, and especially to Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, the former and future member for Terrebonne. The Liberals did not listen to anyone, and now they are embroiled in another IT fiasco. When will they launch an independent public inquiry?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the Cúram software. It is causing problems with the old age pensions of 85,000 seniors and has racked up $5 billion in cost overruns. All of this could have been avoided had the Liberals done their homework because Cúram has caused these sorts of problems all over the world. Australia experienced problems with Cúram in 2006, North Carolina in 2012, Minnesota in 2013, Ontario in 2014 and Maryland in 2019. Cúram has not been working properly and has been costing more than expected for 20 years. Why did the Liberals not make sure that all the bugs were fixed before launching Cúram?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that it works, and that it does not cost a lot. That is exactly why the National Assembly unanimously called for an independent public inquiry. If we relied on the Liberals we would never get a clear picture of Cúram's problems because they do not see a problem. For them, it is not a problem if 85,000 pensioners receive OAS cheques containing errors. For them, $5 billion in cost overruns is no problem because they are not overruns anyway. Things just cost more than initially planned. Each of their answers only proves the need for an inquiry. When will they call one?”
“Mr. Speaker, we would like to revisit Cúram, the Liberal Party's success story that is causing problems for 85,000 retirees. Yesterday, the Minister of Jobs and Families said that this is not a big deal for those who are not receiving their old age pension. She said it does not matter because these are not payments that people depend on every month since they are new applicants. All retirees include their pension in their financial planning. For some, it is their only source of income. What world do the Liberals live in to think that this is not a big deal?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion pointing out that the cost of the Phoenix software skyrocketed from an initial budget of $309 million to a total cost of $5.5 billion. It also noted that the cost of ArriveCAN went from $80,000 to $60 million and that now, Cúram has already exceeded its initial budget of $1.75 billion to reach $6.6 billion. Meanwhile, the Liberals are still denying that there are any cost overruns for Cúram, even though the Auditor General herself reported four in 2025. What we are asking and what Quebec is asking is this: When will the government call an independent public inquiry?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Cúram software and its $5 billion in cost overruns is the last straw for Quebec. The Quebec National Assembly just unanimously adopted a motion that points out that significant cost overruns in federal government IT projects are a waste of the tax dollars paid by Quebec taxpayers. Every elected official in Quebec is calling on the federal government to launch an independent public inquiry into federal IT contracts. When will the government launch this inquiry that has been unanimously requested by Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, there are so few cost overruns that when asked about Cúram, the government's response is that cost overruns are “common practice”. That is the problem. There were problems with ArriveCan and there were problems with Phoenix, but that is okay. It happens all the time. In fact, as early as 2023, the Auditor General warned the government about the risks of “[taking] shortcuts...as happened with the Phoenix pay system.” Clearly, no one listened to her because we are now looking at $5 billion in cost overruns for software that is causing problems for 85,000 pensioners. Again, when will there be a public and independent investigation?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Cúram fiasco has been costly. We were wondering where Quebeckers' money was going, and then we got our answer when we learned that the cost of the software had risen from $1.75 billion to $6.6 billion, a cost overrun of nearly $5 billion. Quebeckers' money is going into the pockets of private companies. Of the total bill of $6.6 billion, $3.4 billion, or more than half, is going to the private sector. Worse still, we do not even really know what this money is being used for because the government refuses to disclose its contracts to either the media or elected officials. When will there be a public and independent investigation?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is not talking about the 85,000 people affected or the $5 billion in cost overruns. I would like to give the Liberals a short briefing so that they understand the extent of the problem. In Quebec, with SAAQclic, ministers resigned over cost overruns of $500 million. The Liberals have now basically reached $5 billion in cost overruns, but they are simply shrugging their shoulders. They are so used to spending Quebeckers' money like water that they think they do not need to be accountable. Well, they are wrong. It is time for an independent public inquiry. When will they order a public inquiry?”