Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 67 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the question. I am sure the member understands that, whether it is nurses or doctors, we have to have the provinces on side. They are the ones that have to take down those barriers. It is one of the reasons we have to have the provinces involved. Would the member not agree that the provinces need to step up to the same degree—”
“Mr. Speaker, it was absolutely encouraging when we had the Prime Minister gather with all the premiers in Saskatchewan, where they talked about one Canadian economy. Let there be no doubt that this legislation is substantial and does show the national government, under the new administration, a new prime minister, taking a very strong stand that reflects the will of Canadians, who gave us a mandate back on April 28. I believe it is an outstanding performance to this point. The member makes reference to labour, health care workers, for example. The question I have for the member—”
“Mr. Speaker, wow, that was a mouthful coming from the member opposite. Talk about misinformation or just completely misguided. If he wants to talk about housing, let us talk about the six houses that Pierre Poilievre built when he was the minister of housing. We still do not know where they are located. That is not to mention the suggestion that there are no skills involved in developing modular homes. Let us get to the bill itself. We had a very clear mandate on April the 28 to build one Canadian economy, and it is as straightforward as that. This bill would make a difference. It is part of the discussions that have taken place with all the first ministers in anticipation of our tabling the bill. Will the member get on side with reality and what Canadians told parliamentarians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite, probably more so than any Conservative member, and maybe she could even be the new leader of the Conservative Party at some point, tries to portray a false impression that in the Harper horror years, the Conservatives were able to develop an inch of pipeline to tidewater. They did not. Not even an inch of pipeline went to tidewater. When we take a look at Bill C-5 and the April 28 election, it is important for us to realize that a very clear mandate was given to all political entities in this House to build one Canadian economy. Does the member not agree that the essence of—”
“Mr. Speaker, we have a new Prime Minister , a new administration. Coming out of the last federal election, we have been given a very clear mandate: a healthy, stronger one Canadian economy for all regions of our country. This bill captures what I believe is the essence of an election platform, and this is something that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are behind. Would the minister not agree that this legislation is a reflection of a very important platform issue from the April 28 election?”
“It it because we have a new Prime Minister with a new administration that is focused on making Canada the strongest country in the G7. We are responding to what Canadians were telling us at the last federal election, and that is what I look forward to continuing over the coming months, and hopefully years, under this new administration. If the minister wants to provide his thoughts and, if there is still time, I would be interested in him commenting on the mandate letters.”
“When we go into the estimates process, I really respect the fact that the opposition members can ask questions about whatever it is that they want, but this is just a continuation of what I would suggest is Pierre Poilievre's misdirection. Conservatives have two leaders. They have one for the House. I do not quite understand why they cannot reflect on the election and go with those focused priorities. The priorities are in the mandate letters, which talk about tax breaks, border controls and building one strong Canadian economy. If I were to ask one question of the minister responsible for this evening, it would be to ask him to provide his thoughts on the mandate letter, a mandate letter that is the same within all of the departments. (2030) Every minister was given the same mandate letter. Why is this?”
“We continue to push that file, whether it is at the meeting of all the first ministers in Saskatchewan or at the G7 meeting coming up, not to mention all of the other discussions that have been taking place, from a number of different ministers, building to make Canada strong. That is something that we continue to push, because that is what Canadians want us to do. On April 28, we were elected with more votes than any other prime minister or political party has ever received in the history of Canada. That demonstrates action. That is what we as a government have been working on and have been focused on. We continue to look at ways to improve the system.”
“They believe that they have the moral high ground on housing, yet they were such failures. As a government, they did nothing on the housing file. For the first time ever, we have a government that not only recognizes the need for the federal government to play a role but is prepared to play a leading role. Modular homes, working with municipalities and the housing accelerator program are the types of programs that are clearly demonstrating that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to the file of housing. When we we talk about the priorities of Canadians, coming out of the election, we can look at the ministerial mandate letters. They are very clear. Building one Canadian economy is what the Prime Minister has been talking about during the election and even now.”
“Was that why they did not want to have a healthy discussion on it today, because of his abysmal performance on the whole issue of Canadian Forces? Conservative members then have the temerity to bring up the issue of housing with the President of the Treasury Board . They had the opportunity to do that when the Minister of Housing was here. Instead, they want to duck and deke over here and see if they can score some political points. I do not need to remind members of the Conservative Party how abysmal the Conservative Party was under Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre during 2010 and 2014, when I sat in the opposition benches. The minister of housing, Pierre Poilievre, was able to build six homes, although I do not know if they were non-profit. I still have not found out where they were built.”
“Poilievre's government, the government he was a part of, was giving out money? That was what Conservatives wanted to focus on. There are a lot of other things that are happening that I would suggest they should be focusing on. Just the other day, we made an announcement and the minister responsible for the Treasury Board made reference to it in terms of DND. For the first time, we are actually moving in that direction in a very quick fashion, in terms of getting the 2% requirement that NATO has been talking about for a generation. With a new Prime Minister , we have seen a solid commitment toward that. Contrast that with Pierre Poilievre, when he was sitting around that cabinet table. In fact, we will find that the time of Pierre Poilievre was the worst ever. NATO funding was borderline, at just under 1% of GDP.”
“When the Conservatives are quick to point their finger at this particular new administration, which is what it is, a new Prime Minister and a new administration, they need to reflect on themselves. Mr. Firth was actually receiving government contracts while Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and guess what: The current Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, was a parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Harper, and at one point he sat around the Harper cabinet table when Mr. Firth and his company were receiving direct grants. However, as they tried to do earlier today, the Conservatives use character assassination and the words “scandal” and “corruption” wherever they can. (2025) They would say that Mr. Firth is government-friendly and Liberal-friendly. Was he Conservative-friendly when Mr.”
“They realize that Pierre Poilievre, their leader, has really missed the mark here. Let us do the contrast. We have a Prime Minister who, coming out of the election, is saying that people are concerned about Donald Trump, the tariffs, trade, the economy and jobs. These are issues Canadians are concerned about, yet every member of the Conservative Party who stood up today completely ignored those issues, on a day when they got to designate the debate for the day. They were not content with that and instead tried to ask more questions tonight, many of which had already been previously answered, or they were asking the wrong minister. I find that unfortunate.”
“Beyond that, I cannot really see how it is that they were delving into the estimates, which was the ways and means motion they actually voted in favour of just last week. Instead, they wanted to talk about the whole issue of ArriveCAN and Mr. Firth. It is interesting that the Conservatives were asking whether any money had been collected. A number of members of Parliament, including me, earlier today were talking about that particular issue. In fact, where fraud and overbilling have been clearly demonstrated, GC Strategies is already being pursued in court right now. The Conservatives know that. It sounds like I am talking to a hollow room, as if absolutely no one on the Conservative benches were actually listening, because, quite frankly, the truth hurts, and not one of them has the courage to deny that.”
“There has been very limited time, as the election was on April 28, and the Conservatives get only three days before the summer break when they can actually designate the issues for debate. I would ask people who are following the debate to listen to what the Conservative agenda really was today, because I think it is an excellent contrast to what the Prime Minister has actually been doing since the last election. When I reflect on April 28 and what I was hearing at the doors, it was nothing to do with what the Conservatives have been talking about this evening with the minister, except maybe when they started to talk about the number of civil servants. We know that there is a Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, right-wing hidden agenda that would cut the public service, in terms of numbers.”
“Mr. Chair, it has been an interesting process listening to Conservatives attempt to ask their quippy questions in hopes of preventing a minister from being able to answer. I would suggest more responsible questions. It is interesting that, just last week, every member from the Conservative Party who asked questions tonight actually voted in favour of the ways and means motion. Obviously, if they are voting in favour of it, I think that they would have a general understanding of the estimates and the benefits of going into the estimates, but rather what I heard time and time again was repetition of what the Conservatives had made the decision to debate earlier today.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2024, the Auditor General of Canada came forward and provided eight recommendations. Out of those eight recommendations, seven have been fully implemented. The eighth recommendation is well under way. If we fast-forward to today, we now have the Auditor General, in essence, saying that we have the rules in place, but we need to ensure that there is public sector involvement in making sure that the rules are properly followed. I look at the broader issue. We just finished the election. There are all sorts of things on Canadians' minds, and the Conservatives have chosen this as the issue of priority, according to Pierre Poilievre. Can the member provide her thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, April 28 was election day. I cannot recall one individual in the entire constituency of Winnipeg North who actually raised this issue that the Conservatives want to spend an entire day debating. We have been talking about what I believe our voters were telling us. They want us to deal with the issues of Donald Trump, tariffs and trade. Constituents are pleased to see that the Prime Minister has actually met with the premiers, building one Canadian economy. This is what I was hearing at the door. Contrast that to Pierre Poilievre and what the Conservatives want us to debate today. Could the hon. member provide his thoughts on the Conservatives not having their priorities right?”
“Mr. Speaker, one would think the member opposite was not even listening to the previous speech. He referenced Liberal insiders and friends on several occasions. If we want to talk about misinformation, Mr. Firth received contracts when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. The member tries to give a false impression that there is some sort of direct link to Liberal insiders receiving money, when in fact it is just not true. Members opposite should know that, but that does not feed into the gaslighting my friend made reference to. He wants to give the false impression that there was something the Government of Canada did wrong or that politicians did wrong. Does the member have any sense of guilt for trying to advance misinformation and gaslighting—”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments regarding the Conservative agenda. The election was on April 28. Not once did I hear, at the thousands of doors that I knocked on, anyone raise this issue. However, I heard continuously, every day, about the issue of the Canadian economy, Donald Trump, tariffs and trade. People wanted to see that issue dealt with. Our Prime Minister actually made very strong statements in regard to it, and we are focused on the issue. This is a priority issue that is coming out of the election. Can the member point out or emphasize the contrast between the Prime Minister of Canada and what we are focused on, compared to Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, which is really highlighted by today's—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that there is a new Prime Minister and new administration, and the Conservatives are stuck in the past with previous administrations. They ask how new it is. An interesting fact is that the current Prime Minister has served in the House of Commons for 45 days, and Pierre Poilievre served for 7,609 days. Which one does the member think is newer to the House of Commons?”
“Mr. Speaker, people following this debate are getting a clear indication of priorities and focus. We have Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party. We should keep in mind that the election was on April 28. What are the Conservatives talking about? They talk about issues related to the last administration. No one was talking about that during the election. We have the Prime Minister , who continues to push the whole idea of building a stronger, healthier economy. That is— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that on April 28, we elected, for the very first time to the House of Commons, the member of Parliament who is now Canada's Prime Minister , and our Prime Minister is, in fact, committed to ensuring that we build a stronger and healthier economy. Ultimately his goal is to achieve having the strongest economy in the G7. That is where the Prime Minister and the new administration's efforts are going to be. I am very proud of that fact.”
“Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister 's focus is on ensuring that we have more accountability and transparency, and he has taken actions to be able to demonstrate that in terms of procurement. One of the things I would emphasize is that over the coming years, we are going to see a lot more money spent on procurements because of the commitment to build a stronger, healthier Canadian forces. We have made the commitment to 2%. The Prime Minister is very keen on moving forward, and we have confidence in the civil service to ensure that justice is done in regard to GC Strategies.”
“Mr. Speaker, I could actually draw attention to more so-called corruption and scandal-type issues with a direct link to Pierre Poilievre than the member can to the current Prime Minister . The current Prime Minister was just elected, for the very first time, on April 28. We can contrast that to the career politician Pierre Poilievre and a huge number of scandals. If I am provided leave, I could list at least 20-plus scandals under the Stephen Harper regime or administration, in which Pierre Poilievre was not only Harper's parliamentary secretary but also sat around the cabinet table. He was there from the very beginning of all the corruption back then. Does the member want to compare newness? Pierre Poilievre is not new when it comes to politics and the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have already addressed that particular question, but I want to pick up on the idea of the new government, new Prime Minister and new administration. If we take a look at the reality of what is happening today in Canadian society and reflect on the political leadership in the chamber today, there is only one new leader, and that is the Prime Minister of Canada, and that is a new administration Members of the New Democrats and the Conservatives might not like that fact, but I like to think that, at the end of the day, it is a different administration. All one needs to do is look at the priorities and focus of the Prime Minister compared to those of the previous administration or Stephen Harper's administration. The New Democrats and the Conservatives might not like it, but that is the reality.”
“The point is that there are many different actions that the newly elected Prime Minister , with the administration, has already taken on the file, even given the government's focus on and goal of building one strong Canadian economy, the strongest in the G7. We can do other things too.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are many things I would like to say, but let me read something verbatim about this so maybe the person will have a better appreciation. This is with respect to strengthening the requirements for the procurement of professional services, which take effect almost immediately, on July 1. Measure 1 is entitled “Value Cap on Task-Based Informatics Professional Services and Task and Solutions Professional Services—Task contracts”. Another measure is “Duration Cap on Task-Based Informatics Professional Services and Task and Solutions Professional Services—Task Contracts”. The third measure is entitled “Amendment Cap on Task-Based Informatics Professional Services and Task and Solutions Professional Services—Task Contracts”.”
“Mr. Speaker, the political idea of protecting Canadians' health and well-being during a worldwide pandemic was a good idea. Unfortunately, when billions of dollars were spent, some things did not go the way I would have chosen them to go under the previous administration. However, I honestly do believe we are on the right track to making sure we have a more effective system so Canadians will be satisfied.”
“I believe that the sense of professionalism within our civil service agrees with that statement. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister 's Office and the civil servants dealing with procurement processes have been made fully aware of the report, and I do not think there is any disagreement. I am pretty sure there is not. In fact, we have a Prime Minister who has even taken action to expand the role of the minister who is going to be charged with these responsibilities. We are anticipating that there will be significant procurements. After all, we just heard the major announcement that military expenditures are going up, to 2%. I believe I am running out of time. I do not know if the opposition would give me leave to continue on. I do have a few more thoughts. Otherwise, I—”
“The most common issues brought up at the door were, in fact, Donald Trump, tariffs, trade and genuine concern about the economy. That was the number one issue, and that is what the Prime Minister is dealing with today. While the Prime Minister is dealing with that issue, we have before us Pierre Poilievre's idea of what Canadians are most concerned about: a report that was brought forward by the Auditor General. Two things really stood out, in my mind, and I will reference one: We do not need more rules; we need to ensure that the rules and framework in place are followed by public servants. There are two aspects of that statement. One is that we do not need more rules. The second is that we need to ensure they are being followed by public servants.”
“I believe the Prime Minister understands the importance of transparency and accountability, and I believe that Canadians respect that fact because of the type of work he was doing prior to becoming an elected politician. I am grateful that he did make the decision to run, because I believe he is the right person at the right time in Canada's history to bring Canada together and build one strong Canadian economy. That is what I believe we should be debating, actually. After all, that is what was talked about at the doors. I will look to my colleagues and ask them this: When they were knocking at the door, did anyone bring up ArriveCAN? I can honestly say that not one person out of the approximately 100,000 people I currently represent today brought up the issue of ArriveCAN when I was knocking on thousands of doors.”
“If people want to talk about a real scandal, I would recommend they take a look at the CSEC scandal. That was a real scandal under the Harper regime. Members can do a Google search to find it. The bottom line is that if people want to look at a political scandal, they should look at the Harper and Pierre Poilievre scandal that took place shortly after they were put in government. Trust me, I have a lot of information on that scandal, which involved hundreds of millions of dollars. Google it. People will find it. It is an interesting read. What we are talking about here is billions of dollars being spent during a pandemic. Whether it was the former administration or the current Prime Minister 's administration, we want accountability for every tax dollar out there.”
“In fact, we will find that other countries often look to Canada's civil service, as it is as close to being independent of politicians as one can get compared to any other country in the world, and it does fine work. I am not going to draw any conclusions in terms of ultimate behaviour, but I suspect, just as in any other working environment, that at times we might get some bad apples. There might have been some things that were overlooked, and it became very clear that this did take place. That is something we all take very seriously. (1215) There are procurements, and contracts are issued out. Tell me about a government in Canada, whether federal, provincial, the current administration, which is very new, the previous administration or the Harper administration, that did not have contracts and procurements.”
“Harper's were well prior to the pandemic, but the point is that countries around the world were investing, and standing behind and trying to protect their citizenry with all sorts of measures, including border controls. I can remember hearing under the former administration, sitting over here, the Conservatives saying we needed to do more for the CBSA and watch individuals who were coming into Canada. They said we were not doing enough and that we were late on it. They sure dropped that a couple of years after that point. The political idea behind ArriveCAN was to protect the health and general well-being of the people in Canada. That was the original objective behind it. We have an incredible civil service. I would ultimately argue it is second to no other civil service in the world.”
“When it was getting these massive contracts, the world was going through a worldwide pandemic. Governments around the world were spending billions and billions of dollars. Canada was not alone, and yes, GC Strategies did receive many contracts for a great deal of tax dollars. I do not question that, but trying to give false impressions is what the Conservatives are very good at. At the end of the day, what we will find is that when it was brought to the minister in a tangible way, a minister from the former administration actually took action. An hon. member: Was it ours? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: “Was it ours?” is a good heckle, Mr. Speaker, referring to Stephen Harper. The contracts during the pandemic were under Justin Trudeau, just for clarification for the member opposite.”
“There is no reference to that, of course, in the Conservatives' motion. An hon. member: It's not in the AG report. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is all about GC Strategies. When I raised that point, one of the members of the Conservative Party said that Mr. Firth was not a part of GC Strategies at the time. Members might be surprised to know that GC Strategies also received contributions. An hon. member: That is not true. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, GC Strategies was in place in 2015. I will remind my colleague opposite that Stephen Harper was the prime minister for most of 2015. I think it is worth the member looking at it again before he makes that claim from across the way. What we see with GC Strategies is that the number of contracts did increase. Let us put it in the perspective of time.”
“No prime minister or political party has received more votes than the current Prime Minister did in the last election. However, members opposite want to change the channel. They do not want to talk about what was being debated in the election; rather, they want to talk about GC Strategies and Mr. Firth. Let us talk a little more about GC Strategies, then. (1210) There is a company called Coredal, and in that particular company, members will be surprised to know, two individuals were directors, Mr. Firth being one of them. I noted earlier that Mr. Firth, under that company, actually received contracts under Stephen Harper. Members will not believe this: Pierre Poilievre was actually sitting at the table too. He was sitting around caucus when contracts were being given out to Mr. Firth.”
“We are not talking about the current administration, which is different. I see members are already praying on the other side. I appreciate that we have a Prime Minister who has an incredible history. I like to highlight that as the former governor of the Bank of Canada, the former governor of the Bank of England and an economist, not only does he understand the situation Canada is in today with the United States, but he has made a commitment to building the strongest economy in the G7. That is where his focus is, contrary to Pierre Poilievre's focus. The voters were correct on April 28. Who knows were Mr. Poilievre's mind would be today if he were sitting in the Prime Minister 's chair? Canadians saw through that. That is why we received 8.5 million votes.”
“That is happening. One would not think that, but that is the reality of the situation. We can combine that with the Auditor's General's report. What does that report say? We agree with the Auditor General when she states that we do not need more rules. We need to ensure that the rules and framework in place are followed by public servants. Let us go back to the former administration. When this was brought to its attention, what did the minister at the time do? It was to order an internal investigation. Did the former administration ever say no to the Auditor General? Not at all. We supported the recommendations that were brought forward by the Auditor General. The 2024 report had eight recommendations in it, and seven of them have already been implemented. The last one is well under way. That was under the former administration.”
“He is concerned with trying to make the Prime Minister look bad while the Prime Minister is out and about and meeting with first ministers, and very successfully, I might add. He has addressed the issue the Conservatives brought up today. There is a new Prime Minister, a new agenda and a new administration that are moving forward, and they are stuck in the past. The opposition day motion talks about wanting to get money back. I would like to think there is not one member of Parliament in this House or in previous administrations who would want taxpayer dollars to be abused in any fashion. I was glad to convey to members that there is a process that needs to be followed. When it comes to the recovery of funds, where we can demonstrate fraud or overbilling, we pursue it. We are already pursuing GC Strategies, in particular, in court.”
“Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, seriously, let us think about this. (1205) Mr. Speaker, let me give members some food to chew on here with the history of GC Strategies. Mr. Firth is the gentleman the Conservative Party called to the bar. After calling him to the bar, it was like a courtroom inside here, and they declared him guilty. There are some people in the Conservative ranks who would have liked to see him go to jail right away. I remember one member said there used to be a jail in Centre Block. So much for any sort of due process. That is the Conservatives' priority. Pierre Poilievre made it very clear. Canadians might be concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade, but not Pierre Poilievre.”
“I say that because the opposition has four days of debate, four days on which they can designate the topic. Why would the Conservatives take this particular report from the Auditor General? I suspect it is because they want to go back to their old ways. The newly elected Prime Minister , on April 28, with a new government, has established mandate letters that are exceptionally clear, so that all Canadians can see where the government's priorities are. Today, because of the motion we are debating, I would suggest to Canadians that the Conservatives continue to be focused on anything that has any whiff whatsoever of any form of potential scandal or corruption, and then they try to tie it to the new administration. We see that in their remarks already today where they try to deny that there is a new administration. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“This is an opposition day where there is going to be a vote at the end of the day. We can contrast that to yesterday, when Conservatives started being critical of the government because the tax decrease we were giving was, from their perspective, not large enough. That is something they started to comment on toward the end of the debate. I would have thought that that would have been a far better motion of public policy, given that we just came out of an election. The Conservatives would have had the opportunity to present their arguments as to how much of a tax break it should have been and why. We do not know what they will do on Bill C-4 , but it will come up later today. I hope they vote in favour of it, but they definitely implied that they would have amendments to bring to the bill.”
“I was rather enjoying the debate we were having yesterday on Bill C-4 . We will have a vote on it later this afternoon, after question period. I wanted to question the motivation, primarily because, over the years, I have seen that the Conservative Party tends to be more focused on the very negative aspects of politics, in terms of things like character assassination or throwing the word “scandal” or “corruption” on anything, and other things of that nature. It is interesting that we have an opposition day, and the Conservatives have a choice. Good for them for picking whatever it is they want to pick. They picked an Auditor General's report that, in essence, had no new recommendations, other than that it references that we currently have rules in place. I will talk about that in depth.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will just take a bit of liberty here, if I may, to address another issue, and then I will get back to the topic at hand. The heart of Canada's Filipino heritage community will be found in Winnipeg North, and today is a very special day as we recognize Philippine independence. In fact, there is a flag-raising ceremony that will be taking place very shortly on the lawn of Parliament Hill. The Filipino heritage community contributes in every way to all our communities throughout Canada, in every aspect of our society. I just wanted to give that extra plug, especially with the month of June being Filipino Heritage Month. That is the positive aspect of what I would like to say. I want to try to encapsulate why we are here today debating this particular issue and talk a bit about the motivation and some disappointment.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, when it comes to recovering the funds, it is important to recognize that where we have been able to demonstrate fraud and overbilling, we are, in fact, currently pursuing GC Strategies in court. That is actually taking place. I am wondering if the member would also provide his thoughts on this. In the last report, which we just received, there are no new recommendations. In the report prior, there were eight recommendations. Seven are implemented and one is well under way. Could the member provide his thoughts on both?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is even aware of it, but today we have a process in place for when the government or civil servants are able to demonstrate fraud or overbilling. We are already pursuing GC Strategies in court, right now. Is the member aware of that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member's answer supports my statement. In 2024, the Auditor General came back with eight recommendations. Those recommendations have been followed up on, and seven of the eight have been fulfilled. The last one is well under way. If we take a look at the recent report she just released, we can see that the member is right: We do not need new rules. We just want to see the current rules that are in place being adhered to. Now we have a new Prime Minister who has made that commitment. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on how—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would, at the very least, acknowledge that, through this whole process, we now have a new Prime Minister with a new government. In the 2024 report, there was a series of eight recommendations. Of those eight recommendations, seven have been fulfilled, and the last one is well under way. If we fast-forward to the report that just recently came out, there are no new recommendations. I am wondering if the member would not agree that we should be, at least in part, recognizing the important role our civil servants play in ensuring there is that sense of fairness and accountability. We have a new Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring more transparency and accountability in the whole process of procurement.”