Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Housakos’ motion:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on the Government of Canada’s decision to award a contract for a student grant program to WE Charity, a third party without the capacity to do so in both official languages, in apparent contravention of Canada’s Official Languages Act, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than February 28, 2021.

Colleagues, Senator Housakos made a compelling case for why the Senate should support this motion. He spoke convincingly of the responsibility that we as parliamentarians have to ensure that the rights of minorities, in this case the francophone communities across Canada, are protected.

Allow me to quote one paragraph from Senator Housakos’ speech which sums up his argument nicely:

Despite the obvious corruption I’ve described, the most harmful part of this scandal is the blatant lack of respect for the French language. The fact that WE Charity had to hire the public relations firm National to administer the grant program in French was totally illegal under section 25 of the Official Languages Act. Section 25 states that any organization providing services on behalf of the federal government must do so in both official languages. The program that the federal government concocted for WE Charity was not designed in compliance with the Official Languages Act. It is therefore up to us, as parliamentarians, to speak out in support of French and to make sure it is respected.

Colleagues, it could not be clearer, yet as I listened to Senator Housakos’ speech outlining the importance of this study, I couldn’t help but notice once again that some senators are reluctant to undertake any examination which may end up reflecting badly upon the Prime Minister and his Liberal Party. This is not the first time that we have seen this hesitancy in this chamber. To a certain degree it is understandable; senators are usually loyal to the Prime Minister who appointed them.

I understand that those senators who were appointed by the current Prime Minister are not officially members of his caucus, but their tendency to act as though they are members is still quite strong. Now that they command the plurality in this chamber, there is perhaps an even greater tendency to try and compensate for the Prime Minister’s minority in the other place and rise to his defence whenever the occasion requires it.

I am not interested in rehashing the debates of the past over whether senators opposite are aware of this tendency, but I do want to note that this predisposition is quite evident to those who are observing the proceedings of this house, from both within the chamber and from outside, and I am deeply concerned that this predisposition to shield the Prime Minister from criticism or accusation impedes this chamber from undertaking any study that may reflect badly upon him or his government, such as this one.

We saw this repeatedly in the last session of this Parliament. There were numerous efforts to undertake committee examinations of the government’s many scandals that were repeatedly defeated as the Prime Minister’s appointed senators circled the wagons to protect their leader.

The best example of this, colleagues, is when we tried to have our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee study the actions of the Prime Minister and his staff in the SNC-Lavalin affair. We brought a motion forward in February of 2019, but the motion was diluted down to nothing in an amendment by the government leader in the Senate and supported senators who wanted to protect the Prime Minister.

In March, we tried again with a second motion, but the motion was challenged through a point of order. When this failed, senators tried to adjourn the debate. When that failed, they tried to push through a ridiculous amendment which would have called former prime minister Stephen Harper and his former chief of staff as witnesses before the committee. It was nothing but blatant obstructionism over and over.

Colleagues, it is regrettable that personal biases and loyalties sometimes obstruct the advancement of important committee studies which are in the public interest. We must do what we can to avoid such obstruction, as we know what is in the Prime Minister’s interest does not always align with the public interest. For this reason, it is imperative that we set aside our partisanship and look carefully at the facts before making a decision to support or oppose the initiative which lies before us today.

In this context, I would like to make three points which are relevant to our consideration of the motion before us.

First, it is not unreasonable for a Senate committee to examine a matter which contemplates the possibility that the Prime Minister has broken the law, since this Prime Minister has already established a consistent track record of doing so. Yes, I said, “breaking the law.”

Second, it is not unreasonable for a Senate committee to undertake an examination which may end up exposing corrupt activity by the government, since corruption has been a hallmark of this government.

Third, it is inappropriate for this chamber to shy away from an examination of this government’s record simply because such a review may amplify the public’s awareness of objectionable or scandalous behaviour by this government. To dodge subjects which may shine a negative light on the government would provide it with a blanket exemption from scrutiny since it is difficult to find any significant length of time where the Liberal government has not been embroiled in one scandal or another.

I would like to take some time to elaborate on these three points, beginning with the first one: It is not unreasonable for a Senate committee to examine a matter which contemplates the possibility that the Prime Minister has broken the law, since this Prime Minister has already established a consistent track record of doing so.

Colleagues, it is a matter of public record that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act 10 times in less than four years. Not twice, like we often hear, but 10 times. The Ethics Commissioner has investigated the actions of the Prime Minister twice, and between these two reports, he was found in contravention of the law on a total of 10 counts.

The first report, completed in 2017 by former ethics commissioner Mary Dawson, was 66 pages long and entitled The Trudeau Report. It ruled on Trudeau and his family accepting a vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas. In that investigation, the commissioner found that the Prime Minister had contravened sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act.

Section 5 of the Conflict of Interest Act requires that a public office-holder arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office-holder from being in a conflict of interest. The commissioner found:

. . . that Mr. Trudeau failed to meet the general duty set out in section 5 when he and his family vacationed on the Aga Khan’s private island.

That was count one.

Subsection 11(1) prohibits a public office holder or a member of his or her family from accepting any gift or other advantage that might reasonably be seen to have been given influence to the public office holder in the exercise of an official power, duty or function.

Paragraph 11(2)(b) provides an exception to this prohibition where the gift or advantage is given by a relative or a friend, but the commissioner found that, contrary to what Mr. Trudeau said, the personal relationship between Mr. Trudeau and the Aga Khan did not fit within the concept of friend as contemplated by paragraph 11.

Colleagues, this was not accepting a bottle of wine or a nice tea set. This was a gift worth tens of thousands of dollars.

The commissioner found that these gifts could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence Mr. Trudeau in the exercise of an official power, duty or function, and therefore, that Mr. Trudeau also contravened subsection 11(1).

That was count two.

Section 12 prohibits ministers and members of their families from accepting travel on a non-commercial chartered or private aircraft unless certain exceptions apply, namely, travel required as part of the minister’s official duties, in exceptional circumstances, or with the prior approval of the commissioner.

The commissioner found that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 12 on two counts when he and his family accepted travel on the Aga Khan’s helicopter in December 2016 and when his family accepted travel on the non-commercial chartered aircraft arranged by the Aga Khan in March 2016. The commissioner ruled that the travel was not required as part of his official duties, the circumstances were not exceptional and the Prime Minister did not seek the prior the approval of the commissioner. Again, a gift worth thousands of dollars.

Those were counts three and four.

Section 21 requires that the public office-holders recuse themselves from any discussion, decision, debate or vote on any matter in respect to which they would be in a conflict of interest.

The commissioner found that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 21 on two counts when he failed to recuse himself from two discussions during which he had an opportunity to improperly further the private interests of the Aga Khan’s Global Centre for Pluralism. These discussions took place shortly after Mr. Trudeau’s family had vacationed on the Aga Khan’s private island, and they resulted in a $15 million grant to the Aga Khan’s organization.

Those were counts five and six — and that was just the first report.

The second report followed fewer than two years later in August 2019 after Mario Dion had taken over as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Mr. Dion was asked to look into the SNC-Lavalin scandal and determine if the Prime Minister had used his position to seek to influence a decision of the Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, relating to a criminal prosecution involving SNC-Lavalin, contrary to section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act.

The commissioner’s report was 58 pages long and was entitled Trudeau II. You cannot help but wonder if they chose to resort to a numerical standard of titling the reports because they were anticipating more reports to follow.

As the commissioner reported:

Section 9 of the Act prohibits public office holders from using their position to seek to influence a decision of another person in order to further their own private interests or those of their relatives or friends, or to improperly further the private interests of a third party.

SNC-Lavalin was charged in February 2015 with criminal offences that allegedly took place between 2001 and 2011. Under a remediation agreement, also called a deferred prosecution agreement, the criminal charges could be deferred or suspended. At the time, Canada did not have a regime to allow remediation agreements. In early 2016, SNC-Lavalin began lobbying officials with the current government to adopt a remediation agreement regime. Following public consultations, amendments to the Criminal Code allowing for such a regime were adopted as part of the 2018 federal budget.

On September 4, 2018, the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General that she would not invite SNC-Lavalin to negotiate a possible remediation agreement. The Prime Minister’s Office and the Minister of Finance’s office were then informed of this decision by Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s office. Mr. Trudeau then directed his staff to find a solution that would safeguard SNC-Lavalin’s business interests in Canada.

The first step in the commissioner’s analysis was to:

. . . determine whether Mr. Trudeau sought to influence the decision of the Attorney General as to whether she should intervene in a criminal prosecution involving SNC-Lavalin following the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The commissioner reported that:

The evidence showed there were many ways in which Mr. Trudeau, either directly or through the actions of those under his direction, sought to influence the Attorney General.

There were many ways.

Colleagues, not once or twice, but many times.

However, the report said:

Simply seeking to influence the decision of another person is insufficient for there to be a contravention of section 9. The second step of the analysis was to determine whether Mr. Trudeau, through his actions and those of his staff, sought to improperly further the interests of SNC-Lavalin.

The report further stated that:

The evidence showed that SNC-Lavalin had significant financial interests in deferring prosecution. These interests would likely have been furthered had Mr. Trudeau successfully influenced the Attorney General to intervene in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision. The actions that sought to further these interests were improper since they were contrary to the Shawcross doctrine and the principles of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law.

For these reasons, the Ethics Commissioner:

. . . found that Mr. Trudeau used his position of authority over Ms. Wilson-Raybould to seek to influence, both directly and indirectly, her decision on whether she should overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into negotiations towards a remediation agreement.

A single finding of improper influence is enough to lead to a contravention of section 9 of the act. Commissioner Dion found that the Prime Minister had contravened the act not once, not twice, not three times, but on four separate occasions.

That brings the total violations of the Conflict of Interest Act to 10: 6 violations in the first report, and 4 violations in the second report.

Colleagues, you would think that having failed to learn his lesson the first time, the Prime Minister would have learned it the second time. Yet, less than a year later, after Trudeau II, the Ethics Commissioner announced that — wait for it — Trudeau III was already under way. He was launching, a third investigation into the Prime Minister, this time over the WE Charity Canada scandal.

Trudeau III sounds like a sequel to a bad movie. We don’t know what the commissioner’s findings will be, but what we do know is that we are dealing with a Prime Minister who has already broken the law 10 times. That probably qualifies him as a serial offender under this act. I say all of this to illustrate my first point: It is not unreasonable for a Senate committee to examine a matter that contemplates the possibility that the Prime Minister has broken the law, since this Prime Minister has already established a consistent track record of doing so.

Second, colleagues, it is not unreasonable for a Senate committee to undertake an examination that may end up exposing corrupt activity by the government, since corruption has been a hallmark of this government.

Before some honourable member of the Prime Minister’s unofficial caucus decides to jump up in his defence, allow me to point out that this is not my verdict; this is the verdict of the majority of Canadians.

In August of this year, Ipsos released the results of a poll that showed:

A majority . . . of Canadians agree . . . that the WE charity scandal shows that the Prime Minister and his government are corrupt . . . . Of the respondents to the Ipsos poll, 56% agreed that the Prime Minister and his government are corrupt.

This means that the shoppers at the Rideau Centre across the street were representative of all Canadians, you could walk into the mall and start asking people, “Do you think the Prime Minister and his government are corrupt?” and every second person would answer, “yes.”

Colleagues, this government’s corruption has even attracted the attention of the international community. In February 2020, Transparency International released its 2019 Corruption Perception Index which rates 180 countries by perceived levels of public sector corruption. This is not some political arm of an opposition party in Canada: it is a Berlin-based, non-governmental organization that monitors government corruption around the world.

An article accompanying their 2019 Corruption Perception Index was entitled, Canada Falls from its Anti-Corruption Perch. Here is what it said in part:

 . . . the Prime Minister. The state of the affair even garnered a passive of warning from the OECD which monitors enforcement of signatories to its anti-bribery convention.

Yes, colleagues, I read that right. The OECD put Canada on notice that it was going to closely monitor how things were unfolding and even sent a letter to the Canadian authority confirming its concerns. It wasn’t very long after that we learned that former finance minister Bill Morneau was going to run for the top job at the OECD. Apparently the Liberal government is not happy with what the OECD is doing and they want to try to make some changes to get a better rating for their Liberal Party.

Colleagues, concerns about possible corruption are not something that should be swatted away dismissively or taken lightly. Even the UN takes these issues seriously, stating, “Corruption undermines democratic institutions, slows economic development and contributes to governmental instability.”

In 2016, the OECD put it this way in their report, Putting an End to Corruption:

Corruption undermines sustainable economic, political and social development, for developing, emerging and developed economies alike. Corruption endangers private sector productivity. . . hinders public sector productivity . . . and is a threat to inclusive growth by undermining the opportunities to participate equally in social, economic and political life and impacting the distribution of income and well-being. Corruption also erodes trust in government and public institutions, rendering reform more difficult.

We should not simply shrug at the fact that 56% of Canadians believe the Liberal government is corrupt. Nor should we make the mistake of thinking this is just the result of the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The truth is we don’t know. It may only be the tip of the iceberg.

Colleagues, when it comes to ethics, the government has a responsibility to not just be ethical, but to appear ethical. The same applies to corruption. A government must not only be free of corruption, but free of even the appearance of corruption. And nothing breeds suspicion over corruption more quickly than a large-dollar, sole-source contract to friends and former colleagues.

For example, in June of this year, the Liberal government signed a $237 million contract for 10,000 ventilators from a company owned by former Liberal MP Frank Baylis. This particular ventilator had not even been approved for use by Health Canada when the contract was signed.

Furthermore, according to testimony at the House of Commons Ethics Committee last week, the ventilators are the same design used by a U.S. company where they sell for about $13,000 each. Baylis’s firm is charging the Canadian government roughly $23,000 each for the same machine — $10,000 more than the U.S. manufacturer, which suggests that Canada paid $100 million more than what they should have paid.

Then there was the AMD Medicom. This Canadian company supplies medical equipment around the world and was granted a 10-year, $382-million sole-sourced contract to deliver “made in Canada” N95 masks for health care providers. The only problem was that when AMD Medicom was awarded the contract, it did not have any manufacturing facilities in Canada. It had plants in Taiwan, China, France and the United States, but none in Canada.

How does a company without a Canadian factory win a sole-sourced $382-million contract to manufacture masks in Canada? The government claims that they were the only company capable of fulfilling the contract, but several Canadian businesses in the same industry disagree and believe there was ample reason to put the contract through a competitive tendering process. The failure to do so just feeds into the government’s reputation for corruption.

Although the Ethics Commissioner declined to investigate, questions also continue to swirl around the CMHC’s decision to award an $84 million sole-source contract to MCAP, a mortgage finance firm, in order to manage the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance program. The MCAP’s vice-president is none other than the husband of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. This gives the clear perception of corruption, and it is the government’s duty to ensure that they avoid even the appearance of corruption. They have failed miserably to do so.

The government’s questionable practice of granting sole-source contracts is well established. The National Post reported in August this year that the federal procurement ombudsman launched an investigation into a series of sole-source government contracts awarded to the WE organization since 2017. According to the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman, the deals “were signed between 2017 and 2020 by four federal departments: Global Affairs Canada, the Privy Council Office, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canada School of Public Service.”

Whether the Procurement Ombudsman discovers any improprieties remains to be seen. But it is entirely appropriate for his office to investigate these concerns and report to Canadians in the same way that it is appropriate for this chamber to examine matters of concern, even if they may reflect negatively on the government.

Colleagues, there are many more examples of questionable sole-source contracts. It was the government’s handling of the Canada Student Service Grant that really shook Canadians’ trust. As you know, this is what became known as the “WE scandal.” And since it can be hard to keep track of all the details behind the never-ending allegations of corruption this government faces, allow me to briefly refresh your memory on some of the details.

The Canada Student Service Grant, or CSSG, was announced on April 22. In the government’s words, the CSSG was supposed to:

 . . . help students gain valuable work experience and skills while they help their communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. For students who choose to do national service and serve their communities, the new Canada Student Service Grant will provide up to $5,000 for their education in the fall.

As you know, the program never got off the ground. After signalling their intent to launch the program, it took another two months to announce the official kick off and less than three days for the whole thing to start to unravel amidst allegations of impropriety.

Because of the government’s insistence on blacking out huge sections of information provided to House of Commons committees, and because of their prorogation of Parliament that shut down the committees, and because of their endless filibustering to prevent the committees from resuming their work, we still have not gotten to the bottom of this scandal.

But here’s what we do know: The government began looking at how to help students weather the pandemic financially in early April. On April 5, the Minister of Finance discussed ideas with the Prime Minister, and two days later, WE Charity was contacted by the minister’s department to probe the idea further.

Two days after that, on April 9, WE Charity sent an unsolicited proposal for a youth program to Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth Bardish Chagger, and Minister of Small Business Mary Ng. A week later, Minister Chagger met with WE’s co-founder Craig Kielburger to discuss their proposal. However, when Minister Chagger appeared before the House of Commons Finance Committee, she failed to mention this meeting.

On April 19, Rachel Wernick, a senior official with ESDC, contacted WE Charity to discuss possibilities for a student service program. It is not clear who pushed Ms. Wernick to call WE. She said it had been mentioned by someone in Minister Morneau’s department.

It was three days later, on April 22, that the Prime Minister announced his government would be launching the Canada Student Service Grant Program. That very same day, WE Charity emailed Ms. Wernick an updated proposal for a grant that included details of the proposed program of which even Ms. Wernick was unaware. Then on May 5, Minister Chagger brings a proposal to the COVID-19 cabinet meeting that recommends WE Charity as the preferred administrator of the program. It was approved. Then on May 22, the whole of cabinet considered and approved the plan, with the Prime Minister in the room participating.

One month later, on June 25, the government announced that WE Charity had been awarded $19.5 million to run the $912 million program. We would later learn that the program would only deliver $500 million in services, and WE Charity would in fact receive a potential $44 million. That little adjustment increased the administration fees for WE Charity from 2% of programming costs to 8.6%.

Right after the public announcements, the wheels began to fall off. On June 28, the Conservatives asked Auditor General Karen Hogan to investigate the arrangement, noting that this was a sole source, untendered contract with a group that had well-documented connections to the Trudeaus. In the coming days, the grant to WE Charity was cancelled as the Ethics Commissioner announced two separate investigations into the matter, and conflict of interest began surfacing faster than the public could keep up with.

On July 9, WE Charity confirmed that Margaret Trudeau had been paid a total of $312,000 for speaking at 28 WE events between 2016 and 2020. Alexandre Trudeau, the Prime Minister’s brother, was paid $40,000 for 8 events in the 2017-18 academic year. Sophie Grégoire Trudeau received $1,400 for a single appearance in 2012. On March 4, both Sophie and her mother-in-law Margaret Trudeau were headline speakers at WE Day in the U.K. On their website, WE Charity describes Sophie as more than an ambassador of the WE Well-being Initiative; she is its mentor, booster and champion.

Last August, former minister of finance Bill Morneau announced $3 million in federal funding to WE for its social entrepreneurs program. The announcement was made in the same month that his daughter began working for the charity and one month before the federal election was called. In his testimony to the Finance Committee last week, then-Minister Morneau admitted that WE Charity had paid expenses for two trips he took with his family, to the tune of $41,366. He also said that his family had previously made two donations of $50,000 each to WE Charity, including one in June of this year.

Global News reported that, in total, WE Charity was the recipient of at least $5.5 million in federal government funding from 2015 to 2019.

The troubling links between the Trudeau government and WE Charity appeared to be endless. Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister’s former principal secretary and best friend, had been listed as an outstanding partner and supporter of WE Charity. Mélanie Joly, the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, participated in multiple WE events. Seamus O’Regan, the PM’s Minister of Natural Resources, worked with WE Charity as the honorary chair of Artbound, a charity that fundraises on behalf of WE. Katie Telford, Justin Trudeau’s Chief of Staff, was a co-founder at the Artbound charity that Minister O’Regan chaired. Between the two of them, they are reported to have been involved in helping raise $400,000 for WE Charity in 2010 and 2011.

Colleagues, as you know, the Ethics Commissioner, the Lobbying Commissioner, the RCMP and the House of Commons Ethics Committee continue to investigate this matter. It is unclear when Canadians will have a full accounting of what happened and why, but what is clear is the Prime Minister’s abject failure to recuse himself from these decisions and to avoid the appearance of corruption.

This underscores my second point; that it is not unreasonable for a Senate committee to undertake an examination that may end up exposing corrupt activity by the government, since corruption has been a hallmark of this government.

My third point is that it is inappropriate for this chamber to shy away from an examination of this government’s record simply because such a review may amplify the public’s awareness of objectionable or scandalous behaviour by this government. To dodge subjects that may shine a negative light on the government would provide it with a blanket exemption from scrutiny, since it is difficult to find any significant length of time where this Liberal government has not been embroiled in one scandal or another.

I have already mentioned the Aga Khan vacation scandal, along with the SNC-Lavalin affair. For the sake of time, I won’t torture you with a comprehensive list of scandals, since we would all like to spend Christmas at home, but allow me to refresh your memory with just a few more examples.

You may recall that only one year after being appointed as the Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau introduced Bill C-27, which resulted in an immediate increase in the value of pensions sold by the minister’s company, Morneau Shepell. When the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, the value of Morneau Shepell shares jumped and former Minister Morneau just happened to still be holding $21 million of those shares.

While he was the President of Treasury Board, Scott Brison tried to block approval for a contract for a naval supply ship being built at the Davie shipyard in Quebec because he was lobbied to do so by New Brunswick’s powerful Irving family, owners of a rival Halifax shipyard. Then-Minister Brison also tried to argue that there was no need for him to set up a conflict of interest screen to prevent him from participating in government decisions involving two of Atlantic Canada’s wealthiest families, even though he used to chair one of their investment firms and his spouse continued to sit on the company’s board of directors.

Then there was Dominic LeBlanc, who in spite of connections to the powerful Irving family, was appointed to be Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. He had to consult with the Ethics Commissioner for weeks in order to figure out how to stickhandle around that obvious conflict of interest.

Later, the Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion would find Dominic LeBlanc guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act because he awarded a lucrative Arctic surf clam licence to a company linked to his wife’s cousin.

Speaking of Dominic LeBlanc and Scott Brison, we still don’t know their exact role in the Vice-Admiral Norman affair. The Liberals tried to renege on a contract for a supply ship in order to give it back to the Irvings. When they got caught, they decided they would get the head of Vice-Admiral Norman. The Prime Minister even sent him to trial before the police had completed an investigation, but Scott Brison and Judy Foote left their positions. Vice-Admiral Norman was paid a sum of money and had to sign a confidentiality agreement.

How about Seamus O’Regan? The government spent more than $180,000 defending him in a defamation suit. Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller was called onto the carpet for hosting a private fundraiser for his re-election campaign that was held in New York City of all places. He never did reveal the donor list.

Minister Maryam Monsef had to admit that she was not actually born in Afghanistan as she had led people to believe all these years. Minister Sajjan was found to have lied about his role in Afghanistan. Minister Champagne was discovered to have mortgages with the Bank of China for two apartments in London. John McCallum was fired as ambassador in Beijing after improper comments on Canada’s relationship with China.

Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, who at the time were Justin Trudeau’s two top aides, received $207,000 in moving expenses that they agreed to repay a significant portion of only after the story went public and caught on fire. Then there was Marwan Tabbara. He was allowed to run for the Liberal Party in the 2019 election even though detailed allegations of sexual harassment had already been made against him. After being arrested in April of this year, he remained in the caucus for almost two months because the PMO claimed they knew nothing about it.

Darshan Singh Kang had to leave the Liberal caucus over accusations of sexual harassment. Liberal MP Nicola Di Iorio didn’t show up for work for a year after he announced his resignation, and then the public found out he didn’t actually resign. Former Liberal MP Raj Grewal admitted he racked up millions of dollars in debts playing casino blackjack and ended up resigning from the Liberal caucus after the news came to light following an RCMP investigation. But after suddenly announcing that he had paid off his seven-figure debts, he stayed on as a member of Parliament for the rest of the parliamentary session. You may recall that Mr. Grewal was already under investigation by the federal Ethics Commissioner at the time and was later found guilty of being in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act.

And let’s not forget Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott and Celina Caesar-Chavannes — three strong women thrown under the bus because they would dare to stand up to Justin Trudeau.

Then there was the “thank you for your donation” incident where the PM’s elitist and condescending attitude was on full display. Before that, we had “elbowgate,” when Justin Trudeau shoved aside fellow MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau because he was in a hurry to vote. Then there was the “Kokanee grope” incident, when the Prime Minister groped a female journalist. Then he said he would not have done this had he but known that the woman was a national reporter; it’s okay to grope a local reporter but not a national one. We all remember that our Prime Minister decided it was a lesson for not just him but, indeed, for her and the rest of us. We now know that some “people experience things differently.”

In 2015, we learned that Justin Trudeau was billing charities for speaking engagements even as he was an MP. This was a first, colleagues — a sitting politician who charges people to hear him speak. When he got caught, he said he was sorry and wrote a cheque. A few weeks later, he was caught again; he had charged the House of Commons for expenses that had also been reimbursed by organizations to which he spoke. Again, we had the “I’m sorry; here’s a cheque” routine.

Finally, let’s not forget the three, four, five or more incidents where Justin Trudeau wore blackface because he thought it was funny to pretend that he was Black. We don’t know how many times he did that, because he clearly can’t remember.

Colleagues, I could go on but I think I made my point: It’s inappropriate for this chamber to shy away from an examination of this government’s record simply because such a review may amplify the public’s awareness of objectionable or scandalous behaviour by this government. Truly, colleagues, if you are independent then you should welcome this.

Even from this partial list you can see that dodging subjects because they may shine a negative light on this government could easily become a blanket exemption from scrutiny since it is difficult to find any significant length of time where this Liberal government has not been embroiled in one scandal or another.

I believe the motion before us is important and deserves the support of this chamber. As Senator Housakos said:

The program that the federal government concocted for WE Charity was not designed in compliance with the Official Languages Act. It is therefore up to us, as parliamentarians, to speak out in support of French and to make sure it is respected.

We should thank Senator Housakos for this motion, and we should clearly all vote in favour. I understand that some senators are reluctant to undertake an examination which may reflect badly upon the Prime Minister and his Liberal Party, but I urge you to look beyond partisan loyalties and consider the importance of protecting bilingualism within all of Canada. Thank you.

Would Senator Plett be able to take a question?

Yes, absolutely.

Senator Plett, I’m sure you will agree with your colleague’s statement that I will be quoting in a couple of seconds. It’s actually a statement in his speech on this motion. Senator Housakos did say:

Politicians from all parties use the issue of language to win votes and score political points. Unfortunately, despite the fact that official languages are a recurring theme in political discourse, very little effective concrete action is being taken to address the plight of Canadian bilingualism. Let’s stop using language as a political tool. Let’s unite our voices in both French and English, to make Canada into a truly bilingual country. That will be good for everyone.

I’m not sure, senator, that there was a question there.

Do you agree with this —

Absolutely. I often agree with Senator Housakos. Some would even say I agree with him most of the time. Let me say, Senator Gagné, for you and me who come from — and I think we used to be the only bilingual province. We may not be any more, but we were the only official bilingual province. Senator Gagné, you can look this up. There were other provinces that were saying they have bilingualism, but we were the only official one; certainly a province that has one of the largest francophone communities outside of the province of Quebec.

I absolutely agree we should not allow bilingualism to be a political issue. However, we have clear rules and laws, and here is one that was being broken by a company being given a contract when they did not have any type of French service or bilingual services in their organization. That is against the law.

Senator Plett, you’re certainly aware of the fact that the Official Languages Commissioner, Raymond Théberge, is looking into whether WE was able to provide its services in both official languages, as the law requires. Do you not agree that this is the proper form and process?

I always believe that we turn things over to the proper authorities to investigate that and, indeed, this as well. I will answer it with a question: Would you support Senator Housakos’s motion if, in fact, the commissioner decides that it wasn’t?

I think, Senator Forest, the motion speaks for itself. That is clearly what it will do:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on the Government of Canada’s decision to award a contract for a student grant program to WE Charity, a third party without the capacity to do so in both official languages . . . .

Senator Housakos is saying that the committee should examine and report. I cannot know ahead of time what that committee is going to decide and what punishment there should be if they decide that is correct. We will have to allow the committee, like we usually do, to come back to us with a report, and then we would have to make a decision on that report.

Again, Senator Forest, your caucus has a number of motions on the Order Paper right now where we send things to committee — one of the reasons we have committee. The Official Languages Commissioner absolutely should do that. I believe that, clearly, the committee should summon the Official Languages Commissioner to question him. We still, however, have an obligation as senators to do the proper thing. When we see corruption in our government, we should bring that to the forefront. Certainly, Senator Forest, you agree with that concept.

Senator Plett, it seems you and your colleagues have been accused of partisan politics, but let’s be clear. We have a situation of the Trudeau family receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in honorary fees from an organization that supposedly didn’t pay, and it was a volunteer organization. In exchange, they get back potentially $900,000 of a single-source contract. Yet, the majority of colleagues in this chamber who are non-partisan are preoccupied with the language we use in calling this what it is.

The question is coming. I have the flexibility to include a preamble before my question, colleagues. Those of you who haven’t been around here long enough, in due time you’ll learn that.

My question, Senator Plett, is the following: I’ve received thousands of emails from taxpayers and Canadians who want solid answers to these questions. Are we not doing a disservice to this institution when the majority of government-appointed senators are playing partisan politics and not allowing Parliament to do its job?

First of all, let me say thank you very much, Senator Housakos, for that question. I’m glad you brought your cheering squad with you, your cheerleaders, so they can clap and make comments while you have the floor. Thank you to your cheerleading team as well.

Senator Housakos, I believe that the taxpayers of this country, the voters in this country, deserve this. When people want to say we’re playing partisan politics, the fact of the matter is that you and I, senator, represent in excess of 6 million people in this chamber right now — that we know of. All other colleagues, aside from our caucus, are independent. I don’t know who they represent, but I know who I represent. I represent 6 million people, at least.

So I believe this chamber has an absolute obligation, a constitutional obligation, when we see something wrong, to bring that to the forefront, as is done here all the time. That needs to continue.

I believe you have provided a perfect venue for a committee — which right now doesn’t have government legislation — to investigate a scandal, a scandal among all scandals. Certainly this is a government that has more scandals than you or I have seen in our lifetimes, at least since Justin Trudeau’s father was in power. So here we are, and we have people laughing at us because we want to do what we have been constitutionally mandated to do.

Will the senator accept another question?

Absolutely.

Senator Plett, I am heartened to hear about your fulsome support for bilingualism in this country and the support expressed by your colleague Senator Housakos.

My question is as follows: Will you publicly urge your friend and my premier, the Premier of Ontario, to increase French-language services in the province of Ontario and to implement official bilingualism for the province of Ontario?

Thank you for that question. No, I will not, and I’ll tell you why. I’m a senator from Manitoba in the Senate of Canada, a federal institution. I will not impose my wishes on a premier of a province other than my own. I will ask my premier in Manitoba — and we have official bilingualism in Manitoba, so I’m happy about that. I’ve said that. I will encourage my province to continue with it, not yours.

Senator Plett, will you take another question?

Certainly.

Senator Plett, I’m also happy to hear that you fully support the defence of bilingualism. However, in the pursuit of that interest, do you know which is the only officially bilingual province in the country?

You would probably say it’s New Brunswick, and I still believe Manitoba is as well.

Well, no; actually, that would be incorrect. New Brunswick —

Senator Keating, did you wish to ask a supplementary question?

No, that’s fine, Your Honour.