- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the official opposition
- Conservative
- Mégantic—L'Érable
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $94,201.00
- Government Page
- Feb/6/24 10:38:12 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, is there anyone in this government who will ever take responsibility for their actions and decisions?
The Liberals have been in power for eight years. In those eight years, the rate of violent gun crime has surged. In Canada, in 2022 alone, the rate jumped by 9%. Approximately 14,000 violent crimes were committed with the aid of a firearm in this country in 2022, which breaks down to 36.7 crimes of this type per 100,000 inhabitants. That is 8.9% higher than in 2021.
In Gatineau, just on the other side of the river, the number of violent crimes rose by 76% in one year. That is unacceptable.
Meanwhile, all the Liberals are doing is once again trying to find other people to blame for their inaction.
We, the Conservatives, have a plan. We will take action to fight auto theft and stop the crime.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:27:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, when I listen to my colleague speak, there is a word that springs to mind. It is the word “hypocrisy”, which he just mentioned.
I remember one thing. In 2015, the Liberal government was elected on a major promise: that it would run very small deficits for three years and then slowly come back to a balanced budget.
In his maiden speech, the Prime Minister said that interest rates were low and that they would stay that way for decades. He said that to justify his voracious appetite for spending. That is what I call hypocrisy. I do not think the parliamentary secretary is in any position to lecture me on that score.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a question immediately came to mind when I was listening to the speech by the health minister, the same minister who refused to have any discussions with the provinces about health costs and what to do about health care.
Did the minister consult the province of Quebec, the government of Quebec and, above all, the health minister of Quebec about establishing its dental care program for children?
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the quality of her French.
That is the beauty of Canada. If the House did not allow everyone, including our anglophone colleagues, to speak in French, if there were not a strong contingent of francophone members in the House, our colleague would not have chosen to address the House in French. She would not have chosen to learn and speak French and to communicate with her community in French. I salute her and every one of my colleagues who make an effort to learn French. Many of my Conservative and Liberal colleagues are learning the language and making an effort to speak French in the House. It is worth it. Let us continue that trend.
It is true that language clauses are one of the weak points of Bill C-13 that we have identified. We need to go further. That is why we are once again asking the Liberals not to wait seven years, but to actually listen this time, and to refrain from tabling a bill that is convenient for them and does not land them in too much hot water. They need to really listen to what people are saying and adjust Bill C‑13 to accommodate at least some of their requests.
214 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about your Acadian roots. As the member for the riding of West Nova, you represent two rather impressive francophone minority regions. We have had a chance to talk about this together. Some of my colleagues may get a chuckle out of this, but we talked about “par-en-haute” and “par-en-bas”, two Acadian-sounding names. Since I have known you, you have always supported and stood up for these francophone minority communities. The fact that you stood up this evening to remind us that you are a native Acadian, meaning that you are a native francophone, shows us how important the francophone fact is to you, not only in Nova Scotia, but across Canada. Thank you very much for clarifying that for us following the speech by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer.
This brings me to the topic of this Canadian Confederation, which was created in 1867, 155 years ago, through the union of two founding peoples, one francophone and one anglophone, with help from the first nations, of course.
What I want to talk about is this founding spirit, this spirit of co‑operation that still needs to be at the centre of government action today, 155 years later. In 2022, when we make laws and implement policies here in Canada, we must always keep in mind the fact that two nations, one francophone and one anglophone, decided to found this great country, Canada, together.
From the very beginning, one of the key aspects of this co‑operation has been the French language. French is part of Canada's identity. As I was saying, it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that francophone communities thrive from coast to coast to coast.
I am thinking about Acadian communities, such as yours, Mr. Speaker, especially minority communities and the francophone communities “par-en-haute” and “par-en-bas”. I think that I will enjoy using these names. To give people some context, these names refer to St. Marys Bay and Argyle, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. Speaker, you see, we chatted a bit and you had the chance to describe that community to me.
There are also Franco-Ontarian communities, Franco-Manitoban communities, Franco-Saskatchewanian communities and Franco-Albertan communities. With one of my colleagues, I had the chance to visit some francophone communities in Alberta, such as the municipality of Falher. It is rather surprising.
When we travel around Alberta and enter a village in the middle of the province, we hardly expect to feel like we are in an entirely francophone community, yet that is reality, that is not just a feeling. We go out, we talk with people in shops and restaurants, and French is the dominant language.
There is still a wonderfully strong francophone presence in many regions of Canada. What we expect is for the federal government to take action, instead of being content to talk about the importance of francophone communities to Canada. It is time for action. Unfortunately, in the past, instead of taking action, this Prime Minister's Liberals have often turned a deaf ear to the demands coming from francophone communities and from Quebec.
They have been bragging for years about wanting to promote the Canadian francophonie, but it has to be said that, for some Liberals, francophones are a minority like any other. We must always stand up against this utterly false assumption. This goes back to the foundation of the Confederation.
The modernization of the Official Languages Act was pushed back year after year, in spite of the Liberals' promises to Canadians during the 2015 election campaign. For years, several francophone organizations, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, and official languages commissioners have called for an overhaul of the Official Languages Act.
Members will recall that the Liberals proposed a modernization in 2018. It was also a campaign promise in 2019. Finally, a first bill to modernize the act, Bill C-32, was tabled in June 2021. What happened to Bill C‑32? It died on the Order Paper because the Prime Minister chose, in the middle of summer and at the height of a pandemic, to call a pointless and costly election that forced us to start from scratch once again.
The last time the Official Languages Act was modernized, it was under Brian Mulroney, a Conservative prime minister who was also proud of his Quebec and francophone roots.
For decades, the Liberals and the Prime Minister have refused to recognize something that is essential to the survival of the French language. It is that, of the two languages that were originally spoken at Confederation, just one is threatened today. Let me be clear. The federal government must make it a priority to protect the French language and to keep protecting it. That is the role of the federal government.
The French language is more than just a simple means of communication. It is more than just the soul of the Quebec nation. It is the soul of Canada and it is a testament to our country's long history. The federal government has a duty to protect the French language and to ensure that it remains valued as part of the government's daily operations and in the enforcement of our laws and regulations. Those of us on this side of the House will not budge on that.
The Conservatives have been asking the Liberals for years to modernize the Official Languages Act. We proposed many measures to protect French in Quebec and the rest of Canada, meaning in minority communities. I want to commend my colleagues from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and Richmond—Arthabaska for their outstanding work on the Official Languages Act file. They met with groups from all parts of Canada. They held discussions and sought out people's thoughts and opinions so that we would truly understand the reality of people living in French across Canada, mainly in Quebec, but also in other regions.
How do they live in French? Are they able to get services in French? Do they have enough support in French? Are they able to raise their families in French in other parts of Canada?
That is particularly important in rural areas and in francophone minority communities. I think that is something that the government overlooked in the current version of Bill C‑13.
In addition to wanting to modernize the act, we made other proposals, such as increasing the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We want the Treasury Board to have the authority to ensure that the act is applied in all federal departments. We have also suggested that an official languages administrative tribunal be created to settle disputes involving the act, to impose stricter penalties on those who do not comply, and to add more stringent formal obligations to part VII of the act.
Then, we worked to provide federal funding to francophone post-secondary institutions in minority settings, such as the Université de Moncton, the University of Alberta's Campus Saint‑Jean, and the Université de l'Ontario français. We have also proposed a new budget envelope of $30 million per year, notwithstanding any future funding, and collaborating with the provinces to achieve these objectives.
With the official languages in education program, we increased support for French-language education at the elementary and high school levels to better reflect the demographic growth of francophone students. Yes, demographic growth is happening in several regions with minority francophone communities.
In addition, to ensure that the demographic weight of francophone minorities outside Quebec remains stable, we are setting out to increase the number of French-speaking immigrants, not only in Quebec, but across Canada.
These are some of the measures we put forward to protect minority francophones and their rights.
As the member for Hull—Aylmer said, the government did take its time, unfortunately. It took seven years to introduce its bill. It said it needed to do it right. Unfortunately, despite seven years of consultations, pressure and advice, it seems the government did not really listen to what people directly affected by the Official Languages Act reform want.
Several key points were left out by the Liberal government, but I will talk about those a little later.
This took seven years of work. However, it seems that a few months were wasted on things other than the Official Languages Act.
In our view, Bill C‑13 is a rather weak legislative response to the decline of French in this country. As we have already pointed out, what is needed are real reforms, not just minor tweaks.
As it took seven years of work, we were expecting the Liberal bill to deal with the whole picture, the entire issue, all the problems and all the situations. However, it seems that the key reforms promised by the Liberals are unfortunately nowhere to be found in this bill.
As I said, the Liberals could have acted much earlier, not to introduce a bill, but to protect French in Canada. Our concern is not amending the bill or changing the regulations or rules and so on. Our role, and our aim, is to protect French in this country.
As currently drafted, Bill C‑13 will unfortunately not stop the decline of French, either in Canada or in Quebec.
As always, the Liberals are good at talking, but not so good at listening. They did not act on the advice that they received from francophone organizations, such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. One of the things that the FCFA called for was the elimination of the division of powers between the Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage. This was a clear, concrete and specific request that would have given the reform of the Official Languages Act some teeth. I will come back to this a little later.
The bill has no teeth. The bottom line is that there is no obligation to deliver results. Bill C‑13 is full of good intentions, but it contains little that will really stop the decline of French. When certain situations arise, the government is not going to know who can do what. No one will be able to do anything to fix the situation.
Liane Roy, the president of the FCFA, said, “There are some significant gains, but some things still need to be worked on before we can say 'mission accomplished'.”
As my colleagues can see, I am not just saying negative things. Some people have had positive things to say, but others have been more scathing, saying that the bill should have gone much further.
The president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario said that, compared with the previous bill, Bill C‑32, there are some improvements. It took a bit of time to make it better, but it is not good enough yet. More improvements are needed.
We identified six major problems with Bill C‑13.
The first is the government-wide coordination or the centralization of power in a single department. New subsection 2.1(1) makes the Department of Canadian Heritage responsible for “exercising leadership within the Government of Canada in relation to the implementation of this Act.” Everyone agrees that Canadian Heritage does not have the expertise to manage the other departments, unlike the Treasury Board. The Minister of Canadian Heritage can tell his colleagues to do this or that, but there is nothing he can do if they do not comply, except maybe refuse to give them flags for Canada Day. That is the only thing the Minister of Canadian Heritage can threaten his colleagues with.
If the Treasury Board had been made responsible for enforcing the act, it would be a whole different story. The Treasury Board is the one that holds the purse strings and authorizes all of the departments' spending. It is the one that oversees the other departments. The Treasury Board could have made the other departments implement the new version of the Official Languages Act. However, the government chose to go with the Department of Canadian Heritage. That is ineffective, and we think that only the Treasury Board should have been given the responsibility of implementing this act for many reasons that I will come back to at a later time.
Second, we are talking about promoting French and English. The act is being amended to set out federal commitments, specifically enhancing the vitality of minorities, promoting French and English, protecting French and expanding minority language learning. As I said, we believe that the term “commitment” and definitions of these commitments should be clarified. The Treasury Board should also be responsible for this aspect and for the entire act, as opposed to what is proposed in Bill C‑13. Furthermore, part VII of the act is not covered by the new power given to the Commissioner of Official Languages to issue orders, which is also problematic.
Third, we have immigration. The new clause 44.1 proposes that “the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shall adopt a policy on francophone immigration to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minority communities in Canada”. However, there is no obligation to ensure that targets, objectives and indicators are met and respected. These are once again merely good intentions.
Fourth, the Commissioner of Official Languages is given three powers: to enter into a compliance agreement with federal institutions that contravene the act; to make an order directing any federal institution to rectify the contravention of part IV; and to impose administrative monetary penalties on a limited number of transportation companies offering passenger services that contravene part IV. We believe that these powers should extend to other parts of the act, specifically part VII. What is more, the maximum amount of these administrative monetary penalties is $25,000. We have to wonder what the deterrent effect of a $25,000 penalty would be for an organization like Air Canada, which had over $2 billion in revenue in 2021.
Fifth, the bill does not contain any obligation for the federal government to include language clauses in agreements made with other levels of government to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act, especially where federal transfers are involved, despite the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that agreements lacking language clauses were invalid. Maybe the government should have listened just a tiny bit.
Sixth, the bill includes an important part about federally regulated private businesses. It creates a new act called “An Act to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts”. In Quebec, businesses would have the right to choose between the Quebec regime and the federal one. In other words, businesses would have a choice between getting punished and not getting punished.
In our view, this bill needs improvement. For these reasons, I move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.”.
In conclusion, Bill C‑13 does not constitute the reform the Liberals have been promising for years and does not fulfill those promises.
2658 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:02:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech.
I am somewhat baffled by the comments I just heard from our Liberal colleague. The Liberals pick and choose what applies to us and claim that the Emergencies Act is there to be used but will have no impact on the provinces that decide not to use it.
Does my colleague agree that an emergency measures act that applies from coast to coast to coast will have consequences even in provinces that have decided not to use it and, more importantly, have said they do not want it imposed on their territory?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 7:49:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.
This evening, for the Prime Minister's first official public appearance since the protest currently happening on Parliament Hill began, I would have expected him to announce something. I would have expected the Prime Minister to tell us what he plans to do to find a peaceful solution to this situation that has been going on for far too long already, that has been here far too long for the people of the Ottawa region, and that has been here for far too long for all Canadians. I would have expected the Prime Minister to tell us his plan.
I figured that once the Prime Minister came out of hiding, he would tell Canadians the next steps for dealing with this pandemic and tell us how we will safely, slowly and objectively lift the health measures that have been imposed on Canadians for two years now. I am not talking about all Canadians. I am only talking about those who fall under federal jurisdiction, under his responsibility. I was not even asking him to go further, but I would have expected him to point out that 86% of Canadians are vaccinated, 80% of Canadians have received one dose, and the most vulnerable Canadians are getting a third dose. We are in an enviable position compared to the rest of the world, so I would have expected Prime Minister to tell us what we are going to do now, in the coming weeks and months, to finally get back to normal.
The provinces did it. They are doing it. Other countries are in the process of doing it. They are announcing that restrictions are being lifted because the illness we are currently facing is very different than the one we dealt with at the outset. Above all, the tools we currently have are much better than what we had at the start of the pandemic. At the start, we did not know what the virus was, we did not have a vaccine and we were not testing for the virus. The only option was to shut down while waiting for the scientists to tell us what we could do. That is what we did, Canadians did it and we were proud to support measures to ensure that Canadians could stay at home.
Two years later, the vaccination rate is 86%. That is what was asked of us. We were asked to get vaccinated, and we did it. Two years later, we have been vaccinated, but the Prime Minister, who must be the only first minister in the whole country to say so, is telling us to keep getting vaccinated because there is no plan to lift the health measures.
I will say one thing. Yes, people need to continue getting vaccinated. We have been in favour of vaccination from the beginning. The Conservatives were the first to stand up in the House to demand that the government make agreements with pharmaceutical companies so that we would have enough vaccines for everyone. I remember that very clearly because I was there. The government was very slow to take action. It was also slow to close the borders and to recognize that there was a pandemic. However, it was quick to shut down the disease intelligence task force. It seems this government has always been one step behind from the start. Unfortunately, right now, Canadians need to hear something different, a more positive message.
How does the Prime Minister plan to recover from the crisis? That is what we want to know, and that is what we would have liked to hear from the Prime Minister this evening. That is what I would like to hear from my Liberal colleagues instead of hearing them repeat, in the media and everywhere, all kinds of falsehoods about the position of the people on this side of the House. That is the reality.
It is easy. The Liberals are not fulfilling their responsibilities. They have been in hiding all this time, waiting in the hopes that perhaps someone else will resolve the problem. Meanwhile, the problem is not getting solved.
I heard the mayor of Ottawa cry for help and ask someone to intervene. I saw police services ask for help, ask someone somewhere to do something to end the situation. People are in dire need of leadership.
Mayor Watson cannot change what is happening across Canada. He is doing his best to look after his municipality. He has too much on his plate. He is asking the Prime Minister to help, but the Prime Minister is not doing anything, saying anything or announcing anything. He is sitting this one out, hiding somewhere. He popped out this evening to deliver a totally meaningless speech. That is the fact of the matter, and Canadians are done with it.
In the early days, here is how we learned about the virus: We knew someone who knew someone who had had COVID‑19. There were degrees of separation, but we were afraid because we did not know anything about it.
Now, though, I can say that I had COVID‑19 over the holidays. My children, my wife and my neighbour also had COVID‑19. The thing is, we are still living with the same rules we had at the start of the pandemic. Actually, it is worse, because the government wants to make more rules for truckers and interprovincial transportation. I can think of no way to describe the government's current response but to say that it is adding fuel to the fire.
Today, the leader of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, asked the Prime Minister to commit to a process that could lead to a peaceful resolution of the dispute. She wrote a letter and sent a copy to the leaders of the two other opposition parties.
In her letter, the leader asks for a meeting of the leaders of these four parties to find solutions to de-escalate the protests, calm the situation and allow the people of Ottawa to get back to their lives and their normal activities. To those watching, the proposal sent to the party leaders today came from the Conservative leader.
In her letter, the leader states that Canadians want and need a peaceful resolution to this impasse. I feel that people back home, and indeed people everywhere, are fed up. They are exhausted and cannot take it anymore. They need a real leader to stand up and give them hope and a plan to get through this crisis. I am not talking about a light at the end of the tunnel because that turn of phrase did not work for the Premier of Quebec, François Legault.
The letter suggests that it is time to de-politicize the response to the pandemic. Canadians across the country have come together, made sacrifices and done what is necessary to keep their families and communities safe. They were even encouraged to hear Dr. Tam say that we need to find a more sustainable way of dealing with the pandemic and recommending that that all existing public health policies be re-examined with the provinces and territories so that we can back to some normalcy.
Dr. Tam is saying that we have to lay out a plan for moving back to normality and begin living with the variant, the virus, COVID-19. Canadians' health comprises mental health as well as physical health. At some point, we must start balancing the two, and I believe that we are at that point now.
The leader of the official opposition believes, and this is very important, that the leaders of the federal parties have a responsibility to help our country and our frustrated citizens. She sincerely hopes that the leaders of the four main parties can show leadership by coming together to talk about solutions and to follow the science rather than the politics when it comes to mandates.
This appeal was made to the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. We hope that the leaders of the four parties will meet to discuss and find a solution to this crisis and put a peaceful end to the protests in Ottawa, as well as those in Quebec City, Toronto, Alberta and across the country.
It is possible to listen to and talk with one another, but, above all, it is possible to give Canadians hope. Let us do so by asking our four party leaders to meet and try to find a solution together.
1440 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/21 5:22:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to be elected in a municipal government instead of here. Maybe he would see what the responsibilities and roles are of each and every level of government. We are in the House to talk about the Liberal government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, who make life unaffordable for so many Canadians that they cannot dream of ever buying a new house.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
