SoVote

Luc Berthold

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

Context: House Hansard - 233 - Oct/17/23

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Oct/17/23 4:20:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to comments made yesterday by the member for Winnipeg North on the question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on Thursday, October 5. Yesterday, in his remarks, the member for Winnipeg North misled the House. I would like to quote a few of his statements concerning the question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill. The issue we are discussing has to do with the government's written responses to questions about the Prime Minister's travel. I submitted those three questions to the government myself, in writing. Yesterday, the member for Winnipeg North spoke about the last two questions that I asked. I would like to quote what the member for Winnipeg North said yesterday: The crux of the questions posed is based on the notion of “total costs incurred by the government”. The government takes the view that “the government” includes all core departments of the public service and not independent arm's-length agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This is what the member for Winnipeg North stated and alleged yesterday. I will continue with the quotation: The fact is that neither of these questions specifically asked for that information. It is not for the government to make assumptions about what the member means to ask when submitting an Order Paper question. The government simply responds to the precise question that was asked. I feel that the questions were well formulated, that they were entirely in order and that the government was asked to provide all the information requested. The proof is in Question No. 1180, which I asked on January 31. I will read the questions that were asked and the specific requests that were made at the time: (a) what were the total costs incurred by the government for (i) accommodations, (ii) per diems, (iii) other expenses for the flight crew and government officials who travelled to Jamaica in connection with the Prime Minister's trip.... That was the wording of the question asked on January 31. I will now read Question No. 1417, which I asked on April 19 and to which the member for Winnipeg North referred yesterday: (a) what were the total costs incurred by the government for (i) accommodations, (ii) per diems, (iii) other expenses, for the flight crew and government officials who travelled to Montana in connection with the Prime Minister's trip.... Other than the destination, both questions are identical. The difference is that, in its answer to Question No. 1180, the government included all the costs, including those incurred by the RCMP. This leads me to conclude that the government deliberately omitted the costs incurred by the RCMP in its answers to the two subsequent questions. All three questions were written in the same way. I thought this was extremely important information for the House to consider, especially given that the answer to Question No. 1180 was signed off on by the members for Winnipeg North and Hull—Aylmer. The people saying that the questions were not properly written, specifically the member for Winnipeg North, actually answered the first question properly. They should have answered the other two in the same way by including the costs related to the RCMP's participation in the other two trips.

566 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 156 - Feb/8/23

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Feb/8/23 4:16:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak to this question of privilege, because I believe that my privileges as a parliamentarian were also breached during this morning's caucus meeting. My francophone colleagues in the Conservative caucus and I unfortunately did not have access to interpretation during the meeting. The current situation on the Hill is no secret. Last October, Linda Ballantyne, president of the International Association of Conference Interpreters for the region of Canada, said the following to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Canada did conduct a survey dating back to December 2021, I think it was. Measuring the amount of time spoken in Parliament by different parliamentarians of different languages, indeed we found that English has predominated and French has been snuffed out. That is the reality in Parliament, because most of our colleagues use English as their primary language to communicate, share their opinions and make speeches. Unfortunately, when a group of colleagues get together, the discussions tend to occur mainly in English. Unfortunately, that is what happened this morning in our caucus meeting. I want to commend the interpreters who were there for their offer. They came out of their booth and offered to provide interpretation services at the back of the room for those who wanted them. Unfortunately, that is not ideal. That is not the way to conduct a meeting, hold debates and have normal discussions. We cannot have a caucus meeting and make some of the members go to the back of the room so they can have access to interpretation services. I therefore wholeheartedly support the question of privilege raised by the House leader for the official opposition. I want to raise the same question of privilege because I think that my privilege of being able to communicate with my colleagues was also breached by these technical difficulties. We need to have a plan B. Meetings must take place at the scheduled time and proceed normally with the possibility of access to interpretation services and interpreters and, especially, to the equipment that makes those services possible. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will find that the question of privilege raised by my colleague is fair and you will side with him.

372 words

SoVote

Deputy House leader of the official opposition

Luc Berthold