- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the official opposition
- Conservative
- Mégantic—L'Érable
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 69%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $94,201.00
- Government Page
- Mar/22/24 11:24:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Quebeckers are disappointed today. They are disappointed that an election was not called to change the government. Why? Because the Bloc Québécois voted to save this Prime Minister's career. The Bloc Québécois is kowtowing to a Prime Minister who has encroached on every aspect of Quebec's jurisdiction, who has doubled the national debt, and who is sending 800,000 Quebeckers to food banks every month. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is certainly costly.
What did the Prime Minister promise the leader of the Bloc Québécois to save the Liberal government?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 4:00:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope on his excellent speech today. He has once again demonstrated how good Conservatives are at voicing the concerns of people across the country here in the House. My colleague just conveyed the concerns of people way over on the other side of the country, in British Columbia. I want to thank him for that.
I think it is worth taking a few moments today to point out that we are here to debate a motion of non-confidence. What does that mean? Simply put, if the government does not win the vote, it has to call an election.
The motion reads as follows:
That the House declare non-confidence in the Prime Minister and his costly government for increasing the carbon tax 23 % on April 1, as part of his plan to quadruple the tax....
Today, we find ourselves in a situation where the future of the government is in the hands of the opposition parties. We know the Liberal members will vote against our motion, even though some of them would rather not. There is a party line, and they will toe it.
Coincidentally, another party exists within the same party. Together, they are called the NDP-Liberal coalition. It would come as quite a surprise if the NDP decided to stand by its values and defeat this government, which it heavily criticizes every day. It claims that it is keeping the Liberals in power to make gains that it achieves by coercing and manipulating the government. Knowing that the government is being manipulated by another party should be one more reason for us to want to defeat it.
Then there is the Bloc Québécois, which voices its many recriminations against the Liberal government day after day. It could vote in step with the wishes of the majority of Quebeckers. The majority of Quebeckers want a change of government. Most Quebeckers want the Prime Minister to go. This would give the Bloc Québécois an opportunity to fill the role it has claimed for itself all along as the representative of Quebeckers in the House of Commons. Will it vote to defeat this Liberal government tonight? We should not get our hopes up too high. Based on what I heard today, the Bloc Québécois is going to rush to defend the Liberal government and the Prime Minister once again.
Why does it feel like we are dealing with a majority government when it is actually a minority government? It is important to mention this for anyone who may be watching us right now. This minority government should not be so self-assured and arrogant as to impose its inflationary spending, for these decisions are creating chaos across the country, particularly in terms of the cost of housing, inflation and the cost of food. Normally, all these decisions should have led the opposition parties to say that enough is enough and that they wanted to put an end to this government. This is a minority government, and there is no reason to keep it in power.
Unfortunately, not everyone is keen to call an election and change the government. In fact, in a La Presse article, the leader of the Bloc Québécois proudly said, “If the next election is two years away, that doesn't bother me at all. It gives us time to properly identify, define and share information about our opponents.” He also said that Bloc Québécois members have been telling Liberal ministers that they are in no rush to head into an election campaign.
If this Prime Minister and his government hang on for another two years, it is also because of the support they are getting from the Bloc Québécois, which is very comfortable with all the consequences, of which there are many.
The Conservatives have a common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
Why do we want to cut taxes? Let me talk about agriculture, for one. The Minister of Agriculture bragged about the sector's resilience, with continued growth in farm income. While he was saying that, there were 400 farmers and their families in the Lower St. Lawrence who were making a heartfelt plea and talking about their financial distress.
Martin Caron, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, said that the annual net income for farmers in Quebec would be close to zero in 2024. It is unacceptable for people who work so hard, who get up before the sun rises and go to bed after everyone else, to have zero net income.
A week after the demonstration in the Lower St. Lawrence, farmers descended on the streets of Quebec City and the north shore to express their frustration. People are not taking it anymore. Why? The input costs for farmers have gone up because the carbon tax has a direct impact on the cost of inputs that these farmers have to buy to grow their crops. The carbon tax has a direct impact on farmers and growers who produce food across Canada. It has a direct impact on the people who process this food because they have to pay the carbon tax. It has a direct impact on truck drivers who transport the food and deliver it to Quebec. When we look at the list of all the taxes that farmers, processors and truck drivers have to pay before the food arrives in Quebec, it is not surprising that the cost of food in Quebec has gone up.
Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase this tax, which is why, yesterday, it voted against our motion to cancel the carbon tax hike set for April 1. That is no April Fool's joke. That is the date the government chose to increase the carbon tax by 23%.
We need to build housing. Has anyone not heard about the current nationwide housing crisis? There is a housing crisis in Quebec, too. When the common-sense Conservatives asked the minister about his housing accelerator fund, he admitted that not a single housing unit had been built as a result of that fund, even though it cost Canadian taxpayers $3.15 billion.
I would like to talk about a Montreal couple, Martin and Marie-Hélène, who are pandemic borrowers. They renewed their mortgage in 2020 at a very low 2% rate and will have to renew in 2025 at a much higher rate. When asked whether they have figured out how much more it is going to cost them, Martin immediately said he is just not ready to calculate how much more it will cost him every month. He knows full well that he may have trouble paying the bill.
When it comes to taxes and housing, the Bloc Québécois has clearly chosen to support the Liberals. Why?
We are going to fix the budget. As everyone knows, this government's inflationary spending has contributed to rising interest rates. That has made housing and food more expensive, and people cannot make ends meet. Unfortunately, the $20 billion in additional discretionary spending introduced by the minister in the last budget update received full support form the Bloc Québécois. In fact, 100% of that discretionary spending was supported by the Bloc Québécois.
Finally, everyone knows that crime levels across the country are going from bad to worse. Just think about car thefts, this government's lax policies and its willingness to allow dangerous repeat criminals to serve their sentences at home rather than in prison. This has created an extremely chaotic situation across the country. We want to fix it. Unfortunately, these lax policies that allow house arrest instead of jail time have also been supported by the Bloc Québécois.
I invite the Bloc Québécois to support this motion this evening in order to truly represent the interests of the majority of Quebeckers who no longer want this government. There is a way to do this. Let us set ideological squabbles aside and focus on the practical. If we want to get rid of this government, then we have to vote for the Conservatives' common-sense motion.
1420 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:10:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are in a minority government situation. This means that, at any moment, there could be a very important vote that would send Canadians to the polls. At any moment, this government could be defeated.
The rulings by the Speaker of the House and his impartiality are of paramount importance. We must have confidence that the Speaker of the House will ensure that the rules are followed. The governing party, the Liberal Party, could call an election anytime it wants, and unfortunately we would always have doubts because we no longer trust the Speaker, who has shown extreme partisanship. We will always have doubts about his rulings. Were they based on rules and traditions, or on partisan interests?
That is why Canadians need to pay close attention to what is happening right now and to the recommendations that will be made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 5:10:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. The best way is for us to beat the Liberals in the next election and form a Conservative government so we can take control of the situation.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 7:28:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech, as well as for setting the stage for the debate we are having tonight.
Tonight, we were supposed to be once again discussing this government's efforts to raise taxes on Canadians. It is making the cost of living continue to rise and taking more money from the pockets of people who have none to spare. We wanted to use our opposition day to discuss issues that I, personally, think are of great concern to Canadians.
Opposition days are simple enough to understand. Over a given number of weeks during a parliamentary session, the opposition parties get certain days when they can choose the topic of the day and thus force a government vote on topics of the opposition's choice. Since we are coming to the end of this parliamentary period, we were entitled to two opposition days this week.
We used our first day to demand that Katie Telford and several other individuals appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to testify about foreign interference. The vote was scheduled for Tuesday. The opposition parties do not always work together, but it was expected that all opposition parties would agree that the Prime Minister's chief of staff should appear.
A lot has happened since then. I have to say that I am disappointed with the NDP's attitude.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Luc Berthold: Madam Speaker, I hear them shouting. They have been doing it all evening. They shout, they complain. Then they claim that they were the first ones to call for a public inquiry. Then they are outraged because it is not working. They say to themselves that that they might step on the government's toes, so maybe they should change their position. Without the other opposition parties, the NDP would not have a national public inquiry, because the motion would not have passed in committee. On their own, the NDP cannot get anything done.
They found a dance partner. When it suits them, they work with the government. They form a coalition. Now they have realized that they are getting a little too cozy with the Liberals on this issue. It took some time for them to realize it. It dawned on them little by little.
It started with the articles that were published by Global News. This started last November. We started to see articles on foreign interference. First there was one, then another, and another. Gradually we came to realize that, unfortunately, there really was a problem with foreign interference in our elections by the regime in Beijing.
The opposition parties started to ask the Prime Minister questions. The Prime Minister did what he always does. Whenever there is a scandal, he starts by denying it. Then he tries to deflect the question. Then he finds someone else to blame. In this case, it was the media, the big bad media, for daring to break stories about the elections and Beijing's interference in our elections. More stories broke, and then an opportunity presented itself at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
We have often called on the Prime Minister to answer those questions. The Prime Minister has never answered a single one of our questions. The Prime Minister was given the opportunity to act responsibly, and to take responsibility for his decisions and for the things he did or did not do. He was asked whether he was aware of it and whether he had been informed there was foreign interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. He was asked what action he took. I can no longer remember the number of questions he was asked in the House. Unfortunately, as I said, the Prime Minister never gave any answers. He changed the subject. He went off on multiple tangents. He accused the Conservatives of partisanship and of all the world's ills rather than accept responsibility. That is the crux of the debate: accepting responsibility.
None of the Liberal ministers who have been found guilty of ethics violations or poor management of their department have taken responsibility. The passport crisis and the crisis at the Canada Revenue Agency come to mind.
We decided to turn to other sources of information so that Canadians could find out the truth. We decided to call the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, to appear. We wanted to ask her to come forward and tell us what she knew, when she found out and what the government did. We also wanted to ask her if she told the Prime Minister what she knew, when she told him and when the Prime Minister took action, which he never did.
The big surprise was that NDP members refused in committee to support a motion to hear Ms. Telford's testimony. They refused to do so not once, not twice but three times. In fact, this is no surprise because the NDP is in a coalition with the Liberal Party. The NDP members rejected the motion three times. Meanwhile, the articles kept coming out day after day. At one point, the pressure built up so much that—surprise, surprise—the NDP finally announced that they were going to support the motion before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that Ms. Telford could be called to appear.
Mr. Peter Julian: That is utterly ridiculous.
915 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 2:39:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a whistle-blower put their career on the line. That person made a deliberate choice to reveal the truth about Beijing's interference in our election even if they wondered, and I quote, “Who will take care of my family if I go to prison?”
This is a national security official who is well aware of the consequences of their actions. All because the Prime Minister did nothing to prevent Beijing's interference in the last two elections.
If the national security situation is so critical that someone risks going to prison, why did the Prime Minister turn a blind eye for so long?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:38:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister initially denied allegations of foreign interference in our elections by the communist regime in Beijing. He thought he could sweep the whole thing under the rug and people would move on, but that did not happen. Suddenly, all kinds of things were revealed in the papers, on Global News, in the Globe and Mail, and the revelations keep coming. Every day, we find out more about how the communist regime in Beijing interfered in our elections. While the PM looked the other way, the Trudeau Foundation returned $200,000 to a Chinese businessman.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to launch a public inquiry into Beijing's interference in our elections?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/23 11:45:08 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, addressing something is not resolving it.
The tactics outlined in the CSIS report include making undeclared cash donations to political campaigns and having business owners hire students and assign them to volunteer full-time in election campaigns. Donors sympathetic to the regime were encouraged to provide campaign contributions to candidates favoured by China.
During the last election, the Prime Minister knew that the Chinese Communist regime was actively involved in disinformation, particularly in two ridings. The Prime Minister told the House that the integrity of our elections was not compromised in 2019 and 2021. The CSIS report shows otherwise.
Who is telling the truth?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/23 11:43:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told reporters last November that Canadians could rest assured that the integrity of our elections was not compromised. He was referring to the 2019 and 2021 elections.
Today, The Globe and Mail reports some disturbing facts, and this is not coming from the mouths of Conservatives. Communist regime operatives actively worked to promote the election of a minority Liberal government in 2021. A disinformation campaign against Conservative candidates, illegal donations, it is all laid out in the CSIS report.
Was the Prime Minister intentionally turning a blind eye because the secret reports he was receiving benefited him?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 2:48:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a request from the parliamentary committee looking into foreign interference in our election, the RCMP refused to provide documents in its possession because they could compromise ongoing investigations.
CSIS has been a bit more forthcoming. I have here a top secret document entitled “Briefing for the Prime Minister on Foreign Interference”. There are just two people who deny that there has been foreign influence in our elections: the Prime Minister and the spokesperson for the Chinese government. No one believes either of them.
When will the Prime Minister finally tell the whole truth?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 2:58:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister quoted the Chief Electoral Officer a number of times when explaining his refusal to turn over documents pertaining to foreign influence to the House.
Here is another quote from the Chief Electoral Officer: “We do not know what happened or which riding it happened in. We don't know if money went to candidates”. He also said, and I quote, “these are potentially very serious violations of the act that could significantly compromise the election”.
Will the Prime Minister be transparent and hand over the relevant documents to the committee, or will he continue to hide?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 2:56:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, not answering questions is not going to make Canadians feel as confident as they should be about the elections. We are asking a very simple question. We have been asking the government the same question for two weeks.
Was the Prime Minister briefed on foreign interference by the Chinese communist regime in the 2019 election? We are asking a very simple question. He stated that he was not briefed on funding for 11 candidates. Was he briefed at all about the Beijing regime's interference in Canada's election?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:47:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am.
I am standing up for democracy, as should members on both sides of the House. In January, the Prime Minister was informed that 11 election campaigns had illegally received money from a foreign country. The revelations are clear: The interventions were targeted, and the funding was illegal. Elections are the foundation of our democracy. We all agree on that. That is why we are asking the Liberal government a simple question.
Did the government report these allegations to the Chief Electoral Officer, and, if so, when?
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 2:48:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Chinese communist regime interfered in the 2021 election and that the Liberals did nothing, despite revelations showing that this regime had no qualms about interfering heavily in 2019. No one has been prosecuted or convicted for interfering in those two elections. Even Guy Saint-Jacques, Canada's former ambassador to China, has said that several Conservative candidates lost their elections because of Chinese intelligence services.
I am wondering about one thing. Is anyone in the Liberal benches one of the 11 candidates who received money from the Chinese communist regime?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/15/22 2:47:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an underground network of candidates in the 2019 election, agents infiltrating members' offices, pressure tactics on politicians and a campaign to punish Canadian politicians. This is not the trailer for the next James Bond movie; it is the sad reality in Canada. The last two elections were allegedly targeted by the Chinese communist regime.
The Prime Minister knew about it and did nothing. What does the Prime Minister know, and why does he want to hide it from Canadians?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:36:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
What I am saying is that it is much more difficult to have enough residents to reach the Elections Canada targets in a rural area. Municipalities must be added. For example, we would have to go from 50 to 75 municipalities to strike a balance. What I am asking is for Canada's rural reality to be considered. Our country is the second largest in the world. It would be appropriate for our standards and rules to take this into consideration and for us to ensure that citizens are represented.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:34:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Again, I think it is important to understand that a redistribution proposal that takes seats away from any province will have negative effects on the representation of voters in that province.
Therefore, we must consider all the factors, such as Quebec's specific character, Quebec's nationhood, demographic weight, the political weight of each province, and Canada's changing demographics. I think all these factors need to be considered when it comes time to redraw the electoral map, but I especially believe that we must never downgrade a province's representation. That is important.
We will have the opportunity to discuss this in the coming weeks and to comment on this issue during the consultation being launched by Elections Canada. However, I remind the House that the Prime Minister could say right now that he is going to maintain the number of seats in Quebec at 78, and that is what we are asking him to do.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:22:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us take the Prime Minister at his word.
This morning, the member for Beaches—East York stated in the House that he was not convinced that the emergency measures should remain in place after today. He also said that he would vote accordingly, but that it is now a vote of confidence.
Is it true that the Prime Minister, after appealing for unity, is threatening his backbenchers with an election if they do not vote in favour of these emergency measures?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
