- 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
- Dec/5/23 3:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to begin, allow me to thank the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the House leader of the official opposition, for his speech.
Let us keep in mind that this member has occupied the Speaker's chair, so when he raised the question of privilege, he knew full well what this is all about. He also knows why it is important for those who occupy the chair of Speaker of the House of Commons to be impartial and take on the role of the referee, not one of the players on the House of Commons ice rink.
I was shocked when I first saw the video of the current Speaker of the House for the very first time. I was shocked by his comments and by the fact that, not only after his election as Speaker, but also before, in the speech he gave to be elected Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer made several references to the importance of words, deeds and decorum in the House. As a referee and the person responsible for decorum in the House, if he is to achieve this goal, he must, without fail, demonstrate absolute impartiality.
I will remind the House about what the member for Hull—Aylmer said before he was elected. Again, everything is a matter of judgment, of course, but it is also a matter of perception. At the time, before he was elected, this is what he said to all his colleagues in the House. He used his speaking time, the time that every candidate for the speakership is entitled to, to say, “The words we use matter. Symbols matter. I know this all too well. As your Speaker, I will act swiftly to restore the honour of the House.”
That statement offended me because I did not think the House had been dishonoured in any way prior to his arrival. Nevertheless, as a group, we chose to elect the member for Hull—Aylmer as Speaker despite what he said. Given his statement, we expected the honour and decorum of the House to be impeccable. Then the Speaker made a statement from his seat before oral questions. Let us not forget how astonished we were to see the Speaker make such a statement at such a time. He announced his intention to elevate debate in the House of Commons and do better than his predecessors.
Who would have thought, just a few weeks later, that not only would all his attempts to do so fail, but on top of that, he would prove to be the most partisan Speaker since I do not know when? Who would have thought that the comments he made at the Ontario Liberal Party convention would have harmed the position he holds? We must also consider the way in which he said he wanted to lead the House to have better deliberations.
When the referee takes sides, how are the players then supposed to respect any of his decisions? When the referee practically becomes one of the players on the ice and he decides to score a goal with his striped shirt in the opposing team's net, he loses all credibility in any decision me makes after that. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is.
To remind people why we had to raise this question of privilege, I will quote some of comments from the famous video at the root of the situation we find ourselves in today.
The Speaker was dressed in his Speaker's robes in the video that was seen by Liberal supporters at the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention. The video was filmed in the Speaker's office, likely using House of Commons resources.
His words were very clear. Despite the apology that he gave in the House this week, he cannot dismiss or erase what he said to the convention on that video. In reference to Mr. Fraser, the interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party who was retiring after an election, the Speaker said, “He's demonstrated so much calm, conviction and resolve and determination, and he's held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party.” He very clearly stated “of our party”.
Even though, in his apology, he indicated that he was not a member of the Ontario Liberal Party, that he did not have a membership card and that he did not participate in activities, he still took the time to say “our party” in front of all those Liberal supporters.
When it comes to partisanship and perceptions, the Speaker, dressed in the robes of the Speaker of the House of Commons and standing in the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons, clearly failed in his basic duty to show reserve. There is a reason why no other Speaker of the House of Commons has spoken at a political convention. It has never happened before in Canada, not in legislative assemblies, not in the Quebec National Assembly and not in other parliaments around the world operating under our British parliamentary system. It has never happened anywhere.
Various excerpts from the many books of standing orders and procedures of Houses of Commons operating under the British system concur in this matter. It is written. It is a rule. It is not mere tradition that requires the Speaker to refrain from partisan displays.
I would like to quote from Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, third edition, at page 132. This excerpt demonstrates that non-partisanship must be demonstrated in all parliamentary systems, not just here:
While the legitimacy of the Chair stems primarily from the rules that govern the selection process, the impartiality of the Chair is essentially determined by the attitude adopted by the President in the exercise of the functions of office. Of course, the rules of parliamentary procedure state that the President does not belong to any parliamentary group, does not participate in any of the Assembly's debates and votes only to break a tie, but it is the manner in which the incumbent oversees the proceedings and follows those rules that determines whether actual impartiality and the appearance of impartiality are maintained.
I am saying this most sincerely: Unfortunately, with this video that was shown at the Ontario Liberal Party convention, the Speaker failed in his duty to be truly neutral and, primarily, in his duty to maintain an appearance of neutrality.
I will also add my voice to that of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is asking that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as soon as possible. The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House.
While I am at it, I will move an amendment to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle's motion. The amendment reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by adding the following: “, provided that the committee: (a) meet within 24 hours after receiving this order of reference to consider the matter; (b) ensure this matter take priority over all other business; (c) shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for the committee meetings, subject to the special orders adopted on Monday, May 16, 2023, and Monday, December 4, 2023; and (d) be instructed to report back to the House not later than on Thursday, December 14, 2023”.
1265 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 12:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on this very serious question. I wish to do so so that the people watching us in Quebec and all francophone communities across the country understand what we are talking about right now in the House of Commons.
Today, we provided notice of a question of privilege concerning the Speaker's public participation in partisan events over this past weekend.
As the Speaker himself indicated this morning in his statement, I hope that he will recuse himself from the deliberations concerning this question of privilege. This is an extremely sensitive issue, especially since the question of privilege has been compounded by a number of other issues.
The Conservative Party asked that the question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the event and recommend any appropriate remedies. Today, another political party asked that the Speaker simply resign. This is an extremely serious matter that deserves to be looked at very seriously.
Words and deeds matter. I am going to quote the member for Hull—Aylmer, before he took the role of Speaker, from the speech he made in the House to all his colleagues and to all Canadians. Let us not forget that before the vote, all those running to become Speaker were given the opportunity to make a speech in the hope of winning the support of their peers, their fellow MPs. The member for Hull—Aylmer took advantage of his speaking time to call for respect, saying, and I quote:
The words we use matter. Symbols matter. I know this all too well.
These are weighty words in relation to the events reported to us by The Globe and Mail this weekend. Subsequently, we have had the opportunity to see them on social networks and, today, they are being repeated just about everywhere on all platforms and in all media.
Let me remind members what happened. The Globe and Mail published an article on Saturday under the following headline, “John Fraser finishes his time as interim Ontario Liberal leader as party elects permanent replacement”. The article was written by Laura Stone. She quotes the Speaker of the House quite remarkably. Here is how the member for Hull—Aylmer referred to Mr. Fraser: “He's demonstrated so much calm, and conviction and resolve and determination, and he's held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party.”
Let me repeat that last part because it is very important for what happened next: “He's held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party.”
I will now quote an excerpt from the statement made by the Speaker of the House this morning, at the opening of the House, speaking about that video.
Hon. colleagues, it was played at a convention for a party that I am not a member of, in a province where I do not live in and where I have been unable to vote for nearly three decades.
I can remember the Speaker's exact words in the video, which was viewed by a number of Canadians. The Speaker of the House, wearing his robes and standing in his office, said of Mr. Fraser that he “demonstrated so much calm, and conviction and resolve and determination”, and “held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party”.
That is the opposite of the statement the Speaker of the House and member for Hull—Aylmer made this morning. What does he mean by “our party”?
Regardless, the video went even further. The Speaker of the House took part by video in the election of the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. This is an excerpt of what he said in the two-minute video produced as part of a tribute to Mr. Fraser, and I quote: “We had a lot of fun together through the Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected. This was really a seminal part of my life. When I think of the opportunities that I have now as being Speaker of the House of Commons, it's because of people like John and Linda, and especially you, John, that I am the person I am today.”
In that same video, once again, the Speaker himself mentioned his affiliation with the Liberal brand. He was wearing the Speaker's robes and standing in the Speaker's office, and the video was probably filmed using House of Commons resources. For the benefit of the people tuning in, I will just remind them that the video was played at the Ontario Liberal leadership convention as a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada. As I mentioned earlier, he made these remarks while standing in the Speaker's office in West Block and wearing the Speaker's robes.
The decision to take part in a political convention is in and of itself very ill advised for someone who must be seen to be non-partisan. Some people may say that the situation would have been different if the member for Hull—Aylmer had done this wearing jeans in his backyard and using a personal computer rather than House of Commons resources, but that is not true. The Speaker of the House is the Speaker of the House, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of what he is wearing. When he does something like this while deliberately dressed in the full regalia of his non-partisan position in the offices of the Speaker of the House of Commons, that is what we would call a partisan gesture on the part of someone we would expect to show absolute non-partisanship.
I thought it was important, and I still think it is important, that we inform all of the francophones across the country who watch our proceedings of what is going on. It is important to remember that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice is very clear on the non-partisan nature of the position of Speaker of the House of Commons.
1046 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent on his excellent speech. His knowledge of hockey should deter my colleagues across the way from ever taking him on on this particular rink. They would find themselves on thin ice, just like anyone else who would want to challenge him on the subject.
I want to mention something else before I start my speech. We know that several MPs have the joy and good fortune of being able to rely on parliamentary interns who shadow us for two parliamentary periods. I have the honour and pleasure of having Jean-Samuel Houle working by my side as a parliamentary intern. He is the one who helped me research and write this speech that I am delivering today. It is with much gratitude that I thank him for his work and commitment, as well as all parliamentary interns who are working for MPs. Do members know why this is a good program? Interns learn to work with the opposition parties and the government. It is a rather extraordinary school for people who might lead our country one day. I am sure that our future colleagues are among them.
I will now begin the speech prepared for me by Jean-Samuel. For years, the Liberal government has continually failed to address the issue of foreign interference because it does not take it seriously. Our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills and other members of Parliament have been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing. Unfortunately, our colleague from Wellington-Halton Hills had to learn about this from The Globe and Mail. That was two years after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service submitted an important management memo to the Department of Public Safety stating that the member was being targeted by a diplomat of the Communist regime, right here in Canada.
The minister responsible for the matter, who was the public safety minister at the time and is now the Minister of National Defence, said in committee that he was never informed in 2021 by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. However, his testimony was contradicted by that of the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, David Vigneault, who said that he forwarded this information to his office, to the department, to the minister, in a very high-priority memo that came with a very clear stipulation to pass on this information to the minister.
Unfortunately, the minister continued to deny any knowledge of the matter when he appeared in committee this week. He made all kinds of excuses. He said that the special, secure encrypted computer to receive the email was somewhere else in the deputy minister's office, not in his office. They are both on the same floor of the same building, by the way. In short, there were all sorts of reasons not to take responsibility for the actions. Everyone recognized that this was a very serious error in the transmission of information. Even the minister himself recognized that. The problem with this government is that there is never anyone to take ultimate responsibility for these actions. Everyone knows how hard that is for the Liberals.
The Prime Minister must be held responsible for this monumental failure that is jeopardizing our democracy. This was confirmed by the testimony of the former member for Durham, who appeared before the committee today and told the government how it is failing to act when it comes to foreign interference. While the government and the Liberals are asleep at the switch, foreign actors are setting up shop and intimidating us more and more.
We know that Beijing has set up police stations in Canada to monitor Chinese Canadians. There are at least five in Ontario, western Canada and Montreal.
This week, members of the House were notified by Global Affairs Canada that a number of Canadian politicians had fallen victim to another interference campaign designed to silence any criticism of the Communist Party. According to Global Affairs Canada, it is a campaign known as “spamouflage”. I had never heard of it before, but I learned that the word actually does exist. It is a combination of the words “spam” and “camouflage”, and it is spam that is camouflaged so no one can tell where it is coming from. The campaign began in August and targeted dozens of MPs of all political stripes, across several geographic regions in Canada. Victims include the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition and several ministers. A number of my colleagues have also been victims of this campaign.
The integrity of our elections and conducting our internal affairs without foreign interference should not be partisan issues. However, it seems that the Liberals have difficulty hearing and acting when our agencies take measures and try to advise them of the importance of what is happening.
It really makes me wonder what the Liberals have been up to. For years, the Conservatives have believed that agents of foreign governments should be registered. On April 13, 2021, Conservative MP Kenny Chiu introduced a bill to create a foreign agent registry. However, an election was called and the registry did not pass.
To make matters worse, it was our colleague Mr. Chiu who was the target of an intense disinformation campaign by the Chinese Communist Party during the election, because he wanted to implement this foreign agent registry. That is totally unacceptable. We need to know who is operating within our borders.
Months ago, the Liberals promised that such a registry was one of their priorities, but they have yet to do anything. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has not even included the issue on the list of the government's fall priorities. When will the Liberals take action? With the Liberals and the Prime Minister asleep at the switch and doing nothing about foreign interference, Beijing's influence is taking hold. That is the consequence. The regime sees Canada's lack of reaction as an invitation to go further and do more. This has to stop.
That brings me to the subject of Bill C‑34, which is before us today. After eight years under this Liberal government, Canadian companies continue to be bought up by actors with malicious intent. More and more state-owned companies that are connected to dictatorships like China have acquired interests in flagships of the Canadian economy. They have bought shares directly or even taken control of certain companies. They are particularly interested in Quebec's and Canada's intellectual property in our high-tech sectors but also in people's private information, which is very worrisome. This is an extremely serious situation.
We must admit it is not a problem in and of itself that foreigners want to invest in Canada. In fact, such investments make a major contribution and help grow our economy. However, an important line must be drawn. Some actors do not come to Canada in good faith. When it comes to money from state-owned companies led by dictatorships, that is a problem. When it comes to money from countries that do not respect Canada or our values, that is a problem. Unfortunately, there are still companies that do not respect us at all and that come and buy our businesses, not to help the economy grow, but to become richer and take possession and control of our resources and intellectual property. For years, we have talked about Canada's findings, research and technology being copied. Who was the expert in that? It was the Communist regime in Beijing. Today, not only are they still imitating products that are made all over without respecting property rights, but they also want to directly purchase the intellectual property that they copied in the past. That cannot continue.
In 2017, the Minister of Industry did not require a full national security review prior to the acquisition of telecommunications company Norsat International and its subsidiary Sinclair Technologies by Hytera Communications, a Chinese company. Hytera Communications is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. In December 2022, the RCMP awarded a contract for sensitive communications equipment to Sinclair Technologies, a wholly owned subsidiary of Norsat International, which was acquired by Hytera Communications. The headquarters of Hytera Communications is located in Shenzhen, China. I repeat that the company is partially owned by the People's Republic of China. A company that belongs to the People's Republic of China cannot hide any information from the government if they request it. That is why it is so important to take action.
That is why, with the Conservative amendments, we intend to support Bill C‑34. We were able to improve it, but frankly, it was time to take action and do something.
1478 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 3:22:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have to admit you are putting a little pressure on me to produce a Thursday question that lives up to this House's reputation.
During Oral Questions, there were a lot of questions about Bill C‑56 and comments by government ministers about the Conservative Party's decision to support or oppose it. They urged us to support it. I would note that the government has not put Bill C‑56 on the House's agenda since October 5. I actually have an excellent speech ready about my position on Bill C‑56.
I would therefore like to ask the Leader of the Government if a discussion of Bill C‑56 is planned for next week's House business so that I can finally deliver my speech.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wish my colleague had listened to the speeches. Since coming here today, I have had the opportunity to listen to several speeches. I did not hear hysteria in any of the speeches given by my colleagues.
I heard about fears, the fears raised by hunters and farmers in their ridings, their legitimate fears because they feel that the Liberal government is attacking them and using them to cover up for its own inaction when faced with the increase in violent crime in our municipalities and all across the country. There has been a 32% increase.
What the government wants to do is take guns away from hunters and sport shooters, even though these are not the types of guns that are used to commit crimes. That is unacceptable.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I spoke in English and French during my speech, so I was expecting that my colleague was listening to me and to what I said. I was talking about the mother who is struggling to pay for the home heating of her house, for her groceries and for the gasoline that she needs to go to work.
No matter where we stand in the OECD, nothing in this fall economic statement, nothing, helps that mother face that new spending.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:08:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for starters, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester.
Before I get down to business, I just want to say that this is my first speech in the House since my mother passed away this summer. She was my greatest supporter. She tuned in to every single one of my speeches, interventions and television appearances.
I feel a little emotional about speaking today, knowing that she is watching but will not be sharing her thoughts with me afterward. I know she is there, as supportive as always. She was always there throughout my career. Thanks to her, my family, my brothers and I always had enough to eat. She made sure we never went hungry, even in tough times. Cancer took her life this summer. She was sick for just a few months. She was in good shape.
I just want to acknowledge my mother, who is watching us. I am sure I will hear her comments after my speech, which I already know will be excellent, because that is what she always told me. A mother is a mother, after all. Wherever she is right now, I am thinking of her.
Madam Speaker, today we are debating the motion moved by the leader of the official opposition, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House, given that the government's tax increases on gas, home heating and, indirectly, groceries, will fuel inflation, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported the carbon tax costs 60% of households more than they get back, the government must eliminate its plan to triple the carbon tax.
I would like to begin by setting the record straight on a few points.
I heard my Bloc Québécois and NDP colleagues boasting about the fact that Quebec has its own carbon pricing system. They said that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec and that the leader of the official opposition should take into account the fact that Quebec has its own system.
However, they seem to be forgetting one very important thing. Unfortunately, not everything we consume in Quebec is produced in Quebec, so Quebeckers will inevitably pay more when the Liberal government triples its carbon tax.
Not only will Quebeckers pay more because everything will be more expensive, because everything that is transported or passes through another province will be more expensive, but the federal government has made it clear that the provinces will have to adjust and ensure that their carbon pricing system reflects the figures that the Liberals want to put in place.
What does that mean?
That means that the Bloc and the NDP are supporting further federal interference in the system that was established in Quebec, in order to force Quebec to make changes to its laws to meet the federal government's tax objectives.
In other words, the poorest will once again have to pay the price for decisions made by this Liberal federal government and backed by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. That is the reality.
I do not understand how the Bloc and the NDP can ignore this situation, this clear and specific reality.
538 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:15:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since the pandemic began, I have had the opportunity on countless occasions to listen to speeches and presentations from my hon. colleague using a little tool called Zoom, on a little computer. I have heard the member defend the Liberal government several times on this little screen.
Hiding means not answering questions. It means refusing to take a stand. That is what the Prime Minister did by hiding. He hid from his responsibilities. He did not hide at home; he hid from his responsibilities. He could have spoken out. He had every opportunity to do so.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
