- 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
- Jun/6/24 4:26:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do consent with pleasure.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:15:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague completely. We absolutely must protect whistle-blowers.
This week, I saw the Minister of Industry boasting that an investigation had been done and that SDTC had been shut down. Unfortunately, while he was boasting, he forgot to mention that the whistle-blower, the one who really brought the facts to light, is in trouble right now. The government failed to protect him.
In my opinion, it is important that we take care of whistle-blowers and that we get to know what is really going on inside the machinery of government.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:13:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would gladly go to Montreal.
However, I do not need to go to Montreal, because I know from reading the newspapers that tragic events are unfolding every day in Montreal. The most recent story involved a pregnant woman who was picking up her child from day care and was followed by someone. She was frightened. That is the reality we read about every day in the papers. This just goes to show how nine years of inaction on the part of this government have brought crime to a point where people are afraid to go out on the streets.
That being said, I understand why my NDP colleague did not want to ask a question about the report, because it is a very important report and, unfortunately, he will probably have to support whatever recommendations come from the top.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:11:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is so relevant. After the new chair was appointed, resignations followed as people got caught. Afterwards, it was funny to see these folks denying all the conflicts of interest, as though it were normal to vote to give themselves money and then profit from it.
The chair voted to give $217,000 to companies in which she was a shareholder. If her lawyers advised her that she could do that, the rules must have been wrong. The rules did not apply to her, but they applied to everyone else at SDTC.
My colleague is absolutely right. Changing the rules to benefit oneself is illegal. I think it is perfectly legitimate for Canadians to ask the RCMP to get to the bottom of this, because the Auditor General does not have the mandate to lay criminal charges.
Unfortunately, this whole affair smacks of criminal behaviour.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:00:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
Before I begin, I want to share some very bad news with the House. After nine years of this Prime Minister, the cost of housing has never been higher. Rentals.ca reports that rents have increased 9.3% year over year. That means the average rent reached $2,202 in May. This is an all-time high for rents paid in Canada. In Vancouver, rent costs $2,671; in Toronto, $2,479; in Halifax, $1,925; in Montreal, $1,763; in Winnipeg, $1,416. No one has been spared.
The cost of housing keeps soaring because this government is not building enough of it. Only the Conservatives have a plan for building homes, not bureaucracy. I wanted to take this opportunity to pass that message on. Why? We witnessed something quite incredible this week. We received not one, not two, not three, but four damning reports about this government's management.
A damning report has been released on this government's management of foreign affairs. We learned about it this week. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians also released a scathing report, which revealed that the Prime Minister repeatedly tried to cover up, deny and then downplay the impact of foreign interference on Parliament and on our elections.
It was probably a terrible day for the Liberals, but I would say that it was an even worse day for Canadians when they saw the Auditor General's reports on McKinsey, the Liberal green fund, which we are talking about today, and cybersecurity.
There have been three reports showing that this government is simply incapable of managing the affairs of the state and the money that Canadians entrust to it. It is not the government's money. It is Canadian taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, the government no longer deserves the trust of Canadians when it comes to managing the money people earn by working hard day after day, and night after night for some folks, seven days a week. Reading these reports, one cannot help but wonder how the Liberals manage to do so much so poorly.
Why am I mentioning that? The reason is that the government continues to spend freely with $61 billion in new inflationary spending that was supported by the Bloc Québécois in the last budget. What did that do? It drove up the cost of housing in a way that has never before been seen in Canada.
Food also costs more. All a person has to do is go to the grocery store on a daily or weekly basis. One has to be there to see people passing up the nicer cuts of meat for something cheaper. People have to make tough choices like that, and sometimes they cannot even buy food that is essential for staying healthy. Why? They cannot afford it. They are worried that, when they get to the register, they will find out they do not have enough money in their bank account to cover their groceries. That is what things are like now in Canada after nine years of this Prime Minister.
Last week, we moved a motion that neither the Bloc Québécois, nor the Liberal Party, nor the NDP supported. We asked the government to suspend the gas tax this summer to give a little breathing room to Quebeckers and Canadians who have been struggling with the cost of living and inflation over the past year. We wanted to give them a break and a chance to dream of taking a little vacation. Unfortunately, the other three parties rejected the idea out of hand. For purely ideological reasons, those people no longer want us to use cars. They want us to travel by bike, through bike paths or whatever, even though they know perfectly well that we do not have the infrastructure.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Luc Berthold: It is true, Madam Speaker, that we do not travel through bike paths; we travel on bike paths. The NDP member himself is very much in favour of increasing carbon taxes. He himself voted against our motion to suspend the taxes. He is against Canadians and Quebeckers taking vacations this summer.
Today we are talking about the sixth report of the Auditor General, the subject of which is Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC. As I said, this report is damning for a number of reasons. This report covers the period from March 1, 2017, to December 31, 2023. During that time, the board of directors approved 226 projects worth $836 million. That is a lot of money.
It all started after a whistle-blower exposed what was going on by recording a senior public servant who criticized the Liberal government's total incompetence because it inappropriately awarded contracts worth $123 million.
I am going to take the liberty of repeating the statements made by this whistle-blower, given that they are the reason we are here today. Thank goodness at least one person dared to stand up and make it clear that the minister responsible, and his office, knew about the corruption within the Liberal green fund and were helping spread it. According to the whistle-blower, they then lied repeatedly. “The minister said...multiple times, that he was briefed on the outcome only on August 27, but that's definitively not true.”
These are comments from the whistle-blower who broke this scandal. Thanks to him, Canadians were able to learn about what was going on within this organization, this Liberal green fund.
The Auditor General noted that the SDTC did not comply with conflict of interest policies in 90 cases. That means that people voted on funding when they were directly involved in the companies receiving it. That is unbelievable. Unfortunately, a departmental representative attended most of those meetings but turned a blind eye. He seems to have done absolutely nothing to help prevent these conflicts of interest.
Some $76 million was allocated to projects with ties to Liberal cronies, appointed to the leadership of this organization. Some $59 million was allocated to projects that should not have received money. We are talking about money that should have gone to innovative environmental projects but instead went to projects that had nothing to do with environmental innovation. How was anyone okay with this?
The thing that stands out from the Auditor General's report is that this all started when former minister Navdeep Bains decided to dismiss the former chair and appoint one of his friends to head the fund. All the problems started there. Before that, there was no problem at the SDTC.
The other thing to keep in mind is on page 23 of the Auditor General's report and reads as follows:
We found that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had not received records of conflicts of interest at Sustainable Development Technology Canada....
That is understood. Further on, the report states as follows:
We found that the department had not asked for or received such information and did not determine what actions it should take when informed of conflicts of interest by the foundation.
The Auditor General concluded the following:
Sustainable Development Technology Canada did not always manage public funds in accordance with the terms and conditions....
Most importantly, she stated the following:
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's oversight did not ensure that the administration of public funds was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contribution agreements and with relevant government policies.
That is squarely the minister's responsibility. He did not do his job. He could have and should have put a stop to this spending spree a lot sooner. Unfortunately, he did not.
Today, we are asking that all of the material examined by the Auditor General be turned over to the RCMP so that it can get to the bottom of this matter and, most importantly, tell us whether any fraud was committed.
1359 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:21:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this week, there has been a lot of secrecy in the House during our debates.
First, there were the disclosures regarding foreign interference and secret names of MPs. Some names have remained secret, and according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there is a secret report that cannot be released. There is also a certain Randy whose surname remains secret.
These days, another thing that seems to shrouded in secrecy is the government's agenda as we approach the end of this sitting. In the Thursday question, we ask what topics will be discussed the next day and the following week. Unfortunately, it seems as though a lot of changes have been made.
Could the leader of the House give us the actual agenda for the business to be done tomorrow and next week?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 2:26:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a pregnant woman picking up her child from day care was chased by a woman screaming at her.
“I was so scared. I ran into the street to get away,” she told Benoit Dutrizac. This is what Montreal looks like after nine years of soft-on-crime policies, supported by the Bloc Québécois, that send repeat offenders home instead of to prison.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the Leader of the Opposition's request and refuse exemptions for supervised injection sites near schools and day cares, yes or no?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 2:25:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, he knows. Cabinet knows. They know the names, just like they knew about Communist China's interference in the Liberal nomination in Don Valley North.
The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has revealed that members of Parliament helped hostile foreign states. The Prime Minister knows it. He knows these members.
He protected the member for Don Valley North in the past for partisan reasons. Is that also why he is now refusing to divulge the names of the members who are collaborating with foreign states?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 2:42:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the extent of foreign interference in Canada has been denied, covered up and downplayed. Now, a report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians has lifted the veil on the culpable indifference of this Prime Minister.
This report discloses that parliamentarians, including members of this House, willingly helped hostile foreign countries interfere in this Parliament and in elections, thus working against the interests of Canadians and Canada. This is shocking and unacceptable. Will the Prime Minister, who has the power and, above all, the duty to do this, reveal today the names of his MPs and the facts about their involvement?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 2:40:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the result of the Liberals' actions: The Liberal green fund and its directors, appointed by the Prime Minister, have lined the pockets of their Liberal friends.
This morning, the Auditor General revealed that the Liberal green fund awarded $59 million to projects that were not even eligible for grants, all in full view of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. As usual, the minister did nothing. We now know that the minister was aware of it.
Will the minister go ask his friends to pay the money they were not entitled to receive back to Canadians?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 2:39:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the corruption. We are talking about three scathing reports from the Auditor General, not just one or two, but three.
I would like to quote the Auditor General. First, there is “The federal organizations' frequent disregard of policies”. Second, there are “significant lapses in...governance and stewardship of public funds.” Third, there is the “government's...disconnected approach”.
After nine years of inflationary spending, supported by the Bloc Québécois, yes, Liberal cronies are happy, but why are Canadians paying the price when it comes to rent, groceries and taxes?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, as you suggested earlier, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, be called for debate at second reading on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, and at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, Bill C-61 be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My point of order has to do with one of the usual practices of the House, the Thursday question and the weekly meeting of the parliamentary leaders.
In both cases, the scenario for Bill C‑61 was to continue debate at second reading on Wednesday of this week. We agree to refer the bill to committee at the end of the day Wednesday after the debate.
I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, Bill C‑61—
Some hon. members: No.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 2:38:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, because of this government's taxes, Quebeckers cannot even afford to drive to Matane.
The Minister of Health completely missed the point when he tried to make kids feel guilty last week. He said, “there is good news for kids. They can take a summer fun-time vacation where they are locked in a car for 10 consecutive days non-stop, with no bathroom breaks.” Then he went on to say, “They can enjoy their 10 hours in the car and let the planet burn.”
Instead of going after kids and parents, will the Prime Minister call his minister to order and vote in favour of our common-sense motion to suspend gas taxes for the summer?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 2:37:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a beautiful day out there. It puts parents in the mood to organize a vacation with the kids so they can enjoy some quality time together as a family. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's inflationary spending, supported by the Bloc Québécois, means that 54% of them have had to change their plans because of the cost of living. People do not really want to pay more at the pump, as the radical Bloc wants them to. People want to pay less and enjoy life more.
Will the Prime Minister help the 65% of Quebeckers who will be heading out on summer road trips and vote to suspend federal gas taxes for the summer, yes or no?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 12:01:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am shocked.
The member for Alfred-Pellan, a member of the Liberal caucus from Quebec, denied the relevance of French as the only official language in Quebec. He told the Standing Committee on Official Languages that Quebec should be bilingual to be stronger and that it should not just be a unilingual francophone province.
That is unacceptable. Not one member of the Liberal caucus from Quebec stood up to condemn his comments, not even the member for Papineau.
When will a Liberal member finally really stand up to defend French in Quebec?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 9:49:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised this afternoon by the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
Firstly, I want to thank our colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, for rising in the House and providing a clear first-hand account of his association with the social media post in question.
Unlike the recent controversy over the Speaker's summer rally, where the Liberal response was never directly put before the House, and instead, we had the New Democratic House leader quoting a Liberal tweet addressed to the member for Hull—Aylmer, this is a refreshing change.
For her part, the NDP deputy House leader described the Facebook post as a “Conservative Party advertisement.” It was simply none of those things. It was, in fact, simply a free Facebook post on a riding association Facebook page.
As the hon. member for West Nova just shared with the House, he neither saw nor approved the photograph or wording of this social media post for a free meet-and-greet function.
Unlike the Speaker's famous Liberal Convention video, he did not pose in his gown for a photo specially taken for this Facebook post. No House of Commons resources were used for this riding association invitation. This is a material and very clear distinction. In glancing at the photo used, it simply appears to be a standard photo one could expect to see on the House of Commons website. It seems like the post was probably the result of a volunteer quickly assembling a short posting who may have simply grabbed a flattering, publicly available photo. In fact, when one does a photo search on Google for the member for West Nova, the photograph in question is among the first half-dozen results.
However one cuts it, it is a far cry from the circumstances we saw with the Speaker 's summer rally invitation published on the red, slick professional Liberal Party of Canada website, which included the following words, “Team [Prime Minister] events are posted by local volunteer teams”.
Just to be clear between the two events in question, first, one event concerned an event organized by the Speaker's own riding association and promoted on a national political party's glossy website. It also featured nakedly partisan language trashing a political party and its leader. The other was a free ordinary Facebook post by a riding association on its own Facebook account and, to be certain, it was not the West Nova Conservative association's. It made zero reference to any other political party and was actually free of any partisanship in its wording.
As the member for West Nova shared, he asked the riding association in question to remove the post, and I have been informed that it was removed promptly this afternoon.
Of course, if the NDP members think this is bad, I would ask them to get their own affairs in order. On the New Democratic Party's slick orange website, one can find, at www.ndp.ca/team, a picture of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, and if one clicks on it, one will see her title of “Assistant Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole in the House of Commons” along with not one but two “donation” buttons and another link to volunteer for the party. The New Democratic Party is literally fundraising on the fact that one of its members is a chair occupant.
However, this is not new behaviour. From the day of her first appointment to the roster of chair occupants on December 8, 2015, the NDP published a press release celebrating her appointment, titled “NDP MP...named Deputy Speaker”. In it, the party gushes, “People in Northern Ontario will be seeing more of [the] NDP MP [for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing] during televised parliamentary debates now that she has been named Assistant Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole in the 42nd Parliament.”
Nonetheless, the NDP deputy House leader, in her zeal for a gotcha moment, neglected to cite or perhaps even assess or review several critical procedural authorities.
First, this question of privilege concerned a Facebook post published on October 31, 2023. That was seven months ago. The hon. member may claim she only just became aware of it, but it was in full, plain sight of the public for seven whole months. This fact alone betrays the NDP's intention in raising this specious argument.
Regardless, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains, at page 145:
The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.
The member for London—Fanshawe missed this requirement by a long shot.
Second, the hon. member for West Nova is not the Speaker. He is the Deputy Speaker.
As Bosc and Gagnon comment, at pages 361 and 362:
While the Standing Orders provide for the Speaker’s impartiality and independence by prohibiting participation in any debate before the House, there is no such clear statement as to whether the Deputy Speaker and other Presiding Officers should take part in debate. Until the 1930s, it was not unusual for Deputy Speakers to participate actively in debate and there has been controversy from time to time over the extent to which the Chair Occupants, other than the Speaker, should remain aloof from partisan politics.
In 1931, when a question arose as to the propriety of the Deputy Speaker speaking in debate, it was generally felt that the actions of the Deputy Speaker must be governed by “good taste and judgement”. Since then, and in the absence of any rule or guideline governing the political activities of Presiding Officers of the House or limiting their participation in debate or voting, the degree of participation has been an individual decision. In 1993, Deputy Speaker Champagne agreed to act as co-chair of her party’s leadership convention. A question of privilege was raised in the House by a Member who argued that this decision affected the appearance of impartiality attached to the office of Deputy Speaker and that she was therefore guilty of a contempt of the House. Speaker Fraser ruled that, given the existing practice and the absence of clear direction from the House, Deputy Speakers have used varying degrees of discretion in terms of their party involvement. He clarified that they remain members of their political parties, and unlike the Speaker, may attend caucus meetings, participate in debate and vote. The Speaker ruled that the Deputy Speaker is not “cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker” and that the matter did not constitute a prima facie case of privilege.
To expand on Speaker Fraser's ruling, found on page 16685 of the Debates for March 9, 1993, I would ask him to add that he also made the following pointed comment: “I am deliberately careful in not extending such a responsibility [for impartiality] by way of ex cathedra comments in this decision.”
Indeed, this decision was cited in the ruling we received just three days ago, on Monday, at page 23828 of the Debates, with the Chair saying, “While Speaker Fraser did not find a prima facie question of privilege, he did state that the level of impartiality expected of the Speaker should be higher than that of other chair occupants.”
Clearly, it would seem that the New Democratic Party's brain trust, which is loyally devoted to defending its coalition government with the Liberals at all costs, missed these important points. Indeed, that is disappointing and troubling.
As Deputy Speaker Armand LaVergne told the House on June 19, 1931, at page 2840 of the Debates, “A deputy speaker is not supposed to be impartial when he is not in the chair.”
It certainly seems that the New Democratic Party applies that particular standard when it comes to the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, given the aggressive views of her office on fundraising and volunteer recruitment. In the present case, we had a publicly available photo that was innocently used in a clear and obvious volunteer-run social media page. It was in support of an event for which long-standing authority and precedence make clear that the hon. member for West Nova was at complete liberty to attend. The NDP complaint should be dismissed for what it is: a petty, short-sighted partisan attack.
1478 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:40:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's government has done a lot of damage to this country over the past nine years. It has doubled the cost of housing. It has caused inflation to reach its highest level in 40 years. No one, not a single young family, can still dream of owning a home or property, because it is too expensive.
Without a doubt, the NDP has made its bed. It chose this Prime Minister's Liberal government.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:38:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, the carbon tax, federal carbon pricing, does not apply in Quebec, because Quebec has the carbon exchange. However, that does not matter. The Bloc Québécois thinks that Quebeckers are still not paying enough yet.
Here is what the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert had to say on the matter:
Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a very good measure. However, it needs to be increased far more drastically than it has been so far.
I think the UN was recommending that the tax be set at $200 per tonne now. Based on what we are hearing, it will be about $170 per tonne in 2030.
That is three times the price we are paying in taxes right now. The Bloc Québécois is not saying it out loud, but what it wants is for Quebeckers to pay more at the pumps, period.
Can they vote in favour of our motion to give Quebeckers a break this summer, yes or no?
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:36:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is one thing I am sure of. I hear the member for Winnipeg North trying to distract from the debate at hand, but there is one number I am sure of, which is that 100% of people who put gas in their vehicles want lower taxes. That is a fact. No one is happy paying tax when they are putting gas in their vehicle.
We are asking for common sense. Right now, people have less money in their pockets. We want to leave them with more by cutting gas taxes for the summer at least, so they can enjoy summer too.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
