- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- Jan/30/24 12:11:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with some emotion that I rise to pay homage to the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, for whom we have tremendous respect and esteem.
I vividly remember when he was appointed minister. I had to make a few comments at the time. In fact I was reviewing the appointments that had been made. A journalist asked me what I thought about Mr. Lametti’s appointment as justice minister. I think I can use his name. I am a member of the official opposition, and I have to be loyal to my position, so I was trying to find something a bit harsh to say. However, I began reading the minister’s resumé and I saw that he was a renowned jurist, a university professor cited by others across the country, and someone who was extensively involved in the justice system in Canada. I really had to say something negative, so I asked why the Prime Minister had not appointed him sooner. I said he should have been appointed sooner.
During question period, the parties have 30 to 35 seconds to argue their point of view. This certainly can be a rough and even brutal experience. However, I always had intelligent, articulate, reasonable and reasoned conversations with the justice minister. We know that we are worlds apart on many issues, but we have always had tremendous respect for one another. I would like to thank him for his attention when I was consulted about certain appointments. He always acted with honour and dignity.
Regarding what he said about his family, I would like to point out that such is the case for millions of Canadians. I, too, am the son of immigrants. My mother was born in Italy. I, too, have felt the personal responsibility to continue what my parents started by choosing this country and being chosen by this country. The minister, whose family did not have much education, arrived here and had a brilliant academic career. He served the university and he served Canada in the highest possible positions for a jurist. He has honoured his family.
In closing, I will tell members what I often tell my friend the member for Québec, who is himself a seasoned academic with executive experience. I hope that he will continue his teaching career to share his experience as an academic and executive with hundreds and thousands of students.
I wish Mr. Lametti all the best in his future endeavours.
421 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 2:52:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not have the honour or dignity to provide a clear answer to a very precise question, then we will need to default to the parliamentary secretary. The Vienna Convention is very clear. Article 9 gives a country the full authority to expel any diplomat it wants. Since Monday, Canadians have been aware that a diplomat from Beijing acted in an unacceptable manner toward an MP. To attack an MP is to attack all MPs and Canadian democracy as a whole. When will the government send him packing?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 2:50:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our country is a country of law and order that respects international agreements. Article 9 of the Vienna Convention states that a country may without having to explain its decision expel a person declared persona non grata.
The question is very simple. Since at least Monday, Canadians have been aware that there is a so-called Chinese diplomat here who should be expelled. Why has the government not done that yet?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 2:43:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, here are the indisputable facts.
Just 10 days after the tragic events, here is what the commissioner said to her assembled colleagues when confirming that there had been political interference in the ongoing investigation into the weapons used.
First, she said, “I shared with the Minister that...it was going to be in the...news release and it wasn’t.” Second, she said, “Does anybody realize...they're in the middle of trying to get a legislation going”? Third, she said, “I’m waiting for the Prime Minister to call me so I can apologize.”
Why is the minister continuing with his cover up?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 2:47:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us examine the facts as they are. When the RCMP commissioner had a conversation with her acolytes, she said, and I quote, “[I flew] it up the flagpole because it was a request that I got from the minister's office. And I shared with the minister that in fact it was going to be in the news release, and it wasn't.”
It could not be any clearer. The RCMP commissioner directly implicates the current minister. Could she act with the dignity befitting her rank and resign?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/21/22 11:36:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to repeat the testimony that was made public yesterday: “I flew it up the flagpole because it was a request that I got from the minister's office. And I shared with the minister that in fact it was going to be in the news releases, and it wasn't.”
She told the minister. Moreover, we later learn that the RCMP commissioner was waiting for the Prime Minister to call her so she could apologize. This makes no sense in a self-respecting democracy.
When will the minister resign?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/21/22 11:35:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a very serious issue. The government has always said that it never interfered in the judicial process regarding the tragic murder of 22 people in Halifax. That is completely false.
Yesterday, a recording was made public of a meeting that took place a few days after the tragedy. It clearly shows that the government was in up to its neck in the judicial process.
At that meeting, the commissioner said, and I quote: “I flew it up the flagpole because it was a request that I got from the minister's office. And I shared with the minister that in fact it was going to be in the news releases, and it wasn't.”
When will the minister resign?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 2:35:17 p.m.
- Watch
Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. A minister claims he did not interfere, but a senior RCMP officer, Mr. Campbell, says that there was in fact political interference. Who is telling the truth?
Some very serious people say that Mr. Campbell is telling the truth. Peter Lepine also told The Globe and Mail, “I've followed Darren Campbell since the day he was a recruit. He's an extremely competent police officer and extremely well trained in the world of major investigations.” If we have to choose between the minister and Mr. Campbell, the Conservative Party chooses Mr. Campbell.
Why does the minister refuse to acknowledge the truth?
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 2:34:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious and appalling situation. Darren Campbell, a senior RCMP officer, has said that there was partisan political interference in the Nova Scotia tragedy. This is both appalling and disgusting.
A lot of people trust Mr. Campbell, including us. The Globe and Mail quoted former RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson, who said that Darren Campbell “is one of the best investigators in the force and a highly reliable officer with tremendous integrity”. Why does the minister not believe Mr. Campbell?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/22 2:49:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Prime Minister of something. Does he remember Jody Wilson-Raybould? Perhaps he remembers this honourable woman who did uphold the law. The Prime Minister kicked her out of her role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Why? It was because she upheld the law and, more importantly, refused to play partisan politics with it. That is what the Prime Minister did with Ms. Wilson-Raybould, and that is what he is still doing with this free trip worth $215,000.
Why does the Prime Minister once again think he is above the law?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/22 2:48:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is not a distraction; these are facts.
The RCMP documents show that the Prime Minister committed fraud. He received a $215,000 gift from someone who lobbies the Canadian government.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister admitted he never got that permission, but the RCMP never questioned him about it.
I have one simple question for the Prime Minister, who, sadly, has adopted this singular attitude for the past six years: Why does he always think he is above the law?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate.
However, I want to raise a very serious concern about what we call a question of privilege.
I am rising on a question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, by the Prime Minister himself while it was on notice and before it was introduced and tabled in the House of Commons. On Saturday, a special Order Paper was published that contained the notice for Bill C-10.
As members know, according to our Standing Orders, notices of bills must be very succinct. In this case, the notice was. It gave the title of the bill and the number, Bill C-10.
Yesterday at noon, the Prime Minister held a press conference in front of his house. Incidentally, we were able to see that, despite the fact that he and his two children have COVID-19, he is doing well. That is good.
However, he said a lot more about Bill C-10 than what was written in the notice.
In fact, CTV, in a publication following the press conference, noted that the Prime Minister provided a bit more detail about the bill's contents beyond its title. Those details provided by the Prime Minister were as follows: “We'll be introducing legislation to ensure we continue providing as many rapid tests as possible to the provinces and territories.”
Yesterday, after question period and the Prime Minister's press conference, Bill C‑10 was introduced during Routine Proceedings. At that very moment, it became clear to us and to all Canadians that what the Prime Minister had said was exactly what was in the bill.
The bill authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund in relation to the coronavirus disease 2019, well known as COVID-19, tests. It also authorizes the Minister of Health to transfer COVID-19 tests and instruments used in relation to those tests to the provinces and territories and to the bodies and persons in Canada.
The Prime Minister talked about Bill C‑10 in detail at the press conference before the bill was introduced. In our view, that is a breach of trust under the rules that govern us.
The Prime Minister's disrespect for Parliament goes beyond just the premature disclosure of a bill. The Prime Minister, having wasted so much time with a prorogation, followed by an expensive and unnecessary election, is trying to play catch-up by leaning on the opposition to co-operate and fast-track his bill.
In an attempt to show some goodwill, his House leader provided embargoed copies to the House leaders of the opposition. For our part, and for the part of all opposition parties, we did respect the fact that we cannot make any comment publicly about the bill. That is the way to do it. Unfortunately, yesterday the Prime Minister did not respect that situation.
On March 10, 2020, you commented on the premature disclosure of Bill C‑7 on medical assistance in dying. You said the following:
...based on a reading of the Canadian Press article on Bill C‑7 on medical assistance in dying, and in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, I must conclude that the anonymous sources mentioned were well aware of our customs and practices and chose to ignore them. It seems clear to me that the content of the bill was disclosed prematurely while it was on notice and before it was introduced in the House.
...
The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one's intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice.
On April 19, 2016, the Speaker found there was a prima facie question of privilege regarding a similar bill, namely Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts, respecting medical assistance in dying. He said the following:
As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.
Another question of privilege was raised on March 19, 2001, regarding the media being briefed on a bill before members of Parliament. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken said, at page 1840 of the House of Commons Debates:
In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.
The Speaker at that time found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, again involving the media being briefed on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House. The precedents are very clear in these matters. The Prime Minister is in contempt of the House for disclosing the content of Bill C-10 while it was on notice and prior to being introduced in the House.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that this issue of COVID tests was part of the opening round of questions during the first question period my leader attended in September 2020 after becoming the leader of the official opposition. This issue is a really serious one and we care about this situation. It may have taken the Prime Minister a while to get it and I understand he now needs help to hurry things along, but he does himself no favours by thumbing his nose at the privileges of this House and the goodwill of the opposition parties by playing by his own rules.
This practice has gotten him into trouble before. On more than one occasion, he ran into difficulty with the Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner found in 2019 that he breached ethics rules. The Prime Minister had tried in 2018 to undermine a decision by federal prosecutors allowing a construction company, the SNC-Lavalin Group, to face a corrupt trial. The Ethics Commissioner also sanctioned him in December 2017, ruling that he broke conflict of interest rules when he accepted a vacation on the Aga Khan's private island in 2016.
I could go on and on, but to quickly get to the point and pursue a resolution to this matter, I ask, Madam Speaker, that you find a prima facie case of privilege. I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
1295 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
