- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recall for everybody in the House that the first province to have a department of environmental affairs was Alberta. The first province to have a review process for big projects based on the environmental scoop was Alberta.
Where is the province where we find the biggest plant for solar energy? Alberta.
In which province do we find the greatest wind farm project? Alberta.
Let me remind us that since 1947, on February 13, we had the Leduc No. 1 treasure, which blew up and gave the big boom in Alberta, which profited everybody in this country.
There is no shame in Alberta, not at all.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 12:51:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, my answer is really simple: Yes. Unfortunately, yes.
First of all, the hon. member said that amendment changed nothing. So why did he vote for it if it changed nothing? I do not understand why. The issue is what we have seen in Alberta following the tragedy there. Well, everything was said before. If I understand correctly what my colleague said, it changes nothing, and so if it changes nothing why did they vote for it?
We see, unfortunately, an attack on the jurisdictional procedure. Some people will say no, some people will say yes, and that is the problem. We are going to start another fight for that, and who do we think will win that? It will be the lawyers. I have nothing against them, but, yes, for sure, we would start a new fight with that, which is the last thing we need when we talk about climate change, environmental issues and developing our full potential.
Yes, we will vote against the bill, because it is not a minor agreement. We were surprised to see the flip-flop of the Liberals with the support of the NDP, Bloc, Greens and independents.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/23 11:39:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that clearly shows that this government is completely out of touch with reality.
In a March 15 interview with the Journal de Québec, Groupe Robert, a well-established Quebec transport company, stated that this will have a direct impact on everything that comes from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Not only do the Liberals not know what they are talking about, but everything will cost more for all Canadians, including Quebeckers.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 3:15:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a completely different note, after that nice moment courtesy of my colleague from Alberta, I want to go back to the study I cited during question period.
The study is from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and it is called “Fueling Unfairness: Carbon Pricing and Small Businesses”.
I seek unanimous consent of the House to table it.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have no authority to make any declarations other than to say that, yes, it would be a good idea. Since February 13, 1947, Alberta and other neighbouring provinces such as Saskatchewan have contributed substantially to the creation of wealth in this country, to say the least. Over $500 billion has been paid out in equalization to all provinces in Canada.
Need I remind my hon. colleague that we are facing major challenges today with respect to the environment? My colleague cherishes the province of Quebec, as do I. Need I also remind him that, in Quebec alone, we consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year? That is the reality. Surely he does not need me to remind him that the best-selling vehicle in Quebec is the Ford F-150. That is not what I drive. I do not like it.
The reality is that 47% of the oil we consume comes from the United States. As far as I know and since I checked just this morning, neither the state of Texas nor the state of Louisiana is currently contributing to equalization. That may have changed in the last few hours. If I am wrong, my colleague can stand up and say so.
211 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.
I am very pleased to take part in this debate on a bill about which we agree on the principle, but where we still have some concerns about the wording and the powers granted directly to cabinet and which may, in our opinion, put our country on an unadvisable tangent. We have, then, the opportunity to delve into this further.
We should remember that Bill C‑23 concerns “places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and national heritage”. Essentially, the main improvement in the bill to how historic sites or monuments are currently designated is the positive response to recommendation number 79 in the inquiry to ensure reconciliation with the first nations.
Since we are talking about history, I want to remind the House about the historic event that occurred on June 11, 2008, when the Prime Minister of Canada made a formal apology to the first nations on behalf of our country regarding the shameful and unspeakable tragedy of the residential schools. It was the Prime Minister of Canada's formal apology on behalf of all Canadians that led the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to produce this report, which was tabled seven or eight years ago, and to make recommendation number 79, which proposes that first nations be given a greater role in defining what constitutes a historic site, monument or event by having them participate in the assessment of these cases.
We agree with the principle of this bill. We also agree with the fact that we need to do a better job of maintaining and promoting our heritage sites. Speaking of heritage sites and first nations, I am proud to remind members that my riding, where I have the great pleasure and privilege of representing the people of Wendake, is home to a wonderful little church. I am not saying that pretentiously. It is absolutely wonderful. The Wendat church, Notre-Dame-de-Lorette, is located on the banks of the Kabir Kouba waterfall. It has been there since 1730 when the first chapel was built. It was designated a heritage building by the Province of Quebec in 1957 and a national historic site in 1981. It is with great pride that I remind members of that.
Even though we agree in principle, we want this to move forward, and we will vote in favour of the bill to have it referred to committee, we do have legitimate concerns. We believe that in some cases there may be excessive powers granted to the executive council. More specifically, if we look closely at the legislation, it says, in clause 34, “The Governor in Council [in other words, cabinet] may make regulations respecting federal historic places”. It lists 18 areas where the government gives itself the discretionary power to take immediate action and intervene in heritage sites. In our opinion, this may raise concerns, especially when the bill also gives the government the power to prohibit navigation in certain sectors, which could have immediate repercussions on commercial activities and transportation activities, certainly, but also tourist activities. We need to take into account that this power may unfortunately be used for what we consider to be the wrong purposes.
The same could be said when it comes to broadening the impact this could have on both the designated site as well as the area surrounding an historic site. How can we objectively and neutrally define the surrounding area where the government would have to right to directly intervene to put an end to a given activity? That is a bit of an overreach.
That is why we have these concerns that we are going to raise in the clause-by-clause study in parliamentary committee. We are going to hear from the experts and hear what people have to say about it. Essentially, that is where our concerns lie, especially since this could also have a direct impact on developing our mining potential, our natural resources.
I want to remind members that, in that regard, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition made a promise to all of Canada's first nations six weeks ago in Vancouver. We essentially want to engage with first nations to ensure they are partners in the prosperity resulting from development projects. Whether it is natural resources, mining potential or other elements that could be promoted by first nations, we want them to be partners in our country's prosperity. Gone are the days when someone could step in and decide to develop a piece of land or work directly on it in order to extract its mineral or hydrocarbon potential. We want this to be done in partnership with first nations. That is the promise that our leader made in that regard.
Those are our concerns. We know that there are more than 1,000 historic sites in Canada, with 171 under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada. They are mainly rural or urban places, sacred spaces, archaeological sites or battlefields. There is, to say the least, a very well known battlefield in Quebec. There are also historic homes, places where discoveries were made and places of scientific discovery.
I have been thinking about this. I am not a historian, but I studied history and would have liked to be a history teacher. However, when I entered the job market, they told me to come back in 20 years, since they would not be hiring until then because of job security. I did something else: I became a journalist, and now I am a member of Parliament. I am happy with how it all turned out. That being said, when it comes to history, we need to know how to recognize where the event occurred and the impact it had.
Earlier this morning, the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin mentioned that I visited Leduc No. 1, the site where, on February 13, 1947, oil was discovered, which would give rise to the oil boom that has benefited all Canadians for more than 70 years. The hon. member suggested that Leduc No. 1 might become a national site, and I agree with him. Some may reproach me for being from Quebec and talking about Alberta and oil. Yes, and they would have a point. Three weeks ago, an HEC study revealed that Quebec consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year, and that 47% of that oil came from the United States. As long as we are an oil producing country, I would rather support Canada than send billions of dollars to Texas and Louisiana, although I have nothing against those states.
Yes, I think we should consider the possibility of honouring Leduc No. 1, since it is an important historic site where a major event took place. Similarly, in 1990, the Canadian government recognized that the Beauharnois hydroelectric plant was a national historic site. The plant was recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. That was the right thing to do, since we know that Beauharnois was the first hydroelectric plant built under Hydro-Québec to be expanded from 1948 to 1953 and that it virtually launched Hydro-Québec, a new Crown corporation at the time.
Let us keep in mind that Hydro-Québec was created in 1944 as a result of the nationalization of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated and others. Along with Montreal Light, Heat and Power, there was the Beauharnois power plant, not far from Montreal, and, under the authority of Hydro-Québec, for the first time, there was increased potential. Beauharnois was therefore Hydro-Québec’s first major project in the years between 1940 and 1950. It is not true that Hydro-Québec was created in 1960. The project ended in 1948-1949. We could even consider recognizing other heritage areas of this type.
I think that my time is up now. I will be pleased and more than happy to take questions from my colleagues.
1365 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 3:03:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, by not following President Biden's lead, the Liberals have made Canada the only G7 country that has not reduced its gas tax.
We do not need to search high and low for proof that cutting the gas tax works. In Canada, on April 1, when the government increased the Liberal carbon tax, the Alberta government lowered its tax and even removed it. That has lowered inflation in Alberta.
If it works in Alberta, why would it not work everywhere in Canada?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:13:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Manicouagan is well aware that hundreds and thousands of families in her riding need access to cars that have to run in the winter and cover great distances because there is not much of a public transit system in her riding. She has won the past three elections. She was re-elected three times. She is well aware that this is the everyday reality for people in her riding.
She is also well aware that Canada is a leader in clean energy production. She will be pleased to learn and to remember that Alberta is the top producer of wind and solar energy. The biggest solar farm is in Alberta. Our country has the highest environmental standards for energy production. We are an inspiration to the whole world, and that is great.
The more clean, efficient energy Canada produces for all Canadians, the more clean energy there will be for the whole world and the less polluting energy there will be in China.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 5:02:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate and also to be speaking after the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. As Quebeckers and other francophones just heard, the member from Alberta, who represents one of the most oil rich ridings in the country, speaks impeccable French.
It is late in the day, and we are gathered here to ask the Government of Canada to do what all the other Canadian governments have done and that is to lift the COVID-19 mandates for Canadians. When I say all the other Canadian governments, I am not referring to previous governments, but to the current governments of the 10 Canadian provinces. Ours is a big and beautiful country. We have British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. Ten out of ten provinces have decided to lift COVID-19 mandates.
Some provinces, like Saskatchewan, lifted them some time ago. Others, such as Quebec, are moving in that direction and will lift all measures by April 15. It is coming. Other provinces also have plans. Thus, all 10 provinces are on the same page. It is now time to lift vaccine mandates. All governments agree except for the central, federal NDP-Liberal government. That is unfortunate.
These people keep saying that we need to listen to and follow the science. I would say that they were following the political science when they called an election at the beginning of the fourth wave of the pandemic. They ignored everything that Dr. Tam had said on the Wednesday and then called an election on the Sunday. What happened to those people who were crowing about the principle of science? Why did they then call an election? What principle was behind that idea? They were operating on the principle that public servants absolutely had to be vaccinated. There was not a single scientific study proving that this was necessary. The same thing happened after the election, when the mandate was extended to truckers. There was no scientific evidence for this.
However, 10 public health officials in the 10 provinces have each decided that the restrictions could be lifted in their province. All 10 of them did. Not nine, not eight, not six out of 10, but every single one of them, from coast to coast. The NDP‑Liberal government refuses to recognize what the provinces are doing and, most importantly, refuses to do what all of the provinces have done. It is unfortunate.
I want to be clear. Canadians have suffered a lot over the past two years. We have all suffered as a result of COVID‑19. Some people lost family members or loved ones, and our thoughts are with them. Others have faced serious mental health challenges. We all know someone who experienced setbacks, challenges and upheaval when confronted with isolation.
Other people missed out on some of the best experiences life has to offer. I will not go into detail, but suffice it to say I experienced the joy of becoming a grandparent during COVID‑19 not once but twice. I got to see my granddaughters, but my parents did not get to see them as much as they would have liked. My parents are 97 and 98 years old, and they did not get to see their great-granddaughters, who will soon be 23 months old and seven weeks old, respectively, as much as they wanted. COVID‑19 caused all Canadian families to suffer, some a lot and some less so, but we have all had to live with COVID‑19.
When the time comes to lift restrictions, obviously that has to be informed by science. That is why the provinces did it. That is why I do not understand why this federal Liberal-NDP government is refusing to do what scientists in 10 out of 10 provinces agreed to do on the basis of science.
Let me be clear. I am a Conservative and a Canadian, and I am proud of that. My party was the first to raise the issue of COVID in January 2020. I remember the hon. member for Edmonton Riverbend was the first to raise the issue here in the House, in January two years ago. Ours was the first party to raise the issue of restricting the border to address this. We were the first. We were the first to ask for a vaccination system and to provide vaccines to Canadians. We were the first to talk about rapid tests.
As a Conservative, I am very proud to fight for that. As a Conservative, I am very proud to have followed all the rules.
I am a Conservative, and I got not one, not two but three doses. As a Canadian, I am proud to have my vaccine passport with me at all times. Did I enjoy having to show it every time? Of course not, but we got through it.
I was also very proud to wear a mask, which I still wear today, by the way. There is nothing to be ashamed of; on the contrary. I am very proud to wash my hands 25 times a day. I was already doing that anyway, but that is another story. Finally, I am very proud, in a way, to respect social distancing.
We all learned these words during the pandemic. However, the time has come to move on. That is where we are right now.
I mentioned earlier that the current government has made several big mistakes, such as calling an election in the middle of a pandemic, forcing public servants to be vaccinated without scientific evidence and other things like that.
However, what this government has lacked the most is respect. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine to correct this government's lack of respect, especially the lack of respect shown by the head of state.
The Prime Minister is our Prime Minister especially when we have to address a crisis like the one we have had in the last two years. The first responsibility of our Prime Minister is to let people work together, to unite us and to face and address the situation. However, what did the Prime Minister do? He fought Canadians, he divided Canadians and he wedged Canadians. That is exactly what the Prime Minister should never do, but that is exactly what he has done in the last two years.
That is why we are quite saddened to see that, two years into the pandemic, while leaders around the world and in our 10 provinces have decided to set aside the health measures, the federal government is alone in refusing to follow the science and the recommendations.
It was sad today to see our party put more than 20 question to the Minister of Health, a man for whom I have a great deal of respect and esteem. He is the member for Québec, which makes him one of my neighbours, as is the member for Louis-Hébert.
I have to say that over the past few months, I have appreciated the observations and comments of my colleague from Louis-Hébert. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be having much influence on his neighbour, the member for Québec. He should have paid more attention to the comments of the member for Louis-Hébert, who said that the Prime Minister had unfortunately decided to divide Canadians and call an election on the principle of mandatory vaccination.
What was the response we got today from the Minister of Health, whom I respect and hold in high regard?
The minister came out with all sorts of numbers, as the deputy leader of the official opposition and member for Mégantic—L'Érable said. The minister cited an unending slew of numbers.
Speaking of numbers, let us talk about the number 10. In Canada, 10 out of 10 provinces believe the same thing: It is time to lift the health measures. Why is the Minister of Health not listening? Why does he not realize what is happening?
People are saying that the situation is not the same in Europe and they are quite right. Every country has its own reality and its own challenges. Every country is faced with the fact that people can travel from one country to another and spread COVID-19 to some extent.
However, Canada has 10 provinces, 10 health ministers and 10 public health officers. Ten governments have decided to lift restrictions and mandates. We hope that the current federal government will follow the lead of the 10 Canadian provinces, do the right thing and let Canadians lead a better life in the current situation.
1472 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 2:25:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, Canadians have all seen situations improve without the need for the Emergencies Act.
It happened in Ontario and in Alberta, and it could have happened here in Ottawa. Instead, the Prime Minister chose to invoke an act that has not been used in 50 years. He continues to stigmatize, divide and insult people who disagree with him, instead of trying to find a compromise.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to listen to the Canadians who agree with his Liberal MP from Louis-Hébert and want a prime minister who can bring people together?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
