- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- Nov/6/23 2:55:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is another reason why the Bloc Québécois might be buddying up to the Liberal Party. Have members seen the Parti Québécois's year one budget?
Four pages of that budget talk about how the Liberal government's poor management has become an argument for independence. No, we certainly do not want to go back to the Stone Ages of the Pierre Trudeau era, that is for sure.
Will the Bloc Québécois representative in the Liberal government rise and assure all members of the House that they will be allowed to vote using their common sense?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/18/23 3:44:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Monique Bégin figures among the Canadian women who had a positive impact on the course of our country's history. Not only was she a positive force in politics, but she also had a brilliant academic career and was a dedicated activist.
She was born in Rome, but her family emigrated to Canada after the Second World War. A bright student, she earned a master's degree in sociology and a doctorate in the same field from the Sorbonne. Very early on, she became involved in the feminist movement and joined the Fédération des femmes du Québec, among others.
She was an impressive woman who made her mark, and that is why the Government of Canada gave her the delicate task of being the secretary general of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Status of Women in Canada. As my ministerial colleague mentioned earlier, that important commission made 167 recommendations, which still serve as a source of inspiration today, since women are still facing many challenges 50 years later.
Ms. Bégin was elected for the first time in 1972.
Let me be clear. That was a very good election for women at that time. My colleague talked about three Quebec women. There were also people who were very involved in this election who played a major role in our democracy. I think about the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauvé.
She was the first female Speaker of the House of Commons and Governor General.
Let me also pay my respects to the Hon. Flora MacDonald, who was elected for the first time in 1972. She was the first Canadian woman, in 1979, to be the external affairs minister and the first woman in that role among G7 countries.
In Pierre Trudeau's cabinets, Ms. Bégin occupied a number of prominent roles, including Minister of Health. She was the driving force behind the creation of the child tax credit, the increasing of the guaranteed income supplement and the unanimous passing, in this very House in 1984, of the Canada Health Act, which reinforced the universality and accessibility of Canada's health system.
As a Quebecker who had a passion for politics in my teen years, I remember vividly the Hon. Monique Bégin's vigorous, sometimes even ferocious involvement in the 1980 referendum campaign. There is something else I remember from her departure in 1984 after 12 years of exemplary service in the Canadian government. A journalist with very pointed questions asked her if she had any regrets. Immediately, she replied “the UFFI file”. UFFI was a home insulation product that sadly turned out to be poison. It was also a bit of a poisonous issue for the government of the day. Ms. Bégin, with all her bluntness and candour, acknowledged that when she left.
In 1998, she was appointed an officer of the Order of Canada for having had such a positive influence on the advancement of social sciences at the national level, especially in health and education.
Last year, the Order of Canada promoted her to the rank of companion, highlighting her “made a decisive contribution to several causes, including the respect for human rights and the enhancement of the quality of life of disadvantaged and marginalized communities both in Canada and abroad.”
Many people made statements in response to the death of the Hon. Monique Bégin. The Hon. Ed Broadbent, known to many as Canada's social conscience, was quoted as follows in the Montreal Gazette:
Canada has lost an exceptional woman. Monique Bégin was a leader in the cause of gender equality, a leader in bringing universal healthcare to Canada and in general a leader in almost all aspects of concerns about inequality.
On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to offer the family of the Hon. Monique Bégin, a great parliamentarian, a great intellectual, a great advocate, and above all, a great woman, our deepest condolences.
688 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 2:39:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we do want to talk about the economy. Consider the $22 billion in additional spending. We want to talk about about jobs. Consider the 150,000 workers currently on strike. That is Canada's reality under this Liberal government.
I want to be fair. I want to give them credit for one thing.
In their eight years in power, the Liberals have been unwaveringly consistent when it comes to flouting ethics rules. I could mention the SNC‑Lavalin scandal, WE Charity, the Prime Minister's vacations, and the multiple conflicts of interest involving the Trudeau Foundation.
When will the Prime Minister buckle down and get to work for all Canadians, instead of his Liberal cronies?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 2:57:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on the quality of his French, but just because he is speaking French does not mean his words make more sense. Here is the situation. There is a foundation, the Trudeau Foundation, which is not just any foundation.
Let us remember that, when the foundation was founded at the turn of the century, the federal government gave it $125 million in public funds. Morally, this foundation needs to be accountable to all Canadians. The best way to do that is through a parliamentary committee.
Why not allow its directors to testify before committee?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 2:55:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the embarrassing proximity between the Trudeau Foundation and the communist government of Beijing affects all Canadians. That is why we have an obligation, here in Parliament, to get to the bottom of things. Yesterday, in parliamentary committee, the Liberals, with the complicity of the NDP, decided not to hold meetings to hear from the directors of the Trudeau Foundation.
I have a very simple question. Could the non-minister government member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, that proud social-democrat, rise in this House and explain why he is being complicit in this Liberal cover-up?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 1:32:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments by my colleague from Trois-Rivières. His professional experience is very useful to us in this debate.
Earlier he mentioned the rapporteur. I would like to come back to that.
I think that all Canadians recognize that the person the Prime Minister appointed as rapporteur is a great Canadian who has had an admirable career and is well known for his charity work. Indeed, people are entitled to have friends and to be a friend of the Prime Minister. However, when someone is called to take a close look at the Prime Minister's work and the impact it had, that is where things change.
The current rapporteur appointed by the Prime Minister is on the board of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. We have nothing against the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, but let us not forget that the foundation received $200,000 from people who are very close the Communist government in Beijing.
This is my question for my colleague from Trois-Rivières whose job it is to analyze matters of ethics and conflict of interest: Why does he think that the Prime Minister's appointment does nothing at all to reassure Canadians?
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for his speech. It is always a pleasure to remind him that I am one of his constituents when I spend the week in Ottawa. I stay in Hull, a sector of Gatineau, and he is my MP. I therefore regularly receive his always interesting and pertinent, if lengthy, newsletters in the mail. I just want to give my regards to my MP.
My colleague quite correctly highlighted the fact that Canada has been officially bilingual since its foundation, but that the Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. We learned that this was the year of his birth, which is a fun bit of trivia.
He also noted that over 90% of senior executives in the public service are bilingual. In fact, I spoke last weekend with a high-ranking official from an important department who spoke perfect French despite having an English-sounding last name.
In his speech, my colleague talked about the various milestones, including how Prime Minister Pearson established a commission to study bilingualism and biculturalism and how the Official Languages Act was passed in 1969 under Prime Minister Trudeau. However, he forgot to include one thing in his historical overview and that is that, in 2015, the year he and I were both elected, his party's election platform provided for a review of the act. It took more than six years before his party delivered on that review.
Does he think his government was slow to act?
253 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate, although I would have preferred to speak about other matters that are impacting Canadians, such as the runaway inflation that is affecting all Canadian families.
However, as a result of this government's complacency, today we have to discuss a motion seeking to muzzle MPs on a matter that concerns us all.
Let us look at the elements one by one, starting with rapid tests, since that is what we are debating. The government wants to purchase rapid tests, which it will distribute to the provinces, and they in turn will distribute them to Canadians. On this side of the House, we have been asking the government to obtain an adequate supply of rapid tests for almost two years.
If I could make a joke, I recollect very well my colleague for Kingston and the Islands, who quotes a lot of members on this side, talking about rapid tests a few weeks ago. It is sad to me that he has not quoted me, because I have talked about rapid tests for the last 18 months. I would have welcomed a quote from 18 months ago talking about rapid tests, because everybody on this side supports rapid tests. We were the first to ask the government to procure rapid tests.
We must have these rapid tests because they are one of the tools that give Canadians a little more freedom and hope for a return to a more normal life, living with the effects of COVID-19 every day.
Dr. Tam recently said that it may be time to start re-evaluating the health guidelines imposed on us, 75% to 80% of which fall within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. I will come back to that later.
Rapid tests, along with vaccines, mask wearing, regular handwashing and physical distancing when in contact with someone for more than 15 minutes, are some of the measures that will help us get through the pandemic. For months now, almost two years, in fact, we on this side of the House have been in favour of the government purchasing rapid tests for Canadians.
We are talking here about buying 450 million rapid tests at a cost of $2.5 billion, which is a tad more than the parliamentary paper budget. This government has been in power since 2015, for six and a half years, and it promised to run just three small deficits before balancing the budget in 2019. It ultimately scrapped that plan for sound management of public funds.
We will not sign a blank cheque for this government to buy tests. We will not stand by as though all is well and we trust the government to spend $2.5 billion. We have a duty as parliamentarians to be thorough. We have a duty to ensure that the money that Canadian taxpayers send to the federal government is spent appropriately and correctly for the common good.
Over the past six and a half years that this government has been in power, it has proven itself to have no regard for controlling spending. We are in favour of buying rapid tests and supplying them to the provinces so that they can get to Canadians. We do, however, have a job to do.
That is why, although we agree with buying rapid tests and getting them to Canadians, we have some serious concerns that need to be considered. We cannot abide a gag order on a $2.5‑billion purchase. I remind members that the proposed measures apply to purchases dating back to January 1, yet the government is claiming that these measures need to be adopted urgently.
Let us also remember that this is our third week since the House came back. Why wait until week three to invoke closure when they could have done it some other time? As the House leader of the official opposition said, he spoke with his counterparts from the governing party and the other opposition parties in hopes of finding a way to debate this bill properly in the House, send it to committee to give experts their say, and then come back to the House and wrap it up by Friday, all by the book.
If Bill C‑10 is debated today, if the closure motion is adopted and we go through the usual steps, we will end up voting on the bill at third reading around 2 a.m., which will demonstrate the urgency of the situation. However, nothing will actually happen at two in the morning because, for this bill to become law, it has to be debated and passed in the Senate. Now, the Senate is not going to be sitting at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, nor is it sitting on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. It is not sitting until next Monday.
That being the case, why the big rush? They say we have to pass this bill immediately, today, in the middle of the night because it is urgent and necessary, but nothing will actually change for another six days because the Senate will not be able to go ahead right away. That is proof, should anyone need proof, of the government's incompetence. It is once again turning a situation that could have been handled by the book with a proper debate into a crisis.
Speaking of going by the book, I forgot to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, which I am sure will be fascinating.
In short, yes to rapid tests, and no to closure.
Unfortunately, the government has a history of being perpetually late, as we are currently seeing with the procurement of rapid tests. Almost two years ago, in March 2020, when COVID-19 hit the entire world, with everyone aghast, wondering what was going to happen, and the entire planet in turmoil, our globalist Prime Minister was debating whether to close the borders and wondering how dangerous the virus was. It took the government 10 days to do what it should have done long before, which was to close the borders. It is not that we do not like foreign countries—we actually love them. All immigrants are welcome; I am living proof, being the son of immigrants.
However, in a global health emergency, it is important to make the right decisions. Do I need to remind the House that the mayor of Montreal took it upon herself to send her own city’s police officers to Dorval’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport to do the job that the RCMP could not because this government did not want them to do it? That was totally irresponsible.
In addition to the delays at the border, there were also delays in vaccine procurement. Let us not forget the time when the government put all its eggs in the CanSino basket. Unfortunately, CanSino announced in July 2020 that it would not do business with Canada. It was too bad, because we ended up being four months late securing contracts with the Pfizers and Modernas of the world.
Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister put on a big dog-and-pony show when he wanted to suggest that everything was A-okay, even though the government had only a few tens of thousands of vaccine doses. Once again, in typical Liberal fashion, where everything is done for optics rather than substance, another problem arose. There was a 10-day gap in January and February 2021, when there were no vaccines available in Canada.
We have seen one delay after another, the most recent one involving rapid tests. We are disappointed, but should we be surprised that the government has unfortunately decided to put its own partisan political interests ahead of public health interests?
Let us not fool ourselves. I like political debate and good old partisan bickering, but not on matters of public health. The Prime Minister's primary, sacred duty is to unite Canadians on an issue as dangerous, perilous and fragile as this one. He did not do that.
Motivated by partisan politics, this Prime Minister decided to call an election on the public service mandate, which he did against the advice of the top public servant, who was responsible for hiring. It is not for nothing that we saw the member for Louis-Hébert, who was elected for saying certain things, now saying exactly the opposite, namely that he is sad to see his government engaging in polarization, demonization and partisan political attacks on an issue that should in fact unite us all.
That is why we want to say yes to accessing to rapid tests, but no to closure, which prevents us from holding a full debate on this issue.
1479 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
