Sylvie Boucher

[People with Reduced Mobility, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to an exceptional woman who is here with us today. Johanne Landry is courageous and tenacious in her work as an advocate for people with reduced mobility.

Ms. Landry has had multiple sclerosis for more than 20 years, was confined to a wheelchair for 17, and was no longer expecting much from life. However, things changed for her as a result of her son's invention. She was given a new lease on life with the Keeogo exoskeleton and its benefits.

Today, with the help of Keeogo, Ms. Landry is here. She can walk, is happy, gives hope to others, enjoys life, and spends her time with her family and grandchildren.

She is asking the government to make the exoskeleton available as a rehabilitation device to help others like her and to ensure that they have the same tax credits as people in wheelchairs—

[Message from the Senate, May 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when we ask questions about the honour of our men in uniform, it is not a matter of money. I am asking the Prime Minister to answer our questions honourably. Even if he has no respect for the House, he should at least have some for our men in uniform.

[National Defence, May 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one cannot put a price on respect. All Canadians and all military personnel know that when the honour of the Canadian Armed Forces is sullied by a members' actions, that member has committed a serious mistake that deserves to be punished.

The Minister of National Defence voluntarily committed perjury at least twice and would still have us believe that he just made a mistake that can be forgiven with an insincere apology.

If this minister really wants to show the minimum amount of respect that he owes to his former brothers in arms, then what is he waiting for? When will he step down?

[Ethics, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, just because the member opposite speaks loudly does not mean he is more ethical than everyone else.

I asked questions about the Prime Minister's ethics. I am sorry but this is in the Liberal Party's DNA. This is not the first time that we have had this type of discussion. The Liberals have been in office for 18 months, and we are starting to get used to their way of doing things. They use talking points. They were the first to protest when our government did things the way they do them. Now, they are protesting again, and they are the ones in power.

The Liberals behaved unethically and did things that were against the law. They got caught and they lied about it. They apologize publicly, but then they do the same sort of thing again and again. Guess—

[Ethics, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, for almost a year now I have been asking questions about the Liberals' ethics. I was elected for the first time in 2006 and I took on my parliamentary duties to serve Canadian democracy and all Canadians with honour and respect.

Like all my colleagues, I have seen the way this Prime Minister behaves and I have heard his apologies. To me, his apologies will be nothing more than words until he changes his behaviour. I am dismayed by the show this Prime Minister puts on when he apologizes in the House. Nothing he has said to justify his many ethical breaches has me convinced that he is innocent in any of this.

Since coming to power, and in response to the outcry, the Liberal government has been responding to questions about the ethics of its members, including the Prime Minister, with talking points. This is the first time that a prime minister has been investigated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Either the Prime Minister does not understand that he should be above suspicion, or he does not give a damn about it.

The Prime Minister takes trips south of the border, sells access to himself for $1,500 to his millionaire friends, and discusses government business with his wealthy Chinese friends. Ordinary Canadians do not necessarily have $1,500 to spend on getting answers from this government.

The Prime Minister seems to have learned a few things from his father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who used his legal and business connections to get out of delicate situations. We do not have to look very hard to discover that our Right Honourable Prime Minister stated that his father was able to avoid a difficult situation by using his connections. This is what he said in his Vice Canada interview:

My father reached out to his friends in the legal community, got the best possible lawyer....We were confident that my littlest brother wasn't going to be saddled with a criminal record for life...

As the saying goes, “like father, like son” or in this case “like Prime Minister, like minister”. The Minister of National Defence is following in the footsteps of his leader by giving Canadians and our soldiers a number of fictitious accounts of his time in the Canadian Armed Forces. The minister has said many times that he was the architect of Operation Medusa, even though he was not in command of that operation. He was trying to improve his image at the expense of other members of the armed forces.

When it comes to ethics, prime ministers, MPs, and ministers should not be above the law. We are the face of Canada, the face of Quebec.

[Ethics, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, from Bombardier and the Aga Khan to Chinese billionaires, it is clear that the Prime Minister likes padding his friends' pockets.

It turns out that the director of Canada: The Story of Us is John English, the elder Trudeau's biographer. The series will also be used in university settings, which will certainly be good for Mr. English's bank account.

Did the Prime Minister use $675 million in public funds to indirectly line the pockets of another friend of his?

[Ethics, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when Liberal patronage becomes standard operating procedure, one wonders if there is any end in sight.

We recently found out that the Minister of Health's former advisor, Peter Cleary, is now working for Santis Health, which lobbies the minister.

Does the minister see the conflict of interest here, and can she assure the House that neither she nor her employees have met with Peter Cleary?

[Ethics, April 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's arrogance is killing me.

In Canada, like in other places around the world, the Prime Minister has no problem giving taxpayers' money to his billionaire friends, while simultaneously eliminating the public transit tax credit. Yesterday we learned that the Aga Khan was financially compensated by the state during the leader of the Liberal Party's personal vacation. Once again, Canadian taxpayers are paying for his arrogance and poor judgment.

When will the Prime Minister walk his talk and treat the middle class—

[Official Languages, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Juno awards gala was held on Sunday evening to recognize the efforts of Canadian artists who stand out in the music industry and who shine a light on our beautiful Canadian culture.

I congratulate all the winners and I thank the Minister of Canadian Heritage for her impassioned, heartfelt, and emotional speech, which she delivered in French. That is what I would have liked to say in the House today, but I cannot.

The Minister of Official Languages did not bother to speak French, but then again that part of her title was eliminated. A minister from Quebec who boasts about defending both of our country's official languages fell short of her duties and obligations. What a missed opportunity. Defending French takes more than hiding behind fine words. Every time she speaks publicly, she has to do so in both official languages—

[Act respecting the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts, April 4th, 2017]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, An Act to establish the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts and to amend certain Acts.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce my bill, the act respecting the federal ombudsman for victims of criminal acts. The responsibilities of the ombudsman for victims of criminal acts have evolved since the position was created in 2007, so this bill would make the position equal to that of the correctional investigator in terms of independence and accountable directly to Parliament.

It will henceforth be independent from the Department of Justice to ensure that the rights of victims of criminal acts, as laid out in the four pillars of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, are fully respected. Under this bill, the position of the ombudsman for victims of criminal acts will no longer be defined as a program, thus ensuring its long-term existence.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)