House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was conservatives.

Last in Parliament August 2018, as NDP MP for Outremont (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 44% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Government Appointments May 17th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals could not care less about their conflicts of interest. That is what you call arrogance.

The Prime Minister just appointed a Liberal minister to the position of Commissioner of Official Languages. Mrs. Meilleur said, “I thought I could contribute as a senator, but the Prime Minister made it clear that he did not want any politicians in the upper chamber.”

Why does the Prime Minister think partisanship is inappropriate in the Senate but perfectly fine in the commissioner's office?

Ethics May 17th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, another member of that same panel accused seven ministers of not understanding the principles of independence at all, and I think she was right.

When the Canada Revenue Agency let KPMG off the hook for its tax evasion scheme, what did the Liberals do? They appointed a director from KPMG to be the treasurer for the Liberal Party of Canada.

What will it take for the Liberal government to admit that it is clearly in a conflict of interest?

I want an answer that has to do with KPMG this time, not the talking points we keep hearing.

Ethics May 17th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, so much for Prime Minister's question period.

The Liberals refused to allow a parliamentary investigation into the sweetheart deal between the Canada Revenue Agency and KPMG, but that was not the end of the sketchy story. A member of the Liberal-appointed panel looking into tax evasion attended an event sponsored by, guess who, KPMG. This was on top of appointing someone from KPMG as treasurer of the Liberal Party. How does the revenue minister explain this mess?

Member for Sturgeon River—Parkland May 16th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, today we pay tribute to the extraordinary member for Sturgeon River—Parkland and interim leader of the Conservative Party for her service as a member of Parliament, as a minister, and as leader of the official opposition and thank her for the honour, integrity, and passion she has brought to this House over the years.

We learned last night that not only will the member be handing over the reins to a new leader, she will also be stepping down as MP. That news was met with an outpouring of recognition and tremendous gratitude, and rightly so. She will be missed as an MP and as a great leader of the Conservative Party—my personal favourite, for the record.

In less than two weeks, a new Conservative leader will be chosen. We do not know who that will be, but we do know it will not be Kevin O'Leary. I guess for that, at least, we can be thankful.

I thought today I would tell a story that demonstrates why the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland is so widely respected. This House is often filled with passionate debate and disagreement, as it should be. As opposition leaders of often diametrically opposed parties, we frequently have very different perspectives on issues, but sometimes we can find common ground and bypass party differences for the greater good. In March, the leader of the official opposition and I, and ultimately all members of this House, were able to come together and do just that.

A series of shocking decisions showed us once again that our legal system does an abysmal job of addressing cases of sexual assault and protecting the victims. The Halifax ruling made it clear that appropriate sexual assault training for judges was not only necessary, but had become urgent.

The Criminal Code stipulates that no consent is obtained where the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity. This ruling went completely against the Criminal Code and it became clear that it was necessary to act quickly on this.

The member had introduced legislation, Bill C-337, that would require judges undergo comprehensive training in sexual assault law. I was very impressed with the proposed bill. It is an important step forward for survivors of sexual assault who are struggling in a judicial system that far too often fails them.

It was clear to me that the legislation should receive unanimous support, not only due to the urgency of the problem but also because at that moment in particular, it was critically important that every member of the House come together and say “we believe survivors”.

We reached out to the member and her office and offered to endorse the bill and fast-track it to committee by proposing unanimous consent. That unanimous consent was forthcoming.

It is rare for all leaders of political parties to support each other's legislation and even more rare for leaders to propose unanimous consent for each other's legislation. However, when it comes to how our judicial system handles cases of sexual assault, I am so proud to say that members of the House unanimously agreed to put survivors first.

Quite sincerely, I thank the leader of the official opposition for the tremendous work she did for this bill. I know that this goes back to the hon. member's university days when she took part in a project that looked into how sexual assault complainants were treated in the courts. I know how important this is to her and I am extremely honoured that the House passed the bill yesterday.

I thank the hon. member for being so open to working in a collaborative and non-partisan way. That is what made possible this important accomplishment. I will always be very proud of this moment and I hope she will be as well. I can safely say that the leadership that the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland showed in the House certainly earned her the respect of the entire NDP caucus.

In closing, Catherine and I wish my colleague, the leader of the official opposition, her family and her wonderful spouse, J.P., many years of peace and happiness together.

Ethics May 16th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, that is independent? The Prime Minister's principal secretary sits on the party's national board; the party's constitution states that the Liberal leader must consent to the appointment; this individual worked for the Liberals and KPMG at the same time, but yeah, that is totally independent.

For all this talk about the middle class and those working hard to join it, the Prime Minister has shown time and again that his priority is the Liberal Party and those working hard to influence it.

How many conflicts of interest does it take before the Prime Minister finally drops his talking points and recognizes the ethical problem?

Ethics May 16th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, speaking of ethics, last year, the Liberals voted to kill the investigation into KPMG. That same month, a director from KPMG was appointed treasurer for the Liberal Party.

Ending the investigation into KPMG and then hiring somebody from KPMG is what is known as a conflict of interest. The Prime Minister himself approved that appointment.

Does the Prime Minister have the audacity to stand in the House today and say that there is not even a perceived conflict of interest here?

Ethics May 16th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, there is a small problem because the Prime Minister told Canadians that the Aga Khan's private helicopter was the only way to get to the island. However, not only did the helicopter not belong to the Aga Khan, but that is also not the only way of getting to the island.

Will the Prime Minister at least admit that his statement was untrue?

Ethics May 16th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's explanation of his now infamous vacation is so full of holes and contradictions it is starting to sound like a White House press briefing.

Let me recap. The Prime Minister broke the law by taking a private helicopter to the island. He defended this by saying that it was simply a family vacation with a family friend, along with a few senior Liberals. However, now we learn that the island does not actually belong to the family friend.

Will the Prime Minister finally own up to this entire mess and admit that he should never have taken that exclusive holiday?

Ethics May 10th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister truly believes in the importance of question period, if he sincerely believes in transparency and accountability, he is going to have to find it somewhere inside himself to answer this very basic question, because it only concerns him and he knows the answer.

He is being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner. How many times has the Prime Minister communicated with the Ethics Commissioner? Answer the question.

Infrastructure May 10th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, with that lack of an answer, we are going to have to follow up on this with you. The government created this privatization scheme during secret meetings with corporations, never revealed this during the election, and never revealed that Canadians would be forced to pay tolls and user fees so that their buddies in the corporations can get their cut.

Now he is headhunting for this bank that has not even been authorized by Parliament. Does the Prime Minister really not understand the problem here?