Sylvie Boucher

[Ethics, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the owner of a construction company linked to the member for Brampton East was invited to go along on the Prime Minister's trip to India. That is not the end of the story. The media are saying that the member was paid by this company and that he invited the owner without the authorization of the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister's Office says that it was the member for Brampton East who invited his business partner to India, but the member denies this version of events.

Who is telling the truth? Can we expect another investigation by the Ethics Commissioner?

[Human Trafficking and Child Prostitution, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, human trafficking and child prostitution has been a growing problem in Canada in recent years. Innocent young girls are falling victim to pimps who destroy their lives. In order to address this serious problem, all parties unanimously passed the former Conservative government's Bill C-452, but the current government is refusing to sign the order in council for the coming into force of this bill. Instead, the Liberals introduced their own revised and watered down version of the bill, Bill C-38. Since then, there has been a growing number of victims, making this government complicit in this unacceptable plague on society.

Like all Canadians, I am outraged by the rise in the phenomenon of pimping in Canada and even more so by the fact that this so-called feminist government has stood idly by and allowed criminals to continue to destroy the lives of the young women it claims to want to protect and help reach their full potential. The government has a responsibility to take immediate action to help victims. It is a matter—

[Public Safety, March 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Atwal affair has not been cleared up since the Prime Minister's disastrous trip to India, because he still refuses to answer our questions on this matter. We know that Daniel Jean is a professional public servant who did not provide any classified information to the media at a briefing on February 22. We are therefore asking that he be allowed to answer our questions, but the Prime Minister still refuses to let that happen.

Since he did not provide any classified information, why does the Prime Minister refuse to allow Daniel Jean to give the same briefing to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it feels so good to be able to say “Mr.”

I have a lot of trouble with the speech my colleague across the aisle delivered with such passion. We know that he absolutely hates former prime minister Stephen Harper, but I would just like to point out that the former prime minister is no longer here. We can bad-mouth him whenever we like but, but today, the question is not what the former prime minister did, but what my colleague’s Prime Minister did in India.

My colleague spoke passionately about the relations we need to have with other countries. We are all in agreement here. We are even more in agreement that we have enormous confidence in the officers of Parliament. That is precisely why the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security wants to meet with Mr. Jean. The reason is that we no longer trust the Prime Minister. I know that I, personally, have lost confidence in him.

They talk, they talk, and they talk, but they forgot to talk about what happened in India, the excesses of certain boozy evenings when the Crown Royal was freely flowing. What they are not telling us is that there needs to be a certain model for foreign trips. What is asked of any prime minister from any side to the House is to be professional.

Can our esteemed colleague across the way tell us just how proud he was of all of his prime minister’s costumes and just how ashamed and embarrassed Canadians were of what they saw not only in the Canadian press but also the international media?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her great speech. She raises a good point. Indeed, Canadians were under the impression that this was a family trip.

The Prime Minister, statesmen and stateswomen, MPs and ministers keep a very tight schedule when they travel abroad. They have very little time for photo ops complete with costume changes. They also have little time to visit the Taj Mahal and surrounding area. Responsible statesmen and stateswomen, MPs and ministers are on a tight schedule.

Does my colleague get the impression that they are still pulling a fast one on us?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, we are not calling public servants into question. The Prime Minister's trip to India was a disaster, and not just in Canada. It was an international disaster.

We have indeed heard multiple versions, unlike what my colleague on the other side claims. He claims that there is just one version and that the Prime Minister apologized. The committee wants to hear from everyone, including a government official, because it seems to us on this side of the House that we are not getting the full story.

When the Prime Minister plays Canadians for fools on the international stage, we need an explanation. This is important to me, because all Canadians were made to look like fools, not just the Prime Minister. With all due respect to the members of this House, no matter which side they are on, we need an explanation.

[Social Development, March 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in February, the Prime Minister called out a woman for using the term “mankind” and said that he preferred the term “peoplekind” because it is more inclusive. He later conceded that the remark was a dumb joke, yet another one. Today, Service Canada employees who interact with the public are no longer allowed to use terms like “Mr.” and “Mrs.” and now have to use gender-neutral language.

Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this new practice has truly been imposed because—

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague. I really enjoyed her speech, particularly when she spoke about respect.

It is too bad that the members opposite do not understand that respect does not necessarily involve money. It comes from the heart. It does not do any good to say that the Conservatives did not do this or that. We are not the ones who said those things. It was the Prime Minister.

The member spoke earlier about how she served in the military from 2002 to 2006. Can she tell me how things were at that time and how the governments treated soldiers?

[Marijuana, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I see a Liberal scandal on the horizon.

While the Prime Minister tries to persuade us that legalizing pot is supposed to fight organized crime, the media are reporting that 40% of the money invested in Quebec in companies that will produce marijuana comes from tax havens. That means it is impossible to know who the investors are, although we know that many Liberal cronies have both hands in the cookie jar.

Can the Prime Minister table a list of investors in the House, or will we be forced to demand—

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the motion moved by our colleague.

What really gets me here is that the motion has nothing to do with the Liberals' self-congratulatory blather about what they did or did not do. The motion reads as follows:

That the House call on the Prime Minister to apologize to veterans for his insensitive comments at a recent town hall in Edmonton...

What members on this side want is for the Prime Minister to admit he made a mistake. Making mistakes is human. I think veterans would be happy with that. The Conservatives did not make this story up. It was all over the web. That is what the Prime Minister said at town halls. He is the one who made that promise to veterans, not us. What we want to hear today is one simple phrase: “I am sorry I disrespected you.”

The Liberals are always tooting their own horn. I get the impression that the word “respect” bothers them. All we are asking for is one simple sentence. Our veterans went out there and fought, and now they are back home and they have rights. They want an apology, and we will keep pressing for that until we hear the words “apologize” and “respect”.