Sylvie Boucher

[Taxation, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps saying that it is a strong advocate for the middle class, but it is in cahoots with the wealthy to help them get richer at the expense of the poor, who are being forced to cover the government's outlandish spending. We just learned that the government has given access to new tax havens in Granada and in Antigua and Barbuda.

When will this government be truly transparent with taxpayers, honestly work in their interests, and stop signing agreements with tax havens?

[Ethics, February 9th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is refusing to reimburse taxpayers for his vacation.

This week, all of his MPs clearly supported his decision. That is an insult to Canadians. His leader is refusing to answer questions and just keeps repeating that he accepts responsibility for the report and that his travel expenses were for security costs that all prime ministers are entitled to. That is not true. No prime minister should ever take advantage of the position and spend honest working people's money.

When will the Prime Minister reimburse taxpayers? That is what accepting responsibility really means.

[An Act to Change the Name of the Electoral District of Châteauguay-Lacolle, February 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the name of my riding should be the one that changes, for it is too long and hard to pronounce.

All joking aside, I would never introduce a bill in the House to change the name of my riding. I would go through the usual parliamentary channels. We were all consulted. All parties were consulted to see whether any members wanted to change the name of their riding. It was easy.

Today we are looking at a bill to change the name of a riding. Although we support it, and although my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent spoke in favour of it, personally I see this as a huge waste of time.

It is a waste of time because the member decided to introduce a bill to change the name of her riding, to have some sound bites to put on Facebook, when we could be debating any number of other topics that really matter to Canadians.

My constituents know that I represent them very well. Whether my riding is called Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix or Félix-Leclerc or Saint-Laurent, they know that I represent them well as their member of Parliament. I do not need to draft a bill to change the name of my riding when there are other avenues for doing so in the House.

I think it is appalling that the party across the aisle has used this precious time to introduce such a bill. I am not saying it is not important for the member in question, but I think it is a waste of our time.

We have some very important matters to be addressed, such as our Prime Minister's illegal trip. We have been asking him for almost two weeks to pay back the money, and we have seen neither hide nor hair of the money to cover the cost of this illegal trip.

The Liberal Party tells us that it was because the Prime Minister travels. Everyone knows that the Prime Minister travels. Everyone knows that in Canada, when a Prime Minister travels, he needs security. However, security is required on official trips and not for trips with friends, family, nannies, grandpa, grandma, caviar, and wine. It is a non-issue. He was found guilty not once, but four times of ethical lapses. It would have been important to legislate about that. However, yesterday, the Liberal Party voted against our motion, which was well drafted and applied to all members of the House.

That said, I will come back to Bill C-377. It is unfortunate that 10 minutes of our time this evening is being spent on a bill to deal with a matter that could have easily been handled in another way. Personally, that bothers me. Personally, I will support it because anyone may want to change the name of their riding. However, I hope that no one introduces a bill just to have something to post on Facebook. I can post on Facebook more worthwhile things that are done for the people in my riding.

Of all the people in this place, there are some sitting behind me whose ridings have impossible names, but who actually work diligently on behalf of their riding without blowing their own horn, even though at times they would like to do so.

The price is right.

I am joking around a lot this evening because I find this bill hilarious, and yet, I also find it troubling. I hope that I will not talk about it for 10 minutes.

I think that the name of my riding should have been changed, but I never would have thought to introduce a bill to change the name. I would have gone about it through the proper channels, and that would have been entirely appropriate.

I will support Bill C-377, not because I think it is worthwhile, but because I hope that members of the House will never again dare to introduce this type of bill and that, instead, they will go through the legal channels available to them here in the House.

[Canadian Armed Forces, February 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister enjoys making grandiose statements that he knows will make him look good, such as when he apologized to certain groups. However, when it comes to protecting Canadians from abuse and harassment, he comes up with all kinds of excuses and does nothing.

Will he do the right thing once and for all and apologize to our military personnel for dishonouring them by refusing to protect them from all forms of workplace harassment?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleague opposite a happy birthday. That is the only nice thing I will be saying about him today.

He likes to cloak himself in the Liberal government's good intentions. However, he forgets that the Prime Minister was found guilty of four ethics violations. All we are asking is for the Prime Minister to pay back the $200,000. That would help a lot of families put food on the table.

[Trans-Pacific Partnership, February 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to withdraw her remarks about members on this side of the House not respecting the House. That is not true. All members here respect the House, and we respect everyone.

[Ethics, February 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the former ethics commissioner released her report over a month ago.

Since then, the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he takes full responsibility and accepts the recommendations, but he has shown no leadership on this front. As head of state, he should lead by example, be proactive, and stop lowering the bar.

The commissioner cannot force him to pay back the taxpayer dollars he spent on an illegal vacation, but nothing is stopping the Prime Minister from reimbursing the public for his extravagant spending. Why won't he do that?

[Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, February 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals had the opportunity to hold off on implementing the program, as they had been advised to do. The Conservative Party may have considered it, but it never went forward. It needs to be said because it is the truth. Members opposite should stop accusing us because we are not the ones who did it. When we make mistakes, we are able to admit to them. However, I clearly see that the Liberals are unable to admit to theirs.

[Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, February 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I want to point something out to him. Between February and April 2016, the Liberals laid off 300 people, at the same time as they gave the go-ahead for Phoenix. We have all the evidence here to prove that this is not a time problem. The system is just no good. We have been trying to table that evidence for months.

I can hear him saying no, but the reality is that, yes, it is true. The Liberals need to stop accusing the Conservatives when they are unable to look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they made a mistake. They made a mistake because when they gave the go-ahead for Phoenix, they also put 300 people out of work. Today, ordinary Canadians are paying the price. People are losing their homes. Some have never been paid, while others are being paid too much and are unable to pay it back because there is no customer service. Phoenix is a Liberal mistake and they need to own up to that.

[Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, February 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to take part in the debate in the House. First, I would like you to know that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, who is a strong champion of Canada’s two official languages. I thank him for the exceptional work that he does for us and for the Constitution.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-62. My Liberal colleague spoke about the big difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. That big difference is the code of ethics. The Conservative Party could never be accused of not behaving ethically. One of our ministers had such respect for ethics that she had to resign over a $16 glass of orange juice. If some people across the way find that funny, maybe it is time they asked their Prime Minister to reimburse taxpayers for his trip, which was deemed illegal by the Ethics Commissioner. Maybe the man I see laughing on the other side of the House should read all the newspapers published this week.

If the Liberal government opposite truly wants to defend public service workers, it should begin by putting an end to its outrageous expenses. When the Prime Minister travels and 400 bottles of wine are purchased on the aircraft, the taxpayers pay for that. It makes no sense. Whether Conservative, New Democrat, Liberal, Block, whatever else, it is unacceptable to make taxpayers pay for 400 bottles of wine on an elite trip on a government aircraft.

It is also unacceptable that the Prime Minister, who was found guilty not two, not three times, but four times by the Ethics Commissioner, refuses to answer questions in the House and repay taxpayers. It is outrageous.

Then, there are the two omissions in Bill C-62. While we debate this bill, thousands of workers are still without pay because of Phoenix. There are members here who are prepared to provide evidence to show that, beginning in 2016, giving the green light was deemed counterproductive. It was not us who did it, it was the Liberals. They have been in office for two years and they have spent two years accusing others and refusing to assume their responsibilities.

Accordingly, I will obviously be opposing Bill C-62 for two reasons. First and foremost, I am much closer to ordinary workers than union leaders who fill their own pockets. We still do not know where that money goes, and that bothers me. It also bothers me that people across the House claim to be great defenders of workers and then table this type of bill that aims primarily to thank the unions for spending so much money to defeat the Conservatives in the last election. In my opinion, this is a terrible bill, as it serves to thank the friends of the party in office, a party with so many friends that new lists keep popping up, whether on the subject of marijuana or these abhorrent unions.

This party is becoming truly vile. We are used to it since Gomery; this is nothing new.

I will get back to Bill C-62. If the Liberals truly want to help people, if it is really in their DNA to help average people, maybe it is high time that they solve the Phoenix problem.

People have come to my riding, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, because they work for the federal government in the neighbouring riding of Beauport—Limoilou and have not been paid for eight or nine months. People who have been overpaid have also come to see me. They are trying to return the money, but they do not know where to go, because no one will answer their questions. There are actual people living through this every day.

As the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, I will not support Bill C-62 because it goes against ordinary people, the middle class, and it helps the big union bosses more than average people. For that reason, I will be voting against this bill.