Sylvie Boucher

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the House from 2006 to 2011. I left when the orange wave washed over the House, but I came back stronger than ever.

As I said at the very beginning of my speech, I am not against Bill C-22, but nor am I in favour of it. There are some flaws in how it is being presented. I oppose the idea of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness leading the committee. For the sake of Canada's public safety, the committee should be independent and made up of people who have the necessary expertise. I do not want the committee to become the Prime Minister's puppet. That is not what an independent committee should be.

An independent committee, especially one dealing with Canada's public safety, should be made up of parliamentarians who have expertise in that area. Personally, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and I would not be the right person to sit on the independent committee we are talking about. I have no expertise when it comes to defence and public safety. In fact, I have no expertise in any areas as significant as that. We need to keep that in mind. I will never stand for such a committee to become the prime minister's puppet, no matter what party is in power.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 24th, 2017]

True, Mr. Speaker. They probably cannot afford it. It costs $1,500 after all.

The Liberals were elected on false promises and that is bad for Canadians. The Liberals promised more transparency, but we are in the dark. They turned off the light.

There is one thing about my former prime minister that I really miss. Mr. Harper had a great deal of respect for members of parliament, whether they were from Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario, or Alberta. He listened to every member. How many times did we sit over there, on the other side, laughing with our prime minister? People did not know that side of him, but he treated us with respect.

What I find to be detrimental is that the Prime Minister that we have today is becoming a ball and chain, even in the House. His body language is so obvious that it is becoming off-putting to the opposition. What I want to see return to my Parliament is the collegiality we had in those days. Whether we like my former boss or not, we have to give him his due. He respected the institution and all parliamentarians, no matter what party they belonged to. I saw him speaking with Michael Ignatieff, Mr. Dion, and Gilles Duceppe, from the Bloc Québécois, many times. There was a collegiality that no longer exists today.

The arrogance of our Prime Minister is becoming increasingly noticeable, which is a problem, because he should not be that way. Whether we are Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, or members of the Bloc Québécois or Green Party, we were all elected to speak on behalf our our constituents. As a member of Parliament and a woman, I will never, I repeat never, allow myself to be muzzled by the Liberal Prime Minister.

Elected officials must be respected, and respect must be earned. Right now, there is some work that needs to be done because I have lost all respect for the Prime Minister, since he does not respect me as an individual, a parliamentarian, or a woman. For me, that has become a critical issue. If he wants us to continue to work together in a friendly manner, he must let people on both sides of the House have their say.

I hope that my friends from Quebec will have the opportunity to speak to their prime minister, like we did.

We had a special relationship with our prime minister, and I hope that they will enjoy the same type of relationship and attentiveness that we did. The members for Quebec were heard and our party did a lot of things for Quebec, for the good of our constituents. In our ridings, we are no longer Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or Bloc Québécois members. We speak on behalf of all our constituents, whether they voted for us or not.

That is a vested right, and I expect my rights to be respected.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I highly doubt that my Liberal colleagues have their Prime Minister's ear, otherwise yesterday's budget would have reflected what the Liberals from Quebec and all members from Quebec, from all parties, have been hearing in their respective ridings. It is sad to see. Even the Quebec National Assembly was unanimous in its disappointment with the budget.

The Quebec City region has two federal MPs, one a minister and the other a parliamentary secretary. Mr. Labeaume wants there to be a Quebec lieutenant like there was when the Conservatives were in power. We had a Quebec lieutenant who sat down with Quebeckers every day to see what they wanted. I want to see my friends from Quebec stand up and tell me that they had a one-on-one meal with their Prime Minister. They will not, because it did not happen.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 24th, 2017]

A happy Friday to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all of my good friends.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-22. I will use my time to defend my point of view and common sense, which seems to be lacking across the way.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to comment on how the party in power always uses the same tactic when it knows the media and Canadians will take a dim view of its decisions. It sure likes to make itself look cute.

Here is an example of the government's sneaky tactics: it introduced Bill C-22 on June 16 of last year during the dying hours of the session to ensure that neither MPs nor the public would have much opportunity to debate it.

Here is another example. The Minister of Finance tabled a report indicating that the deficit would be $30 billion, not the modest $10-billion deficit they campaigned on. Any deficit at all is hard to swallow. My children and grandchildren will have to pay for it, but apparently the members opposite do not have grandchildren, so they do not care.

Finally, here is the last example. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tabled a document stipulating that the Prime Minister should have to be in the House to answer questions only one hour a week, and that the House should meet only four days week in order to balance work and family. Now that is what I call being a part-time prime minister.

I will now get into the substance of the debate, specifically, Bill C-22. I have no objection to the idea of creating a committee whose members would be tasked with examining and reviewing the legislative, regulatory, strategic, financial, and administrative frameworks of national security and intelligence. What bothers me is how this committee will be formed. I have some concerns about that.

First and foremost, public safety is a non-partisan issue. The fact that the Prime Minister's Office decided way back in January who would chair that committee, before the committee was even struck, says a lot about the Prime Minister's attitude towards the members of the House of Commons.

That decision was made by the Liberal Party alone and not as a result of discussions with the other parties. What is more, the Liberals made this decision without consulting the House, even though hon. members expressed interest in being part of the discussion to select the chair of this important committee. Public safety is very important and should never be a partisan issue.

For its part, the Prime Minister's Office will also be tasked with selecting the committee members, contrary to the election promise made by the member for Papineau, meaning that the committee members will be beholden to him and the committee will no longer able to do what it is asked to do. It will not meet the needs of Canadians, but rather those of the Prime Minister himself, as he sees fit. He will be lord and master as usual. Making the committee not as independent as it should be undermines its usefulness and legitimacy.

Under Bill C-22 the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness will have the authority to change or simply block any report drafted by the committee members. The Prime Minister will therefore yet again be lord and master of the committee. I think he rather likes being lord and master. He should consider the fact that there are members in the House who like doing their job.

Perhaps he does not like it, but we like to speak on behalf of our constituents. Is that not why we were elected to the House? There is a song about the world's kings being at the top, but alone. The Prime Minister should think about that. Someone should buy him a mirror. I think he would like that.

I will elaborate. If the report contained information that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Public Safety considered to be sensitive, they would have the right to delete it from the report. That is unacceptable. By “sensitive information” I do not mean confidential information that would harm Canadians' safety if it were disclosed. I am talking about parts of the report that would reflect poorly on the Liberal Party because they would demonstrate its incompetence and bad judgment when making decisions. Our public safety critic gave a very good explanation of the situation.

He said:

If we are going to implement parliamentary oversight, we need to do it right. It needs to be real and substantial oversight. It needs to be parliamentary. Otherwise, this is simply a Liberal Party communications exercise, and this is not something the Conservative Party can support.

It is very important to remember that the Liberals want a committee of parliamentarians and not a parliamentary committee. There is a big difference. The committee should be an independent body that is not accountable to the party in power. Rather, it must guarantee Canadians that their safety is assured in a legal and professional manner.

I am extremely troubled by the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety could have the last word on the reports of a so-called independent committee. Furthermore, it is truly important that the committee members already have experience handling secret information or experience with public safety, national security, intelligence, and defence issues.

That is one more reason why the leaders of all the parties should be consulted. They could ensure that we have the best parliamentarians for the important task they will be doing.

I would like to close by saying that I cannot support such a bill, unless some major changes are made. First, the opposition parties must be consulted before the committee members are chosen. Second, the committee's autonomy and independence from the Government of Canada must be respected in order to prevent the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety from interfering. Finally, I think that strict criteria must be maintained and that parliamentarians with extensive experience in the fields that I mentioned earlier must be selected so that the committee can provide top-notch service to all Canadians.

We are talking here about public safety. That is extremely important, and this committee must be independent. It must be specialized and non-partisan. However, the Liberal government took the liberty of appointing the committee chair in January without any consultation. The Liberals refused to consult with the opposition parties before the legislative measure was even drafted, despite the willingness of the Conservative Party and the NDP to discuss this important committee.

Like our Five Eyes allies, we think that the members of this committee should have significant experience in dealing with secret information, public safety, national security, intelligence, and defence. The chair who has been appointed does not have that type of experience. The committee members are appointed by and accountable to the Prime Minister's Office.

They should be appointed by Parliament and report to Parliament. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister advocated for a reduced role for the Prime Minister's Office, but no action has been taken in that regard.

Bill C-22 would provide for numerous exceptions, and it permits government departments and agencies to opt out of providing certain information to the committee. This undermines the committee's oversight responsibilities and prevents it from fully carrying out its mandate.

Here on the Conservative benches, as the official opposition, we see public safety as a priority and believe that protecting our security and intelligence officers must be a primary concern. We will examine the bill closely, but we remain concerned about the attempts being made by the Prime Minister's Office and the Liberal Part to make this committee another arm of the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister's comments are becoming increasingly totalitarian, despite his promises to be more transparent. Members across party lines are being silenced, even though we were sent here to represent Canadians. He wants to shut us up. The Prime Minister of Canada will never, ever shut me up. If he ever has the nerve to try, I will go straight to the media and shout at the top of my lungs that this prime minister has become a dictator.

We have a committee that is working so hard for the measures that the leader implemented. It is unacceptable to me that the Prime Minister, who was duly elected by the people and who knew what he was in for when he ran for his party leadership, should sit for just one hour a week. That is ridiculous. Do we have a part-time Canadian Prime Minister on our hands? When will he be accountable to Canadians? This is his job; this is what he is supposed to be doing.

What about the unfortunate Quebeckers working on that side, the 40 members who have been skewered by the Quebec media because we never hear from them? Has the Prime Minister shut them up too? Are they expected to keep quiet about the things that bother them?

People can say what they want about Mr. Harper, they can love him or hate him, but he listened to his Quebec MPs. We sat down with him every day in the lobby. He was always asking us how things were going in Quebec.

Have you had that kind of conversation with your Prime Minister? I highly doubt it. Have you Quebeckers on that side of the House ever sat down with your Prime Minister? Has he ever paid attention to what is going on in your ridings—

[Official Languages, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled a report denouncing the shortage of bilingual agents at Canadian airports. Only 9% of employees in Vancouver, Edmonton, and Toronto speak French.

The Official Languages Act stipulates that all Canadians flying through an airport in Canada should be able to be served in the official language of their choice. Complying with legislation is mandatory, not optional.

When will the Minister of Transport enforce the use of official languages by the employees in question?

[International Day of La Francophonie, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of La Francophonie. During the week of March 6 to 12, I took part in a leadership workshop and meetings of the Association parlementaire de la Francophonie with other French-speaking women parliamentarians from around the world at the Quebec National Assembly. This was also an opportunity to note just how much the French language acts as a common link across the five continents.

Many French Canadians, including Céline Dion and Xavier Dolan, have proven that it is possible to be successful internationally in French, just as Alain Bouchard, the founder of the Couche-Tard convenience store chain, has done in the business world.

It is the duty of all parliamentarians to ensure that the French language is respected, maintained, and continually protected. We all need to rise above party politics on this matter.

To the francophones of Quebec, of Canada, and the entire world, and to everyone who choses to speak French, I say happy International Day of La Francophonie.

[Taxation, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, ever since this government came to power, there has been no end to the tax measures that hurt middle-class families. They are forced to pay more taxes and all sorts of exorbitant fees, and we still do not know whether dental care will be taxed as well.

Sometimes I wonder whether the Liberal slogan should be, “I tax, therefore I am”.

Do Canadians need to pay $1,500 to the Minister of Finance to get him to listen to them and agree to reduce their tax burden?

[Ethics, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been in office for 18 months and is already under investigation by a number of commissioners, including the Ethics Commissioner. That is unheard of for a Canadian prime minister.

Even though the Gomery commission brought to light the Liberals' questionable ethics, they clearly did not learn anything from their 10-year exile.

How many times will the Prime Minister have to be investigated before he finally puts an end to his questionable practices and flexible ethics?

[Alzheimer's Disease, February 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when illness grips a family, life becomes precious. When illness becomes part of our daily lives, we must get up, take stock, and become resilient. That is why today I want to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, my mother. She was my friend, my guiding light, my pillar of strength, my source of comfort during turbulent times in my life. She stood by me during the tough times.

Everything she was for me I now have to be for her because Alzheimer's disease has entered our daily lives and robbed us of so much. It is hard to watch as people we love deeply lose their memories and it is even harder to be so helpless in the face of this disease. Time spent in my mother's company can be both precious and painful.

Becoming a caregiver is not easy, but it is very rewarding.

Thank you, mom. I love you.

[Ethics, February 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, never before has a Canadian prime minister been the subject of two ethics investigations, one of which could lead to sanctions.

Either the Prime Minister does not understand that he is supposed to be above suspicion or he does not care.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he broke the law when he rode in his friend's private helicopter during his personal vacation?