Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your ruling on the point of order I raised yesterday regarding unparliamentary language uttered by the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation. However, I had also asked for an apology from the member who made the unparliamentary comment

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, we heard comments that were clearly unparliamentary. You agreed that his remarks were unparliamentary. If he were a gentleman, the member would stand up in the House and apologize for making those unparliamentary remarks.

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the member for Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation, who just left. While the leader of the Bloc Québécois was asking questions, the member for Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation used unparliamentary language. He said, “Go home.” I would first

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, a number of us heard him. It is clear that those words came from him. I demand an apology.

Health  Mr. Speaker, our hospitals are at the breaking point. So said the Regroupement des chefs d'urgence du Québec, Quebec's association of urgent care chiefs, this morning. In a letter, they said that the lack of resources means emergency rooms can no longer care for people whose clin

Health  Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who is trying to divide the provinces, and we know his intention is to isolate Quebec. He wants to negotiate an agreement on his own terms with the weaker provinces. He wants to be able to go to the Premier of Quebec last, present him with a

Health  Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the Toronto Star revealed the federal government's health transfer strategy and confirmed our worst fears. The Prime Minister is refusing to meet with his Quebec and provincial counterparts as long as they continue to unanimously ask for a $28‑billion i

Health  Mr. Speaker, we know why they are plotting, because they were so arrogant as to tell reporters. They are plotting because they want to isolate Quebec. They want to break the provinces and force them to back down and give up on the $28 billion they need for health care. They want

Dental Care  Mr. Speaker, if the government and the NDP wanted to help Quebec families with dental care, they could have come to an agreement with the Quebec government. That way, 100% of the cost for Quebec children would have been covered based on the actual amount paid. Instead, they came

Dental Care  Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the government did not even try to have talks with Quebec because it is not shopping for dental insurance, but majority insurance. The sole purpose of this cheque is to shore up its majority. In order for the NDP to support it, the government coul

Dental Care  Mr. Speaker, if the government wanted to help families with young children cope with inflation, it could simply have increased the Canada child benefit. That would have been way too easy though, so it decided to write cheques to pay for dental care for kids 12 and under. Today,

Dental Care  Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like things to be really complicated. If they wanted to help families, they could have increased supports to families, but no, that is too simple. If they wanted to help with dental care, they could have reached an agreement with Quebec and transferred m

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2  This is another slap in the face of parliamentarism, Mr. Speaker. It is a two-handed slap, one hand being Liberal and the other New Democrat. Again, it seems as though we are in a bad movie. Bill C‑31 is ill-conceived. We should have worked on this bill because it was scribbled

Public Services and Procurement  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we finally learned that the lucrative Roxham Road contracts awarded to a Liberal donor were worth $28 million. I say “finally” because we have been asking about this for a year. The government has been dodging questions and denying access to information re

Public Services and Procurement  Mr. Speaker, the government is withholding information about the Roxham Road contracts on the grounds of “national security”. What nonsense. In order to offer untendered contracts under the pretext of national security, the law states that there must be a disaster or a threat to