Gérard Deltell
Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has been running the country for over a year now. My question is very simple: Where are the actual results for Canadians? Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. The GDP has contracted in three of the last four quarters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will take the data from Statistics Canada and the budget into account. This past year, the deficit was twice as high as expected. The cost of living went up. Housing starts have declined since May.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, is being completely mismanaged. As a result, it has become a cakewalk for tax evaders to hack into the accounts of perfectly ordinary, honest people. Unfortunately, when people get hacked, it can takes months and months before the CRA can resolve their issues.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269 , which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre . One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary. Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him.”
“Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Gérard Deltell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
“It prompted commentator Mario Dumont, among other observers, to write, “The Conservative Party of Canada has kicked off a real debate....Is the right of the soil completely off-limits?” So far, this right has indeed seemed like something carved in stone, beyond the realm of debate. He says that “the right of the soil is no longer off-limits” and that “the Conservatives are right” to take this action. Bill C-3 addressed this issue, but in our view, it did not address the most sensitive aspects of it that call for serious, humane and political reflection, because we need to consider how this might affect future generations. That is why we had serious reservations about this bill as it was introduced and why we proposed amendments in committee. A total of 11 issues were discussed in committee, based on the amendments we brought forward.”
“That is what happened in Ontario in the early 2020s. In 2023, an Ontario judge ruled this law unconstitutional and set the government a deadline for making adjustments. That deadline has been extended repeatedly in light of political events, including the end of a government, an election and the installation of a new government. We are therefore faced with a situation of some urgency considering that we have until November 25, if memory serves, to pass a bill amending the Citizenship Act. The amendment has to do with the right of the soil. Can a person born on Canadian soil obtain citizenship automatically, within limits? This is a sensitive but fundamental issue that keeps coming up with increasing frequency.”
“Once again, I am thinking of my parents. I am the son of immigrants. This is a subject that is very close to my heart. Bill C‑3 replaces Bill C‑71 , which was debated during the previous Parliament. It deals with citizenship by descent, lost citizenship and the status of children born abroad. Why was this bill introduced? It was because, in 2009, Stephen Harper's Conservative government introduced the first version of an amendment to the Citizenship Act. It put a limit on the conditions under which citizenship could be automatically granted to foreign children, and this applied to the first generation. There were some heated debates, but the bill was passed. The act has been upheld to this day. However, the very nature of a law makes it open to challenge, and citizens are entitled to do just that.”
“Gérard Deltell: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the applause, but they should save it for my second point, which is even better. All of Canada will be united tonight. With one voice, we will support the Blue Jays. Tonight, they will beat the other team and bring home baseball's biggest prize. If they should happen to lose tonight, I am not even worried, because they always come back strong. There is no doubt that the Blue Jays are going to win the World Series. [ English ] Let me quote the famous slogan from Rogers: “Bring it Home”. It reminds me of something, but I do not know what. [ Translation ] Now I want to talk about Bill C‑3 , which deals with an extremely important yet sensitive issue. This bill addresses immigration, citizenship and other delicate situations that must be handled with care.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate. Before I address the substance of this bill, I would like to make two observations. First, today, October 31, marks the beginning of poppy season, a time when all Canadians remember the great sacrifice, and in too many cases, the ultimate sacrifice, made by the men and women serving in the Canadian military. It is thanks to them that we have lived and, most importantly, continue to live in a free country, a land of freedom where every Canadian is respected. We must always remember the sacrifices of our military personnel. I want to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to my late father, who was a Second World War soldier and veteran. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj for his interesting and informative intervention. I think this is the first time I am interacting with him in the House, so I congratulate him on being elected just six months ago. I think he is the only one in the House to have beat a Liberal incumbent. I wanted to point that out. It was the only instance of that. On this file, obviously he has relevant expertise that he is putting to use. I would like his thoughts on the reverse onus. He mentioned it, he talked a lot about the precedents that are being set. As far as a I know, and I am not a lawyer, but a journalist and I covered cases, reverse onus happens in very rare cases. Normally, it is exactly the opposite. What, in his opinion, explains the government's approach? Does he believe in it?”
“Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, I invite everyone to watch the parliamentary committee meetings on the subject of the Canada Revenue Agency. It revealed a lot about how utterly irresponsibly those people, the Liberal government, managed the Canada Revenue Agency over the past 10 years. What do we have to show for it? Two million Canadians are currently using food banks. Housing costs have doubled since those people came to power. What is the Prime Minister promising young people? More sacrifices. When will the government understand that it needs to stop wasting money and implement effective measures to allow all Canadians to have an affordable life?”
“Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Liberals have been mismanaging taxpayers' money, and the Auditor General has informed us of a prime example of this. Do members know what it is about? It is about the Canada Revenue Agency's 10-year, $50‑million contract for a phone system. Do members know how much that contract has cost to date? It has cost $190 million and could cost up to $217 million, or four times more than planned. That is what Liberal management looks like. Will the Liberals finally realize that they need to stop wasting money and implement measures that allow Canadians to have an affordable life?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' governance is so effective that 2.2 million Canadians now have to go to food banks every month to eat. Yes, 2.2 million people. That is the Liberal record for a G7 country after 10 years. Shame on those who mismanaged the government so horribly. That is why people are realizing that the more the Liberal government spends, the more it costs Canadians. I will repeat my question. Will the Prime Minister use his budget to axe the taxes that have a direct impact on food so that Canadians can have an affordable life?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on the promise that he would be judged on food prices. Six months on, here are the results: Grocery prices keep going up and up, twice as fast as inflation. That is the legacy of 10 years of Liberal governance. Will the Prime Minister use his budget to eliminate the taxes that impact food prices so Canadians can have an affordable life?”
“Madam Speaker, like me, my colleague was elected 10 years ago, and I want to congratulate him on his fourth mandate in a row. As a veteran parliamentarian, he has seen many cases of malversation from the Liberal Party. We remember Jody Wilson-Raybould when the former prime minister put his two hands into the justice system. That was a kind of corruption. Does the member think that what we are seeing right now with Prime Minister is exactly at the same level?”
“Mr. Speaker, we thought we had seen it all at the Canada Revenue Agency, but Radio-Canada reported yesterday in an article by Daniel Leblanc that the CRA had produced documents showing a large cheque for a company requesting a refund. The cheque was sent without any verification by CRA officials. Can anyone guess how much it was for? It was for$4,997,433.72, almost $5 million. Can anyone guess who noticed? It was not the CRA. It was TD Bank. It is ridiculous that the bank is doing the CRA's job. That is what happens after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. Is there anyone over there who will stand up and dare to defend the indefensible?”
“I cannot emphasize enough that immigrants themselves are the primary victims of this sad and unfortunate approach to immigration, the primary victims of the Liberals' mismanagement over the past 10 years. Let us celebrate our country, the Quebec nation and who we are as Quebeckers and Canadians. Let us celebrate this great heritage and, most importantly, let us celebrate the fact that we live in a country that is full of opportunity. For that, we have to stand up proudly for our identity—as a Quebecker who is proud of the Quebec nation, in my case—so that all Canadians can achieve their full potential with the Conservative approach that we had for years and that was in keeping with the spirit of the great Brian Mulroney's law.”
“For years and decades, under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, we recognized Quebec as a nation and Quebec was able to assert that position without any issue, but unfortunately, we also saw that the Liberals were trying to drown out this Canadian pride in some very delicate situations. I am the son of immigrants. I am very proud of my roots. Like hundreds of thousands of Canadians, I am proud of my origins, which are not part of the deep roots of this country. My parents chose Canada, and Canada chose them. However, what have we seen in recent years? Unfortunately, we have seen a reckless approach to immigration, leading to concerns that have nothing to do with multiculturalism but that have had very real impacts.”
“If there had been an image of Major League Baseball, they might have removed that too, even though we are going to win the World Series. Worst of all, this Liberal government erased that great and extraordinary Canadian, Terry Fox, from the passport. That is 10 years of Liberal wokeism in a nutshell. Then the Liberals act surprised when people have doubts about multiculturalism. That is the legacy of 10 years of Liberal rule. The Liberals tried to erase Canada's identity. That was not the intent of the great Quebecker and Canadian Brian Mulroney in 1998, but that is what happened.”
“In my opinion, what offended Canadians the most over the past 10 years of this Liberal government was the flagrant attack on our heritage and our history when symbols of our history and our Canadian unity were erased from the passport. Nothing is more precious to Canadians than our passport. When I look at mine, I think of everything that was erased from it: Samuel de Champlain; the Fathers of Confederation; the great railway; Captain Bernier, who explored Canada's north; the richness of the Prairies; Pier 21 in Nova Scotia; the Canadian Parliament; Niagara Falls; Vimy, one of the greatest Canadian military achievements of all time; Quebec City, which hits pretty close to home; the RCMP; and the two cups that we all rally around, the Stanley Cup and the Grey Cup.”
“It is also what led Prime Minister Mulroney to recognize the wrongs that had been committed against the Japanese and Chinese communities in earlier times. It became embarrassing after a while to hear the Liberal prime minister making formal apologies nearly every month. Can we not also celebrate our successes? This went on for 10 years, not to mention that history was also being erased and our heroes were being maligned. We cannot escape our history by disparaging and erasing it. On the contrary, we have to explain it, understand it and learn from it. We will certainly not learn anything by disparaging our ancestors or other figures and pretending that the past never happened.”
“Let us not forget that this government shamelessly stated that Canada was the first postnational country. The prime minister said he was the leader of a postnational government. One would be hard pressed to find a more embarrassing statement. For 10 years, this was the prevailing approach in the Liberal government. (1135) Let us also not forget that, throughout it all, we had a prime minister and a government that was more prone to issuing apologies than to celebrating our successes. It got to be embarrassing. This does not in any way absolve us of the responsibility we all bear for the errors made during our history. This is what led Prime Minister Harper to extend a full and sincere apology to the first nations for what happened at the residential schools.”
“However, the recognition of the Quebec nation within a united Canada clearly defines the pride we all have as Canadians, but also the pride we all feel as Quebeckers. The two are not mutually exclusive. One allows the other to thrive and take charge of its destiny, as recognized by the motion on the Quebec nation. All I want to say is that everything was going well until 10 years ago. Ten years ago, Canadians decided to put the Liberal Party in power. For 10 years, we have seen an erosion of the multiculturalism that united Canadians, recognized the Quebec nation, and affirmed that all Canadians were equal, no more, no less, and that they contributed to this country. However, for more than 10 years, we had a prime minister who unfortunately had a completely different approach.”
“It is true that it applies right across Canada, in particular in Quebec, with all its national pride. That is why, under the leadership of prime minister Stephen Harper, Canada adopted a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation. This is very important. While some people believe that Quebec is rightfully a nation, this does not in any way erase Canada's multicultural reality. They are not mutually exclusive. I would remind the House that there was some friction when this motion was debated and passed in this House in November 2006. That is normal; it is a feature of public debate. Initially, some parties supported the motion while others were against it. We heard a future prime minister say that he opposed it, but in the end he did not really know which way to vote. That is part of debate.”
“We are also very proud of the approach that another great Canadian, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, took on the topic of multiculturalism. This is what he had to say about this topic: [Multiculturalism means] celebrat[ing] our nation's rich multicultural heritage. Canada is a nation of immigrants. For more than 400 years...[t]hey have added immeasurably to every community in which they have settled. And they have laid the foundation for the Canada we know and love today ‑ a nation that is strong, united, independent.... In the 21st century...[a]nd every year, our country benefits from the arrival of thousands of men and women drawn by the equality of opportunity that exists here. That is multiculturalism with net benefits. It is inclusive multiculturalism. It is multiculturalism that ensures that everyone is welcome.”
“He said in 1988 that multiculturalism is an affirmation of our commitment that Canadians of all origins have equal rights and equal opportunities in this country. That is the Conservative vision of Brian Mulroney, a great Quebecker who assumed the role of prime minister with honour and dignity after receiving the support of a majority of Canadians, not once, but twice. That is the spirit of multiculturalism, and it is win-win for all Canadians. It cannot be overstated that Mr. Mulroney truly embodied what Canada is all about. His roots may have been Irish, but the little guy from Baie‑Comeau was just as comfortable on the main street of Baie‑Comeau as he was in downtown Toronto. That was Mr. Mulroney's strength and power. His experiences and his laws made him the poster boy for multiculturalism.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest Quebeckers, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, the little guy from Baie-Comeau, who was very proud of his Irish heritage and the exceptional welcome the Quebec nation gave his family, helped define this nation. It was under his leadership, as prime minister, that Canada passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988. Essentially, the spirit of Mr. Mulroney's law is to send a message around the world that, regardless of where you came from or when you arrived in Canada, you are Canadian and you contribute to the wealth of this country. No matter where you come from, the opportunities are there and everyone is equal among equals. That is multiculturalism as conceived in Mr. Mulroney's mind.”
“Mr. Speaker, “here in Canada”? Did the minister just say “here in Canada”? Is she aware of what is happening here in Canada? In the Montreal area, 300 people lost their jobs this week at Paccar. More than 5,000 workers in the automotive industry across Canada have lost their jobs. People in the aluminum industry, in the lumber industry, in the steel industry and in the automotive industry—thousands of Quebeckers are waiting for a response from the government. The government keeps saying that it is making progress, although Trump is saying today that negotiations have been terminated. When will the government start acting responsibly?”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning, Canadians woke up to yet another of the Prime Minister 's broken promises. He was elected because he said that we were going to get an agreement and there would be no tariffs. What has happened over the past six months? New tariffs keep coming in, directly resulting in tens of thousands of job losses. What did we find out late last night? Trump has terminated the negotiations. What was the Prime Minister's immediate reaction this morning? He said that progress is being made. What planet is the Prime Minister on? Thousands of people are waiting for an agreement and there is none. Is someone going to rise to defend the indefensible?”
“Mr. Speaker, Paccar in Sainte‑Thérèse has been manufacturing trucks for 60 years, but today 300 workers learned that they are losing their jobs. That is the sad truth about what the Liberal government has achieved in its dealings with Donald Trump. The Liberals are talking big, but they are failing to take action. Let us remember that they were elected by telling Canadians to keep their elbows up and that they would lift all tariffs. What is actually happening is that 300 people just lost their jobs. What is the Prime Minister actually going to do to convince Mr. Trump that this does not make any sense? Most importantly, will he finally think about workers—”
“Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the minister is pleased with his 100 days. However, I would like to remind him that, just two years ago, he did exactly the same thing. He told everyone that he had met with all the supermarket executives and that we would see food prices go down, and yet, for the past two years, prices have only gone up. That is the truth. Let me get back to the Canada Revenue Agency. The Auditor General wrote that the CRA places greater importance on how closely agents adhere to their schedule for their shift and breaks than on the accuracy of the information they provide. Is the minister proud of that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has confirmed what Canadians have known for quite some time: The Liberal Canada Revenue Agency is completely off the rails. In June, only 5% of calls were answered within the standard time frame. Worse still, when callers did get through, the information they received was inaccurate four times out of five. My question is for the revenue minister, who is an honourable man. Is he aware that this situation directly affects the most vulnerable among us, such as low-income earners, seniors, and those who cannot afford to hire an accountant?”
“Does the member realize that the deficit has doubled in the time since he was elected to Parliament and the Prime Minister became the head of this country?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his speech. Clearly, we have our differences, but we also have some common ground. For example, we are the ones who proposed the tax cut. For years and years, we said that it had to be done, and the Liberals finally did it. I am glad they are using some of our ideas. Our leader actually reiterated that commitment. He said the Conservative Party is fine with the government taking its ideas. However, one thing on which we differ is debt. Anyone who lives beyond their means and runs a deficit will accumulate debt. Who has to pay that debt? Our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will have to pay for it because we are living beyond our means right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his hard work in his riding and here in the House of Commons. I remember pretty well when he got elected for the first time. I had some responsibility at that time to welcome him, and I was very proud to welcome him. I am prouder than ever to see that he is doing a very good job here in the House of Commons and also in his riding. For sure, we all share the same principle of having to stop the sexual assaults and all that stuff in the army. Everybody agrees with that. With the colours that we defend here, we fight for the will of the people. The best way to address this issue will be in the committee, where we will study it correctly.”
“Mr. Speaker, on April 12, 2021, the Bloc enabled the Liberals to stop the work being done at the committee with respect to Mr. Vance. The reality is that all parliamentarians are united in facing the challenge posed by this bill. We must tackle this sad and unfortunate reality head-on in order to fix the problems associated with sexual misconduct. This needs to be properly studied in parliamentary committee. As we have seen over time, particularly on April 12, 2021, the committee was unable to do its work because members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois decided to shut down the proceedings.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, as I said earlier, we agree with the principle of this bill, which addresses this serious issue. With all respect to my veteran colleague, I just want to tell the member that he and the government should have done something 10 years ago. Unfortunately, they delayed and delayed. As said clearly by a colleague in the Bloc Québécois two days ago, who expressed the time frame of everything exactly, we have seen a cover-up by the government. Yes, I welcome the comment by my colleague, but he should have done that 10 years ago.”
“Unfortunately, the government that was elected a few months later failed to act for years. Five years later, another investigation was conducted and it reached the same conclusions, namely that the problem had to be addressed. Subsequently, a third report recommended taking action. All of this coincided with the sad episode involving Canada's number one soldier, General Vance, who was facing such accusations. What started as rumours became allegations; testimony was given, a trial was held and a decision was rendered. It was time for the government to take action. We might even say that we wasted 10 years before doing the right thing in this case. Nevertheless, some progress has been made because of all the attention this issue has received. What the government is currently proposing deserves attention, of course. Fundamentally, we agree.”
“Sadly, members will recall that the internal traditions of the Canadian Army's paratrooper unit were resulting in inappropriate behaviour. Crimes were also committed when this unit was operating in Somalia. Once again, when the army was faced with an ethical issue, people acted appropriately, and things have improved since then. From 2015 to 2025, we have been grappling with the issue of sexual misconduct by some of our military personnel. I say from 2015 to 2025 because it is important to remember that, during this period, three reports were produced on the same subject, and the conditions were the same. The first report was tabled by retired Supreme Court Justice Deschamps in 2015. It contained 10 recommendations for addressing the scourge of sexual misconduct.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are resuming the debate from two days ago on a very important bill about a very sensitive subject. We must be serious and rigorous in doing this work, since it concerns misconduct in our armed forces, more specifically, sexual assault. That is why we need to take the time to do things right. This is an important issue. Every time the army has been faced with an internal problem, it has been able to take control of the situation and deal with it properly. Two days ago, I was talking about some sad events that took place in the 1970s in Loretteville, where I live. Alcoholism was a serious problem for many of our soldiers at the time. People died as a result, and the army took the situation in hand and corrected the problem. It was the same thing later on, in the mid-1990s.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the deepest respect for the parliamentary secretary. When he was with the provincial government, he balanced the budget. Today, after only six months by the Prime Minister 's side, the debt has doubled. That is his administration's record. Yes, we want a good deal, but he was elected six months ago on a promise that we were going to get a real deal. He even promised to deliver it by July 21. Six months later, we have not made a single gain and new concessions keep being made. What can Canadians expect from a government that does nothing but make concessions?”
“Mr. Speaker, today is the day of reckoning for the Prime Minister . He is at the White House to deliver on the signature promise he made to Canadians a few months ago, which was to bring home a big win for Canada against the United States. Let us remember that he promised to end the tariffs on autos, aluminum, steel, softwood lumber and the Buy American Act. They were all supposed to be eliminated. All that was actually supposed to have been done by July 21, but it did not work out. What actually happened? Concessions, concessions and more concessions. Canadians deserve better. Can the government explain why the Prime Minister has not delivered?”
“Obviously, what shocked everyone into action was the incident involving General Vance, Canada's top soldier. Here was a soldier who held the Canadian army's most powerful position, who was initially the focus of rumours, then allegations, then substantiated evidence and then a trial. Why is it that, for all these years, nothing has been done? Why is it that this government, for 10 years, has done everything it can to cover up the affair? Why is it that, while this case was being studied by a parliamentary committee on April 12, 2021, the Liberal government, along with the Bloc Québécois, decided to put an end to the parliamentary inquiry? This was followed by many other developments that I will have the opportunity to discuss later, the next time this bill comes before the House.”
“About ten recommendations were made, which were adopted by the Harper government. Then came the 2015 election and, unfortunately, a period of total darkness on the issue of sexual violence. (1840) For years, under the Justin Trudeau government, neither its ministers nor its MPs chose to do the right thing. True, other inquiries were held, yet this only raises the question of why they were necessary, given that the evidence already confirmed the need for immediate action to solve the problem of sexual violence in our army. For five years, the government was asleep at the wheel. It called for another inquiry by two different judges who each conducted their own inquiry, even though we all knew as far back as 2015 that action was needed. Still, the government did nothing.”
“Essentially, when there are cases of sexual misconduct, the bill aims to have the judicial process take place in the civilian system and not in the military police system, under military law. In addition, the government would appoint the military leaders who are responsible for discipline. Regrettably, the issue of sexual violence is not something new. The Canadian Forces and Canadians have been dealing with it for more than a decade. It was in 2014 that Stephen Harper's Conservative government tasked former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps with investigating the everyday reality of sexual violence in the Canadian Forces. One year later, Justice Deschamps tabled a scathing report that showed, unfortunately, in black and white, that sexual violence was a serious problem.”
“That is why the regiment was disbanded in 1995 by prime minister Jean Chrétien, as everyone likely remembers. As I said, whenever challenges arise in the military, they must be addressed, and the Canadian military has always seized the opportunity to resolve difficult situations. The current situation involves sexual misconduct in the Canadian military. Yes, that is the reality we have to deal with. That is why we are gathered here today to discuss Bill C‑11 , which directly addresses this concern about sexual misconduct in the Canadian military, particularly with regard to the chain of command and the utterly reprehensible incidents that have occurred in recent years. Bill C‑11 is reminiscent of Bill C‑66 from the last Parliament.”
“I remember very well that when I was about 10 years old, in the mid-1970s, a tragedy happened not far from my home in Loretteville. A soldier who no longer had his wits about him because he had drunk a little too much alcohol unfortunately killed some children. This incident brought a lot of attention to the problem of alcoholism in the Canadian Armed Forces. What did they do? They took the problem and dealt with it properly. They succeeded in significantly reducing that alcoholism that was rampant among members of our army in the 1970s. Members will also remember the infamous and unfortunate scandal in the mid-1990s involving the Airborne Regiment, when Canadian soldiers in Somalia dishonoured our flag and their uniform by engaging in behaviour that was completely unacceptable.”
“It happened in World War I with the Battle of Vimy Ridge, in World War II with the tragedy of Dieppe and the Normandy landings, but also during the landings in Italy, in which my father participated with the very prestigious Royal 22nd Regiment. Closer to home, there are all those who served in the war in Afghanistan. I want to remind everyone that Canadians died there, including a young man from Loretteville, close to where I was born. Corporal Jonathan Couturier died on September 17, 2009, when he was barely 23 years old. He served under our flag, and it is important that we remember that. The Canadian military has had its moments of glory, but it has also had its share of trials and tribulations, like any organization. As with any organization, depending on the social situations in each era, there have been challenges to be faced.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always with great pride that I rise here in the House on behalf of the people of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. That is especially true when we are discussing our armed forces since the Valcartier military base is a just a few kilometres from my riding. It is very well represented by the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier . As with all members who have a military base in their area, there are hundreds, even thousands, of military personnel, former military personnel, and military families living in my riding. We can be proud of our military, which shone with distinction when it was called upon around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. As the member for Hull—Aylmer so aptly said earlier, it is always good to have people familiar with the legal profession among us to share their perspective when we talk about legal matters. Based on his professional and personal experience, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the possible advantages of a military court over a civilian court when trying cases involving the military. We know that military judges are also part of the institution they are judging, but military knowledge is why military courts exist. Could my colleague share his thoughts on what the current bill proposes based on his experience with civil and criminal courts, particularly in Quebec, if I remember correctly?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. It was extremely well researched. When such situations arise, situations involving threats and sexual assault, whether verbal or physical, it is clear that there is a difference between rumours, proven facts and the aftermath. Unfortunately, I must say that the Liberal government buried the victims' stories. The member has clearly demonstrated that. My question for my colleague is this: Given everything he has said about the cover-up by the Liberal government, how can he trust the government to move forward appropriately, positively and with an eye to the future for similar situations?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the Prime Minister . He got himself elected six months ago by saying “elbows up”. What did he do when he got to the White House? He put his elbows down and gave Mr. Trump a thumbs-up. Now he is crawling back. He went from elbows up to knees down. That is the reality. Canadians were misled by the “elbows up” Prime Minister. The results prove it. The tariffs have doubled since the Prime Minister took office. Some 86,000 jobs have been lost in Canada. That is the reality today for Canadians. Will the Liberal government wake up and finally take action for Canadian workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, during the G7 summit, the Prime Minister stated that he would reach a successful deal with the United States by July 16. This did not work out. Then he said that it would be done by July 21. Again, this did not work out. Lastly, he said that it would be done by August 1, and once more it did not work out. The bottom line is that 86,000 Canadians have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister. Why are Canadians losing their jobs? Is it because of the Prime Minister's failed diplomatic efforts or because of his bad economic policies?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech, but also on his election. I also want to take this opportunity to commend his predecessor, Dr. Robert Kitchen. [ English ] My question to my colleague is very simple but very accurate, when we see what is going on in the country. How would the member explain to the people why, during the Harper years, criminality was down, but after 10 years of Liberal government and administration, we have seen a rise in each and every department of criminality in the country?”