- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,195.70
- Government Page
- Apr/9/24 2:09:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 107 years ago today, on April 9, 1917, a fierce battle began on the slopes of a hill in Vimy, France, between the Canadian Expeditionary Force and the defending German forces.
At 5:30 a.m., a single cannon sounded in the distance. On that signal, all hell broke loose on the battlefield. At the same time, all of the available artillery, supported by underground mines packed with explosives, destroyed the German positions. The infantry, protected by the artillery barrage, rose up and charged toward the enemy trenches.
For some, this battle represents the birth of Canada as a sovereign nation because, for the first time, all divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force came together to storm the heavily defended enemy ridge.
Following the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the Canadian army erected a wooden cross on the battlefield in memory of the soldiers who fell in that battle.
When the Vimy Memorial was built, that cross was entrusted to the Royal 22e Régiment and taken to the Quebec Citadel. The cross is still used in ceremonies commemorating the Battle of Vimy Ridge, as it is today.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 11:27:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise once again this morning to speak to a situation that, sadly, happens all too often in this country.
For the past eight years of this government, we have witnessed a total lack of respect for the institution of government in its broad sense, as represented by the House of Commons and the various departments of the Government of Canada. Today, we are referring more specifically to the case of the monument commemorating Canada's mission in Afghanistan.
Considering the purely political decision made in this matter, if it continues unchanged, we will end up with a monument built who knows when, to honour Canada's mission in Afghanistan, the 158 soldiers who lost their lives and the civilians who contributed to the war effort. It will be a monument to the decline of our nation's Canadian Forces, veterans and civil society.
From the outset on this issue, everyone on the Liberal side has been referring to a so-called survey that has been completely debunked by Leger. I plan to share what those folks think a little later. Veterans are being used to justify a purely political decision. The elephant in the room is why this decision was made in the first place, given that the process in place was truly professional. There were judges, a jury made up of professionals, who took the veterans' comments into consideration. Even though the survey was useless, they still took into account the information that was gathered by this bogus survey. Then, at the end of the process, a purely political decision was made. The government cannot justify its decision, except to keep referring to this bogus survey.
Something happened at the Prime Minister's Office. Something happened with the former veterans affairs minister for the decision to be made to toss everything the jury did and to accept the other proposal by Stimson. What happened? Why was this decision made?
This is the first time in the history of Canada that a professional process put in place by the government, with very specific rules, was rejected out of hand. Even more insulting, the very day the winner was to be unveiled, Daoust was informed that it had won, but the government decided to go with the other team. Is there anything more insulting than that? What is more, the decision was made a year and a half earlier. Something happened at the Prime Minister's Office with Veterans Affairs. Today, we still do not know what happened.
It gets even more shocking. The issue was raised by my Bloc colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, and I thank him for that. The winning team included a company from Quebec and artist Luca Fortin from the Quebec City area, my region. They are Quebeckers.
The most insulting thing is that the former heritage minister, from Montreal, and the new Minister of Canadian Heritage, from Quebec, did not do their job. They passed the buck. The former minister of Canadian heritage authorized the change without question. Apparently he thought it was okay. At the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I myself put questions to the new Minister of Canadian Heritage. She was not familiar with the file and she denied all responsibility, even though the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for managing the heritage aspect of Canadian monuments.
It is a complete breach of ministerial responsibility. Two ministers completely ignored the professional process that was put in place to ensure that the choice would be based on the criteria of a jury fit to make that decision.
Everyone knows former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. She herself was concerned. She even gave radio interviews to comment on this issue, saying that it made no sense, that this is just not how it is done and that it was purely political. As for us, we did everything we could, repeating it over and over again.
As I said at the outset, this is a purely political issue that proves yet again how little respect the Liberal government has for institutions. The Liberal government likes doing things its way and bending the rules. Bending the rules kind of comes naturally to the Liberals. They set up a process, then end up doing whatever they want.
Using veterans to justify one's decision is insulting. I know for a fact that many people in both the veteran and enlisted communities are fed up with a government that does not respect institutions. Respect is the number one thing people in the military and veterans want, and that starts with respect for the decisions that were made, which should not be based on frivolities. The worst thing one can do when it comes to our armed forces is show them that the higher-ups who make these decisions change their minds or base their decisions on who knows what, and then the repercussions are felt all the way down to the bottom. People lose faith. Soldiers and veterans have no faith whatsoever in this government.
If the government does not change its decision, then this monument will stand as a symbol of these eight years of Liberal governance. Rather than honouring our involvement in Afghanistan and being a source of pride for all those who participated in those missions, like my colleague who did one or two missions there and the other 40,000 Canadians who served, this monument will serve as a reminder of the Liberal government's approach over the past eight years. Unfortunately, that is what this monument is going to represent, and that should not be the case.
The battle that we are waging today is not necessarily about whether we personally prefer the Daoust team's monument, the Stimson team's monument or one of the other two monuments that were proposed. It is not about that. It is about respecting what was done as part of a clear government process, with specific rules. What we are seeing today is an insult to those government processes. When I talk about the concept of an institution, I am talking about an organization that has principles and rules that should be followed. What we are seeing right now is a lack of respect for the institution, a lack of respect for the rules and a purely political decision based on who knows what, other than a pseudo-survey.
Speaking of which, let me quote what Leger had to say about that survey:
All of these methodological errors show that this online consultation is unscientific and does not in any way represent the opinions of Canadian Armed Forces members, the families of Canadian Armed Forces members or the Canadian public. The results of this online consultation cannot be generalized to the Canadian population and should not be taken into account when objectively selecting a design for the national monument to Canada's mission in Afghanistan.
That was the analysis from Jean-Marc Léger of the Leger firm, Canada's best-known polling firm. If the government sticks to its position, and if this pseudo-survey that Leger completely demolished was really the key factor behind the political decision to set aside the jury's choice in favour of the Stimson proposal, we can really see how the government approaches all decisions affecting Canadians. We can also see that it has totally lost its way. The government has forgotten the most important thing, namely, respect for the institution, respect for our troops and respect for the Canadian Forces, and I mean real respect, not Liberal baloney.
1270 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:12:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on September 1, 1939, the Régiment de la Chaudière was called up and deployed at the beginning of the Second World War. Nearly five years later, more than 900 members of this legendary regiment landed on the beaches of Normandy to liberate Europe from Nazi oppression. The Régiment de la Chaudière was the only francophone regiment to take part in the landing operation on June 6, 1944.
Every year we pay tribute to the soldiers who lost their lives in Normandy at the sacred site of the Juno Beach Centre, a museum commemorating the victory. As a member of Parliament and former commanding officer of the Régiment de la Chaudière, I rise in the House to ensure that this space for commemoration and remembrance, which highlights Canada's contributions to D-Day, is fully preserved in memory of our fallen soldiers.
A development project is currently threatening the Juno Beach Centre, and the government must intervene. This project is an affront to the memory of our veterans. I am sure the Prime Minister is aware of the importance of the Juno Beach Centre. We have a duty to protect the memory of those who gave their lives for ours on June 6, 1944.
Aere Perennius.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
