- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the official opposition
- Conservative
- Mégantic—L'Érable
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 69%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $94,201.00
- Government Page
- May/23/24 8:23:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, does the minister honestly believe that simply recovering stolen cars and not arresting the criminals will stop auto theft?
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 10:40:11 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois just has a tendency to support the Liberal Prime Minister.
The Bloc Québécois voted for the Liberal law arising from Bill C-75, which allows car thieves to be released on bail the same day they are arrested. The thieves are arrested, but the next day, they are free to start stealing again.
The Bloc Québécois also voted for Bill C-5, which allows car thieves to serve their sentence at home, watching Netflix in the comfort of their living room.
The Bloc Québécois does not want a solution that will stop criminals and stop auto theft. They proved it when they voted with the government for Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:07:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that the RCMP plans to cut staff at the Quebec border even though we know that Mexican cartels are becoming increasingly active, that illegal weapons are flowing freely across the border into the hands of dangerous criminals, and that more and more people are dying of drug overdoses. One RCMP officer noted that criminals are not stupid and they do monitor what is going on, adding that the border is said to be a priority, but that is simply not the reality on the ground.
Will the Minister of Public Safety outsmart the criminals and maintain the number of RCMP officers at the border in order to protect Quebeckers and Canadians?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, 32% is the Liberal government's record after eight years in power. Violent crime in Canada has increased by 32% since the election of this Prime Minister and his Liberal ideology of freeing criminals as quickly as possible, allowing them to be released more quickly and serve their sentences in their living rooms.
After eight years of this Liberal government, gang-related homicides have doubled. In 2019, the Liberal government saw fit to pass Bill C‑5, which I will refer to in a moment, that makes the bail process easier. As a direct result of that legislation, more and more criminals are ending up at home rather than in prison. Let us remember this number: a 32% increase in violent crime.
Today we are discussing the Liberal government's solution to this violence. I want to ask my colleagues to use their imagination. Imagine the kind of scenario that resulted in the Liberal Party making a recommendation such as this and introducing a bill such as this. Imagine the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety meeting in a coffee shop, probably downtown in some major Canadian city, wondering how to combat gun crime on the streets. The Minister of Justice, seeing the number of illegal guns coming into the country, tells the Minister of Public Safety that the government cannot ban illegal guns because they are already illegal. The Minister of Public Safety adds that weapons that enter illegally at the borders are not easy to seize, because criminals have their ways, obviously. The Minister of Justice says he wants nothing to do with threatening armed citizens who commit violent crimes with longer prison sentences. The Prime Minister said not to be too tough on criminals.
It was in that coffee shop that the Minister of Public Safety came up with this brilliant idea. He knows who owns firearms and he even knows where to find them. They have licences. They took courses, and they have a lot of guns. The Minister of Justice was starting to question all of this, but he already saw a good opportunity to divert attention from his inability to put an end to violence in the streets, violence that has made families in too many of our cities afraid. He asked where those guns can be found. The Minister of Public Safety proudly responded that they can be found in all regions of Canada, on farms, in the north and in indigenous communities. They could seize thousands of weapons. The Minister of Justice felt like saying that those guns are not used to commit crimes, but he did not. He preferred to remain silent. Why let facts get in the way of a great Liberal initiative?
In this story, that is how Bill C‑21 was born, and quite frankly, I do not see any other way it could have happened, since the Liberals are so far off the mark. This bill had just one objective: to make the Liberal government look good. Unfortunately, it was to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners and sport shooters.
I listened to several speeches today. I should point out that this bill was supported by the Bloc Québécois, who left out a part of the story in everything it was saying today. When the Liberal amendment that would have made hunting rifles and sport shooter firearms illegal, the Bloc member from Rivière-du-Nord said in committee that the definition contained in amendment G4 almost feels like the Bloc Québécois wrote it. It meets our expectations.
I do not often quote members of the Bloc Québécois, but when it is time to set the record straight, I like to set the record straight. That truly is what the member for Rivière-du-Nord said. It is a fact.
Then they strut their stuff and claim that they changed things, but when we see that from the outset they supported a bill that would ban firearms used in every region of Canada and did not react when they realized that people were reacting in their own region, there is a problem. Most of all, there is a lack of credibility.
We are here after hours of debate to ask the government to see the light. Although they did backtrack, which was rather strategic and the result of the strong opposition from the Conservatives, hunters and residents of rural areas in Canada, no one has any illusions about the Liberals' intent to go after honest people who are just engaging in a centuries-long tradition.
We expect that, as a result of these measures, most of the firearms targeted by the Liberal amendments at the end of last year, including hunting rifles, will again be subject to prohibitions in the future, end of story. We are saying this because we have lost confidence in the Liberal government. Unfortunately, I deplore the naivety of the Bloc Québécois, who seems to be defending the government today. It seems to want to have faith in the Liberal government once again.
I must admit that I am not surprised by the position of the NDP, the Liberal government's coalition partner. It cannot be denied that the NDP also reacted to public opinion. It too had openly supported Bill C‑21, its first iteration and the amendments.
Why do I not trust the Liberals? It is not because I am a Conservative. It is not because I listened to the hunters. It is because the Prime Minister himself, the member for Papineau, was very clear when when he said, “our focus now is on saying...yes...we're going to have to take [these rifles] away from people who were using them to hunt”. Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is going to great effort to confiscate the hunting rifles of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people.
Let me be clear. The new definition, or the supposed new definition, is really the same as the old one. Commonly used hunting rifles, which were targeted by the Liberals in the fall, will likely be added to the ban by the new Liberal firearms advisory committee. I am sure a bunch of very independent people will also be appointed to this committee. I would not be surprised to see a Trudeau Foundation executive on this committee.
I have had the opportunity to speak with hunters in the Mégantic—L'Érable area. That is why I am here today. They are not reassured by the government's changes to Bill C‑21, nor by the amendments. Most of all, they are hurt that they are being used by the Liberal government for political purposes. They have witnessed the increase in violent crime in Montreal, as we all have. They are shocked that they have been targeted by the government as criminals. These people are careful, trained, and most importantly, they take gun safety very seriously.
The Liberal government has the wrong target in its crosshairs. Hunters, sport shooters and farmers are paying the price. No one believes the Liberal government anymore.
That being said, these people are realists. They are wiser. I want to quote Martin Bourget from Aventure Chasse Pêche, with whom I had the pleasure of speaking during a big interview on Bill C‑21. He said, and I quote, “Legitimate gun owners in Canada are deeply puzzled about the very legitimacy of the process set out in Bill C‑21 and the enforcement of these measures. They are asking for nothing less than a study of the bill's true impact on the safety of Canadians and on traditional hunting and harvesting, and sport shooting.”
Does that sound extreme? No, not at all. It is reasonable. People want to know whether Bill C‑21 will really bring down the crime rate on the streets of big cities and across the country.
In closing, I would like to remind members that violent crime in Canada is up 32%. That is the Liberal government's track record over the past eight years. That is the Liberals' grade, and it is not even a passing grade. Unfortunately, because of what they have done in the past, we do not have any confidence in them moving forward.
1426 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 2:21:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, all we ever hear from the minister is “if”. She never gives real answers. Let us talk about real-life things.
Even as shootings are on the rise in Montreal, the Liberals are in such a hurry to release criminals that they are going to gag the opposition to pass Bill C‑5, which imposes mandatory minimum sentences.
Here is what one Montrealer said on TVA: “My mother and I were sitting on the porch after supper, and we had to go inside and hide because there was shooting. There was gunshot after gunshot.”
This is not a war zone we are talking about; it is Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Why are the Liberals more interested in helping criminals than in offering reassurance to this woman and all Montrealers?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/22 2:31:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share what I heard from the representative of a community that this government claims it wants to help. She says that eliminating these minimum sentences is not only a bad idea masquerading as a good one, but an idea that will further jeopardize the communities this initiative is supposed to protect. That is what we heard from Murielle Chatellier in a parliamentary committee.
On the one hand, the Prime Minister is abolishing mandatory minimum sentences with Bill C‑5; on the other, he does not mention victims of gun violence even once in Bill C‑21.
Why is the Prime Minister so intent on helping criminals rather than victims?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 11:20:23 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, that is the problem. In trying to do something good, three parties in the House are going to make a serious mistake by passing Bill C-5.
Rather than sending a strong message to armed criminals, they are announcing that Canada will now be more tolerant toward criminals and will give them a second chance. Victims of gun violence, however, do not get a second chance.
The reality is that wealthy criminal gangs will now be able to pay the best lawyers, and the worst criminals will get the lightest sentences.
Why help criminals by abandoning victims?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 11:19:10 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I think many of my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are ignoring important facts about Bill C-5, the bill they are planning to support.
Under this bill, 11 serious criminal offences involving firearms will no longer be subject to mandatory minimums. We are talking about robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent and using a firearm when committing crime.
Why does the Prime Minister, with the support of the other opposition parties, think that it is more important to protect armed criminals than their victims?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 2:23:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, there was another murder this week in Laval, in the middle of a restaurant, right in front of diners. People are afraid. Criminals no longer fear the police, who in turn feel abandoned by the Liberal government.
Instead of sending a strong message to armed criminal gangs, with Bill C‑5, the Prime Minister announced that they will be able to serve their sentences at home. Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1976 understood the need for minimum sentences for armed criminals.
Why do today's Liberals want to make life easier for criminals?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 2:21:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives always put victims' rights above criminals' rights.
On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a disappointing verdict that will allow violent criminals and serial killers like Alexandre Bissonnette and Justin Bourque back into society in spite of their life sentences.
They murdered nine people. These victims will never be back in society, never be with their families again.
Will the Prime Minister do everything he can to ensure that people who commit mass shootings serve sentences that reflect their crimes?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:24:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell that to Laval's chief of police, who stated, “The people who are willing to commit such offences are hardened criminals. It is fine to be an idealist, but they will not stop when they get out of jail.”
Here is what one person had to say. “We can no longer go out. My wife is very nervous and she is afraid.”
Another stated, “My daughter was lucky, but in broad daylight with children.... There could be a stray bullet the next time”.
Here is another fact. With Bill C-5, the Liberals want to leave these criminals on the streets with the support of the Liberal MPs from the Montreal area.
Why is the Prime Minister defending criminals and not victims?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:23:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is currently in power.
There were three shootings in Laval last week. A man was killed in broad daylight in Montreal. Laval police say that today's criminals are impulsive and disorderly.
What is the Liberal government doing? It is proposing to eliminate minimum mandatory sentences for firearms possession offences with Bill C-5. Essentially, the Liberal approach consists of letting armed criminals continue to walk the streets.
Can someone explain to the Prime Minister that his approach is irresponsible and that it will only make things more dangerous than they were before?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
