- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- May/27/24 6:24:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to say two things. First, I say congratulations and thank you for my colleague's excellent French. I also want to tell her that to have a truly good start, we need a new Speaker.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 1:49:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech a few moments ago and congratulate him on the quality of his French.
The member asked for a question with substance, and I will easily ask a question with substance.
The government waited more than 10 days before saying yes to the request of the provincial jurisdiction. Why wait so long?
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 1:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on the quality of his French. I hear him using typically Quebec expressions such as “j'ai mon voyage”. It proves that the member has spent time in Quebec.
On the substance of the issue, he is totally wrong. We do not have the right to make a distinction between a vote in the House and a virtual vote. A vote is a vote, period.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 12:22:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and the quality of her French.
That is similar to what I was saying at the end of my answer. Palliative care must go hand in hand with the issue of MAID. They are not mutually exclusive. We must think about palliative care before we think about medical assistance in dying.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 2:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to congratulate and thank the minister for her effort to speak French, but just because she says it in French does not mean that what she is saying makes any sense. In fact, it actually shows how costly this current Liberal government is, along with the Bloc supporting them.
I want to come back to my example of Accueil Saint-Ambroise in Loretteville. Last year, during the holidays, the organization fulfilled 176 requests. As of yesterday, how many requests has it received? It is up to 238 requests and counting.
Meanwhile, the Liberals want to invent a new tax and the Bloc wants to increase that tax. Again, my question is quite simple.
Why create new taxes when people are struggling?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 12:58:06 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, let me pay all my respects to the quality of the member's French. We have all worked to learn a second language. When I talk about a second language, I am not talking about French. I am talking about the second language after our mother tongue language.
For as long as we need natural resources, including fossil resources, and for as long as we need oil, I will always stand for what is right for Canada, just as I support hydroelectricity and everything that comes from our country's natural resources.
Can we be proud to be Canadians? Yes, we can and we must. The same goes for all natural resources.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 2:57:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on the quality of his French, but just because he is speaking French does not mean his words make more sense. Here is the situation. There is a foundation, the Trudeau Foundation, which is not just any foundation.
Let us remember that, when the foundation was founded at the turn of the century, the federal government gave it $125 million in public funds. Morally, this foundation needs to be accountable to all Canadians. The best way to do that is through a parliamentary committee.
Why not allow its directors to testify before committee?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/22 2:38:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to congratulate the minister on his French, but he could have answered my question, because the answer is the same in either English or French: Not one country has taken up Canada's invitation to impose a carbon tax. Why?
The reason is very simple. The Liberals have governed Canada for seven years, and the carbon tax has existed for seven years. Far worse, Liberal Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries in the fight against climate change.
Will the Liberal government understand that tripling the carbon tax is not good for all Canadians?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 9:06:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-4
Madam Speaker, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
I want to start by congratulating my colleague from Kings—Hants on his French. He delivered half his speech in French earlier, and it was really impressive. I want to congratulate him and encourage all my colleagues to learn the second official language. By “second official language”, I do not mean that French is the second official language, but it is the second language of an English speaker. In my case, English is my country's second official language. I just wanted to make that clear.
We are here to talk about budget items and votes for various departments, including Justice Canada. As we all know, my colleague from Fundy Royal moved a motion about that department. As a result, we are talking about judicial processes, the administration of justice in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and decisions that affect everyone.
More specifically, I want to talk about a decision handed down a few weeks ago that had broad repercussions across the country, especially in the region where I am from, Quebec City. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down a law on consecutive sentencing that had been duly passed by this Parliament in 2011 and had been in force until the Supreme Court's ruling.
This decision is in connection with the Quebec City mosque tragedy that occurred on January 29, 2017. I will recap those sad events. Anyone who was directly or indirectly affected by this incident remembers exactly where they were when they heard the news. People were gathered at the mosque, united by their faith, their charity and the communion of spirit, when a crazed gunman, a nameless criminal, walked in and emptied his gun, killing six men at that mosque. Our thoughts are with the 19 injured worshippers who survived, and with the loved ones of the six people who lost their lives.
At the end of the trial, the Hon. François Huot, the trial judge, handed down a 40-year sentence, which might have surprised some people. As I was saying earlier, a law had been passed by Parliament allowing for cumulative sentences. A criminal who killed three people would be sentenced to three times 25 years.
I want to say that this is a Canadian law. All too often, I have heard people refer to it as a Conservative law. This law was passed by a Conservative government, but it was kept in place by the current government. To be more specific, the 2011 law was applied up until 2015 by the Conservative government, for more than three and a half years. However, this law remained in force from 2015 until the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is almost seven years. Therefore, this law was accepted and applied by the current Liberal government for almost twice as long as the previous Conservative government.
I wanted to clarify that because, as I was drafting this speech, I came across articles that described the law as a relic of the Harper era, as though that were a bad thing. God knows Canada sure had some good years when the Conservative government was running the country.
If the Liberals hated the law so much, all they had to do was set it aside and repeal it, just as they did in other cases. In fact, during this government's first months in power, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, our leader at the time, gave me the tremendous responsibility of being our party's labour critic. In that capacity, I spoke to Bill C‑4, which repealed two laws governing transparency and democracy in unions, laws that had been passed under the previous Conservative government. The duly elected Liberal government had made a campaign promise to repeal those two laws. Having won a majority, it introduced a bill and repealed them. However, the Liberal government chose to maintain the consecutive sentencing law that is still attributed to the Harper era.
Let us get back to the sequence of events. Justice François Huot pronounces a final guilty verdict and imposes a prison sentence of 40 years, in other words, 25 years plus 15 years. He rewrites Canada's cumulative sentencing law as he sees fit, noting that he was uncomfortable with the “25 years plus 25 years plus 25 years” approach. He says himself in his ruling that he adapted the law as he saw fit and imposed a sentence of 40 years. It was a fairly extensive document, 246 pages long. He also examined the case law in more than 195 countries.
The Court of Appeal was asked to review that ruling. It struck it down. The three judges found that this was a bad piece of legislation, that it was unconstitutional. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled against this law, saying that it was totally unfair, unconstitutional and ultimately—and I am paraphrasing here—had no place in the Canadian judicial process.
One can disagree with a law, even a law that has been upheld by the Liberal government. However, there is a reality when it comes to crime, when it comes to murder, or what we call mass murder. I dislike that expression, but there is no doubt what it means: a compulsive killer emptying a gun on innocent victims. We have seen it too many times in our country. Once is one time too many. Having been through the mosque attack—I knew some of the people—I say we must think of the victims. This is about more than just the court case, the robes and the Supreme Court. It is about more than the legal process and the courts. We are talking about men and women who are suffering.
I would like to read an article by Dominique Lelièvre that was published in the Journal de Québec on Friday, May 27, just a few hours after the Supreme Court decision. The author quotes survivors and victims' loved ones:
Orphans of the Sainte-Foy mosque may pass their father's killer on the streets of Quebec City 20 years from now, laments the Muslim community, which is disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision....
“In our opinion, this ruling does not consider the magnitude of the atrocity and the scourge of mass killings proliferating in North America, nor does it recognize the hateful, Islamophobic and racist nature of the crime,” said Mohamed Labidi, president of the organization [the CCIQ], at the mosque on Sainte-Foy Road where six worshippers were brutally gunned down in January 2017.
“Although we are disappointed in this decision by the highest court in the land, it does enable us to close this legal chapter. Now we want to focus on the future.”
What troubles the survivors and the victims' loved ones most is that the children of these victims might one day encounter the murderer.
“That is the biggest fear of the victims' families. The Parole Board might delay his release and take this into account, but that's our real fear, that the orphans who will become men and women will come face to face with their father's killer when he is free,” said Mr. Labidi. He vowed to stand by these children when the time comes....
When contacted by Le Journal, Aymen Derbali, a father who was left severely disabled after miraculously surviving being shot seven times during the attack, said that he “respects” the court's decision, although he was “very disappointed” in the ruling.
“What worries me as a citizen is that this encourages future criminals to commit mass murder, since the sentence would be the same,” he said.
All the same, this decision was the culmination of a long saga that will help him close this painful chapter of his life. He wants to dedicate all of his energy to his family, to his children's future and to his humanitarian aid projects.
“I'm turning the page. I started this process a little while ago, but with this decision... Finally, there was a decision. The law will be enforced the same way across Canada,” he said with a sigh.
...
Boufeldja Benabdallah, the co-founder of the CCIQ, suggested that the court did not sufficiently account for the pain experienced by the victims' loved ones, compared to the offender's right to rehabilitation.
“The Supreme Court made a purely legal observation that, in our opinion, did not take into account the humanity of these families. It took into account the humanity of a murderer who will have to be rehabilitated later on.... Today, it feels like the balance has been upset,” he said.
Now that all the legal appeals have been exhausted, he says that he wants to do something worthwhile by continuing to advocate for communal harmony, which he says has grown immensely in the past five years, like a healing balm on the scars of the tragedy.
People did not just come the day after the attack but reached out to us over the past five years, and we too made the effort to reach out to them.
1572 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from British Columbia on his appointment as our finance critic.
I also want to commend him on the quality of his French. I am sure that all his friends in Quebec are thrilled to see that when someone puts in the necessary effort, they can speak more than respectable French. I would like to thank him and congratulate him from the bottom of my heart.
It is clear to us Conservatives that industry is the backbone of wealth creation in Canada, and everything must be done to encourage it.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is well aware that, in our last two campaign platforms, Conservatives said that Bill 101 could apply to businesses in Quebec. Over three-quarters of a million Quebeckers voted for us and that approach.
I also want to make it clear that we Conservatives seize every opportunity to demonstrate our tremendous respect for jurisdiction. One thing federal Conservatives will not do is tell the provinces how to do certain things. That is reciprocal, actually.
To us, protecting the French language is essentially in Quebec's bailiwick. Quebec started working on it in the 1960s with Bill 63, which was not exactly the greatest invention of the century. In 1974, there was Bill 22, which had more teeth but did more harm than good, some say. Then Bill 101 was passed in 1977, and the debate on Bill 96 is under way as we speak.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for his speech. It is always a pleasure to remind him that I am one of his constituents when I spend the week in Ottawa. I stay in Hull, a sector of Gatineau, and he is my MP. I therefore regularly receive his always interesting and pertinent, if lengthy, newsletters in the mail. I just want to give my regards to my MP.
My colleague quite correctly highlighted the fact that Canada has been officially bilingual since its foundation, but that the Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. We learned that this was the year of his birth, which is a fun bit of trivia.
He also noted that over 90% of senior executives in the public service are bilingual. In fact, I spoke last weekend with a high-ranking official from an important department who spoke perfect French despite having an English-sounding last name.
In his speech, my colleague talked about the various milestones, including how Prime Minister Pearson established a commission to study bilingualism and biculturalism and how the Official Languages Act was passed in 1969 under Prime Minister Trudeau. However, he forgot to include one thing in his historical overview and that is that, in 2015, the year he and I were both elected, his party's election platform provided for a review of the act. It took more than six years before his party delivered on that review.
Does he think his government was slow to act?
253 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/22 12:52:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my colleague from western Canada on the quality of her French.
Each and every tax measure deserves to be assessed on its own merits and should be reviewed at the appropriate time.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech, which included lots of historical reminders and facts. I disagree with his conclusion, but I do think the facts he shared are relevant to understanding the reality of the French fact and bilingualism in Canada.
Let me just say that I am happy to see you in the chair, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have addressed you, the hon. member for Joliette, in this capacity. Welcome, thank you, and congratulations on your excellent work.
Getting back to my colleague's speech, he said French is in jeopardy. Everyone knows that. He said the bill we are debating today does not go far enough. My colleague from Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier rightly said as much.
Yes, French is in jeopardy, but laws can only go so far. There is an ever-present reality that is amplified by social media, which are constantly bombarding us with information, documentation and communications in English.
What does my colleague think of that?
What are his thoughts on that reality?
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
