- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- Jun/10/24 12:41:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I would also like to thank the member for Trois-Rivières and the Bloc Québécois for their proposal today that focused on this theme.
Unfortunately, foreign powers have already won. Foreign powers made sure that there are people here in the House who got elected with their support and assistance. I am not the one saying it. It is the judge.
We know that this is a very sensitive issue for everyone, because nobody knows who is involved. That said, does the minister understand and accept the fact that, in order to lift the cloud of suspicion that is hanging over the 337 people sitting in the House, these individuals who were elected with the help and support of foreign powers hostile to our country must be clearly identified?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 6:22:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I am not one to read a prepared speech. I use notes and refer to them while I am speaking. If by any chance my remarks misled the House, I gladly and honourably withdraw them. However, in my view, once two of the four parties have stated their opposition to allowing the member for Hull—Aylmer to remain in his position, the die is cast and the burden is a heavy one.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:48:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his remarks. Of course, when it comes to ethics, among the 338 members of Parliament, he knows a lot more than many.
As the member for Trois-Rivières said, the Speaker is not a colleague of members of the House of Commons. His role is above that. However, in the speech he gave when he became Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer focused a lot on the fact that we needed to elevate debates in the House and that we were here first and foremost for Canadians, which is true. As Speaker, however, is he here first and foremost for Canadians or is he also here, perhaps even first and foremost, to protect the right of all parliamentarians to express themselves properly?
We should also keep in mind that all the incidents took place outside the House. I counted five. Three specific ones were very serious, but there have been at least five.
What is, therefore, the Speaker's role in this place with respect to those he calls his colleagues?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 1:59:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during the speech, we heard some things that ought to be corrected.
The member alleged that some members on this side of the House were spreading disinformation, which is completely false. I will prove it—
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:40:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the name is Louis-Saint-Laurent. I have nothing against the St. Lawrence river, but the name is a tribute to the former prime minister who, let us not forget, was the one who balanced the budget after the war. I am very proud to represent the riding named after him here, in the House of Commons.
My colleague always has something interesting to say. I really like the historical aspects of his speech. He even pointed out what the Taschereau government did. We enjoyed it a lot.
I will have an opportunity to speak to the issues and certain things that we want to clarify in about 10 minutes.
My question is this: How does the member account for the fact that the current federal government did not want Quebec to be heard in parliamentary committee, despite Quebec's request?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 3:59:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to take part in the discussion we are having.
It is a good thing the member began his speech by saying that he had not really prepared anything and that he was a bit surprised and was speaking extemporaneously. Without any notes, he accurately quoted our Constitution and outlined the fundamental steps of how our country was created. More importantly, he spoke of the democratic protections we enjoy here in the House, precisely because we are protected by the fact that, in the House, we represent the people, and we must keep it that way.
What we have seen over the last few days is proof of courage. This member has shown, without a shadow of a doubt, that even if we are the target of a foreign country, we have to stay on our feet. This is what the member has shown to us today and through the last weeks, if not for the last couple of years. He has shown us courage.
This member, who has been a parliamentarian for nearly 20 years, has clearly demonstrated the courage that can and should inspire us in the exercise of our duties.
On a more personal note, we know that this member is a serious, rigorous and hard-working man, but he is also a family man.
What has this experience been like for his family?
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint‑Jean for her speech.
I am glad that she said she was not a criminal law expert, because if she were, we would have gotten another great lesson. I congratulate her on giving such an excellent, well-documented and detailed speech, as usual, especially on a topic like this one.
With respect to Bill C‑28, I must admit that I am not naturally a particularly open-minded person. This is a humble confession, but I was reassured to see that this is being taken seriously by the Minister of Justice and by parliamentarians. I also want to commend my colleague from Fundy Royal, who collaborated in the drafting of this bill.
The member said in her speech that the government would refer this bill to parliamentary committee to address certain aspects. We had to move quickly in response to the Supreme Court decision, but is the member, as a lawyer, reassured by the fact that this issue will be dealt with again in parliamentary committee this fall?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my colleague for his speech and his very honest, but unfortunately sad, presentation of the financial reality of this government.
The big issue of the day is inflation. It has hurt every family, especially when we talk about the price of gas. We all realize and recognize that elsewhere offshore we see great countries applying positive action to reduce taxation, such as the United States, Germany, Great Britain, Australia and South Korea.
I want my colleague to talk about why the government is not doing the same as our allies.
98 words
All Topics
- 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
- Jun/1/22 8:55:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to both thank and congratulate the member for Lac-Saint-Jean once again for the quality of his speech. He talked a lot about leadership. I would be remiss if I did not point out the leadership he showed some time ago in pushing for an airlift to bring refugees here. I say that with all the pride and honesty that comes with being a member of Parliament. We are all very pleased that three planes have arrived. As the saying goes, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We hope it is just the beginning.
The member highlighted the fact that Canada has distinguished itself over the years by always being on the right side of history and in fact by leading the charge on the right side. One example that comes to mind is Mr. Pearson and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's efforts to fight apartheid, even though it upset our main allies, namely England and the U.S.
The member spoke about leadership. What urgent action does he think the government should be taking to help the Ukrainian people?
190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I love the expression “look who is talking”: look who is talking about the fact that we are making speeches here in the House of Commons. He is not the king or the queen; he is the god of speakers in the House of Commons. He is speaking on everything all the time, and now he is asking questions and asking why we are talking about this. We get inspiration from the member.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:41:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood and say to him that, earlier, I misspoke when I said that he was wrong. What he said was false, but not what he thought, of course.
I want to clarify the situation. It is the opposite of what was suggested. That happens sometimes.
At the end of his speech, the member said that he agreed with the principle behind the motion. I would like to know if he will be supporting it.
85 words
All Topics
- 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
- Feb/19/22 7:33:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his speech. I would also like to thank the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who spoke earlier.
My colleagues did a great job of contextualizing the big difference between the events of 1970 and the 1988 act invoked by this government. This act, which was drafted and passed by Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government and sponsored by Minister Perrin Beatty, sets out very specific conditions. For one thing, the act cannot be used for partisan purposes. It is to be used only if it meets criteria that this government, unfortunately, has not met.
I would like to ask my colleague a question.
Ottawa was under siege for 17 days. For 17 days, the Prime Minister did absolutely nothing. In fact, on February 11, he said the police had all the tools they needed to respond. Three days later, he woke up and said this act had to be invoked.
Can the member help us understand the Liberal prime minister's completely irresponsible behaviour?
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
