Pierre Paul-Hus
Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Finance is out of touch with reality. What we see on the ground, what we have observed, is that this is not working at all. What is more, a poll shows that 60% of Canadians are anxious because they do not have enough money and do not know how things will turn out.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed that the cost of living is the best it has been in decades, but I have some news for him: We are in a recession. Along with my Conservative colleagues, I travelled across Quebec last week to hear from entrepreneurs. In Beauce, Bellechasse, the Lower St.”
“Mr. Speaker, Lac Saint-Charles provides drinking water to nearly 300,000 residents of the Quebec City region. Between 2019 and 2021, I proposed a $200-million federal investment to protect this resource, and that proposal was supported by the former minister, the current member for Québec Centre . Seven years on, nothing has been done.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister left his job as the chair of Brookfield in New York to come to Canada, he forgot that he was no longer working for a private company but for Canadian taxpayers. Right now, Canadians are going through a recession. They are paying more for everything, and millions are struggling to make ends meet.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the tone I used was appropriate, considering how wasteful the party across the way has been all these years. I know that it must be hard for the Prime Minister to get used to life in the public service after having enjoyed the perks of working for a private company like Brookfield.”
“Mr. Speaker, a United Way report released today reveals that Canadians are increasingly concerned about their financial situations. According to the report, 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, and 38% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity.”
The complete record
Every one of 192 lines we hold for Pierre Paul-Hus, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, we will always support what works, but what is not working is this government. For 10 years, we have been seeing that this government is not working. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who conducted a transparent analysis, said that the chance of meeting the deficit targets is less than 10%. We know that this government is not working. Furthermore, this government just posted an ad for a new parliamentary budget officer. Why? Is it because the truth hurts?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to quote experts, but only when it suits them. The Fitch rating agency, which assigns the government's credit rating, recently said that the federal finances are a disaster, but the Liberals are refusing to listen to what the agency has to say. Meanwhile, in his report last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that government spending is unsustainable and alarming. How many more expert reports will it take for the Prime Minister to understand that he needs to stop his unsustainable spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, the recent Supreme Court ruling, which determined that a one-year prison sentence for accessing and possessing child pornography constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, is a devastating insult to the victims of crimes like this. It was a Conservative government that established tougher mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography back in the day. Today, however, the Liberals have confirmed that they were unwilling to use the notwithstanding clause. Why is this government more inclined to protect the charter rights of pedophiles than the charter rights of children?”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing that is not imaginary is the C.D. Howe Institute report, which gave the Liberal Party an F, as in fail. What is even more embarrassing is that the Prime Minister promised a maximum deficit of $42 billion. Now we see that the Liberals are going to more than double that number. Given the Prime Minister's experience in finance, does he recognize that he needs to put an immediate stop to this inflationary spending, as our party has repeatedly proposed, and present an affordable budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, after more than a year's delay, the Liberal government is finally going to table its budget tomorrow. We know that since this Prime Minister came to power, the deficit has doubled and $48 billion in investments have poured out of Canada. My question for the Prime Minister is simple: Will his budget contain concrete measures for eliminating the indirect taxes on food products? Does he realize that, instead of provoking a costly election, the better course would be to present an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is something else. He is putting the burden on the opposition parties to support the type of mismanagement we have seen from the Liberals for the past 10 years, while he is presenting Canadians with a bunch of nonsense. The government House leader should instead be asking himself whether his government is prepared to present a budget that is affordable to make life affordable for Canadians. That is the question.”
“Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are going without food because of high prices, the Prime Minister 's friends are reaping the rewards of government largesse. When he created the new defence investment agency, the Prime Minister quickly called on his friend Doug Guzman to fill the position of CEO. He gave him a salary of nearly $700,000. After all, with the Liberals, a friend is a friend. Now that he is spending taxpayers' money, not Bay Street money, can the Prime Minister stop asking young Canadians to make sacrifices to make his friends rich?”
“Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from this government, especially not from a minister who, incidentally, was supposed to resign if the carbon tax was abolished. On this side of the House, we know that inflationary measures are causing the problems that people are experiencing. Inflation is going up because of this government's uncontrolled spending over the past 10 years. Does the Prime Minister understand that he needs to stop his inflationary spending in order to help people?”
“Mr. Speaker, Moisson Québec has informed us that its network supports more than 84,000 people every month. That is a 30% increase since 2022. Since then, an economic study by Aviseo for Food Banks of Quebec has revealed that food insecurity is becoming the new normal and that the need for assistance will continue. In the meantime, the Prime Minister is asking Quebeckers to make sacrifices, knowing that he will not have to make any himself. Since coming to power, he has done absolutely nothing to lower the cost of living. When will the Liberals finally realize that their inflationary deficits are driving Quebeckers to food banks?”
“Mr. Speaker, I clearly remember an election campaign in which the candidate for the job of prime minister said that we needed to go “elbows up” on Donald Trump. He said that he was going to fix things. He said he could take charge of the situation because he had been in charge of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England and he was good at it. Now, we are seeing job losses in the auto industry. Some 3,000 Stellantis jobs went to the United States, including 725 from Quebec. Are members aware that 10,700 automotive sector employees in Quebec alone are at risk of losing their jobs because “elbows up” has not solved the problem? When will there be a solution to the problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a victory, manage Donald Trump and reach an agreement before July 21. He did exactly the opposite. The Prime Minister has let down auto workers in Canada and Quebec. Paccar, in Sainte-Thérèse, recently laid off 300 of its employees. There have been 725 layoffs since the beginning of the year, while the Prime Minister was leading failed negotiations with Washington. Furthermore, the Prime Minister said yesterday in a speech that he wants young Canadians to make more sacrifices. Is it normal for young Quebeckers to have to make more sacrifices to keep Washington happy?”
“These are deeply rooted values in our riding that have guided me for the past decade. I sincerely thank the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for their renewed trust, and I continue to serve them with passion.”
“Mr. Speaker, on October 19, 2015, the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles did me the great honour of electing me to the House of Commons. Today, 10 years later, I am proud and thankful to rise to mark this important milestone; 10 years defending the interests of our families, our seniors, our young people and all those who contribute to the vitality of our riding every day. I have had the privilege of working with organizations that embody our values of solidarity and commitment: the Knights of Columbus, the Patro de Charlesbourg, our seniors clubs, our sports associations and the organizations that support people living with various needs. These dedicated men and women, who are often volunteers, remind us that the strength of a community depends on helping one another, on family and on shared responsibility.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we understand quite well that the Prime Minister recommended moving Brookfield's headquarters to New York when he was the company's chair. This year, the largest trucking company, TFI International, an outfit with 27 employees, announced that it would be moving its head office to the United States. It is no surprise that Canada's economy is shrinking faster than any other G7 nation's economy. Does the Prime Minister know that he is working for Canadians, not Americans?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the U.S. President investments of “$1 trillion in the next five years—if we get the agreement we expect to get”. Now we know why the Prime Minister recommended moving Brookfield's headquarters to New York when he was president of that company. Now the Prime Minister is asking Canadian businesses and investment funds to go invest $1 trillion in the United States. Why is the Prime Minister trying to improve the U.S. economy instead of Canada's?”
“Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberals who caused those deficiencies over the past 10 years, with the bills and laws that were put in place, such as Bill C‑5, Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑83. All of those laws have led to a drastic increase in crime in Canada. We have a bill that has been tabled in the House. This bill was drafted in consultation with police officers and victims groups. This bill will make our streets and other women safer so that they do not suffer the same fate as Gabie Renaud. Will this government do the right thing and vote in favour of our motion this afternoon?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know if members are familiar with the story of Gabie Renaud, the woman who was killed four weeks ago in Saint‑Jérôme, Quebec, by a man who had been arrested 30 times and had failed to comply with his release conditions 16 times. All of this was caused by Liberal catch-and-release laws, like Bill C‑75 . There is actually some good news. My colleague, the member for Oxford , introduced Bill C‑242 , which was drafted in consultation with police officers and victims' groups. This bill is ready to be passed right away. Will the Prime Minister ask his government and his MPs to vote today, following question period, to advance the member for Oxford's bill, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there are a number of things that need to be addressed. That is why we are asking the government to make amendments and propose changes before going any further. These are fundamental issues. At this point, we are dealing with problems that have not yet been resolved.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is also a veteran and a former commanding officer. He likely had to conduct summary trials like I did. One of the problems we are seeing right now is that cases are being added to the backlog of other cases in the civilian justice system. That can hurt victims. That is one of the concerns that we Conservatives have. We agree with the principle, but if this bill causes more problems for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when it comes to justice, then we have not improved anything. That is why we need to find a way forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we supported the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, which were published in recent years. In fact, we were the ones who commissioned the first report. It is extremely important for us that this problem be resolved. We have always collaborated. We complain about the government moving at a snail's pace, but every time we have amendments to propose, they are based on reality and aim to make things better. We are not proposing amendments just to slow down the process. If we propose an amendment, it is because we think it is essential to do so. That is what we will do. Obviously, if the government agrees to the Conservatives' amendments, the process will move more quickly. That is our goal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think some information got lost in translation. I mentioned that it was taking a long time, but I did not say that nothing had been done. I said that it was still taking way too much time. I also said that we supported the idea of Bill C-11 , but that adjustments were needed. We will probably be able to make the necessary adjustments at the committee stage. I was generally criticizing the length of time it is taking, although some steps have been completed.”
“As far as Bill C-11 is concerned, we support the idea, but there are adjustments to be made. This has been dragging on for a very long time. I do not know why we are still talking about something in 2025 that should already have been resolved. Let us hope that things speed up and that adjustments will be made. As for military procurement, it is high time that we acted quickly for the Canadian Forces, for the security of the country.”
“We have responded to a request from the U.S. and NATO, and we want to move forward. However, too many companies in the defence sector are still coming to me saying that they are unable to reach anyone within the Government of Canada. No one answers their calls, their emails or their requests. They have a much easier time selling equipment in other countries, while in Canada, their hands are tied. I am not talking about one company, but several companies at all levels, from major multinationals to small companies that make equipment as commonplace as chests for storing weapons, but also other equipment that could be used right now on the ground in Ukraine. A company in Montreal has to sell its equipment in Great Britain in order for that equipment to reach Ukraine because Canada is not answering its calls. These are observations.”
“This would go a long way to improving Canada's military procurement system, which has been a train wreck for the past few years. We do need to reform the military justice system because this system has become a problem, particularly in cases of sexual assault. However, we should keep in mind that a dichotomy will be created by the loss of capacity within the teams that are currently responsible for prosecuting cases that occur abroad versus those that will be responsible for civilian proceedings in Canada. It is important that we have a system that ensures that military judge advocates working on the front lines, as well as the commanding officers carrying out their duties abroad, retain their expertise. We must not lose this strength. On the military procurement front, we have moved beyond the stage of fine words.”
“That way, the government would not need to create a bureaucratic structure that will take time to set up and might work eventually, but, for the time being, only adds more red tape. Things can move quickly if the will is there. Here is the proof. When the Conservative government was in power and we were at war in Afghanistan, we had urgent equipment needs on the ground. This included planes, helicopters, vehicles and personal protective equipment. Former prime minister Harper issued a directive indicating that he wanted to have equipment as quickly as possible, on time and on budget. It got done. Where there is a will, there is a way. The proof is that this happened under the Conservative government. On the Liberal side, they like to build a big bureaucracy, but decisive operational leadership can get things done too.”
“We were supposed to reach a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product, but demands are currently reaching 5%. (1255) There are consequences to that. Right now, we all agree on the idea of investing more in defence. However, there is always a “but”. That “but” is the procurement system. The Liberals will tell us that, last week, they announced a new agency. Again, it is a new agency. All this government has done since it came to power is create new bureaucratic structures. However, there is a way to manage much more efficiently with the current structure by giving specific directives to the public servants and deputy ministers in place at National Defence, at the procurement service and in the industry.”
“Since we are talking about the Canadian Armed Forces, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the serious need for a complete overhaul of the government procurement process for military equipment and services. This inefficient and outdated system is filled with red tape and engenders costly delays that weaken our defence. According to open sources, like government reports and media analyses, Canada has had equipment procurement issues for decades. For example, projects like the Canadian Army vehicle procurement project, which is worth up to $1 billion, face significant barriers, chronic delays and skyrocketing costs. The Prime Minister , who, we must remember, is a former Goldman Sachs banker, is responsible for accelerating defence spending in order to meet our NATO commitments.”
“Right now, the Department of National Defence covers the prosecution and defence costs, but in the civilian system, accused persons would have to pay for their own lawyers, whose fees could reach six figures. That could discourage justice and expose members of the Canadian Armed Forces to false accusations without support. Despite the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, victims are still waiting for justice after 10 years under a Liberal government. We, the Conservatives, accepted all of the recommendations in the Deschamps report, and we cannot understand why the Liberals have been dragging their feet for so long. We want to hear from everyone involved. We are proud of our men and women in uniform and we support them unconditionally.”
“The provost marshal will be added to the list of senior officials, along with the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister, who must have any complaints against them reviewed by the minister. However, there are still some inconsistencies. There are arbitrary differences between these positions with regard to their term of office and whether it is renewable. What is more, this bill grants the Minister of National Defence more power to issue written instructions or directives on particular prosecutions. That opens the door to potential political interference, a risk that we, as Conservatives, cannot ignore, especially given the Liberal government's track record of interference. Financially speaking, this bill is alarming for accused persons.”
“Offences committed abroad will still be under the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction, which is consistent with section 273 of the National Defence Act. This discrepancy poses problems. By removing the CAF's jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases of sexual misconduct in Canada, there is a risk of losing essential practical skills. How will the Canadian Armed Forces maintain their expertise if they no longer manage their internal affairs? One positive aspect is the increased independence of the director of military prosecutions, the director of defence counsel services and the provost marshal general. These positions will now be appointed by the Governor in Council, reporting directly to the Minister of National Defence, with limited terms of office. This strengthens their independence outside the chain of command.”
“Let us start with Bill C‑11, which is basically a repeat of Bill C‑66 from the 44th Parliament, with minor adjustments. This bill amends the National Defence Act to transfer jurisdiction over sexual offences to civilian authorities when these offences occur within Canada. This measure is in response to key recommendations in the reports by Justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour, which the Conservatives have always supported. We firmly believe that all members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a safe and respectful workplace, free from sexual misconduct, discrimination, racism or harassment. Those of us on this side of the House will continue to address these issues, putting victims' needs and rights first, in accordance with our criminal justice policy. However, this bill is not without its flaws.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound . I rise in the House to address two crucial issues that go to the heart of our national security and our commitment to those who serve our country. The first issue is in regard to Bill C‑11 , the military justice system modernization act, a piece of legislation that would fundamentally reform our military justice system. The second issue is in regard to the urgent need for a complete overhaul of the Canadian government's procurement process for military equipment, an area that has been totally neglected and plagued by chronic delays and inefficient bureaucracy. Together, these issues underscore the urgency of protecting our military and strengthening our defence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to go visit the family of the victim that was just murdered in Saint‑Jérôme. Does this family think that the Liberals' laws have helped in any way? No. The truth is that the Conservatives put in place a justice system that reduced crime by 25%. What we need are laws that are fair but tough on criminals. Criminals belong in prisons, not in homes.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that crime has increased by 55% over the past 10 years that this government has been in power, whereas it decreased by 25% during the 10 years of Conservative rule. That is the reality. Unfortunately, what we are seeing today with the Liberal criminal justice system is that a woman was murdered by her former partner, who had been released on parole 16 times and never complied with the conditions of his release. Why was this man able to go see his girlfriend and kill her? What do the Liberals have to say about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is criticizing us for wanting to make our streets safer and for wanting to protect the lives of women and also of men, who can obviously be victims too. How can anyone fault us for wanting a safer society? There is no slogan here, just facts. Women are being killed. This is not a theoretical debate. This is one of life's harsh realities. There is one place where we can make a difference, and that is right here in Parliament, with the help of a government that should be making a difference but is currently doing nothing. That is all we are asking for.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question and her work on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Women do indeed bear the brunt of the crimes we are seeing these days: murder, intimate partner violence, serious violent offences. That is why we need to fix the situation as quickly as possible. Everyone expects to live their life in safety. That is what we want; that is what we are asking for. Previously, the other three parties, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, joined forces to pass Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75 . The Bloc Québécois realized that Bill C‑5 was not working. I thank its members for that, and I hope they will continue to help us work on behalf of women. Yes, we need to be careful about how we do this, but above all, we have to think about the victims and future victims we must protect.”
“Mr. Speaker, we must indeed do things right. That is important. The problem is that we have a government that has been causing problems for 10 years. Since the election of the new Prime Minister , who promised to get things done quickly, nothing has happened, so that is why we think this is urgent. For several years now, we have been seeing an increase in crime, including crimes like the murder of Gabie Renaud and that of Marylène Levesque a few years ago. Unfortunately, there is far too much crime and murder in Canada. Swift action must be taken, which is why we want to expedite the process. Even if the bill is fast-tracked, it will still be examined in committee.”
“No one can understand how a person can be arrested and then be released three hours later to start committing crimes again. No one can understand why that law was enacted. That is the reason for Bill C‑242. We want to undo all of that and restore a justice system that is acceptable to and accepted by the population, who is asking for no more than that. When we see women like Gabie Renaud murdered by a man who was charged 30 times and who violated his release conditions 16 times, it is impossible to understand how he was able to go and kill Gabie. It is unacceptable. We are basically lending a helping hand to this government, which does not seem to have the time to change course quickly. In six months, nothing has happened. We are putting bills forward. My colleague from Oxford has tabled a bill.”
“There were also provisions in Bill C‑325 requiring that criminal charges be brought against a person who fails to comply with their release conditions. Unfortunately, this was defeated by our Liberal colleagues, with support from the NDP. I must compliment the Bloc Québécois, which initially supported Bill C‑5 but then realized its mistake. The Bloc Québécois voted with me in support of Bill C‑325. Ultimately, Bill C‑325 was defeated by the Liberals and the NDP. As a result, Bill C‑5 is still in effect. There was Bill C‑5 and Bill C-75 . Today we are talking about the content of Bill C‑75. We are talking about the bill brought forward by my colleague from Oxford , Bill C‑242. It can be confusing when all these numbers are flying around, but what members need to understand is this.”
“The first person to take advantage of Bill C‑5 after it came into force was a white man from Montreal who had committed aggravated sexual assault against his ex. Instead of going to prison, he got to sit at home watching Netflix. That is how things started, and the number of similar cases only grew. With Bill C‑5, Montreal's street gangs could rest easy. They knew that they would not go to prison if they were arrested but would instead get to stay at home doing whatever they wanted. We spoke out against this from the very beginning. We voted against the bill even before it was passed, and we said that it was not going to work. A few years have passed, and sure enough, we are now seeing the result. Two and a half years ago, I tabled Bill C‑325 , which aimed to reverse Bill C‑5.”
“It is victims of domestic violence, women who are scared to leave their homes. Even if they stay at home, criminals have no qualms about coming back to assault them or worse, kill them. That is not acceptable in 2025 in a country like Canada. We went through problems a few years ago because of Bill C-5 , which introduced house arrest. The bill was intended to empty the prisons, and it was introduced by David Lametti, a former minister of justice who is going to become an ambassador, though I do not know to what country. Bill C‑5 was brought forward on the grounds that there were too many Black, racialized and indigenous people in prison. The intent was to narrow the scope of the Criminal Code so that fewer of these people would go to jail.”
“I am sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City , and I hope she will elaborate on that. We have some astonishing examples of problematic Liberal measures and promises made by a supposedly new government that was going to make a difference, but that is currently doing absolutely nothing. We are not asking it to promise us the moon. We just want the government to stop. There are enough bills. We want the government to let us pass them quickly to bring about change. Bill C-242 can be dealt with if the House accepts it today. We can get that done and move forward. The government is not doing anything even though we are ready to move more quickly to prevent more deaths. Right now, criminals on bail or parole are laughing their heads off and doing as they please. Who pays the price?”
“Organized crime is even spreading to the regions, recruiting young people into a brutal cycle that no one in this Liberal government seems interested in ending. Today, we are debating a motion calling for Bill C-242 , the jail not bail act, introduced by my colleague from Oxford , to be fast-tracked. We are asking that the bill be passed immediately and sent to committee in order to speed up the necessary legislative changes. We should keep in mind that the new Prime Minister has been in office for six months. During the election campaign, before he came to power, the Prime Minister said that his government would bring in changes quickly to get crime in Canada back under control. (1145) What has happened over the last six months when it comes to crime and crime bills? Nothing, zip, nada.”
“They were replaced by new members who had very little experience, if any, and who were primarily chosen for their very left-leaning, very woke ideology. As a result, decisions were made, in particular the decision to release Eustachio Gallese on parole, as is the case currently with Jonathan Blanchet, the man who killed Gabie Renaud. This guy was arrested 30 times and released 16 times under certain conditions. However, he violated those conditions, yet there were no consequences. How can a person violate the conditions of his release 16 times and still be free? It makes no sense. Once again, we are seeing an increase in crime. In Montreal, for example, assaults and domestic violence are on the rise. Across Quebec, sex crimes have increased by 20% in just two years. Child pornography cases have doubled.”
“We have spoken at great length about Bill C-5 , which allows dangerous criminals to serve their prison sentence at home, and Bill C-75 , the bill that brings us here again today and that makes it far too easy to get bail. It is spelled out in the law. Judges do not even have a choice. Dangerous criminals are automatically released. I am not even talking about what has been done in terms of managing parole. Members may recall that after the murder of Marylène Levesque in Quebec City, I got a motion passed asking the Standing Committee on Public Safety to investigate what happened at the Parole Board. The board had undergone a complete purge, particularly the members from Quebec, who were a bit too conservative for the government.”
“The harsh reality is that right now, in Canada, streets that were once peaceful and quiet have become danger zones for too many families. Violent crime is up 55% under this Liberal government, and that figure is not a statistical abstraction, it is the horrendous reality of forgotten victims and broken communities. Homicides have increased by 29%, gun-related crime has more than doubled in many areas, and extortion is up 357%. We need only look at what is happening at restaurants in Montreal and Laval. They are being set on fire, and gangs are going in and extorting the owners, forcing them to pay protection money, known as pizzo . Nothing is being done to help these restaurant owners get out of this situation. What is happening at the moment is no accident. It is the direct result of the laws put in place by the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City. I have to ask myself what we are even doing here, talking, talking, talking, when the measures that need to be taken are quite clear. Unfortunately, because of the dithering and the government that has been in power for the past 10 years, we now have laws that make our communities a lot less safe. Just ask the family of Gabie Renaud, who was brutally murdered in Saint-Jérôme a few weeks ago and whose body was just found. Just ask the family of Marylène Levesque, who was murdered in Quebec City five years ago by Eustachio Gallese while he was on unsupervised release. We are talking about numerous situations that could have been avoided, numerous deaths that could have been avoided.”
“Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government House leader completely misunderstood my question. I was not talking about firearms. Incidentally, the weapons used in Portapique came from the United States and were illegal. That has nothing to do with what is happening in this country. My question was about international organized crime operating at the port of Montreal and in the Montreal area. These criminals are financing Hezbollah. It is happening right under the Minister of Public Safety's nose. He is doing absolutely nothing about it and does not even understand what is happening in this country. My question is simple: Will the Prime Minister have the courage to fire the Minister of Public Safety immediately?”
“Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada reported that the Canada Border Services Agency intercepted more than 1,500 stolen vehicles last year at the port of Montreal, reflecting a steady rise in thefts linked to international organized crime. This criminal activity also includes the laundering of money from romance scams that are destroying Quebeckers' lives. The Prime Minister is making excuses to allow the Minister of Public Safety to keep his job even though he does not understand what is going on in this country. He knows that intelligence services suspect these criminal organizations of funding terrorist activities and having ties to Hezbollah. Does the Prime Minister have the courage to fire him today?”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my question is for the Minister of Public Safety, not the Secretary of State for Nature. We are talking about border security. We are talking about crime and the African mafia. It is important to note that, because of this minister, public safety has become a major issue in Canada. We have problems. Nothing has been done to control African mafia groups. Will the Prime Minister fire his public safety minister?”