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 4 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, with this Minister of Public Safety, it is one failure after another. We have seen a 130% increase in gun crimes. He was recorded admitting that the Liberal gun buyback program is politically motivated. Now he is failing on border security by allowing the African mafia to infiltrate the country and exploit Quebec's most vulnerable citizens. Will the Prime Minister show his minister the door?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly does not understand the problem. She needs to understand that, among the visas issued to students, 200 have been issued to Africans who are part of the African mafia and who are currently living in Quebec. They are committing crimes such as child prostitution, fraud and car theft. This international crime network has now reached Canada because of the Liberals' lax immigration policies. Can the minister confirm that the government will resolve this issue of fake student visas?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' student visa policies are causing chaos in Canada, especially in Quebec. These policies are allowing African mafia networks to infiltrate the country and take advantage of the most vulnerable Quebeckers. Radio-Canada reported on the sophisticated scam run by Mamadou Berthe, an Ivorian national who defrauded two Quebec retirees of more than $500,000 and may have stolen $1 million from 20 victims. Can the Prime Minister tell us what he is doing to combat this scourge of fake students who are actually criminals?”
“Mr. Speaker, irresponsible Liberal policies that allow violent criminals to be held under house arrest and repeat offenders to be released early have led to a 55% surge in violent crime since 2015. Quebec communities have not been spared, and law-abiding citizens live in constant fear because they do not feel safe. Our Conservative motion proposes a “three strikes” law that would impose minimum sentences of 10 years without parole for repeat offenders who have committed three serious crimes. If the Liberals truly care about the safety of Canadians, will they support our motion?”
“Madam Speaker, there are three parts to my colleague's question. The last part of his question might bring to mind Adil Charkaoui, who incited violence in the streets of Montreal as he called on Allah to attack and kill Jews. I understand that one part is about the religious speech exemption, but the Criminal Code already contains provisions allowing police to arrest people who say such things. Therefore, I think it is possible to have the police intervene under existing legislation, but I agree that these issues do need to be taken into consideration.”
“Madam Speaker, at the end of my speech, I mentioned Bill C‑325 , which I introduced. It received support from every police association and from victims' groups, including several groups in Quebec. For some incomprehensible ideological reason, however, the Liberals and the NDP voted against the bill. Will the Liberals stop being obstructionist now and accept our ideas? If they act promptly, the bill could be implemented quickly. They were quick to implement bills for the economy back in the spring. When it comes to crime, they should move just as quickly. I hope that the Minister of Justice will pick up the pace and that a bill will be tabled in the House as soon as possible.”
“Madam Speaker, we have 10 years of experience here questioning this government's actual intentions. Nothing we have seen adds up. Today, we are hearing proposals that run completely counter to what has been done over the past 10 years. Will the Prime Minister have the support of his Liberal caucus? It seems to me that over three-quarters of the members on the Liberal side were very proud to call us every name in the book when we were attacking Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5 . I was even called racist in the House for speaking out against Bill C‑5. I will need to see a big ideological change on the other side of the House in order for me to trust them. Yes, if there is a clear and specific bill that repeals Bill C‑75 and brings justice back to this country, of course we will support it.”
“We hope there will be a major change. I personally introduced Bill C‑325 in the last Parliament to undo the provisions of the act arising from Bill C‑5 . The Liberals and the NDP voted against it. I thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues, because they understood that there was cause for concern and supported me and my bill at the time. I would like to believe that this is a new government, but its actions will show whether there has been a real change. We are reaching out to the government and suggesting ways to improve public safety and protect victims. I hope that our friends on the other side of the House will accept our offer and pick up the pace. We will be there to vote in favour of stronger laws for our country.”
“We need to get back to the basics of public safety. We need to get back to a sense of security that people understand, that they accept. People will be able to say that we finally have laws that protect them, laws that let police officers do their job and let judges ensure that criminals go to jail where they belong. All too often, we see the same faces. We have repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are people who commit crimes over and over again. Why are we letting them continue to commit these crimes? We have a duty to strengthen our laws so that these individuals end up in prison where they belong. Here is what we are proposing and humbly asking of the new government, as it likes to call itself. We look forward to seeing some proof that it really is a new government, because the government we had for the last 10 years was a disaster.”
“Over the past several years, we have seen a steady decline in public safety and an increase in violence and crime, resulting in a pervasive and pernicious state of fear. My riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles used to be peaceful and crime-free, but we are starting to see a rise in petty crime and other violations. People are starting to feel unsafe in a riding where we never used to see that kind of violence. It is starting slowly. There have been gang-related murders, which is obviously very serious. Crime is ramping up, and people are asking questions. They turn to us. They call my office to ask what we are doing about it and to tell us they need to be protected. In many cases, we have to tell them that, unfortunately, because our Liberal friends changed the laws, the police have fewer tools to make arrests that stick.”
“The cost of murder is that a family is destroyed forever. Taking action is not too costly. What is too costly is inaction. Together, we must all send a strong message to criminals. We are asking the Liberals to send a message that Canada will no longer be a haven for repeat offenders. After three serious crimes, three convictions, three chances, there should be no more excuses, no more half-measures and no more victims. This is a moral choice. (1045) At the end of the day, the question is simple: Who are we choosing to protect? Are we choosing to protect repeat offenders who laugh at the system and keep offending, or are we choosing to protect families, seniors, children and law-abiding women and men who want to live in peace? For me, the choice is clear. I choose victims, families and safety.”
“We could debate that endlessly. However, when it comes to the victims, we on this side of the House are much more concerned about justice being served. Victims live in fear every day. How many Quebeckers no longer dare to walk at night? How many seniors hesitate to answer the phone out of fear of being scammed again? How many parents worry about whether a convicted pedophile is living in their neighbourhood? Our constituents are not asking for much. They just want to be able to live without fear. Some will say there is a high cost to that. What is the real cost? Some say the prisons will fill up, that it will be expensive. Yes, it is true, an inmate costs $150,000 a year. However, the cost of rape is that the victim's dignity is stolen forever. The cost of fraud is that victims lose their life savings and are left feeling ashamed.”
“These individuals were already known to the authorities and had already been deemed dangerous, yet they were still living in our communities. That is the reality. That is the price of inaction. We often hear about rehabilitation. Yes, it is right to give people a second chance. Yes, it is necessary to offer help. How long do we have to keep offering it, though? Giving the same individuals too many chances means that the victims pay the price. If someone with two serious convictions chooses to reoffend a third time, they are sending a clear message. They have no intention of changing. Justice is not only about giving chances to the guilty; it is primarily about protecting the innocent. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that justice is served. Some will say that a longer prison sentence will not deter criminals.”
“He did not even wait until his conditions were up to start again. In Saguenay, Bruno Hudon, a man described by police as one of the most violent repeat offenders in the region, was placed in a halfway house despite a long history of violence. Police officers themselves voiced concerns about that. Then there was Miroslav Dragicevic, who received a lengthy sentence after committing aggravated assault on a woman, who was left with severe injuries. This was not the first time he had become violent. It was just the next chapter in a long history of threats and assaults. Unfortunately, I have plenty more examples I could give. In June alone, the Sûreté du Québec arrested 22 high-risk sex offenders as part of a special operation.”
“Three chances are enough. The fourth should rightly go to the victims, not the criminals. The law that we are urging the Liberals to adopt will prevent criminals who have been convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest. All too often, the victims are forgotten. In Quebec and elsewhere in the country, recidivism rates are on the rise. For example, in Trois‑Rivières, a man named Jean-François Gagnon was convicted of fraud. Within a month of leaving prison, he was back to scamming seniors. Over 50 seniors were duped, ripped off and humiliated. That is the price of our complacency. In Quebec City, a convicted pedophile named Pierre Gaudreault was released on mandatory supervision. What did he do? He downloaded hundreds of nude pictures of kids.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong conviction that Canada's complacency toward dangerous repeat offenders must end. Canadians are tired of seeing the same criminals back in court. They are tired of seeing repeat offenders ruin lives over and over again. They are tired of living in fear. When we say enough is enough, I think it is clear. Bill C-5 , which allows house arrest, and Bill C-75 , which makes it too easy to obtain bail, have triggered a public backlash. People no longer have confidence in the criminal justice system. The motion presented by our shadow minister for justice provides a simple and fair response. Once a person has been convicted of three serious offences, society, represented by Parliament, has the right and the duty to take firm action. It would be a simple “three strikes and you're out” rule.”
“Mr. Speaker, in recent years, we have witnessed the implementation of Bill C-5 , which amends the Criminal Code and allows sentences to be served at home, and Bill C-75 , which makes it very easy for offenders to be released on bail. These bills were put in place by the former justice minister, David Lametti, who is currently an adviser to the Prime Minister 's Office. Will the Prime Minister listen to David Lametti, or will he listen to reason and listen to the Conservatives?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader has announced that he would put an end to the wave of violent crime created by the Liberals by adopting a “three strikes and you're out” law. This law would prevent criminals who have been convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest. What is more, it would keep violent criminals behind bars longer to keep them away from their victims and off our streets. Does the Prime Minister need some good ideas for fighting crime? If so, will he adopt the opposition leader's law?”
“Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, as I said in my speech, there has indeed been a drastic change in how immigration is managed in this country. One of the causes was Roxham Road. As early as 2017, when I was the official opposition critic for public safety, we asked questions about this while calling on the government to close the border and close the loophole in the safe third country agreement. We were called racist for asking them to do that. Today, it is the various communities across the country that are calling for stricter access to immigration, because it creates problems. This has had a serious impact on communities in terms of health care, schools and housing. There are communities that keep demanding that we get things under control again. I think the Liberals have started to get it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that one of the problems that caused deadlines to be pushed back and requests to pile up is that the Liberals wasted the House's time last fall by hiding all the information about the green fund. Furthermore, on January 6, former prime minister Trudeau decided to prorogue Parliament. Because the Liberals had so much trouble managing their own affairs, deadlines have now come and gone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope I got the gist of my colleague's comment. If Canadian parents who work in Geneva have a child and return to Canada, that child would be Canadian. The question is, is that child— Luc Thériault: The problem arises if her children are born abroad. Pierre Paul‑Hus: Mr. Speaker, if she resided in the country, then yes. There is the notion of stay in the country. The difference with Bill C‑3 is the notion of having lived in the country. This is about a grandchild becoming Canadian even though their parent did not live in Canada. I could discuss this with the member in private to clarify matters.”
“What is needed are strict, concrete measures with a clear message from the government so that the officials who have to process these cases can do so quickly. When decisions are made, especially about people who have no business in this country, and when they are asked to leave, the decisions need to be carried out. Things cannot be left in limbo forever. We are therefore urging the government to stop trying to give citizenship to people who have never lived in Canada or who have no connection to the country, and to start dealing with those who have already entered Canada. Those who deserve to be here should be treated well and should be taken care of properly. Those who had no business coming here should go back home. That is how it should work. Canada's immigration system needs to be fixed.”
“It is not the civil servants' fault because everything was fine, basically. Prior to 2015, immigration to Canada was running smoothly. There were economic immigrants and refugees coming to the country. Immigration was being managed perfectly. Then the system completely derailed in recent years. To remedy the situation, we must now also help the officials. They had to deal with a situation that was initially created by Roxham Road. Permits were then handed out by the federal government. Take Quebec, for example. The federal government ignored Quebec's priorities and decided to grant permits to people, supposedly to attend school. It turns out that these people are fake students. What they basically wanted was to come here and then claim asylum so that they could stay. That is compounding the problem.”
“The government is not equipped to process files or ensure that people who set foot on our shores without a valid reason are sent back home. The system is either broken or too slow. At the same time, there are other immigrants who are settled and working, but who are waiting for their permits to be renewed. They are under an incredible amount of stress. I know this is happening to many of my colleagues, but at my constituency office alone, there are 10 or 15 people coming in every day looking for information. They are waiting for their renewal, unable to speak to anyone. They are not getting notified that the waiting period has been extended. It lands on us, in our constituency offices, to do the work normally done by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada staff. This is not right. The machinery is completely broken.”
“In five, six or seven years' time, however, they might be told that their lives are no longer in danger, that they arrived from the United States, or that they have no ground to claim asylum in Canada and must therefore go back home. This creates other problems, such as having Canadian children, and so on. We are calling for quick action to take back control of Canadian territory. As I said earlier, 600,000 people are currently living in Quebec on a temporary visa, work permit or study permit, along with asylum seekers. They are having a major impact on Quebec's health care system, education system and housing situation. In fact, the current housing shortage is partly due to groups of people who are here for no acceptable reason.”
“I remember being insulted and called racist by former prime minister Trudeau and other ministers because I was raising an issue of public safety and population control. People were coming here because of the infamous tweet. For many years, people took advantage of the situation at Roxham Road. They were not coming here from a country that was being bombed; they were crossing over from the U.S. The government has created a situation where the Canadian immigration system has been unable to manage files properly. Other issues have been created. People have been here for several years because it takes two years to get a first meeting. If they are rejected, they can appeal, and they enter a never-ending system. (1555) Some of these people have children who were born in Canada and who are therefore Canadians.”
“We therefore have a lot of problems to solve in managing immigration in order to restore an immigration system that is fair, honest and efficient for people who want to come to Canada. Bill C‑3 will give citizenship to people who have no ties to Canada. It makes no sense. It is very difficult to understand. We can imagine a situation where a child or grandchild of a Canadian who moved 50 years ago may have a criminal record in their country, but they would be entitled to a Canadian passport. There is currently nothing in the bill that would prevent criminals, or even terrorists, from being granted Canadian citizenship. That is unacceptable. That is why we strongly oppose it. In terms of overall immigration to Canada, for years we have been calling on the House to exercise better border control; in fact, I was always the first to do so.”
“There would be some people among those entitled to a Canadian passport who would wonder where Canada is on a map. Does everyone understand how stupid that is? At some point, we need to take back control over immigration. As we know, there are already huge problems in this country. The last 10 years have been a disaster in terms of the Liberal government's management of immigration. This is particularly true when it comes to asylum seekers because of Justin Trudeau's famous tweet in January 2017, which we all remember. He invited the world to come to Canada. We saw how that turned out. There are currently 600,000 people in Quebec, including 150,000 who have claimed asylum, whose cases have not even been processed or finished being processed.”
“No matter whether they move for work or to settle down elsewhere, those children could be Canadians. However, Bill C‑3 proposes that those children, who have never lived in Canada, who have always lived abroad, will be able, at the age of 20 or 30 years, to give their own child Canadian citizenship, when that child has no ties to our country. The father, the mother, the grandfather or grandmother decided to live abroad, so they have no ties here, but they, not to mention their own children, and so on, would automatically get Canadian citizenship. That is the direction we are heading in. The Liberal government wants to pass this bill even though no one has any idea of the number of individuals living abroad who would automatically be entitled to Canadian citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C‑3 , and specifically about citizenship and immigration. Citizenship and obtaining it can be a sensitive topic as it can inflame passions for various reasons. There are Canadian citizens who, like me, were born in Canada. There are people who immigrated here and wanted to settle in a country that offered them a way out of poverty or work opportunities. There are different reasons for wanting to live in Canada and become a Canadian. Today, we are talking about Bill C‑3. People listening to us need to understand that if, one day, a Canadian decides to move to another country, any country, settle down and have children there, those children will have Canadian citizenship. That system and that right exist.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government already tried to control Canadians' lives by imposing the carbon tax. The Liberals called us every name in the book for years. What did the new Prime Minister do? He scrapped the carbon tax because he knew it was not working. Now, we are asking the same thing: Stop forcing things on Canadians. If they want an EV, let them buy one. If they want a gas-powered car because it suits their needs, let them buy that. We are asking the Liberals not to impose rules that will drive up car prices and make people buy something they cannot afford once again. We are asking them not to create an obligation based on their ideology.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Minister of Environment that people in Quebec have already started saying that forcing people to buy an EV by 2035 is a non‑starter. The problem for us is that this is a matter of freedom of choice, not a need for control. What we are seeing right now is a Liberal government that wants to control what Canadians do. Many Canadians cannot afford to buy an EV, or they find that an EV is not suitable for their lifestyle. Take the example of someone who lives in northern Quebec and hunts, fishes and works in the bush. It is impossible for this person to do all that with an EV. Forcing EVs on Canadians is not a solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, every time this Liberal government proposes a new environmental measure, it is either a tax or an obligation. Now the Liberals want to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles, which will cut 90,000 jobs in Canada. They want to punish Quebeckers who choose gas-powered vehicles by imposing a $20,000 increase on vehicles that already cost an average of $67,000. Why does the Prime Minister want to take away Canadians' freedom to choose what vehicle they drive?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadian bars and restaurants are grappling with a wave of extortion. The Montreal and Laval regions are no exception. In the past year, there have been dozens of these offences. Bars and restaurants have been burned down and have been the target of gunfire. Over the past 10 years, the justice system has collapsed. Gang leaders use illegal cell phones to give orders to their underlings from prison. Gang members commit crimes with total impunity. Can the Minister of Public Safety ask the justice minister to change the laws so that order is restored in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the only new member of this government. The government as a whole is the same old one, and today we are seeing the problems caused by the Liberals' incompetence over the past 10 years. Today, the Auditor General informed us that ArriveCAN's main subcontractor received $64 million from this Liberal government, even though it is under investigation by the RCMP. GC Strategies, a company with only two employees, received 106 contracts from 31 federal organizations, with a total value of $92.7 million. Is this old Liberal government incompetent, corrupt or both?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has lambasted the Liberals' management of the F-35 fighter jet purchase. It is now 50% over budget, with the cost exceeding $30 billion. Construction delays, staff shortages and poor oversight are threatening this project and, once again, Canadians are footing the bill. The Prime Minister forgot to mention that the new money announced yesterday will only go towards the additional costs associated with the incompetence of his government and his ministers, who have botched this file over the past 10 years. He promoted the former minister of national defence . Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister should understand that right now we need to be fixing the problems of the past, the problems that the Liberals have created over the past 10 years. We learned just six months ago that 4.9 million people in Canada are here on temporary visas. What we do not know is how many of them have left the country and how many of them did not leave the country when they were supposed to. Can the minister tell us about the government's plan of action to ensure that these people leave Canada? I am talking about those who no longer have legal status because of their temporary visas.”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning, La Presse reported that asylum claims at the Saint‑Bernard‑de‑Lacolle border crossing increased by 330% between April 2024 and April 2025. With over 600,000 non-permanent residents currently residing in Quebec, the situation is putting more pressure on French-language integration services, schools, day cares and other public services across Quebec, especially in greater Montreal. It goes without saying that it is making the housing crisis throughout Quebec even worse. Is that because there can be no plan for managing immigration until the government tables a budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his excellent first speech in the House of Commons. He represents a new generation. He is obviously younger than me. My colleague lived through the last 10 years of the Trudeau government. He has experienced its repercussions, as have his friends, the 30- to 40-year-old generation. I would like him to comment on how he feels about home ownership these days and what impact the Trudeau government's decisions have had on his generation. What can we do for the future?”
“Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, we were in the middle of an election campaign. The main purpose of the election campaign was to scare Canadians about Donald Trump's threats. The new Prime Minister's government put Canadian tariffs in place as a retaliatory measure, but it quietly got rid of them during the election. It deliberately kept that from Canadians, because Canadians were afraid and it wanted them to stay that way. Now we have a $20‑billion budget shortfall. The fiscal platform that was presented projected a huge deficit, but now there is a deficit of another $20 billion. Can we have a budget before the summer to find out the state of Canada's public finances?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I see before me are the same ministers and the same government we have had for 10 years. We know what came of 10 years of Liberal government. What we have right now is a new Prime Minister, but it is a Prime Minister without a plan. He said he had a plan during the election campaign, but he does not want to table a budget, because he knows full well that his plan is a disaster and that there is a monumental hole in the public finances. Can the Prime Minister commit to tabling a budget by the summer?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister campaigned as the man with a plan. The problem is, he refuses point-blank to tell Canadians what that plan is. A budget is a plan. The Liberals will have gone more than a year without presenting a budget, which has not happened since the 1960s. What we do know is that he is determined to spend even more money than Justin Trudeau, but he refuses to tell Canadians how he plans to spend it. What is the Prime Minister trying to hide about the state of the Liberal government's finances?”