House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was rcmp.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Liberal MP for Montarville (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2019, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Vivacia April 19th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, a cancer diagnosis hits hard. It affects the patient first, but then ripples outward to those around the patient. I am proud that my riding of Montarville, and specifically the town of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, are home to Vivacia, the first integrative cancer centre and the only one of its kind in Quebec. Vivacia, which opened its doors on February 23, 2018, provides local residents with the support they need at an incredibly challenging time.

Since its launch, the Vivacia co-operative has helped more than 65 people battling cancer by offering professional, specialized services like reflexology, psychotherapy, massage therapy, naturopathy, osteopathy, nursing care, yoga therapy, cooking classes for people living with cancer, and much more.

The people of Montarville are lucky to have access to the services offered by Vivacia. I want to recognize the professionals at the cancer centre for the vital work they are doing for our community. Long live Vivacia.

An Act in Relation to Firearms March 26th, 2018

Madam Speaker, as a member from Quebec, I still recall, with great sadness, the tragic events at the Polytechnique and Dawson College. I personally have met with representatives of victims of the Polytechnique tragedy.

What practical measures can we emphasize in order to demonstrate that Bill C-71 will help respond to the concerns of the groups representing victims of those sad events, while also preventing future potential tragedies?

Business of Supply March 22nd, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I will not read too much into the question from my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The parliamentary committee in question is made up of parliamentarians from both sides, including Conservatives. He needs to have some faith in his own colleagues when it comes to the review and analysis of national security matters. I hope that the member has some faith in his colleagues.

Business of Supply March 22nd, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Not only do we have high standards for the quality and professionalism of our staff, but creating this committee of parliamentarians with Bill C-22 also shows that we want to enhance as much as possible what we want in terms of monitoring, if I may put it that way, to ensure we have the highest standards of quality and meet the expectations of all Canadians.

It is vital that national security matters be examined by the right people, in the right way, with a recognized protocol and process, in a confidential manner, where it is important and in a transparent manner, as necessary.

As for the second part of the question, at no time did we refuse. In fact, the motion moved this morning at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security simply implemented a previous request to adjourn debate. It was not a refusal, but simply a delay, because it was the subject of debate in the House today.

Business of Supply March 22nd, 2018

Mr. Speaker, national security matters are taken very seriously, no matter what they are. Expertise and impartiality are key characteristics of the professionals who represent us, and I will never cast doubt on their statements or advice.

Business of Supply March 22nd, 2018

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to have a say in this debate.

The answer regarding the invitation in India is already quite clear. The invitation should have in fact never been extended and, as we have said many times, when the existence of the invitation was discovered, we withdrew it immediately. Another point: we have full confidence in Canada’s security advisors and diplomatic advisors, who consistently act impartially in the best interests of Canadians.

The opposition raises the importance of ensuring that parliamentarians are kept informed of security issues. On that, we absolutely agree. We agreed when former national security minister Anne McLellan introduced Bill C-81 in 2005 establishing a national security committee of parliamentarians. This bill died on the Order Paper when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives took office in 2006.

We agreed when former Liberal MP Derek Lee introduced a similar bill in 2007, when our colleague from Malpeque did the same in 2009, and when the member for Vancouver Quadra did so in 2014.

Each time, the Conservatives opposed the idea that parliamentarians of all parties and of both Houses should have access to secret information, and that they be kept informed of national security issues in Canada.

Fortunately, as my colleagues know, Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, received royal assent in June 2017.

Then, in November, the Prime Minister made it official by saying that “[i]n our system of responsible government, there is no substitute for scrutiny by parliamentarians.”

I am pleased to say that the committee is now in place. Its mandate is to review any matter relating to national security for all government departments and agencies. It will be supported by an independent secretariat headed by an executive director, who will be appointed shortly. The committee will be composed of eight MPs and three senators, all of them holding the highest security clearances.

It is now the appropriate vehicle for parliamentarians to thoroughly review and report on certain national security matters.

The committee is able to analyze the work of a wide range of government departments and agencies involved in security and intelligence.

Establishing this committee closed a loophole in our national security accountability framework. Before, Canada was an outlier in the Five Eyes alliance, since it was the only one not to have such a committee. However, establishing this committee has made Canada a transparency and accountability leader since our committee of parliamentarians has access to ongoing national security and intelligence operations.

By contrast, our committee’s Australian equivalent may only conduct statutory reviews or consider their agencies’ spending and administration. It must obtain a minister’s order to review other matters.

In our case, if the committee believes that a national security matter warrants review, it may simply do so.

In the United Kingdom, the committee must obtain a memorandum of understanding from the Prime Minister in order to review matters that go beyond the work of the three British agencies.

Our committee, with its distinctly Canadian design, has a much broader reach than those of two of our important foreign allies, who also have a Westminster-style system similar to ours.

I was pleased to witness the various debates during all the readings and to see how thorough a review it was given by the standing committee.

The expert consensus is that this new committee strengthens the accountability and effectiveness of Canada’s national security and intelligence system. Bill C-59 will further strengthen it by establishing the national security and intelligence review agency.

Since the current government took office, Canada has made great strides in national security transparency and accountability.

All that is to say that when I hear the opposition insist that parliamentarians should have access to security information, I cannot help but contrast the Conservative decade with the past two years.

The Harper government repeatedly rejected the principles of transparency and accountability when it came to national security. The current government acted to bring in significant transparency, openness and accountability with respect to national security.

We should all be confident that Canada’s security advisors and diplomatic advisors act impartially and in the best interests of Canadians.

They deserve much better than the insinuations and allegations on which this motion is based. I for one have full confidence in their professionalism, expertise, and service to Canada.

Fraud Prevention Month March 1st, 2018

Mr. Speaker, March is Fraud Prevention Month. Throughout the month, there will be initiatives to make consumers aware of white collar crime and to remind Canadians that financial crime costs $5 billion a year.

My thoughts go out to the victims of fraud, identity theft, stock manipulation, corruption, counterfeiting, and other financial crimes. Over the past year, I have met some wonderful people who are working on the front lines to combat white collar crime.

I humbly thank my friends at the Competition Bureau, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Institute for Research on Public Policy, Revenue Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, and the RCMP for their work and collaboration.

I strongly urge all of my colleagues to join me in making Canadians aware of the need to be informed so that they can better detect, counter, and report fraud.

Tourism February 26th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Montarville knows that tourism is important to its economy. For example, an average of 750,000 people visit Mont-Saint-Bruno provincial park, and another 300,000 visit Ski Saint-Bruno.

As Canadians and visitors from around the globe celebrated Canada's 150th, it is my understanding that in the province of Quebec alone we set a new record of almost 3.1 million. Can the Minister of Small Business and Tourism update this House on last year's record-setting tourism year?

Salaries Act December 7th, 2017

Madam Speaker, can I answer the question?

If we are talking about it today, it is because it is too late, and we have been talking about it for too long with no result. This should have been settled a long time ago. Some say the problem will be solved in 170 years, but it is ludicrous to make such predictions. We are approaching the issue by focusing on current needs. We hope that they will stop wasting time so that we can achieve concrete results.

Salaries Act December 7th, 2017

Clearly, Madam Speaker, my colleague fails to grasp that this debate is unjustified in the sense that it is unbelievable that we should still be having it today.