House of Commons photo

Track Pierre

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is quebec.

Conservative MP for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 42% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply September 18th, 2025

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.

Business of Supply September 18th, 2025

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.

Business of Supply September 18th, 2025

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.

Business of Supply September 18th, 2025

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Justice September 17th, 2025

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?

Justice September 17th, 2025

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?

Questions on the Order Paper September 15th, 2025

With regard to Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management): (a) is it the government's position that this bill, upon receiving royal assent, will become a law of Canada; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, is it the government's position that the law would bind His Majesty in right of Canada; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, (i) why not, (ii) is this position backed by a legal opinion; and (d) if the answer to (c)(ii) is affirmative, what are the particulars of the legal opinion, including the (i) date it was given, (ii) person who approved it, (iii) person who requested it?

Citizenship Act June 19th, 2025

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. At the same time, when I look at Bill C‑3, I am not sure they have fully understood.

Citizenship Act June 19th, 2025

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.

Citizenship Act June 19th, 2025

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—