House of Commons photo

Track Steven

Your Say


Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is chair.

Conservative MP for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 51% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Government Appointments May 29th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, preserving and promoting our two official languages is vital to our country.

Like Graham Fraser before him, Acadian legal expert Michel Doucet wanted to be selected for his skills, not his political allegiances. “This job is too important to be sullied by political manoeuvring," he said. He was right.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure us that the procedure to appoint the commissioner complied with the Official Languages Act, or will there have to be an investigation?

Government Appointments May 29th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, what is the best way to get appointed to an independent office by the Liberal government? It is easy. Just ask the Liberal cronies.

When esteemed Acadian jurist Michel Doucet asked about his chances of getting the position of Commissioner of Official Languages, a Liberal MP told him to forget about it, that everyone knew that Ms. Meilleur was the one who would be getting the job.

I have a simple question: were the cards stacked in favour of a good Liberal donor even before the process began?

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Privatization Act May 3rd, 2017

I would like to be recorded as voting against the motion.

Impaired Driving May 2nd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the tragic death of Kassandra, who was struck by a drunk driver on May 3, 2011, when she was 22 years old.

Unfortunately, Markita Kaulius, Kassandra's mother, will be victimized again by the Liberals who, for purely partisan reasons, want to cut off debate on Bill C-226, an important bill that seeks to fight the scourge of impaired driving by dealing with repeat offenders.

I hereby ask all MPs present here today to first think of victims of impaired driving and their families and to vote tomorrow to support Bill C-226 to proceed to committee for further review so we can save lives.

Let us put partisanship aside for a moment. Let us put victims first and vote for Bill C-226.

Committees of the House April 5th, 2017

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I have here a legal opinion, a letter from the Prime Minister of Canada, and a photo of a young victim of drinking and driving. I am asking the House again, so that my colleagues do not look like a bunch of morons, whether I can table these—

Committees of the House April 5th, 2017

I am going to table the picture, Madam Speaker. You should know that I have permission from the family. I had the privilege to stand in front of the committee with the mother of this young woman who lost her life. How many other lives will have to be taken before this Parliament stops its partisan politics and starts to stand up for victims? The bill is about that.

I happen to be a Conservative but this bill is for all Canadians. As a private member's bill, members of the House have the responsibility and the privilege to stand and say whether they are in favour of saving lives with robust legislation or to just let Canadian lives be lost because we do not enact legislation that we know, on both a scientific and legislative basis, is sound policy.

I ask for a vote so the committee can finish the work it has to do for all Canadians.

Committees of the House April 5th, 2017

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor.

I would like to remind everyone tuning in that the bill we are debating today takes aim at repeat offenders and the leading criminal cause of death: drunk driving. I would like to point out that Parliament has brought the bill to second reading.

Today, I would like the House to vote on sending this bill back to committee so that it can continue its work for one simple reason. This bill gives us three ways to reduce the number of traffic accidents caused by drunk driving.

First, the bill brings in minimum sentences for drunk drivers who repeatedly cause fatal accidents. Sadly, there have been several such incidents lately. Second, it will prevent the courts from getting bogged down in cases that go on forever because people invoke irrelevant provisions. The third is very important because it has to do with a measure that Canada should have adopted a long time ago: routine screening. This measure was introduced in Finland in 1977, more than 40 years ago, so Canada is lagging far behind. After it went into effect, the number of impaired drivers dropped by 58%.

In Ireland, where this measure was introduced around the same time, the number of fatalities dropped by 19%. This means that this measure works. It is based on scientific evidence. Many countries, including France, Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand, have adopted this measure, as have most European countries and Australia. This is a remedial measure that we must take, because impaired driving is the leading cause of death in this country.

This measure allows a police officer to screen for the blood alcohol level of someone behind the wheel. Of course, no one is going into people's dining rooms or bedrooms, just public places. When one is driving, one has certain responsibilities: having a driver's licence, obeying the rules of the road, and abstaining from alcohol. As Senator Boisvenu said, when someone drives while under the influence, it is as though he or she has a gun and could fire at any second. It is the same thing.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to introduce legislation that will save lives. I was lucky enough to appear before the committee with representatives of victims associations, including Families For Justice and MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

All of them are supportive of this measure, as well as security and safety groups. Some people in the House have personally experienced the horror of impaired driving and we have an opportunity as parliamentarians to reduce the number of deaths in the country related to impaired driving.

I am asking for a recorded division and for the three parties in the House to ask the committee to continue its important work. This bill was crafted with great care.

Now, without further delay, I will table three documents. The first is in response to the comment made in committee that there is no legal basis for the bill. This is the legal opinion of one of the leading authorities on the Canadian constitution, Peter W. Hogg, who wrote the two-volume Constitutional Law of Canada, which is in its fifth edition, and who also serves as a constitutional adviser. I will quote the conclusion by Mr. Hogg. By the way, this letter can be downloaded from my website.

“My opinion is that, if the Criminal Code were amended by Parliament to replace breath testing on reasonable suspicion with random breath testing, the amendment would be constitutional.” Let us say this clearly and loudly. This amendment is constitutional and is saving lives.

It is important for members to look at this clearly. I want members of the committee to invite the constitutionalists to hear for themselves that this is sound legislation that will save lives.

In the very last line he says, “I am confident that a constitutional challenge would be unsuccessful and that random breath testing would be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.” We do not need to be lawyers to know that this law would pass the constitutional test, and as I said earlier, would save lives.

The most important thing we can do as parliamentarians in the House is to make laws that are legal and can save lives. We have a choice that is clear. There are victims, there are families of victims, there are criminals, and there are people who are addicted to alcohol. The choice is clear. We have a bill that will save lives and it is constitutional. This is the first document I table.

I have a second document to table and this is a letter written from the member for Papineau. This letter talks about a bill that has mandatory minimum sentences for drunk drivers. He says, “That bill will increase penalties against anyone who drives while severely intoxicated, and will also increase the penalties for impaired driving causing death”. What is the member for Papineau saying? He is saying that this is a heartbreaking story. He says, “I will also be supporting Bill C-590”, which was tabled by one of my colleagues, “a second private member's bill coming before the Justice Committee”.

Who is the member for Papineau? The Prime Minister of our country. One of the pillar's of this legislation is mandatory random breath testing, mandatory minimum sentences, supported by the Prime Minister of our country, and streamlining the judicial process at a time when justice delayed is justice denied.

This legislation would bring those important issues forward. It has been prepared with the help of officials in the justice department, who have put their hearts and souls into drafting the bill.

We as parliamentarians have the responsibility to go thoroughly through every clause of the bill. The committee should send it back to the House so we can vote on it with our conscience. That is the second document I am tabling.

Now I have a third document to table. I have been working on this bill with families, justice officials and my colleagues from beautiful Abbotsford and Langley. How many lives will have to be taken so that we as parliamentarians enact legislation that can save lives?

This third document is a picture of a young woman who lost her life.

I am tabling in the House a photograph of Kassandra Kaulius.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns December 2nd, 2016

With regard to the Prime Minister's trip to Medicine Hat, Alberta, on or around October 13, 2016: (a) what are the costs associated with (i) the flight broken down by individual expense, (ii) other transportation costs, (iii) accommodation costs, (iv) food and beverage costs, (v) amount paid to PMO staff in per diems associated with the trip, (vi) other expenses, broken down by individual type of expense; (b) what specific government events did the Prime Minister attend while on the trip; and (c) what is the date, time, and location of all events referenced in (b)?

Questions on the Order Paper December 2nd, 2016

With regard to the address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the 62nd General Assembly of the Atlantic Treaty Association on October 11, 2016, where he stated that “Russia's actions represented, and still represent, a clear breach of international law“: (a) what specific international law did Russia violate; (b) has the government made a formal request to any international body such as the International Criminal Court or the United Nations to prosecute Vladimir Putin or any other Russian officials for breaching international law; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what are the specific details, including dates of any such requests; and (d) for each violation which the government believes that Russia has committed, what are the possible range of sentences or other punishments which could result from a prosecution of such violations?

Questions on the Order Paper December 2nd, 2016

With regard to the proposed tax credit for talk shows: (a) what are the details of the proposed tax credit, including qualification criteria and rates; (b) what is the projected impact that the proposed tax credit will have on government revenue for the next five fiscal years, broken down by year; and (c) what are the details of any studies the government has done related to the economic or cultural impact of talk shows including (i) title or description of study, (ii) findings, (iii) cost or value of contract, (iv) date of contract, (v) contract file number, (vi) name of organization or title of individual who conducted the study?