House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was health.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Pierrefonds—Dollard (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 31% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Interparliamentary Delegations April 27th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian delegations of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie respecting their participation at the APF Bureau meeting, held in New York on January 21 and 22, 2009, and the meeting of the steering committee of the network of women parliamentarians of the APF, held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, from February 12 to 15, 2009.

Health April 27th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, if we assume that the health of Canadians is a priority, that health can only be guaranteed through preventive measures and that this prevention requires adequate funding, then why was the recent budget of the Public Health Agency of Canada cut by the incredible amount of $12 million for preparing and responding to a pandemic such as the one now shaping up?

Committees of the House March 12th, 2009

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member in the sense that in our country we are always innocent until proven to the contrary. The government could try to be accurate and get to the truth.

The government thinks that it knows the truth and seems to believe that courts of law are not there to do justice. In this case, we have a child, Mr. Khadr, who is imprisoned at Guantanamo and who has been abused. Such abuse violates international law, U.S. law and Canadian law.

The government wants to wait, but what is it waiting for? It is waiting for the United States to make the next move so that it can fall into line. We are a sovereign state, and Canada must fulfill its own obligations.

Committees of the House March 12th, 2009

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, particularly for reading his wonderful poem.

I agree with my colleague's position for the simple reason that a child is a child. He was a 15-year-old child living in a country like Pakistan.

In Pakistan, there is a hierarchy that gives parents the right to determine whether their children live or die. We do things differently in Canada, North America and Europe.

In many cases, children may commit terrible acts simply because they are obeying their parents. That is why we have the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that is why Canada supports the protocol and why the government should too.

Committees of the House March 12th, 2009

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

I would like to start by outlining a few facts. Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen born in September 1986, was captured by U.S. forces near Khost, Afghanistan, in July 2002, following a battle between U.S. forces and insurgents which resulted in the deaths of U.S. Army Sergeant Christopher Speer and two Pashto interpreters. Omar Khadr was seriously injured in the battle and was transferred to the military base at Bagram in Afghanistan, where he was detained until October 2002. He was then transferred to Camp Delta, a U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has since been detained.

In April 2007, charges were laid against Mr. Khadr and forwarded to the U.S. military commission. These charges are very serious: murder in violation of the law of war; attempted murder in violation of the law of war through the conversion of land mines into improvised explosive devices and planting these explosive devices in the ground in order to kill U.S. or coalition soldiers; conspiracy, through wilfully joining al-Qaeda; providing material support for terrorism, through training.

But Omar Khadr was 15 when the acts of which he is accused were committed, and he was captured and imprisoned. Since his capture, he has been held in facilities for adults, first at the Bagram air base, then in Guantanamo. He was not sent to Camp Iguana, a detention facility for adolescents, when he was transferred to Guantanamo.

The subcommittee heard several witnesses express concern about whether Mr. Khadr's detention, the case against him, and his trial before a military commission complied with accepted international human rights standards, particularly the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, the optional protocol signed and ratified by both Canada and the United States.

In respect of children engaged in armed conflict, the subcommittee emphasized the fact that the UN international Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada signed and ratified and the United States signed but did not ratify, states that “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years”. It also states that:

Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity [...] in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances

The international Convention on the Rights of the Child also provides that:

States Parties shall ensure that:

(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;

In the preamble to the optional protocol, state parties say the following:

Convinced that an optional protocol to the Convention that raises the age of possible recruitment of persons into armed forces and their participation in hostilities will contribute effectively to the implementation of the principle that the best interests of the child are to be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children—

Although it does not strictly prohibit participation in hostilities by soldiers between 15 and 18 years of age who have been voluntarily recruited into national armed forces, the optional protocol does provide that:

Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years.

The optional protocol does not prohibit trying children for crimes they allegedly committed while involved in armed conflicts. However, it does provide that:

States Parties shall cooperate in the implementation of the present Protocol, including in the prevention of any activity contrary thereto and in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons who are victims of acts contrary thereto, including through technical cooperation and financial assistance.

In addition, in the UNICEF guidelines on children associated with armed forces or armed groups, which Canada agreed to in 2007, we read that:

A child rights approach—meaning that all interventions are developed within a human rights framework—should underpin all interventions aimed at preventing recruitment or use, securing the release of, protecting, and reintegrating children who have been associated with an armed force or armed group. Funding should be made available for this programming, according to the rights and needs of the children, irrespective of formal or informal peace processes or the progress of formal adult DDR [disarmament, demobilization et reinsertion] processes.

In light of the fact that Canada has always played an international leadership role in protecting children involved in armed conflicts, a role that has included negotiating the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts, and in light of the specific commitments made by Canada and the United States in ratifying the optional protocol, the information available on Omar Khadr's recruitment by a group linked to al-Qaeda and the fact that he was 15 when he allegedly engaged in combat and was captured and originally detained, the subcommittee is of the opinion that Mr. Khadr should be considered “a child involved in armed conflict” and therefore should enjoy the protection set out in the optional protocol.

In addition, the subcommittee notes that Mr. Khadr is the only citizen of a western country still in detention in Guantanamo Bay and that all nationals of other western countries have been repatriated. Many of these were subsequently detained and/or tried in their home countries in accordance with applicable domestic laws. In some cases, former detainees were subjected to national security measures, including being placed under surveillance or being refused travel documents.

Finally, the subcommittee notes that under Canadian law, Canadian courts can exercise jurisdiction in relation to certain crimes committed abroad, including offences created under the anti-terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code and under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

I will finish with a statement from my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who said:

By allowing the Americans to decide whether or not to repatriate Mr. Khadr, the Prime Minister has shown an appalling failure to live up to his responsibilities towards citizens holding a Canadian passport.

The government was wrong to continue, inexplicably, to say that it was “premature” to talk about repatriating Mr. Khadr, even after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that detainees like him had been denied their right to a full and fair trial, even after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the practices at Guantanamo were in contravention of international law, even after proof of “enhanced interrogation” and violence in detention surfaced, and even after we knew with certainty that the new American government would close Guantanamo.

That is why the subcommittee's recommendations from June 2008 still hold today.

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries March 9th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on introducing Bill C-300. It is a very good bill.

As I pointed out, it is going to be two years on March 29 since the round table presented its report and nothing has been done by the government. The thing that really upsets me is that the Prime Minister, at the G8 summit in Germany, pointed out that Canada will be the leader in the world, but we are still waiting.

A motion by itself, if it is adopted by this chamber, would bring support for the round table. More than 200,000 Canadians supported the round table and the presentation done by the foreign affairs committee. If my colleague's bill passed, it would be the law of the country, but we hope the government will come out with a response as soon as possible. In 2008 the ministers of industry and international cooperation pointed out that the government would be coming out with some guidelines on this, but we are still waiting.

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries March 9th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his question. We are currently facing a problem with some mining companies. I cannot really comment on what is happening in Colombia, but I do know what is happening in Africa, Latin America and possibly in certain South American countries. In these countries, companies are not currently held to any Canadian standards in terms of the environment or indigenous peoples' rights. I believe there is nothing more important. If something is not allowed in Canada, it should not be allowed overseas. That is the reason behind today's motion.

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries March 9th, 2009

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should act immediately to implement the measures of the Advisory Group report “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries” by creating, in an appropriate legal framework and with the funds needed, an independent ombudsman office with the power to receive and investigate complaints.

Mr. Speaker, the motion the members of this House have the privilege of debating today concerns nothing less than our country's responsibility and honour on the international scene.

The time has come to end inaction that, in addition to going on for too long, is helping to seriously undermine our country's credibility in the eyes of the world and the government's credibility in the eyes of Canadians.

To understand the real issue behind this motion, we must remember that Canada leads the world in resource extraction in developing countries. No less than 60% of the mining companies concerned are Canadian.

In addition, I invite my colleagues in this House to bear in mind as they engage in this debate that a 2006 United Nations report shows that most of the human rights abuses perpetrated by transnational corporations can be attributed to mining, oil and gas companies.

I therefore urge members of all parties in this House not only to be aware of these facts, but also to shoulder the responsibilities we have as elected representatives without further delay, not just because the eyes of Canadians and the international community are upon us, but because I believe that it is in our national interest.

I would remind this House that in March 2008, Michael Casey, executive director of the Canadian NGO Development and Peace, rightly stated that “people living in the global south are counting on Ottawa to ensure that Canadian mining companies are called to account” for their activities.

In recent years, my own discussions with numerous parliamentarians from other countries and representatives of international civil society have made me realize that what Mr. Casey said is true and relevant. And I am convinced that I am not the only member of this House to have heard such concerns.

It is up to our country to set an example starting now and to lead the way for the rest of the world, especially in terms of formally prohibiting Canadian companies operating internationally from using practices that are banned, and for good reason, here at home.

This means that, when it comes to respecting human rights and the environment, we must reject the double standard that allows companies to do things in other countries that are prohibited by law and common decency here in Canada.

Basically, when it comes to human rights, justice and the environment, double standards are not and must never be the way we do things in this country.

I think that now is a good time to ask the members to bear in mind a particularly relevant message from Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez, president of Caritas Internationalis, to Canada's government during the November 2006 national round tables.

Cardinal Rodriguez emphasized that increasingly frequent conflicts in many parts of the world between mining companies and the communities affected show that we can no longer act according to the narrow-minded notion that the market only works on a low-investment, high-profit basis.

The cardinal added, and rightly so, that we must adopt regulatory mechanisms to ensure that these industries are held responsible for their actions and behaviours not only in the countries in which they operate, but also in their home countries.

Cardinal Rodriguez delivered his message to the government two and a half years ago.

A year before that, in June 2005, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which I had the honour of chairing at the time, submitted the report of the sub-committee charged with studying issues related to promoting respect for international human rights and setting sustainable human development goals for Canadian mining companies operating abroad.

That report led to the creation of the national round tables I just mentioned, and its conclusions justify the motion I moved here today.

The situation we are debating today has existed for many years. And so I must impress upon my colleagues in this House that the government cannot afford to wait any longer and that it must commit itself to action.

We are calling on the government to show leadership. If Canada leads the way, it will be in the best position to encourage other countries in turn to pass the necessary legislation so that extraction operations in developing countries will be conducted under fair and humane conditions with respect for the environment and social justice.

Given the circumstances that led to our debate today, I feel I am justified in saying that the government has a moral obligation to act without further delay because nothing can justify the status quo in a situation that is becoming more and more intolerable.

In fact, it has been almost two years since the national round tables' report was tabled in March 2007. The objective was to examine corporate social responsibility and the Canadian businesses engaged in the extractive industry in developing countries. It was pointed out at the round tables that mining activities in some developing countries have had a detrimental impact on local communities, especially in cases where mining industry regulation is weak or non-existent, or simply not enforced. Those present also spoke about the effects on the economic and social well-being of employees, local residents and the environment.

This report also noted the consensus reached between the industry, experts, NGOs and civil society, which represents considerable progress. The report has also suggested concrete, realistic and significant measures such as establishing Canadian standards for corporate social responsibility that respect and promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; creating an ombudsman office to receive complaints from both Canadians and non-Canadians about the Canadian extraction business activities in developing countries; and withholding government services to companies in cases where there is serious non-compliance in terms of social responsibility standards.

As we can see, not only are these proposals morally necessary, but they are also entirely clear, realistic and in line with our values and our national interest. The current Prime Minister even seemed to agree with these requirements. At the G8 summit in Germany, shortly after the report was tabled, he said:

Implementation of the recommendations from this process will place Canada among the most active G8 countries in advancing international guidelines and principles on corporate social responsibility in this sector.

I should point out that the Prime Minister had even greater reason to make this formal commitment, since Canada officially supports the voluntary standards of corporate social responsibility set out in the UN global compact and in the OECD's guidelines for multinational enterprises. We must now face the facts and look at what the government has been doing all this time. Unfortunately, I am very sorry to say that the answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. And we should all condemn this, since Canada itself is the first to lose out.

On April 8, 2008, about a year after the Prime Minister made that statement at the G8 summit, seeing that there had been no follow-up, I rose in this House to ask the government when it would finally honour this formal promise made by the Prime Minister himself to the entire world. The minister of natural resources at the time, our colleague, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, responded by saying that they would have “something very good to announce shortly to the Canadian people for the extractive sector”.

I must admit, I was encouraged by the minister's response at the time. However, five weeks after the minister's promise, the government was unfortunately still dragging its feet.

On May 13, 2008, the NGO Development and Peace presented a petition signed by more than 190,000 Canadians, calling on the government to act by immediately responding to the round table recommendations issued more than a year previously.

The day after the presentation of this lengthy petition reflecting the opinions and concerns of a great many Canadians, I urged the government in this House to finally respond to the wishes and concerns that members of the public had so clearly expressed.

By way of response, the Minister of International Trade at the time said that the government would “have a strong response to that report very soon”.

“Very soon”, the minister said. But nearly 10 months have gone by since that promise was made, and it has become one more in a long list of promises that have not been kept. The government still has not taken any action.

In light of the facts, we are forced to conclude that, unfortunately, we have before us a government that does nothing but shirk its responsibilities and make every effort not to keep its promises.

That is why we can say that this government's inaction and the fact that it has repeatedly gone back on its word have become unacceptable.

I scarcely need to repeat that the recommendations of the round tables, as I said at the outset, are the product of an established consensus resulting from concerted efforts by all the concerned stakeholders, that is the industry itself, the NGOs and civil society, which in turn have direct connections to hundreds of thousands of Canadians concerned about seeing our country live up to the social, environmental and democratic values it professes to hold.

I could not go any further without mentioning the remarkable and tireless efforts of an organization such as Development and Peace, which has dedicated itself and its partners to the energetic and competent search for solutions that are both fair and reasonable. Solutions that are fully reflected in the report of the round tables.

It is therefore incumbent upon the government to do its own job now and not keep on trying to justify its inaction, now that there is no way it can be justified any longer.

That is why this House must make its opinion clearly known, and must require the government to immediately implement the highly reasonable measures that have been recommended by the advisory group.

In short, the spirit of this motion we have the honour to debate today calls upon us to assume our responsibilities as parliamentarians and to urge this government to at last assume its own responsibilities in connection with this issue. Our national interest and the credibility of our country in the eyes of the world is at stake.

We are all the more justified in calling upon the government to finally take action because, while the round table recommendations are clear, sensible and reasonable, our country is faced with an immense task, particularly with respect to coordinating with the other countries involved and reinforcing the capacity for governance as far as corporate social responsibility is concerned.

The immensity of this task and the weighty responsibility it calls upon us to assume is, however, well within the capacity of Canadians, as well as in keeping with the values that best characterize this country.

It is therefore with full confidence in ourselves as Canadians that I have the honour to seek the support of my colleagues from all parties in this House for this motion, a motion which, once incorporated into our public policies, will enable this country to be all it can be, not only in the eyes of its citizens, but also in the eyes of our international partners, who expect no less from us.

Genome Canada January 30th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State should have a look at today's Globe and Mail.

Dr. Martin Godbout, president and CEO of Genome Canada, says that government funding does not coincide with project funding. Genome Canada cannot even ask anyone to propose research projects if it does not have money in the bank.

What does that mean? It means stagnation or, in other words, an end to growth in the cutting-edge research sector and an end to the creation of jobs of the future. What are Canadians going to believe: what Genome Canada says or the Minister of State's blah, blah, blah?

Genome Canada January 30th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, Genome Canada will run short of funding to honour its 2010 commitments, and what is more, it will be unable to fund long-term projects scheduled to begin this year. Since its inception in 2000, Genome Canada has received dedicated funding in each budget, but not this year.

Do the Conservatives realize that, in this time of crisis, some 2,000 highly skilled individuals working on 33 research projects will lose their jobs thanks to them?