House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 62% of the vote.
Division No. 1124 March 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I rose to vote, you very clearly heard—the whole House heard—absolutely disgraceful remarks which I will not repeat here, because it would show a lack of respect for the House. I know that it is 3 a.m., but people may and should be watching.
I ask the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to withdraw his words and to show that he knows how to behave properly in the House.
Division No. 800 March 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, and since you prevented me from voting earlier, I would like my vote recorded with that of the Bloc Quebecois and would like to ask you where in the Montpetit-Marleau the time limit for voting is defined? Do you decide on the time limit? That is my question.
Michel Dumond February 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter from one of my constituents.
This letter is a cry from the heart by a man who is paying for a crime he never committed. After years of making representations, Michel Dumond is still waiting for that injustice to be corrected.
His letter reads as follows:
Dear Madam Minister:
As you know, since 1990, I have been claiming that I was innocent and you have in your possession a large file that proves my innocence. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of all the problems caused by the offence of which I am wrongly accused, including loss of employment, impossibility to obtain a passport and travel abroad, etc.
You have the authority to undo the harm done to me by the justice system by invoking section 690 of the Criminal Code. I am anxiously waiting for your decision.
Thank you for your kind attention.
I hope the minister will follow up on Mr. Dumond's request at the earliest opportunity, so that he can resume a normal life, the one he led before these terrible events.
Criminal Code February 28th, 2000
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-443, an act to amend the Criminal Code (reimbursement of costs following a free pardon).
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with a totally different topic. Unfortunately sometimes, luckily not too often, Canadian citizens are victims of judicial errors.
One of my constituents, Michel Dumas—I can name him because he allowed me to do so—was the victim of a judicial error. He spent many years in jail and today he is probably going to be granted a pardon under section 690.
In introducing this bill to amend the Criminal Code, we are only asking that, in the very rare occasions—is it necessary to emphasize how seldom it happens—where an individual is convicted and then pardoned pursuant to section 690 of the Criminal Code, 100% of the compensation goes to the victim of the judicial error.
Unfortunately, it happens much too often that part of the compensation money serves to pay legal fees. We believe, as do the victims of judicial errors, that this is unfair.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Employment Insurance Act February 28th, 2000
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-442, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (section 15).
Mr. Speaker, I hope the bill I am introducing today at first reading will go through second and third reading faster than some of the bills, just as relevant, that were introduced by my colleagues.
It is aimed at correcting what are known as short weeks, which penalize seasonal or casual workers when they apply for EI benefits with respect to a given period of time during the year.
As we know, about six out of ten unemployed workers do not qualify for EI even though they have paid into the plan. If passed, my bill would amend the Employment Insurance Act and remedy the situation of thousands of low income workers who, because they unfortunately work on a seasonal or casual basis, have to show proof of the number of hours they worked or be penalized in their income.
On behalf of these workers and their families, I would appreciate prompt passage of this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Division No. 752 February 28th, 2000
I will not repeat what the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said jokingly, but he too must be commended for his exceptional work to improve a bill which could be a good piece of legislation for Canadians and Quebecers, for researchers in health and bioethics, etc. However, given the narrow-minded obstruction tactics used by members opposite, these efforts will unfortunately be useless if Liberal members do not show some openness.
Earlier, the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health should be able to inform his minister, since he is from Quebec and has a clear understanding of Quebec's concerns and freedoms, which he defended for a long time, even going to jail for a few months in the process. The Bloc Quebecois' message is aimed primarily at him. I have also listened to the speeches of the opposition parties. Not just the Bloc Quebecois' message but the opposition speeches in general are aimed at him.
Regardless of party, Reform, Conservative, or New Democratic, we are all agreed that the bill is fine in principle. It is only normal that more money be invested in research and development. However, for reasons that differ for each party, the bill as it now stands is not acceptable.
As the member for Rimouski—Mitis said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of creating institutes of health research. The Bloc Quebecois also agrees that research and development budgets should be increased. But the Bloc Quebecois does not agree with the bill in its present form for the reasons stated over and over again by all parties, more specifically by the Bloc Quebecois, because, among other things, of the blatant intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.
We are proposing a number of amendments, as are all the opposition parties, designed primarily to ensure that jurisdictions are respected, not to change the core purpose of the bill, which is to provide assistance to research and development and to increase research and development grants, but to respect the Canadian Constitution and the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments.
I will quote from the bill. As it now stands, it refers to an interest in health. “Health” is vague, and we know that the wording of a bill absolutely must be very clear.
This is why the main thrust of our amendments is to change the expression “an interest in health” to “an interest in research”, because the purpose of the bill is to establish research institutes. When someone knocks at the door and says “trust me”—my colleagues have already been very eloquent on this—it is hard to trust someone who does not just put a foot in the door but pushes in all the way, both feet, both hands and so on, into areas of jurisdiction reserved for the provinces.
We have an absolute duty to delineate a clear definition of what a research institute is and what its objective is. Its objective, as set out in Bill C-13 introduced by the Liberals and analyzed by all the parties, is too vague. We want this research institute to really deal with research.
If the government wants to invest money in this research institute, it might need reminding of our major concerns about finances. Before reinjecting money into research, which is, as I said, something with which we are totally in agreement, the government needs to be reminded of its poor financial record.
For the fiscal year 1999-2000, which is about to end, it is estimated that Quebec alone had a shortfall of close to $1.7 billion under the Canadian social transfer. This shortfall for the year 1999-2000—and I am not talking about all of Canada, only Quebec—amounts to $850 million per year in the health sector alone.
One can imagine how much easier negotiating with Quebec nurses would have been if this $850 million had been available to the Quebec government, if the provincial government had not been deprived of that money by the federal government.
Similarly, imagine how helpful it would have been to have an additional $850 million for health when so many people had the flu and emergency rooms were overcrowded in Quebec, and also elsewhere in Canada. It is important to remember that.
Looking back not just to the last year, but since this government took office in 1993, we see that Quebec's health sector has not suffered a shortfall of $850 million, but of $3.4 billion.
This is what enabled Jean Charest, the Quebec Liberal Party leader, to say “Who is responsible for the problems in the health sector? It is not Lucien Bouchard, it is not Mike Harris, it is the current Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance”.
This statement was not made by a mean separatist. It was made by Jean Charest during the leaders' debate, adding, in reference to this $3.4 billion in cuts to health over a seven year period, that, as far as he was concerned, the main responsibility lies with the people across the Ottawa River.
As concerns the first group of amendments presented here, I believe the bill must refer especially, as I said, to health research and not to the health care system and services to the public.
The current minister, in an open letter today to La Presse, expresses his considerable concern about becoming directly involved in home care and in public health care. However, throughout the bill, reference is made not only simply to health research but more generally to health.
So the amendments introduced by the Bloc Quebecois serve to make it clear that the bill applies to health research and not to the potential expansion of mandates beyond such research.
They are intended to make sure that the decisions related to the choice and principle underlying the health networks and services to the public are exclusively under the aegis of the provinces and within appropriate jurisdictions.
Given that there was the bill establishing the medical research council, which the research institutes will replace, or, in the field of education, the bill establishing the Canadian council on social sciences and the humanities, we can see that the distribution of jurisdictions may be respected without watering down Bill C-13.
No one wants the wheel to be reinvented. What we are saying is that there are two councils with jurisdiction in this area. Therefore, we are asking the government to honour and implement what has already been done. The government's bill is ignoring the distribution of powers. It negates the federal principle.
When the federal government wants to administer everything and we see how badly it administers money allocated to Human Resources Development Canada, we can see that the Bloc Quebecois' amendments must be accepted so that the provinces, in their individual jurisdictions, may administer until the moment we have full jurisdiction over all our powers in Quebec.
Division No. 752 February 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, before addressing Bill C-13, I would like to first make a short digression. I know that you are very tolerant and that you will give me a few seconds to do that. You also probably know that if it were the hon. member sitting next to me who was rising, it might take a long time.
On behalf of my myself and my colleagues, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans for his very long and most interesting speech delivered on Thursday, from 5.15 p.m. to 10.15 p.m., to members, to Canadians who were watching on television, and to the legislative committee on Bill C-20. Our colleague deserves a good round of applause from all the members of this House.
Points Of Order February 24th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I hope you will let me finish my remarks before asking what you think you will ask.
Following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their basic rights—that surely must be news to you—I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that might enlighten it. It is an article published in the February 22 edition of Le Devoir —therefore not an old issue of that newspaper—entitled—
Point Of Order February 23rd, 2000
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House because our colleague from Charlevoix had started to read from a document and was not allowed to finish. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to grant him a few more minutes so that he can finish his presentation.
Point Of Order February 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, further to the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for unanimous consent—confident that I will get it—to table a document which would enlighten this House.
It is an article published in the daily paper Le Soleil on February 21, 2000, and entitled “Time's Up”. Speaking of time being up, Mr. Speaker, you will let me explain what that document is about, will you not?
I will read an excerpt:
Should there be a third referendum on sovereignty? Amid stormy weather, when numerous voices try to dissuade Lucien Bouchard from risking a third one, the Mouvement national des Québécois launched yesterday a campaign to promote a referendum.
In the coming months, the public will see popping up everywhere the picture of a parking meter topped with the following slogan: “Yes, time is up!” There will also be a touring theatre play for Cegep students and seven mobilization meetings for women.
“We are in an era of extreme federalism, said Yves Michaud”. “We think that Ottawa does not intend to give anything to Quebec”, added the president of the MNQ, Louise Paquet. Besides explaining why we promoted independence 20 years ago—