Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Bloc MP for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2006, with 30% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act March 30th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again today to this important legislation, Bill C-6. Once again, this bill shows that the federal government is not minding its own business.

Since 1993, when the Liberal government took power in this House, we have seen that they stepped up their invasion of provincial areas of jurisdiction. But before going any further, I would like to say how abused I feel once again today, in this parliament, how I figure there is less and less democracy, as yet another gag was imposed this morning.

Time allocation motions limit debate for all members of the House. We feel more and more that this government has a centralization agenda designed to invade practically all the powers of the provinces, since the Canadian Constitution is not enforced anymore.

When one looks at all series of bills that have been passed since 1993, one realizes that the situation is becoming dangerous. One wonders how far this government will go to attain its goal.

This project dates back to the time when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was elected, in 1968. The present Prime Minister was one of his loyal henchmen. They started a process to make this country a centralized one, a country taking over provincial powers. I will not recall the dark moments that marked democracy in Quebec. But the same thing is happening with Bill C-6. When the history of that party is being written, it will be said that it has constantly applied itself to invading areas of provincial responsibility.

What is more, if only Bloc Quebecois members were denouncing this situation in today's debate on Bill C-6, it could be said that this is because of our specific character, our specific nature as a party. But no, I have here a list of all those who are opposed to this bill.

There is an increasing realization that there is a consensus in Quebec from all communities. They are joining forces in opposition to this bill. I will give a few examples.

There is the Conseil du patronat, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, better known as the CSN, the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Conseil interprovincial du Québec, the Commission de l'accès à l'information du Québec, and finally the Government of Quebec. It can be seen that employers, labour unions, professional associations and the Government of Quebec all oppose this bill, now known as Bill C-6.

Once again, why create a precedent, when Quebec already has the necessary tools to do this? Why create one more tool, when Quebec has what is necessary, and what is more it is more efficient than what is being proposed in this bill today?

We realize the government never takes the time to consult its associates or its potential partners. That too has been a trademark of this government since 1993.

One only has to look at how the current Minister of Health is about to try to impose his national vision. There again, the provincial health ministers and premiers will have to get together and create a consensus to try to prevent this intrusion into the health sector.

The same goes in the case of Bill C-6. Some might say that every time Bloc Quebecois members rise they raise such issues. I often think I should make copies of the Canadian constitution and distribute them to all the Liberal members opposite. They would learn that this constitution, their constitution, gives exclusive rights to the provinces. But these rights have been ignored and the federal government is increasingly trying to dismiss the constitution. This leads to friction and disputes with Quebec and with the other provinces.

I would like to discuss some of the amendments made to Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, which died on the order paper when the first session of this Parliament was prorogued. Members will remember that my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, had worked very hard to prevent passage of that bill. Now, Bill C-6 is back with the amendments proposed by the Senate.

As members know, the Senate proposes the following amendments:

Because the health sector is unanimously opposed to Bill C-6 in its present form, sometimes for totally contradictory reasons; because it feels that, in its present form, the bill does not adequately protect medical information, which it deems more sensitive than other types of information, and because the notion of commercial activities in the context in which the bill applies is almost impossible to define in the health sector.

This means that the senators in the Upper House were made aware of the fact that the bill does not at all respect the Canadian and Quebec reality.

In a motion that he brought forward in the House on February 7, the Minister of Industry indicated that he would accept certain amendments from the Senate. We then thought that the minister would follow up on the concerns expressed by the various stakeholders who will have to live with the consequences of Bill C-6.

Bill C-6 is a fundamental piece of legislation. With the changes happening in the multimedia area, the issue of personal information is one that must be looked at. We do not have the necessary tools to protect privacy because information is being transmitted at such a high speed.

Around 20 years ago, the fax machine was introduced. Today we have digital radio. We can receive radio and TV programs anywhere in the world thanks to satellite dishes. Then there is the whole issue of Internet.

Sure, people are increasingly concerned when they have to deal with these new media and these new ways of communicating such as Internet. They wonder whether all the information they have will be protected.

Recently, more and more people have been shunning traditional ways of doing business. They use the Internet. When they see a bill taking away things that are guaranteed by the current legislation in Quebec, there are worried.

Its very difficult to understand the attitude of the Liberal government who, month after month, has been multiplying its efforts to centralize and just about take away the powers of the provinces.

What is this government looking for? There is not one piece of legislation currently before the House that reflects the reality in Quebec or in Canada. Where do they get their ideas, all these ministers, their officials, their researchers, all those who gravitate around government circles, all those who gravitate around the Liberal government? Why do they not consult the provinces and the people concerned more often?

We are always having to fight in this House to correct the injustices that are increasingly flagrant in this government. Recently, it again imposed a bill on us, Bill C-20. The government also tried, in its effort to meddle in health matters with Bill C-13 and today with Bill C-6, to redo what Quebec has done.

Another law dear to my heart is the one on young offenders, the one that once again everyone in Quebec unanimously opposes. Basically, all the government is trying to do is substantially amend the Young Offenders Act.

Quebec truly gives effect to this law, and the Liberal government will try with these amendments to meddle and change the rules. Basically Quebec and English Canada are very different, and this becomes clear with this legislation on young offenders.

The situation is the same with Bill C-6. Why penalize Quebec, which is out in the lead? Why penalize the Government of Quebec, which always puts forward more realistic and appropriate laws that truly meet the needs of the people of the 21st century? Why does the federal government insist on taking away the rights of the people of Quebec and the National Assembly?

For the past two years in this House, whether with Bill C-54 or with the current Bill C-6, the members who have opposed it since it was introduced have not budged. They have continued to oppose Bill C-6 openly, while across the way, they continue their bulldozing and their desire to have the bill passed quickly.

We realize that this government never takes time to consult. If there is a consultation, and I am again thinking of the famous consultations in which I participated, which were least two cross-Canada prebudget consultations—one realizes, when one listens to the Minister of Finance reading the budget, that the Minister of Finance himself has strongly advised those at the head of the Standing Committee on Finance to have a strong hand in writing the report, which then has nothing to do with what members heard or what the public, groups, citizens and organizations want.

In addition to becoming increasingly anti-democratic, this government is no longer listening to the public. The gulf between Quebec and English Canada continues to widen, and passing a bill such as Bill C-6 is not going to close the gap between the needs of Quebec and those of the rest of English Canada.

Once again, I urge the Minister of Industry, his cabinet colleagues and all federal Liberal members from Quebec, those who should normally understand what is going on in Quebec, but who do not, to think about what they are doing.

Normally, they should be on their feet in the House speaking out against the federal government's frequent intrusions in Quebec's jurisdictions. But they are silent; there is not a peep out of them. The only members rising in the House to defend the interests of Quebec are Bloc Quebecois members.

In the coming months, I think that Quebecers will realize that Bloc Quebecois members are the only ones capable of defending Quebec's interests. Since my election to this House, in June 1997, I can recall no event, no legislation nor any action which demonstrated that this government is listening to Quebec.

When one runs a country like Canada and is no longer responsive to the true needs of the population, this is a dangerous situation. It is dangerous for democracy. Besides being no longer responsive, this government has been resorting to closure increasingly to all kinds of procedural means in the House of Commons. It is trying to prevent people from expressing their views.

Again, the Quebec National Assembly is increasingly aware that there is not much to be expected from the House of Commons. This Liberal government continuously takes powers and jurisdictions away from Quebec.

I would like to come back to Bill C-6, which is not different from other legislation introduced in this House. This bill will directly encroach on legislation which is normally enforced by Quebec.

As far as information and privacy are concerned, given the constant evolution in computer technology, protection measures become necessary to prevent dramatic situations. The system could create information problems and leaks. Anyone and any organization using computer systems must be protected against all those nets, which are invading society more and more.

In conclusion, since there are only a few hours left before the bill is passed, I ask the Liberal government to be, for once, responsive in its undertakings. I ask it to be responsive to Quebec but also to admit that it was wrong in introducing a legislation like Bill C-6. It would show courage if it withdrew this bill today.

Despite our constant appeals to our colleagues across the way, we get no answers. The people of Quebec are increasingly aware that when they talk to the federal government, they get no answers.

Not only do the 26 federal Liberal members from Quebec give no answer, they remain mute.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

Member For Vaudreuil—Soulanges March 24th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges said that he would lose his riding to the Bloc Quebecois in the next election if the present Prime Minister remained at the head of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Liberal member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges is wrong in attributing such a defeat solely to poor leadership. It will also be the fault of his government, which has imposed Bill C-20 to prevent Quebecers from being the only ones to decide on their future. It will be the fault of his government, a government that has lost track of $1 billion in Human Resources Development Canada funds, that has accumulated a fantastic surplus at the expense of the unemployed and workers, and that does nothing as gas prices skyrocket.

Unfortunately for the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, we can only confirm his fears. The Bloc Quebecois will indeed take his seat from him in the next election.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act March 22nd, 2000

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-456, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Lotbinière.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to change the name of the electoral district of Lotbinière to Lotbinière—L'Érable, which, I think, will be more representative of the whole district.

The purpose of this change is to give more visibility to the RCM of L'Érable which, like the RCM of Lotbinière, lies totally within the boundaries of the new federal electoral district of Lotbinière. The other RCMs that are part of the electoral district of Lotbinière are already identified in the names of neighbouring federal electoral districts. Moreover, the French word “érable” means maple tree, which is the most common tree in the area and one of the natural resources that characterize all the municipalities included in the electoral district.

In closing, I would like to point out that Plessisville in the RCM of L'Érable is the maple capital of the world.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is painful to listen to the remarks made by the member opposite in this context because during his whole speech—I repeat, during his whole speech—he only talked about the past.

He talked about all the accomplishments, but he forgot something essential, namely to talk about the issue we are debating today. I would like to know his opinion on this subject.

Since this morning, the Liberals have been trying to divert the debate we are having today. This debate has absolutely nothing to do with what happened last night in a vote that was won by the Liberals.

However, this debate is part of the process that led to that vote last night. Normally, it should have taken place before the bill was read the third time and passed. However, we know what the ruling was. The government rode roughshod over democracy to pass Bill C-20 so the Liberals could use this sad moment in the history of democracy to glorify themselves this weekend.

I would like to know from the member opposite whether he agrees that in 2000, not in 1940 or in 1950, we should be able to rely on people to do their work fairly, to keep this information confidential and not share them with partisan interests.

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

You are so stupid.

Points Of Order March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I know that earlier the member for Louis-Hébert rose on a point of order concerning what happened this morning in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I wish to tell the government House leader that I also understand that we cannot intervene when the report is not finished.

However, I wish to point out that the entire issue debated this morning concerned the agenda. It is difficult to prepare a report when the chair does not even respect the points previously agreed to.

The problem is as follows: on December 15, 1999, the committee had already considered a decision and a majority of it had agreed that, this morning, the chair of the committee was to authorize witnesses being invited so that this point could be discussed. But this morning, the committee literally refused to discuss this issue, and it is important—

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 401

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of nine months after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within six months after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 372

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on September 1, 2008.”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 322

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on July 1, 2005.”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 319

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on April 1, 2005.”