Lost her last election, in 2004, with 6% of the vote.
Youth Criminal Justice Act October 21st, 1999
Madam Speaker, I have a little question for the member from the Conservative Party, as well as all the members from the Liberal Party.
Bill C-3 contains very dangerous measures. I would like the member from the Conservative Party to tell us what he thinks about two of them: lowering the age limit of young offenders that could be submitted to adult sentences, and releasing young offenders' names.
Youth Criminal Justice Act October 21st, 1999
Madam Speaker, today, I have heard all sorts of arguments in the House.
There were those who thought that a person almost had to be put to death to be properly rehabilitated. Then there were those who said that these young people had to be put behind bars if we wanted them to be allowed back into society, but that there was no certainty they would be rehabilitated in jail.
I also heard people, such as the member for Berthier—Montcalm and the member for Portneuf, who explained what needed to be done for our young people, for young offenders. The focus needs to be on rehabilitation if we want to help them improve their lives. We are legislators and we want—I think that this is what all members here want—to improve society. I do not think that a bill such as this is going to improve society.
I have attended the opening of courts in my region. I have spoken with the chief justice of Quebec. She told me that the other parties in the House would have to examine Quebec's legislation, sit down with us and take a look at it and, if necessary, improve it. I think we have the deaf talking to the deaf.
I hope that Reform Party members will sit down and ask the member for Berthier—Montcalm to explain Quebec's young offender legislation to them. I hope that they will keep an open mind.
The Minister of Justice is a woman. Women sometimes see things differently than men. They are the ones who bear children. It is important to give children everything possible so that they have a better life. I do not think that a bill such as this is going to help them. I appeal to all parliamentarians here today to think carefully about what is going on with respect to this bill and to remember that we are considering a bill for the future. The young people of today are the citizens of tomorrow and we cannot jeopardize their future.
Plutonium Imports October 21st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, at the present time, Transport Canada is studying plans filed with it by Atomic Energy Canada for importing plutonium from American and Russian nuclear weapons into Canada.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. How can it be that the government is already at the stage of deciding how to ship the plutonium when there has been no public debate on the very principle of importing it?
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, with what the leader of government has done to us today, namely gagging us, it is with sadness that I am taking part in the debate on report stage of Bill C-6, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
This bill is nothing more that a reincarnation of the bill presented by the Minister of Industry as Bill C-54 during the first session of this Parliament, and which was unanimously rejected in Quebec.
Since the federal government refuses to withdraw its bill, the Bloc Quebecois and its representative on this issue, the Member for Témiscamingue, are presenting today an amendment motion whose intent is to suppress clauses of the bill which would represent a setback in the field of personal information protection in Quebec. Let us not forget that the Minister of Industry tabled his bill on personal information without waiting for the results of a consultation that he had himself launched.
The minister tabled his bill in October 1998 without waiting for the comments of his provincial counterparts to whom he had just sent a proposal of bill. However, at a meeting held in Fredericton in June of 1998, the ministers in charge of information highway agreed to consult each other on the opportunity to adopt a legislation concerning personal information protection in the private sector.
Once again, the federal government adopted a unilateral and paternalistic approach and imposed its point of view to the provinces. That is not very surprising.
The Bloc asked that the bill be withdrawn for reasons of principles, including the fact that it had been introduced without consultations and that the bill is an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction over civil law. The Bloc also asks for the withdrawal of the bill because it would represent a major weakening of the legal provisions concerning personal information protection in Quebec. The bill contains many legal deficiencies and its implementation in Quebec would cause many duplications and a lot of confusion. This is not the first time the liberal government duplicates legislation since I have been elected in this House.
Quebec's legislation is based on the charter of human rights where the protection of personal information is declared a basic right. As a matter of fact, section 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms says that: “Every person has a right to respect for his private life.” This right is also defined and framed in the Quebec Civil Code, which states the basic principles governing the collection, retention and use of personal information.
The personal information of Quebecers is also very well protected under two laws. The first one, adopted in 1982, deals with the protection of privacy in the public sector, and the second one, adopted in 1994, extends that protection to the private sector.
It seems the federal government cannot accept the fact that Quebec has the best system in Canada and is adamant about imposing its legislation even if it means reducing the protection now enjoyed by Quebecers.
And yet, we heard the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say in one of his speeches in May 1998 that we had to, and I quote:
—stop using the easy way out by claiming that a government initiative responds to too much of a pressing need to be stifled by jurisdictional issues—jurisdictional conflicts create confusion that diminishes the quality of public policies.
Obviously, the minister does not do as he says or he does not talk often enough to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, who says it is urgent to legislate to protect the rights of Canadians and uses that as an excuse to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction and to impose a system that is criticized by Quebec's society as a whole.
When the committee held public hearings regarding this bill, every professional, business, labour and consumer organization in Quebec expressed its preference for the system already in place in that province. This is why these organizations unanimously requested that Quebec be excluded from the application of the bill we are debating today so that the federal government does not impose upon them, with regard to the protection of personal information, a system that is different from the one that has been in place in Quebec for five years.
In a letter to the industry minister dated February 4, the Barreau du Quebec wrote:
Privacy falls under provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights—Generally, we believe that the federal access to information and privacy system is not efficient enough—the bill—should be amended in order to provide explicitly that the federal act does not apply to private sector businesses subjected to the Privacy Act.
For its part, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, which represents over 3 000 legal professionals, wrote to the industry minister on April 7 to denounce the duplications that would result from this bill being imposed on Quebec, and ask that it be amended to avoid such a situation. I will quote from its letter:
We believe the overlapping of systems will result in undue complications and misunderstandings both for consumers and organizations subject to two different sets of rules in the same area—we believe an amendment is necessary to exclude from its application professionals, notaries, and any individual or organization subject to the Quebec legislation.
Finally, the Conseil interprofessionnel du Québec, with 260,000 members from 43 Quebec professional organizations, also wrote to the Minister of Industry on March 23 to tell him the following:
Quebec professionals are already governed by a specific and structured set of acts and regulations tailored to the values of the Quebec people—We believe that superimposing several systems with the same intent can only cause confusion and uncertainty about citizens' rights—The emergence of another comprehensive system might unduly complicate citizens' life.
Also of concern is the fact that the second part of the bill, which deals with electronic documents, could deprive the provinces from their right to define concepts such as signature, contracts and other procedures that are now covered under civil law.
Given all the deficiencies in Bill C-6 and the threat it poses to the system now in place in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed an amendment to limit damages that this bill, if passed, could cause by explicitly excluding from its scope provinces that already have legislation on the protection of personal information in the private sector.
Another amendment is designed to maintain the privacy protection afforded to Quebecers by provincial legislation when dealing with federal companies doing business in Quebec.
I am afraid that, once again, the federal government is not listening to Quebec's will and putting it in a yoke. I condemn the domineering attitude of the federal government, which wants to dictate its will to all the provinces by imposing, from sea to sea, measures that are “made in Ottawa”, without any concern for effectiveness and without taking into consideration their negative impact on citizens' rights.
Speech From The Throne October 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the new Minister of the Environment. I am very happy to hear him say that he wants to take action, but I think he has forgotten to check Bill C-32, which was passed in the House last spring. Under this legislation, the Liberal government will no longer be consulting the provinces. It has decided to set national environmental standards.
For his part, the minister says he is going to consult so as not to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The minister also tells us he is going to take action immediately. But there is a big problem in Canada right now. Canada wants to import plutonium from Russia and the United States. I have not heard what our Minister of the Environment has to say about that.
Right now, Canada is flying in the face of everything other countries are doing. It wants to put more energy into getting nuclear power plants to burn plutonium. I would like to know where the Minister of the Environment stands on this, and if all Canadians and parliamentarians will have a say before Canada makes a decision on this issue.
Speech From The Throne October 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. I would have liked him to have said what he thinks about the measure on parental leave.
The government tells us that we need to help young families to have children, but then it organizes things in such a way that parental leave will only take effect in the year 2001, and takes the money from the employment insurance fund. I would like to hear the hon. member address this point.
Speech From The Throne October 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member for Saint John and I think she gave a fine speech. I also see that she has the same health problems in her riding as we have in Quebec.
The present federal government, led by the Liberals, has always given us to understand that only Quebec had problems with its health system, because of its sovereignist government. Its sidekick in Quebec, the Liberal Party, has said the same thing. I am therefore happy to note that the member for Saint John has the same problems in her region.
But, given the Canada-wide problems the member pointed out, I would like to know what this government, which has helped itself to provincial transfer payments, should have done right away in the throne speech, instead of promising action for 2001 or 2002. I would like the member for Saint John to tell us what she would have liked to see in the throne speech that would have solved health problems in Canada.
Income Tax Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening on Bill C-502.
I will make it clear that the subject here is automobile mechanics and not the far broader matter of automobiles in general. Otherwise I would have needed several hours to address the harmful effects Quebec has experienced since the inauguration of the auto pact.
No, here we are dealing with mechanics, the men and women who toil away day after day under the hoods of our cars, their hands covered in grease and grime, repairing what we consider a very precious possession.
These are possessions we are still making monthly bank loan payments on and we want to keep them running as long as possible. At the present time it is very difficult for mechanics to work under ideal conditions because of the high cost of the tools they need to do their jobs.
In fact mechanics usually have to provide many, if not all, of the tools required for their work. In addition to being very expensive, some of these represent more than a one-time expense.
Technological change quickly puts some tools out of date, new ones have to be bought.
In short, it costs a mechanic several thousand dollars in order to be able to perform his job because there are exceptions as my colleague for Lotbinière has just mentioned.
Mechanics in Quebec and Canada are in an unfair situation. It is high time that parliament remedy this. This is why the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans introduced this bill, which is intended to help these thousands of workers who make our life easier and who are at a huge disadvantage compared to other workers.
I am sure that this measure will permit fair taxation for our fellow citizens who deserve it amply.
There is an injustice. And we know what corrective action must be taken. I ask my colleagues opposite to be tricked into inaction until a global solution is found to the problem of federal taxes in Canada. After all, if anyone deserves a review of current federal taxes in their favour, it is the Canadian and Quebec middle class.
This bill is therefore vital because it allows us to correct an unfair situation that affects many young people who lack money as they come out to school. Without these—
Forest Research June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the exceptional work being done by the Consortium de la recherche sur la forêt boréale commerciale, of the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, which was selected by the Conseil de la recherche forestière du Québec for the Méritas 1999 award. This award highlights the role and work of the consortium, the activities of which are co-ordinated by researcher Réjean Gagnon.
The consortium, which is involved in very important work, such as research on the boreal forest and sustainable development, is seen in Quebec as a model of co-operation and rapprochement between the research community and users.
The new soil protection and recuperation method developed by the consortium will change reforestation practices and approach throughout Quebec. The presence of such organizations in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region can only further spur the growth of this already very dynamic region.
We wish you much success in this groundbreaking work—
Immigration June 7th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has finally realized that her government made a mistake in 1995 when it introduced a $975 head tax on refugees, a measure denounced by the Bloc Quebecois.
Is the minister really planning to withdraw this unfair measure in next fall's reform, as mentioned in La Presse ?