René Laurin

House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Bloc MP for Joliette (Québec)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 47% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 21st, 2000

That is scandalous.

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

This is irrelevant.

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga West speaks of respect for our institutions and the public as if he were the embodiment of respect. But what could be more disrespectful than to stop people from expressing their views?

Unable to speak in the House, what else could Bloc members do besides taking action and creating situations to alert the public and the people who were being denied the right to speak through their representatives in the House?

We voted for 40 hours. With 40 hours more, the committee could have heard another 40 witnesses.

This is what the Liberals did not want to hear. The Liberal Party wanted to use our institutions, and even the Chair at times, to justify its action.

Liberal Party Of Canada Convention March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, instead of coming up with a new face at the head of their party, the federal Liberals have decided to give a younger look to their membership, by inviting thousands of young people to attend their national convention this weekend in Ottawa.

At first glance, it would seem that an old party could not be faulted for wanting to rejuvenate its base of party faithful by seeking memberships from young adults, whether students or workers. However, when that objective prompts Liberal organizers to approach a group of some forty students in the lower grades of secondary school, 13, 14 and 15-year olds, holding out the prospect of an all-expenses paid trip to Ottawa, and when this is done behind the backs of parents and school administration, there are grounds for objection. This is unacceptable and irresponsible.

Thanks to the initiative of Jean-François Coderre, president of the federal Liberal association for the riding of Joliette, that is exactly what happened in a least one comprehensive high school in my riding.

What next? Recruiting in the elementary schools or in daycare centres? One may well wonder.

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. government House leader to explain what he means by his remarks.

What we are seeking today is not additional services from the House legislative counsel or clerks. We called for changes because there arose a situation which gives us cause to believe that there has been a breach of the confidentiality we expect. Information was passed from the legislative counsel to the clerk. In his ruling, the Speaker tells us that this should be seen as a normal state of affairs, something to which we were not accustomed before because it was not the situation then.

The Speaker having told us this, we no longer trust the team with whom we are dealing because there has been a loss of the confidentiality we need. It is a fact that amendments we had discussed only with legislative counsel were rejected, meaning that this information—we clearly had proof—had been passed on to a clerk. So this is one occasion on which we have good reason to lose faith in the existing system.

Furthermore, if, pursuant to the ruling of the Speaker, it is a normal state of affairs that the clerks should work with the legislative counsel within the allowed framework, the same situation occurred when we were advised to use the word secession instead of sovereignty. Which we did. If the legislative counsel works jointly with the clerk, they should have been in agreement. We did what we were told and, at the end of the day, over one hundred of our amendments were turned down, just because we did what we were asked to do.

We believe that sometimes the clerk works in co-operation with the legislative counsel, and other times, he does not seem to do so. Where are the confidentiality and the trust we are entitled to? This is why we introduced a non-confidence motion. I would ask the clerk—we are not asking for the Speaker's head—to make sure this does not happen again. We have nothing against the current Speaker, but we are opposed to situations that result in our being unable to work in total confidence.

If the government House leader is willing to change his mind on this, I will point out to him that we had already suggested that this motion be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for discussion. If this had been accepted, we would not be having this debate today. But it was turned down.

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. 408