House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 43% of the vote.
Indian Affairs November 17th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Recently, several people have condemned the tragic story of native boarding schools set up to destroy their culture. These boarding schools nearly wiped out a generation of natives in Canada.
Do the minister and her government recognize the federal goverment's responsibility in this human tragedy?
Telecommunications Act November 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for our colleague, the Reform Party telecommunications critic.
There is much talk in this bill about corporations. We have mentioned equipment manufacturers, providers of telephone services, cable distributors. We have also mentioned the consumer, who sees his bill regularly hiked up, but there is no mention of the person who is entitled to privacy. We do not mention the protection of personal information. Yet that is the flip side of the coin.
Only one side of the coin is being talked about now, allowing the industry to expand worldwide through deregulation. The flip side of the coin: what are the consequences or the potential ill effects for citizens whose personal information can be released all over the planet?
We know that the federal government has no legislation that really protects personal information once it is in the hands of private business.
I am therefore asking the Reform Party critic this question. What does the Reform Party recommend for protecting private information, identifying information, what does it have in mind for protecting the public from the misuse by businesses of information on each and every one of us?
Newfoundland School System October 27th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that if you sow discord and attack members opposite, you should not be surprised to be repaid in kind.
I would also like to say that in 1792, when the British Crown created the first Upper House, its members—we now call them senators—were appointed, not elected, and their only role was to oppose the decisions of the Lower House on behalf of the British Crown.
Things have not really changed. The Upper House, the Senate, is here to oppose the measures that the establishment, and I would say the financial establishment of Toronto in particular, does not like. It is here to oppose the decisions of elected representatives and to make sure that the government does not have to abide by the public will.
Now, I have a question for the hon. member. When we strike a committee, I believe we give it the power to recommend in favour or against. Would my colleague agree if the committee were to return with a negative recommendation on the amendment requested by Newfoundland? How could he explain to his colleagues from Newfoundland that the will of the people would not be respected, when they clearly indicated the decision they wanted the House to make? In other words, are we going to have a kangaroo committee or a committee which might decide against the people of Newfoundland? I am anxious to hear our colleague's answer.
Newfoundland School System October 27th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the minister say that we must protect citizens' rights. But a parliament must also, unquestionably, respect citizens' wishes. In order to understand his argument better, I would like to propose a totally opposite scenario to him.
Let us imagine that the conclusions of the committee, the formation of which is referred to in the motion before us, were contrary to the intentions of the people of Newfoundland as expressed in the referendum. What should we conclude about our parliamentary system and about a federalism that no longer respected the will of the people?
Canada Co-Operatives Act October 22nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, everyone is interested in co-operatives. I have a particular interest in them, since there are agricultural co-operatives in my riding. Naturally, many of my constituents are members of caisses populaires, and even the weekly newspaper in my riding belongs to a co-operative with several hundred members. This weekly owns the riding's radio station, CKNU FM, at 100.9, which broadcasts news about the Portneuf area from Quebec City to Trois-Rivières.
So you will understand that, when the topic of co-operatives comes up, I am not just interested but very much involved because it is a topic of importance not just in my region but in Quebec and, as I can see, in Canada as well.
As other speakers for the Bloc Quebecois mentioned earlier, we are going to support this bill in principle. There are certain provisions that worry us, however, and I would like to ask our hon. colleague on the government side why, in the case of housing co-operatives, for example, the procedures for dissolution are different from those of other co-operatives.
What is the reason for these differences? Could she clarify this for us? I await her reply.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997 October 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is not regularly or even often in agreement with the government. This time, however, we are. And I would like to remind our colleagues in the Reform Party that, during the 35th Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois raised these issues. This is not the first time that they have been discussed in the House.
Our colleague, François Langlois, the fondly remembered former member for Bellechasse, regularly raised questions on the floor of the House. This is why we feel that the government's bill is very much in the interest of Quebeckers who are affected by tax matters. We are prepared to do whatever is necessary to ensure this legislation is passed by the House.
Our colleagues in the Reform Party may see things differently, I respect that, but they too must respect the fact that we have acted in good conscience.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997 October 20th, 1997
Again, we are in agreement with the bill and, if you require our assistance, you will have to speak to us ahead of time.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997 October 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, mentioned just now that he had unfortunately not had the support of the Bloc Quebecois to block a move by the Liberal Party.
I would like to say two things. First of all, we are in agreement with the bill. We therefore have no wish to see this debate go on indefinitely, as long as it is conducted respectfully.
Second, we are no longer the official opposition. We are not the party with the second largest number of members. The party with that distinction is the Reform Party. They have 60 members. It is up to them to assume their role, through their presence and their numbers. This is their role now. We assumed it when it was our turn, and now it is theirs.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997 October 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that, some 20 months ago, our colleague François Langlois, the Bloc Quebecois member for Bellechasse at the time, raised the problem of pensioners in receipt of pensions from the United States who were being taxed disproportionately by the Americans.
These people were therefore seeing their meager pension incomes being made even more meager. Mr. Langlois made vigorous representations in this House at the time to have the situation remedied.
I would like to see our colleague from across the way explain to us if, indeed, this legislation before us now will ensure these people, particularly those living just on our side of the U.S. border—so we are speaking of the southern portions of Bellechasse, of Beauce and of the Eastern Townships—of pensions that will be taxed reasonably rather than unreasonably.
I await the answer of our colleague across the way.
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act October 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the modifications that are proposed to the CPP will of course shrink a certain number of benefits. Happily this is not so with the Quebec pension plan.
My concern is with the Canadian pension plan super mutual fund that the government will put in place to manage those moneys. Our colleague from Kamloops rightly mentioned that taking $80 million out of Kamloops will certainly affect the local economy. The only way that jobs will not be lost is to reinject that money in that area through this kind of mutual fund. If they funnel the money to Toronto we will be in a lot of trouble throughout Canada, Quebec being a special case because we have our own organization there.
How does our colleague react to that? Is he afraid Toronto will get it all?