House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Bloc MP for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Late Father Marcel De La Sablonnière November 22nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, we were saddened to learn of the death of Father Marcel de la Sablonnière. “Père Sablon”, as he was called informally by everyone who knew him, died on Saturday, at the age of 81.

Père Sablon got involved in amateur sport early on and worked hard to make it accessible to disadvantaged children. Through the determination with which he promoted sport and its virtues for young people, Père Sablon encouraged young people to strive for excellence. During his fundraising campaigns, he would often say “Let us give them a passion and make sure they have a good start”. Many owe it to him to have had a good start in life.

For nearly five decades, with generosity and dedication, Père Sablon worked as the director of Montreal's Centre de loisirs Immaculée-Conception. A pioneer in outdoor recreational activities, he helped build centres such as the Auberge du P'tit Bonheur, Camp Jeune-Air and many others.

People will always remember Père Sablon's charisma, ability to bring people together and great foresight.

Citizenship November 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, last week, the daily Le Devoir reported that Ottawa had developed and implemented a far-reaching plan of action in preparation for the last referendum in Quebec.

To that end, the number of people who were granted Canadian citizenship increased from 24,000 in 1993 to 44,000 in 1995, the year the referendum was held. Since then, their numbers have been dropping consistently.

How can the minister claim that the increase was not due to the referendum when the numbers show just the opposite?

Immigration November 15th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, Immigration Canada has refused access to two French-speaking immigrants wishing to settle in Saint Boniface, in Manitoba, on the pretext that they do not speak English.

How can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration justify the decision by her department when the Secretary of State for the Francophonie, the member for Saint Boniface, is of the opinion that it is not essential to be able to speak English in order to live there?

Greenhouse Gases October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, does the government not understand that, because it caved in to Alberta quite simply to get some votes, Canada is in the process of gaining the worst reputation on the planet for the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse Gases October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's lax attitude toward greenhouse gases and its inability to make a commitment in the areas under its responsibility are yielding disastrous results.

Will the government admit that its negative performance in connection with greenhouse gases, the significant increase in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, is directly linked to the government's spinelessness, to its lack of planning of any concrete measures to reduce industrial emissions in Canada?

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 19th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-6, which affects a fundamental value in our society, privacy protection.

The debate goes beyond these walls. On November 2, 1998, parliamentarians, as well as Quebecers, had the opportunity to read in Le Devoir an article entitled “Pressure is mounting for consumers' privacy protection”.

The article talked about threats against our privacy and the need for citizens to be well informed of their rights. It also talked about the bill and some aspects of it that we are discussing today in the House. This article clearly specified that provinces that will not pass legislation in this area will have to comply with federal legislation within three years.

Yet, the need for legislation protecting personal information and privacy is not new.

Most provinces already have such legislation. In this instance, the federal government has long been delaying taking its responsibilities by introducing a bill that would apply only to corporations under its jurisdiction.

In fact, we were expecting something from this government, that it take its cue from provincial laws already in place to introduce a consistent, efficient and clear bill, one that is in keeping with those provinces' jurisdictions. Unfortunately for all Quebecers and Canadians, this bill fails miserably.

Instead of protecting privacy, the bill limits itself to protecting the right of big business to make profits with as few restrictions as possible. This is totally unacceptable. The federal government must get the bill back to the drawing board as quickly as possible. It must introduce a bill really aimed at protecting privacy.

If the government is not yet convinced that it is urgent to act, that the situation is urgent, it should get in touch with the president of the Quebec access to information commission. The Minister of Industry would soon find that every month the Quebec government receives 2,000 calls from people concerned about the protection of their privacy.

The Liberal Party fuels the public's cynical attitude toward politicians by using this empty and confused measure to try to convince our fellow citizens that it is concerned about the protection of privacy. The government does not say, however, that it has introduced a bill that only favours commerce, one that is predicated on voluntary compliance by businesses with its provisions to protect privacy.

What the minister responsible is not saying is that the bill is riddled with loopholes and leaves many sectors without any protection. Those sectors that are covered by this bill are conditionally covered. This means that businesses are told to take care, if possible, of their clients' privacy. This is totally unacceptable.

I want first to stress the fundamental nature of the right to privacy. It has been said before, but it is important to remind this House that the Liberal Party is putting the right to make profits before the right to privacy.

Experts consider the right to privacy as a human right, the same as the right to equality and the right to justice. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—as cited by several colleagues before me—which was adopted 50 years ago by the United Nations and which Canada adhered to, specifies that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and provides that:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

In Canada, the charter of rights and freedoms also protects privacy, although not in so many words.

In this connection, I would mention that, in Quebec, as members are undoubtedly aware, this right to privacy is recognized explicitly in Quebec's 1975 charter of rights and freedoms. Article 5 is unambiguous where privacy is concerned:

Every person is entitled to privacy.

This right is also recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and Privacy”. I draw particular attention to article 35. This is not just something the Bloc Quebecois is pushing. I remind members that last April 7 the Chambre des notaires du Quebec wrote a letter to the minister responsible, mentioning this provision in Quebec's Civil Code.

Article 35 is clear. It says:

Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.

That seems clear to me. Respect of privacy is a fundamental right, which is recognized internationally, as well as in Canada and in Quebec. It is ridiculous for the federal government to be introducing a bill that does not protect this fundamental right.

Earlier, I mentioned a Devoir article I tabled. I see I have the House leader's attention. That article clearly said that the Government of Quebec was the only government in North America to have passed legislation protecting personal information in the public and private sectors. In addition, many experts say that Quebec's act regarding the private sector is one of the best in the world. This is a far cry from the federal act, which covers only the public sector.

It is not so surprising that the federal government did not draw upon the Quebec legislation. That would have been killing two birds with one stone. On the one hand, it would have ensured consumers of the exemplary protection of personal information, and, on the other hand, it would have avoided the loopholes and violations which are inescapable when enforcing federal and provincial laws which have not been harmonized.

This leads us to believe that the real object of this bill is not protection of privacy, but a pitiful public relations exercise. The government would like to use this legislation to show that it is finally taking heed of people's concerns. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill does not meet the expectations of those who wish for privacy. It simply serves the interests of big business.

Even Canada's privacy commissioner observed that the discussion paper proposed by Industry Canada and the Department of Justice focuses mainly on commerce, not on privacy.

That is why we categorically oppose Bill C-6. The federal government refused to draw from Quebec's legislation, even if it is recognized as exemplary in this respect. This is not surprising, as the Quebec legislation focuses mainly on the protection of personal information, while the federal bill aims essentially at pleasing big business.

Millennium Scholaarships June 11th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is still doggedly insisting on defending the indefensible and at throwing out meaningless slogans and platitudes.

Is the Minister of Human Resources Development, Claude Ryan's former chief of staff, not moved by the words of his former guru to reflect on the severe judgment his former boss has made on his behaviour, his government and the evolution of Canadian federalism?

Millennium Scholaarships June 11th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, as an example of doctrinaire and rigid nation building, it would be hard to improve on this government's approach to the millennium scholarships.

After a battle in parliament and in the media, the minister has given way a little and is talking with the Quebec minister of education, but just on the phone as he refuses to meet with the Quebec minister.

With this obstinacy and rigidity, has the Minister of Human Resources Development not just demonstrated that Quebec is doomed to a never-ending battle to protect its constitutional areas of jurisdiction from a system which—

Therapeutic Use Of Marijuana June 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, two individuals may now grow and smoke marijuana for therapeutic use without infringing the Canadian Criminal Code.

Two weeks ago, 87% of members voted in favour of motion M-381, which I introduced here in the House of Commons. This historic vote underlies the research project unveiled yesterday.

Public commitment by doctors such as Réjean Thomas and Don Kilby, the support of the Canadian Aids Society, the COCQ-sida, the Canadian Hemophilia Society in Quebec, the Compassion Club in Vancouver, Canadian and Quebec seniors' federations and the generous involvement of lawyer Allan Young have enabled Jim Wakeford and Jean-Charles Pariseau to win their fight for patients' right to dignity.

Their efforts have now paid off. Many patients will finally be entitled to a better quality of life through the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes.

Millennium Scholarships June 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development thought he could get away with appointing a facilitator in the matter of millennium scholarships.

However, it appears that the facilitator did not facilitate much, and time is of the essence in this matter for the students.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development assume his responsibilities, become personally involved in the matter, and, finally, meet once and for all with Minister Legault in Quebec City?