House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 30% of the vote.
Canada Labour Code December 3rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member who just introduced his bill.
I would like to share something with him. Quebec has an essential services council. Whenever the council meets, it takes two or three days to make a decision.
Can my colleague explain how he would protect people living in the north who will not be getting things they need, such as air transport and so on, because it takes two or three days to decide what constitutes an essential service?
Afghanistan November 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reaffirm my unwavering support for our troops deployed in Afghanistan.
In addition, I offer my condolences to the families of Corporal Nicolas Raymond Beauchamp and Private Michel Lévesque, who were both stationed at Valcartier and who died in Afghanistan last week. I also offer my condolences to the family of Private Frédéric Couture, who died last week as well.
I pay tribute to the lives of these brave soldiers, who did not die in vain. They went to Afghanistan in an effort to restore hope to a people facing terrible difficulties and turmoil. They were there to support rebuilding efforts at the request of the government of Afghanistan, as part of a UN-sanctioned mission led by NATO. They believed in that mission. They were following their dream. Like their comrades, they did everything they could to protect the values we hold dear as Canadians.
I thank these soldiers for their courage. They have done us proud.
Canada Evidence Act November 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-426, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act .
No one in this House is questioning the importance of the freedom of the press or the essential role of journalists in reporting events or conducting investigations to expose wrongdoings. The freedom of the press is a fundamental cornerstone of any free and democratic society.
That is not to say, however, that the bill before the House is the best way to protect the work of journalists and reconcile their work with other equally important aspects of democratic society, such as the right to a fair trial.
I agree completely with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, who, during the first hour of debate at second reading, said of the freedom of the press that is was “too important an issue to play partisan politics with”. That is precisely why it is absolutely essential that the hon. members scrutinize this bill and understand the reasons for the government's strong reservations about it.
One of the major problems with Bill C-426 is that the proposed amendments are not being applied to the appropriate legislation. As all members well know, the Canada Evidence Act applies to all criminal and civil proceedings, as well as all other matters under federal jurisdiction. The act has a very broad scope. It applies to judicial proceedings, courts martial, federal tribunals and administrative tribunals, parliamentary committee proceedings and federal judicial inquiries.
Hon. members of this House will recall that the purpose of the Canada Evidence Act is to govern the submission of evidence, in accordance with the rules of common law, in the context of judicial proceedings and all other proceedings. Upon careful examination of the provisions of Bill C-426, it is very clear that, of the 11 subclauses, only two serve that purpose.
The other provisions establish the basic requirements that must be met so the Crown can force a journalist to disclose the identity of their source of information. The bill focuses primarily on considerations linked to criminal proceedings that include, as underscored earlier, only one aspect governed by the Canada Evidence Act.
The forms of protection cited in most of the subclauses of Bill C-426 seem to be linked to proceedings concerning the various stages of the investigation of a criminal trial. Theoretically, if it were decided that such protection is necessary, those provisions should be added to the Criminal Code, and not the Canada Evidence Act. This is such a fundamental shortcoming that it cannot be rectified through an amendment at the review stage in committee.
The bill poses another problem: the provisions of the legislation take precedence not only over the provisions of all other federal legislation—particularly the Security of Information Act—but also over all other provisions of the Canada Evidence Act. This means that these provisions would take precedence over the provisions concerning spousal immunity. They could also overrule the relatively new provisions of the Canada Evidence Act, provisions that give a detailed plan that establishes when it is possible to oppose the disclosure of information on the grounds of a specified public interest or because the disclosure would be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security.
It would be irresponsible for members of the House to study a bill that includes these provisions without a thorough examination of the implications of rescinding recent provisions that were drafted with such care. Such legislative amendments would undoubtedly have very significant operational consequences.
We should at least consult many stakeholders to ensure that the provisions of C-426 do not have a negative impact on other legislative provisions protecting interests that are just as important. I raise these concerns to highlight the crucial strategic and operational difficulties posed by this bill.
I would like to provide a constructive alternative to the immediate study of specific provisions of Bill C-426. It would be in the public interest to return this very important issue of journalistic privilege, as well as the repercussions on the justice system and on all procedures governed by federal legislation, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that it may examine the bill more closely.
This would allow members to hear the comments of experts and to pay particular attention to the various significant issues pertaining to journalistic privilege, most of which are beyond the scope of Bill C-426.
Finally, I would like to thank the members for giving me the opportunity to speak to this issue of vital importance to all individuals.
Business of Supply November 13th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to what my colleague in the Bloc Québécois had to say, I would like to point out to him that for about 13 years, his party—although maybe not himself—have been incapable of doing anything at all, even for its own regions. It has never been able to intervene in any way or even to suggest to the Liberal Party of the time that it should do something for its regions. Never has the Bloc been able to produce a single cent for the paper companies, including in its regions.
I want to ask him today how it could be that when there was an election in his region less than a month ago—an election won by a Conservative member—the member from his region failed to speak out against the fact that Greenpeace was attacking the clients of the paper companies in his riding? He made agreements with Greenpeace to wipe out the companies in his riding.
Why is it that now he is blowing every which way? On the one hand, he says that we are not doing anything, while on the other, he supports Greenpeace, which is going to see clients in Germany in order to prevent the paper companies in his riding from being successful. Can he answer that question?
Alain Charland November 13th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Alain Charland, an exemplary citizen of Charlesbourg, who was presented the Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation for his dedication to veterans.
Mr. Charland is an active member of the RCMP, Drug Section, in Quebec who gives generously of his time and talents to change the lives of veterans and to ensure that their contributions are not forgotten by future generations.
A military history buff, he has an impressive collection of old Canadian Forces uniforms, badges and clothing that he loans to various organizations for ceremonies or exhibitions, including the Royal Canadian Legion, of which he is a member. Since 1993, three old Canadian Forces vehicles restored by Mr. Charland have been used in ceremonies in Quebec and Ottawa.
Mr. Charland's dedication to members of Canada's armed forces and youth is well known in the community, where he enjoys discussing military history with them.
I wish to salute this big-hearted man.
Business of Supply October 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's contribution to the debate on the motion. It is easy for the Bloc members to talk about how the federal government should monitor spending power or do this, that or the other thing. However, they never talk about what they might be able to do.
I would like to tell my Bloc colleague, who voted in support of our government twice, that we, the 10 members from Quebec, are getting a lot more done than the entire Bloc Québécois machine.
My question for her today is a timely one. Does my colleague agree with Pauline Marois, the leader of the Parti Québécois, which is the Bloc's head office, and her Quebec identity bill, which would prohibit English speakers in my province from running for office? That is a power that we share with them, and I would like to know what the Bloc members think of this proposal before I share mine. Do they support the bill?
Business of Supply October 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague opposite, who speaks about the spending power.
First, I would like to remind him that, in the Speech from the Throne and during the election campaign, we discussed the spending power. We are the only party that put everything on the table. Before, the Liberal Party did not make this an election promise. We made it an election promise and we indicated this. This subject was most certainly on the agenda for the second throne speech
Since the beginning, I believe that members on the other side of the House have agreed with us—even though the approach strikes them as a little tiresome—that we are practising an open federalism, which they never did.
All they have done until now, that is for the last 17 years, is that, instead of being a separatist party, they have been a do nothing party. For the last 17 years, they have been parked in Ottawa and they are unable to return to Quebec City.
We offered to discuss the spending power. Today, my colleague seems to know it all. He knows in advance everything that will be discussed and he thinks that he should reject it outright. Since the beginning, the Bloc members have been saying no when they have not yet seen the text, the regulations, nothing at all. However, they say no right away.
Where did my colleague find all these answers, since I do not have them right now?
ADISQ Gala October 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all the artists nominated for the 29th edition of the ADISQ Gala. The gala recognizes the talents of Quebec's top artists of the year.
Last night's gala honoured, in particular, the group Mes Aïeux, singers Isabelle Boulay and Nicola Ciccone, songwriter Daniel Bélanger, and group of the year, Tricot Machine.
During its 17 years in Ottawa, the Bloc Québécois has been unable to do anything to support Quebec artists, since it has never been in power. Fortunately, the Conservative government is here to really do something to promote culture, from song to cinema to museums.
Unlike the perpetual opposition with its empty rhetoric, we are taking real, concrete action. The Bloc Québécois can continue to criticize. Our government has the means to act in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians, and our government keeps its word.
Speech from the Throne October 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne sets our government's directions for the new session and reflects the concerns of the Quebec nation, including the desire to put a stop to crime and make communities safer.
Bill C-2, which tackles violent crime, includes measures that were examined in depth during the last session: minimum sentences for offences involving firearms; raising the age of consent from 14 to 16; declaration of dangerous offenders; reverse onus in cases of firearm-related offences; and drug-impaired driving.
Why is the Bloc planning to vote against these measures? Luckily, the Bloc does nothing but talk and cannot come to power. It would seem the Bloc would protect criminals rather than honest people.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for the member. In light of the fact that one of the most important human rights is to have elected representatives, I would like to know how we can expect his demands for democracy to play out when we try to bring in Senate reform. Is he ready to support the government in its effort to bring in a reformed, elected Senate?