Denis Coderre

[Petitions, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join today with all members of the Quebec caucus in tabling, on behalf of the coalition for banking services for seniors, a petition signed by more than 30,000 people.

We wholeheartedly support this petition as well as this coalition representing more than 1 million people.

[Danièle Sauvageau, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is desperately looking for something to make people forget its definition of the Quebec identity.

This is why many Bloc Quebecois members who are desperate to get noticed and to look good in the eyes of their leaders are using my analysis and the solution I have put forward in the Danièle Sauvageau issue.

What is shameful is that, to them, this issue is just an opportunity to score political points. They do not understand that the last thing Danièle Sauvageau wants is to become a political martyr helping them score points. She does not want her reputation and credibility to be used by people who are sorely lacking in that respect.

To show compassion for someone is to understand what this person is going through and, more importantly, not to use but to support him or her. Those who will make comments or ask questions about Danièle Sauvageau must realize that the more they use her, the more they cut her off from the position she loves so much.

Politics must deal with other issues. It is not up to the government to select a coach. There are other approaches, like dealing with the thrust of programs, not their management. This is the type of issue that makes people even more cynical about politicians.

I wish luck to Danièle. I understand her sadness. I am confident that the decision makers will follow up on the balanced solution that I have put forward.

I am asking the members of the Bloc Quebecois to show compassion and to stop using Mrs. Sauvageau for their own personal benefit. There are other ways to make the headlines. This one is unhealthy.

[Bloc Quebecois, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first the Bloc established its identity insisting on the recognition of two founding peoples. Now it is going off in another direction, doing a total about face, dropping this and not replacing it.

Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us what he thinks of this new trick of the party without a future, which is now denying our history?

[Bloc Quebecois, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the sovereignists' violons are not always in tune.

On the weekend, in Rivière-du-Loup, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting on proposals that may give their cousins in the Parti Quebecois some food for thought.

The Bloc members will be asking the Quebec Premier, Pierre Bouchard, sorry, Lucien Bouchard, to cut the focus on his personal views on Quebec's partnership with the rest of Canada.

In fact, the Bloc wants to cut Pierre Bouchard, oh, sorry, Lucien Bouchard's power to decide the next referendum.

Perhaps Jacques Parizeau, the new Bloc Quebecois researcher, has something to do with this. We will see on the weekend whether Jacques Parizeau or Pierre, oops, Lucien Bouchard wins at arm wrestling.

Perhaps Premier Pierre, or rather, Lucien Bouchard will wonder just what the Bloc is doing in Ottawa, as others are doing.

[Points Of Order, April 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have no problem with this motion, and as a friendly gesture, I would now like to read the French version.

Que le Chambre reconnaisse la contribution extraordinaire que Wayne Gretzky a apportée à notre sport national.

[Jacques Parizeau, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the new Bloc Quebecois researcher, Jacques Parizeau, is travelling around Quebec saying loud and clear to all those who will listen that he could not care less about the brain drain in Quebec. “Leave”, he told them frankly last weekend.

To those who fear Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada, he said, I repeat, “Leave”. A brilliant remark, when Quebec is doing everything in its power to keep the young people it educates at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Brilliant too, when the young people would like to stay and do the job they were trained for. They are looking for an appropriate environment to show Quebeckers that there is still a way to contribute to improving the quality of life in Quebec and Canada.

The new Bloc Quebecois researcher is clearly totally irresponsible. The Bloc should terminate his contract immediately.

[Premier Of Quebec, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers have much to think about right now.

In his travels abroad, Mr. Bouchard is proclaiming that Quebec needs to have its own voice in international forums. Yet that same Lucien Bouchard is denying francophone Quebeckers the right to have a voice in the Année de la francophonie canadienne.

What right does Lucien Bouchard have to deprive Quebeckers of their voice within Canada? What right does he have to try to deprive Quebeckers of their Canadian identity? What right does he have to continue to promote separation, when Quebeckers have twice rejected that option?

Lucien Bouchard claims to be carrying on the tradition of Jean Lesage and Robert Bourassa. Yet these Quebec politicians did not seek to stifle the voices of Quebeckers in their own country, in Canada.

These men had a clearer notion of the word “democracy”. René Lévesque would be ashamed of this Parti Quebecois strategy and would certainly not associate himself with it.

[Reform Party, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must strongly criticize the conduct of the Reform Party in a matter that is important to Quebec and Canada, the one involving Bombardier in a dispute with Brazil.

By providing information to the Brazil government in the Bombardier matter, the Reform Party displayed a total lack of regard for the interests of Quebec and Canada.

The Reform Party could well have dangerously compromised the position of the Government of Canada, which is working extremely hard for a Quebec company.

I understand now that in return for the little service they gave to the Brazilians they should move their headquarters to Brazil and call themselves the The Unidos Alternatividados.

There is a name for this sort of behaviour.

I demand an apology from the Reform Party, especially for the 60,000 Canadian families who work for Bombardier. Do not ever, ever take a side against Canada.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find the speech by member, colleague and friend from Berthier—Montcalm sad.

If there is a point of consensus on this bill it is the remarks by the head of the Quebec Bar, Jacques Fournier. He said that this bill was not only in line with the philosophy of the Quebec Bar, but that the government had once again demonstrated that it is flexible and that it is following up on the extraordinary work done by the legal community on this issue in Quebec.

I understand that the opposition has to oppose. It is very frustrating for a colleague like the member for Berthier—Montcalm, whose voice revealed in a way that he was trying to defend the indefensible. I would ask him, however, what he wants exactly, given that we are being flexible and especially that we are providing the funding, because I am interested in this matter. The Centre Mariebourg in my riding helps prevent crime in its way and works with young people.

Is the role of the member for Berthier—Montcalm to defend the indefensible and to come up with all sorts of ways to promote his own political cause? Should he not, in any case—and we are all familiar with his intellectual honesty in this regard—applaud the work of the minister and the flexibility of this government, which works? What wears him out in the end is that the system can work within Canada, is it not?

[Competition Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998, with respect to negative option billing.

Negative option marketing is a deplorable practice, and we should all support the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton in his efforts to end this practice. In the case of broadcast services distribution, this practice gave rise to two attempts to amend the Broadcasting Act.

As a result of amendments in the other House, it was established that negative option marketing should not be allowed, except to facilitate the achievement of the broadcasting policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act. We do not find the same provisions and safeguards in this bill.

I appreciate that the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced this bill amending the Competition Act in order to extend its application to banking and telecommunication services. However, there is a risk. Introducing in the Competition Act new regulatory rules that would also apply to broadcasting services may result in conflicts with the Broadcasting Act, as passed by Parliament in 1991.

The Broadcasting Act provides, and I quote “that the Canadian broadcasting system constitutes a single system and that the objectives of the broadcasting policy can best be achieved by providing for the regulation and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system by a single independent public authority”, namely the CRTC.

Any attempt to deal with a same matter in two different acts with very different objectives can only lead to confusion and court actions. The bottom line is that consumers are those who might have to pay the price.

The Broadcasting Act provides, and I quote “The Canadian broadcasting system should serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada”. Bill C-393 deals only with commercial and economic aspects without any consideration for other cultural, political and social aspects.

The practice of negative option marketing is no longer used by the cable companies. People will recall the fuss raised in the English language market. Consumers simply will not accept this practice, and the cable television industry, which is faced with increasing competition from satellites and wireless systems, simply cannot use this any longer without major loss of business.

However, the bill as it stands would prohibit marketing practices that have been used successfully to introduce a broad range of new French language services to the French language market. Without this flexibility, no new French language service could see the light of day, given the small size of the market.

This experience with the French language market demonstrates two things. First that, when properly used, the marketing practices required for the introduction of new services are supported by consumers. Second, the Broadcast Act states:

English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements.

Bill C-393 introduces a new regulatory power of the governor in council in order to remove certain services from its application for competitive reasons. There are concerns that this new power will not be easily reconciled with the CRTC's licensing powers.

Moreover, since the CRTC's licensing decisions can already be appealed to the governor in council, the latter could find himself in the position of having to deal with a single issue under two different acts with very different objectives.

We must make sure we do not create a legislative dead end that would delay or even prevent the introduction of new broadcasting services that Canadians have a right to expect.

A case in point is the recent CRTC decision to grant a licence to a new aboriginal service called The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. Should Bill C-393 come into effect, I am afraid it might jeopardize the introduction of this service by all cable companies in the country.

The marketing of broadcasting services is an issue that must be dealt with under the Broadcasting Act. This legislation provides all the power and flexibility required to maintain a balance between its objectives and consumer needs.

The bill's previous versions only dealt with discretionary broadcasting services. The current version no longer makes that distinction and could in fact prevent the CRTC from requiring the distribution of broadcasting services under the terms and conditions that it deems appropriate. Incidentally, this provision was the one used by the CRTC to require the distribution of a new aboriginal service, The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.

I listened to the various arguments put forth so far regarding this bill. I agree that we must find a deterrent to the all the practices that were described. However, having read the bill, I come to the conclusion that, in some cases, it does not address these concerns. For example, I do not see how it could prevent the banks from using the negative option or a tacit reply from its clients to provide personal information to a third party.

However, in other cases, I feel that the bill targets practices that it was not meant to target. I am not sure that the intention was to prevent the compulsory distribution of an aboriginal service. Yet, this could well be the end result.