House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was regions.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Compton—Stanstead (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2015, with 27% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act June 4th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.

Once again, why is this bill even necessary, given the large number of mining and oil and gas industries in Canada that are involved in operations abroad? Why did it take 14 years to introduce this legislation, and why is it coming from the Senate?

We want to support the bill so that it is referred to committee and can be discussed at greater length and in more detail, particularly with regard to changes such as generally accepted accounting principles.

Once again, why is this bill, which is essential to ensure fairness in that industry, coming from the Senate?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 June 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Windsor West on his excellent speech.

Tax cuts for multinationals, in other words, big corporate cuts, have had a measurable impact on workforce succession.

No investments have been made in workforce succession. We have an aging population and an aging workforce in many economic sectors, including the automotive sector. The government has not looked at how important succession planning is. The next generation will make up the workforce for the next 15, 20 and 25 years.

Tax cuts are all well and good. Since 2006, the Conservatives have cut the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. Where has that money gone? Into the pockets of CEOs. Some 20 of the richest CEOs in Canada earn nearly $5 million or more a year. That is how large corporations work. Thus, there is no incentive for workforce succession planning.

Since his riding is very industrial and relies on manufacturing, good succession planning is crucial.

Quebec Tourism Awards Gala May 24th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, last week I joined a delegation from my riding to attend the gala of the Grands Prix du tourisme québécois. I was extremely honoured by the success of the Jacques Robidas equestrian centre in North Hatley, a finalist, Camp Val-Estrie in Waterville, a bronze medal winner, and the Parc national du Mont-Mégantic, the winner in its class. I am very proud of these outstanding representatives of tourism expertise in the Eastern Townships.

There is no question that in the regions, so often neglected by the Conservatives, the hundreds of businesses in the tourism industry provide clear direct and indirect benefits.This remarkable contribution effectively translates into thousands of jobs in Quebec and hundreds of thousands more across the country.

Whether they work at the Mines de Capelton in North Hatley, the Beaulne museum or Coaticook Gorge, the Louis S. St. Laurent museum in Compton or the Eaton Corner museum, the gold mine interpretation centre in Chartierville, the granite exhibit in Stanstead or its model train museum—the only one of its kind in Canada—the people in the tourism industry sustain an economy that is vital for the regions of Quebec and everywhere else in Canada.

Thank you to all who believe in our tourism industry.

Safer Witnesses Act May 23rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, a lack of transparency is the kind of bad habit we have come to expect from this government. There are blatant examples in a number of bills and in the government's failure to act on a number of issues.

Unfortunately, in addition to Air India, there have been other major cases like that. What does a lack of transparency mean? It sometimes means losing trials or cases. It means that justice is not being served the way it should be in a trial.

Transparency is fundamental. When there is transparency in the proceedings and procedures of this sector and other Canadian sectors, we ensure that a degree of integrity is maintained, both by the justice system and the politicians who implement all these laws.

Safer Witnesses Act May 23rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

With regard to jurisdictions, Quebec has its own witness protection program, as do some large municipalities, such as Montreal.

That is why it was so important to hear the testimony of police chiefs at all levels—national, provincial and municipal. This was extremely important because we have to coordinate this effort and work together. There are procedures in place across the country, whether in Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia. Cases are heard, and this really involves all jurisdictions.

The Criminal Code falls under federal jurisdiction. The witness protection program must absolutely expand its criteria for certain crimes. We must work together. That is why we have been saying all along that municipal, provincial and federal governments must reach out to one another in a spirit of partnership while respecting each others' jurisdictions. We need to standardize the rules in order to protect the individuals involved.

Safer Witnesses Act May 23rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Pontiac on his excellent speech.

Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, would amend and update the witness protection program. Many people familiar with the system have been saying for a long time that it needs to be expanded and modernized.

On the other hand, the task is not an easy one, given the enormous changes that have occurred in computer espionage technology and the inexhaustible ways of obtaining information about people today. Just think of how many times a scandal has come to light where information was obtained more or less legally or a document containing information was lost. Similar things can happen when the time comes to protect witnesses in extremely important trials like the Air India trial.

We must not forget that criminal organizations are highly skilled at making arrangements to infiltrate various government and public agencies. Once again, how many times have we heard about a person who obtained information or managed to get their hands on a hard drive or CD containing encrypted information?

In the course of the fiscal year ending in March 2012, the federal witness protection program accepted only 30 applications out of 108, at a cost of just over $9 million. That is only 30% or 40% of applicants.

Once again, families and various players in the system have been saying for a long time that the program needs to be expanded because there are trials under way that cannot be completed because of a shortage of information and evidence.

For instance, in Quebec, evidence against criminal gangs is difficult to obtain because there are so many friends and family members. It is extremely difficult. As its short title indicates, the bill therefore redefines several provisions to make witnesses safer.

For example, it provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program. It authorizes the RCMP commissioner to coordinate, at the request of an official of a provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated program.

This is extremely important, because when someone's identity is changed or a witness is assigned to a location, the municipality and province in question are responsible for that person and also for that person’s protection.

The bill adds prohibitions on the disclosure of information relating to persons admitted to provincial and municipal programs, to the means and methods by which witnesses are protected and to persons who provide or assist in providing protection.

Even RCMP and Quebec provincial police officers have told us that they or members of their family involved in the program are at risk. The program therefore needs to be broadened to ensure that everyone is protected.

The bill will also specify the circumstances under which disclosure of certain protected information is permitted. It exempts a person from any liability or other punishment for stating that they do not provide or assist in providing protection to witnesses or that they do not know that a person is protected under the program. It also expands the category of witnesses who may be admitted to the federal witness protection program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services. This is extremely important.

It allows witnesses in the witness protection program to end their protection voluntarily. The testimony suggests that people sometimes ask to end their protection. They say everything is okay, that there is no problem. However, there were still some reservations about that.

The reverse is also being proposed, namely to extend the period during which protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the federal program or who would like to put an end to it in a situation where the federal program comes to an end. Finally, it also proposes to make a consequential amendment to another act, namely the Access to Information Act.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and expands the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. This could mean a department, a municipality or an agency. They really need the support.

The bill will expand the protection program eligibility criteria by including street gang members and by accepting a new group of people who assist federal departments. Federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to the program.

The bill would extend the period for emergency protection, as I was saying, and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs. This is extremely important, because the lack of coordination between the stakeholders at the provincial, federal and municipal levels, especially in large municipalities such as Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, was causing serious problems.

There are also a few other changes, but there is one in particular that I find worth mentioning, specifically the change to the definition of “protection”. This definition would be replaced by the following in clause 3 of the bill:

...protection may include relocation, accommodation and change of identity [which is quite legitimate] as well as counselling and financial support for those or any other purposes in order to ensure the security of a person or to facilitate the person’s re-establishment or becoming self-sufficient.

This is extremely important. When you change someone's identity or place them in the protection program, at some point they will have to integrate into society and resume living their lives. This paragraph alone may have more financial implications than one might think.

What about loved ones? This is not clearly defined. It is one of the questions that remain to be answered. The loved ones of witnesses in the protection program are not clearly defined, if they are defined at all. Are they the immediate family, or more distant relatives? Are the gang members still considered loved ones? There is no way to be sure.

If the Conservatives truly want to improve the witness protection program, they should commit the money needed to implement the measure. They should also truly want to protect everyone involved in the program, including the officers, as I already mentioned. Officers have told me that when they participate in witness protection programs, their loved ones can sometimes be in danger. That is important to keep in mind.

Bill C-51 makes enough positive changes that we will support it at third reading. I think that everyone, regardless of their political affiliation, agrees with expanding eligibility for the witness protection program.

Authorities who work on combatting street gangs say that it would be an improvement and would help them do their job if gang members who are trying to leave that lifestyle could have access to the program.

However, there is one thing we must never forget. People are what matter to the NDP. Everything we do, we do for the people of Canada. We are committed to building safer communities and neighbourhoods for seniors and the general public, so that everyone feels comfortable being out and about in this country.

We can also improve the witness protection program by bringing peace and justice to our neighbourhoods. We can do so by giving federal, provincial and municipal police forces the additional tools they need to combat street gangs and organized crime groups, which are becoming increasingly better equipped in terms of technology and information, as I mentioned.

The government has cut nearly $190 million from the RCMP and over $140 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. The government will not create a free and peaceful Canada by making cuts to our police forces and to public safety.

Safer Witnesses Act May 23rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleague from Portage—Lisgar that I did not mean to laugh at the bill. In fact, these are very serious bills dealing with protection, privacy and, most importantly, public safety. I would never dream of laughing at that.

However, I am laughing because we are being accused of obstructing and delaying the work of Parliament. I cannot help but laugh since this is coming from a government that has imposed over 30 gag orders to shut down debate on bills. That is not very serious and that is why I laughed.

We were talking about funding for the program. Over the past few years, about 20 or 30 witnesses have been admitted to the program, whereas about 100 witnesses were on the list. Now, the criteria are being expanded, which is perfect. We really hope to see some changes to that.

That being said, if the criteria are expanded, more witnesses will need protection through the program, which will require funding. However, the RCMP and other police forces are facing cuts.

How are we going to pay for this? Will the provinces be responsible for part of the funding?

Asbestos May 8th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, former employees of the Black Lake asbestos mine, located in the Minister of Industry's riding, are fed up. Money from the $50 million assistance fund promised by the federal government is not forthcoming, and people's EI benefits are running out. For years the NDP has been calling for a transition fund for workers in the asbestos industry, but the minister has consistently refused to act.

Does he understand that his inaction is having a serious impact on people's lives? Can he tell us what he plans to do to help them, or has he simply decided to abandon his own region?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 7th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned SMEs, which are the economic backbone of many regions in Canada. They are very important to regional economic activity and growth from coast to coast to coast.

He explained how important it is to keep them afloat and provide them with an economic environment that enables them to thrive. If the government violates their rights and does not allow these businesses to grow, how will we encourage new people to get involved in agriculture or culture?

Could my colleague speak more to the importance of SMEs in Canada?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 7th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, who does an excellent job as official opposition heritage critic.

I would like to hear him talk more about independence, about the freedom of expression that CBC/Radio-Canada has always had and that is the basis for art, culture and artistic expression in all its forms, not only in Canada, but in all democratic countries. It is so important that it is even reflected in administration. Interference is unacceptable, especially when it has to do with a corporation that represents the interests of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I would like to hear my colleague talk more about how important it is for an organization like the CBC to be independent.