House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was conservative.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Hull—Aylmer (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 20% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Poland December 12th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will commemorate the anniversary of an event that holds great significance for Canada's Polish community.

On December 13, 1981, the communist government of Poland imposed martial law. This unfortunate event came in the wake of actions by the Solidarity movement to introduce democratic values and respect for human rights in Poland.

Many people were imprisoned, others died, and many found refuge in Canada.

The price the victims of martial law paid was not in vain. Liberty and democracy, values that all Canadians hold dear, prevailed. Today Poland is a sovereign country, a member of NATO and will send soldiers to Afghanistan.

In recognition of the ideals of the Solidarity movement, the imposition of martial law and the triumph of democratic values should be preserved in Canada's collective memory.

Criminal Code December 6th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the debate on a bill that promotes moral principles based on human dignity. I am talking about Bill S-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes). I want to thank Senator Lapointe, who is the sponsor of this bill. His courage, his determination and his perseverance have enabled him to overcome the many obstacles in his path.

This bill amends a provision in the Criminal Code on lotteries. This amendment to the Criminal Code would limit the location of video lottery terminals to race-courses, casinos and betting theatres.

The objective is to remove VLTs from bars and restaurants. Let us be clear: the goal is not to ban VLTs, but to limit their location to casinos, race-courses and betting theatres.

According to a study by the program The Fifth Estate, in 2004 there were 38,652 video lottery terminals in 8,309 different locations in Canada. When the bill is passed and comes into effect over a period of three years, there will be no more than 206 locations in Canada where a person could gamble at a VLT.

Some of my hon. colleagues will raise the spectre of sharing jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments. This debate is on a highly serious social issue that affects the entire Canadian population where VLTs are found. It is in Quebec where we find the greatest number of these machines. Although the government has cut the number of these machines, there are still too many of them and we would be burying our heads in the sand if we avoided talking about it because this issue might upset the provinces.

Bill S-211 is not the first bill to amend the Criminal Code on the matter of lotteries. A similar bill was introduced in 2004: Bill S-6. On April 21, 2004, during the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration of Bill S-6, a brief presentation had been prepared on the issue to provide some background on the federal government's responsibility. It said:

The lottery scheme provisions in section 207 express the current federal government policy. Provincial and territorial governments are free to make local decisions regarding the kinds of lottery or gaming schemes that they may conduct or license within the limits set by the Criminal Code.

Senator Joyal even added:

The federal government could amend the Criminal Code and decide there will be no more gambling in Canada, period. We would have the capacity as a Parliament to do that.

At present, the Criminal Code authorizes the provinces to issue licences to operate video lottery terminals. There is no doubt that passing Bill S-211 could have a considerable impact on the provinces. In fact, provincial authorities reap astronomical profits from their video lotteries, to the extent that Canadians would be right to wonder if the provinces themselves have not become dependent on this revenue.

Where does this revenue for the provinces come from? A large majority of it comes from the money that people insert and lose in these machines. This is money that is therefore not circulating in our local economies, in our regional businesses. Aside from the royalties paid to the lessors of the machines, these considerable sums go directly into the coffers of the provincial governments, but at what price?

How many families have been direct or indirect victims of video lottery terminals? How do these families absorb the terrible losses caused by this type of gambling? How many children are underfed, poorly clothed and do not have proper housing because of such losses from the family income?

After Bill S-211 was tabled, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs presented a report with an annex including a number of observations. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the following observation.

Revenues to provinces and private enterprise, of course, represent losses to individuals. For some people, their losses do no harm. For others, however, there can be the serious social costs mentioned above, costs that are only minimally addressed by provincial programs for problem gamblers.

Thus, it may be said that provincial revenues from VLTs are a double edged-sword: the revenues are welcome, but the social costs for individual problem gamblers and their families may reverberate for years to come. Indeed, your Committee received testimony about studies estimating that the social cost of video lotteries is three to five times higher than the revenue they bring in.

Several witnesses appeared before this committee. According to the testimony, video lottery terminals, and I quote:

—are often placed in bars in lower-income neighbourhoods. Their accessibility thus encourages people who might not otherwise be exposed to gambling to start, and because of their location, individuals with meagre resources often suffer the most. Studies also tend to show that problem gamblers prefer electronic forms of gambling. For all of these reasons, a number of experts in gambling behaviour single out VLTs as posing particular problems for individuals and communities.

This form of gambling is highly addictive and youth are often the most vulnerable.

It is interesting to note the position of those who work in the hotel and restaurant industry, as indicated in this same Senate report:

The Association of Restaurant and Hotel Workers of Quebec supported the Bill...the Association reported that in a recent representative survey in the Montreal area of workers in bars where there were VLTs, 90% of the workers supported removal of the machines from bars. Another survey found that 70% had the same view. The Association also noted that the proximity to VLTs had a negative impact on some of the staff’s own gambling, and also led to significant stress when employees had to deal with distraught players.

Furthermore, a survey by Canada West Foundation reported that:

—of the 2,200 Canadians consulted, 70% agreed with the statement that video lottery terminals should be limited to casinos and racetracks, with one half of the respondents in strong agreement.

This bill has come to us from the Senate under the authorship of Senator Lapointe, a senator who has won the respect and admiration of Quebeckers and Canadians. This bill strikes at the heart of a major social problem: video lottery terminals. This bill would not prohibit VLTs; rather, it would restrict them to specific locations. Gambling is still legal, but it needs to be better controlled. We are particularly concerned about the accessibility of slot machines, which are often located in poor neighbourhoods.

Earlier, I was talking about young children and families who suffer because of gamblers' bad habits. For most of the people who engage in this type of gambling, it is very like a drug. Once they start playing VLTs or slot machines, it is just like a drug. People go back to it again and again and develop an addiction. Sadly, I have seen people lose entire paycheques to these machines.

In closing, I would like to ask all of my colleagues in this House to vote for Bill S-211 and to send this important issue to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to clarify its scope so we can achieve the expected result.

Public Works and Government Services November 24th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, on May 11, 2004, the current member for Nepean—Carleton wrote a letter attacking any attempt to move defence headquarters to the JDS Uniphase building in his riding. In his letter he complained of increased traffic, increased infrastructure costs, lack of public consultation and, most important, the waste of taxpayer dollars.

Now that the RCMP will be moving there, could the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tell the House if he has received the same complaint from that member or is this just another example of the blatant partisan hypocrisy we have all come to expect from the member for Nepean—Carleton?

Tourism November 22nd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the decision to abolish the GST visitors' rebate program, with no consultation, Canada has become the only OECD country that does not reimburse tourists for some of their spending.

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada estimates that this will result in losses of several billion dollars for cities such as Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, which organized conferences for companies based outside Canada.

How does the Minister of Finance plan to make up for the losses resulting from this policy worthy of a banana republic?

Income Trusts November 20th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, if this government is so anti-Bell and anti-Telus, perhaps the Minister of Industry should justify his recent decision concerning them.

But that is not the issue. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services predicted that the income trust market would recover quickly.

Three weeks later, that still has not happened.

Did the Minister of Public Works and Government Services try to lead small investors astray?

Income Trusts November 20th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, the government reneged on its promise not to tax income trusts. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services suggested that small investors take a Valium and wait for the market to bounce back.

The income trust sector is still posting over $25 billion in losses.

When will the prediction made by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services come true? When will small investors recover the money that disappeared?

Canada Post November 10th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, here is another broken promise.

When unveiling their regional election platform in Quebec, the Conservative candidates all promised to reverse the decision taken by Canada Post to close the mail sorting plant in Quebec City.

Do these members speak to their Prime Minister, or perhaps it is the Prime Minister who will not listen to them? When will the Prime Minister and his band of merry jokers from Quebec keep their word?

Points of Order November 7th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know under which Standing Order of the House of Commons is it acceptable to give a special greeting to an anti-francophone pseudo-commentator on national television who is against French Canadians and who has never had any intention of apologizing?

Income Trusts November 6th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, retired people are not the only ones who invested in income trusts.

What does this government have to say to students who, like Étienne Bernier, put their scholarship money in income trusts? Mr. Bernier lost $3,000 in one day. For a student, losing $3,000 is a big deal.

Does the government not fear that, by reneging on its promise, it is contributing to the people's cynical attitude about politics?

Income Trusts November 6th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, a good way to cause a traffic accident is to signal right, then turn left. By reneging on its promise not to impose new taxes on income trusts, the government is directly responsible for the catastrophe affecting small investors.

What does this government have to say to Robert Vallée? He wrote, “Like a lot of retired small investors, my financial security took a big hit... After reassuring investors by making an explicit promise not to touch income trusts, the government dealt them a direct blow—”