House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Bloc MP for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 29% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Criminal Code October 20th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue this debate concerning Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), and to follow the brilliant speech by my colleague from Repentigny.

My question about my colleague’s age was not without a point. He is 22, and I am 52. So there are 30 years separating us. I am going to tell my story. I also want to say that the Bloc Québécois is a party with a good balance between the generations. Obviously, that is to the advantage of the Quebeckers who elect us. There is a good ratio between men and women, one that we need to improve. We must always work to increase women’s participation in our political parties. And there is a good balance among the different age groups in the representatives of the Bloc Québécois.

Why did I stress that question? In his reply, my colleague from Repentigny told us about his experience with a cloned debit card. At a very young age, I also had my identity stolen, as I discovered several years later. The mistake made by the people who wanted to steal my identity was that at the time they did it I was a full-time student. I did not have the necessary income. Obviously, they found themselves facing the harsh reality of someone who was not a person of means.

Fifteen years ago, when I applied for a credit report—Equifax or TransUnion do it free of charge—I wanted to know how my credit was and how those firms regarded me. When I received the results, I realized that a name that was not mine appeared on my credit record. I took the necessary steps to ask those firms why there was a name that was not mine. They told me a credit application had been made in that person’s name—which was not my name—and that the person had my social insurance number, my birth date and all the information needed. They had had to add that person’s name to my credit record for my whole life. Why? Because one application was made. At the time, given that the application was excessive, since I had no income, I had not even been informed or contacted. That may be because I had left to study outside Canada. That was probably why. I had not even been aware of it, but 30 or 35 years ago some people had got hold of my personal information, probably from my university applications. That is what we figured out at the time. Those people had got hold of my registration form and, for one reason or another, had thought I was wealthy. There are not just young people at universities. The average age of people at university is between 35 and 40 years, depending on the university. Someone had tried to commit this fraud against me.

Identity theft is not new. We must understand that. Young people too must understand that. I put this question to my colleague from Repentigny. The sites where we give our credit card numbers are not secure just because they are on the Internet. Once the information is there, thieves can get information on us. Inevitably, the result is terrible. We are faced with debt that is not ours. Credit cards are stolen. My colleague was lucky, because he says his bank very quickly realized what had happened and that he was reimbursed for the money taken from his account. Others are less lucky. It is a tough situation.

That is why a measure like Bill S-4 is important. The Bloc supports this bill. Today we are taking the time required to explain why to our viewers. Bills are often passed very quickly. People learn about them through a paragraph in the media. Not all bills make the headlines in the media. Bill S-4 is very important because it aims to fight identity theft, the collection and unauthorized use of personal information usually for criminal purposes.

It is important we take the time to understand identity theft. It is the act of deliberately taking the identity of another person, generally with the aim of committing fraud, such as accessing the funds of the person or committing an offence or an anonymous crime. Nearly all of these definitions refer to the illegal use of the personal information of another individual.

This personal information is obtained in various ways from direct but not necessarily illegal means, such as from rummaging in the garbage, to highly perfected phishing techniques. Experts provided definitions of other ways to obtain personal information such as theft of identity cards or credit cards, redirecting mail, pretexting—claiming to be authorized to gather information, hacking into computer data bases, using skimming devices to gather information off credit cards or debit cards. Stealing PIN numbers consists in looking over a person's shoulder as they enter their PIN or other information at an automated teller machine.

Obviously, the importance of this must be understood. I know that all of the banks are running campaigns to stop people from giving out their PINs. They must be discouraged from doing so. There are people who do not use a banking machine as easily as others. Young people are more capable. I personally at 52 have been using them for six or seven years, but there are people who have a harder time dealing with these electronic money dispensing boxes.

Some people take longer, and when you take longer others have the chance to have a look. So care must be taken. We must make sure that the people behind us are far enough away. There should be no hesitation in asking them to move back in order to enter the PIN number. Some people, if they go too quickly, may make a mistake and have to start over. This does not help those waiting. So we can say we will take the time we need to enter our information and ask people to step back. If we go too quickly, we have to start over and this does not make things easier for the next person.

Often in the lineups at ATMs, the problem is that people are in a hurry and people behind us in the line try to pressure us. We should then take the time to say, “I am going too fast, you are pressuring me. I will probably make a mistake and it certainly will not go any faster then”. If the person still insists, it may well mean that he is trying to steal our PIN. There are people who are experts in stealing PINs, people who pressure us to try to influence us and maybe move closer to us. That is how they get our PINs.

There are other ways as well, such as the inadequate disposal of documents. Machines can be bought, such as paper shredders. It is important to do this. The first machines cut paper into strips, but experts could re-assemble it. Now there are new versions that do the shredding differently so that it is impossible to reconstitute the document. It is important, therefore, when we have documents at home not to just throw them in the garbage because people can search it and find our information. We should make sure to shred all documents with personal information very carefully, even if they are going straight into the garbage.

There is also the loss or theft of personal computers. These computers are very valuable and should not be left in cars. We should be very conscientious about this because our computers are an easy way to steal our identity.

Someone mentioned redirecting mail. If we get mail about a credit card or are expecting information about one—we have applied for one, or it is being renewed, or we have lost ours and requested another—we should be very aware of the expected arrival date. If we are renewing a credit card or have applied for a new one because ours has been changed or does not work any more, we should be very careful. We are given a date by which to expect the new one. As soon as that date goes by, we should call to ensure that the card was sent. If it was, we should ask for a new one because people can get their hands on mail through devious means and try to gather the information on a credit card or even get the credit card itself.

More and more credit card companies are sending their cards by registered mail. We have to sign to get them. However, not all companies do this. We have to be cautious and always make sure that credit cards and documents with personal information have the proper address and that we take possession of them to ensure that someone else does not get them.

As for illegitimate access to databases, the experts in that are known as hackers. As soon as we notice an unusual problem with our computer, we must be cautious. Detecting hacking is not easy, but there are many kinds of software to do that on the market. We must make sure that our computers are equipped with the latest versions of hacking prevention software because hacking is a way to get personal data.

Bill S-4 would create three new specific offences that would all be subject to five year maximum sentences. Adopting legislation is one way to deter that kind of crime. Another way consists in creating new offences with prison sentences.

Those three new offences are the following. The first one is obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use the information deceptively, dishonestly or fraudulently in the commission of a crime. Therefore, the person who obtains or possesses the identity information of another person with the intent to commit a crime exposes himself or herself to the five year maximum sentence.

The second offence is trafficking in identity information. Some persons do not intend to use the information they have stolen but are willing to sell it to another person. We see in the media stories of people, businesses or fraudulent systems that steal the content of databases. The individual who sells that information would also automatically risk a prison sentence.

The third offence is unlawfully possessing or trafficking in government-issued identity documents. Earlier I spoke about the credit cards we may receive in the mail, for which we must check that the promised time frames for receipt are respected. If they are not, calls have to be made. Information that governments send us also has to be included. We do not always know when the government is sending us correspondence. When it sends us a cheque, we are pleased, and usually we appreciate it. When it is a bill or a notice of assessment, we don’t want to know, and what is more, we do not know when it is sending us one. These documents could come into people’s possession. Our social insurance number is often recorded on these documents. Obviously this is very important information for stealing identity. Thus, if certain citizens, with unlawful or illicit purposes, attempt to take possession of or traffic in government-issued identity documents, there would be another maximum term of imprisonment of five years.

And other amendments are being made to the Criminal Code. There is the new offence of redirecting a person’s mail or causing it to be redirected. As I was saying earlier, one method of identity theft is to take possession of credit cards or documents containing our information that are issued by various levels of government.

The redirecting of mail by a person will constitute a new offence, as will possession of a counterfeit Canada Post mail key. We know that mailboxes do not have unbreakable locks. First, they are supplied by the government and are not the latest in anti-theft locks. Thieves have techniques of inserting different gadgets or forging keys. If someone had a key that was not for his own mailbox, that would be a counterfeit.

Additional forgery offences are created, such as trafficking in and possession of forged documents for the purpose of using them. People may look for and find information on our identity, but then they will need to produce documents. If they apply for loans, they have to fill out forms. Using our name, they could falsify income or make false statements on forms. They could apply for a loan using our numbers and our name but change our address to their own. It might also be a case of forged credit cards: new credit cards could be issued with the numbers they obtained. This would then be a criminal offence.

The offence of personation is now designated by the term identity fraud. When referring to the offence of personation, the term identity fraud is used. Furthermore, the meaning of “personating a person” is clarified.

In my case, as I was saying, someone applied for credit a number of years ago. The name of that person is still on my credit history. So, if someone falsely claims to be someone else, that person could be criminally charged. I am currently trying to remove the person's name from my file, but it is impossible. No other applications have been made in the past 25 years. If my social insurance number and my date of birth ever appear on an application it will automatically be denied by the credit companies because that other name is on my file. I have not been able to press criminal charges, but under this bill I would be able to. The offence occurred 25 years ago when it was not illegal. From now on, people who go through a similar experience will be able to press criminal charges.

The offence of possessing instruments for copying credit card data is being added because making credit cards requires a plan and the necessary equipment for copying credit cards. Every person in possession of materials or equipment for copying credit cards could be charged with the criminal offence of identity theft.

The bill also adds a new power that would enable the court to order the offender, as part of the penalty, to make restitution to the victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity, including expenses to replace cards and documents and to correct their credit history. That is important. What is required of a victim of identity theft? Earlier my colleague from Repentigny said that the bank alerted him. He did not suffer any monetary losses, but the fact remains that often people who lose their identity have to replace their cards and file new applications. This takes a lot of time. Often, the time this can take and the money it can cost to file all these applications is rather significant and can cause problems. This could be added up and the criminals could be made to pay.

Criminal Code October 20th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the member for Repentigny for his excellent presentation. It is even more important because he is part of the younger generation in this House. I hope that he will feel comfortable with letting us know his age. I think that one of my sons is the same age. It is important because I often have discussions with my son about the importance of protecting yourself. The young generation has too much of a tendency to trust the whole system and never hesitates to give their information. They often use the Internet, which is good, and they make transactions on it. I would like the member to repeat what he said, for we have a chance, today, before adopting this bill, to let our messages be heard.

As a representative of young people, I would like him to send a message to his compatriots, to let them know how important it is to be able to protect their own identity.

Business of Supply October 19th, 2009

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right to mention the fact that other countries, in matters of international trade, were not shy to help their industries. When the Bloc Québécois members introduce a measure such as the one for loans and guaranteed loans in this House, you can be sure that the Bloc Québécois always checks carefully before making a proposal.

What we are proposing and what we have been proposing to the government for five years with respect to loans and guaranteed loans is allowed under the World Trade Organization rules. It is allowed and the intention is in fact to support companies going through difficult times. That is the purpose. The Conservatives are trying to change that into what EDC—Export Development Canada—does, which, for decades, is to guarantee the accounts receivable of Canadian suppliers and exporters, in all sectors, not just in forestry. That is okay. There are manufacturers that sell part of their production to countries or companies located in countries where it might be difficult to collect the accounts receivable. It is reasonable to have a measure that helps them out.

The Conservatives are trying to say something about the guarantees that manufacturers are asking for with respect to their accounts receivable in foreign countries. It is insurance, like the kind CMHC provides for those who borrow money to buy a home. A fee has to be paid to the government to ensure that the government will reimburse the lender if they are not paid. We are told there is $10 billion in guarantees. The government is certainly not going to lose that $10 billion, far from it.

In times of economic crisis, there are a few more losses, but every account receivable has to be analyzed and every company has to be audited before the guarantee is provided. The manufacturer's bank has to verify the quality of the purchaser. That is business. What we are asking for is something completely outside all that, the way it was done for the automotive sector. Things are going badly. We are in a crisis. The auto industry was given a $9.7 billion bailout in order to pay its employees and get back up and running. That is what we want for the forestry industry. We want to modernize the businesses and provide tax credits. What is more, we want loan guarantees for working capital, in order to relaunch businesses so that they can pay their employees and restart production.

Business of Supply October 19th, 2009

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise, as several of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois have before me, to comment on this motion introduced this morning by our party. I will take a moment to read this motion again for your benefit, madam Speaker, and that of the people watching us. It states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should act urgently to provide the forestry industry, which has been hit hard by the economic crisis, with assistance which is similar to that given to the automotive industry concentrated in Ontario, and primarily through tax credits, loans and loan guarantees so that companies have immediate access to cash, and tax measures for private woodlot owners.

I am not in the habit of waving around documents published by the Conservative government, but I think this one is worth it. Copies of Canada's economic action plan have been distributed to all the members of this House. Page 127 deals with supporting industries and communities. One may try to put words in our mouths, of course, but the fact remains that this is a document that was published by the Conservative government. On page 127, we find a table entitled “Supporting Industries and Communities”. It lists the 2009-2010 stimulus values, the authorities in place and the stimulus committed. The first item of support for industries concerns the automotive sector. I can understand that. The Conservative government wanted to show how large an investment it was making. Support for the auto sector is $9,718,000,000, and the stimulus committed is $9,718,000,000. This document was published in September. The government was basically indicating that all the money promised to the auto sector had been committed.

In terms of the forestry industry, it is worth mentioning. There is something for agriculture, mining, small business, tourism and shipbuilding. In forestry, $70 million will be invested in 2009-2010 as stimulus measures. The figure committed is $57 million. The government did not manage to spend the entire $70 million. It spent only $57 million. There lies the problem.

The forestry sector generates 825,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada, compared with the 500,000 jobs in the auto sector. My party and I have no objection to the investments in the auto sector. Our party does not object to the investments in the oil sector. What we have decried for years, for at least five years since the crisis in the forestry sector began, is why the government gave so much. Obviously, it began with the oil sector. Then it helped the auto sector. Why did it not provide the same measures to the forestry sector?

It is clear that most of the production in the forestry industry occurs in Quebec. There are in Quebec over 1,000 municipalities—cities, towns and villages. There are 230 municipalities where the local economy has ties to the forestry sector. There are 160 towns and villages whose economy is based solely on the forestry sector. Those are called one-industry towns. In total, 230 of Quebec's more than 1,000 municipalities base their livelihood on this sector. It is important, because this is the life of the regions. It is always hard to hear Conservative MPs making proposals, such as the one to do with EI to establish measures to improve benefits or increase them by 20 weeks for long-tenured workers. In their view, these are the people who have not drawn EI benefits for more than 35 weeks in the past five years. That is not the case in the forestry sector. The industry has been in crisis for five years.

In this House, the government has tried to have us believe in all sorts of solutions. It was going to resolve the softwood lumber crisis, which was going to resolve the problems in the forestry sector. All of the businesses and the workers' representatives were telling us that settling the $4 billion issue in the softwood lumber dispute was simply a band-aid on the recession our industry was facing.

It tried, each time, to buy tiny bits of help in an effort to say that the market situation would resolve itself. “Markets” became the buzz word. No industry was more affected by the market than the auto industry, because people were not buying cars. So the government decided to help the auto industry and cover its losses so it could continue.

This is what the forestry sector has been requesting for five years now. There is a major economic crisis in this sector, which acts as a precursor. Often what happens in construction precedes what happens in the economy. When construction goes, everything goes. Difficulties in construction indicate an approaching economic crisis. Things had been going badly in the forestry sector for five years. The economists knew it, as did the government. The problem was that it was not of political interest. The government had decided that the forestry industry was not important. It waited for the real crisis to help other sectors that landed in an economic crisis at the same time, such as the automotive sector. But it left the whole forestry sector high and dry.

Workers in the regions of Quebec are not eligible for the Conservative assistance programs—such as the program to extend EI benefits by 20 weeks—since these workers, the men and women employed in the forestry sector, have received more than 35 weeks of EI in the past five years. It is clear; it just jumps out at you, only the Conservatives do not see it. But that is their problem.

They have also come up with measures and programs to help those who change jobs. The Conservative government wants our most experienced workers—those who have devoted their lives to a particular manufacturing sector—to find jobs in other sectors. Forests and trees will keep growing. That goes without saying. Oil is not renewable. That too goes without saying. I have no problem with investing in the oil industry, but I would like to know what the Conservatives plan to do when the oil runs out. Fossil fuel energy is not renewable, but forests are. We can justify helping the forestry industry because the trees will keep growing.

I can see why workers in these regions say that they want the government to invest in measures for private woodlot owners in regions where there are both private and crown-owned woodlots. We want the trees to keep growing, and we want our industry to benefit from the experience and abilities our workers have acquired over the years. We want to continue to take advantage of that.

Of course the Bloc Québécois members, who have such deep roots in their regions, are going to rise every day in the House of Commons to tell the government that it cannot justify ignoring an entire industry that employs more workers in Canada than the auto industry, just by saying it is a market issue. Other countries have decided to invest, simply because the loans and loan guarantees they are offering are allowed by the WTO and international trade rules.

No matter how often we talk about it in the House, the Conservatives keep using opinions from their own lawyers to insist that this is not the way to help the industry recover. The government will not provide loan guarantees or working capital. As a result, companies lack liquidity and cannot pay their employees or their suppliers at the end of the month. One by one, companies are closing up shop.

If all parties in the House were to support this motion, we could, once and for all, ensure a future for an industry that has made Quebec what it is today. Without the forestry sector, Quebec would not be as prosperous as it is today, and neither would Canada.

Business of supply October 19th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague is saying is important. For months, the Conservative government has been trying to give us a false idea about the amounts of money available for the forestry industry.

I will give my colleague another chance to explain that. Here is what I understand: businesses selling their products on foreign markets pay for accounts receivable insurance.

I would like my colleague to explain that again, for Conservatives keep telling us that they are giving $10 billion to the industry. But in fact, the Government of Canada simply guarantees the accounts receivable for businesses exporting their products, and businesses pay for this service. Such is the reality. We are not talking about the loan guarantees required by businesses to be able to invest in their working capital. These are guarantees for accounts receivable.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 9th, 2009

I would like to read again, for the benefit of the chief government whip and yours, madam Speaker, the part of Standing Order 56.1 which states that such a motion may be used for the following purposes:

—the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

There is no mention of motions to limit debate. The purpose of the motion introduced by the government today under Standing Order 56.1 was to limit debate. In that regard, I think that the Speaker's ruling of September 18 was clear. The government could have used other means besides Standing Order 56.1.

I would therefore encourage you to consider our point of order.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 9th, 2009

Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP member for allowing me to interrupt him.

At noon today, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons put forward a motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.l that would prevent any new amendments to Bill C-23.

In my view, moving this type of motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 is out of order for the following reasons.

Standing Order 56.1 has to do with any routine motion for which unanimous consent has been denied. Standing Order 56.1(b) defines a routine motion. It may be required, and I quote:

—for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

I do not think that a motion to prevent an amendment or subamendment to a motion for second reading of a bill can be classified as a routine motion based on the definition in Standing Order 56.1(b). I believe that it is a motion to limit debate much as moving the previous question would, and, I should add, Marleau and Montpetit consider the previous question to be a motion to limit debate.

I would like to bring to your attention a ruling you made on September 18, 2001, in which you stated:

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House.

I am certainly willing to recognize that the government is being innovative with the wording of its motion, but the fact is that this motion is basically designed to limit debate. In that sense, I believe it should be ruled out of order, since it was introduced pursuant to Standing Order 56.1.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 9th, 2009

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Manicouagan, who provides us with regular updates on what mining companies have left behind in the region along the north shore. Things would be even worse if the member for Manicouagan did not work so hard to bring these polluters into line. I would like to thank him for his work.

He is the eyes and ears of the people, and he is working to bring mining companies on the north shore into line. However, other people will have to be responsible for whipping them into shape in Colombia. We will not always be able to be there, and that is why we have to vote against this bill.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 9th, 2009

Madam Speaker, I have to be honest with my colleague. His party, the New Democratic Party, did not want bank mergers. That means they have a conscience. Quebeckers are proud to serve as the conscience of the Americas. I encourage NDP representatives to continue acting according to their conscience and stop supporting a Conservative government that is one of the worst polluters on the planet.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 9th, 2009

Madam Speaker, the simple good reason is that there is nothing in the agreement brought before the House that promotes respect for environmental laws. Once again, I am not the one saying this. The international press has described the oil sands as the biggest polluter on the planet. That is a fact.

If the Conservative government wants to invest money to pollute, that is its prerogative, but that is not what Quebeckers want. As I said earlier, we developed our hydroelectric power with our own money, with no help from Ottawa. That is why one day, Quebec will be capable, as a country, of getting by without any federal money.