House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was colleague.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as NDP MP for Sherbrooke (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2019, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Environment December 9th, 2011

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment spent several days in Durban this week, at Canadians' expense, only to sabotage the Kyoto protocol.

Any reason is good enough to justify Canada's withdrawal from this agreement, even though it is vital to our planet and future generations. This minister is embedded in the tar sands. He wants to maintain the status quo whereas the rest of the world is moving forward to create a new energy economy.

Did the minister go to Durban just for the fossil award?

Senate Reform Act December 7th, 2011

Mr. Speaker, I have a rather simple question for my colleague. What does he think about the government, which wants to reform the Senate, but in a roundabout way? The government is proposing that we hold provincial elections, but the Prime Minister will not be required to appoint the successful candidates from these elections. I wonder what my colleague thinks about the Conservatives' misguided application of democratic reform of the Senate.

Fair Representation Act December 7th, 2011

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to ask the Minister of State for Democratic Reform a question.

I find it ironic to see him rise here in the House so many times to justify a time allocation motion to limit debate in this House, which I consider to be undemocratic. It is surprising, coming from him.

My question is more general and not just about the urgency of this particular bill. Generally speaking, does he think using this time allocation motion is a democratic tool that should be used more often in this House? Do the government and the Minister of State for Democratic Reform plan to make more use of this type of motion, which I consider to be undemocratic?

Organ Donations December 5th, 2011

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to conclude tonight's debate. It is an honour for me to speak about this subject. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Health like most of the members opposite, but it is a subject that is very important to me. As I close the debate, I would just like to summarize briefly and provide some statistics showing that Canada is experiencing a crisis with regard to organ donation.

As most of my colleagues have mentioned, over 4,000 Canadians are waiting for organ transplants to save their lives. Last year, only 1,803 transplants were performed. There are many patients on waiting lists. One rather alarming statistic shows that over 200 Canadians died last year while waiting for organ transplants. The figures are truly alarming. We cannot let 200 people die while waiting for transplants. That is unacceptable in Canada. Whether it is one person or 200 people, it is too many.

The government suggested that we have today's take note debate. Unfortunately, I did not hear the government come up with many new ideas or new ways of doing things. Members spoke at length about the fact that this is a problem that must be solved. However, the government did not propose any actual solutions. At this juncture, and in light of the statistics that clearly show that this is an urgent situation, the government must take action while respecting provincial jurisdictions.

In fact, every province has different ways of dealing with this issue, and the federal government must take the lead while respecting the provinces. It is the role of the federal government and the government members to assume leadership, move forward and help the provinces improve their system so that Canadians are even better served by their provincial and federal governments. This brings me to a quote from Canadian Blood Services:

Canada is one of the only countries in the western world without a national, coordinated system for organ and tissue donation and transplantation. The system as it stands today is at capacity, and is struggling to cope with current needs and projected future demand.

Those are not my words; they come from Canadian Blood Services. CBS has the experts in this field. That is fairly serious for a developed country like Canada, such a forward-thinking country, although it is less so with the current government. We have to change this as soon as possible. If Canada is the only country that still does not have an adequate system for addressing this problem, this should be corrected as soon as possible. I encourage the hon. members from the government to bring forward some solutions, and not just talk about it but really address the current situation, truly take action and become leaders in Canada.

I would also like to address something else. I asked hon. members from the other parties a few questions about the fact that people who have had sexual relations with members of the same sex often feel very excluded in the organ donation and blood donation systems. I have often heard people talk about that in my riding of Sherbrooke.

Those people do not feel like everyone else. It is terrible that some people in Canada do not feel equal to others. As my Liberal colleague said, technology and science have become so advanced that a single test can tell us with almost 100% accuracy whether a person is infected or not.

With modern technology—and my colleague who is a doctor by training knows this full well—it is time to give the government the chance to resolve this situation and allow people who feel excluded from the system to feel equal to me and everyone else in Canada. I encourage the government to take action to resolve this situation as soon as possible. I hope this will be done very quickly.

Organ Donations December 5th, 2011

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and for sharing his personal experience. I have a rather simple question for him. I may have missed it, but I have not heard any mention of organ trafficking since the beginning of the debate. This is a serious problem around the world. Make no mistake, it happens in Canada too. People sell their organs on the black market. This topic was not brought up today, and I would like to know what the government thinks about this problem.

In Canada, there are not enough organs for the people who need them, and there are some people who traffic organs, which is illegal, of course. I would like to know what the government plans on doing to resolve this situation. I think it is something very serious. The government should play a role in taking these organs and giving them to people who need them, and in ensuring that the traffickers who make money from this illegal trade are punished appropriately. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

Organ Donations December 5th, 2011

Mr. Chair, in my colleague's speech—and when she answered questions—she urged members and the government to take action because the situation is, to say the very least, urgent.

A question was asked of the Conservatives, and I would like to ask the same question of the Liberals. What do they think about the fact that people who have had sexual relations with a person of the same sex in the last five years feel excluded—and they are, in my opinion—from the system?

Does she believe that the Liberal Party could address this situation? How could we achieve equality among all persons in Canada, specifically in the area of organ and blood donations?

Organ Donations December 5th, 2011

Mr. Chair, I think that we agree on one point and that we are all on the same page when it comes to the figures before us today. We are in a crisis situation because we currently lack sufficient organs to meet needs. That much we agree on, however we also agree that action must be taken. On the other side of the House, members can be heard saying that things need to be done at a more local level, with family doctors and our loved ones, and that we have to discuss this with our families.

I would like the member to also speak about the exact role of the federal government and what the government intends to put forward. This evening, we are having a take note debate to discuss this issue, but does the government have a plan to build public awareness rather than leaving it up to those watching the debate today to talk about the issue with their families? The government should take stronger and firmer action to build awareness. A national strategy is required to enhance organ donation and to build awareness around the issue of concern to us today.

Organ Donations December 5th, 2011

Mr. Chair, my NDP colleague raised a good point at the end of his response after he made his speech. He talked about the importance of the federal government's role in this issue. What I love about the federal government is that the provinces can have their own programs within their jurisdictions. But the federal government can play a big role. It can be a leader on this issue and enable the provinces to better develop their programs.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the role the federal government could play in the issue we are talking about today.

Organ Donations December 5th, 2011

Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up a little on the question my colleague asked.

We know that people who have had homosexual relations are discriminated against when it comes to giving blood. I was gratified by my colleague’s comment. However, I did not think that the hon. member's reply was very clear as to her position on this subject.

Will homosexual individuals who have had homosexual relations in the previous five years continue to be discriminated against? Is she considering having a plan for the future so these people can be on an equal footing with others?

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act December 1st, 2011

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my NDP colleague. He talked about the word “reasonable” a number of times. He said that this word is often used in court rulings. When used outside a legal context, the word “reasonable” is rather vague. Case law gives us a somewhat better idea of its meaning.

The term “reasonable” is used in section 34. This section deals with self-defence and sets out the factors that a court may consider in paragraphs (a) through (h). In the section dealing with defence of property, this term is used only in paragraph (d), which states, “the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.”

Could the term “reasonable” be defined a bit more clearly in the section on defence of property?