Jacques GUILBAULT

GUILBAULT, Jacques, B.Sc.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
Birth Date
October 29, 1936
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Guilbault
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=fb4105b0-5519-462a-b34e-ec608182fed5&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
professional engineer

Parliamentary Career

June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada (October 1, 1976 - September 30, 1977)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (October 1, 1977 - September 30, 1978)
May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
  • Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole (January 16, 1984 - July 9, 1984)
September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
  • Liberal Party Deputy House Leader (October 11, 1984 - February 1, 1989)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (October 11, 1984 - February 1, 1989)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 376 of 380)


December 21, 1976

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) for having consulted with the Secretary of State (Mr. Marchand) and myself to make us aware of his intentions. I wish to state that his avowed purpose to help those on ministerial permits is worth-while. After having consulted with officials in the department, I might state that we believe the hon. member's purpose is already covered by some sections of the new act. I will read them for the record. I have been trying to convince the hon. member, but he is somewhat reluctant about some legalistic talk. If one looks at the new Citizenship Act, he will find in section 2(2)(b) the following:

A person who is lawfully present and entitled to permanently reside in Canada shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence;

This is found in the interpretation section of the act and covers what the hon. member intends. Section 5(4) of the act which deals with special cases reads as follows:

In order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada, and notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the governor in council may, in his discretion, direct the minister to grant citizenship to any person and, where such a direction is made, the minister shall forthwith grant citizenship to the person named in the direction.

I recognize that this is not a blanket coverage such as the hon. member is proposing, but nevertheless it can become

useful. I submit that the first excerpt of the law that I read would cover the purpose of the hon. member. However, we are willing to send the bill to committee in order to have more time for departmental lawyers and others to appear before the committee. We will then be in a better position to know the exact effect of the hon. member's bill.

There is something I wish to clarify. It does not really matter whether the hon. member's bill is passed before February 15. The new Citizenship Act is already in existence. It is only that it has not been proclaimed. It can be amended. If it were amended today, when it is proclaimed, the whole act as amended would be proclaimed. There is no problem there. I just state that for the record. That being said, we on this side will agree to send it to committee.

The title to Bill C-237 reads, "An act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act". As the hon. member has said, we would need the unanimous consent of the House to amend the title of his bill so as to read, "An act to amend the Citizenship Act", in other words, to amend the new bill. Do I have unanimous consent to do this, or would the hon. member do it-I do not mind. But it is essential, otherwise we would be amending the old act.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
Full View Permalink

December 21, 1976

Mr. Guilbault:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that the second reading motion as put should be amended to provide for the bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, the committee dealing with the Citizenship Act.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
Full View Permalink

October 26, 1976

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has dealt with many matters with which I would not have time to deal before the adjournment. Let me try to deal with the hottest ones, for example, the case of Lise Payette who is a candidate in the Quebec provincial election. I am informed that according to CBC program policy when broadcast personalities capture nominations as candidates in an election they are obliged to withdraw immediately from the programs of the corporation. Pursuant to this policy the contract with Lise Payette has been terminated and the program has been cancelled. Now, what if Lise Payette is not elected? In this case I am informed that, given the mandate of the CBC which is to promote national unity and reinforce the Canadian cultural fabric as espoused in the broadcasting act, it would be difficult to

Adjournment Debate

envisage the possible return of Lise Payette to CBC employment.

With regard to Lloyd Robertson it may be that one of the reasons he left the CBC is that as a CBC announcer he wanted to be able to gather new's and was unable to do so because news gathering is within the jurisdiction of the CBC newsmen's union. Questions of union jurisdiction as between announcers and newsmen in the CBC have nothing to do, however, with questions of freedom of information.

So far as the question of the use of pre-recorded announcements by Premier Bourassa is concerned, I think this has been put in proper context by a reply of CBC President Johnson to Mr. Ben Payer, President of the Liberal Party in Quebec. In his reply Mr. Johnson pointed out the full responsibility for its program content assumed by the CBC under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, and the fact that accordingly the CBC must exercise editorial judgment to the best of its ability and with complete freedom. He added that in his opinion broadcasting organizations retained the prerogative to make use of such a recorded message or not to do so, or to present it in whole or in part in accordance with their editorial evaluation. The CBC's language networks each broadcast a short extract from Premier Bourassa's message, while the French network declined to do so, nevertheless presenting all the essential details of this important event. Thus each network simply exercised freely its prerogative and journalistic responsibilities without any constraints or external influences.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Full View Permalink

April 6, 1976

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you and my colleagues for permitting me to proceed immediately as the lead off speaker for the Quebec group. I shall try to be as brief as possible because I realize that hon. members would like to go to supper now. [Translation]

First of all, I would like to address the Electoral Boundaries Commission through you, Mr. Speaker. I had the opportunity to meet with the commission members last summer when I appeared before them on behalf of the seven hon. members for the centre area of Montreal to suggest to them major changes in the boundaries of the seven ridings in the south of Montreal.

First, let me extend my sincere thanks to the commission for accepting the proposal I brought forth on behalf of the seven hon. members. I also would like to congratulate the commissioners for improving my original proposal in two ways, first by giving the Westmount riding the benefit of a north to south extension, and second by balancing the population of the constituencies, which I had unfortunately been unable to do, since I do not have the skills of the cartographers working for the commission.

I would like to recall for the benefit of the commission the highlights of the proposal providing for the ridings in the south of Montreal to be divided on a north-south basis rather than an east-west basis. The advantages of this proposal-and the commission was well aware of them- are that the ridings thus divided on a north-south basis are much more similar to what they are now. This means that all political associations, social organisations and even religious groups will be able to keep operating within the limits that are the closest to what they know now.

Electoral Boundaries

In addition, I had said that each riding would thus lie partly north and partly south of Sherbrooke street, which would enable each member to represent richer and poorer people, which I felt permitted a more balanced distribution.

I had mentioned also that a member of Parliament was more representative when he represented people of all social classes, because it is obviously too easy to represent a very specific section of the community and to ignore the views of the others.

However, I should like to point out to the commission that my remarks, even if they receive increasing support from most members for the southern part of Montreal, do not apply to the western portion of Westmount. I think I have made this very clear to the commission.

Now, speaking of the riding of Westmount, I should like to mention here that I am very pleased to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Westmount and Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury).

The hon. member rose yesterday in this House and asked to be given back that part of the riding of Westmount that he will lose through redistribution. He spoke of the area bounded on the north by the Camilien Houde Parkway, on the east by Peel Street, on the south by Sherbrooke Street and on the west by Cote des Neiges Road. The hon. member has every reason to ask that his constituents be returned to him because they have far more in common with the central part of Westmount than with the proposed riding of Saint-Henri in which they would find themselves.

That leaves in the riding of Saint-Henri the area which lies east of Peel Street, McGill University, whose student population extends in an easterly direction to Saint-Law-rence Boulevard, and which was included in the former riding of Saint-Jacques, now part of the proposed riding of Saint-Henri. In fact, an attempt is being made at regrouping the population around McGill University.

I can but support the remarks of the hon. member for Westmount; I am also happy that he should be pleased to welcome in Westmount the constituents of Saint-Henri, some of whom he represented in the past. Still, I should like to stress that there is a problem; I will deal with it only very briefly because I believe one of my colleagues wants to discuss it later on, and that is the problem of chosing names for the downtown ridings.

The proposed riding of Saint-Henri cannot be called Saint-Henri simply because the Saint-Henri parish, which gave it its name, is now part of the new riding of West-mount. In fact, the riding of Westmount should be called Saint-Henri-Westmount; then the people of Saint-Henri would have a greater sense of belonging; more-over, I am told that the riding did bear that name at one time. Still, I will leave it to my colleague from Saint-Henri to discuss this as he has indicated to me that the intends to pursue this matter.

One fact remains: the Saint-Henri parish will not be located in the proposed riding of Saint-Henri; when it come to chosing a name, the commissioners should have settled on either Saint-Jacques or Saint-Henri to take into account the areas added from other ridings. I think it is by mistake it was called Saint-Henri. However I leave it to

Electoral Boundaries

the commissioners to re-name the ridings, but I wanted to draw their attention on that matter.

Mr. Speaker, this concludes the brief comments I wanted to make, and I thank hon. members for their attention.

Topic:   OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING QUEBEC
Full View Permalink

February 24, 1976

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of national interest and of pressing public importance.

In view of the obvious inadequacies in the television coverage of the recent leadership convention of the Progressive Conservative Party by the CBC French network, and more particularly in view of the fact that this network did not broadcast in their entirety, as did the English network, the speeches of the candidates, I move, seconded by the hon. members for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and for Laval (Mr. Roy):

That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, so that the management of CBC can be heard.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Full View Permalink