Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Bloc MP for Mégantic—L'Érable (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec November 15th, 2004

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière—Alma on his presentation. I will have a question for him after my comments.

I believe every Bloc Québécois member has concerns regarding Bill C-9 for a very simple and specific reason. As usual, the government is ignoring Quebec's fields of exclusive jurisdiction. In my riding of Mégantic—L'Érable, we have huge resources, but we also have problems with our resources.

For example, in the maple syrup industry, an important one, we are experiencing problems with exports, surpluses, job creation and processing. It is the same thing with regard to softwood lumber as my colleague from Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia mentioned earlier. The problem cannot be solved.

We will see another tragedy at the end of the week: an asbestos mine will shut down and 455 workers will be laid off indefinitely.

The question we might ask is this: will this agency solve problems in my area? Not at all. Once again there is no integrated strategy, in coordination with Quebec. So long as this attitude prevails, the problems will not be solved. Some members are saying that some of Quebec powers are not even in the Constitution. However, the Constitution gives Quebec authority over most regional development issues. That is very important for the future.

I would like to put a question to my colleague. Instead of doubling the department, should the federal government not first improve its programs and, second, give the money--around $500 million a year—to Quebec, since Quebec has its own regional development policy? In my view, that would be more beneficial to the regions and their economic development.

Committees of the House November 3rd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, first I would make a comment and then I would like to ask a question of my colleague. I would like to congratulate the member for Hochelaga for his humanist, humanitarian and humane position and for his compassion toward the victims.

This is how he always speaks, whether in meetings, in caucus or elsewhere. Indeed, it is always the same discourse, unlike that of the member for Outremont, who thought that he was in front of a camera. His was a legalistic discourse, short on humanity.

It is important to recall the position of the member for Hochelaga, who has always maintained that the federal government had responsibilities, could pay and still had control over the file.

My question for him is this: is the stubborn and legalistic position of the minister that there is an agreement, that we cannot move before 2005 and that we cannot do anything, not an obstacle to solving this issue?

Aerospace Industry November 1st, 2004

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Industry assure the House that the logic by which Ontario became the main centre of automotive production in Canada will prevail with the aerospace industry, which is concentrated primarily in Quebec, and that it will immediately preclude any form of scattering, which would be detrimental to Quebec and the Montreal area in particular?

Aerospace Industry November 1st, 2004

Mr. Speaker, the government has been promising to announce its aerospace policy for some time, but the policy is long in coming. It seems that decisions are made more quickly when they concern the automotive industry in Ontario.

When will the minister announce an aerospace policy that recognizes the fact that the aerospace industry is located primarily in Quebec, just as the automotive industry is located primarily in Ontario?

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act October 27th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou on his interesting speech, particularly the parallel he drew with the Cree. The government needs to take this into account, I believe, and the Bloc has already pointed this out.

I have a comment and a question. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, of its principle in particular. The dominant feature in this bill is the principle of self-government. Even the minister has just emphasized that this is the way of the future. Moreover, the entire agreement is built on that principle. The Tlicho are a people, and they have expressed their preference as a majority. They want to live in their community, with their own traditions; they want to direct their own economy.

How can my colleague justify his statement that giving a people self-government, the Tlicho for example, can weaken the sovereignty of the Government of Canada?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 20th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate the hon. member for Repentigny on his scholarly presentation, which was very instructive. I am particularly interested in the amendments and amendments to amendments.

Basically, he told us that, now, the Speech from the Throne contains not only the government's intentions but also those of the opposition, including the Bloc's amendment to an amendment.

Does the government, accordingly, now feel compelled to act on this amendment and will it be bound by it?

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act October 18th, 2004

Madam Speaker, I found my hon. colleague's remarks very relevant, when he said that this is not just a Quebec issue. I think he is right about that: the whole aerospace industry across the country is affected.

Regarding the $5 billion, that is a considerable amount of money. We must act to change the way the federal government is acting in that respect.

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act October 18th, 2004

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas is justified in wondering. It is not right that research and development, credits and subsidies be concentrated in Ontario. That is what I alluded to earlier in quoting the minister and member for Outremont who made an unwarranted assertion, because there is no logic to saying that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automobile industry is to Ontario.

It is a totally different story with subsidies. There is no logic in that. The hon. member just came up with that assertion. It is not right. If there is a principle whereby what is true for Ontario has to be true for Quebec, that has to be verified.

As was demonstrated earlier in several areas, there are statistics that can be verified. In research as in any other area, Ontario has always been privileged, contrary to Quebec.

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act October 18th, 2004

Madam Speaker, my colleague refers to a milestone step, and we to a principle. There is not that much difference between the two.

As far as principles are concerned, as we have said, the Bloc Québécois supported the principle of a degree of recognition, of the need to do something in this field. So whichever term you use, that is what it is all about.

What we have also said is that it is good but incomplete. It will not meet the needs of development or research. More is needed. A real and effective policy is needed.

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act October 18th, 2004

Madam Speaker, as I have said, the principle of Bill C-4 is there. They want to make an effort. For example, loan guarantees absolutely must be harmonized. That is important, as is reducing the confusion between partners. This is a starting off point toward solving certain problems. This is in answer to the question by my colleague for Lévis—Bellechasse, for which I thank him.

So this represents an effort to solve the problem, but as has been said, although one must not fault good intentions, they are not enough. A bill such as this one is not enough to fix the major shortcomings that have been described. What is needed is a true three-point policy based on what I have already listed: industrial research and development, exports and small and medium sized businesses.

As far as the latter are concerned, it is not specified that these must be in aerospace. Any kind of small or medium business could develop an affinity with a major industry.

To answer the hon. member's question, I think that what they are wanting to do is insufficient. That Bill C-4 is not enough, as it addresses only one aspect. What is needed, and as quickly as possible, is a general policy.