House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Bloc MP for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok (Québec)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 41% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Bill C-20 December 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, with his Bill C-20, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs puts me in mind of the Book of Genesis.

In the beginning, the minister created rumours, squabbling and division within the Liberal caucus. And the caucus was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. But fortunately the spirit of the minister moved upon the face of the waters.

Rising in his place in the House, the minister said “Let there be light”. And in the middle of the thunder and lightning, Bill C-20, a bright and shining star, emerged from the darkness.

As the only keeper of clarity, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs became the Creator.

In the Book of Genesis, on the seventh day, the Creator saw everything that he had made and he was pleased with it. He decided to rest.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can rest on one condition only: that his bill, which is dust, returns to dust, and that he gets rid—

Committees Of The House December 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois is tabling a supplementary opinion to the one the standing committee on fisheries tabled this morning.

What I wish to remind the House, which I thank for the unanimous consent, is that from this moment on, the government must specify with which aboriginal people there are negotiations under way. An exhaustive list of the bands involved in negotiations must be published.

Second, in order to prove the government's good faith, provisional agreements must be negotiated and in place by the spring of 2000.

The point I would like to add before concluding is that the keystone of the Marshall decision is the notion of moderate livelihood. The report does not go far enough in this regard.

I ask that the department responsible for aboriginal affairs determine who is going to co-ordinate the examination of the concept of moderate livelihood. I would like to know what the parameters will be, and the timetable for this.

As a matter of parliamentary privilege, next time around, I would appreciate it if more budget were allocated to the Standing Committee on Fisheries so that a translator can also be assigned to us when the committee travels. Extra effort was required of Bloc members to work in both languages on a very specialized subject, because the vocabularies differ greatly from one language to the other.

Committees Of The House December 16th, 1999

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Points Of Order December 15th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, further to the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers I have here an article from Le Droit published on December 8, 1995, that establishes that the 50% plus one rule is acceptable everywhere in Canada, except for Quebec.

Let me quote the article “People in Ontario—”

Points Of Order December 14th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, following the announcement by the Prime Minister that he wants to introduce a bill denying Quebecers their basic rights, I would like to table in the House an extract from the report on the territorial integrity of Quebec in the event of its accession to sovereignty, which was presented to the Commission d'étude des questions afférentes à la souveraineté.

This report states that, according to international law—

Points Of Order December 13th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you saved me for last. Do not forget that Canada evolved from Gaspé. Therefore, I am pleased to have the last word in this first round in the House today.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is still listening to us and he is certainly one who likes to see what is happening in other countries. Maybe he would find it interesting to know what was signed in Paris on May 8, 1992 by Thomas Frank, Rosalyn Higgins, Alain Tellet, Mrs. Malcolm—

Economic Development November 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

The closure of the pulp and paper mill in Chandler and the cessation of mining activities at Mines Gaspé have hit the Gaspé particularly hard. The Government of Quebec is doing everything it can to ensure that a previously signed investment agreement is honoured, which would prevent the mill from having to be shut down definitively.

Is the minister prepared to come up with funding for the operation of the “Baie des Chaleurs” railway, as the Chandler municipal council is requesting, and thus provide transitional support while the Chandler mill is being converted?

Supply November 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the Progressive Conservative Party on the Liberal government's failure to recognize the importance of Canada's food industry.

In the three issues that will be put before the House today, I want to stress the second one, namely, that the government was not properly prepared for the “decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v Marshall, which acknowledged fishing, hunting and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal peoples”. The peoples referred to are, specifically, the Malecite and the Mi'kmaq.

Looking at the events, it is true the Liberal government over there was not prepared to face the music. The proof is that the decision was brought down around the middle of September and the incidents with the native fishermen began only toward the end of September or the beginning of October.

During the hearings the Standing Committee on Fisheries started holding as soon as the House resumed in mid-October, we realized, when we heard what the aboriginal witnesses were saying, that they had approached the Canadian government many times. They had done so as early as last spring in order to be ready with a Plan B, if ever the Canadian government were to lose in court.

I also know that they did so during the summer, in order to still have the possibility of preparing a Plan B. The Canadian government rejected this each time, preferring to believe that only its version of the story would hold any weight. Now it has to be acknowledged that the Canadian government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have been left high and dry, one might say.

During last week's recess, there was another event that proved that the Canadian government is totally off track. Mr. Thériault was hired to assist Mr. MacKenzie in the negotiations, in order to provide the maritimes fishermen with representation in these negotiations, because the so-called traditional fishing communities did not feel that the chief negotiator was listening to and understanding them.

I might add that we only learned of the few lines defining the mandate of Mr. MacKenzie at the time of the announcement of his assistant's appointment. This indicates, once again, the extent of the government's lack of preparedness for the situation.

More serious in this situation is the fact that the minister is splitting the mandate to negotiate. The government is talking about trying to reach short term agreements with the aboriginal peoples on fishing starting this winter and early spring to enable aboriginal fisher to get along with traditional fishers. This is a praiseworthy goal, but the short and the long term are being totally separated, and this fact is causing concern among the fishers.

I would like to clarify something here. The government wants to introduce new players into the lobster fishing industry, which is already quite full. There is no more room, and all the industry players agree that, if new fishers are to be brought in, others must be withdrawn.

I wonder, therefore, what meaning the short term agreements with the native bands have. Fishers deciding to pull out give their most valuable possession, their fishing site, to someone else. It is a vital part of them. Who would give away a vital part of one's self just like that, when told it is just for the short term? The example is perhaps a bit strong, but, when one gives part of one's self away, it can never be replaced. It is a bit like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

An essentially irreversible process is under way. It is going to be very difficult for those fishers who voluntarily decide to return their licenses to Fisheries and Oceans to change their mind. On that basis, how will it be possible to reconcile the long term process the minister has initiated?

What I understand is that the Government of Canada is giving the Indian affairs minister the so called long term process, because, the Marshall decision, the decision by the supreme court that allows aboriginal peoples to exercise their fishing rights, provides that the fishing must be for a moderate livelihood, that fishing will enable the native bands to enjoy a moderate livelihood.

The supreme court does not define this expression. The report of the Erasmus-Dussault commission suggests some possible directions for the self-government so sought after by the first nations. Seeing the Canadian government's failure to govern when it comes to native affairs, the supreme court is giving it a little push from behind, so to speak, saying “You must ensure that native peoples have a decent livelihood, as seen through modern lenses”. This is a new management expression.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been tasked with forming a committee to look into the matter. The committee's long-term mandate contains no clues as to the nature of the short-term agreements to be worked out right now for the fishery.

For example, concerning the three things mentioned in the treaty, hunting, fishing and gathering, are we to understand that a decent livelihood, which remains to be defined by the committee led by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will represent about 30%? Will it be 25%? What will it be?

Second, will the Canadian government attempt to resolve native concerns as much as possible insofar as the fishery is concerned? Since we have no information on the progress that has been made by the other committee, it is likely that the fishing community will be asked to do a bit more.

When I refer to being asked to do more, the aboriginal people started with what are called riparian fisheries, which require less equipment. I am referring to lobster fishing, although that is not the only catch in Canadian waters.

Are we to understand that other fisheries will also be invited to help by suggesting a quantity of fish or a financial value to determine what is a moderate livelihood?

All of these questions leave me highly perplexed. Does a moderate livelihood refer to the financial aspect or to the work? It must be very difficult to not have anything to occupy one's time, to have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week free. If it is only the financial aspect, what could be done within the existing management agreements with the fishermen?

Here again, I am sceptical. Is it up to one category of individuals, the fishers, to make reparation for all the historical mistakes made by Canada? The only way to do so would be through taxes, so that if ever licences were to be withdrawn on a voluntary basis, the Canadian taxpayers would know that they had to pay for part of the mistake, because Canadian and Quebec fishers will have to be compensated for having to withdraw in favour of the new players, the aboriginal fishers.

It is unfortunate that we have so little time this morning to address this subject. These few questions I have raised suggest to us a lack of preparedness on the part of the Canadian government. In my opinion, it is moving at a snail's pace in resolving this problem, when the aboriginal people have been knocking at the door for 240 years now. Since my time has run out, I will now accept any questions from the other side.

Fisheries October 20th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, again today, we cannot help but note that, since the Marshall decision, the fisheries minister has been running in circles. However, when he took over the portfolio, he said that, whether it was counting pennies or fish, it amounted to the same thing.

The fishermen and the aboriginal people are now sending him a clear message. They are saying they no longer have confidence in him or his government and they have rejected his mediator. They want to negotiate directly between themselves.

When will the minister stop behaving like a spectator in this matter and take a clear stance that might resolve the conflict?

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 19th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I did not refer to anyone's absence, at least I do not believe I did. But you will excuse me for being so enthusiastic on a Tuesday night. I want to be sure the government is responsible enough to consider the amendments since it refused to take the opportunity it was offered to redraft the bill from scratch. The government must stop interfering in areas under provincial jurisdiction, and everything will be fine.