House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Bloc MP for Joliette (Québec)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 47% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act April 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, there is an aspect of the issue which concerns me somewhat. Several members expressed concern regarding the cost of such an inquiry, and whether a royal commission is the way to go. Perhaps we could have another type of inquiry. The important thing is to have an instrument, a commission which will have the power to find out the truth. When it comes to deciding between a material interest related to the quick construction of an airport terminal and the common interest, we should not even hesitate if we want the public to trust institutions such as ours: we must favour the common interest and ensure that the public is protected.

If we have to wait a further six months before a third terminal can be built at Pearson, then so be it. During this time, the taxpaying citizens will know that their tax dollars are being used wisely. Moreover, if the government party's conscience is clear with regard to the former government's transactions and if the current government believes that it is not acting in a similar fashion, then it should have nothing to fear from a commission of inquiry. It would have no reason to fear that a commission would uncover some deals in which it may have been involved itself.

A transparent government like the one the Liberal Party likes to boast about should not have any concerns about inquiries conducted by a royal commission. It should not be afraid of answering questions put to it. Yet, the government continues to object to this request. Taxpayers may very well begin to question this government's sincerity. They may start asking themselves why the Liberals are trying so hard to avoid appearing before a commissioner of inquiry. When someone's hands are clean, there is no need to fear the truth, or investigators. There is no reason to fear disclosing someone else's past activities because they may be associated with ours.

I think that the comments made were sincere, but this should not be the end of it. We must ensure that the truth comes to light, that the public is informed of it, and above all, that with respect to other projects-it could be Hibernia or maybe the helicopter contract, another cancelled deal-the same questions will not come up again. When questions do arise and when the public interest is at issue, there should be no reason to fear asking the questions openly.

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act April 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. He stated in his speech that, after realizing that Pearson Airport was profitable and that the private sector should no longer be party to this transaction, the government decided to cancel the contract. The member told us that the government would like the Pearson Airport to stay in the hands of the Government of Canada, but in the same breath, he added that, when it comes back to the table the next time with the private sector, it will seek better terms to make sure that the interests of Canadians are well served.

Are we to conclude from this analysis of the issue by the member that the government intends to turn Pearson Airport over to the private sector in the near future, while, for the time being, cancelling a deal signed with the private sector? The government would temporarily take over the airport to eventually put it back into the hands of the private sector, maybe in a few months or in a couple of years.

If that is the case, one must wonder what the government really intends to do. Is the government cancelling the deal only to hand out the airport to other individuals it likes better than the ones chosen by the previous government? I would like the member to clarify this point.

Purchase Of Properties In Oka April 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, how can we explain the slowness with which the government is dealing with the Oka situation, knowing how fast the federal government proceeded to buy the property of Mr. Bernard Roy, former Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Mulroney, located in the same area, south of highway 344, for $500,000. Do we have two kinds of justice in this country?

Purchase Of Properties In Oka April 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, those we now call the forsaken of Oka participated in a calm and peaceful demonstration to show how desperate and impatient they have become because of the federal government's failure to meet its commitment. These people own homes on highway 344, south of the Kanesatake territory; they have been waiting for an answer for nearly four years now.

Will the government now commit itself to settling that issue before the end of the present session in June by buying the properties of these forsaken residents of Oka, as it promised to do and as it has done for all those living north of highway 344?

Public Service Alliance Of Canada April 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Public Service Alliance of Canada almost unanimously approved the creation of a regional council for Quebec. We must applaud the vision and courage of this Canada-wide union which, unlike the traditional political parties, has recognized Quebec's distinctiveness.

The Bloc Quebecois also salutes the courage shown by the Alliance, which democratically decided to adjust now to the inevitable changes that the political structures of Canada and Quebec will undergo in the near future.

Yesterday's events confirm that grassroots unionism is a powerful instrument for changing and restructuring realities to bring them in line with people's aspirations.

High Speed Trains April 13th, 1994

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take the required measures to authorize the construction of a high-speed train (HST) linking the cities of Windsor and Quebec City, as well as the necessary infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise again today to speak about the high speed train between Quebec City and Windsor.

For the Bloc Quebecois, this public transit system, which is effective, fast, convenient, comfortable, pleasant and environmentally friendly, is a key component for the economic development of our main urban centres in Quebec and Ontario.

We all know that communication links inevitably entail trade deals and industrial business. This was well understood by our ancestors who invested in railroads between both our provinces to start with, and then throughout Canada.

Traditionally, prosperity in Quebec and in Canada has been very closely tied to our investments in transportation. Our standard of living and our competitive position largely depend

on decisions that are taken today regarding the transportation infrastructure of tomorrow.

Unfortunately the railroad network and facilities used for the transportation of passengers and goods in Canada are considerably behind and our obsolete infrastructure has progressively given a competitive edge to other means of transportation such as cars, buses and airplanes.

Has the government forgotten that the increasing use of airplanes between Montreal and Toronto has put more pressure on airports and the highway system? Has it forgotten that increased dependency on cars has wasted more energy and hurt the environment? The government appears to have neglected facts which are nevertheless obvious.

It is more important than ever that Canada and Quebec have an efficient public transportation infrastructure which promotes the use of non-polluting and renewable energy resources in order to protect our ecosystems as much as possible, in keeping with the concept of sustainable development.

The government must consider this high-speed train project, which will make the transportation system more productive and provide technological benefits as well. It must establish a general policy involving Canadian transportation technology considered one of the most advanced in the world. It offers a unique opportunity to engage in an international industrial strategy that will allow Canadian and Quebec entrepreneurs to be leaders in introducing the high-speed train to North America and to the developing world.

The high-speed train, also called the HST, or the TGV in French, is the logical way to develop passenger rail transportation in Canada. Some 10 million people, that is 40 per cent of the total population of Canada, live in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. This section, which covers the most densely populated area of Canada, is used every day by 10,000 people. The Canadian HST could take over at least 35 per cent-and, according to another realistic scenario, up to 45 per cent-of the total passenger market between Montreal and Toronto. Such a concentration is sufficient to support an HST which will definitely improve the quality of service in the most densely populated urban corridor of Canada and relieve congestion in the airports and on the roads.

Besides, we firmly believe that the government should have committed itself to putting into place permanent job-creating projects that would really help stimulate economic growth while reducing unemployment. For the Bloc Quebecois, a high-speed train for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor is an initiative which largely meets these objectives.

The HST will bring about the creation of some 120,000 jobs, directly or indirectly related to the construction of the system and its equipment, operation and maintenance, to the technological transfers and to the industrial agreements to follow, not to mention the positive impact that it will have on the tourism industry.

The crucial role of the corridor for the Canadian economy has been stated many times and the high-speed train is practically the most efficient mode of transportation between larger cities. The European experience clearly shows that the high-speed train draws people to hotels, office buildings, convention centres, restaurants and other commercial or tourist activities.

A high speed train service will have additional economic spinoffs beyond those directly related to building and operating the train. Indeed, the increased number of passengers travelling the Quebec City-Windsor corridor will spend money for meals on board, accommodation and entertainment, and developers will invest in infrastructure to provide additional services needed to meet the growing demand.

Thus, a high-speed train will encourage the public and private sectors to better promote their communities and to develop package deals for tourists travelling aboard this train. Several communities along the corridor will also benefit from a faster connection to much larger cities and, consequently, improve access to their numerous facilities.

At the same time, connections to other modes of transportation intended to improve the total passenger transportation system will be an important advantage for some of the communities close to cities on the HST line.

I take the case of Trois-Rivières and Kingston which will also be able to benefit from considerable social and economic spin-offs. That might facilitate the transportation to Kingston of our future students who will have to abandon the college in Saint-Jean.

Keep in mind that a community located close to a high speed train line would regain prestige because it would be seen as a modern and expanding community. The proof of this can be found in France where communities located close to the high speed train line capitalize on that in their written and oral publicity.

The Bloc's proposal is not just to promote tourism or economic development of local communities and job creation. We also consider it essential that Canada and Quebec invest in a railway infrastructure that is modern and better adapted to the realities of the 21st century. With improved facilities, we will be better able to face the challenges of the year 2000.

To do so, we must opt for a rail transportation system that will reduce ground and air traffic which has reached the saturation point, that will use non-polluting and renewable energy resources, and that will improve our industrial co-operation with a series of technological transfers between different European and Canadian companies, allowing them to become a technological bridge-head of high speed rail on the North American continent.

Research, development, innovation and technology transfer are one of the best solutions to economic problems and that is why we must speed up our efforts in that direction.

In Quebec and Canada, we have a critical mass of high-tech companies that creates a favourable climate for the development and implementation of advanced technologies. In addition to providing attractive opportunities for our scientists and technicians, these companies are a source of major spin-offs in terms of production and exports in the manufacturing sector. It is therefore essential for the future of our economy that we promote research and development and technological upgrading by supporting the strengths we already have in our high-tech companies. One of our serious problems in this respect is the delay in disseminating and implementing new technologies. The construction of a Canadian HST would make good use of our industrial capabilities in one of the sectors in which we excel, namely transportation equipment.

How much have governments invested in the past 20 years in developing or upgrading our airport facilities and how much will have to be invested in the years to come? What does it cost to maintain our road network and how much will future improvements cost?

We agree all these investments are necessary, but it is high time we took the same kind of action to rejuvenate our passenger train services. More government subsidies for developing transportation by bus or by air means the Canadian HST project is less likely to be realized.

We all know the HST project has been examined a number of times in the past ten years: there was a study by VIA Rail in 1982-84, updated in 1989; there was one by GEC, Alsthom-Bombardier in 1988-89 and another study by the Quebec-Ontario rapid train task force in 1989-91.

All these studies come to the same conclusion, which is that the potential market is sufficient to ensure the profitability of a high speed railway transportation system. The HST project would certainly enjoy the support of communities that would be able to take advantage of an HST service.

In June, a feasibility study on the construction of high-speed rail lines in the chosen corridor is to be made public by the federal, Quebec and Ontario governments. It will be very interesting to see the results of the cost benefit analysis carried out by the tripartite committee on technologies available to build a high speed train. Hopefully, all these exhaustive studies on a high speed train will eventually result in its construction and not gather dust on a shelf. On the other hand, once convinced of the undeniable potential of this project, governments and the private sector should jointly undertake a comprehensive feasibility study to determine the cost of the whole project and how to share responsibilities for this venture.

It is estimated that it will take $7.5 billion over ten years to build a high-speed line between Quebec City and Windsor. The tax revenues generated by this project over the construction period should reach $1.9 billion. At this rate, the high-speed line will be paid for very quickly. One must also take into account that the government's expenditures will be reduced since the high-speed train will provide transportation between cities at a much lower cost than that of upgrading the road and air networks. This is what you call rationalizing government expenditures.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois recommends the construction of a high speed rail transportation system which will provide the following advantages: 120,000 jobs per year in Canada during construction; nearly $1.9 billion in tax revenues also during construction; funding provided mainly by the private sector; use of a well proven Canadian technology allowing speeds of 300 kilometres an hour; new construction and urban renewal in communities all along the HST corridor; increased competitiveness for the corridor cities; a more economical and accessible mode of transportation for individuals as well as for businesses and communities established along the corridor; an environmentally-friendly mode of transportation; decreased highway and air traffic, reducing the need for new infrastructure; finally, technological expertise giving Canadian industry a strategic leading edge on the American high speed train market valued at approximately $250 billion.

Without any hesitation, the Bloc supports the HST project because nowadays, no society and no region can afford not to use its innovative resources.

Construction of the HST would guarantee Canada and Quebec a prosperous future filled with benefits like those I mentioned earlier.

Construction of the HST in the most densely populated area of Canada is a unique investment opportunity. By investing right now, Canada and Quebec would reap dividends for decades. There would be immediate spinoffs during construction, and benefits for Canadians and Quebecers would continue to accrue throughout the project.

The Quebec City-Windsor high-speed train project is undoubtedly a much more useful and desirable investment than the defunct helicopter project was. Particularly in the greater Montreal area, which was so badly hit by unemployment, it will provide an opportunity for industrial conversion in a field where export opportunities and therefore job opportunities are excellent.

I will conclude by telling you that, with the high-speed train, Canada will make the most profitable investment in transportation in its entire history. This investment by the Canadian government will not increase the Canadian debt and will contribute to VIA Rail's profitability. I hope that my colleagues will understand the importance of supporting this project, which fits part of our natural economic development and a good way to use the skills we have acquired.

Public Service March 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, first I want thank the hon. minister for tabling his report, although we have been waiting for it since June 30, 1992, in accordance with the Public Service Reform Act.

This document highlights, among other things, the representation profile of designated groups in the public service. It also provides the evolution of this profile from December 1988 to March 1993. It shows that, during those five years, female representation in the public service only increased by 3.2 per cent; aboriginal groups by 0.3 per cent; handicapped people by 0.4 per cent; and visible minorities by 0.9 per cent. In other words, the representation of designated groups barely changed over the last five years.

In its red book, the Liberal government stated its intention of doing something for these designated groups. Yet, the Employment Equity Act still does not apply to the public service, nor to federal commissions or agencies. What did the government do in the light of these findings and policy statements?

Today, the government announced pilot projects for the restructuring of special measures programs. It announced the creation of a special $500,000 fund for handicapped people which, divided by ten provinces, barely represents $50,000 for each province. There is certainly nothing extraordinary about this initiative.

The government also announced a development program for visible minorities which, for all intent and purposes, was already in place. Consequently, this is merely a measure ensuring the status quo . In the case of women, whose representation only increased by 3 per cent over the last five years, which means barely 0.6 per cent per year, the government announced development initiatives for administrative support positions.

There seems to be a significant gap between the government's avowed intentions, or at least its stated intentions, and the measures actually taken to correct the situation. Just to give you an idea of how inconsistent the government is, on the one hand it announces measures which will have a very limited effect while, on the other hand, it is going to court to challenge representations made by the Public Service Alliance of Canada in favour of pay equity. Moreover, the government tabled Bill C-17, which freezes salaries in the public service, prevents a reform of salary scales, blocks a reform of job classification, and also delays wage parity and prevents it for the time being.

What will be the real impact of Bill C-17 on the reclassification of groups of employees? What concrete measures is the government taking to ensure that the salary freeze will not jeopardize negotiations on wage parity? There is a gap between the government's stated intentions, the low-impact measures it advocates, and the real problem of pay equity in the public service. That gap has not been closed and nothing leads us to believe that it will be closed in the coming weeks or years.

I will conclude by saying that the tabling of this report highlights the obvious contradictions between the government's real intentions and the weak measures it is taking to correct the situation. The government would be well advised to state its real intentions quickly, so that those affected can have some hope and confidence. After all, some have been waiting since the 1980s to improve their plight, and they have to have some hope that things will finally improve.

Unemployment Insurance Act March 23rd, 1994

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-230, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (training and self-employment).

Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the bill I wish to table today is to allow recipients of unemployment insurance benefits to start a course of training that will help them create their own employment and thus put an end to their dependency on unemployment insurance, or to enable people who are now receiving unemployment insurance benefits to start their own business, while continuing to receive unemployment insurance benefits for the period to which they are entitled.

Mr. Speaker, I table this bill in the hope that it will receive the support of members on both sides of the House. Thank you.

(Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.)

Conflicts Of Interest March 18th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to understand that we are not attacking the minister's credibility, integrity or honesty.

I am simply asking her if she is prepared to concede that the Minister of Finance could be faced with a very delicate, conflict-of-interest situation since one of the companies he owns has three lawsuits pending against the federal government.

Conflicts Of Interest March 18th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning, we learned that the Minister of Finance has disclosed wide-ranging business holdings and this raises a number of important questions. The Minister of Finance, who is also responsible for regional development in Quebec, cannot take part in cabinet discussions relating to shipbuilding, shipping, whether by rail or by sea, the St. Lawrence Seaway and rail and bus transportation systems.

Considering that the Minister of Finance has primary responsibility for economic policy, will the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that her colleague's diverse holdings pose a major problem in so far as cabinet operations are concerned, since he cannot become involved in a number of major economic issues?