Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Bloc MP for Shefford (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 1997, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Somalia Inquiry February 4th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The minister claims not to have been pressured, at least not recently, by senior officers in the Armed Forces. We are aware that, during her leadership race, former Minister of Defence Kim Campbell experienced very heavy pressure, even blackmail, from senior ranks to convince her not to go too far with her investigations in the Somalia affair.

How can the minister expect us to believe that he has not been pressured as former minister Kim Campbell was, when he suddenly changes his tune and quickly puts an end to the work of the Commission?

Somalia Inquiry February 3rd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, when the Létourneau commission was set up, we had questions to ask and the new defence minister told us: "We want to find out exactly what happened in Somalia. The commission's mandate is very clear: it must look into every aspect".

My question is for the Prime Minister of Canada. If the Prime Minister wants to show in a concrete manner that he does not condone what occurred, will he agree today to extend the commission's mandate, as asked by Mr. Justice Létourneau, and as needed

by the commission to shed light on what happened before, during and after the events in Somalia?

Somalia Inquiry February 3rd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, observers are unanimous in saying that, since the government decided to impose a deadline on the Somalia commission of inquiry, witnesses from the armed forces seem much more at ease before the commission, knowing that, come March 31, everything will be over, and that they only have to hang on until then. Yet, we now know that the military blackmailed the former defence minister. And now, the Prime Minister is gagging the inquiry.

Does the Prime Minister realize that, by refusing to give the commission enough time to shed light on this scandal, he is condoning the actions of senior army officers regarding this whole issue, including the blackmail to which the former defence minister was subjected?

An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel December 5th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and humbled by this opportunity to speak to Bill C-297, the purpose of which is to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel for high treason.

When I studied the history of Quebec and Canada, one of the saddest events was undoubtedly the conviction and subsequent execution of Louis Riel.

Members will recall that this happened shortly after Canada became a confederation, the Canadian Confederation, at a time when it had decided to expand its borders.

It was feared that the Americans, who had just bought Alaska, would take possession of western Canada and that Canada, as it existed at the time, would not be able to connect with British Columbia, a new province at the time, to form a country.

As is often the case, the whole issue started with a deal between Canada and the Hudson's Bay Company. In order to extend its territory, Canada reached an agreement with that English company, for a certain amount of money. There were individuals living in western Canada in those days, but they were mostly Metis. They had formed a people. John A. Macdonald's central government wanted to retain control at any cost.

Louis Riel is a great Canadian, a great patriot, a man who fought for his people and his language in that environment. Louis Riel heard the cry of his people and defended them. We all remember that Louis Riel was born in St. Boniface, on October 22, 1844. He was born in western Canada. His father, Louis Riel, was a Metis, and his mother, Julie de la Gimonière, was the first daughter to be born in a family of white settlers in western Canada. In 1858, he studied at the Montreal seminary, so he knew French very well. Then he went back home. They say he did not have the calling to be a priest, even though he came from a very religious family.

In those days, the federalists, the Ottawa centralists, wanted western Canada to remain a territory, under the control of Ottawa, for as long as possible. People who lived in that region did not agree. Louis Riel founded Manitoba as we all know.

The Ontario Anglo-Protestants wanted to see Louis Riel hang. Louis Riel surrendered in 1885. After several battles, he surrendered on May 15, 1885. His trial was riddled with irregularities, everybody agrees on that. The trial was held in Regina and the jury was made up of six English speaking jurors.

Had the trial been held in Winnipeg, the outcome would have been different. In Winnipeg the jury would have consisted of six French speaking jurors and six English speaking jurors. At that time Manitoba was already a province.

In Winnipeg, the presiding judge would have been a Supreme Court judge, whose independence is guaranteed by law. The Regina judge could be removed at any time by the federal government, and that government wanted Riel's head.

On November 16, 1885, at the age of 41, Louis Riel,a hero of the Metis people, was hanged. In December, after much effort by his family, his body was moved to Saint-Vital, in Manitoba, and buried in the cemetery of St. Boniface cathedral. Less than a week after the hanging, on November 22, 1885, a crowd of some 50,000 gathered on the Champs-de-Mars in Montreal and demonstrated. This was the start of the two solitudes in Canada.

While people in Ontario were delighted because a common criminal had been executed, the Premier of Quebec, Honoré Mercier, was saying in Montreal: "Our brother, Louis Riel, is dead". There were riots in Montreal, despite the fact that people were very religious, strong believers. There were riots and speeches. The government had been asked to show mercy, but hed refused. Even the six jurors had said: "Guilty, yes, but we request clemency". They were ignored.

This sad event was probably the beginning of the end of the good relations between the two founding peoples of Canada. In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation and the others who seemed to agree soon realized that Canada had misled them, because it was expected at that time that the new territories, the new future provinces would be bilingual. We know this is not what happened.

Now, rights are given when it may be too late. But, at that time, Honoré Mercier of Quebec, and people believed that Canada would be bilingual.

In concluding, I would like to read you the last letter that Louis Riel wrote before he died. This is Louis Riel's will. Of course, I will read it to you, and we have to go back to that time to fully understand that Louis Riel held no grudges.

This is Louis Riel speaking: "May my burial be simple. May it be attended by the comforts of religion. Far from me, far from my mortal remains are the desires for revenge, the reprisals. I forgive those who have committed so many injustices against me. I pray that my heart will be filled with the perfection of forgiveness and that all my trespasses will be forgiven, as I forgive all my enemies,

my adversaries, my opponents, my antagonists of all allegiances who trespassed against me. I therefore name Reverend Father Blais André as executor of my wishes as to my burial, so that my body may be carried through his care to the hospital to be laid in state, and from there to St. Boniface, to be buried beside the beloved remains of my dear beloved papa. May my body rest beside his".

And it is signed: Louis David Riel.

This is an injustice done a very long ago. But I think that, when a society has the courage to admit the errors of the past, that society is progressing. Louis Riel was undoubtedly the founder of Manitoba. He was a man who left his mark on his time. He was a man who fought against the government in Ottawa, a centralizing government even in those days.

I think that, today in this House, we, on all sides, must recognize the greatness of that man, the man who defended francophonie in America.

Rwanda November 7th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the genocide that took place in Rwanda two years ago was one of the most tragic chapters in modern history. The International Court of Justice of The Hague is now putting together a multidisciplinary team whose mandate will be to hold an investigation and submit evidence against those responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Rwandans.

A team of 21 special investigators is set to depart shortly for Rwanda for a period of six months. Nine officers from the Montreal Urban Community police force have been selected for the team, including Denis Bergeron, a resident of Saint-Césaire in the beautiful riding of Shefford.

If there is to be lasting peace in this area of the world, justice must be done. I am therefore pleased to wish Mr. Bergeron and his colleagues all the best and good luck.

Such a tragedy must never happpen again.

The Merchant Navy November 6th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, along with other members of this House, I had the honour of participating in a ceremony remembering them. Forty-two per cent of the members of the Merchant Navy who lost their lives in the second world war came from Quebec. There is a reason for the Merchant Navy veterans to be meeting. They are excluded from a number of the provisions of the war-related benefits act.

Does the minister commit to holding consultations with the coalition of Merchant Navy veterans before tabling his bill to modify the provisions currently in effect?

The Merchant Navy November 6th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Veterans.

The members of the Merchant Marine who took part in Canada's war effort have long complained that National Defence and Veterans Affairs do not consider their concerns to be a priority. They are calling for the benefits available to other veterans to be available to them as well, without any discrimination.

Can the minister indicate what his government's position is on this matter, and will he commit to providing Merchant Marine veterans with the same benefits as those provided to military veterans?

The Canadian Armed Forces November 1st, 1996

Mr. Speaker, back in 1994, no government minister talked about a gift. It is the information commissioner who told us that and we agree: it was a gift to the governor. Unless I am mistaken, the government, regardless of the act, the precedents, the public opinion and the interest of Canadians, is interested only in hiding at any cost the amount of the golden handshake that taxpayers had to pay, following General Boyle's gaffes.

Does the Minister of Defence realize that, by continuing against all logic to hide this information from the public, just after taking over his new responsibilities, he is perpetuating the lack of transparency displayed by his predecessor and condoning the secrecy that is poisoning the armed forces?

The Canadian Armed Forces November 1st, 1996

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The President of the Treasury Board has decided to turn a blind eye to the benefits granted General Boyle. However, specific sections of the Privacy Act clearly provide that the benefits paid to General Boyle on a discretionary basis must be made public and the public interest requires the minister to mention any other benefit granted.

In 1994, the information commissioner said, regarding a similar case involving the golden handshake paid to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that the rule was simple: whenever anyone gets a gift paid by taxpayers, the public has the right to know about it. Given that the Bank of Canada had to disclose the benefits paid to its governor, why is the minister still trying to circumvent all the rules and hide this information from the public?

Resumption Of Debate On Address November 1st, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. For the last 30 years there have been discussions between Quebec and Canada to try to find a decent settlement for Quebec. However, every time this has been tried it has failed because some parts of Canada refuse to recognize the distinct society and the distinct way of the Quebec people.

We have to find a solution. What we need now is a new deal between Canada and Quebec. That new deal, because it is a proposition, could be a sovereignty partnership between the two parts of Canada. Canada and Quebec could be allies.

When I visit the rest of Canada I always tell them that, yes, I am a sovereignist, yes, I think that some day Quebec will be a sovereign state. I also tell them that my second best country after sovereignty will always be Canada. People like that. People around the country are starting to understand.

The Liberal member on the other side of the House may not agree, but I have met academics around the country and discussed this with them. Some of them thought it made sense. People are sick and tired of 30 years of nothing going on.

To answer the hon. member's question, Montreal has always been left out in the cold. Historically, whenever the federal government has made economic decisions, it was always to the detriment of Montreal. The government wants to make a nice big village out of Montreal, but it is gradually taking away the city's economic powers and giving them to other regions.

I believe the solution for the future is a sovereignty-partnership between our two nations.