Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was provinces.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Progressive Conservative MP for Richmond—Arthabaska (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2008, with 16% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 March 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the Reform motion. The arguments of the hon. member from the Reform Party have nothing to do with the motion.

I would however like to comment on the issue of municipalities. I believe the government does not understand the concept of municipalities either. Having been a mayor for over ten years, I will point out certain facts. Municipalities change; some decide to amalgamate while others decide to work together.

So, what we are saying—and this will be my question for the government—is that, when partners sign an agreement, an intergovernmental agreement between two municipalities, the 10% will not apply. I think it is important because, as we are increasingly seeing it in Quebec, the mixed enterprises are forming partnerships that can go as far as being a 50-50 split between a municipality and the private sector.

I do not think the government is necessarily familiar with the issue of municipalities locally. So I do have a question. Could the government perhaps enlighten us as to what would happen if the 10% in income from services outside the geographic limits and the jurisdiction of municipalities were exceeded but through an agreement with other municipalities. The government cited the example of providing hydro. Does the 10% not apply in such a case? Will the tax exemption be maintained? It is not clear. It is not clear in the request made by the Reformers, nor is it on the government side.

Close attention will have to be paid to the matter of the 90%. As I said earlier, in more and more associations, groups and mixed companies, there is much stronger participation from the private sector. This is a fact.

Another comment I will make—and I must say that we will not be able to support the Reform motion—is that the government ought to be careful because dealing with federal and municipal taxes is one thing, but interfering in a municipal jurisdiction is something else.

Under the Canadian Constitution, municipalities are delegate governments controlled by the provinces. They are not governments recognized under the Constitution Act, 1867 as the federal and provincial governments are. They are delegate governments. We could go as far as saying there could be a single municipality per province.

I would like to caution both my colleagues in opposition and on the government side to be careful when they talk about any legislation dealing with municipalities. Municipalities are facing deficits as well because, let us not forget that, when the federal government cuts assistance to the provinces, the provinces make a stink. When in turn the provinces make cuts, supposedly in response to federal cuts, the municipalities and school boards are left holding the bag. Municipalities are currently confronted to a major challenge.

I think we should pay attention to this. Unfortunately, in Bill C-28, the government lost track of daily realities. It forgot to mention that any official agreement between municipal governments, even one exceeding 10%, may be exempt from tax.

Supply February 23rd, 1998

Madam Speaker, the difference between us, the Liberal Party and the Reform Party is that we are consistent in terms of our international policy. This is my first point.

We are also consistent in saying that Canada is ready to face what is going on at the international level, while the NDP does not agree because it thinks that only our internal economy can solve the problem.

The motion before us today should be supported by the NDP because it asks specifically that Canadians be consulted more extensively. The New Democrats should support the motion. We are not asking them to support the MAI. We are asking them to support the idea that there should be more dialogue, and that this dialogue should include more people.

The New Democratic Party should support the motion. It would not mean it supports the MAI. It would simply mean that it is in favour of having discussions, because the government did not bother to properly inform Canadians, even parliamentarians, on this issue.

You should be ashamed for not supporting at least the idea of an open and honest dialogue between parliamentarians and Canadians.

Supply February 23rd, 1998

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the issue of the MAI.

I would like to provide a little background very quickly. My government colleague said that the MAI is on the Internet and that people have only to call to have a copy sent to them, but someone who is not familiar with this matter may not understand.

What first has to be done is to express the MAI in simple terms so that people will know right off whether it is worth further consideration.

My colleague from Peace River said that it was up to the Liberal government to make it better known. I am sorry. In this corner—since we cannot talk about this side—of the House, we think it is the job of the members of Parliament to meet Canadians and Quebeckers and explain the MAI. It is not just the responsibility of the Liberal government. We know this government too well. If we give it too much responsibility, we already know what will happen. The effect may well be negative.

So it is up to us as parliamentarians to explain the MAI to people. It is not new. Essentially after the second world war trade began to be carried out on a global scale as the result of various agreements and reconstruction agreements.

The Marshall plan in Europe and the massive influx of American capital in Japan in essence established different sorts of free trade systems. That was the start and it progressed very slowly. In the 1960s, things picked up. Unfortunately, there was a Liberal government in power. When investment began circulating, the Prime Minister of the time, Mr. Trudeau, created an agency.

The ultimate aim of this agency was to block foreign investment, to control it. Thank God, a Conservative government followed and changed this agency into Investment Canada, which still exists today and has a much more active role seeking investment abroad and directing it to Canada.

The party of which I am a member has a history of globalization, no matter what, but the same cannot be said for our friends across the way, or our friends next to us. I would be curious to know what the position of each of the Reform MPs was in 1988, when there was an election on the issue of free trade with the U.S. Today, they are all for free trade, but what were their individual positions in 1988?

As we know, our friends across the way wanted to tear up the free trade agreement. Had there not be a free trade agreement to speed up exports, Canada would have had an economic downturn in the past five years. That is as clear as it can be.

I would be very curious to hear the change in their tune. International credibility with respect to globalization belongs to this part of the House, and I would like to share the credit with our friends who were here from the Bloc Quebecois in 1988 and, let us recall, supported free trade along with the majority of Quebeckers and were not afraid to face a world reality.

That said, yes people must be informed. True, but the information must also be given in layman's terms. Our actions must be explained. Investments have already begun, and there are all kinds of agreements. Agreements with the U.S., agreements with Mexico, and one part on investments with Chile. There are many bilateral agreements in place. There is no end to them.

So why is there an agreement? So that light may be cast on a specific aspect of the bilateral agreements: investment. Canada has an important role to play, but it must also protect its culture for, contrary to what Reform may think, culture is also part of our national identity. Such things as environmental standards must be put in place, as well.

We are going to support the Reform Party's motion, which calls for a greater government presence. I will make one very important point in closing. When the free trade agreement was negotiated with the U.S., there were no consultations coast to coast, true. There was something more—an election. Would the government be prepared to call an election today on the MAI? This may be the challenge we are issuing to them.

Iraq February 12th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian troops going to Iraq are not prepared. That is clear. Nor do I believe the minister is prepared to face up to the situation.

There is talk of an anthrax vaccine, we are starting to get information, but it is coming from the United States. It is like the story of the helicopters.

Does the minister find it normal for helicopters to be sent to Iraq that require 30 hours of maintenance after an hour of flight time? Had the government been ready, we would have bought helicopters ages ago and saved Canadian taxpayers $500 million in the process.

Iraq February 12th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this new Iraqi crisis we have had trouble getting any information here in Parliament. The Government refuses to inform the House properly.

Our role here as MPs is to be informed, but we have to get the information from the Pentagon on what the situation really is as far as the safety of our troops is concerned.

How can the Minister of Defence imagine that our troops, even with an inoculation in Crete, will be protected, when he knows that three injections, and four weeks, are required before they are properly protected? It is not true that they will have some protection. Is he going to call up Saddam Hussein and ask him to wait four weeks until our troops are prepared?

Middle East February 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I will start by very briefly addressing three major items.

First, the topic of this evening's debate. This is not a debate, essentially, because there is no opposition of ideas. It is more like a confessional, where everyone goes to relate his petty sins and what he thinks about the Iraq situation. We are extremely disappointed.

Since February 1, we have asked to meet with the Minister of Foreign Affairs—a meeting that was held on Sunday, February 1—with the Minister of National Defence, and with the Prime Minister. They refused, claiming there was no emergency. We also called for an emergency debate in the House, and that too was refused.

As we have seen in the Prime Minister's statement, they are now telling us this evening “We need you, parliamentarians. Parliament does not know what to do, has no position, so now we need you”. That was the purpose of this evening's debate.

When the Prime Minister started to speak, his words seemed more like a declaration of war than anything else. We were given an official position to the effect that Canada was going to support the United States, not the United Nations but the United States, for an armed intervention in Iraq. If you look at what has been said in declarations of war over the last hundred years, what the Prime Minister had to say was similar. “I have no position. I need you.”

When the hon. member for Sherbrooke said that the government had no position, the Minister of Foreign Affairs replied that he had not listened to the Prime Minister, that it did have a position. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke, he said “We have no position. We need you”. I think the government has a real problem of credibility, particularly on the international scene.

The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who then sat in opposition, asked the government of the time to give the assurance that it would not engage in or support any offensive action without first getting the consent of the House, and that such action would be under the aegis of the United Nations.

For the House to give its consent, we must have something to vote on. But I will get back to this later on. It is said that the famous UN Resolution 687 authorizes any intervention. Today, I asked a question in the House regarding this issue. I asked what interpretation the Minister of Foreign Affairs was giving to the resolution.

Again, the resolution was adopted on April 3, 1991. It is not a new resolution. It is reviewed every six months, but it is not a new resolution. It is the resolution which, among other things, asked all countries to leave Iraq and Kuwait.

It provides that all countries must leave Iraq and Kuwait, that the territorial integrity is recognized and must now be preserved. It is a very long resolution which also says we can intervene. At the time, the five major countries on the UN Security Council—China, France, Russia, England and the United States—were all in agreement. Today, China, France and Russia do not agree.

So, before saying we are going to use this resolution to intervene in Iraq, perhaps it might be appropriate to find out, through diplomatic channels, what the Russians, the French and the Chinese are going to do. Will they submit a resolution to the Security Council calling for an amendment to Resolution 687 in the days to come?

Today, questions were put to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He does not seem to be up on things. He says: “Yes, but you know it is not easy”. They seem to be saying we must hurry up and invade Iraq, teach Saddam Hussein a lesson, because there is a danger that Resolution 687 might no longer apply or might be amended.

What we still want is for the government to sit down with parliamentarians. We learned this evening that the foreign affairs committee would be discussing the issue tomorrow.

Once again, I would like to digress for a minute. We were told that the foreign affairs committee might be discussing this issue tomorrow afternoon. There will apparently be a briefing on the Iraq issue. This evening the Prime Minister told us that cabinet would be adopting a position tomorrow morning. The foreign affairs committee will be receiving a briefing, after the government has adopted a position. This is backwards. It makes no sense. It is unbelievable.

Our position remains unchanged. We support the government's position—not that you have one, but the one you are supposed to have. We have a position.

What we are asking you to do is perhaps to share information. This way, you will have the support of this House, which you do not have right now.

Regarding the resolution, I would like for it to be quoted. Also, the Minister of Foreign Affairs should take a clear position with respect to China, Russia and France. And I would like to know, when he has discussions with his counterparts in these three countries about amending Resolution 687, is it only for diplomacy's sake, for publicity, a marketing ploy?

I cannot say that diplomacy is the minister's forte this evening, at least not today. Did you see the reaction the Minister of Foreign Affairs right after his speech, following the hon. member for Sherbrooke? Would you call that diplomacy? As we say where I come from, he lost it. He had a fit on an issue that is not one in this House. What will he do before the security council? How will he deal with China and Russia?

We are quite prepared to co-operate. We did, and so did our leader on Sunday, February 1, when he phoned the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead put in calls to the office of the defence minister. Calls were made on Sunday, February 1, but unfortunately, the minister was away on business. That is understandable. But no one could be reached. On Monday, we were told there was no big rush, that a meeting could be arranged if we wanted one. The United States beat the Government of Canada to it in offering us a briefing. So, I think there are problems.

I want to mention two things in closing, so as not to take too long. I have another quote. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not really like that, but I am going to go ahead with it. In February 1992, following the conflict, the minister, who was a member at the time, said: “It is important for Canada to have a policy in this area. It is important for Canadians to know what policy the federal government will adopt when it is involved in major international initiatives. It is vital we know what goals, objectives and values motivate and colour this sort of initiative. It is not a matter of automatically responding. It is a matter of making choices and decisions and holding a proper public debate”.

I think the minister had the opportunity today to act in accordance with he said in 1990, 1991 and 1992. He did not, and it is very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to put the following motion:

That, when the Government of Canada decides on its reply to the request of the president of the United States for assistance in the Iraqi crisis, the prime minister shall announce that policy to the House of Commons by way of ministerial statement and immediately thereafter there shall be a special question period for not longer than 45 minutes for questions from all parties.

Why? Because we want assurance from the government and the Prime Minister that, before Mr. Clinton, Mr. Blair or whoever is informed of Canada's position, the members of this House will be told. Furthermore, if the government wants the approval of this House, as did at the time the member for Winnipeg South Centre, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, let it bring this motion before the House for debate and a vote. A little solidarity and a little parliamentary work will not hurt.

Iraq February 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the United Nations Security Council still has in hand the resolutions for military intervention. Any major countries, therefore, that do not dare to speak up today are indirectly supporting military intervention in Iraq.

Are the minister and his government going to ask the United Nations Security Council to again make a decision on the Iraq question, or is this government going to settle for the old resolutions?

Iraq February 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council are often mentioned in connection with the Iraq crisis. I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Could the minister tell this House whether his government is of the opinion that the resolutions adopted in the past concerning the Iraq crisis legitimize military intervention in Iraq now?

Ice Storm 1998 February 4th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader said that it is a terrible thing to lose power. Our party has experienced that and it is actually something unpleasant. But what is even more difficult is to lose electrical power, and that is what happened to people in Quebec, in parts of New Brunswick and in Ontario.

We are holding a special debate tonight. People always say that whenever someone has a good idea, the same idea also appears elsewhere. Last week, the Conservative caucus decided to propose a special debate on the ice storm in Quebec and our reformist friends had the same idea. It is very encouraging to see that bright ideas cross the mind of people quite rapidly.

Of course, the present debate is an occasion for gratitude and thanks. Therefore I would like to thank the government, particularly the Prime Minister, but most of all the minister responsible for Human Resources Development in Canada. I must say that my colleague from Shefford and myself have had to contact the minister on a regular basis and he often returned our calls a few minutes later.

I would also like to recognize the work of the President of the Treasury Board. We have not seen him often on the front pages of newspapers or on the television, but he was present.

I also would like to mention all the leaders of the parties represented in this House, MPs, MNAs, elected representatives at the municipal level, especially in my riding of Richmond—Arthabaska which I am honoured to represent.

However, I have a slight problem with what is going on tonight. I feel people are a bit too quick to pat one another on the back. It seems to me people are taking for granted that everything is back to normal in Quebec and Ontario, which is not really the case. One should be cautious. In an emergency debate, one has to carefully weigh one's comments. True, people did a tremendous job, the armed forces were absolutely stupendous, but my riding was outside the infamous triangle, and it was the mayors of towns and villages who had to clamour for help. Event today, there are still some villages that have been forgotten.

What is obvious is that following the natural disaster which hit the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and parts of New Brunswick, the human tragedy is far from over and the economic tragedy is getting worse. I believe we should not be blind to this. It is not right for us to behave this way, going around patting one another in the back, saying what fine people we are et thanking everybody when there are people in the province of Quebec who cannot watch us because they are still without power. There are people who cannot pay the banks, either because that have not worked or because their business has been closed. We must be cautious.

There are many flaws in the system. We talked about the banks earlier. At the beginning of the ice storm, several branches did not co-operate with storm victims. These people will have to lodge complaints against Canadian bankers. After, the situation changed, thank goodness.

There is a problem with insurance companies too. This is not covered by wage insurance or mortgage insurance. Unfortunately, now that the holiday season is over, people have received their credit card statements, municipal taxes will soon be due. So people have a problem.

We must admit there was some confusion. We realize that we were in an emergency situation, but there was confusion. Earlier I had some kind words for the minister of Human Resources Development, and I stand by them. Nevertheless, there again, but certainly not consciously, there was an incredible confusion. I would say that it was total chaos. People did not know whether or not they were admissible to employment insurance.

Nothing is settled yet. Some people applied for employment insurance, but later received a phone call from a federal official saying: “We are sorry, you should return the money, you were not entitled to it”. There are situations like that in Quebec. The problems created by the ice storm are far from over, but we will have to work fast to deal with them.

There are different categories of disaster victims. There are the residents of the infamous triangle. There are the victims of my riding and there are what I would call the “indirect” victims, those who were lucky enough to have power but worked for a company which, on Quebec Hydro's request, had to stop its operations. These people did not get any pay.

As the hon. member for Sherbrooke and my colleague from Shefford were saying, we tend to forget these people. We must learn from all this. Hundreds of phone calls were received by the constituency offices located in the affected regions. What could we say to these people? We were trying to help them, but the answer we gave them were often inconsistent and unclear.

Yesterday, the human resources development minister tried to clarify the situation and I must tell you that, in my riding, it is even worse. What is clear is this: to get employment insurance, you must wait at least two weeks, you must have stopped working for two weeks, otherwise, you cannot get anything. It this clear? It is clear. You will get a cheque faster, but your waiting period of two weeks will remain. The message is clear.

This does not solve the problem. The solution that was suggested does not apply at all.

Also, my colleague and I, with, of course, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who was asking daily about the situation, tried to see what was coming. We knew that power was coming back, but not the money, not the solutions.

We talked earlier about small businesses. Programs must be set up quickly. Some people tell us that all the investments Hydro Quebec will make will revitalize the economy, but, unfortunately, small businesses, those that create economic growth in Canada, will have some difficulty pulling through.

The working capital of these businesses is affected. Working people are no longer motivated. We see cases where people have to negotiate, have to work on weekends and have to do unpaid overtime. There is also a matter of human dignity in this. No rule has been established.

I must tell you one thing. People were comparing the situation with what was going on here in the capital. Thank goodness, public servants have a good collective agreement. People were asked to stay home, but they were getting paid. In my own area, in the riding of Shefford and elsewhere, people were asked not to report to work, but they did not have any money to get by.

Canada must be ready to cope with such disasters, but it was not. Although I am sure everyone did their best.

The finance minister's prebudget consultation document contains a resolution to maintain a balance. And the last resolution in the document says everybody should be aware of the need for emergency preparedness. The government has to realize that we need a special fund with a specific set of rules for natural disasters. The document mentions earthquakes, but it might as well mention floods, ice storms, and so on.

The time has come for the government to implement its own recommendations and be aware of what is going on. People in my party and probably all hon. members in this House are in no mood to hold another emergency debate next year over another ice storm, drought or flood elsewhere. We should move quickly to remedy this situation. We should pass legislation and heighten public awareness of this issue.

Let us talk about insurance companies, for example. I mentioned that a moment ago. Why did we overlook that? It should not be that costly. It is simply a matter of amending policies to get limited coverage of mortgages and salaries. Nobody ever thought about that.

There is a whole structure we have to put in place. We never thought about it but, after three disasters within two or three years, I think it is time to stop talking. We must stop patting ourselves on the back and try to find real solutions. Whether the reason is El Nino, greenhouse gases or anything else, or whether it is punishment for our sins, who knows, we will have to find real long-term solutions for those who are suffering tremendous hardship.

I ask the members of this House to show solidarity and the government to see that solutions can be implemented quickly so that, in the event of another natural disaster, people will never have to go through what they did during the ice storm.

Let us try to always remember one thing: it is the most vulnerable who suffer the most. We hope the government will heed our call. Once again, I thank all those who gave a helping hand and I hope the next step will be to take concrete action, pass legislation and set money aside to help those in need.

Iraq February 2nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, let us continue with this minister. In 1991 this minister refused to support any Canadian intervention under our traditional allied flag. He then said Canadian participation should only be done under the UN flag.

In light of these recent events has the minister changed his position? Will he let Canada support an armed intervention in Iraq that will not be under the UN flag?