House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Bloc MP for Gatineau (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 15% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply October 19th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the NDP.

Indeed, we have to pay off some of the debt, but we should not put all our eggs in one basket, as I was saying earlier.

We absolutely must help Canadians and Quebeckers who are struggling, whether economically or socially. The social fabric of a society is of paramount importance.

Programs that help citizens have to be introduced, but we should not neglect the debt. However, we must not pay down the debt at the expense of our fellow human beings.

Business of Supply October 19th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I commend my Conservative colleague. If that is the Conservatives' intention, they will have to prove it.

They could eliminate tax havens. This would help more than cutting funding to groups who need it.

They could stop looting the employment insurance fund like their predecessors did. Since they have been in power, the Conservatives have taken $2 billion from the employment insurance fund. This money comes from employee and employer contributions and the government used it to pay down part of the debt.

By adopting this new attitude they would get to the heart of the problem. They would be taking money and giving it to those who deserve it.

By eliminating tax havens—it was even a campaign issue in the last two federal elections—they would not have to cut assistance to those who need it. Instead they would be taking money from those who do not deserve it.

Business of Supply October 19th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to share the time available to me with my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I rise to speak in the House of Commons for the first time since I was named as the Bloc Québécois Treasury Board critic. I will do everything in my power to honour the example of my late colleague, Benoît Sauvageau, and Odina Desrochers, another Bloc member who filled the same role.

Today, we are discussing a motion by the Liberal Party concerning the cuts of more than a billion dollars made by the Conservative government. These cuts will affect vulnerable groups, organizations and citizens in our society. People whose lives have been shattered by their economic situation will be very much affected by these cuts.

In my remarks today, I will try to deal with three subjects.

First, by cutting one billion dollars the government is not living up to a promise that it made to Quebec in the last election campaign to address the fiscal imbalance. There is no attempt to do that.

Second, we believe the government could have made cuts in its operating expenditures rather than in the programs that affect individual citizens.

Third, we believe that the Conservatives have made ideological cuts. Indeed, they are attacking the most needy, along with minority groups and programs that provide checks and balances on the government. They have refused to consider possible economies in the Department of National Defence. That is why we call these ideological cuts.

Let us agree on one fact. At the end of fiscal year 2005-2006, the federal debt was $481.5 billion, a drop of $81.4 billion from the peak of $562.9 billion in 1996-1997. Expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, the federal debt is now at its lowest level in 24 years.

The point that I want to bring out in my remarks is that the Liberals and the Conservatives must stop attacking the needy members of our society with their budget cuts. They must start thinking about the people of Quebec and Canada, who suffer under this desire to reduce the debt at all costs, with no compassion for the most vulnerable groups in our society, groups who need help. We must help them in those areas where we show concern for people, for individuals, those who should receive help from the government to which they contribute every year through various forms of taxation.

We have a surplus of $13 billion, and indeed a little more. Whether the previous government or this government produced that surplus, the fact remains that it is all taxpayers’ money. This is not Liberal money or Conservative money. It is money from Quebeckers and Canadians.

Yes, we have to pay our debts. There is an old saying that a person who pays his debts increases his wealth. The fact remains that we could use part of that $13 billion to pay down the debt and also use part to help people.

Why not take part of it to help the taxpayers who need some help and not just pay off interest on an accumulated debt when people are suffering in our society?

When we are very rich, when we put our money in the bank and act like Ebenezer Scrooge, we are not showing compassion for people. We are only showing that we are closing our eyes to any realities that do not suit us. We are just trying to look good in an electoral platform, which is purely ideological and has nothing to do with human feelings, with the entreaties of society, whether from agencies or individuals who need help.

Here is an example. A few minutes ago I heard a representative of the cabinet, a parliamentary secretary, saying that they had just cut about 1% of the budget just to reduce expenditures. This $1 billion is 1% too much. Not only was $13 billion paid towards the debt, but a way was also found to cut into the money that had already been put in place. It had been spent, was about to be spent, or its spending had been delayed, but a cut was made nevertheless. It is as though $14 billion had been set aside.

I cannot imagine how the Conservative government can seriously tell us that it is just 1%. Go and tell that to the people who today are suffering from cuts among the first nations or among French-speaking people, people in Canada who no longer are even entitled to challenge governments that do not respect the Canadian Constitution. Go and explain this situation to the people who want to inspect our food to make sure that we do not end up with deaths caused by mad cow disease or food poisoning.

We have to go farther than the bank or the institution that lent us some money. These are mechanisms that will not vanish tomorrow morning. Yes, the mistakes of the past must be corrected. There are deficits in the federal government that have been accumulating since the years of the Trudeau regime. Nevertheless we must not put all our eggs in one basket.

There are human beings in Quebec and Canada and this must be understood at some point. I have heard such ugly things from people on the right as, “Anyway, poor people do not vote.” What a fine social conscience!

We have to help the most vulnerable. We are leaders in this society. That is why we have to help people who have needs and who, all too often, no longer believe in the system. They might stop voting. The participation rate is low. When we see tangible evidence that the most vulnerable people do not come to the system that is supposed to help them, we must ask ourselves whether it might be our responsibility to reach out to them. That one magic word, “humanitarian”, indicates that it is our responsibility to help those who need it most.

We have a $13 billion surplus. Do not make more cuts. That makes no sense. The Liberals can crow about it being their surplus all they want, and the Conservatives can say it is thanks to them, but that is all garbage, because reality is flesh and bone: these are people with a soul, with spirituality, and we have to do whatever we can to help them.

The fiscal imbalance means that the federal government has more money than it needs to tend to its constitutional responsibilities, while the provinces do not have enough for health care, education, income assistance, social services, assistance to municipalities and culture. The fiscal imbalance absolutely must be corrected. What does that mean? It means that the federal government must give Quebec and the other provinces what they have a right to for areas that fall under their constitutional responsibility.

The Conservative government must correct the fiscal imbalance. That is what they promised to do during the last federal election. I hope they will fix it. If they do not, another election may happen sooner than expected.

Canada Labour Code October 18th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) is intended as a humanistic reflection of our society. That is why we ask all members of the 39th Parliament to vote in favour of this bill in principle.

Its aim is to encourage civilized negotiations during labour disputes—during strikes or lockouts—and to reduce picket line violence and the social and psychological problems caused by the stress of labour disputes. It would diminish the resentment that employees feel upon returning to work and foster a just balance and greater transparency in the negotiations between employers and employees.

This bill will ensure that the management and union parties negotiate under the same constraints in order to facilitate a quick and fairer solution.

The bill has several objectives: reduce the number of legal proceedings resulting from strikes and lockouts, shorten the duration of these strikes and lockouts, and reduce the lost income of workers and lost profits of employers.

Here are few figures on this point that are worth considering. Quebec workers whose employer is under federal jurisdiction almost always have a higher number of lost work days.

So although they make up less than 8% of the labour force in Quebec, they accounted for 18% of lost person-days in 2004 and 22.6% of lost person-days in 2003.

This reached a peak in 2002, when 7.3% of Quebec workers were employed in organizations under federal jurisdiction. They were responsible for 48% of the work days lost because of labour disputes.

The number of work days lost because of labour disputes drops when there is anti-strikebreaker legislation. Here are a few figures: the average number of work days in 1976, before the anti-strikebreaker law in Quebec, was 39.4; afterward, it fell to 32.8 in 1979 and 27.4 in 2001.

In British Columbia, which enacted an anti-strikebreaker law in 1993, the ratio of lost time fell by 50% from 1992 to 1993.

Workers who are subject to the Quebec Labour Code averaged 15.9 lost work days from 1992 to 2002. Workers who were subject to the Canada Labour Code averaged 31.1. For every 1,000 employees subject to the Quebec Labour Code there were 121 lost work days from 1992 to 2002; for workers subject to the Canada Labour Code there were 266.3.

The 10-month dispute at Vidéotron alone resulted in a loss of 355 work days in Quebec in 2002. This was more than a third of all work days lost because of a strike or lockout in Quebec in 2002.

The year 2002 was a record one in terms of person-days lost. It is important to note that this unfortunate record is largely attributable to strikes in organizations under federal jurisdiction. Those strikes last much longer.

If a majority of the House of Commons votes for this bill, this will be an opportunity for parliamentarians and every actor in civil society to take a position on this kind of legislation to amend the Canada Labour Code in the course of a debate on its merits.

Witnesses from every background will be able to express their views to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities of Canada, right here in this institution.

By voting for this bill, members of the House of Commons will ensure, for the first time in the 10 attempts that have been made since the early 1990s to have this bill enacted, that a debate that can only be beneficial to labour relations makes it onto the agenda.

In so doing, we will together be engaged in the worthy cause of recognizing the exceptional contribution made by everyone who goes out to work every day to build our societies.

Situation in Sudan October 3rd, 2006

Mr. Chair, the situation in Darfur, the topic of tonight's debate, constitutes a horrible humanitarian disaster. Unfortunately, such disasters are also happening in places other than Darfur, but since that is the subject under debate, I shall return to that issue.

I have a question for my colleague. This crisis has been going on since the 1980s. This has been a catastrophe for over 20 years. The situation has become even more serious since 2003, leading to an imposed peace treaty in May 2006. However, international players now recognize that these efforts failed, since there are still too many people being killed under fire by individuals who lead a government that does not respect human rights.

I would like to know what my colleague proposes as a solution to lead the government of Khartoum to genuinely participate in a process to find a resolution?

Situation in Sudan October 3rd, 2006

Mr. Chair, the situation in Darfur is critical, if not genocidal.

What does my colleague think Canada and other countries that really want to help resolve the situation in Darfur should do? What should we do to make the government in Khartoum face reality and become a positive player in fixing the problem in Sudan?

Situation in Sudan October 3rd, 2006

Mr. Chair, we are here tonight for a take note debate on the situation in Darfur. We know that the situation has been deteriorating for over 20 years, that Khartoum is not cooperating and we are dealing with the problem of getting humanitarian aid to the people affected.

My question for the minister is this: how long are we going to wait for the Khartoum government, that is, Omar al-Bashir, before we act? Must we wait as the genocide continues? Or is Canada currently in a position to reach a solution to this situation, one that goes beyond humanitarian aid?

Situation in Sudan October 3rd, 2006

Mr. Chair, the crisis in Darfur is considered to have begun in the 1980s, but it was not until 2003 that the international community suffered the repercussions and began to take notice of what was happening there. Still, since 2003, countries outside Sudan have seemed reluctant to get involved in this situation, which is nonetheless catastrophic.

My question for the hon. member is this: what should be done to ensure that the international community can act as quickly as possible in a situation where it is generally recognized that a genocide appears to be unfolding?

Government Programs September 29th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, this government's ideological choices are nothing new. The decision to cut the court challenges program dates back further. Indeed, in academic texts of his, the Prime Minister's chief of staff stated that the court challenges program only helped the “haves”, namely women, francophones and gays.

Will the Prime Minister admit that it is totally unjustified to cut the court challenges program based on the outlandish idea—

Véronique Rivest September 29th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am delighted to congratulate Véronique Rivest, of Gatineau, who was awarded the distinction of best sommelier in Canada by the Canadian Association of Professional Sommeliers.

Ms. Rivest won the award on September 16, 2006, at the Institut du Tourisme et d'Hôtellerie du Québec, in Montreal, which hosted the first edition of Canada’s best sommelier competition. She will represent Canada at the world’s best sommelier competition in Barcelona, Spain, in March 2007. Ms. Rivest also won the title of best sommelier in Quebec in May of this year.

We wish Gatineau's Véronique Rivest the best of luck at the international competition; we would love to see her win this prestigious award.