Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Bloc MP for Charlesbourg (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2006, with 38% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Chechnya November 26th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the tragic history of Chechnya, marked with 200 years of conflict with powerful Russia, is not over yet.

More than 50 years out of the 19th century were taken up with war between the two, and in the 20th century there were uprisings in 1921, 1924, 1928 and 1936. Stalin saw no way of putting an end to the conflict, so in 1944 he decided to empty Chechnya of its people. Under the pretext that the Chechens were German collaborators, he decided to deport them to Siberia.

Since then, they have come back. Now they are being accused of terrorism rather than collaboration, but their tragic history seems to be repeating itself.

This people will never be conquered by armed strength. Only a negotiated solution will be able to bring peace to a region that has already suffered far too much from war.

World Trade Organization November 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, that did not prevent the premiers from unanimously asking, in the latest provincial premiers' conferences, to present their viewpoints at the WTO table.

The government has said once again that it wants to negotiate in areas not under its jurisdiction. Will the minister agree to not make any commitments in the areas of health and education without provincial agreement, because this is provincial responsibility, not his?

World Trade Organization November 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, when questioned yesterday, the Minister of International Trade was very confused and, especially, very vague on the government's position at the WTO on health and education. This is no surprise, it is not even the federal government's jurisdiction.

How can the minister claim to accurately represent the interests of Canadians in the areas of health and education, in the case of the GATS, for example, when it is not the federal government but the provinces that have expertise and jurisdiction in these areas?

Finance November 15th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, will the minister not admit that the present financial situation of the federal government and of the provinces reveals a serious flaw in the Canadian federal system, namely that the government with the money does not have the responsibilities, while the ones with the responsibilities do not have the money, thanks to him?

Finance November 15th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, today the ministers of finance are meeting together, and one of the main issues they will be addressing is the cumulative cuts in federal transfers to the provinces which have deprived them of some $33 billion.

Will the federal government admit that it has improved its finances at the expense of the provincial budgets and that transfer payments must be restored to their previous levels in order to allow the provinces to reinvest in health and education?

Free Trade Area Of The Americas November 5th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, while Canada, through the Minister for International Trade, wants to champion the participation of civil society in the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas, we noticed that, at the end of the Toronto meeting, NGOs had only had 90 minutes to express their views, while the business sector had had two days.

Why did Canada, which presided the meeting, not deem appropriate to give more time to NGOs and to civil society?

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

My colleague, the member for Chicoutimi, has not yet been heard. I hope that he will rise and, for once, defend the interests of Quebec in the House and that he will do so in a strong voice, with his friends from the Bloc Quebecois.

I would like to quote Jean-Pierre Bernier, of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. The last time I checked, that association was not exactly a supporter of the Bloc Quebecois. Mr. Bernier said:

There is a constitutional issue here, since personal information, in my opinion, comes under provincial jurisdiction, under the heading “Property and Civil Rights”. Therefore, I think it would be very difficult for the federal government to pass legislation dealing exclusively with the protection of personal information. If you are able to relate personal information protection rules to an area of activity where federal authority is not in doubt, you have more chances to occupy the field, if I may put it this way.

This is rather clear, but he is not the only one who thinks so. There is also Michel Venne, a well known and respected journalist in Quebec, who works for Le Devoir , the great newspaper founded by Henri Bourassa in 1910, the motto of which is “Do what you must”. We are doing what we must by opposing this bill.

He wrote: “The justice ministers of the provinces and the territories expressed strong concerns about significant invasions of provincial and territory jurisdiction found in Bill C-54—now Bill C-6. They asked the federal government to withdraw the bill and to consult the provinces and the territories. If the resolution passed in the House of Commons in December 1995 and recognizing Quebec as a distinct society by its language, its culture and its civil code meant anything, Mr. Manley should have provided for an exclusion for Quebec in the original bill”.

This is a quote, I am reading it. According to the Standing Orders of the House, we may name a minister.

In Quebec, there is unanimity against the federal bill. Why is that? Because in Quebec, who have been at the forefront of the area for years or even decades, well before we came to this place, the Liberal government of the day, with the support of the Parti québécois, put in place its own personal data protection system in 1994.

That clearly shows that even at that time, the issue escaped partisan politics that is normal in any democratic society. However, the bill passed by the National Assembly in 1994 was only one element of the legal interest for privacy protection that already existed in Quebec.

As was pointed out earlier by my colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, sections 37 to 40 of the Civil Code already cover the protection of privacy and the Civil Code on which is based all the Quebec legal system is not to be swept aside.

Not only that, but another document which has almost a constitutional value in Quebec, that is, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, also protects privacy. Thus, the Charter, which was adopted in 1974, if I remember well, and the Quebec Civil Code, which has been adopted only recently—we were governed by the Lower Canada Civil Code between 1866 and 1992 or 1993, if my memory serves me right—all demonstrated how important the protection of privacy was for the Quebec legislator.

What is this government doing? Without any consideration not only for the importance that Quebec had given to the protection of privacy but also for the unanimous opinion of Quebecers of all political colours, it has decided to interfere directly in this area. And it is doing it very awkwardly.

I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to withdraw this bill.

I hope that Quebec's members from the Liberal Party of Canada will request the same thing. I hope I will have the opportunity to hear them speaking on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, everybody will understand that it is on a somewhat humble tone that I am speaking today to an issue of such a vital importance, after the many eloquent speeches from my colleagues. I am making reference, among others, to the members from St. Hyacinthe—Bagot, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Rosemont, Trois-Rivières and Frontenac—Megantic. All those who rose before me are only adding, if you will, to my nervousness while I am speaking.

Your attention to this debate and your nods of agreement while we speak are only adding to the determination with which I am expressing myself here today.

On October 19, 1999—a few days before the birth of the first child of a couple that are friends of mine and to whom I wish to say hello—we can talk about an obsession of the federal government, the obsession of uniformity.

We can only go back to the origins of this country, Canada, namely the Constitution Act, 1867. This document—until the fast approaching day when Quebecers will decide to leave democratically, and we are working passionately to that end every day—represents the rules we have to follow.

The Constitution, although plagued with defects was nevertheless sometimes reflecting a certain wisdom. All the colleagues who spoke before me mentioned that section 92.13 of The British North America Act gave the provinces exclusive power on property and civil rights.

But another paragraph which remained almost unnoticed until now in the Constitution is section 94. Section 94 allowed the federal government to ensure the uniformity of legislation in the common law provinces at a time when there were four provinces in Confederation, that is Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This allowed the federal government to standardize legislation in Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but not in Quebec, because it was recognized explicitly, not only in section 92.13 but in section 94 as well, that the legal system in Quebec was distinct, based on a totally different tradition, a civil tradition.

The recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec's legal tradition is not upheld by those who want to be the heirs of the Fathers of Confederation, the current government.

Any observer from another country, or even one landing here from another planet, would say “My goodness, this does not make any sense. The ones defending respect of the Constitution of 1867 are the sovereignists, the ones who want to ensure that Quebec is no longer bound by that document”.

Where are the defenders of federalism? Where are the defenders of the Constitution? They sit opposite, but say nothing. Even those who come from Quebec did not stand up to say “Wait a minute, we will not allow the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec to be flouted, put aside, forgotten, and even, as one my hon. colleagues put it so eloquently, scorned”.

It is of course the Bloc Quebecois' position that I just mentioned, but it is widely shared by numerous stakeholders throughout Quebec.

Once again, the Bloc Quebecois is the voice of Quebec in the federal arena, to the great displeasure of my colleague from Chicoutimi, whose speech I did not hear. I do not know if he rose to speak on this subject.

Bank Of Canada Act October 14th, 1999

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-210, an act to amend the Bank of Canada Act (withdrawal of the thousand dollar note).

Mr. Speaker, on the day following the victory of the Bloc Quebecois hockey team against the Parliament Hill media people's team, I am very pleased to introduce a bill that seeks to have the $1,000 note withdrawn. This bill is supported by police forces in Canada.

Withdrawing the $1,000 note will allow us to lead a more effective fight against money launderers, something most Quebecers and Canadians support.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Prime Minister June 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the question if I am allowed to continue.

Why is the solicitor general refusing to ask the RCMP to conduct an investigation? Is it to protect the Prime Minister? If not, he should ask the RCMP to conduct an investigation, because that is the solicitor general's responsibility.