Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Liberal MP for Papineau (Québec)

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

Statements in the House

Health February 25th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, in any event, one thing is certain: the Bloc is going down in the polls. It has lost nine points in one week. We do know where the Bloc is going.

As for health care, our government has made a very strong commitment to make it our priority. The next federal-provincial conference, which the Prime Minister has promised to hold this summer with the premiers, will follow a meeting of finance ministers and a meeting of health ministers on the matter. We are going to ensure the long-term sustainability of our health care system in Canada.

Health February 25th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, of course, the Canadian health care system is the number one priority for all Canadians. Obviously, this is reflected by our own government. Barely two months after becoming the Prime Minister of Canada, the latter held a federal-provincial meeting with the provincial premiers, where most of the discussion focussed on health.

We are committed to the values of the Canadian health care system. This is our priority. The finance ministers talked about it last week. We will be holding another federal-provincial conference on the health care system this summer.

Pharmaceuticals February 24th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve raises a problem that is very important to our government.

Health Canada has not yet seen any signs that we will run short of certain drugs on the Canadian market. But I can assure the hon. members that we are monitoring the situation very closely and that we are going to do everything we can so that the Canadian market will continue to be supplied by all pharmaceutical companies.

French Language Health Care Services February 23rd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, this morning, my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, who is the government deputy House leader, and I were at the Cité collégiale to announce an investment of $119 million over the next five years to improve access to French language health care services for francophones across the country.

The money will go to initiatives called for by the country's official language communities and developed in close cooperation with them.

Through this program, students will be able to study in French—their own language—and practice in their language, ensuring that health care services are provided in French.

Health February 23rd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to review any particular complaint that anyone has about the violation of the Canada Health Act. If the member of Parliament has precise cases to bring to our attention, she should please do so. However, in the meantime we should see that the government is standing by the Canada Health Act in defending every one of its five principles, as every one of them is widely supported by a vast majority of Canadians across the land.

Health February 23rd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, at least someone is paying attention to the situation of health, which is the number one priority of Canada. I was quite scandalized to hear the Conservatives continuing to talk sponsorship when we were talking about Haiti, as if they do not care at all about foreign affairs.

On this side, we will stand by the five conditions of the Canada Health Act. We believe in the universality of our system. We are attached to it, and we will defend it across Canada.

Official Languages February 18th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent and timely question. Today at noon, in fact, I had lunch with the ministers responsible for each of the parts of the action plan for official languages.

I noted that the ministers around the table were very enthusiastic and committed to promoting the action plan in favour of the linguistic communities in this country. I saw that they wanted to keep their sights on the action plan as a priority over the next five years.

As the House is aware, the Minister of Finance recently announced in Regina that he fully intends to honour the $751 million commitment.

Supply February 17th, 2004

Madam Speaker, I find it incredible that we are now saying that the Liberal Party is corrupt and so on. The word corruption does not even appear in the report of the Auditor General of Canada. She brings to our attention a certain number of facts that are troubling. The government is determined to get to the bottom of that.

I can tell members that the word corruption does not appear in her report. She says that she does not have the facts that would allow her to know where the money went. This is the sort of thing that we will see.

I understand that the police have been working for two years on a certain number of cases that have been brought to their attention by the first Auditor General's report. I understand that they have 10 or 12 files. It certainly means that there has been work done in this area.

From the Auditor General's report, there was an internal audit at one stage. In May 2002, Ran Quail, the deputy minister said that the first internal audit revealed mismanagement; however, he did not reveal that there had been any fraud. At that stage the three files on Groupaction were not part of his internal audit; however, he said that at that moment there had been mismanagement and that there were difficulties in identifying how things were going. He said there was no evidence of any fraud.

The opposition says we should have known. In June 2002 the deputy minister went on record based on the internal audit. The opposition apparently knows things that even the Auditor General does not know in her own report at this time.

Let the public inquiry do its work and let the police continue their investigation. Let the public accounts committee do its work. That is the way that we will get to the bottom of this.

Supply February 17th, 2004

Madam Speaker, I too wish to congratulate you on your new position as Chair of our House. This is an important position, which obviously commands great respect.

I want to thank you for allowing me to rise today to speak on this motion, whose wording is certainly excessive, but which gives us an opportunity to take a good look at how a Liberal government handles public funds.

I listened to the presentation of the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona earlier. He said our government had no respect for public funds, for the taxpayers' hard-earned money.

My constituents, in Papineau—Saint-Denis, are fully aware of the fact that no other government in the history of this country has done more to look to the future in terms of public spending, instead of allowing the absolutely staggering debt load to continue to grow, which is what used to happen.

I am very happy that the member for Edmonton—Strathcona said that we have disrespect for taxpayers' dollars. It will get the public thinking, and it will remember that our government is the one that eliminated the $42 billion deficit inherited from the Conservative government. Note that the Alliance Party is now the Conservative Party, therefore inheriting the Conservatives' legacy.

This legacy was a $42 billion deficit. In those days, governments kept on borrowing, knowing full well that the day would come when it would have to be paid back using the taxes paid by Canadians.

We have eliminated this $42 billion deficit, out of respect for the taxes paid by Canadians.

The Prime Minister, who was finance minister at the time, did a tremendous job, in respecting public funds. We have carried out very painful program reviews, in which program upon program was reviewed to ensure that we were respecting the taxpayers' money.

Is this program still relevant to the Canadian economy or society? Would that one better meet our needs? Very painful program reviews were conducted out of respect for taxpayers' money.

Therefore, we are the only country in the world, the only country in the G-7, one of the rare countries in the OECD now, that has a budget surplus, and is no longer in a deficit situation. We are the only country in the G-7 to have a surplus and not a deficit because of our government's prudent management of public funds.

It was our Liberal government that modernized employment insurance benefits. We were the ones who got the employment insurance fund out of its deficit position, where it had been year after year, with the government putting in the taxpayers' money. We were the ones who turned this deficit into a surplus, and now we are taken to task for having an EI fund surplus because they say it is excessive.

In any case, at least, the taxpayers' money is no longer going to prop up the employment insurance fund that was running at a deficit. It is precisely because we respect the taxpayers' contributions that the EI fund has finally done this.

In all the world, our country has become a model for its respect for the taxpayers' money. It is clear now that there were some mistakes made in the sponsorship file. Some very disturbing facts have been brought to our attention by the Auditor General.

Furthermore, I would like to point out one thing. The word “corruption” does not appear in the Auditor General's report. She pointed out some worrisome facts to us—serious facts we have been considering for several years. We are being asked, “Where was the Prime Minister all those years?”

We are the ones who called for an internal audit in the Department of Public Works and Government Services when the allegations were first heard. The Deputy Minister, Mr. Quail, came and told us, in mid-2002, that, despite the fact that the three Groupaction reports were not included in the internal audit, there was no evidence of corruption or dishonesty at that time. That is what the internal audit report said.

Unfortunately, later on, some facts came to light that were sufficiently serious to be brought to the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP is now carrying out criminal investigations based on the facts that the Auditor General's activities had uncovered over a two-year period. It cannot be said that we have done nothing.

The new government led by the current Prime Minister shut down the program the day after the new government was formed, that is, December 13, 2003.

As a government, we have made some extremely radical decisions. We have created a commission to carry out an independent, public judicial inquiry. Now the opposition is asking us to tell that inquiry to produce its report quickly, and to impose upon it a deadline and other restrictions on this and that. We will not set a time limit. We trust it will work expeditiously, but also that it will go into the matter thoroughly, so that we will have recommendations to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again.

We set up the Standing Committee on Public Accounts very quickly. It is the only House committee already in place. Its chair is an opposition member. We made sure it would be the first parliamentary committee prepared to start work, and we have already assured it of this government's full cooperation.

We have given a special mandate to a legal counsel specialized in the recovery of funds, in order to trace any funds that may have been misdirected. This specialist, who is not involved in criminal cases, will also be able to recover these funds in civil proceedings.

We have undertaken management reforms. Legislation protecting whistleblowers will ensure that public servants who get wind of certain crooked dealings are protected by a statute under which they can report these facts to the appropriate authority. We are enforcing the Financial Administration Act.

This government has acted, will act and intends to do everything in its power to prevent any future repetition of troubling events such as those now being brought to light.

I want to take the few minutes I have remaining to defend Quebec's reputation, which has taken quite a beating throughout the country. It is unfortunate that people want to associate all of Quebec with certain crooked dealings by a limited number of individuals who will have to answer for their actions.

However, I must say one thing. There have been difficult political situations in provinces other than Quebec, such as British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. They have happened everywhere and under other governments too.

Quebec is even the first society to get its fiscal house and political party financing in order. The Lesage government, a Liberal government in the early 1960s, initiated this initiative to clean up political campaign funds to free political parties from the sometimes, but not always, unhealthy influence of money.

This reform, begun under the Lesage government, was continued by René Lévesque and the Parti Quebecois, in Quebec City, to the extent that this society influenced the Liberal government to adopt Bill C-24, last year, to improve political party financing.

This was an indepth reform, which the Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives opposed. They were against reforming contributions to campaign funds, preferring to leave things in the dark.

Now, I want to come back to what we said about Quebec.

Now I would like to say it in English, if no one minds, so that my English speaking friends around the country know that there have been political difficulties and political corruption in all Canadian provinces and societies. I find it extremely sad when I hear anything close to the Quebec bashing that I have been hearing in the last few days.

I would like to say how much Quebec in the last 40 years has been a society that has contributed to the progress of cleaner electoral and managerial health in our public finances. It is the first society that has brought forward legislation to free up political parties with respect to election funds.

The progress that has been made in Quebec in the last few years is very important. I am very proud that it is the Quebec society that has influenced the Liberal government to free up political parties from any influence from big business by making sure that party funds will now be public. I think it is great progress for democracy.

Supply February 17th, 2004

I am the one who called the police.