House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Bloc MP for Saint-Maurice—Champlain (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2004, with 55% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply May 6th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. Since he comes from the maritimes, he knows what we are talking about when it comes to cuts in employment insurance or the difficulties some workers have in getting employment insurance. He mentioned that we should take advantage of the last few days or weeks before the election is called to resolve the employment insurance problem. We have a golden opportunity to do so today.

Can he explain why the Liberal party refused to make this motion, a motion that is highly commendable in my view, votable? We could have resolved this problem once and for all before the election and kept it from becoming an eternal election promise never to be fulfilled.

Supply May 6th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speakers since the beginning. This is the second member to speak on behalf of the government on this extremely important motion.

There is one thing that saddens me in the speech we have just heard. The hon. member has explained what a seasonal worker is. He has explained various things about what kinds of seasonal workers there are in Canada. I think we know this.

The motion asks the government to make an effort to solve the problem of those who are eligible for benefits but who do not receive them. These people know very well who they are.

I heard the government representative say that employment insurance is a tool for economic and social development. He also said it was a tool available to the government. The government wields this tool so well that it makes the workers pay $45 billion, and, instead of giving benefits to those who are and should be entitled to them, the government takes the money to pay off the national debt.

I do not understand my colleague's speech and I would like him to tell me whether it is normal that workers who contribute to the employment insurance fund are penalized. This insurance fund belongs to those who contribute, not to those who do not contribute, and not to the government.

Let us take the example of the POWA. More than 15,000 workers were covered by this program and needed it. It was abolished. These people had paid into employment insurance all their working lives. At the age of 55, if they lost their jobs, the POWA helped them get through this difficult period, but the program has been abolished.

Does the member think it normal that the government banks this money rather than using it for the benefit of the workers who contributed it?

Budget Implementation Act, 2004 May 4th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, my comment will be very brief, although I have enough material to speak much longer. I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I too am insulted when I hear all these false claims about the cause of poverty. We know that, during an election campaign, poverty is worth a lot, but when the time comes to do something about the problem and keep one's promises, the poor are left to fend for themselves.

Does my colleague think that the employment insurance fund and the $45 billion that has been taken from the workers, the $3 billion in guaranteed income supplement that has been stolen from seniors, and the billion for Canadian unity, which was wasted and found its way into the pockets of the buddies, mostly—

Budget Implementation Act, 2004 May 4th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to revisit the EI question, because this is one of the points we hear raised the most in our ridings.

This is robbery and we must not be embarrassed to call it such. It is robbery. The workers have been robbed. Those who earn under $39,000 a year have paid 100% into employment insurance, and this is a major money diversion.

This is what I am asking my colleague, who is very familiar with this matter. What percentage of workers were covered by EI before the Liberals came along and laid their hands on the fund? Today, as my colleague has said, only 39% of contributors are entitled to draw benefits.

That number used to be far higher. We are talking of a surplus of $45 billion—the figure we have been talking about for some time now—but we are aware that the total theft is now up to past $50 billion.

The second thing I would like to ask is what percentage of the EI fund comes from the government's contribution, or do only the workers contribute?

Older Workers May 4th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, let us hope for everyone's sake that this minister is also here for the short term.

The Prime Minister keeps saying that he wants to govern. To govern is to make decisions. The labour unions are demanding changes.

I want to know what he is waiting for to reinstate POWA as he promised.

Older Workers May 4th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, before coming to power, the Liberals presented petitions signed by thousands of people calling for the continuation of the Program for Older Worker Adjustment. The Prime Minister himself demonstrated in Montreal and promised to improve the POWA once in power. Once elected, he did not waste any time abolishing it.

Could the Prime Minister keep his promises for once and reinstate POWA, as he promised several times, to workers in Sherbrooke in particular, in 2000?

Softwood Lumber April 30th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, the NAFTA ruling gives the United States three weeks to lift countervailing and anti-dumping duties on softwood lumber from Quebec and Canada.

Can the minister assure us that the softwood lumber dispute will be resolved in full compliance with the ruling and that there will be full reimbursement of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties to the companies that paid them?

Old Age Security Act April 21st, 2004

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-515, an act to amend the Old Age Security (monthly guaranteed income supplement).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to oblige the government to reimburse the $3 billion it owes in guaranteed income supplements to the elderly from whom it has been withheld.

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

Avian Flu April 20th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to this evening's debate on the avian flu.

Over the past 12 months we have gone through various experiences in Canada with agriculture-related diseases that affect our livestock. We all know about mad cow disease, which is still causing major problems throughout Canada, including in Quebec, some 4,000 km from the source of the disease. Farmers are paying the price for a disease that, in my opinion, was not so serious and existed very far away from the major herds in Quebec.

Avian flu is a highly contagious disease and is transmitted to birds in general, including wild and domestic birds, and even those kept as pets. It should be noted that this disease is not easily transmitted to humans.

When such an epidemic strikes, it is essential to prevent the public from panicking, thinking that it poses a risk to humans. Avian influenza could be contracted by humans only through close contact with birds, for example by individuals working in poultry houses or with poultry, thereby increasing their risk of contracting the virus. There are only one or two cases where humans have contracted avian influenza. So, it is important that the public knows that there is no cause for panic here.

At the same time, it is important to take all the necessary measures to control this disease. People in Vancouver and British Colombia are not responsible for the outbreak of this disease, but I think that we must congratulate them for taking the necessary precautions to prevent the disease from spreading any further.

Thirty-one farms are said to be affected. Despite the precautions, we see just how easy it is for the disease to spread from farm to farm, particularly among poultry farms. I heard comments, for example, about the way poultry carcasses were buried or burned, and people mentioned the risk of crows and wild animals carrying and spreading the disease, causing more serious problems.

I personally had the opportunity to work in this field; I used to inspect such farms. I can tell you that one can never be too careful about contact between farms. The minister said that it is absolutely essential for visitors to take all the necessary precautions, and I fully agree. The cars and trucks driven by those needing to visit such farms must be inspected. It is absolutely essential that the necessary efforts be made so that, at that level, the disease is not spread within a riding or outside it.

Enormous damage has already been done. We can imagine what this means for poultry farmers who have to slaughter their entire stock and sterilize all their equipment.

This is a fairly considerable loss of revenue, a major financial loss. I hope that the minister will look to providing assistance for these people, who are not responsible for such an epidemic in their area.

Often people think that there is substantial assistance when there is reimbursement of the value of a slaughtered bird. I can tell you from experience that this is not true. When birds are slaughtered, it is often in a quarantine situation and so a great deal of expense is incurred to ensure that the entire farm and its surroundings are sterilized. This is a very expensive undertaking.

As I said, people ought not to panic in this case because this is a disease rarely transmitted to humans. The necessary precautions must be taken, however, to ensure farms are inspected.

I would like to congratulate the minister in this instance, because action was taken quickly enough that the disease is so far limited to only one region of British Columbia. In fact, all 31 affected farms are in the same area.

Had the same been done, or had there been perhaps a little less panic about mad cow, the burden on the taxpayer would have been far less.

As I have already said, Quebec producers have suffered, and are still suffering, financially because of one mad cow 4,000 km away. That time they did not deal with only the area in which there was an epidemic and so the whole country suffered.

Now, at least where avian flu is concerned, they do know how to monitor the situation, so the rest of the industry will not suffer if all necessary precautions are taken. Precautions must be taken, and we can never take too many if we want other countries to continue to trade with us. Let us keep in mind how heavy the cost was in the case of mad cow, because the border was closed down.

We know that the entire poultry production is quota-driven. This is what is called supply management. Because of the 19 million chickens to be slaughtered—and we hope that is as high as the number will go—there will be a shortage, and we will have to accept imports. Caution is in order, however, because the entire supply management system cannot be made to suffer from the presence of this disease in one part of the country. This is why the import licences for poultry must be temporary ones.

What the farmer fears is that the border will open to quota-free imports and that this will become a habit. We will be very tough about this. The Bloc Quebecois agrees with quota-free imports for replacing the losses, but not if this creates a poultry shortage here. Nonetheless, this needs to be limited to this case exclusively, in other words, temporary permits need to be granted.

In my opinion, with specialization in agriculture and the huge size of farms, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food should, in the future, be more cautious and increase the number of inspectors and surveillance of farms.

Farmers need to be encouraged to conduct their own surveillance in order to limit as much as possible epidemics that could be extremely serious for all large-scale cattle or poultry farmers. I am certain that inspecting farms and taking precautions to contain diseases such as this one will prevent epidemics that could be extremely serious for all farmers.

Sometimes when I would visit farms with 100,000 chickens, or 20,000, 25,000 or 30,000 turkeys, I would say to myself that it would be catastrophic if ever we had to cull all this poultry because of a disease that might spread across the country. We know this type of poultry breeding exists throughout the country.

We have to applaud the fact that the current threat was limited only to the Fraser Valley in British Columbia. All the stakeholders who have to work in agriculture must take extreme precautions to ensure that there is as little risk as possible of epidemic in the future.

I am pleased that we are having this debate tonight because this is a major problem. Naturally, I call upon the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to help those who are suffering the impact of the avian flu. We are ready to offer our assistance in replacing the destroyed birds by imports as far as possible. Nevertheless, as I was saying, the import permits must be temporary.

The minister replied earlier to some of the questions I had. I was wondering, for example, what would happen if someone had to destroy a flock of very expensive animals, such as emus. I do not know if there are any in the region affected by this disease, but here in Quebec there are several farms that raise these extremely expensive birds, which can cost many hundreds of dollars each.

In such a case, do we have the necessary provisions to compensate producers if, unfortunately, such farms were affected by this disease? The birds would have to be slaughtered if that happened.

Perhaps we will have an opportunity to ask a few more questions of the minister. Right now, however, people are living with insecurity. They wonder what will happen if a similar disease were to strike farms raising specialized fowl whose unit value is infinitely greater than that of a chicken or a turkey.

We were speaking about geese earlier. I know that in Quebec—and perhaps not only in Quebec—there are emus and ostriches that cost around $1,000 each. Can we guarantee that we will help these producers or the producers in the region where fowl are being destroyed, if they have that kind of farm?

I thank you for proposing this debate this evening. I think it is an extremely important one. We expect the minister to take precautions to pay the producers who are facing this disease, but we also want him to take the opportunity, perhaps, to add some inspectors and veterinarians. With the quality and the large scale of our farms, we must take the precaution of increasing safety so that no catastrophe occurs, which could be disastrous for all of Quebec and Canadian agriculture.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act April 20th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I want to ask my colleague a question. I also wanted to ask the member for Drummond a question earlier.

I was a member of the Quebec government in 1984, when it recognized the right of aboriginal peoples to the full rights granted all peoples. René Lévesque was perhaps among those who had the most respect for the aboriginal peoples in general, and the first nations in particular. In fact, we have inherited their work, since they were here well before us.

Can the member tell me why the federal government has treated these people like some kind of minority since 1984—and that was already late? What are the advantages of being paternalistic toward people who would make significant contributions to the community if their rights were fully recognized, as any other peoples in the world? This would greatly benefit us. Can he tell me the answer?

This was in 1984, 20 years ago already. However, even if Quebec has officially recognized the aboriginal peoples, current legislation is still paternalistic. Can the member enlighten me, given his federal political experience?