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

The Environment October 3rd, 2003

Madam Speaker, the debates that we are having this afternoon are most interesting. I am thinking of the one that just ended because my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel launched a discussion in which I would have liked to take part.

Today, we are also debating a motion dealing with environmental protection. It reads as follows:

That this House call upon the government to take the necessary measures, including the drafting of legislation—

I have some difficulty with that because too often people are under the impression that, if the job does not get done, it is because there is not enough legislation, when we spend our days here passing legislation. Unfortunately, too often our laws are not enforced.

I would say that if the federal government really wanted to protect the environment, we would not need more legislation. Simply enforcing the existing laws would go a long way in achieving results in that area.

I will give you an example. Since I have been elected to Parliament—and I was doing it even before that—I have been working, among other things, on a serious issue that is of great concern to me, namely the pollution caused by the federal government and the Canadian army.

I would like to come back to the problem in Lake Saint-Pierre. When I first raised this issue, I gave an interview to a radio station in Quebec City and the host of the show could hardly believe what I was saying, that the Canadian forces had fired 300,000 shells into Lake Saint-Pierre during the last 50 years. Imagine, 300,000 shells, including 10,000 to 12,000 which could still be live.

It is a serious pollution problem, so serious that it killed one man. In the early 1980s, a worker who had been dreaming about retiring for a long time had restored a sailboat, hoping to take his family around the world. One evening, before the launch of his boat, with the boat finally ready after many years of hard work, he decided to have a party to celebrate the beginning of his life as a retiree. His guests were dancing and singing around a bonfire when someone picked up what he thought was a piece of wood and threw it in the fire. It turned out to be a shell from Lake Saint-Pierre that had washed up onto the beach. It exploded and killed the man who was retiring and injured a few others.

These accidents were the result of pollution by the Canadian Forces. When I prepare my speeches on such subjects, I think that if the legislation were lacking in some respect, I would support the motion. However, I am convinced that the political will to protect our environment is all that is lacking. The problem is that nobody believes there is a problem. I refuse to believe that a few hundred million dollars could not have been taken from the defence budget to train people to clean up following firing exercises on a body of water as big as Lake Saint-Pierre, recognized by UNESCO. The shells still lie on the bottom of the lake and, after each spring thaw, they wash onto the beaches. One spring two years ago, a little girl was playing on the beach and came home with a shell that had washed up on shore after the thaw.

As a result, in the absence of legislation, when we ask the government to accept its responsibilities, this is our goal. However, if the federal government has the political will, it can protect the environment, according to its jurisdiction. I can give another example.

Back in the 1970s, there was the oil and gas crisis. Everyone panicked, certain that we would run out of oil and gas. Consequently, car manufacturers started to make cars that guzzled less gas. In the early 1980s, I remember seeing a Cadillac that consumed about six litres of gas per 100 kilometres.

The previous speaker talked about carbon monoxide pollution. Now that there is an abundant supply of oil and gas, people wonder how to protect the environment, and we allow cars that use up to 20 and 22 litres per 100 kilometres. I refuse to believe that protecting the environment is a priority. If it was, no car would consume that much gas.

What is needed is cars that are both comfortable and environmentally friendly. We know that carbon monoxide causes serious problems for many in cities like Montreal, including children.

I agree with my party on voting in favour of this motion, but only on condition that the federal government be asked to stay within its own jurisdiction. Let it do so. There is plenty for it to do there.

In connection with the state of public finances, for instance, which has already been addressed, when the opposition is told that this is the responsibility of the House, that comes pretty close to blaming the opposition for the mismanagement.

The government has plenty to keep it busy within its own jurisdiction, rather than stirring up trouble and interfering in provincial areas of jurisdiction. Where the municipalities, health services or education are concerned, we can see how the government is constantly trying to interfere in areas that belong to the provinces.

Since we are dealing with the environment, I would like to move an amendment, one I think people will agree with. We must vote in favour of this motion, provided the federal government stays within its own area of jurisdiction. But within that area, it must do its job properly. So let it clean up Lake Saint-Pierre. Let it see that ships, particularly Canada Steamship Lines ships, protect the banks of the St. Lawrence. That is a major problem in Quebec, excessive speed on the St. Lawrence which is destroying the banks.

The shipping company that belongs to the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is probably one of the worst offenders. I live on the edge of the river and I know it is one of the worst offenders as far as not bothering about the river banks is concerned. It refuses to repair the damage it causes. We do not need any special jurisdictions in order to ensure we assume our responsibilities. This government is the one that needs to assume its environmental responsibilities.

I therefore move, pursuant to Standing Order 93:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “necessary measures,” the following: “within its sphere of competence,”.

Guaranteed Income Supplement October 3rd, 2003

Mr. Speaker, while the federal government is squandering public funds in the boondoggle at Human Resources Development Canada, the sponsorship scandal and the Radwanski affair, seniors have to tighten their belts while waiting for the money they are owed under the Guaranteed Income Supplement Program.

Is it not time for the Minister of Human Resources Development to recognize that her department has been negligent and to give seniors the money they are owed, with full retroactivity?

Supply October 2nd, 2003

Madam Speaker, I am a bit shocked by the last two speakers. When the hon. member asked his colleague a question, he said, “How is it that, when we give dedicated funds for health care, for example, the government agrees to lose control of that money?”

I want to ask the hon. members opposite if they realize that this is a confederation and that we each have responsibilities? The provinces have their responsibilities. Quebec and the provinces are responsible for health, education and the municipalities. These are not federal responsibilities.

Refunds by the federal government are quite simply money it took that did not belong to it. This money belongs to the provinces so that they can administer what is under their responsibility.

The answer is, “Yes, clearly there is a real problem here”. The problem lies in the interpretation. Our country's problem is that the federal government is not doing its job. All it has to do is its job, which is to give the provinces the money they need to administer what comes under their responsibility in health, education and municipal affairs.

It is scary to hear this from ministers responsible for managing a country, which is a confederation, where everyone should have their own responsibilities. There is the rub.

International Day of Older Persons September 30th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, October 1, we will celebrate the International Day of Older Persons.

Older people play an important role in our lives and their contributions enrich our communities. They are present in all our local volunteer organizations and are always ready to reach out a helping hand. They are the foundations of our families and the embodiment of wisdom and, as such, deserve society's gratitude.

It is essential that the government ensure that all rights of the men and women who have built our society are respected.

I invite all Quebeckers and all Canadians to take this occasion to celebrate the important contribution of older persons to our society and to encourage relationships based on respect and mutual assistance between the generations.

Supply September 30th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the speech by the hon. member for Joliette. It was like listening to a lecture in applied democracy. It was an extremely interesting speech.

For example, he told us that democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people. He talked about retroactive participation and participatory democracy.

With respect to electoral redistribution, I would like to ask him a question. What really still upsets me is that regions like mine will lose a member of Parliament. It is true as well in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, and both are regions which, in my opinion, need stronger representation. I am thinking of the native communities in the north of my riding.

I would like him to tell me if proportionality would have any chance of correcting these errors in democratic administration. In fact, in our area, we are hardly even a democracy. In an area of some 38,000 km

2

, where there are native people who have the right to be represented but their representative barely has time to meet them, that is certainly not an active form of democracy.

I would like to hear what he has to say on this subject.

Public Safety Act, 2002 September 29th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague for Saint-Jean that he has answered our Liberal colleague's question a second time. That hon. member did not understand the second time either, because the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles gave essentially the same answer. What we want is balance. The hon. member for Saint-Jean has explained it to him again, but I do not think we can find a way to make ourselves understood, which is a bit sad.

There is one aspect of this bill that annoys me. We have talked a great deal about military security zones. Since my hon. friend from Saint-Jean is an expert in that field, I would like him to say something more about these zones.

Just before that, I would like to tell him that in the 1970s a Mr. Samson, an RCMP officer, was caught planting bombs in the name of the FLQ. Unfortunately, the bomb went off in his hand while he was setting it near the residence of former Prime Minister Trudeau, to give the impression that Quebecers were “bad guys”. Then it was discovered that the RCMP was behind it. Thus, as far as trusting the RCMP is concerned—thanks but no thanks.

I would like the hon. member to tell us about military security zones, because I could point out that there are still some 300,000 mortar shells on the bottom of Lake Saint-Pierre, of which 10,000 to 12,000 are still dangerous. Before discussing military security zones, it seems to me that we should require our armed forces to prove that they are keeping us safe at home.

Public Safety Act, 2002 September 29th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity again to ask a question because the protection of privacy is to me a major issue, the one that affects me the most. We cannot compromise people's privacy under the guise of wanting to protect humanity.

As I said earlier, to understand what is at stake here one has to have gone through something similar to what happened to me. For half an hour or an hour—in my case it was short, but in other cases it was longer—one has to have been looking down the barrel of two guns without even knowing what one has done to deserve such a thing. For one hour, which seemed endless to me, I really thought that was the end of the road for me. In my case, it was a police error.

If we keep putting more and more powers into the hands of the police or the RCMP with fewer and fewer limits, the risk of serious privacy-related incidents will become greater and greater. I believe that it would be possible to find a way, in the bill, to set limits on the powers granted to the RCMP. I would like my colleague to comment on that. It is not the last time that I will raise this issue because, when it happened to me, I promised myself that when I got to be a member of the House, I would never allow a piece of legislation to go through if it were to open the door to violations of privacy, as was the case for me.

I want to ask my colleague if he sees a way of asking the RCMP to protect us but requiring that it act responsibly with regard to privacy issues.

Public Safety Act, 2002 September 29th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

Allow me to also express concern about the issue he just raised, namely the powers being given to the RCMP. Like the Privacy Commissioner, I would like to hear more about this.

Having personally had a rather painful experience that could have cost me my life in the 1970s, I can tell you that giving too much power to the RCMP or any police force and seeking to suppress the right to privacy can have dangerous consequences.

In the 1970s, I faced a situation—it lasted all of one hour—which nearly cost me my life because the police mistook me for someone else. Afterwards, the only compensation I received was an apology.

When powers are given to a police force, enabling it to do just about anything, I agree with my hon. colleague when he says that we ought to think twice about it.

It is said that history repeats itself. I also remember that in the 1970s, in Quebec, the RCMP took actions it should never have been allowed to take. What was infringed upon was not only privacy, but also the rights of an entire community. Members certainly remember the mischief committed by the RCMP and crimes others were held responsible for, including some vocal demonstrators of the 1970s.

I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on that, because the public must be made aware of the powers the RCMP is being given. He called on the public to be vigilant, but the government does not want to be vigilant. The Privacy Commissioner is also concerned, and I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on the RCMP's past excesses.

Appointment of Judges September 26th, 2003

Madam Speaker, last spring, my colleague, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, launched this debate on Motion No.288 dealing with the appointment of judges. It is an extremely important debate.

I was listening to the minister's representative who said that, in our democratic system, judges play a leading role. I worked with René Lévesque when he was the Premier of Quebec. I was a member of the National Assembly at the time, and I remember that Mr. Lévesque used to say that there is one thing, pehaps the only thing, worth fighting and dying for, and that is our democratic values. These are the fundamental values of our country.

Given the role judges are increasingly asked to play within our system, I think the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier was right to ask the House to review and reconsider how judges are appointed.

This was done in Quebec, under Mr. Lévesque. It is probably one of the first changes we made after 1976. We reviewed the appointment process for judges, to reduce patronage as much as possible.

I am among those who believe our judicial system is a fair one. It must, however, not just be believed fair, it must also appear to be fair. When people see that judges are appointed by the PMO, they have every reason to think there may be a conflict between an individual's values and political leanings and his or her appointment.

If, for example, we look at the polls, we see that Canadians feel judges have too much power, that they usurp the responsibilities of politicians, and that their judgments reflect partisan imperatives. If that is the public's impression, it means there are some questions that need answers.

Once those questions are asked, perhaps the present solution is the best one. I do not know. I think the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier is entitled to call for this matter to be put on the table, to ensure that the justice system not only is as perfect as possible, but appears to be totally correct and not influenced by political partisanship, a system tht really works for the good of the community.

In my time here in this House, we have had the opportunity to discuss bills that have caused us to wonder, with reason, whether people's freedoms were being encroached upon. I am thinking, for example, of the young offender and antiterrorism act. When we questioned the Prime Minister, his response was that, if people felt they were being disadvantaged, if they had any fears, there was always the possibility of going before the courts. This proves just how significant a role is assigned to the courts. They even have the possibility of striking down an act or parts of an act.

As a citizen, I think I have a right to ask Parliament to look closely at the appointment of judges. Judges have an increasingly important role to play in the life of every citizen; they will play an even greater role in the legislation we are adopting here as it is enforced.

For example, currently there is a great deal of discussion about same sex couples. What does the minister say? He is waiting for the decision by the Supreme Court; he wants to see how far he can go.

Courts are a part of our democratic and legal system. They help us pass laws that are increasingly relevant to the majority of the population. I believe in this system and I believe it is impartial, up to a point. Still, like everyone else, I also believe that the system does not look as impartial as it ought to.

Last spring, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier emphasized that justice must be seen to be done. Personally, I am very pleased that the vote in favour of this motion will likely be unanimous, or close to it, because I heard my Liberal colleague say he would be voting in favour of the motion.

I think that is a plus and additional assurance we can give to the people of Canada. I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, for introducing this discussion. Moreover, I wish to thank in advance all the members in this House who will vote in favour of this motion.

Agriculture September 26th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, since the federal government refused to take its responsibilities, the Government of Quebec was forced to launch the second phase of its own plan to help farm producers who are victims of the mad cow crisis.

The minister should stop talking about the agricultural policy framework because farmers simply do not want it. Does the minister intend to implement a specific program for dealing with the mad cow crisis, as requested by farmers?