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

Regional Development December 9th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, in the northern part of my riding, the town of Parent, located 275 km from La Tuque, is completely isolated. Its only link to surrounding urban centres is a single unsurfaced road and an airport with a dirt airstrip.

In light of the risks facing the population of this town and surrounding reserves if a disaster were to happen, or just to meet the development needs of this area, the municipality of La Tuque has requested the assistance of the Department of Transport to make the area safe and foster its development by asphalting the airport's only airstrip.

This project should have had the approval of the Minister of Transport, if he really believes in regional development, yet the assistance was denied. The Minister of Transport has not fully grasped this urgent need. This is why we are urging him to reconsider his decision as soon as possible.

Department of Social Development Act December 7th, 2004

If that is the case, I had asked to speak.

If we were at questions and comments I could give up my turn. However, since we are resuming debate, I would like to say that I had asked to speak.

Department of Social Development Act December 7th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to my colleague. I just wanted to know whether we were at the question and comment period or whether we were resuming debate.

Department of Social Development Act December 7th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, if there are questions or comments I will give up my turn. If not, I would like to continue the debate.

Supply December 2nd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, but I can tell him immediately that, at this time, producers need $241 million to be able to weather the crisis. In the best of cases, it will probably take six months before the borders reopen. It seems that we are in no hurry to have the borders reopen. Mr. Bush was quick to pick up our invitation. But we were not in such a hurry to ask him to solve the problem concerning the opening of the American border to our beef exports.

In the last few years, we have asked many questions about the crisis with mad cow disease, but you have yet to find a solution to this problem.

Supply December 2nd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I have been badly misunderstood. I do not condemn the minister for not being here but rather for being here at this time. I condemn him for not having taken three hours of his time today to go and meet the producers in Quebec City. It was his duty to go there today. And he could have been back here on time.

I was my party's agriculture critic under the former agriculture minister, and I remember going with him to meet producers in Montreal, and we were back on time for question period. This minister could have done that, but he was too afraid to go to Quebec City. He has disappointed the farmers, and they will certainly not forget.

How much is the farm industry worth? Is it possible to put a dollar value on an industry that is feeding the Canadian people? We should help this industry in a time of crisis. It is a good investment.

Supply December 2nd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for d'Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I am pleased to be taking part in today's debate, which is of major significance for the survival of agriculture in Quebec and in a number of provinces, too. I am happy with the motion which has been tabled by the member for Montcalm and reads as follows:

In light of the inadequacy of current federal assistance, that this House call upon the government to implement specific measures as soon as possible to help the cattle and cull cattle producers who are suffering the impact of the mad cow crisis.

The current state of agriculture in Quebec is a scandal.This is due for the most part to the federal government and to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, not necessarily the current one, because things began before him.

I can address this in full knowledge of the facts, as I worked for a good forty years with agricultural organizations in Quebec. I worked for large businesses, which provided feed for cattle and for farms in general. I was sales manager for similar businesses. Later, I worked in the area of agricultural trade unions.

At least since 1965 and 1970, I was very involved. Being myself the son of a farmer, I know a little what I am talking about. When we see where agriculture was in the 1960s and the giant step that producers made in Quebec, they certainly did not deserve to have the federal government pull a fast one on them.

The work that had to be done to ensure that all Quebeckers would be proud of agriculture in Quebec was incredible. I heard my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin say how, as a city dweller and a consumer, he is proud of Quebec, of producers and the food consumed in Quebec, because this is part of our success. When we talk about a Quebec plan, agriculture comes first.

I also had the opportunity to work with one of the then ministers of agriculture, who did a lot to further improve Quebec's agriculture and put it on the map. Quebec was the envy not only of the other provinces, but also of European countries and many other countries in the world.

I remember when Jean Garon was the minister of agriculture and I was chairing the agricultural caucus we made giant strides. We managed to control and maintain green space through the act to preserve agricultural land. Despite this act, the federal government managed to steal Mirabel, which was practically the nicest garden in Quebec. It settled there and expropriated nice land. Despite that, we managed to make agriculture extremely viable and enviable in all sectors in Quebec.

We had to deal with the mad cow disease 5,000 kilometres away from home, when, for the last four years, we had all the traceability measures to follow our animals from birth to the plate. We had everything to do it right and be protected, and we had to deal with the mad cow disease some 5,000 kilometres away from home, where there no contact between Quebec and western Canada. Transportation is not in the East West corridor, but in the North South corridor instead.

The government refused to get involved in the region. Since Quebec farmers are mostly dairy producers, they end up with a lot of cull cows. We produce 50% of Canada's milk. The cull cow issue strikes at the very heart of Quebec farming.

Given the federal government's lack of compassion, for the past three years, ever since the infamous mad cow was discovered, Quebec has been paying while it was previously way ahead of everybody else in terms of protection and quality of farms and herds. Under the supply management agency, we were ahead of everyone else and were making not only Quebeckers but all Canadians very proud.

I was first elected here in 2000 and have always sat on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. When stakeholders from across Canada came to testify before the committee, we talked about the management plans in force in Quebec, the herds in Quebec and the quality of our agriculture. I remember one person from Alberta in particular who told us that Quebec was ahead of his own province.

I put a question to the former minister of agriculture to find out why he wanted to implement his agricultural support program, standardize agriculture from sea to sea, when we did not need it, because we already had our own plans. He acknowledged that Quebec was a bit ahead of everyone else but gave the province three years for things to stabilize and start to slow down, which would bring Quebec to everybody else's level. I must say they were very successful with the mad cow disease. They threw a major roadblock in the path of Quebec producers. Former professionals, they now have to manage, without any help, a crisis not of their own doing.

The government says it has given a certain amount of money. Let us see the results in the fields and for those who have been deprived and are forced to sell a cow for 7¢. The hon. member for Montcalm has with him a cheque for 55¢; this is the sale price of a cow which had been worth $1,000. Imagine the situation of farmer, who should normally be able to retire. His pension fund, which was invested in the stables and in the fields, has become worthless.

When asked to show a little more sensitivity, the government answers that things are going well and that it has given a lot of money. We should look at all the money that farmers have lost because of the government. This is what should be taken into consideration in terms of helping farmers out of their present situation.

They are in dire straits. The government will do anything. Even today, members will recall the lame excuse given by the minister for not meeting producers in Quebec. My own leader offered the minister the use of his plane this morning to go and meet producers in Quebec, so that they could try to make him aware of their problems.

Producers are a group we are very proud of, a group which has worked wonders and which, for the last 50 years, has been a model of development, competence and professionalism. Today, these producers are discouraged, so much so that some of them have committed suicide. Meanwhile, the minister refuses to move and he is afraid to meet producers. This is a sad situation. I can understand why my colleague from Montcalm is asking the House to try to make the government sensitive to the situation.

There is enough money. We have to overcome a crisis which is affecting Quebec and other provinces. I talk mainly about Quebec because that is where an overwhelming majority of dairy producers are found. It is not by remaining seated and laughing at our speeches that the government will help Quebec's producers and others across the country who are facing this problem.

Finally, I would ask the minister to show some sensitivity to all the work which has been done. Today, if we have producers whom we are all very proud of, we should help them to stay alive and overcome this situation. We should try to help them as it is our responsibility to.

Department of Social Development Act December 1st, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I still do not understand. What we are hearing is unacceptable. How dividing a department in two has increased the number of public servants by 14,000? This will increase spending by some $700 million a year. How does this create a single window?

Do you not know that if these $700 million a year went into administration in the jurisdictions belonging to Quebec and the other provinces, that would help to alleviate poverty? Is the member serious when she thinks that a bill such as this would help reduce poverty? I cannot believe it.

When the government increases the number of public servants by 46,000 and its administrative cost by $7 billion a year over the last five years, do you think that this money does not create poverty?

We say that this money must go to the provinces. To those who are responsible for social assistance, health and education, I say stop encroaching. Perhaps they will then be able to think about reducing child poverty.

I would like to have a reaction on this. There are perhaps two minutes left.

Department of Social Development Act December 1st, 2004

Madam Speaker, I do not understand. I will just take the example of seniors. I will use the word “steal” because no other word fits what is being done to our seniors. From the poorest of our seniors, those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, $3.2 billion has been taken over the last 10 years. Now, with this legislation and this new department, are they preparing to repay to these seniors the money that was stolen from them, through no fault of their own? Is that not a source of poverty?

I know people who have had to provide their aged parents with the necessities of life, but realized, when their mother died at the age of 88, that she had been deprived of $90,000 by this government. Children having to support their parents who were deprived of the money owed to them. Is that not a way of impoverishing the children?

Department of Social Development Act December 1st, 2004

Madam Speaker, I like the speech on poverty that I have just heard. However, the time comes when we must get to the real numbers.

They think they can reduce poverty by increasing the structures, but I do not understand. Entering into areas of provincial jurisdiction is not the way to reduce poverty, at least as I understand it.

I would like to ask the hon. member this question. In five years the federal government has increased the numbers of its public servants by 46,000, or 21%. Does this help to reduce poverty, or would it not be better simply to provide services? The number of structures are increased, but the government just gets fatter and poverty is not reduced.

To follow up on the question that was just asked, at present 39% of workers who have paid employment insurance premiums can hope, if they should lose their jobs, to receive employment insurance benefits. Thus, 61% of the workers who have contributed will not get benefits. Does my hon. colleague not think that among these workers, fathers supporting their families, there might be pockets of child poverty?