Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was provinces.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Vaudreuil—Soulanges (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Constitutional Amendments Act December 13th, 1995

Thirty seconds. Very well, Mr. Speaker.

We are prepared to entrench the veto in the Constitution, but his own leader is preventing us. It is his fault.

If he ever changes his mind, which he has done several times before, we would be willing to discuss entrenching the veto in the Constitution. However, with the means at our disposal, we decided to recognize their veto in this House, in the decisions made by the various departments. We lend our veto, as a government, to the various regions, including the province of Quebec.

However, if your leader decides to change his mind, come and see us.

Constitutional Amendments Act December 13th, 1995

So we are not Quebecers?

Constitutional Amendments Act December 13th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member I respond to a comment he made before about our invoking closure and this not being a national emergency.

The member does not live in Quebec as I do. He has not lived in Quebec as I have. If ever he visits Quebec, I invite him to come to my riding. If he had lived in Quebec he would understand clearly that there is an urgency.

A commitment was made by the Prime Minister to make the necessary changes. He had to respond, not with a sense of urgency but with clear leadership, and this is what the Prime Minister has done.

If we take a look at what is happening on the island of Montreal, sadly we see a large number of unemployed and one of the highest rates of poverty. Constitutional bickering since 1976 has put our region in a very sad state.

The Prime Minister had to respond by giving leadership to ensure, as he said in Toronto, a certain amount of political stability not only for Canada but, more important, for Quebec.

An awful lot of colleagues from Quebec have horror stories about small businesses by the twenties or thirties or even larger corporations establishing plants, not as they did in 1976 in other areas of Canada such as Toronto but unfortunately in places like Plattsburg and Florida. I recently spoke to a VP of Northern Telecom who is now opening up a plant in Southeast Asia because of the uncertainty. The Prime Minister had to react.

On the question of veto, we are lending our veto. In all constitutional amendments the federal government has a right of veto on all aspects, whether there are three or four amending formulas. All we have done is simply lend our veto to each of the five regions. Therefore we were able to bypass the delicate process of constitutional reform doomed to failure in the past.

I hope Reformers put aside their partisan politics. After the new year when, after you have had time to celebrate with your families in peace and love, as Canadians always do, I hope you will come back in February and work hand in hand with the government and the premiers to achieve the unity we deserve.

Constitutional Amendments Act December 13th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to participate in the final moments of debate prior to what is, in my opinion, an historic vote.

What a difference almost four weeks makes. It is very easy to speak here today knowing the result of the vote on October 30. I would first like to thank the hundreds and thousands of Canadians who came from all corners of Canada on October 27. In my opinion, this bill is their bill. It responds to the wishes of Canadians as does the distinct society recognition that we voted on earlier this week. It is a response to Canadians who on October 27 demonstrated clearly their love and affection for Canada.

I am appalled that the member for Kootenay East insinuated that the only reason we Liberals are going to vote in favour of the bill is because of junkets, of freebies. It shows a lack of respect for Canadians when he denigrates the bill and the vote to that degree. It also slows a lack of understanding. If the member for Kootenay East would only listen to us and read the red book for a change instead of just referring to it, he would know that the Liberal Party has always respected the right of veto for Quebec and has for over 30 years recognized its distinct character.

The member for Kootenay East and others have criticized the Prime Minister for not having consulted Canadians. On the contrary, the people of Canada spoke on October 27, and when he saw the testimony by all Canadians, the Prime Minister read the people correctly. That was true democracy.

He promised the people of Canada and on their behalf promised Quebec prior to October 30 to recognize Quebec for what it is. If Canadians cannot accept the fact that Quebec has a unique culture, unique language, a unique civil code and other institutions, then we are truly in serious trouble.

Reform Party members are falling into the trap that has been laid for them by the current Leader of the Opposition by saying that they will repeal the legislation. I can say that hindsight is 50:50. Imagine if the result had been different on October 30. I wonder if the members who have spoken on the bill would speak the same way.

The Prime Minister could not consult Canadians. He could not telephone Premier Harris or Premier Harcourt or even Premier Klein. But these same premiers spoke to Quebecers.

I remember the appeal by Mr. Klein to Quebecers saying: "We love you Quebec. Stay in Canada". I remember the appeal by Mr. Harris who said to Quebecers: "Your demands for the revision of the decentralization devolution of responsibilities are our demands. We will work hand in hand with you in Quebec because your aspirations for a renewed federation are our aspirations". The Prime Minister could not take the time to consult the premiers. He had to make a decision. He relied on his experience, on his knowledge and understanding of the country and of the great province of Quebec and made three promises which tonight we will uphold. Those promises were the recognition of the distinct society, the regional veto and decentralization.

If we recognize, as it seems to have been generally accepted across Canada, Quebec's distinctiveness, then we must also recognize that Quebec needs all the tools to protect and promote its language and its culture.

An Albertan, a British Columbian or anyone else living in the rest of Canada is not threatened with the loss of culture or the English language. On the contrary, it is in use worldwide. However, as a co-founding people of this great country it has to be recognized that the French language and the French culture that exists in Quebec must be protected. The only way to protect that is to give the people of Quebec the veto. That veto is of utmost importance.

The current Constitution says that seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population can amend the Constitution. That means seven provinces could gang up on British Columbia, seven provinces could gang up on Quebec, as happened in 1980, seven provinces could gang up on another province. That is why the veto is so important for Quebec.

I do not agree with what the member for Portneuf says about these three promises being far from sufficient and not what Quebecers wanted before the referendum. The veto proposed by our Prime Minister protects Quebec even more; from now on the

Constitution cannot be changed without the consent of the province of Quebec, as was the case in the past.

I totally agree, the cornerstone of a country is its constitution. I also agree with the member for Kootenay East when he says that the Constitution is the property of the people who live in a country. However, the fact that Quebec has gone without signing the Constitution since 1982 has not prevented us Quebecers from developing and flourishing along with other parts of Canada.

I would also like to point out that Great Britain does not even have a constitution.

Think of the great powers and influence Great Britain has had over centuries. The fact that it does not have a Constitution has not prevented that country from developing. Quebec and Canada have evolved together and we can continue to evolve together.

The member for Portneuf said that the veto is a watering down, but that is false. The veto protects Quebec right now. If his leader, the current Leader of the Opposition and future premier of Quebec, would agree to enshrining it in the Constitution we would be the first to embark on that process. However, his own chef de l'opposition has already gone on record saying that he does not want constitutional change. We all know what the Bloc Quebecois want. It will settle for nothing short of a separate Quebec.

I defy the current Leader of the Opposition. When he occupies his new position in Quebec City as the premier of that province he should remember the words he spoke today in the House. He espoused that Canada is one of the most democratic countries in the world. He above all should know that in the position he occupies.

Therefore, when I hear the Bloc Quebecois members speak of democracy and criticize the government for not respecting democracy I find it a bit strange. Their version of democracy is-

If the vote is yes, they accept it as a yes. If it is no, they will accept it democratically, but the very night of the no victory, the Leader of the Opposition was threatening us with yet another referendum. A funny way of accepting democracy.

Our Prime Minister has made a commitment on behalf of all Canadians to keep his promises.

A promise made by the Prime Minister is a promise kept. Tonight we will vote on that final step of his three promises. Yes, they must eventually be enshrined through the constitutional process, hopefully as early as April 1997.

The Prime Minister made a promise on behalf of Canadians and I am proud to be able to vote on it today, contrary to the statements of the member for Kootenay East who said that I should be ashamed to vote for this process.

I have sat in the House this week and seen three different members of the Reform Party rise on points of order to indicate that certain members of the House were or were not absent. It shows the level to which Reformers will stoop for political gain.

When it counted, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, the hon. member of Parliament for Sherbrooke, was there. Madam Speaker, he was in the trenches with you and me in Quebec defending Canada during the delicate moments. I find it despicable that Reform Party members stand day after day to question the participation of the member of Parliament for Sherbrooke.

Where were they on October 27? Where were they during the referendum? Today they have the audacity to stand here and again criticize the government for its initiatives. The Prime Minister responded to initiatives after listening to representations from caucus members and other people on B.C.'s regional veto. It is very important for British Columbia. It is also very important for Ontario to have its veto.

When we talk about the distribution of population we have to respect regional differences in Canada. The member for Kootenay East has the audacity to criticize the way I vote when 50 per cent of his members yesterday voted against recognition of the veto for British Columbia.

It is very easy to criticize. It is very easy to get involved in the debate of always giving into Quebec's demands. However I ask hon. members what it is Quebec has demanded over the past 30 years that it has received.

We have made sacrifices. We have made concessions in the past. I remind members from British Columbia that when British Columbia entered Confederation we made a concession uniquely for British Columbia. We honoured the concession to build a national railway from coast to coast. Otherwise British Columbia would not have entered Confederation.

I remind colleagues from Prince Edward Island that we made a concession for Prince Edward Island. The concession was to recognize that island by granting it four members of Parliament and four senators.

In terms of making a concession to Quebec, Quebecers do not want any more or any less than the rest of the provinces. They want to be recognized for what they are. They want to be given the tools

to develop and protect their language and culture. If that means making a concession, it is well worth making it in order to keep our country united and strong.

I will conclude to give another member a chance before we vote at five o'clock by saying it is easy to criticize. It is much harder to be constructive. It is easy, as some members have already stated in the House, to demolish. It is a lot more difficult to build.

It is much easier to criticize, but it takes a lot of the leadership and courage for the Prime Minister to deliver on his commitment to Canadians of October 27.

We could have consulted all the premiers of the provinces but we have seen what consulting the premiers does. The Mike Harrises and the Ralph Kleins of the world who loved Quebecers prior to the referendum will fall into the trap that the future premier of the province of Quebec will set for us. The Reform Party is falling hook, line and sinker into that trap. I appeal to all the premiers of the provinces to work hand in hand with the Prime Minister who has only taken the first very important step.

The Chinese have a saying: the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. We have to take the first step. The Prime Minister has shown leadership today. I ask the future premier of the province of Quebec to respect his commitment and the democratic will expressed by all Quebecers, not only the 51 per cent that voted not but also the 15 or 30 per cent of those who voted yes, expecting to remain a province of Canada and work with us to build a better and stronger Canada.

I appeal to the premiers of the provinces to work with the Prime Minister over the next 18 months or whatever time is allotted to respect the will and desire expressed by Canadians on October 27. I appeal to the premiers of all provinces not to let that tremendous show of affection go to waste. That is what will happen if we cannot come together and work hand in hand. Whether Reformers, members of the Bloc Quebecois or NDPers, all of us owe it to Canada to work hand in hand to make sure our country remains united and strong.

Petitions December 13th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by about 100 people from the Montreal region, including some of my constituents.

The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the charter of rights and freedoms so as to protect individuals against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Mouvement De Libérationnationale Du Québec December 13th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the Parti Quebecois has decided not to bar membership to the president and founder of the Mouvement de libération nationale du Québec. The PQ leaders' lack of firmness in this respect points to a profound malaise within the Quebec separatist movement.

How can there be any hope that the PQ, which is currently involved in exorcising its own racism, will take any energetic measures to distance itself from the racist and pro-violence views of the MLNQ? The weak protestations of the PQ and the Bloc are insufficient, to say the least, and do nothing to help reassure the public about the intentions of Mr. Villeneuve and his group of radicals. How could it be otherwise, when we know that some of those who are soverignist members of Parliament today were signatories in the past of a petition for the release of the ex FLQ member in question?

Quebec's Distinct Identity December 12th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader was quoted in the December 4 edition of Le Journal de Montréal as saying: ``The Progressive Conservative Party will support the government motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. This is a necessary first step in recognizing Quebec's identity within our federation''.

However, the day after our government passed this important motion in favour of Quebec, it is with sadness that the people of Quebec have realized that not all the federalist allies they were counting on were on board.

After so much energy was spent on having Quebec's distinct identity recognized when the Progressive Conservative Party was in office, it is a pity that not one Conservative member took part in the whole debate on this issue in this House.

They could have joined us in taking this major step toward recognizing Quebec within our federation, as the Conservative leader did enthusiastically throughout the referendum campaign.

LEADER OF THE PROGRESSIVEcONSERVATIVE PARTY December 11th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the leader of the Conservative Party came another step closer to the politics of the Reform and the Bloc Quebecois with the statement that he would like to see the end of Canada's multiculturalism policy.

This statement by the Conservative leader suggests that he would be ready to dump all of the multicultural policies and the multicultural heritage of his party in order to snatch the votes of a few intolerant people from the Bloc and the Reform.

At a time when the winds of intolerance blow across Canada, the Conservative member for Sherbrooke is giving in to an easy fix, and he too has started making political hay at the expense of the cultural communities.

It is a pity to see that the political ambitions of the Conservative leader have led him to turn his back on the sacred principles of multiculturalism, principles he defended tooth and claw when a minister in the previous government.

Manpower Training December 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the daily La Presse mentions that the Quebec government is prepared to launch formal discussions with Ottawa on the transfer of federal funds earmarked for manpower training. This is good news, particularly since the Quebec employment minister herself, Louise Harel, asked that a meeting be held as quickly as possible to discuss the issue.

This development seems very encouraging. I do hope that it reflects the will of the PQ government to finally recognize the choice made by Quebecers in the referendum, as well as its willingness to turn the page and co-operate with the federal government to promote Quebec's well-being and prosperity.

Provided these discussion are conducted in good faith and in good will, I am convinced that good things will result, both for the workers and the unemployed.

Leader Of The Bloc Quebecois November 23rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois surprised few people on Tuesday with his announcement of his candidacy for the position vacated by Jacques Parizeau.

He surprised no one either with his announcement that his first priority would be Quebec's public finances. Truth be known, the disastrous state of Quebec's public finances is forcing all pretenders to the throne to promise to make them their first priority.

He did, however, surprise and disappoint people with his announcement that he would never sign a new constitutional agreement. The potential successor to Jacques Parizeau must respect the people's decision of October 30 and work, as the people of Quebec have requested, to renew Canadian federalism. If his separatist obsession precludes his doing so, let him give up the throne to someone who give more heed to the will of the people.