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

Supply November 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, I am proud that the commitment by our government has always been to promote the industry and sustain the industry.

I am hearing from the industry that it is not after handouts. It really wants to be on a level playing field on an international scale. If we take a look at the successes in the aerospace industry, a major beneficiary of which is the region of Montreal, we would not have to look very closely to see the success of Canadair, the success of SNC-Lavalin, Bombardier, and recently the joint partnership that Pratt & Whitney announced with Russia.

If we are to allow this industry to promote itself and to grow, we have to give it the level playing field and the tools necessary for it to compete on a world scale.

Supply November 21st, 1995

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate, because I finally have the opportunity to set the record straight.

The Canadian space program, which has been running for 35 years already, has allowed Canada to carve out an enviable position among developed countries. Canadians have reaped benefits from it that have improved their quality of life, if only in terms of satellite communications.

It is with much pride that I point out the excellent work of the Canadian Space Agency, one of the most prestigious federal institutions which now has its headquarters firmly established in Saint-Hubert, near Montreal.

As a member of the government, I am proud to be associated with this success and to have been part of the agency's accomplishments since my arrival in the House.

The construction of its headquarters in Saint-Hubert, an investment of almost $80 million, has created, either directly or indirectly, almost 1,000 person-years. According to studies that were done to quantify the economic spinoffs of having the agency in Saint-Hubert, it is estimated that it has injected about $75 million into the Quebec economy annually, both in terms of salaries and the purchase of products and services.

These are the figures, but one of the main economic benefits of having the agency in Quebec is its impact on that province's industrial base. Here are some concrete examples: the development of new cutting-edge technologies in strategic sectors such as communications and data processing software; the international reputation consolidating Montreal's status as a global player; and the establishment in Saint-Hubert of other space facilities such as the RADARSAT ground control station, the control centre for the mobile servicing system and the astronaut and international space station operator training system.

One of the main social advantages is the training of the hundred or so students who come every year to specialize in high-tech areas.

Since 1988, Quebec has received over 35 per cent of the total budget of the Canadian space program, which means that $540 million worth of contracts are awarded to Quebec-based companies. Quebecers are among the main beneficiaries of the Canadian space program.

Spar Aerospace alone, which is located in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in my riding, has received a significant portion of the contracts for the production of MSAT and RADARSAT satellites, which testifies to the excellence of Quebec engineers. RADARSAT, which was launched into orbit on November 4, is the result of more than 15 years of co-operation and political will. RADARSAT also ushers in a new global industry. The resulting global trade will contribute to the development of a new natural resources management and environmental monitoring business. And it is mainly in Quebec that this great project has materialized.

And that is not all. At present, a feasibility study is under way to gather all that is required to implement Phase II of RADARSAT. But what must be pointed out here is the participation of a new player, namely SNC-Lavalin, whose reputation as the world leader in large scale project management is firmly established.

The Canadian Space Program also promoted the diversification of several Quebec businesses, which have gained a world-wide reputation of excellence. Take these four for example: CAE Electronics, of Ville-Saint-Laurent, with contracts totalling $90 million; MPB Technologies, of Montreal, whose contracts are worth in excess of $16 million; FRE Composites, of Saint-André, with a total contract worth of $11 million; and BONEM, of Quebec City, with contracts totalling $4 million.

The need to adjust to new realities brought about by market globalization and by the growing importance of a knowledge-based economy represents a major challenge. In this context, it is important that we be able to define new partnerships between learning institutions and industry. Like the other provinces, Quebec has displayed impeccable leadership. Fifteen years ago, there were no university programs to prepare for the future in high-technology sectors. Through an initiative of the Centre d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre aérospatiale du Québec, post-graduate programs meeting international standards were developed.

Today, a particularly innovative university-industry partnership has resulted in a master's degree in aerospace engineering being offered in five Quebec universities. This training strategy is proving to be very effective in enabling Quebec to keep playing a lead role in the space industry.

To invest in the space industry is to invest in our children. This vision born 35 years ago had not died; it keeps making Quebecers and all Canadians prouder and prouder.

Supply November 21st, 1995

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for-

Canadian Federation November 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, all Quebecers who voted no and more than 35 per cent who voted yes in the last referendum are looking for change within the Canadian federation.

The people have decided. Canadians from coast to coast have massively demonstrated their affection and their support for Quebec's aspirations. It is now up to the politicians to deliver the goods and work on implementing these changes. However, when Quebecers hear what the Bloc leader said about these changes, and I quote: "Sterile debate, nonsense, misleading verbal overkill-", they are not amused.

In Quebec, the people are sovereign, and they have spoken. If the leader of the Bloc Quebecois cannot accept the people's verdict and refuses to help improve Canada, he should have the decency to resign.

Quebec Premier November 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, Monday night, the leader of the yes side put the blame for the defeat of his option on the ethnic communities. Yesterday, when he announced his resignation as premier, he did not even have the decency to apologize and in fact repeated and attempted to justify what he had said.

This throws a troubling light on the very foundations of a Quebec nationalism that apparently shows contempt for the election rules prevailing in Quebec, according to which only age, citizenship and place of residence are used as criteria for being eligible to vote.

This troubling statement, made at a crucial moment in the history of Quebec and Canada, forces us to reflect on the democratic nature of the question by which it was inspired. We want to say today that Canada is and will always remain the country of all Canadians.

National Unity October 31st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, we now know the verdict. Quebecers have said no to separation and have decided to stay within the Canadian federation. The results of the referendum have indicated very clearly that the people of Quebec are divided. Some wanted a new country where they believe everything would be possible. Others voted for the country they knew and loved, also in the belief that everything is possible.

It is now time to leave division and debate behind. It is time for reconciliation and solidarity. We all have to stick together and get back to work.

I extend my hand to all Quebecers and especially my Bloc Quebecois colleagues in the House of Commons, in the spirit of mutual respect, co-operation and understanding, in order to work collectively to defend the interests of all Quebecers, no matter how each one voted last night.

Canada and Quebec can look forward to an exceptional future. It is up to us to make it happen.

Leader Of The Action Démocratique Du Québec October 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the statement by the separatist leader of the Action démocratique du Québec, which referred to an independent Quebec on the Ontario model proposed by Mike Harris, was not only a contradiction of what was said by his boss, the leader of the Parti Quebecois, it was also a denial of the position taken by the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

The Leader of the Official Opposition has already said that the approach and policies of the Conservative Government in Ontario would not be applied to Quebec, and I quote: "I find it disturbing, and many people in Quebec are afraid of this model of society".

It has become increasingly clear that the three leaders on the Yes side cannot agree on the kind of society they want to offer to Quebecers. The people of Quebec are very wary of these contradictions, and that is why they will elect to stay in Canada by voting no on October 30.

Employment Equity Act October 4th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am proud, as a Quebecer and a Canadian, of the major step forward we are about to take in matters of equality and human rights with the passing of this bill on employment equity.

I would also like to thank our colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for his strong and sincere commitment to human rights and to promoting equality and equity for all of Canada's citizens.

I thank him for his ongoing efforts in this regard, both on the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled People and here in the House of Commons. He continues to express his commitment with the motions he is putting before the House today in order to further improve this bill on employment equity.

With the motions we are debating, that is, Motions Nos. 13 and 14, he is proposing that the people appointed to an employment equity review tribunal themselves represent designated groups or have knowledge or particular experience in this area.

Given the legislation it applies to, the motion is highly justifiable in theory. However, it seems fairly clear to us, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, with all due respect to my colleague, that it is literally inapplicable in practice. For the information of my fellow members, I think it would be useful to first look at the nature and the function of this tribunal and to put it in the context of the logic of this bill so we can understand when and how it intervenes and how it is made up. First, when does it intervene?

The employment equity review tribunal takes action following an intervention by a compliance officer with an employer governed by the act. When should a compliance officer audit an employer? When there is a need to determine if an employer fulfils his or her obligations under the act.

Who decides if an audit must be conducted? Again, this decision is made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to which the bill gives the authority to enforce the act and monitor employers' compliance.

Clause 22 of the bill provides that the commission is responsible for the enforcement of the obligations imposed on employers by the sections that concern them.

The human rights commission determines if a given employer is complying with the employment equity requirements outlined in the act.

To assume this responsibility, the commission may designate a person to conduct compliance audits of employers on its behalf. This person is the compliance officer referred to in clause 23. If the audit reveals that the employer failed to fulfil any of his or her obligations, the compliance officer tries to reach an agreement with the employer to implement the corrective measures required.

However, if the compliance officer and the employer cannot come to an agreement, the commission may order the employer to correct the situation. During the time limits set out in clause 27, the employer can challenge the commission's decision by asking the president of the human rights tribunal panel to conduct a review, again under clause 27. As for the commission, it has the same recourse if the employer does not comply with its decision within the prescribed deadline.

It is at this point that, in either case, the employment equity review tribunal becomes involved. Under clause 28, the tribunal consists of one member of the human rights tribunal panel appointed by the president of that panel. In more complex cases, the president can appoint a tribunal of three members.

The most basic arithmetic shows that the first part of Motions Nos. 13 and 14 tabled by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve are unnecessary since, in most cases, the tribunal would consist of only one person. Indeed, we cannot see how a single person could represent designated groups in a proportion that reflects their representation in the Canadian population as a whole.

The member supports his argument by saying that the tribunal will often consist of more than one member if Motion No. 12 is carried, in addition to those cases where the president will deem appropriate to appoint three people. But again, the number of members would still be too small to ensure significant representation of designated groups.

Even if we implement the idea of a degree of representation for designated groups, we will unnecessarily complicate the already complex task of the president of the panel, while also, in some cases, casting a doubt regarding the impartiality of this judicial process. In short, that part of the motion would create more problems than it would solve.

The second part of the motion is definitely more reasonable and easier to implement. It provides that, in the opinion of the president, the persons appointed as members of an employment equity review tribunal are highly knowledgeable about employment equity, or have substantial experience in this area. The government has already said it agrees with that idea. The standing committee which reviewed the bill passed an amendment requiring that, when appointing tribunals, the president of the panel take into account the knowledge and experience of people in the area of employment equity.

I believe that the amendment proposed by the committee is quite similar to the one tabled by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Moreover, the same clause, specifically clause 28(7), provides that the president of the panel may hire persons having technical or special knowledge to assist or advise a tribunal. Clearly, the bill already provides sufficient guarantees that the tribunal will rely on sound knowledge in the area of employment equity. Consequently, in my opinion, the amendment proposed by the hon. member is absolutely not necessary.

Referendum Campaign October 4th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the Comité des Québecois et Québécoises pour le non has had to give in and prepare the budget for year one of an independent Quebec, having realized that, despite repeated calls for it by the general public and the business community, the Quebec separatists were still refusing to put any figure to their plans for separation.

The first year budget as presented yesterday represents a scientific update of what the leader of the Parti Quebecois had presented in 1973.

From it we learn that an independent Quebec will inherit a deficit of $15.6 billion, minimum. Quebec workers will therefore find themselves having to pay at least $3,000 in additional taxes annually.

Quebec's separatists refuse to talk about the costs of separation. We shall do it for them, since the public has a right to know. On October 30, the answer to the project for separation will be No.

Quebec Referendum September 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the word "confusion" perfectly describes the precautions taken by separatist leaders to package their project so as to make it as vague as possible.

As evidence of that, let us look at the findings of a poll conducted by Créatec and made public this week. Fifty per cent of those who intend to vote yes think that separation will only occur after the conclusion of an agreement with Canada. As for the

famous June 12 agreement, only 19 per cent of the public knows more or less what it is all about.

The poll also shows, and this is nothing short of tragic, that 28 per cent of those who would vote yes believe that a sovereign Quebec would remain a Canadian province.

The whole separatist strategy is nothing but a smoke screen used to hide the real objective, which is to separate Quebec from Canada. However, Quebecers do not want that and they will vote no on October 30.