House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was federal.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Bloc MP for Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2015, with 12% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply February 19th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much time left for questions and comments, but I am a bit surprised to hear the hon. member say that the federal government is involved in health in order to protect all Canadians and to ensure that all Canadians receive the same level of health care.

We are trying to figure out where he got this. In the constitution, health is a provincial area of jurisdiction. Here is an analogy: for example, defence comes under federal jurisdiction according to the constitution. In order to keep an eye on the federal government's handling of defence, the provinces could perhaps give themselves a privilege, saying “We will strike a committee to monitor the federal government and see whether it is distributing defence-related services equally across Canada”. In my opinion, such a statement would be contrary to the spirit of confederation, which is a division of responsibilities.

Where does it say in the Canadian Constitution that health care is a federal responsibility? Where does he get this?

Supply February 19th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his speech. All the taxpayer knows about tax points, equalization, income tax and so on is the amount of tax he or she must pay. To gain a better understanding of what it is all about, it takes a good explanation like the one the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot just gave us.

The member explained clearly that, in the beginning, in the spirit of Confederation, direct taxation was the responsibility of the provinces, even though the federal government had the authority to legislate in that area under section 92(3). But it was clearly stated that direct taxation was the responsibility of the provinces.

Then the member explained that in 1942, the provinces, including Quebec, agreed to leave the tax field to the federal government for the war effort. We saw that the federal government never withdrew from it.

I do not have the figures in front of me—I am sure the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot knows all that—but corporate income tax did not increase at the same pace as personal income tax, and if there is no change, this will result in fiscal strangulation because of rising health care costs.

The purpose of asking for tax points is simply to correct an error that was made at the time of World War II when the field of personal income tax was not left to the provinces. Had that been the case, I am sure that we would not have the same problem. I would like the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to comment on that.

Cambodia February 5th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 3, Cambodia held its first local elections. Over 1,000 foreign observers were present for this historic event, which represents one more step towards the introduction of real democracy in this country, which has been ravaged by more than two decades of dictatorship and civil war.

Cambodia's local elections are a step in the direction of increased representation of the rural population, which accounts for almost 85% of the country's 11 million inhabitants. Preliminary results indicate that Prime Minister Hun Sen's Cambodian People's Party won a majority in the 76 communes.

However, these results are disputed by human rights defence groups, which have noted irregularities. In addition, the election campaign was punctuated by violence, with eight candidates and a dozen activists losing their lives. The Cambodian government will therefore have to work to improve the safety and transparency of the next elections.

For its part, the international community must pursue its efforts to help the Cambodian people build a modern and democratic state.

Youth Criminal Justice Act January 31st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the speech made by my hon. colleague. I have, of course, understood that he is opposed to this bill which, in his opinion, will create difficulties in application as well as additional costs for the provinces, for the province he represents.

Unlike some other members here, he seems to have read the bill properly, to have grasped its complexity. He has heard a number of witnesses, probably the ones from Quebec. If I have understood the end of his speech correctly, he was opposed to the intent to have total harmonization, regardless of where the young people are, and what their needs are.

Would he personally be in favour, perhaps based on the distinct society motion the government tried to get adopted in the past, for Quebec or his province to be able to continue applying the present law, which works well in Quebec? It is a system that has been in place for 16 years already.

Youth Criminal Justice Act January 31st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I heard the answer given by my Canadian Alliance colleague to my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, who asked him a relevant question without raising the point of order that was called for.

Being an experienced parliamentarian, the Canadian Alliance member, who at one time was his party's House leader, and as such is one of the members who know the standing orders best, he should have referred to the amendment to an amendment put forward today. I also listened to him answering the Liberal member.

As a member of a party looking to reform parliamentary customs, what he is saying is “It is not really necessary to answer the questions put to us. In the end, we will not change anything. The Liberal Party will do as it pleases”. What a fine example. Really, what a bad one.

I would like to give him another chance. I am taking for granted he took his responsibilities seriously and read Bill C-7. What does he think of the amendment to an amendment put forward today? I am seeking his opinion on that and nothing else.

Youth Criminal Justice Act January 31st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Châteauguay on his excellent speech. Clearly, his sensitivity where young people are concerned, plus the fact that he is a lawyer and has experience in private practice, give him even more credibility in this debate, where we are discussing not only youth but the law.

First, there is one aspect on which I would like him to elaborate, because it is important that people understand the difference between the new law and the current one, which was applied in Quebec with a view to rehabilitation.

In my opinion, cases were heard before the youth court and not the adult court, with adult rules, it seems to me. I would like the member to elaborate on this if he has the time.

Second, it seems to me that, as a member of the foreign affairs subcommittee on human rights and international development, this is the aspect that concerns me the most. But when we see reports of the UN commission on human rights advising against this kind of new approach, we realize that the Canadian government appears to want to ignore them.

Finally, having been present here as a Quebecer and as an MP when a distinct society motion was passed, what does the member think of the fact that on the first occasion, or one of the first, that we have to test the concept of a distinct society for Quebec, the government ignores it, showing that the motion is therefore basically meaningless?

The Budget January 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing here is a plea straight from the heart. The member needs to catch his breath, his face is so red that he is worrying me. I know that his appeal comes from the heart, and I respect that.

I do not want to make him repeat it, but in the case of a series of broken promises or a government that does an about face once it has been elected, particularly when it can be proven, would the member support a parliamentary measure that would require those responsible to appear before a special committee?

The Budget January 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member's commitment to his area and his province. I was somewhat surprised to hear him commend the finance minister for having succeeded in balancing the budget. He could also have talked about the surpluses.

I would like him to comment on the fact that $40 billion was saved during the same period through cuts to employment insurance; that $35 billion was saved during the same period through cuts to transfer payments made by the Government of Canada to the provinces.

I know that his province, Nova Scotia, like other maritime provinces, is suffering as a result of the cuts to employment insurance; it is also suffering as a result of the cuts to transfer payments to provinces. How can someone like him, so committed to his province, commend the government and his party for having done that?

Parliamentary Poet Laureate December 14th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, once again, the session now drawing to a close has demonstrated the insensitivity and inconsistency of this government as far as the real needs of the population are concerned.

Last Tuesday, after more than five hours of debate, the Liberal government finally passed a bill creating the position of parliamentary poet laureate, whereas a week before that, this same government did not have more than five minutes to spend in the House on the anti-terrorism bill.

Instead of allowing members to debate matters as vital as rights and freedoms, the government imposed a gag order totally out of keeping with the fundamental values so dear to Quebecers.

While the Minister of Finance's budget totally ignores the demands of workers, youth, seniors and businesses, the government can find the necessary funds to sustain this new position. Let us hope there will not be any “Heritage poetry minutes”.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act December 14th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I think it unfortunate that so little time remains, because I think that he is mixing up fission and fusion.

With respect to the issue he is talking about, a more indepth study needs to be done here in Canada. But I admit to being concerned, despite the fact that only 3% of nuclear waste is in Quebec and 90% is in Ontario. This is one more reason to take the time and look carefully into all the consequences.

I thank the member for his question and wish him and everyone else a merry Christmas.