House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was well.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Outremont (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 24% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply May 18th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that, before coming to the heart of the matter, I would like to join the hon. member for Saint-Léonard and the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine in denouncing the remarks made by the member from the official opposition, as well as explaining my feeling of dismay-to put it mildly. These remarks are totally inconsistent with the values we have developed in this country, the values we share and the values we have in Quebec. The transcript will bear witness to this.

I must say that, in addition to his personal attack on my colleague, the opposition member took on aboriginal people as well, saying that they were studying only because education was free. There was something fundamentally contemptuous in these remarks. They reflect the official opposition's deeply held feelings of contempt, a state of mind disrespectful of people and even more of the values they share.

In that sense, you will understand that I join my two colleagues in asking, as a Quebecer, that the official opposition member withdraw his words that I find unfortunate, to say the least. That being said, I will now address the issue raised in the official opposition motion.

Anybody who cares to examine the wording of this motion, let alone its substance, will realize that, once again, the people opposite are basically trying to sell us a bill of goods. They are trying to pull the wool over Quebecers' eyes. That same attitude permeates all their policies. That can be said of the Bloc Quebecois, but also, and even more so, of its head office.

Speaking of not being able to rise above petty politics, we can find superb examples not across the way, but with the Quebec government itself, a government whose concern ought to be to look after the interests of the people. This is a serious matter. What is at stake is the interests of citizens who put their confidence in a government, thinking that it would try to build a better society.

Among the most telling examples of the partisan attitude they cannot shed, I should mention the finance minister's budget. It is a real gem. When you resort to such an important instrument, something so essential in any society, to engage in crass political propaganda, something is really wrong.

Speaking to reporters, Mr. Campeau casually dropped these remarks: "If you vote on the right side at the referendum, we may well live in an ideal world, and there will not be any tax increase. It will be some kind of Garden of Eden". Such statements are a serious matter, coming as they do from the Minister of Finance of Quebec. Instead of indulging in petty politics, talking about the referendum, and trying to take Quebec out of Canada, he should be working hand in hand with the federal Minister of Finance in a responsible way to build a better society, a society our children will be proud of, if only we can tackle the real problems we were elected to settle.

Let us take the issues mentioned in this motion. They are serious issues. When I say that these issues are serious ones, I hear members of the official opposition commenting, a big smile on their face, because they do not really care about these fundamental and contentious issues. When we talk about the demands made by a province, it is important. It is also important for us, the federal government, to seriously consider the de-

mands, to treat them fairly and, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, to act responsibly.

I must say that I have a lot of trouble understanding all the animosity and fury with which the official opposition is tackling these serious issues, because on this side of the House, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs pointed out earlier, we are doing everything we can to ensure that the decisions are made as soon as possible and in all fairness to Quebec and all of Canada.

Since I do not seem to understand, would the official opposition tell me if they would like us to pay without looking at the bills, without checking if it is our duty as federal government to pay for these expenditures? I sincerely doubt, Mr. Speaker, that that is what the people in all the provinces expect from the federal government. What we expect is a federal government which does not waste the taxpayers' money and has a good hold on the purse strings, and that is exactly what we are doing.

In fact, not very well hidden behind this motion is a pre-referendum political strategy. The official opposition wants to create a smoke screen. It wants the people in Quebec to rise to the bait. I think these members are basically scornful, and I am weighing my words.

The three serious issues mentioned in the motion are being used for partisan purposes, for referendum purposes. I must say that I do not agree with that and I do not understand anything any more. They are trying to lay down a smoke screen, but this is of course premature. It is premature because, as we all know, the government has not made a decision yet. On the contrary, it is putting in place a procedure by which it will judge each claim on its merits. Also, instead of waiting for the process to end, the Bloc is trying to turn these fundamental claims of the people of Quebec into a purely political question.

This proves that the Bloc does do not have the interests of Quebecers at heart, but that it is only interested in its own agenda, which is, at the risk of repeating myself, essentially the separation of Quebec.

I believe that Bloc members should sincerely listen to Quebecers. As I often say in this House, we were elected democratically. We were elected for the promises we made to Canadians. It goes without saying that the members across the way are not fulfilling their promises. The government of Quebec is not listening to the people. We were elected because we promised that we would rebuild people's trust in government, that we would have an honest government. We were elected because we said we would deliver, because we said we would tackle the real problems. They elected us because we promised them we would be a basically responsible government. We were elected because people trusted us not to throw their money out the window. And I must say that the people of Quebec want exactly the same thing.

I must also say that, by laying down a smoke screen, the Official Opposition will not succeed in making us react in an untimely or hasty way. On the contrary. In the best interests of the people, the best interests of Quebecers, we will follow a fair process to make sure that the hard earned money of the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada is well managed. We will certainly not fall into the trap set by the official opposition.

Speaking about good government and what the people expect from their provincial and federal governments, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about intergovernmental co-operation. People elected us to solve the debt and deficit problem, create jobs, restore economic growth, help Canada carve out a place in the new global economy, and develop a labour force of which our country could be proud, which would attract new companies and make Canada competitive not just nationally but internationally as well. Co-operation is the key to all of this.

How can this co-operation exist when you have on the other side of the House and in Quebec-and it is unfortunate-a government which does not want the system to work? We do not have to go very far to find some rather striking illustrations.

Let us take, for example, the last visit of the minister from Quebec who came to Ottawa to meet with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Quebecers have to wonder if the minister came to Ottawa to solve problems or to create problems.

When we see the attitude of the members opposite and the attitude of the Quebec government and the minister who just met with our friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I think that the answer cannot be any clearer. But the answer is also unfortunate because the actions of the Quebec government are far from being constructive. It is obvious that these actions are very prejudicial not only to Quebec and Canada today, but also to the future generations.

I have visited Quebec extensively these past few months, I have talked to Quebecers and I can tell you that they are sick and tired of these endless debates. They are really sick and tired of seeing a government in Quebec that is taking steps but in the wrong direction. People want increased co-operation, they want a constructive partnership, they want fiscal consolidation. These are all reasons for us to all sit down together and try to solve these problems as soon as possible so we can start building our economy and create jobs.

When I talk about misleading the people of Quebec, let us think about what happened eight months ago, when Quebecers placed their trust in a provincial political party which, you will remember, spoke of the other way to govern. It reminds me of a federal political party that spoke of the real power. According to the people I met, when they chose the other way to govern, they

wanted a responsible government, a government which creates jobs, a government which is interested in what they have to say.

Well, let us see what this other way to govern in Quebec turned out to be. It is simply a government that governs with its eyes closed and its ears plugged and with only one thing in mind: to achieve its own agenda. And everybody knows that the agenda is the separation of Quebec. It is just unbelievable. This reflects a lack of the most elementary respect for the public and is a denial of the mandate they received from the electorate.

They are trying to give the impression in Quebec that there is something terribly wrong with the present federal system and that some problems cannot be overcome within that system. Of course, if you listen to them, you cannot get anything done within the present system. I say that, if you are prepared to work within the system, in good faith, there is much that can be done.

If governments could get together for two seconds, there are some extraordinary things we could do in Canada today to help this country enter the new era of free trade and maintain its position internationally. There are some eloquent examples of this. When we talk about the real problems, those people on the other side of the House start shouting because they do not want to hear the truth. They do not want us to tell the people of Quebec that they are not acting in the interests of Quebecers.

That is why you hear them shout like that when we, Liberals from Quebec who were elected as well, take the floor. Of course they do not see us as Quebecers because we do not share their philosophy, but we were elected in Quebec, and I am a proud Quebecer, and I believe that if we do a good job we can build a better and in fact exceptional Quebec and Canada.

There are some outstanding examples like the immigration agreement, the agreement on interprovincial trade and the agreements concerning la Francophonie. Finally, there is a lot more we could do, but wasting our time on motions like the one before the House today is not going to help us work in the best interests of Quebecers and Canada.

Canadian Armed Forces May 18th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

It will be remembered that, when the Saint-Jean military college was closed, certain people claimed that the closure would decrease the representation of francophones in the Canadian Forces. We all know about the budget and the white paper on national defence.

I would ask the Minister of National Defence to report to the House on the situation of francophones in the Canadian armed forces, and on their recruitment in particular.

Supply May 18th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me a few minutes to reply and maybe put a question to the member opposite. While listening not only to that member of the official opposition but to all the members of the official opposition today, I kept wondering if we were living in the same world. I must tell you that, sometimes, I think I am dreaming.

Today, these people are really speaking against Quebec's interests. They claim they want to protect the interests of the province of Quebec, but in fact they are trying to fool the people in Quebec, who are mature enough not to fall into the totally partisan trap the Bloc Quebecois has set.

The official opposition is asking the federal government to act irresponsibly, but this could have serious consequences at the political level. As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said clearly this morning in the House, he has to manage the public funds, a good part of which comes from Quebec taxpayers. As a Quebecer, I am entitled to expect governments to efficiently manage public funds and also to maximize their benefits and manage them in the best interests of the population.

This is exactly what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is doing. He oversees the sound and responsible management of the public funds in the best interests of the Canadian population and also, needless to say, in the best interests of the people of Quebec. The minister told us this morning that he did everything he could. He helped Quebec as much as he could by providing advance funds. Basically what I would like to ask the member of the official opposition is this: From what I understand in the motion before the House, would he rather see the federal government act irresponsibly and foolishly and waste the taxpayers' money? I do not think that would be in the best interests of the province of Quebec.

When we look a little more closely at this motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, we find once again, and it could not be any clearer, that the members of this party are not defending the interests of the people of Quebec in general, but that they are-and I will have the opportunity to come back to this later today-putting forward their own agenda, which is the separation of Quebec.

I believe that the situation or the problem is clear: we have a responsible government versus people whose aim is complete negligence. When we look at the situation, and I am a Quebecer, the answer is clear. It is obvious that I support the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs whose aim is, first and foremost, sound management of the taxpayers' money.

Supply May 18th, 1995

It is fear mongering.

International Day Of Families May 15th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, today, May 15, is recognized by the United Nations as International Day of Families.

This day provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the new realities facing the modern family. Social, technological and economic changes have significantly changed the make-up of the so-called traditional family unit.

This day must be an occasion to reflect on the evolution of the major role played by the family, which is the cornerstone of our society.

In spite of above-mentioned changes, one thing remains certain: generations follow one another, but the family will always play a fundamental role by providing our children with an essential and special environment to foster their development.

On this International Day of Families, I wish everyone the very best.

Quebec Finance Minister's Budget May 10th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Finance tabled his first budget yesterday.

This budget is a timid step-too timid-towards getting Quebec's finances on a sound footing. In fact, it is quite unfortunate that, for reasons that have to do with the referendum, the real decisions have been postponed until next year.

And what about the statement by the Quebec Minister of Finance that a vote in favour of sovereignty would prevent future tax increases in Quebec? This is, at the very least, an outrageous attempt to blackmail the people of Quebec.

Once again, the Péquistes have shown that no matter how important the items on the government's agenda, they are incapable of rising above petty politicking.

Old Age Security Act May 8th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to reply to the remarks of the hon. member concerning the portion of Bill C-54 which removes the time bar on the recovery of overpayments made under the old age security program.

Let us begin by laying out the facts of the current provisions which have led the government to bring the changes contained in Bill C-54.

The fairness of our current system of income security for senior citizens is marred slightly by the fact that the programs within this policy area often deal with overpayments somewhat differently. This results in a situation which can be confusing and therefore not all together equitable.

For instance, restrictions placed on the recovery of old age security overpayments have resulted in some clients retaining benefits to which they were not legally entitled.

One such restriction is the time bar which limits the government's ability to recover overpayments to amounts received by clients in the current or immediately preceding fiscal years.

V-E Day May 8th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, we mark today the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Europe and the end of the second world war.

Thousands of Canadians took part in this conflict from which many never returned. Today, we pay tribute to these soldiers for their courage and their bravery. May 8, 1945, is the day that freedom triumphed over oppression and tyranny.

I hope that that day and all of the sacrifices that made it possible remain deeply etched in our memories so that this tragedy will be the last of its kind.

Job Creation May 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Training and Youth. Recently, the Minister of Human Resources Development created a human resources investment fund in order to focus on employment priorities. In addition, 11 pilot projects directly related to job creation and the human resources investment fund were recently launched in Quebec.

Can the Secretary of State tell us about the objectives of the investment fund and about the link between the 11 pilot projects and this revolutionary investment fund?

Supply May 2nd, 1995

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First of all, he mentioned in his question that this government does not have any social vision. I will not tell you that the current government has a clear policy and an objective that we set and maintain, contrary to the official opposition, but I attended the official opposition's convention. One had to witness what happened in their workshop on separation to realize to what extent members of the official opposition are still looking, after 25 years, for some kind of social vision. Therefore we have no lesson to take from the official opposition in this matter, quite the opposite.

As to the regions, we take to heart the regional problem in Quebec and Canada. That is why our efforts have been focused on economic and job creation policies. The Minister of Industry and Trade presented a strategic plan to ease the conversion of our economy. Let us make no mistake about it. Canada's economy is restructuring just like that of the rest of the world. Tomorrow's markets will be quite different, and the emphasis will be on technology. This restructuring of the economy is now under way, and we sincerely hope it will be in the best interests of all Canadians, including Canadians who live in the outlying regions.

At the same time, the Minister of Human Resources Development is busy planning programs to help workers prepare for the challenge of high technology. We are designing programs that will be tailored to the needs of outlying regions, because Canadians have asked us to do so.

I would add, in conclusion, that we will also review the unemployment insurance program in order to meet the dire needs of Canadian workers. But there is a problem: I would ask the official opposition to move ahead, to stop talking of things that citizens are not interested in and start working with us to help and better serve the population.