Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was federal.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Bloc MP for Québec East (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Agusta November 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the same day the government announces its intention to call for bids on 15 new search and rescue helicopters, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services announces the conclusion of an agreement with Agusta to break the contract for the EH-101s.

My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Are we to understand from the announcement of this agreement with Agusta that the government has given up trying to investigate the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the contract for the EH-101s, which is what the present Minister of Human Resources Development was calling for when he was in opposition?

Contractors Protection Act November 9th, 1995

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-356, an act to protect contractors who disclose government wrongdoing.

Mr. Speaker, we know that a number of private companies do business with the government. Contracting out accounts for close to $10 billion of business, and we also know that there are a great many irregularities in contracting with the private sector. There are sometimes illegalities and waste. This bill would protect private contractors who decide to disclose government wrongdoing, waste or other irregularities.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Social Housing November 7th, 1995

Exactly, the Liberal government is responsible for these misunderstandings with respect to social housing in Quebec.

In light of the minister's comments and of repeated cuts in social housing, are we to understand that the federal government is officially withdrawing from this area and planning to shift to the provinces and municipalities the responsibility for meeting ever increasing social housing needs?

Social Housing November 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the minister's remarks are very hypocritical because, in the last federal budget, there was a $300 million cut in social housing. This department and its minister are heartless. Quebec has lost $950 million over the past five years, yet they have nothing to offer, nothing new to offer in terms of social housing, except for-

Social Housing November 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, Quebec accounts for 25 per cent of the total population of Canada and is home to 29 per cent of those living in inadequate housing in Canada. Yet, in the past five years, it has been allocated only 19 per cent of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's budget.

My question is for the minister of public works. How can the minister justify the fact that less money is available to the poor in Quebec than in the other provinces and what new way does he have to meet the glaring need for social housing in Quebec?

Referendums November 6th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the Minister of Justice does not deny what he said last week, so I am back with a supplementary.

Does the Minister of Justice not think it was indecent to consider resurrecting the power of disallowance or going before the courts to silence the voice of the people of Quebec?

Referendums November 6th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, last week as he left a cabinet meeting, the Minister of Justice clearly raised the possibility of dusting off an ancient federal power of disallowance which has not been used for more than half a century or going before the courts to stop Quebec if someday it wanted another referendum on its political future.

My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Could the minister confirm that he intends to use the power of disallowance which, according to the Supreme Court, has become obsolete, to prevent Quebecers from voting democratically on their political future?

Regulations Act October 2nd, 1995

Madam Speaker, Bill C-84 is an attempt to create confusion in Canadian regulations. There is certainly no indication that this bill will lead to any improvement.

As my colleagues already pointed out, the bill will in fact allow the government to hide its operational mistakes and waste. It will make it easier for public servants and government officials to

circumvent Parliament. My colleagues already explained that it is creating confusion in the regulatory process.

This is one of the reasons why we will vote against the bill. Contrary to what my colleague just said, I do not even believe it is an important bill. It was merely introduced to keep the House busy, to avoid dealing with the real issues, the real problems. This bill will not help job creation. We know full well that this bill, like a number of other insignificant ones, is being introduced to keep the House occupied and avoid any debate on sovereignty or the future of Canada. It allows the government to procrastinate and wait until after the referendum to make cuts in Quebec. Social programs will be drastically cut.

Next year, cuts will be more drastic than this year. This year, $650 million will be cut in social programs. Next year, it could be $1.2 billion and maybe more. The following years, it will be $2 to $3 billion a year. These are the real problems. They affect Canadians and Quebecers who would like their elected representatives to address these problems. And yet, here we are in this House talking about a piece of legislation which deals with regulations and does not even improve the situation, creates confusion and gives bureaucrats more powers to impose regulations which might not be beneficial to small business and business people.

As far as the real issues are concerned, this government has a tendency to table legislation in keeping with a political philosophy which is increasingly more right wing, favouring cuts and the centralization of powers. What is happening to social programs clearly shows that this government has no respect for the ordinary citizen. When it makes huge cuts in social programs and reduces UI accessibility, these are the real issues.

Why not talk about that, rather than about regulations which, for all intent and purposes, are without any importance? It is because we are waiting until October 30, to see whether Quebec will vote for sovereignty. Personally, I hope that Quebecers will realize that federalism is no longer profitable, that Quebec contributes more and more to a central government which is less and less effective, and Bill C-84 proves it, because again it creates confusion. It is inconsistent and does not even abide by the Official Languages Act.

We are giving powers to officials without making them responsible to Parliament. This is what Canada is offering the people of Quebec. Here we have a government which is less and less effective, which creates confusion and which despises Quebec. When we talk about cuts in social programs worth billions of dollars per year, when we talk about cuts in unemployment insurance, we are talking about things which impact on ordinary people. Also, the government has shown that it intends to reduce old age pensions. These are real problems, real issues which worry people, at least in Quebec, and here we are, today, talking about regulations, something that nobody understands.

Reading through the bill, one cannot see its purposes nor its basis, except perhaps to keep us busy here, in the House, talking for hours on end about this worthless jumble. The real questions are being avoided, or postponed to the end of October.

This bill is another example of the federal government's tendency to centralize, of its policy shift to the right. This is serious, because the trend was already evident throughout North America, in Alberta, in Ontario, but now it reaches into the federal government. It will soon make itself felt in cuts to unemployment insurance and social programs, and many Quebecers will end up on welfare.

Federalism is not profitable for Quebec any more. From now on, Quebec will see itself paying more and more every year into the federal system while receiving less and less. Incidentally, Quebec has not been receiving its due share from all federal departments for a very long time now. We did receive a lot of money through equalization payments and unemployment insurance benefits, but that will change in the next few years. Quebec will get less and less and pay more and more.

In the case of unemployment insurance, the federal government stopped contributing to it in 1990, employees and employers paying for it entirely. This year, in 1995, the federal government took from the UI program some $5 billion that will be used to other ends than unemployment insurance payments. Not only are they not giving money for those who lost their job, they are limiting access to UI benefits. Next year, in Quebec, two thirds of the people who will claim unemployment insurance benefits will be found ineligible.

It has already been estimated that 40,000 unemployed will have to go on welfare. These are the real issues that concern people. But, this week, in the House, we will be talking about regulations which do not make sense and only show that the government does not know where it is going. This government is not addressing fondamental concerns, because in the debate on sovereignty, it has nothing to offer to Quebec; therefore, it is avoiding dealing with issues.

In Quebec, we want to give confidence to Quebecers and to encourage them to take their destiny into their own hands after October 30. We want to give real hope to employers, to ensure equity and justice. This bill concerns the justice department. However, the best way for Quebecers to get real justice at home is for Quebec to become sovereign.

Petitions September 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the second petition was signed by close to 4,000 citizens of Limoilou, Quebec, who want the Minister of Canadian Heritage to act quickly and allocate funds to improve Cartier-Brébeuf park in Quebec City.

Petitions September 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting two petitions. The first one was signed by more than 300 people who oppose the introduction of BST in Canada.