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

Royal Canadian Mint Act June 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the subject of Bill C-82. Unlike Bill C-91 and other bills introduced by the government, which are opposed in Quebec, this bill is not. It does, however, prove conclusively that the government has blocked its ears and that it is ready to do anything when the time comes to have its bills adopted.

We have heard a speech by the minister's parliamentary secretary that was full of errors and had little to do with reality. For example, it is not right to say that the business people most affected by the issue of a $2 coin were in favour of it. It is not true. They were not in favour of it. Not a single representation was made by businessmen in favour of a $2 coin being issued. A representative of the Coca-Cola company told us they were indifferent, that is, they were prepared to make the adjustment and they, like all the other business people, asked that the government at least delay the issue of the $2 coin for a year so that the industries most affected could adjust.

This is the least we can do for the business people, industries, vending machines and companies most affected by the issue. The government plugged its ears. Companies are not even being given a year to get ready for the new coin.

Why is the government in such a hurry?

Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act June 19th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention a rather interesting phenomenon. Listening to this discussion in the House concerning additives to the gas used in cars is a reminder of where the federal government is at compared to Quebec. In Quebec the electric car has been invented. An inventor in Montreal by the name of Couture has reinvented the wheel.

He has developed an electrical system by equipping each wheel with a motor, making this car the car of the future. Pollutants will be eliminated because, as we know, the whole discussion around MMT involves whether or not it pollutes, whether or not it is detrimental to health. In Quebec, we will eliminate pollutants. We will eliminate exhaust pipes. This will be a car without an engine. This electronic car is a major step forward for the entire world, and it began in Quebec.

Once again, this shows how Quebec has made progress in this field, as it has in many others, in trying to come up with the best, environmentally friendly solution for a healthier society. I was curious to know if the hon. member agreed with me that Quebec is already a frontrunner in the search for a solution to all these questions of gas and pollutants.

Minister Of Public Works June 8th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage continues his blunders and unethical behaviour on an impressive scale, another government minister has been doing some political maneuvering with taxpayers' money. It seems the Minister of Public Works redirected $26 million earmarked for repairs to a dangerous

highway to developing a nature trail in Cape Breton-East Richmond, his riding in Nova Scotia.

The Minister of Defence also chided him for arbitrarily cutting $10 million from the budget envelope to be used to help Maritime communities affected by the closing of military bases. The same Minister of Public Works also appointed his official agent as head of the Cape Breton Development Corporation in his riding and wants to redirect funds from the budget of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to the corporation.

Supply June 7th, 1995

They were wrong.

Supply June 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, let us say that we gained experience in trying to change the present system on several occasions: in 1990, 1992 and even before that. Numerous attempts were made to reform the system, but it is just not reformable, especially as viewed by Quebec.

For example, Western Canada, and Alberta in particular, was cheated of billions of dollars under the Trudeau regime. In fact, it is estimated that the government collected in excess of $100 billion from Alberta with Trudeau's energy tax. I have seen estimates ranging anywhere from $60 billion to more than $100 billion in oil taxes collected from Alberta alone. All that to maintain the federal system based here in Ottawa.

Other provinces had different problems, but in Quebec the main problem comes from way back. For one thing, it comes from the fact that we are French-speaking and have never been recognized in Canada as a different, distinct people, unique in North America. Everyone agrees that it is quite obvious though, but the fact remains that recognition has not been forthcoming in this system. Really, that is crucial for Quebec and the future of its society, because as long as we do not have the powers to develop as a French-speaking nation, as unique among North American nations, we will do all we can to try to gain these powers.

We will never have the necessary political and administrative reforms carried out within Canada. We will certainly not succeed in getting Quebec recognized as a people. We tried on several occasions but learned that it is just plain impossible.

The only difference perhaps between the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois is that we, in the Bloc, have realized that the federal system is not reformable, while our Reform colleagues believe it is still possible to reform this federal system.

Supply June 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, if it were possible to decentralize Canada it would be very interesting. I do not believe it is possible to decentralize the federal government because it is part of the federal history to centralize power. That has been the case ever since the second world war. The federal government has taken more and more power. It has assumed more and more of the provincial jurisdiction.

Today the situation is catastrophic in the sense that the federal government has no place being there any more. It is a useless political institution in the broadest terms. It is a wasteful institution.

Now its role is basically to maintain itself, to keep itself alive. It is like this absurd institution that suddenly finds itself alive and now will do everything to maintain its life in spite of the fact it is taxing provinces and creating problems all over the country.

We can criticize this system inside and out completely. It is wasteful, it is not economical, it gives no guidance to the country. Its primary goal right today is to do everything to maintain its life. This is what the government is doing. It is trying to maintain the operation of this federal institution in Ottawa in spite of the fact it is a totally useless institution.

Supply June 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making in such a colourful way is that basically attempting to change the Department of Human Resources Development is tantamount to attempting to change the entire Canadian federal system because this department is at the heart of every federal program, anything that deals with employment, training, social programs. We also know that HRD may well have one of the largest budgets, if not the largest, of any federal department.

That is what prompts me to say that this debate tonight goes to the very heart of the Canadian policy issue. Looking at this reform proposal concerning the Department of Human Resources Development, we can see that the impact of this reform is quite disastrous in every respect. Even from the point of view of political philosophy, this reform makes no sense.

There is an ongoing debate in Canada about the value of decentralizing political powers. I think that this policy or idea is widely held across Canada. At least in Quebec and in parts of English Canada it is regarded as good policy. The Liberal government however would rather adopt a centralizing policy, which is obvious in several bills, including bills from the Department of Human Resources Development. This is a disastrous policy thrust, as we know. I even think that a majority of Liberal members, and you might be one of them, care and will recognize that decentralizing is the key to the future of Canada's political development.

However, this Liberal government and its Prime Minister seem more bent on centralizing, which is disastrous as we can see, particularly when we come from Quebec. This human resources reform is disastrous, both from a political and economical point of view.

Although the government is trying to cut several billion dollars in social programs, a measure which will hurt the poor and the most vulnerable people in our society, it will not really save anything. These cuts are not well thought out; they are not planned; they are not part of a global vision for development. In fact, if this government really cared, if it really had a vision for rebuilding the country, it would have reduced overlapping and duplication. It would have opted for decentralization, instead of centralization.

Once again, the reforms proposed by the Department of Human Resources Development show that, in the future, there will undoubtedly be even more duplication than before. This will not result in savings. Duplication means not only that money is wasted, to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, but also time, energy and even human lives.

When we really get down to talking about client services and the efficiency of programs managed by the Department of Human Resources Development, we have to conclude more and more that they are not efficient. The department tries to put job creation or training programs in place to enable people to hold jobs. The department, the federal government itself, acknowledges that these training programs are inefficient.

One has to actually be there, hit the streets, the towns and the countryside to really take stock of the current disaster, the mounting frustration people are venting; people are becoming more and more concerned about what is going on because they are under the impression that politicians are not doing their jobs. And how right they are that this government is not doing its job.

And the reforms they are proposing for the Department of Human Resources Development are nothing more than expensive deviations from which no good will come. Who will ultimately pay? Now that the Liberal Party is no longer a Liberal Party in the traditional sense, but much more like a Conservative Party, there is no difference between the current Liberal Party and the Conservative Party that preceded it: their policies are identical. Inertia rules. But who actually pays for this lack of leadership, concern and good policies? The poor, the sick, seniors, students, the unemployed, welfare recipients, all of the classes in society which have no voice. They will be the ones who will have to pay. In fact, they are always the ones who pay for a government's slip-shod work.

But these people will not always be ignored. We can say this because they are a majority. A storm is brewing in the country, it is brewing because there are no jobs and no training is available. Therefore, if the patronage and the scandals like Power DirecTv or other shady issues clouding this government do not bring it down, its inertia, lack of vision and the public's dissatisfaction will. Their system is doomed to failure.

The current federal government in Ottawa has no vision. It is doomed to failure. One thing is sure, it is going to crumble under the weight of its own debt and of its shortsightedness. In fact, in Quebec we want to get out of this system because we can do a better job. One does not have to be a genius to realize we can do better than the federal system we have now.

The Department of Human Resources Development, as I said before, illustrates what is wrong with the whole federal system. This department has made presentations and introduced cutbacks, but is misleading in the way it presents its budget. It is hard to pinpoint what they are trying to do. We know the minister is confusing the issue. He would have people believe he is improving the system, but that is not the case. They talk about increasing the number of programs and the amount of money available for training or job creation, although we know there have been drastic cuts in the amounts available.

Confusion reigns in this department. As I said before, all you have to do is go down the street, go to the cities and towns and employment centres and you will see what is happening. The department's employees no longer know which side they are on, whether their job is going to disappear, how much money they have for which programs and which programs will be abolished. This is not a department with a clear vision, a sense of purpose. Confusion is spreading because people do not know where they are going.

There is some kind of trickery afoot, but I am afraid they underestimate the public's intelligence. The auditor general has often said that budgets are mainly an exercise in camouflage. It is an attempt to prevent people from finding out exactly how the money is spent. You practically have to be an expert, and even the experts cannot agree.

Cover up and concealment seem to be the order of the day. The Auditor General of Canada singled out the Department of Human Resources Development as a case in point. Confusion is rife, especially in this department. As I said before, the department is at the heart of the federal system that is collapsing under its own weight, through its own inertia and lack of vision.

How the money in the Unemployment Insurance Fund is used is another example of this now you see it, now you don't, attitude. Everyone in Canada or at least a large percentage of Canadians has the impression that the federal government is putting money, their tax money, into the unemployment insurance program to subsidize training programs and other programs provided by employment centres.

However, the federal government, as I said before, is withdrawing from unemployment insurance. The money in the Unemployment Insurance Fund comes out of the wages earned by workers. We all contribute to this fund, but the federal government is contributing less and less. However, the government still gives the impression it contributes, and it uses the money to set up training programs and job creation programs for young people. This is a very economical way to give the impression you are doing something.

Obviously, this is one way to give the impression of doing something, but not necessarily a successful one. The greatest confusion is to be found in the new programs set up in the past 12 months, particularly those announced with the greatest noise-programs for youth, young trainees or the youth service corps.

In my riding, just by talking to people in the street, who have anything to do with these programs at all, you realize that they do not know where to turn anymore. For example, in Québec-Est, 38 projects were submitted in response to the youth service corps program, because people had heard there was lots of

money in it. The youth service corps proposed 36 projects, good projects, and only two were approved.

These two projects will go through a whole slew of checks, not only locally, but at the Montreal office and, eventually, at the Ottawa office. It seems they even had to be approved by the minister himself. This is a first. Even the officials are wondering why. This is a sort of politicization. I do not think it is economic, particularly. It is a reflection of the government's desire to centralize, once again, at the very heart of the Department of Human Resources Development. Why this attempt to centralize? It is not economic. It does not even make any sense.

This streamlining the Minister of Human Resources Development is talking about is, obviously, not streamlining. Anyone taking the slightest look at the thing will realize that there is no streamlining; it is confusion.

You just have to talk to the head of the employment centre in your region; he will tell you. He does not know if he will keep his job; he does not know whether the programs he currently administers will be extended. Furthermore, he will admit to you that the existing programs funded by the federal government from the unemployment insurance fund are not working out. There is no guarantee that someone taking training at an employment centre will find work. Oftentimes, even, people taking training at employment centres have less chance of finding a job.

This all makes sense, I suppose, in the mind of certain federalists, but, in my mind, it does not. There is no streamlining, only confusion and waste.

In Quebec we are concerned because we want to create jobs and put people to work. We want to improve our society. We are not asleep. We are not sitting on our power on little green chairs thinking that everything is fine. We know there are more and more poor people, unemployed and people on welfare. There are 808,000 in Quebec, alone. It is a catastrophe. This is a lot of human misery.

It is important, for example, for Quebec to have power in the area of manpower training. The struggle has been going on for a long time, and we consider it very important. The former Quebec minister and current federal Minister of Labour sitting across from me is aware that the Quebec government has fought for full control over manpower training for a long time, even when the Liberals were in power.

Manpower training is central because it lies at the heart of this whole game being played by the Department of Human Resources Development. It is at the heart of all societal problems. The issues are job creation and training. And education is at the heart of any society. That is why Quebec is right to stick to its guns. Not only because it is important but because it is under provincial jurisdiction. Education has always been under provincial jurisdiction. The federalists in Ottawa do not understand this. They have never respected provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the government has never respected its own constitution. Both training and education have always been under provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government is once again using this centralization policy. The fact that the Department of Human Resources Development is increasingly trying to exert control over manpower training provides further concrete evidence of the federal government's intention to centralize powers.

Quebec-not only the Parti Quebecois but also the Liberal Party-has always unanimously expressed the need to repatriate all manpower training powers. All manpower training stakeholders, union members, even the employers' council and the president of the Business Council on National Issues, Thomas d'Aquino, a man of some renown, have argued very strongly in favour of decentralizing manpower training powers throughout the country.

Unfortunately, we still do not have that power, which clearly shows once again the impossibility of reforming the current system because of increased centralization by the federal government. The impossibility of reforming the system is one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why Quebec must achieve sovereignty so that it can take control of its own destiny as soon as possible.

Supply June 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate which goes to the very heart of the Canadian policy issue.

There is a proposal to reform the human resources system in Canada. As you know, this is the largest department and the most essential to any political system, for it is or is supposed to be in charge of job creation and training. Social and other programs also come under this department.

This is an extremely important department and talking about reforming such a department is like trying to change the entire Canadian federal system as we know it.

If only the peanut gallery in the Reform Party could listen-

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76 is a direct attack on the poor. We already know that, and we said it several times in this House, but we must repeat it again: it is a direct attack on the most vulnerable members of our society.

The government wants to cut $7 billion, next year and the following year, in social programs. We are talking about a $7 billion cut in programs designed to help sick people, welfare recipients and students. This is in addition to all the other cuts made since the government took office. Over the last two years, these cuts have totalled $10 billion in Quebec alone. They affect the unemployed, as well as sick people, students and welfare recipients. The government even cut seniors' benefits.

This legislation targets the poor. The government does not take the issue of poverty seriously. On the contrary, the situation has worsened since the Liberals took office. Not only does the government target the poor, it also seeks, through this bill, to protect rich people, large corporations, etc.

If the federal government really wanted to save money, it could take some very simple measures. First, it could withdraw completely from social programs and transfer its responsibilities, along with the tax points, to the provinces. This would only make sense, considering that health, education and social programs fall under provincial jurisdiction. By insisting on remaining involved in these areas, the federal government violates its own constitution.

If the federal government were serious and really wanted to respect provincial jurisdiction, it would withdraw from health, education and welfare programs. Not only would it then abide by the constitution, it would also make astronomical savings. If the federal government really wanted to save money, it would simply withdraw from these programs, where there is duplication and overlap, at present.

Think about it. Operating costs at the federal Department of Health reach about $1 billion every year. By eliminating this department, we would save $1 billion a year. The same thing goes for the Department of Human Resources Development, where operating costs probably reach up to $2 billion a year. There are savings to be made in every duplicated program. The federal government would save a lot of money if it withdrew from such programs as health, social services and education. But also it would not interfere and prevent provinces from working properly.

For example, we know that the Quebec government has been asking for exclusive jurisdiction over training, but the federal government will not yield. Because of this conflict between Ottawa and the provincial government, training is not adequate, and losses could be as high as $250 million.

If the federal government were to withdraw from social programs, from provincial areas of jurisdiction, it would save a lot of money. If it really wanted to reduce the deficit, this solution would be the most logical one to opt for, particularly as it is constitutionally correct and takes into account the diversity of Canadian society. For example, imposing national standards across the country not only for social programs, but also for services, education and health, reduces flexibility and the capacity to adapt and to innovate in these sectors. If the provinces were given control of these areas, they may be able to find solutions to these critical and serious problems.

The very serious problems Quebec is currently experiencing in the health care sector are a cause of concern for many people. We are in the process of closing a certain number of hospitals in Quebec. In my riding, Québec-Est, people are particularly concerned. Last week, 10,000 people protested about what is happening at the Christ-Roi hospital.

These concerns and cuts are due to the fact that the federal government is reducing its transfer payments-to Quebec and to the other provinces as well-while trying to maintain national standards which no longer meet our needs.

The federal government is increasingly heading toward a form of bankruptcy. We already expect that, before the turn of the century, it will not have any money left to support social programs. It is already trying to maintain national standards, criteria that it imposes upon the provinces not because it worries about savings, obviously, but mostly because it wants to take over these areas of provincial jurisdiction.

It is unfortunate that the federal government did not care more about the poor because, clearly, the situation is deteriorating in Canada and in Quebec. Indeed, the federal government is playing politics on the back of the poor.

In Quebec, we would like to repatriate powers concerning social programs, because the provincial government is basically in a better position to deal with problems in health and education. The provincial government is in a better position to meet these needs. So far, the federal government has not properly met the needs of the people of Quebec; this is one of the reasons why we want to achieve sovereignty, because we fundamentally need those powers to create full employment policies and family policies, as well.

We need those powers to integrate all the elements of training, education, job creation and family policy, and to create a full employment policy in Quebec. Quebec fundamentally needs those powers. In fact, it is one of the reasons why Quebec wants to achieve sovereignty. Not only because it would save money but because we want to give young people and the not so young some hope of getting a job.

We also know that in Quebec we have the expertise. We have the know-how. We have certain projects we can develop that will help us do a better job than is now the case. In fact, we could hardly do worse, because as long as Quebec remains part of Canada, the situation is likely to deteriorate and surely will, because basically, the federal government has less and less money to contribute to social programs, while it tries to maintain national standards.

This patently absurd situation will make things increasingly difficult for Quebecers, and that is why Bill C-76 is a genuine attack against the vulnerable in our society and shows no real interest in saving money, on the contrary. The government wants to reduce its deficit but, in the process, it mercilessly attacks the poor, the unemployed, the sick, people on welfare, students and senior citizens, while it could save a lot of money by simply withdrawing from all social programs and giving these powers to the provinces, in compensation for tax points.

Social Housing June 5th, 1995

Does the minister not agree that his cuts to social housing subsidies are a direct attack against the essential needs of the most vulnerable families in our society, despite Liberal election promises that these people would enjoy an acceptable standard of living in conditions of dignity and respect?