Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Bloc MP for Chicoutimi (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 1997, with 43% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Budgetary Policy November 30th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleagues, I am not too pleased to speak on Motion No. 17, because for me it is a waste of time. This motion is mainly about tabling a committee report. Imagine the time we take while people, taxpayers, Canadians are worried and unemployed and have no solutions. What Canadians and Quebecers want is a government that acts, a government that will present programs and do things to put people back to work and give them some pride. That is what Canadians expect of us.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I forgot to tell you at the beginning that I was sharing my time with my colleague.

In the present economic situation, of course, the debt is $150 billion-everyone says so and condemns it. Everyone knows the cuts that could be made when preparing a shopping list but no one ever makes them. We are not presented with anything to do it. When facing such an economic situation, of course they want to hide and above all they want to avoid debating the government's finances.

Why? I ask you why they want to avoid this debate. It is time. The people have been consulted. It is time to come up with something.

Are we ashamed of the budgetary policies that they want to bring in to control the deficit? Are they ashamed to apply them? Of course I would be ashamed to hold phony pre-budget consultations, if my budget strategy, already established in

advance, was to reduce the deficit on the backs of the poor, welfare recipients, the unemployed and especially students and to slash transfers to the provinces. This is what the Liberal government wants to do, but it does not dare to put it on the table for discussion. It holds phony consultations. It wants to limit debate so as not to make too many waves.

The government set a target for deficit reduction of $39.7 billion. This same government also says that a change of policy is needed to put its finances back in order. This government's budget policy has three main thrusts: economic recovery, attacking the poor and cutting transfers to the provinces, as I shall explain.

On the subject of economic recovery, the Minister of Finance says that 80 per cent of the federal deficit is structural. The fact that it is structural means that the deficit has nothing to do with the current economic conditions, or with the unemployed. Contrary to what this government thinks, Quebecers and Canadians are faced with a structural unemployment problem and they are not out of work by choice.

The Liberals sincerely believe that a large proportion of jobless people are lazy and are unemployed by choice. The Liberals also think that they will stimulate employment by forcing many unemployed individuals to look, and I emphasize the word look, for work. Yet, jobless people constantly come to our constituency offices to find out about programs. But these programs are in a state of chaos. Employment centres cannot keep up with the demand for work. The fact is that our unemployed are energetic and more than willing to work. It is the structure which is at fault.

The government's policy consists in targeting the poor by making cuts in social programs. The government wants to cut $7.5 billion in the budget allocated to these programs. However, it will not eliminate the deficit by targeting the poor. Instead of making thoughtless cuts through their social program reform, the Liberals should define clear and specific objectives, and they should also develop a job-creation policy, as they promised they would in their red book and during the last election campaign. They have failed miserably on this one. Indeed, they only managed to create a few temporary jobs through the infrastructure program.

The Liberal government also wants to reduce the deficit by making unilateral cuts, with no compensation, in transfer payments to the provinces. The Minister of Finance is once again passing the buck to the provinces. The debt will not go away by depriving the provinces of $2.6 billion. Other solutions are needed to eliminate that debt, as well as the deficit.

The Minister of Finance keeps asking us for suggestions. We say that the time has come to eliminate duplication and overlapping with the provinces. Ottawa must withdraw from those sectors which fall under provincial jurisdiction, and it must compensate the provinces accordingly. Eliminating federal interference will translate into savings of $3 billion for Quebec alone. Moreover, Quebec would finally be able to devise its own integrated policy regarding job creation, a policy that would really answer the needs of Quebec men and women.

However, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the Minister of Finance when he says that the deficit cannot be eliminated simply by cutting government spending. This is why we have made fair and equitable proposals that would lead to savings of $34.5 billion. These proposals should be taken seriously by the government, because they are far above the $25.6 billion savings that the government wants to realize at the expense of the neediest, mostly by cutting unemployment insurance and transfer payments to the provinces for education.

The Liberal government should draw up a budget which would focus on cuts in government spending and in subsidies to companies which do not undertake to create jobs, in its deficit reduction measures. Programs should be managed more efficiently, that is to say we should have sound management of business subsidies. We should stop giving money to companies which are neither productive nor competitive, money which is very often a form of patronage. We are talking about $3.3 billion here. It is high time that the minister and his government look squarely at the problem and stop dumping their problems on the provinces.

The red book promises jobs, and the Liberal government must adopt concrete job creation policies to bring us back to pre-recession employment levels. We need close to 825,000 new jobs, a far cry from the 45,000 temporary jobs they created during the past year. They still have a long way to go.

Let the government keep another one of its promises: not to raise taxes. To this end, the time has come to review certain tax loopholes enjoyed by high-income earners and big corporations. We all know in this House that family trusts, which are an important tool used in tax planning, are for the government a source of losses we can assess. According to some tax experts, they amount to several hundreds of millions of dollars.

The government has the tools to disclose the value of the assets in these trusts. Let the government tell us how much money is lost in tax revenues. This question was raised on several occasions in different committees. We never got an answer. But above all, let the government be true to its position when it was in the opposition, when it opposed delaying payment of taxes on capital gains until the death of the last beneficiary.

The finance minister and his government must come forward and say how they intend to deal with the nation's finances. Let them stop procrastinating and let us start tackling immediately one of the most pressing problems for our future, namely public

finance. This is the reason why the Bloc Quebecois is going to vote against the motion.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, last week, last Tuesday to be more precise, I asked the Minister of Transport, following the two train tragedies, if he had instructed VIA Rail officials to immediately correct the shortcomings with respect to emergency measures and first aid for passengers in case of a train accident.

The minister did answer my question, confirming that he had asked VIA Rail to take all necessary measures on a provisional basis to try and correct the shortcomings, thereby ensuring to the extent possible the safety of passengers and employees. That is where the problem lies. The minister said: "to the extent possible".

Does the minister realize that what is possible is determined by his office? Indeed, the emergency measures and all first-aid kits met DOT standards. It is up to the minister to upgrade these standards.

I am not satisfied with the minister's answer when he says that the measures required, the applicable measures will be determined on the basis of the investigation. The Minister of Transport knows full well what safety measures are required. It is those he has implemented in other means of transportation.

The minister must have the same measures apply to rail transportation, starting immediately. The minister may be hiding behind the fact that trains are the safest means of transportation. He even told me that it was an unprecedented situation.

However, that is no reason not to review safety standards in case of accident. We should not wait for another accident to happen before taking action. It is up to the Minister of Transport to act, and he must act now by upgrading safety standards. We must not forget that the statements of accident victims show that VIA Rail is not prepared and equipped for emergencies, as evidenced by the fact that the passengers could not open the doors, that they had to break the windows to get out, that first-aid kits only contained bandage rolls.

The facts are obvious. Safety standards are clearly inadequate and must be upgraded without delay, especially since even VIA Rail employees feel that they lack the training and the equipment needed to respond effectively to such an emergency. It is a very serious situation when the employees themselves feel they are poorly trained to deal with a situation like this.

I reiterate my question to the minister: Does the minister intend to upgrade safety standards? The minister must be aware that more people could have been hurt or killed in this accident and that we must do all we can to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future.

Budgetary Policy November 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I noticed how you listened carefully to the description that my colleague from Saint-Jean just gave about native people. It needs no comments. With his statistics on their housing, health and education problems, he gave a very real picture of the situation. Of course, we realized then that unemployment was very high. Here again, we see that the reforms about to be introduced always go after the same people-the unemployed and the poor.

It is hard to ask a question following such a presentation. I will simply ask the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who made a very impressive presentation that also struck me, to convey, besides the message he sent earlier, this message about native people to his Liberal caucus and to Cabinet. Given the presentation we just heard, I am sure that he will be able to make this reality sink in and that he will be listened to carefully by his caucus.

Budgetary Policy November 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to hear my colleague opposite talk a little about unemployment insurance contributions. We know very well that last year the Liberal government increased contributions from $4.20 to $4.30 per $100 for employers, and from $3 to $3.07 for employees. This is money which is taken out of the market and that could create jobs instead of helping the unemployed.

Moreover, the proposed reform will cut $5.5 billion from unemployment insurance over three years. So, contributions were increased and spending is being cut by $5.5 billion.

Here is my question: What will happen with all that? What will happen to the unemployed? Is it just a matter of transferring people from the unemployment roll to the welfare roll, thereby putting the burden on the provinces which will have to carry those welfare costs by themselves?

Budgetary Policy November 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member's comments. I was most interested when, speaking about SMEs, he said that we should promote a climate of confidence to allow SMEs to invest and create more jobs.

Here is my question. About 15 days ago, in the shadow of Parliament, a committee unknown to most of my colleagues opposed a plan by some Liberal members that would have created uncertainty about possible pharmaceutical investments. It was about the former Bill C-91. I would like to know what the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine thinks about these investments which are not being made today because of the uncertainty created by the government. This costs a lot in money, millions of dollars, and some very well-paid jobs are at stake.

Railway Transportation November 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since VIA Rail's Vice-President, Customer Services has indicated that emergency measures and first-aid kits met standards, does the Minister of Transport intend to upgrade safety standards?

Railway Transportation November 22nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

The two train tragedies in Brighton and Rimouski have revealed major shortcomings in VIA Rail's ability to assure the safety of passengers in case of accident. Passengers have pointed out that no one was able to open the doors of the railroad car that caught fire in the accident and that first-aid kits were totally inadequate.

Can the minister tell us if he has instructed VIA Rail officials to immediately correct the shortcomings with respect to emergency measures and first aid for passengers in case of a train accident?

Social Security Program November 21st, 1994

Madam Speaker, I was interested to hear what the hon. member had to say, especially when she talked about preserving the family unit, which is the nucleus of our society, and I think everyone in this House would agree wholeheartedly with that view.

Today, however, we must realize that as a result of this reform, the family as we know it will change. We will be left with only two kinds of families. We will have very rich families with a lot of tax shelters and very poor families. The middle class will disappear altogether. What kind of country will we have as a result? A very wealthy class and a very poor class. No more room for the middle class.

You also pointed out that you were against introducing measures for spouses. I respect that, and I agree.

Today, employers and employees pay very high unemployment insurance premiums. You said that to help families, it was necessary to create jobs, and not temporary jobs but well-paying jobs. In that case, in order to create jobs and to help employers and SMEs create jobs, present UI premium rates should be reduced.

I would appreciate hearing the views of the hon. member and her caucus on the possibility of reducing UI premium rates for employers and employees in the very near future.

Social Security Program November 21st, 1994

Madam Speaker, throughout his speech, the hon. member had nothing but praise for his minister, the Minister of Human Resources Development. I wonder whether tomorrow morning he will go to his office to receive a token of appreciation.

The hon. member said that the document we are discussing was the result of extensive consultations, and that is the point I would like to discuss: those extensive consultations that produced a reform to be implemented at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society-the unemployed or the beer drinkers, as they call them.

If these consultations were so meticulous, why, when we are consulting the public, does the minister send his go-between to do the ground work in our regions? The hon. member for Outremont is now scouting around Quebec to get the pulse of the people. In my own riding, in Chicoutimi, only fifteen people turned out.

This is a waste of taxpayers' money. In Jonquière, the number of spectators, because that is what they were more than anything else, was even lower, and in Roberval they had to cancel the consultation. Since people do not want to hear about this reform, because it will be at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society, I think the minister should do his homework all over again. The public consultations being conducted by the committee across the country are a sham.

Social Security Program November 21st, 1994

Madam Speaker, first I want to emphasize a positive point made by the Reform Party member. I agree with him when he says that, as regards post-secondary education, the federal government should not put students deeper into debts. Consequently, the hon. member would oppose a reduction in federal transfers to the provinces for education. I hope his views are shared by the rest of his caucus.

The hon. member approves the reform and every measure related to it. In fact, he said that on top of implementing this reform, we should also look at program expenditures. I agree that many departmental programs should be reviewed. However, my question is: Before implementing a social program reform which targets the poor and the unemployed, does he not think that we should take a look at foregone tax revenues for the government, because of family trusts, because of a major shortfall in GST collection, and because of subsidies granted to industries which do not appear to need them? Does he not agree that, before implementing this reform, the government should try to recover all the money it is losing right now?