House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Bloc MP for Matapédia—Matane (Québec)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 45% of the vote.

Statements in the House

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within four years after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:

“be extended by an additional 34 days.”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:

“37 to 60 days after the government of a province”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

We must be very much worthwhile financially. I have been fighting for sovereignty for the past thirty years at least. I have federalist friends who, fortunately, are realizing more and more that Quebec must become sovereign, not to stir up trouble but to put an end to the squabbles, not to be an enemy but to be more of a friend, because they are going to live in one beautiful country and we in the other. We will then be able to reach out the hand of brotherhood and all will be well.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

Yes, they are poisoned. We must judge a government, and especially the minister, by its legislation. This minister is arrogant and his legislation is provocative. Furthermore, Bill C-20 is an insult to and a crime against intelligence.

It more or less tells the members of the National Assembly “You are not bright enough, not intelligent enough to determine your own destiny. Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Charest, Mr. Dumont, you are three minus habens. You are waterboys, second class politicians or, as Trudeau told Bourassa, hot dog eaters”. That is what Trudeau said.

Moreover, it is an insult to and a crime against freedom. My adolescent students used to say “We are free”. They were right. I imagine that Quebecers are quite capable of freely making their own choices. Bill C-20 says the question must meet such and such requirements. Any other question will be considered as ambiguous. Is that freedom? Is that the extent to which freedom can be exercised in this Parliament?

The federal government's judgment can supersede Quebec's judgment. As my colleagues said earlier, Bill C-20 is undemocratic. In 1980, the federalists won with 50% of the votes plus one; they were happy and they celebrated with champagne. In 1995, the federalists won with 50% plus one, and they really brought out the champagne. However, at the next referendum, if we win with 50% plus one, that would not be enough. According to the Prime Minister, such a result could not be recognized. The rules have changed somehow.

I have always admired Mr. Ryan who, many years ago, was the editor in chief of Le Devoir and has also been the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec. He is a remarkable man. He said he would recognize these rules. Joe Clark, a former Prime Minister, said the same thing in this House.

What is going on here is that they are using their strength to crush a whole people, the Quebec people. Never will the people of my riding, the people of the riding of my colleague from Charlevoix, whom I had the honour to meet twice, and the Quebec people as a whole go for such legislation.

Ottawa's bill is not only abusive, it is unjust. Its proponents are acting with the arrogance of conquerors. Those who support them are serving a cause or purpose. What cause or purpose? To eradicate anything that makes possible the existence and the expression of a people that the constitutional order of the Canadian society obstinately refuses to recognize.

We, in the regions, are fed up with a government, which, instead of trying to settle real problems and create jobs, is attacking our government, the government of Quebec and those who are truly elected by the people.

This government dares to dictate our conduct. That is something that no one can or will accept. We find the dirty tricks of the present Liberal government pretty tiring. Even the Liberal MPs from Quebec, and that is what is sad and unacceptable, fail to understand and are not attuned to their constituents. I can understand this in the case of those representing anglophone ridings, but the member representing Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet should have ears to hear what his fellow citizens are saying. After the next election, he will no longer be around. It is perfectly clear, because people with freedom at heart, people who understand what Quebec wants, will definitely show their MP the door, minister or not. And they will not be ushering him out an emergency exit for his safety, but booting him out the front door.

There is no way to ignore the sour note on which this past century and this past millennium came to an end. If the Quebec people were to bow to the yoke of Bill C-20, it would be a sign that we had been tamed. We would be just like the domestic animals on the farm to serve humans. I trust that my friends across the floor will understand, and I will offer a quick summary.

If the people across the way want to put up fences, if they want to impose a yoke on us, if they insist so much on keeping us, this must be, I should think, because our values are superior to theirs.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague had to say and I see more and more that there are two entities in Canada: his and that of men and women in Quebec.

I had prepared something for the year 2000, something that could give hope to the Matapédia—Matane people et to all Quebecers.

The inaugural magic of great moments is difficult to conjure up for the humanity. As a magic date, a mythical passage, the arrival of year 2000 created a lot of hope in all our hearts. Many were disappointed, especially since the introduction in this House of Bill C-20. Like the whole of humanity, Quebecers entered the third millennium with a lot of hope and expectations.

On the eve of year 2000, the people had the feeling, the belief that things could now be better. It was even said “Peace and goodwill to all”.

With the minister's Bill C-20, the government cast darkness over that environment. This minister could be called the “son of darkness”, it is incredible how poorly he understands Quebec reality. Once in a while, legislation can be considered a comedy, but if I had to describe this one, I would have to say it is a terrible tragedy.

People on the other side should have a hand dog look tonight. But that is not the case; they are smiling and saying this is a good piece of legislation for Quebec. If by their fruits you shall know them, then—

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 3rd, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 15 on page 1.

Points Of Order February 24th, 2000

Madam Speaker, three of my colleagues and I went to Sept-îles to inform people there, who told us to table this document in the House.

There were a great many people in Sept-Îles, including the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the hon. member of Charlevoix, the hon. member for Manicouagan and myself. We made a special trip, and were back here the following day to take part in the House proceedings. Here, nobody listens to us. We have to go to Sept-Îles.

I am asking the House very nicely for permission to table a document setting out what people in Sept-Îles and in large areas of the north and the south have to say. They asked us to table this document and I hope the House will not insult them by refusing permission to do so.

Municipal Grants Act February 23rd, 2000

They want to put a tax on shrimp.

Point Of Order February 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, everybody in the House knows Félix Leclerc. I have here a document about the dignity of standing up as a people. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House—for denying it would be an insult to Mr. Leclerc—to table this document to enlighten the House. I hope to get unanimous consent.