House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was federal.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Bloc MP for Terrebonne—Blainville (Québec)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Cn Commercialization Act June 15th, 1995

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-89, in Clause 12, be amended: a ) by replacing line 14, on page 7, with the following:

"12. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister, with the approval of the"; and b ) by adding after line 30, on page 7, the following:

"(2) No agreement or arrangement under paragraph (1)( a ) or ( b ) or payment under paragraph ( c ), may be entered into or made until a ) the Minister has laid before the House of Commons a proposal that the agreement or arrangement be entered into or the payment be made, b ) the proposal has been referred to such committee as the House may determine, c ) the committee has reported that it approves of the proposal, and d ) the House has concurred in the report.''

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 36, on page 7, the following new Clause:

"13.1 No transaction that is made by the Minister or CN at any time before the first day that more than fifty percent of the shares in CN are owned by parties other than Her Majesty in right of Canada a ) that would transfer to Her Majesty in right of Canada any part, subsidiary, operation or property of CN with a value exceeding one million dollars, or b ) that would transfer to a party other than Her Majesty in right of Canada any part, subsidiary, operation or property of CN with a value exceeding ten million dollars,

shall be entered into until c ) the Minister has laid before the House of Commons a proposal that the transaction be entered into, d ) the proposal has been referred to such committee as the House may determine, e ) the committee has reported that it approves of the proposal, and f ) the House has concurred in the report of the committee.''

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-89 be amended by adding after line 36, on page 7, the following new Clause:

"13.1 (1) No transaction that is made by the Minister or CN at any time before the first day that more than fifty percent of the shares in CN are owned by parties other than Her Majesty in right of Canada a ) that would transfer to Her Majesty in right of Canada any part, subsidiary, operation or property of CN with a value exceeding one million dollars, or b ) that would transfer to a party other than Her Majesty in right of Canada any part, subsidiary, operation or property of CN with a value exceeding ten million dollars, shall be entered into unless c ) the Minister has referred the matter to the Auditor General of Canada, and d ) the Auditor General has reviewed the transaction and prepared and caused to be laid before the House of Commons, a report stating that, in the opinion of the Auditor General, the transaction is in the interest of CN and of Canada.

(2) The Auditor General shall cause the report to be laid before the House of Commons within fifteen days after the date of referral by the Minister."

Buffalo And Fort Erie Public Bridge Company Act June 2nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-81 is the bill before us.

The Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Company is a company formed by the Government of Canada in co-operation with the Government of the United States. The increased traffic on the international bridge resulting from the free trade agreement, which, it will be remembered, the Liberals opposed vigorously at the time, has now necessitated construction work.

The bill will accordingly allow the company to borrow up to $100 million on the private market through bond issues. This $100 million will help to pay for part of the Gateway project-a ten year $144 million project. Construction is planned on both sides of the border. It should be noted that the Government of Canada does not guarantee the $100 million loans. Theoretically, then, these loans are not binding on the Government of Canada.

The need to increase the borrowing power of the company will also enable the government to correct an anomaly. This bridge is the only one to come under the authority of the Minister of Finance. All the other international cross-border highways are the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, and the bill assigns him responsibility for this bridge as well.

A third aspect of this bill is that in order to facilitate future increases in the borrowing power of the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company, the governor in council is authorized by this bill to increase the borrowing limit.

It should be noted that the bridge authority must cover its expenses and that moneys spent to improve the bridge will be recovered through an increase in traffic and tolls.

For all these reasons, we support this bill, all the more so because the Bloc Quebecois has always supported the liberalization of trade and the NAFTA. The increased traffic on the bridge is a good example of the economic benefit to both countries of this liberalization. In opposing the free trade agreement, the Liberals showed at that time that they were unable to take economic decisions that would benefit Canada.

By proposing legislation in this House today that would help the bridge handle the increase in traffic resulting from this agreement that they so vigorously opposed, the Liberals are making amends, and in the same spirit I would be prepared to let bygones be bygones.

Canadian National Railways May 31st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer in fact confirms that the government is reducing CN's debt to lure buyers, American buyers for example.

Now for my brief question. Will the minister acknowledge that taxpayers are going to have to pay not between $400 to $600 million in the effort to privatize CN, but as much as $1 billion, and that this public support of $1 billion is nothing less than an indirect subsidy Ottawa will be offering to the future owners of CN?

[English]

Canadian National Railways May 31st, 1995

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

In reply to the question I asked him on May 18, the minister said that the sale of CN would be conducted in the best interests of taxpayers. But, this morning, it has come to light that, in the sole interest of reducing CN's debt, Ottawa will be sinking anywhere from $400 to $600 million into the purchase of CN buildings for which taxpayers have already paid.

How can the Minister of Transport claim that the government is acting in the Canadian public's best interests by acquiring CN property, when the sole purpose of this operation is to meet the liquidator's condition that CN's debt be artificially reduced to make its balance sheet more attractive, to-

Canadian National May 18th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Transport confirm his government's intention not only to use public funds to buy assets already paid for by taxpayers, but also to buy these assets for more than their current market value?

Canadian National May 18th, 1995

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

In an effort to reduce the debt of Canadian National, thus making it easier to privatize, the government is apparently about to buy this company's real estate assets, including the famous

CN Tower in Toronto. These would be purchased at a price higher than their true market value, to help CN bring its debt down from $2.5 billion to $1.5 billion.

How can the Minister of Transport justify his government's decision to invest considerable public funds in buying real estate assets already paid for by Canadian taxpayers?

Cn Commercialization Act May 15th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois approves in principle the government's proposal to sell CN to private interests. However, it has serious reservations about certain provisions of Bill C-89.

I will propose amendments to these provisions in committee. We object to clauses 8 and 16. We will also recommend an amendment to clause 6 regarding CN property that may be transferred to the Minister of Transport so that he can put it up for sale later.

Let us start with clause 8. One purpose-undoubtedly laudable-of its seven subsections is to prevent any individual, corporation or associate as defined in subsection (4) from holding more than 15 per cent of voting shares.

Notwithstanding these provisions, subsection (5) allows two such associates to disassociate, so to speak, from each other for the purposes of the act by submitting a statutory declaration stating that they are not acting and will not act in concert with respect to their interests in CN.

Each of the declarants may acquire voting shares up to a maximum of 15 per cent as if he or she was not associated with the other person. This dispensation, which broadens the pool and purchasing power of potential buyers, is probably necessary given the size of the operation. However, CN administrators must still be able to check if, in fact, declarants comply with the terms and conditions of their statutory declarations.

We feel that such control would be difficult to exercise in the case of foreign buyers. We are therefore proposing an amendment under which subsection (5) respecting the statutory declaration would be restricted to Canadian buyers. As a result, two or more foreign associates will not be able to exceed the 15 per cent limit by submitting statutory declarations.

If clause 8 aimed at preventing an individual or corporate takeover of CN must be approved in principle, the same cannot be said of clause 16. Regrettably, even in this bill whose provisions should have been purely financial in nature, the government could not resist, once again, one of its old demons: trying to invade an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Clause 16 may appear harmless. It reads as follows:

(1) The railway and other transportation works in Canada of CN, of every subsidiary of CN and of every corporation formed by any consolidation or amalgamation of any two or more of those corporations are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

The catch is that, once they are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, these works will be subject to federal legislation. If CN reaches a joint ownership agreement with a short-line railway, this railway will shift from provincial to federal jurisdiction, as suggested in the Nault report, we should point out. And the deed will be done.

Not only is the principle of this federal encroachment on a provincial jurisdiction unacceptable, but so are the economics of it, as we all know that one of the main reasons short-line railways can operate on sections considered non profitable by major companies is that they are not subject to cumbersome

federal railway regulations. Short-line railways need the operating flexibility provincial regulations give them, at least in Quebec.

This federal initiative is therefore likely to discourage the creation of short-line railways and limit their numbers. We must realize that each one of these railways is a section saved from abandonment. If the government now interferes with the development of short-line railways, this will mean that a larger part of the rail network in Quebec and Canada will be abandoned. So, we suggest that only interprovincial works of CN and its subsidiaries, and not those works which are entirely comprised within a province, be declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

Moving on to the intention expressed by the minister to purchase and sell separately CN non-railway assets, including AMF, a Quebec company. This company employs some 1,300 people whose jobs could be endangered if the company's ties with CN were severed. Under clause 6 of the bill, the minister may, while CN is a Crown corporation, direct CN to transfer such property. We will move an amendment providing that, before selling these companies, the minister, to protect jobs, will ensure that they are viable and, if need be, will take steps to ensure that they are.

To conclude, while agreeing in principle with privatizing CN, the Bloc Quebecois cannot help but notice that, far from resulting from a rail policy based on the requirements of the economy, this transaction pursues the purely budgetary goal of bringing in a lot of money very quickly. It is not a rational choice. It is a fire sale by a hard-pressed government.

Pressured by creditors, obsessed by Moody's downgrading of its rating, the federal government is putting up for public sale one of our crown jewels, a national treasure, because it desperately needs money to pay the interest on the accumulated debt caused by 20 years of mismanagement. There may be no other way out, but what an admission of failure.

We are witnessing, stunned by such incompetence and the misfortune of being governed by such poor leaders, the decline of a government that had its heyday before the current Prime Minister began, some 20 years ago, as the then finance minister, to dig this bottomless grave into which our national debt is dragging us, and the proceeds from the sale of CN will be but a shovel full of dirt in this grave.

In the face of this failure, how can one resist the temptation of comparing the Canadian federal system to a father who has to sell the family furniture and silver to pay household bills after getting deep into debt because of profligate spending and improvidence? No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that we, Quebecers, are anxious to get out of the house.

Official Languages Act May 11th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members have always opposed any attempt to abolish the Official Languages Act.

However, some Reform, Conservative, NDP and Liberal members, including the Liberal member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, gave their support to the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, by tabling petitions asking the House of Commons to abolish the Official Languages Act.

The government is guilty of double talk. How else can we explain the closure of the only French speaking military college in Canada? How else can we explain the evasive answers to our questions on the insignificant attention given to French as a working language in the federal administration, in Ottawa and in Hull?

This government wilfully contravenes the Official Languages Act. That is confirmed by the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and also by the actions of Liberal members.

High Speed Train May 10th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Transport.

Considering the studies he already has, including the joint study by Quebec and Ontario, why will the minister not at least take a preliminary position on this high speed train project which, first of all, would provide us with expertise that would be eminently exportable; second, would create thousands of jobs,

and third, would be financed to a considerable extent by the private sector?

High Speed Train May 10th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On November 1, 1991, the Transport ministers of Canada, Quebec and Ontario announced they would share the cost of a $6 million feasibility study on operating a high speed train similar to the TGV in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. This study was to be finished not later than November 1993, and the agreement between the three governments expired on March 31, 1994.

Since the study has yet to be submitted to the minister, could he explain why the report has been delayed for more than 16 months and tell us what he is doing or intends to do to put an end to this unacceptable situation?