House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

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

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. 215

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

“4. (1) One year after this Act comes into force, and every three years thereafter, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs shall cause a review to be made of the provisions and the administration of this Act.

(2) Within one year after the review is undertaken, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs shall submit to Parliament a report on the review.

(3) The report shall be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the report.”

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. 207

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

“4. Section 2 shall come into force on the day that is one year after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

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. 153

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

“4. This Act comes into force three years after it is assented to.”

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. 141

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

“4. (1) On the expiration of seven 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 14 months 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. 136

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

“4. (1) On the expiration of six 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 three 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. 73

That Bill C-20, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 23 and 24 on page 4.

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. 42

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

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

Points Of Order February 24th, 2000

Madam Speaker, the great Corneille wrote “This obscure clarity falling from the stars”. This has now become “This obscure clarity falling from Bill C-20”.

I wish to enlighten the members opposite who intend to support Bill C-20, thus displaying a blatant lack of information.

So I wish to help them by seeking unanimous consent to table an article written by a Liberal, on another Liberal's statement, which reads as follows:

Claude Ryan did not beat around the bush yesterday when he criticized the bill on the referendum conditions, thus becoming one of the first well-known federalists to overtly voice dissent.

Mr. Ryan noted in particular that Parliament and the federal government, by expressing an opinion on the clarity of a future referendum question, would at the very least directly interfere in the drafting of the question, an attitude that the previous—

Point Of Order February 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for unanimous consent to table a document for the information of the House. I am counting on the usual propensity to learn of my colleagues opposite to get their unanimous consent.

The document is an article published in Le Soleil on December 4, entitled “Chrétien Preparing for Re-election”.

Supply February 17th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Suppose the national assembly decides to hold a referendum and prepares a question, and the House of Commons likes the question. Now suppose the vote in favour of sovereignty is 52%.

In this very original game where one of the players sets the rules once the game is over, one can expect that, with a 52% yes vote, the federal government would say that a 54% majority is needed. With a 54% yes vote, it would probably say a 56% majority is needed.

In any event, it would not recognize this 52% result. We would therefore find ourselves in a situation where Quebec would be 48% federalist and 52% sovereignist. Yet it would remain within the federal system, which means that it would be dominated by a minority. This is obviously undemocratic.

I would like to ask my colleague what kind of social peace she thinks we would have in a province that is part of the federation against the will of the majority of its people.