Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

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

Lost his last election, in 2008, with 1% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply April 4th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about agriculture, a critical sector of our economy.

The official opposition is using this day devoted to agriculture to set the record straight in this area. I would not be surprised if, last week end, some members opposite forgot to reset their clocks.

Our job is to set the record straight regarding the last budget which has left Quebec farmers with a rather bitter aftertaste.

This last budget shows once more how unfair this government is.

The transition measures planned for Western producers following the elimination of the Crow rate are typical of the double standards applied by this government. Our party's position is clear: we support the elimination of this subsidy which created undue distortion in grain transportation.

However, we are against the $2.2 billion transition payment to western producers. By reneging on its commitments, the federal government is pitting eastern producers against their western counterparts and creates new trade distortions. Once the subsidy is eliminated, grain producers in remote areas will be tempted to dump their products on the domestic market. Otherwise, they will have to pay for transportation costs to foreign markets. This will lead to lower grain prices in the west, and higher prices in the east, since they will reflect the real transportation costs.

Moreover, beef and dairy farmers in the east will be doubly penalized, compared to their competitors in the west, since they use cereals as feed.

This is not an attack against western producers. It is the federal government, and no one else, which is upsetting domestic markets by introducing compensatory measures which apply only to the west. The government created an imbalance when it introduced the Crow rate and it now creates a new imbalance by doing away with it. It should have either cut the subsidy without compensation or cut it and compensated equitably all producers. It is probably too much to ask from people who, as usual, acted without considering the consequences.

Following Martin's budget, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will see his budget go from $2.1 billion to $1.7 billion in three years. Two thousand positions will be abolished because of these cuts.

Rather than cutting the budget in this way, why did the federal government not transfer the resources to the provinces? They could have rationalized spending, taking into account the programs they already manage. All the federal government had to do was withdraw from this field of provincial jurisdiction. Again, this is a perfect example of duplication since two levels

of government are going to compete against each other at the expense of the industry. By eliminating overlaps we could have avoided some cuts.

Quebec would certainly not have slashed research and development, and the experimental farms of La Pocatière and L'Assomption would have survived. In the farm community, as well as many others, we question the relevance of paying taxes to Ottawa when we do not get in return the necessary resources to develop our industry.

Also, we are still not getting our fair share of federal spending in agriculture, since we are only receiving about 12.4 per cent when 17 per cent of agricultural revenues come from Quebec. Meanwhile, the west is taking the lion's share with about 60 per cent of federal spending.

The situation in Quebec worsened since 1980, when our share of spending was 16.4 per cent. Moreover, taxes paid by our farmers help maintain policies which compete with their own production. Yes, many Quebec farmers are questioning the use of remaining in a country which lets them down at the slightest provocation. On the other hand, we know that we will have to counteract the fear generated by federalists.

The fear campaign began when federalist mercenaries published statements concerning the dairy industry in Quebec which, according to them, would be threatened by sovereignty. We are told that a sovereign Quebec would loose half its quota of industrial milk, which would lead to the closing of thousands of dairy farms in Quebec.

According to federalists, sovereignty would be catastrophic for the Quebec dairy farmers who supply the federation with 48 per cent of its industrial milk whereas Quebec only represents 25 p. 100 of the Canadian population.

Let us analyze the facts calmly. It is incorrect to say that a sovereign Quebec will no longer trade with the rest of Canada. The Quebec dairy industry is not a blessing, nor a gift or an advantage of federalism. It is just an economic fact.

Therefore, the worse case scenario should take into account the fact that the value of the trade between Quebec and Canada is more than $80 billion and that trading is not one way only. If Quebec is to lose its trade with the rest of Canada, is not the reverse also true?

Comparing one scenario to another, members will admit that this one defining an economic area which is advantageous to both parties is more realistic. True, it will not win an Oscar in the horror category or for fiction. But it is also true that people prefer movies with a happy ending. Here is a true script: just last Wednesday, dairy farmers from Quebec and Canada signed a memorandum of agreement on the integration of marketing operations for fluid milk and industrial milk in six eastern provinces. In these six provinces, farmers will be paid the same price for their milk and will share a common quota.

Together, these provinces represent 85 per cent of the Canadian industrial milk quota. Such integration will eliminate interprovincial barriers to milk supply. Quebec played a substantial role in this issue. Nobody was tempted to ignore it.

Without Quebec, the Canadian milk policy would fall down. The dairy farmers from other provinces know that and understand perfectly. In this pre-referendum period, they acknowledge the importance of economic integration with Quebec. We have put the federalist scare scenario far behind us, have we not? Canadian dairy producers know that the day after Quebec votes yes in the referendum, Canada will maintain an economic union with Quebec, not to please Quebecers but to protect its own interests.

Who would dare think of excluding Quebec from the supply management system, from quotas? Producers from other parts of Canada would have to compete with the highly competitive Quebec dairy producers and the Canadian market would experience a shortage of products from Quebec. The GATT would prevent Canada from slapping on new trade restrictions to prevent dairy products from Quebec from making inroads into its market.

The GATT prohibits the imposition of new restrictions on markets. Maintaining a common economic link would permit us to ward off pressure from the Americans, who have remained opposed to customs tariffs on Canadian dairy products. Federalists are also trying to use NAFTA to scare us.

Even though the United States always tries to get the most out of its trading partners, Quebec will invoke the GATT to protect its customs tariffs, just like the Canadian government does.

If we absolutely must talk about threats to the dairy industry in Quebec, let us talk about the latest federal budget. That is the real threat to the dairy industry. The government is reducing its industrial milk subsidy by 30 per cent over a two year period. Obviously, with 48 per cent of the quota for industrial milk, Quebec will have to absorb a large part of the cuts.

Calculating quickly, that will represent an income loss of $3,775 for medium sized dairy producers, whose average net income is $25,000. This will mean a 15 per cent drop in income, in addition to the increased cost of livestock feed stemming from the loss of subsidies for grain transport and feed transport, to which I referred at the outset.

I repeat that no compensation will be offered in this budget to Quebec farmers, who will be the hardest hit.

In closing, please allow me to quote the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Marcel Landry, after the Martin budget was tabled. He said that Canada's new federalism is a big tax grab, a reduction of services, and national standards. On this subject, he recommends taking control over our taxes as soon as possible and starting to map our own paths for the future-

Canadian Human Rights Commission April 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, given that Commissioner Max Yalden has expressed concern over the rise of intolerance in Canada, does the minister not agree that closing these regional offices will undermine the protection of rights in federal jurisdictions?

Canadian Human Rights Commission April 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The budget cuts made in previous years have already forced the Human Rights Commission to reduce the number of its information officers. As a result, the number of public inquiries fell by 25 per cent, while the number of complaints filed with the commission continues to increase.

Can the Minister of Justice confirm that the Canadian Human Rights Commission intends to reduce services to the public once again by closing its six regional offices across the country because of the Liberal budget cuts?

Convenience Flags March 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On March 17, the minister responded to a question from the official opposition by stating that the privatization of Marine Atlantic Inc. would resolve the matter of this company's foreign flagging of its ships.

Is the minister not aware that, by not bringing all of the ships of Marine Atlantic Inc. back under Canadian flag before the corporation is privatized, he is condoning this practice, which is followed by many Canadian shipowners, contrary to our economic interests?

The Budget March 14th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe this motion is out of order.

The Budget March 14th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. member, which contained figures, figures and more figures.

A year ago, when the members of the Reform Party arrived in the House of Commons, I remember their comments in an initial newspaper article in which they talked about a club sandwich costing less in the parliamentary cafeteria. We in the Bloc Quebecois were talking about tax reform. They then went on to talk about the shoeshine people; we were talking about tax shelters. We were therefore not quite on the same wavelength for savings to really be made.

The government talks about reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP. Could the hon. member tell us what percentage of the GDP he would like the deficit to be at, himself, so the debt could be paid back as quickly as possible, but without ever losing sight of the most disadvantaged, the unemployed and seniors?

I am not prepared, politically, to say that we are going to go after the most vulnerable in our society, who are unable to defend themselves, and that we will leave the rich alone. As I have said in the past and will continue to say, the good Lord and good common sense must go hand in hand. Therefore there has to be a balance between the rich and the poor classes. I do not want the poor to get poorer. I want a balance to exist.

I would like the hon. member to give me an idea of the rate he would bring his percentage to without affecting the most disadvantaged.

The Budget March 14th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I paid careful attention to the speech by the hon. member. I have one small question. I heard her say she wanted to make the cuts in the federal budget over three years. I would like her to tell me how they see unemployment insurance in three years' time, what will become of unemployment insurance?

Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96 March 2nd, 1995

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I listened to what my hon. colleague said and I wonder if he could tell me how he would have divided up this $2,9 billion from coast to coast. Would he have divided it fairly? I would like him to elaborate on this.

Air Transportation February 24th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, today the U.S. President and the Prime Minister will sign the Open Sky Treaty. That agreement will significantly change the rules governing air transportation between Canada and the United States. It will open an important market for our air carriers. However, they will have to face increased competition.

Air Canada will face more competition in a market where it is currently the only Canadian carrier. The Open Sky Treaty will allow Canadian International to further consolidate its operations with American Airlines, and to provide stiff competition to Air Canada.

For reasons of fairness, the Minister of Transport must reconsider his decision and allow Air Canada to get full access to Hong Kong, the main landing point in Asia. The Bloc Quebecois will not put up with questionable political decisions which adversely affect the only world class carrier based in Quebec.

Dairy Industry February 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, at a press conference this morning, the association representing Canada's 26,000 dairy producers made it very plain that they would not accept any concession on the part of the federal government in the present trade dispute between Canada and the United States over agricultural products. Their legal position is firm, and respects the new GATT agreements, as well as Canada's obligations under NAFTA.

The official opposition supports the agricultural producers of Canada and of Quebec and demands that the government immediately cease all discussions with the American government on this issue.

Canada has nothing to negotiate. It must immediately take this dispute to a GATT or NAFTA panel, which will obviously rule in Canada's favour. If it does not do so, this government will sooner or later have to explain why it is trying so hard to trade away the interests of the agricultural producers of Quebec and of Canada.