House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Bloc MP for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is good that the hon. member has referred to the committee meeting but it is clear, if I am not mistaken, that in all of the cases mentioned this morning by Human Resources Development Canada, we were unable to find evidence that there was any transparency within the committee's criteria. We are calling for an independent public inquiry because the committee has its limitations.

The witnesses that spoke this morning showed us that indeed the committee does have its limitations, and in our opinion the scope needs to be broadened in order for there to be an independent public commission of inquiry into the entire matter.

Supply March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to the motion introduced by my party, which reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for the poor management seen at the Department of Human Resources Development, particularly in the award and use of grants for partisan purposes, and that it recommend the creation of an independent public commission of inquiry, whose members will be appointed by the House, and whose mandate will be to inquire into all practices of that Department and to report to the House by September 19, 2000.

I am all the more pleased to speak to this motion today because of the horror story I am about to tell the House in the ten minutes allotted me. It is a horror story because not only were lies told to the citizens I represent in the House, but because they were also told to yours truly, the member for Rosemont.

I would like to tell the story of a numbered company, 3393062 Canada Inc. This company was formed on July 16, 1997. At that time its headquarters were at Place Ville-Marie in Montreal. On August 4, 1997—a mere three weeks after the company was formed on July 16—it applied to Human Resources Development Canada for a grant under the transitional jobs fund.

On October 21, 1997 HRDC officials faxed my office a copy of the project, which I am now holding, a 35-page proposal to create 106 new jobs in my riding. This $2,750,230 project was supposed to be located in Rosemont and to create 42 jobs in 1997 and 64 additional jobs in 1998-99. This business was supposed to be set up in my riding, specifically at 5800, rue Saint-Denis in Montreal, in what is known as Place de la mode.

On October 27, when I recommended this project, I sincerely believed and thought I had the department's assurance that the jobs which were supposed to be created would be in my riding, that the jobs which were supposed to be created would serve the riding of Rosemont, one of the poorest ridings in Montreal, one of the ridings in the neighbourhood known as La Petite Patrie, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in Montreal.

I personally supported the project and it was naturally recommended by the Government of Quebec. In addition, on December 16 Human Resources Development Canada supported and approved the sum of $165,984, which was supposed to be used to create these 42 jobs.

Except that on March 5, 1998, at the HRDC office in my riding in Montreal, we learned at a meeting with the promoter and president of the numbered company that was going to create 42 jobs that there was no longer any space available at 5800 Saint-Denis Street. It was therefore impossible to create jobs in the riding of Rosemont, it was impossible to create jobs in Montreal and it was also impossible to create jobs in the metropolitan Montreal area. The company had no choice but to move and create these jobs, not in Rosemont, as had been recommended by the member for Rosemont, but in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding.

Mr. Goldenberg indicated to Human Resources Development Canada that there was no longer any office space available at 5800 Saint-Denis Street. I personally phoned the promoter of that building and learned that 40,000 square feet are available at the address where that business was supposed to settle.

Why did HRDC officials not bother to check things at the time? Instead, they looked the other way. The fact is they preferred to see these jobs created in the town of Saint-Élie-de-Caxton, in Saint-Maurice, in the Shawinigan area, rather than in a riding represented by a Bloc Quebecois member.

But there is more to tell. On March 19, a few days after the March 5 meeting, we learned that the president of that company had submitted invoices for the purchase of machinery and the renting of space in a building called, guess what? Confections Saint-Élie. Where is that company located? In Saint-Élie-de-Caxton.

Who is Confections Saint-Élie? If members would like information on that company, I invite them to read the election folder distributed on the eve of the Prime Minister's election campaign. The president of that company said “Our exports to the United States have doubled, which means we had to increase our staff quickly to meet the demand. The grant received with the help of Mr. Chrétien allowed us to do that”.

This is from the president of the company called Confections Saint-Élie. It was this company which found space for the company which was supposed to create jobs in Rosemont, which was supposed to create 106 jobs in my riding. Furthermore, we have learned that the number of jobs created by this numbered company was five, not 42. This is completely unacceptable.

There is more. We learned on March 19, less than one month later, that officials at Human Resources Development Canada nonetheless decided to give the $166,000 grant to the company knowing full well that only five jobs, not 42, had been created.

What became of the money? We asked the Prime Minister and we asked the minister. No response was forthcoming until February 25, 2000 when the deputy minister responsible for human resources development in Quebec confirmed for me everything that the Bloc Quebecois had been saying.

That was when the government and the minister decided to ask a Toronto firm to look into the matter. That was when the minister was informed of the results, one week later. On the 19th, she had to quickly recommend a police investigation into what is now known as “Shawinigangate”.

What we are calling for today is for the minister to immediately make public the report by the Toronto firm into the Rosemont affair, in the interests of transparency and out of respect for my constituents, and for members of the House to vote in favour of the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois today for an independent public commission of inquiry.

Supply March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the remarks by my colleague from Vancouver East. I would like to draw her attention to the internal audit report, which indicated very clearly the carelessness this government has shown in managing the transitional jobs fund.

When the internal audit report shows that there was no indication of supervision in 87% of the projects, no indication of financial control in 80% of them and no indication that the expected results were obtained in 75% of them, there is a problem. I could go on, because the internal audit report speaks volumes on the matter.

My question to the member for Vancouver East is very simple: In light of these conclusions, does the internal audit report not indicate more than ever that an independent public commission of inquiry has to be set up right away?

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. 399

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

“4. (1) On the expiration of nine months 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. 359

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

“4. This Act shall come into force on April 1, 2008.”

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. 324

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

“4. This Act shall come into force on September 1, 2005.”

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. 317

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

“4. This Act shall come into force on February 1, 2005.”

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. 308

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

“4. Section 3 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 2 shall come into force on the day that is four 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. 304

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

“4. Section 3 shall come into force on the day that is seven years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 2 shall come into force on the day that is five 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. 296

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

“4. Ten years after the coming into force of this Act, a committee established or designated by the House of Commons shall undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, and shall within a year after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon including a statement of any changes the committee would recommend.”