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

Employment Insurance October 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development recognizes the problem of the drop in participation in the employment insurance plan, but he continues to refuse to acknowledge that his government is responsible for excluding most of the unemployed youth from it.

When is the minister going to re-establish eligibility criteria that will enable young people to once again receive benefits?

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear government members describing Bill C-43 as a change of very little consequence overall. We are told that it merely involves transferring certain applications to collection and certain functions from a department to an agency, with no real impact on individual members of the public, on workers and public servants.

In late August, I was fortunate to be able to meet with tax collection employees in Shawinigan, Quebec, to talk about a completely different area in which the government has outdone itself with its incompetence, namely pay equity. The public servants described the position in which they found themselves. Some employees came to see me and reminded me of the upcoming Bill C-43 and how they were counting on the Bloc Quebecois to intervene.

I would like to know if the member opposite is aware that 20% of public servants will no longer be covered by the Public Service Employment Act, meaning that, in two years, the agency will have carte blanche to raise or lower salaries, to hire or fire employees.

I would like to know if this is not the real reason that the government created the agency. Does the government prefer strong-arm tactics that will ultimately crush employees' collective demands? That is my question.

Dredging Of St. Lawrence June 9th, 1998

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

Quebec stakeholders agree on the need to hold public hearings on the dredging of the St. Lawrence River. However, the minister will not hold such hearings, as authorized under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

How could the Minister of the Environment allow these dredging contracts to be awarded without public hearings, without giving members of the public an opportunity to express their views on the matter, when everyone, including the Quebec government, is asking for public hearings?

Carbon Dioxide Emissions May 28th, 1998

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on an issue of paramount importance. The hon. member for Davenport is giving us an opportunity to address the important issue of climate change and this government's inability to develop a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

I shall take a moment to read this very interesting motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, as part of a global effort to minimize climate change, develop a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Canada possibly by 20%, based on 1998 levels, by the year 2005.

Let me go over the key elements of this motion: global effort, strategy and 20% reduction. These are the elements I will address today in the time allocated to me to speak on this issue.

I shall focus first on the global reduction effort referred to in today's motion. This is an important point because Canada has traditionally been a world leader in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but that was before the Liberals took office in 1993.

If we take a look back at the 1992 conference in Rio, we can see that Canada was then actively involved in safeguarding our environment. Canada was in fact the first of more than 150 nations to sign the framework agreement. It worked hard on bringing these nations to join forces in fighting greenhouse gases. In those days, Canada took a leadership role on the international scene, encouraging other nations to act responsibly and take positive measures to counter climatic changes.

Unfortunately, one year later, the world lost a key player after the Liberal Party came to power in Canada. That party made Canada go from the position of world leader on the environment to that of a burden for the international community, and this is no exaggeration.

First, Canada is the world's second largest per capita polluter, in terms of greenhouse gases. As such, it cannot act as if it is not concerned by the issue. The Liberals came to office in 1993, one year after the signing of the international agreement in Rio.

What is the situation now, after five years of Liberal government? We produce 9% more greenhouse gases than we did in 1990. If the pattern is maintained, the Liberal Party will lead us to a 13% increase by the year 2000, while the Rio accord provided that emissions should be stabilized, which means a 0% increase. The Liberal Party has totally ignored Canada's international commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.

But there is more. The list of this government's environmental failures at the international level continues. As we know, the all important Kyoto negotiations took place last year. Once again, countries from all over the world got together to agree on targets for reducing greenhouse gases. The issue was very important, because this time the parties were trying to agree on objectives that would include legal obligations.

Let us take a look at Canada's role in these negotiations. First, while the governments of most developed countries were holding national debates on the issue of climatic changes in the year preceding the Kyoto summit, the federal government merely watched the train go by without worrying about anything. After discussing these issues internally, the G-7 members began to adopt a position on the international scene. In other words, these countries were already beginning to negotiate at the international level a position with which they would be comfortable.

Where was the Government of Canada? What was the position of the country that played a leading role in 1992? No one could tell. In fact, the Canadian government dragged its feet to the point of being the last G-7 member to present a bargaining position. While other countries were openly negotiating at the international level, the Liberal cabinet kept wondering what position to adopt. Some leadership.

The federal government has, of course, done everything in its power to cover up the amateur and incompetent way it has handled this. It has, for example, tried to justify its immobility by invoking the need to consult the provinces. Who could be opposed to consultation?

The problem here is that the federal government woke up a month before the Kyoto deadline, when it finally got around to calling together the provincial ministers of environment and natural resources at Regina.

I need not point out that these negotiations had been so well prepared by this government that they ended up in a disagreement between Quebec and the Canadian provinces. The provinces did, however, manage to reach agreement on a minimum position for reductions.

A month later, the very day they were leaving for Kyoto, the Canadian ministers of the environment and natural resources finally made public a negotiating position, a 3% reduction. Because they were the last to do so on the international scene, one would assume that this position was at least the object of consensus within Canada.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. The Canadian position was denounced immediately by the provinces, which had agreed to a different objective just the month before. In short, the federal government did not play a leadership role on either the national or the international level. In both cases it failed miserably at getting its vision across.

This is why the reference to the world-wide effort in the motion of the hon. member for Davenport is so important here. While it did not commit to reduce gas emissions to the same extent as the United States, France, Germany or England, Canada must at least take steps to honour its commitment. To this end, the government must implement a strategy, and this is the second topic I want to address today.

Strategy is too strong a word to describe the Liberal government's action in connection with climate change. In fact, unless the Liberals had actually planned for their reduction effort to fail, it would be more appropriate to talk about Liberal ad-libbing. I am not the only one to say this, as the sponsor of today's motion knows.

This week, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report in which it makes caustic comments on the current government. It explains clearly why the federal Department of the Environment is presently unable to protect public health and the environment.

In our view, two serious problems are undermining the department's very credibility as far as meeting any environmental challenge is concerned: the chronic lack of resources and the possibility of unacceptable interference by senior management in the decision making process.

We were astonished to learn, for instance, that only half of the regulations for which the federal government is responsible in Quebec will be implemented in 1998-99, for lack of resources.

In addition, employees told of several cases of undue interference on the part of senior management in the past. During the standing committee's hearings, one manager even refused to answer our questions on this issue, for fear of reprisals.

The federal government has been aware of this situation since at least 1995. Why did it not change the decision structure which continues to favour such interference? In this case, as in the case of climactic change, there is a flagrant lack of political will on the part of the Liberal government to protect the environment and honour international commitments.

In addition to paralysing the Department of the Environment through draconian cuts, the Liberal government has not established who would be directing federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. I refer to the report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. He pointed clearly to federal improvisation in the reduction of toxic gases.

In conclusion, I support the motion of the member for Davenport and I wish that his government would read it and take note as soon as possible. I have my doubts, however, because the motion repeats verbatim a promise in the 1993 red book. Up to now, the Liberal Party has forgotten anything in the red book more often than not, now that it is in power.

The Environment May 28th, 1998

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

Monday, we learned that the government had paralyzed the operation of Environment Canada by making it impossible for the department to protect the environment. In addition, the day before yesterday, the commissioner of the environment confirmed this government's inability to enforce environmental legislation under its own jurisdiction.

How does the minister justify encroaching further on provincial jurisdictions with her Bill C-32 when she is not even able to enforce laws under her own authority?

Drinking Water Management May 8th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the export of drinking water has been the object of intense debate in Quebec, but there is unanimous agreement that Quebeckers must be the ones to decide on management of this resource.

Last Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated his intention of using certain laws to reverse a provincial decision in this matter.

Does the Minister of the Environment acknowledge that drinking water management is a provincial area of jurisdiction, as are all natural resources?

Renewable Energy May 7th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, this week, 350 experts are meeting in Montreal for an international conference on renewable energies. Delegates are looking at the latest technological developments in the field, as well as at policies encouraging the transition to renewable energies.

Delegates will note that the federal government has neither a specific policy nor an actual budget for the promotion of renewable energies. Worse yet, it is cutting its budgets for the few related research projects, such as the Tokamak facility in Varennes. Delegates will also note that this government is still trying to excuse its failure to act by claiming that additional studies are necessary.

But time is running out. Every day, 10 Canadians die prematurely because of the effects of air pollution, which could be controlled. The federal government must take action now in the areas over which it has jurisdiction in order to stop the coal-based production of electricity, improve the energy efficiency of vehicles and buildings, and promote public transportation.

Supply April 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is confusing the debates.

The important thing to consider is what leeway his government and other countries are able to give their citizens to improve their situation. The issue is not to draw conclusions.

The important thing is to give citizens room to maneuver so they can improve their situation, instead of throwing stones at everyone in this House.

Supply April 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I believe the Multilateral Agreement on Investment will fundamentally change the picture. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has expressed several concerns about this agreement as regards cultural, social, labour and environmental issues.

I think we have to listen to the requests made by the different interest groups. There is indeed a risk in lowering environmental standards on the national level and also in Quebec. We must ensure that this opening of markets will not have the effect of reducing the quality of our environment.

I think that, to this end, we must ensure there is a good debate in this House, instead of listening to the member opposite, who has been uttering platitudes from the start.

Supply April 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, if we have to raise fundamental questions such as these today, it is perhaps because of the empty rhetoric we hear from my colleague opposite.

As far as poverty is concerned, the hon. member should know that his own government has made cuts and reduced transfer payments to the provinces. I think he could have seen the first moves in that direction.

I remember the Axworthy reform and various things that have happened and are due mostly to what this government has done or failed to do.