House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Bloc MP for Manicouagan (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 31% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for his question, which has two components.

Both sides talked about the two sides of a coin. I was alluding, of course, to the Minister of National Revenue, a “little guy from Charlevoix”, a “little guy from the Malbaie”, who gave his version, which is a Canadian version.

It is hard to keep track of what is going on in Charlevoix. What my constituents want to know is: what will happen to the Pointe-au-Pic wharf, the Saint-Irénée airport, and to Baie-Comeau? This is what they want to know. They are not interested in long speeches on international issues, in all that rhetoric by people who do not know what to say. They want to know what is going on in the federal government. We pay taxes and get nothing in return.

The unemployed pay taxes and contribute to the employment insurance program, but they are not even covered. We pay taxes, but what do we get in return from the federal government? This is what people want to know. We pay taxes to the Quebec government, but in return we have a road network, a health system, an education system. These are concrete things.

Back home, we have only one airport and one wharf left, and now the federal government is about to privatize them. What will the government do with our taxes? This is the first component.

I also congratulate the hon. member because, as chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, he does an excellent job and listens to all political parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, which stated its position. The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, who is our transport critic, did an excellent job with me in proposing recommendations. Some of our recommendations are found in the committee report, and the Bloc Quebecois also tabled a minority report.

Of course, the Standing Committee on Transport is there to hear witnesses, to improve Canada's transportation system. However, things must not be done only behind closed doors and in committee. The minister must now implement the report's recommendations, so that things will work.

Supply March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to say that, even if today is an opposition day for the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois is against this motion.

Essentially, the motion states that, in the opinion of the House, the government should provide the necessary leadership to develop a safe, seamless, integrated transportation system, by working in conjunction with the other levels of government and the private sector, to plan, implement and fund such a system.

This motion is not votable. If it were, we would vote against it.

The federal government does not have jurisdiction over all transportation infrastructures; it has jurisdiction solely over the interprovincial system. The federal government does not have to implement such a system everywhere for everyone. It would be far better off financing an infrastructure program to be implemented by the provinces. I shall have the opportunity to come back to each of these points later in my speech.

In the area of transportation, the federal government has totally abandoned the regions since it came into power. Urging it to play a lead role in this area is ensuring that the regions will be left out. That is the Bloc Quebecois position as far as this Reform Party motion is concerned.

There are different types of transportation: land, marine and air. When we speak of land transportation, there is the highway system and the rail system, VIA Rail included. When we think of the marine system, we think of Fisheries and Oceans, the Coast Guard, the St. Lawrence River, the St. Lawrence Seaway. When we think of air transportation, there is the entire Canadian aviation system.

In the 20 minutes allocated to me, I am going to try to develop each of these themes. Yes, land transportation is a federal responsibility; it has the responsibility to be directly involved in the maintenance of interprovincial highways.

In my riding, the riding of Charlevoix, Highway 389 links Baie-Comeau and Labrador. It dates back to the time of the construction of the hydroelectric facilities, Manic 2 and 3, Outardes 3 and 4, and Manic 5. After Manic 5, this highway was extended toward Labrador.

This means that, in the region of Fermont and Farley, a person can come back from Labrador right to Baie-Comeau. Labrador and Quebec's highway 138 are linked by an interprovincial highway.

I made a number of representations as the member for Charlevoix and the one responsible for that part of the road network. I made representations to the Minister of Transport and to the transport commission, with the support of the mayor of the Manicouagan RCM and of the Baie-Comeau chamber of commerce.

The minister replied that, unfortunately, he did not have any money left, that a financial restructuring was going on and that the objective was to achieve a zero deficit. This is why the SHIP program was abolished. That program had been established under the Conservatives. Its objective was to maintain and improve our road network, but it was eliminated by the Liberals.

I was listening to the minister. He has done all kinds of acrobatics to extol the virtues of his government, a government that axed all the programs. Whether it is VIA Rail, the interprovincial road network, the maritime or air transportation network, the results have been catastrophic for programs in the transportation sector.

Highway 138 is the only road linking Quebec City to the Lower North Shore region. Highway 138 stops in Baie-Sainte-Catherine, where it intersects with the Saguenay River, and vehicles must board a ferry owned by the Société des traversiers du Québec.

Recently, the Quebec Minister of Transport Jacques Baril commissioned a study, which showed that it a bridge could be built between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac for the modest sum of $370 million. I emphasize the word modest, because the federal government spent $2 billion to build a bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It spent $2 billion on a population smaller than that of the North Shore, with less development than the North Shore. The North Shore has all the natural resources, both forestry and mining resources. In short, everything comes in and out of our area by truck.

I believe that this matter needs to be a priority for the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, in Ottawa. Every time the federal government injects one dollar—I am again using the same example—if the federal government spent $2 billion to build the bridge between New Brunswick and PEI, 25 cents out of every dollar invested came from Quebec.

This means that $500 million of Quebecers' taxes went into the Prince Edward Island bridge. Since we have continued to pay our taxes to Ottawa, and will do so as long as we are not a sovereign country, it would therefore be a good thing if the federal government were to help the Province of Quebec with the project to build the bridge between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac. There is unanimity on this project in the Charlevoix region.

The minister of revenue spoke of the road infrastructure program. This is a desired program, of course, and one that should continue to exist. Unfortunately, what the minister has neglected to mention—and we know there are always two sides to a coin—is that he has put $2.5 billion into this budget over 6 years, which is $100 million for the year 2000. Yet, for three three or four years running they have been announcing that there would be an infrastructure program for this year, and this created expectations among the provincial premiers.

The premiers met in Quebec City to tell the federal government that it should put money into the highway infrastructure program. The government provides the funding for highway infrastructure and the premier of each province is responsible for administration of the program. The provinces should be running this program. Here too, we can imagnie what the expectations of municipalities were.

There are 52 municipalities and two Indian reserves between Petite-Rivière-Saint-François and Baie-Comeau in the riding of Charlevoix. If I take all the expectations and requests of the municipalities and RCMs from Petite-Rivière-Saint-François to Baie-Comeau, it adds up to more than $100 million worth of federal government assistance under the infrastructure program.

The $100 million approved for this year is for all of Canada. It is a drop in the bucket. It will create expectations and disappointment. There are mayors who have been given responsibilities by the federal and provincial governments; furthermore, some municipalities were asked to contribute financially to achieving a zero deficit.

Unfortunately, it is always the individual citizen, the individual voter and taxpayer who, year after year, watches his tax bill grow with no corresponding increase in services. It is the same for school boards. The provincial government cut their allowable expenses. The provincial government had to make cuts because Quebec had lost billions of dollars in transfer payments.

It wanted to transfer responsibilities to municipalities and school boards. The school boards, whose expenses did not qualify, were forced to levy a school tax.

I tell anyone who earns $65,000 a year and claims to net only $30,000 that he or she is mistaken. To determine what my net income is, when I do my income tax, I look at how much I earned, then I take my bank book and check how much I have left, because I pay not only income tax, but also federal, provincial, municipal and school taxes, not to mention the GST and the TVQ.

Over 60% of my salary is gone in taxes. I have a right to expect the federal government to give me something in return.

Why does Quebec want to separate? Why does Quebec want to achieve independence? Because it wants to control its own destiny, manage its own money and look after its own services.

Let us talk about VIA Rail. The Bloc Quebecois has a position regarding VIA Rail. The Bloc Quebecois is demanding that the report of the Standing Committee on Transport be complied with. The government must not act precipitously. It must start with a franchising pilot project.

Once that has been done, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the Montreal-Jonquière, Montreal-Senneterre and Montreal-Gaspé lines be fully maintained and that their maintenance be guaranteed for the future. To that end, the Bloc Quebecois demands that $170 million in government subsidies be allocated as a priority to the franchisees who make a commitment to operate the lines that are not very profitable.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the allocation of lines be made in a balanced fashion, so that lines with a high potential for profits are not the only ones allocated, since it would leave those lines that are unappealing. The Bloc Quebecois will make sure that this government does not download its responsibilities onto the municipalities by overlapping on the basis of a partnership. It ought not, for instance, trying to hand railway stations over to municipalities against their wishes.

The Bloc Quebecois is very concerned about the fate of these 120 VIA Rail employees from Quebec and, considering their expertise, demands that they be hired on a priority basis by the new franchisees.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the head office of a new VIA Rail remain in Montreal and that the Montreal maintenance centre remain opened and keep its staff. That is the position of the Bloc Quebecois with regard to VIA Rail.

I would also like to talk about the marine transportation system. Some mentioned the fact that we have such a system. The projects of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is responsible for the coast guard, fell through for the most part. I am referring to the Minister of Transport's policy regarding the privatization of ports. I am also referring to the privatization of the ports of Baie-Comeau, Matane, Rimouski and Rivière-du-Loup.

These ports are not profitable for the federal government and it wants to transfer these infrastructures to municipalities and RCMs. Municipal or regional taxes are not supposed to be used to maintain an airport or a port. The federal government brought these infrastructures into this world and maintaining them should be its responsibility. Now it wants to hand them over to municipalities. This makes absolutely no sense.

I think the federal government should retain ownership of these infrastructures, that is airports and ports, and ask local authorities to manage them.

When we say that the federal government's plans with regard to marine transportation fell through, let us not forget the infamous icebreaking project where the federal government tried to charge $68,400 in fees to ferry operators, shipowners, industries and the Société des traversiers du Québec.

In this case, we are inclined to think the minister was floating a trial balloon. Faced with opposition from the Bloc Quebecois, the shipowners and the industry, the minister caved in.

In a riding like mine, there are six ferries: the Île-aux-Coudres-to-Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive ferry, the Rivière-du-Loup-to-Saint-Siméon ferry, the Tadoussac-to-Baie-Sainte-Catherine ferry, the Escoumins-to-Trois-Pistoles ferry, the Forestville-to-Rimouski ferry, and the Baie-Comeau-to-Matane-and-Godbout ferry. Everything is dependent on these ferries and tourism development.

Now moving to the air transport structure, I could spend several hours on this topic. Air service in Canada is in a shambles. When the minister decided, last summer, to strike a deal with Gérald Schwartz, the president of Onex—who is a well known contributor to the Liberal Party—people in Quebec and Canada got worried. The minister said the goal was to reorganize the air industry. The deal with Onex smacked of influence peddling.

We went through a period of turbulence. The minister jumped without a parachute. How he was going to land was everybody's guess. This whole matter caused a lot of uncertainty and fear in the personnel at both Air Canada and Canadian. Inter-Canadian went bankrupt; it is no longer in operation. Faced with the uncertainty created among regional carriers, Inter-Canadian was grounded by a lack of passengers.

Airport privatization is a kind of Trojan horse, or a white elephant. It is not the regional administration's job to administer such an infrastructure. I have nothing against the management itself, but it ought not to own it. This is the case for the airports of Baie-Comeau, Forestville and Saint-Irénée. Let the responsibility be given to a local company, the municipalities or the RCMs, but it is the federal government that is responsible for these infrastructures and for transportation safety.

Hon. members will also recall that the federal government has given Nav Canada the responsibility to administer the airports and deal with their deficits. The Baie-Comeau airport had an annual deficit of $1.2 million. According to Nav Canada, it was going to deal with this, that it was a deficit problem. It closed down the control tower, and did away with air controller positions, as well as the fire protection service. This service was handed over to the Pointe-Lebel municipality's volunteer firefighters.

Today we can see that the Nav Canada cuts were to the detriment of the passengers. Last year, Nav Canada had a surplus of $65 million, which was turned over to Air Canada and to Canadian, the major carriers. Why was this extra $65 million not reinvested into airline safety? If they do not want to reopen the Baie-Comeau control tower and give us air controllers, let them at least give us FIS, flight information service.

Airport safety is of great concern to us, with the Air Satellite crash at Baie-Comeau, with Nordair at Sept-Iles, with another crash at Gaspé. There have been three plane crashes in eastern Quebec within eight months.

There is much I could say on this. I will perhaps have the opportunity to get back to it for questions and answers.

In my opinion, things are always done better if we do them ourselves. The federal government should remain the owner of the infrastructures, that is the airports and ports. The federal government would remain responsible for all of these buildings, these infrastructures, and the local administration would look after administering them.

Supply March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the Reform Party member and I have a question for him.

I would like to know what he thinks of the cost-effectiveness of air carriers, whether it is Air Canada or Canadian. I have no doubt that air carriers are making money between Quebec City and Montreal, because the flights are full and reservations are required. The same goes for the Montreal-Toronto and Montreal-Vancouver flights. There is no problem there, there is free competition and people must make reservations at least a few days in advance.

The problem is in the regions. My question to the Reform Party member is this: If a regional airport is not making money, if an air carrier keeps accumulating deficits in providing service between a region and a major centre, would the member and the Reform Party close the airport in that region?

I would like the hon. member to confirm to me that, regardless of how remote or sparsely populated the region is, it is the federal government's responsibility to keep these airports open and to maintain air transportation in these regions. This is my own point of view, but I believe the Reform Party's view is that if it is not profitable, then it should be closed. I would like the hon. member to confirm this to me.

Supply March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Québec, who gave an excellent speech. She is perfectly right to condemn the $1 billion scandal in the House.

The Liberals brag about being good managers. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister, and the hon. member for LaSalle-Émard, the Minister of Finance, are running surplus after surplus. How did they manage to run a surplus while losing one billion dollars at HRDC?

Everybody knows that it was by cutting transfer payments and EI for those who needed it. Today, we are faced with a scandal. More than 50% of the funds earmarked for grants and contributions were spent a few months before and after the elections to buy votes.

Is it very unfortunate that the Minister for International Trade, who was then the minister responsible, cannot answer some questions. The current minister is now responsible. And she is because she knew about the report and misled the House.

Could my colleague confirm that that minister should resign, not because she was responsible for the $1 billion boondoggle but because she was aware of the situation and misled the House?

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, following the speech by the hon. member from the Conservative Party, I would like to make a comment. I want to thank his party for giving us the opportunity, because this is their opposition day, to debate a motion which was on the Order Paper and to which priority was given today.

In previous speeches, reference was made to how the members of the Bloc felt last night at the time of the vote on Bill C-20 at third reading. I can tell you that the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has worked very hard, as did the staff in the leader's office and all members of the Bloc who have read Bill C-20 over and over and were aware of its importance for the future of Quebec.

First of all, we want to state clearly that it is up to the National Assembly to decide the wording of the question and then it will be up to the people of Quebec to decide their future.

It is true that, yesterday, third reading was very emotional for Bloc members. The first time I voted for the Parti Quebecois was in 1970, and from then on I have always voted for sovereignist parties.

I would never have been a federal member here in Ottawa had the Bloc not been created after the failure of the Meech Lake accord.

I understand that members from Ontario, Manitoba and all across English Canada voted in favour of Bill C-20. What I had trouble understanding and what made sad was seeing the Liberal members of Quebec vote, with a smile on their face, in favour of a measure to put a gag, handcuffs and fetters on Quebec. They said to Quebecers “You are not intelligent enough to decide your own future”. I had trouble with that.

It gave me a better understanding of why Liberal members from Quebec voted in favour of the Constitution in 1982, a Constitution that was never accepted by any Premier of Quebec, whether sovereigntist or federalist. No Premier of Quebec ever accepted that Constitution. However, 74 Liberal members of the House voted in favour of it.

Since yesterday, I understand things better, because I saw Liberal members of Quebec vote in favour of Bill C-20, the famous clarity bill. This legislation will ask “Is the question acceptable or not, is the majority acceptable or not?” That is what affected us.

In closing, I want to ask a question to the Progressive Conservative member who spoke before me. I know that the Progressive Conservative Party is somewhat divided on this issue. If he had been a member from Quebec whose role is to defend Quebecers' interests, would he have voted in favour of the bill?

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to rise on a point of order because I do not wish to lose my right to speak. I will leave it to you to debate the points of order so far. I want to be sure not to lose my turn in questions and comments following the speech by the Progressive Conservative member who was the last to speak in the debate.

Division No. 1058 March 13th, 2000

Madam Speaker, to prevent this from happening again, I suggest that the member rise to vote when it is his turn to do so. This would eliminate the problem. It is the third time the member rises on a point of order to have his vote recorded.

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. 394

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 November 1, 2011.”

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. 371

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 November 1, 2009.”

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. 344

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 June 1, 2007.”