House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was tax.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Liberal MP for LaSalle—Émard (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 48% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Sponsorship Program June 15th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I have now answered the hon. member's questions twice, but I would like to raise another issue. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party has said that the Leader of the Opposition is going to spend this summer on the barbecue circuit. I understand the dangers of the barbecue circuit and I would therefore like to table this document for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition this summer. It is a document called The South Beach Diet .

Sponsorship Program June 15th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, this time I will say it in French: there is no agreement. Our position is clear. Justice Gomery's impartiality should not be challenged, not now, not ever. If it is, we will object.

Sponsorship Program June 15th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, there is no such arrangement. Our position is very clear. There should not be a challenge to the impartiality of Mr. Justice Gomery. There should not be a challenge now and there should not be a challenge later. If there is, we will oppose it.

Natural Resources June 14th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the seriousness of this situation. There is also no doubt that the actions being taken by North Dakota are simply unacceptable.

I have raised this with the President and, as the hon. member ought to know, we are in constant negotiations now with the Americans. I am not in a position to say when those negotiations will conclude, but let me tell the House that we will leave no stone unturned in solving this problem.

Sponsorship Program June 14th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, let me simply read from the letter: “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.

Sponsorship Program June 14th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I defended Judge Gomery in this House yesterday. The government and I have defended Mr. Justice Gomery every single day in this House when he has been attacked by the Leader of the Opposition.

Let me make it unequivocally clear. Judge Gomery has acted impartially and there should be no delay in the issuance of his report. We will defend Judge Gomery against any allegations to the contrary.

Sponsorship Program June 14th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, there was no secret agreement or secret anything. There was an exchange of correspondence between lawyers, that is all.

We have supported the work of Justice Gomery right from the start and we will continue to support it. I must say that Justice Gomery is not partial, and we will defend him against any allegations to the contrary. Furthermore, we will oppose any attempt to delay the report.

Sponsorship Program June 13th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, the reason for the letter is very clear when one reads it. It is because we fiercely opposed anything that might delay Judge Gomery's report. We want that report out.

Mr. Chrétien has his rights. It is not up to us to interfere with his rights. Clearly we want Judge Gomery to have all the time he needs to complete his report and absolutely nothing to delay him.

Sponsorship Program June 13th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to table the letter in the House. It says very clearly what we said in the lawyers' factum, which is that we fiercely oppose anything that could delay the report. After that, Mr. Chrétien can exercise his rights.

I would also like to mention that the leader of the Bloc has chosen Canada. I hope he will make the same recommendation to Quebeckers.

Sponsorship Program June 13th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, there was no agreement; there was nothing secret. There was an exchange of correspondence. The government's position is very clear. Not only is Judge Gomery not partial, but we will oppose any attempt to delay the report.

Now, I would like to quote the letter, “one of the arguments we had put forward with respect to your client's” Mr. Chrétien's—request for a judicial review is the fact that we consider it premature and inadmissible until after the commission's report is released”.