House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

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

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 22% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Director General Of Elections In Quebec May 15th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the director general of elections in Quebec harshly condemned federal authorities for their involvement in organizing the federalist rally held in Montreal on October 27, 1995. This involvement undermined Quebec's democratic process by upsetting the balance that must exist between expenditures on both sides.

The Liberal and former Liberal members accused by the director general of elections not only refused to co-operate with investigators, but some of them even went further, like current Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin, the main organizer of the Montreal rally, who said he would not hesitate to do it again.

I condemn the attitude of all those who violate Quebec's democratic rules. I remind them that, in a democracy, it is one voter, one vote, not one voter, one dollar. The people of Quebec will never be fooled by their fraudulent tactics and their money. Our fellow citizens will remember this in the next referendum.

Employment Insurance Act May 10th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the motions in Group No. 6. I believe they were moved by the Reform Party, the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP.

The Bloc motions seek to delete many clauses of the bill, namely clauses 12, 14, 25 and 27 to 61, which would make the bill inoperative as far as those clauses are concerned. As my colleague from Mercier said on several occasions, members will recall that this strategy was used ad nauseam by the current Minister of Human Resources Development when the Conservatives introduced the controversial GST legislation in this House. Members will also recall that the minister himself presented more than 60 amendments to neutralize one by one all the clauses of the bill on the GST.

Following that, the Liberal government promised to "scrap"-of course, I am quoting here-the GST, and this promise resulted in the resignation of a member, a minister and, to some extent, in a loss of confidence of Canadians in this government.

Along with the attempt to delete some clauses, other amendments were also moved. All that allowed us to point out and prove to the population that our fundamental option on this issue is a perfect match for what ought to be the population's best interests. Our main option is to have the bill withdrawn and to start all over from scratch.

Why? Because this bill is utterly unfair. It will result in claimants receiving fewer benefits for shorter periods of time and therefore being forced to go on welfare much sooner.

My colleague for Lévis earlier quoted new statistics from Scotia Bank indicating clearly that the unemployment rate quoted, the one given in the statistics, is not the real rate, because more and more people are not appearing in the statistics on unemployment or elsewhere. They have simply stopped receiving benefits and are not yet getting welfare, although they are headed in that direction.

The bill is also unfair because it will be increasingly difficult to obtain unemployment insurance and because the bill creates two categories of unemployed: the ordinary unemployed and the frequently unemployed, that is, seasonal workers who will not have quite the same rights.

The bill is also somewhat regressive. There has been a lot of talk about the decrease in the maximum insurable earnings from $42,380 to $39,000. What does this mean in reality? It means that people earning over $39,000 will stop contributing. That is, people who earn over $39,000, before, it was $42,000, will contribute less, and the big companies employing them will also pay less. The difference in the amounts is estimated at $1 billion right now. This reduction in contributions will, to be compensated, be transferred to the base of the pyramid, to the lowliest folks, those hardest up and those who work very infrequently. They will be taxed. Their contributions will have to be paid the first hour they work.

So $1 billion from the upper class and the most profitable companies will be transferred to the class of people earning the least and to small and medium size businesses, which are the only ones that create jobs. Therefore, this bill is anti-employment, because employers who have workers earning more than $39,000 and who need people to work 10 per cent overtime will, instead of hiring people who will pay premiums as soon as they start working, prefer to ask those already employed to work overtime. This means there will be no incentive to share work.

From a fiscal or bookkeeping point of view, the surplus of $5 billion will, as we have so often said, show up on the books as government assets when, in actual fact, it is as though the government were garnisheeing wages to artificially reduce its deficit.

Each and every time they address the bill before us, the government has been trying to find a scapegoat.

We all remember what the Prime Minister himself said at least twice in the House. It was two years ago, I think. When asked why public finances were in such a mess, he answered it was the beer-guzzling couch potatoes that were to blame. This made the headlines for a while, but he had just singled out those in the system who were to be targeted by the cuts and let on that they should been ashamed.

Furthermore, my Liberal colleague for Malpeque said this morning, among other things, since he spoke several times, that it would be like encouraging some people to burn down their own houses, to torch the system. But we all know that those who are torching the system are not those at the bottom of the social scale.

They are not on UI benefits. The auditor general has just identified them.

I will just take a few minutes to read an article on what was just found by the auditor general. It made the news for only one day, but I hope there will be more reports on this topic, because it is the tip of a gigantic iceberg. The auditor tells us: "We have examined two advance rulings concerning transfers to the United States of assets worth at least $2 billion held by family trusts in Canada. In our opinion, the transactions these decisions were about"- listen to what the auditor has to say, he is the epitome of diplomac -"have thwarted the legislator's intent"-this means that the law was not abided by, but it is put in very kinds terms-"with regard to taxing capital gains".

This means that $2 billion were transferred from a Canadian family trust to the United States. This case was under review. By making this decision, the government created a precedent, and now, if the decision is not rescinded, everybody will take advantage of it.

Today we put a question to the minister on this very issue. I will repeat the question: The minister has the authority to rescind decisions by Revenue Canada and collect hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in taxes owed to the federal government. Is she going to take action? Her answer was that she had taken action. She was reviewing the case.

In the meantime, billions of dollars are going south and the unemployed, who have hardly any means of support, are being pointed out as parasites. I think it is a case of mistaking identity: the ones who are torching the system are not the ones we think. As a matter of fact, the auditor is not the only one to raise this issue. I will remind the House that he is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois nor the Parti Quebecois, of course.

Yesterday, the Financial Post came out with some astonishing news based on material it obtained, apparently, from Revenue Canada, and I quote:

A federal government report points to news of offshore tax havens by Canadian corporations and says up to 20 per cent of international transactions that should be reported are hidden from Revenue Canada. Who is the problem in this country?

We should not be singling out the unemployed. We should start by collecting the taxes that companies do not pay. I continue.

The study suggests as much as $60 billion-

We hear figures of $500 million, $200 million. We are singling out the unemployed as one of the biggest problems in Canada. We spend a whole week talking about that and, meanwhile, $60 billion have left the country. We have set precedents which will allow this practice to continue. We put questions to the minister and she tells us that she is studying the matter.

People whose unemployment insurance will be cut-and it will come pretty fast-should remember that if they are targeted for cuts, if the government is appropriating the surplus of the unemployment insurance fund to reduce the deficit, it is because billions are leaving the country without any taxes being paid and nothing is being done to prevent it.

I will just read a little bit more:

Total international transactions by banks and trust companies soared to $84 billion in 1991 from $52 billion in the previous year.

Thus there is a constant upward trend. Since coming to the House, from the very first weeks in fact, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for an exhaustive study of the Canadian taxation system, family trusts and tax havens. What did we get? We have absolutely no idea how many family trusts there are. We have no idea how much money there is in those trusts. However, we know that billions of dollars leave Canada while the unemployed are being used as scapegoats.

As far as tax havens are concerned, we are told the issue will be examined in a few months by people who are the chief users of such tax havens. You can easily understand that we are not enthused about supporting an unemployment insurance reform in such circumstances.

Taxation May 10th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, while the minister is talking, billions of dollars are being transferred out of the country every day.

The minister has the power to revoke the decisions made by Revenue Canada and to collect hundreds of millions, if not billions, in taxes owed to the federal government. Will she act responsibly or will she condone these decisions?

Taxation May 10th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

Earlier this week, the auditor general said that, because of decisions made by Revenue Canada, the government will not tax capital gain transfers. This situation, which the government could correct in a matter of hours, will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions. However, the comments of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue indicate that the government will not budge on this issue.

Will the Minister of National Revenue use her authority to immediately put a stop to this tax loss which only benefits the very rich?

Quebec National Assembly May 7th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time in less than 30 days that the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Government of Quebec have taken a stand against Ottawa's policies.

Three weeks ago, after unanimously rejecting the concept of "principal homeland" proposed by the federal Liberals, the Quebec national assembly asked the Minister of Natural Resources to reconsider her decision to cut funding to the tokamak research project. Two weeks ago, the Quebec national assembly unanimously condemned the environment minister's decision to ban the use of the additive MMT in gasoline.

Last week, the Quebec national assembly unanimously reiterated the fundamental right of the people of Quebec to make up their own minds about their political and constitutional future, whatever the federal justice minister might have to say about it.

The federal government is increasingly divorced from reality as seen by Quebec.

The Constitution Act, 1996 May 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the bill of my colleague for Capilano-Howe Sound, Bill C-213, The Constitution Act, 1996 (balanced budget and spending limit).

The preamble to the bill states as follows: "Whereas section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982-and I emphasize this point-provides that, subject to sections 41 and 42 thereof, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons". Then, when the actual bill begins, it states: "The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding the following after section 57".

After that come 11 sections focussing on regulating government expenditures and forcing it to balance its budget. Included are all of the mechanisms, and even-as my colleague from the Reform Party has said-penalties set for senators, MPs, public servants and so on. This is, therefore, a very strong commitment and a bill with a very precise method of implementation.

We are convinced that my honourable colleague's bill is well founded on a desire to force the government to balance its budget. In three years, we in the House have seen Canada's debt go up by $100 billion, and it is still rising. That debt was created by the Liberals.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal -as my colleague is already well aware-referred to the possibility of bankruptcy in the long term. Our Reform colleagues, or the majority of them, have referred to that same possibility, stating quite openly:

"If we do not do something rapidly, we are going to probably hit the wall quite soon".

This is why I think my hon. colleague is being true to himself in tabling such a bill. Obviously, the Bloc's position is different. We advocate an analysis of government spending budget item by budget item along with a full review of the use of tax shelters.

We have just been promised a complete review of tax shelters. We note that it will be done outside the House by the very people who use them most. So there has been no follow up to what the Bloc wanted. For the time being, the government is satisfied with garnishing collective salary from unemployment insurance in order to balance the books and shift part of the deficit onto the provinces.

The requirement for this government to balance its budget could be presented by my colleague simply in legislation before the House. However, as my colleague is a man of action, he decided to take the bull by the horns and propose a constitutional amendment. I think he knows what he is doing. The Constitution establishes an obligation not just for one government, but for each successive government, and is very difficult to change.

The Constitution would be a very restrictive framework for the government. The hon. member states in his bill that the government would have to achieve fiscal balance within three years. Given this year's deficit of $24 billion and the anticipated deficit of $17 billion for next year, it is inconceivable that, under the circumstances, we could have a balanced budget in three years without making massive cuts-and I mean massive-in social programs, which would jeopardize the future of generations to come.

I remember the hon. member for Chambly clearly saying in this House that the Reformers' economic or fiscal policy could often be summarized as follows: "If you are in debt, stop eating for a year. It will solve the problem".

Achieving fiscal balance in the long term is a good principle. However, Bill C-213 is much too compelling and its provisions are way too strict.

That being said, the hon. member is making a totally surprising suggestion at this point in Canadian history, by proposing a constitutional amendment. The word Constitution has almost become taboo.

In January, the president of the Bank of Montreal travelled to Reform country, I believe it was in Calgary, and said: "I am a banker. I know how important the economy is. However, under the circumstances, I think we will have to stop talking about the economy and start dealing with the Constitution. There is not much time left. We have 15 months to solve the issue". This was in January, which means that we now have 11 months to solve an issue which seems much more important than the one being raised here.

Following that statement, businesspeople from everywhere got together. Some met here in the Château Laurier, others in Montreal, to start seriously thinking about what should be done in the months ahead, given that this milestone is fast approaching. As well, Gordon Gibson started travelling across Canada with an extremely well made book entitled Plan B , which I recommend to everyone. The book provides a perfect description of the current situation, the constitutional deadlock, and points a finger at the federal government.

We have also seen just recently the statements made by Peter White in La Presse , I think: ``The Prime Minister does not realize that the constitutional problem is serious, according to the president of the Council for Canadian Unity-he is definitely not a member of our party. Canada has two or three years to settle the constitutional problem. After that, it might be too late and-I quote the exact words-if these two or three years' respite are not put to good use, we are done for; if nothing substantial is proposed during that period, Lucien Bouchard will have the right to win his next referendum''.

Mr. White is fully aware of the seriousness of the situation, but I think he is not aware of its urgency, because we do not have two or three years to settle this problem, we have a few months.

It is therefore somewhat ironic, in light of the bill before us today, that at a time when bankers are telling us that we must stop talking about the economy and start talking about the Constitution, a first in Canadian history, now politicians are telling us that we must reopen the Constitution to sort out economic problems. The world is full of surprises.

In his bill, my hon. colleague refers to the 1982 Constitution, and that is the problem. Quebec is not a signatory to this Constitution. And in accordance with the provisions included, naturally we cannot allow anything to be enshrined in this Constitution. Quebec, it will be recalled, was excluded from this Constitution. Federalists or sovereignists, we in Quebec did not give our agreement. And this unilateral patriation without Quebec's agreement was an obvious breach of contract.

Then came Meech and Charlottetown, events everybody would like to forget, which were supposed to get Quebec to sign the 1982 Constitution so that it could apply to all Canadians, including Quebecers. This deadlock led to the 1995 referendum which, as we know, was won by the skin of the teeth, but was in fact a photo finish.

Quebec's expectations are still as urgent as ever. The Constitution must be reviewed before April 1997. We have a few months ahead of us.

Instead of invoking the 1982 Constitution, as my colleague did, to deal with economic problems, I think he should see to it that Quebec signs the Constitution to make it legally binding on all Canadians, including Quebecers if they sign it.

We are now faced with another deadlock and we cannot count on the Liberals to sort this one out. That is why, I think, my colleague from the Reform Party could perhaps help us. We cannot count on the Liberal Party because the Liberal Party has never kept its promises.

In 1974, it got elected by promising not to impose wage controls. Once elected, it did the opposite. In 1979, it got elected by promising not to tax gasoline or not to increase the tax. Once elected, it did the opposite. In 1989, it promised, if elected, to tear up the Free Trade Agreement. As we know, the Free Trade Agreement is still with us today. In 1993, it wanted to scrap the GST, we should know, we talked about it for one full week, but it never did.

Constitutionally, and I will conclude with this, in 1980, Mr. Trudeau was fighting for his life. The solution arrived at was the 1982 patriation, which resolved nothing, and led to promises that have not been kept. If my colleague truly wishes to resolve Canada's economic problems, I think he should first sort out the constitutional problems, for only then will we be able to find answers to these other problems.

Federal Public Servants May 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that, by denying access to binding arbitration in case of a deadlock at the bargaining table, he is forcing public servants to go on strike if they cannot agree with the government?

Federal Public Servants May 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

Since the Liberal government took office, federal public servants have been hard hit, despite the promises made by the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer during the election campaign. Bill C-31 now goes even further to undermine the rights of federal public servants.

Why is the minister abolishing the Public Sector Compensation Act while, at the same time, amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act so as to suspend binding arbitration?

Unemployment Insurance Act May 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-12, concerning the unemployment insurance reform. This bill has been shamefully entitled an act respecting employment insurance in Canada.

Through this bill, the government claims, and has clearly said so, to be pursuing two goals: first, to promote job creation, and, second, to improve the system's fairness. However, we will see that this bill will do exactly the opposite and that, here again, the government is about to increase the unfairness of the system, as was pointed out by my colleague who spoke just before me.

First, there will be no job creation. Why? As we all know, the Prime Minister has been repeating ad nauseam for a few weeks that the government is not there to create jobs. With the massive layoffs in the public service, the privatization of ports, airports, railway lines and bridges, and now the disposal of railway cars announced in Bill C-31, where at least 10,000 railway cars will be sold, it is clear that, instead of creating jobs, the government is organizing a gigantic closing sale.

The Prime Minister is perfectly right in saying that a government does not create jobs. However, the Prime Minister says: "Government does not create jobs. I urge the private sector to join with us to make that job growth happen; the private sector will create jobs".

Again, this is only partly true, because it is not large companies that create jobs. In fact, these companies are the ones laying off the largest number of people, this at a time when their profits are higher than ever before. General Motors made profits of $1.39 billion, but laid off 2,500 employees. In 1995, Bell Canada made profits of $502 million, but laid off 3,200 employees, in addition to the 8,000 that had already been let go since 1990. Petro-Canada, which sort of belongs to us since we paid for it, made profits of $196 million, but laid off 564 employees. Shell made profits of $523 million in one year, but laid off 471 employees. Imperial Oil made profits of $514 million, but laid off 452 employees.

And, last but not least, the five major Canadian banks, which made total profits of $4.9 billion. This means 5,000 million dollars in profits. Still, these banks laid off 2,800 employees.

Do not tell us that major companies create jobs when they make profits. Do not tell us, as the Prime Minister did, that private companies are the ones that will create jobs.

The presidents of these banks are paid incredibly high salaries. Jeffrey Simpson, from the Globe and Mail , recently wrote a very good article on this issue. He said the situation was totally unacceptable, because these undue benefits and enormous salaries are not related to performance. Just remember Canary Wharf, in which Canadian banks lost hundreds of millions because they made bad investment decisions. The banks do not always make the right decisions. Yet, not one of these bank presidents had his salary cut. There is no connection between performance and salaries. Their salaries go up each year, while employees are being laid off. This is what is happening.

If, as the Prime Minister says, it is not the government that creates jobs, and if, as we can see, it is not large companies either, then who will create jobs? It is small and medium size businesses, it is, as Mr. Parizeau said, the "tiny, tiny businesses". They are the ones creating jobs; yet, they are also the ones that will be penalized with Bill C-12, as we shall see.

Under the old system-I use the word "old" but I should say "current"-workers and employers start paying unemployment insurance premiums after 15 hours of work or $163 in earnings. The amount earned is called the insurable earnings. This is what the current system provides for.

But with the changes being introduced, employees and employers will pay UI premiums from the very first hour of work. Who usually hires people for less than 15 hours a week? Not large corporations, not Bell Canada, not General Motors, not Petro Canada; small and medium size businesses do. What will it mean for them?

Previously, people could work for up to 15 hours a week without either the employee or the employer having to pay UI premiums. Now, as soon as a person works an hour, both that person and the business will have to pay premiums. That means that the whole payroll is covered, from the first hour of work, which directly hits small and medium size businesses.

This new grab for premiums will bring close to $1 billion into the unemployment insurance account, and that huge amount will come from low wage earners and from all small businesses, which are the only ones creating jobs in Canada. And they talk about job creation.

Meanwhile, what is happening at the other end of the system? They are lowering the contribution ceilings. Previously, people were contributing into the UI account up to maximum earnings of $42,380. This meant the worker contributed up to that amount and the employer was also paying his or her share up to that amount. That ceiling is now being lowered to $39,000 and both workers and businesses will pay less.

Therefore, that billion dollars will be taken from the small business sector, the one that creates jobs, which will allow for the same amount of savings for large corporations that are laying off people in droves. So, Bill C-12 will not create, but kill jobs.

It is easy to understand. Here is an example. Under the present plan, if a company has an employee who earns $40,000 a year, both the employee and the company contribute to the UI fund on those $40,000.

Since the earnings ceiling is $42,000, contributions would be paid on the whole amount. But under the new plan, if the company has a surplus of work, it will be much more profitable to have the same employee work overtime for $30,000 or more, with his annual earnings going up to $70,000 a year or more, because there are no contributions for the earnings over $39,000.

Instead of hiring another employee to do the work, it is much better for the company to have its existing workers work overtime. This bill will not accelerate, but slow down job creation. We talk about work sharing, but it is obvious that this bill does not deal with this issue at all.

We have also been told that greater equity was another goal. That was their second argument. But the bill will actually make things more unfair. High income earners will pay $900 million less in premiums.

With Bill C-12, high income earners and big companies, which do not create jobs, will get a $900 million cut in contributions. That is a nice little gift. But to compensate that, low income workers and small businesses, which do create jobs, will have to pay more. That is what is happening with Bill C-12.

I remind the House that 82 per cent of all spending cuts across federal programs are in unemployment insurance. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, as you are indicating that my time is almost over, that with Bill C-12, the government not only breaks its promises to create justice but also balances the budget with the workers's money. This is a collective salary grab of $5 billion, since the money in the UI fund is not the government's money but has been contributed by workers and businesses, and the government is using this money to reduce its deficit.

In our view, this bill will stimulate poverty instead of employment.

Ethics April 26th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois certainly agrees to debate the motion. If there is a debate, we deeply regret the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, who would certainly give her consent regarding this motion.