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

Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994

Well, you can see it is quite true.

The second assumption is that Quebec receives much more money from Canada than it puts in. Most Canadians believe that assumption. If it is really the truth, then what is the problem? Let us go. You are going to make money and you are going to solve the problem. That is what we want. But until that time, demo-

cratically speaking, we are going to stay here and we will ask to have 25 per cent of what is necessary for us because we give 25 per cent of our revenues to Canada.

Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the question is very apt, and I hope the answer will be as well. As long as we are part of Canada, as long as we pay our taxes and provide 25 per cent of Canada's income, we will insist that 25 per cent of any funding that is made available should go to Quebec.

Most Canadians actually believe in two assumptions concerning Quebec. We see it every day in the House. Most Canadians believe that we are a bunch of troublemakers who are never happy with what we get.

Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, of course I support the proposal of my colleague, the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane, to delete some words from the proposal of the Minister of Natural Resources and to add to Bill C-48 the amendment presented in this House.

I would like to take this opportunity to show this House that the changes that these amendments make to the minister's proposal will simply make her proposal comply with the many requests expressed by all the successive premiers of Quebec for many decades, which this government is again trying to flout.

Indeed, we can go back to Premier Jean Lesage in the early 1960s who said, "Resource development is in provincial jurisdiction. It is among the priority rights and needs of the provinces, who are better able than the federal government to act effectively and in a lasting way in this field". He added: "It must be clearly established as a basic rule of our federal system that Parliament's exceptional powers must remain just that, exceptional, and must not be used to invade fields that are normally in provincial jurisdiction".

Daniel Johnson, Sr., who was also a premier, continued in the same direction as his predecessor and said that exclusive provincial jurisdiction includes "the exploration, conservation and development of resources" in particular.

Continuing with Jean-Jacques Bertrand, another premier, who in the same spirit said that Quebec also had to have jurisdiction over underwater mineral exploration, adding that Quebec could not accept the federal government acting unilaterally to manage provincial waters and control pollution in them, or acting with the provinces on the basis of the national interest, a concept which is very often invoked.

Even former Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa, who was a staunch federalist in Quebec, said that "in the energy sector, neither unilateral action by the federal government, nor unco-ordinated measures by provincial governments will enable us to reach the necessary goals. This can only be achieved through concerted action from both levels of government and from all governments".

In its present form, Bill C-48 merely increases the federal government's role in an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Former Premier René Lévesque said that the Canadian economy was not an homogeneous thing which could be successfully controlled and regulated with a single policy or program. Provincial governments are in the best position to act, since they know better than anyone their own economic context as well as

all the relevant factors such as resources, industrial structures, domestic market, social climate, etc.

More specifically, Mr. Lévesque argued that provinces have the sole right of ownership over their natural resources, adding that "as regards minerals and other resources located outside the immediate provincial territory but within the 200-mile economic zone, Quebec favours a joint jurisdiction whereby a province's legislative authority would prevail".

Mr. Lévesque also pointed out that since mineral resources and their management come under provincial jurisdiction, it is up to the provinces to find the best way to ensure the survival and growth of their mining industry.

Even in the days when federalism was perceived as a beau risque , and those days are certainly gone, Mr. Lévesque suggested that each province should have exclusive legislative power over its natural resources and interprovincial trade. In that latter sector, provincial laws would have superseded federal legislation so that the federal government would not have been able to use its general power to oppose a provincial law.

As you can see, the bill before us does not comply with the wishes expressed by the numerous premiers who have represented Quebec over the last few decades. That is why I support the amendment proposed by my colleague from Matapédia-Matane, because that is the only way of ensuring that this government respects the will of the provinces, especially of Quebec, as it should under the relevant provisions of Canada's Constitution.

The Government of Quebec has always been opposed to the federal government's spending power, that is, its power to use Quebecers' taxes. Canada is not doing us any favours. What it gives us comes mainly from our own pockets. What we object to in this bill is this ability to spend, to take our money and manage our economy in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction according to all the laws of Canada and to Canada's Constitution.

Once again the federal government is going to extremes in its willingness to centralize everything in Ottawa.

That is what Mr. Bourassa used to call domineering federalism.

In its willingness to centralize everything in Ottawa, in attacking the exploitation, concentration and management of natural resources, a sector which is exclusively in provincial jurisdiction, we cannot endorse a federal process to which Quebec in particular does not entirely subscribe.

For us federal intervention in natural resources is totally illegitimate if the provinces are opposed to the project. Quebec, of course, and we have said it before, has always opposed the creation of a ministry of forests, for example, rightly viewing this as an intrusion into one of its exclusive jurisdictions.

As well, Quebec is not a signatory to the national forest strategy and no Quebec minister has participated in the work of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers since the Meech failure. It is Quebec that must exercise its full jurisdiction to determine its own policies, programs and priorities in the area of natural resources.

To convince this House of the challenge facing us, I would like to close my remarks by repeating a statement made by a former Quebec premier, Adélard Godbout-this goes way back; we did not start fighting for our causes yesterday-who expressed this somewhat prescient or prophetic opinion at the time: "Full respect for provincial rights is essential to Canada's unity and progress. Any infringement on provincial rights would inevitably weaken Confederation". That is obviously a reality which this government and its predecessors have always refused to understand.

Montreal Economy September 23rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend to announce in the near future assistance measures for defence industry conversion, given that 10,000 jobs are in jeopardy in the Montreal area?

Montreal Economy September 23rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The report of the Canadian Council on Social Development identifies Montreal as the Canadian city with the highest number of people living under the poverty line; 30 per cent of the population, or 386,000 households, live under the poverty line in Montreal. This is more than twice that of all the Atlantic provinces combined.

Considering how serious the situation is in Montreal, will the Prime Minister undertake to implement an economic recovery strategy for that city, because the temporary infrastructure program will clearly not be enough?

Recycling June 17th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of the Environment stressed the importance of harmonizing policies in Canada. Are we to understand, considering the government's poor record on federal-provincial agreements and irrespective of the outcome of negotiations between the provinces and the private sector, that the federal government will go ahead this fall with a national waste recycling policy?

Recycling June 17th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In a report published last week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada was one of five countries with the highest waste production per capita in the world. Subsequently, the Minister of the Environment said that she considered introducing an environmental tax next fall if negotiations on waste recycling between the provinces and the private sector were not successful.

In dealing with this problem, does the minister intend to launch a national waste tax program or would she let each province develop its own strategy?

Forestry June 15th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the Minister of Natural Resources indicated that a major international public relations campaign was needed to convince foreign buyers that British Columbia's forestry practices were consistent with the imperatives of sustainable development.

Yet, when they testified before the natural resources committee, Canada's ambassadors to the European Union as well as to the Federal Republic of Germany stated that the companies involved were not doing what they could to defend their own interests on the international market.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Does she agree with the views expressed by these two ambassadors and does she believe that the forestry companies in question could be doing more to defend their own interests?

Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission June 10th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm a statement by Keith Spicer, chairman of the CRTC, that the pay per view decision is already being appealed? Could he indicate who filed this appeal and whether he intends to act on it?

Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission June 10th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The minister, who received a lot of mail this week, apparently received a letter from his Quebec counterpart, the Minister of Culture and Communications, who asked him to intervene through cabinet to obtain a review of the CRTC's decision not to issue a license for pay per view tv in French.

Considering his Quebec counterpart's request and a statement by the chairman of the CRTC who, despite the position taken by anglophone commissioners, also prefers the Chapiteau project from Quebec, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage undertake to act on the request from the Government of Quebec that cabinet review the CRTC's decision?