House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament June 2026, as Bloc MP for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 44% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply May 5th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, it is clear that there are significant differences between the solutions the Bloc Québécois favours and those the Conservatives favour. That is a fact. We are a democracy. That is just the way it is. Still, there are indeed many criticisms we can level at this government, even if they do not always come from the same perspective.

We are currently focusing our criticism on the fact that more proactive steps should have been taken on a wide range of issues a long time ago. I gave the example of targeted measures, such as the wage subsidy. One of the most urgent issues is the public procurement policies. We are expecting these policies very soon. I know there is talk that this should happen. We look forward to reviewing the policies in question. We look forward to seeing what they entail.

However, for far too long, we have seen that, in the context of the U.S. economic offensive, procurement policies, or policies designed to circumvent procurement, have often been deliberately crafted to give priority to U.S. companies. There are all sorts of things that should be done and prioritized, but so far, that is not what we have seen.

Business of Supply May 5th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, I know that some action has been taken and that is a good thing. We never said otherwise.

However, the fact is that the government promised to quickly put an end to tariffs within a few months; yet, today, we have more tariffs than we did when this government first took office. I think that is a sign of failure.

Just this morning, I met with furniture manufacturers who said that they agreed with the measures that the government is proposing, but that those measures are woefully inadequate because they do not make much difference. These measures are not really going to help them like targeted assistance or wages subsidies would. That is the bottom line.

Business of Supply May 5th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, we were talking about the medium or long term. Now, we can start talking about the short term, or at least I hope so. I will let my colleague guess what solution I recommend. I know that he recommends the same one. I will simply remind him that Pierre Falardeau said that, while there is certainly a cost to independence, there is also a cost to dependence, and it is immeasurably higher.

Business of Supply May 5th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is up to me to explain the behaviour of the Liberal government. That is not my function, not my job. That said, I would like to clarify that some regulations may be good and some taxes may be good. It all depends on how they are applied.

As for the rest, this sovereign wealth fund is sovereign in name only. In fact, we voted with the Conservatives on this during their opposition day. Considering our proposals to help sectors in urgent need, I hope that the Conservatives will vote in favour of our opposition motion, as we did for theirs.

Business of Supply May 5th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, no. I think that goes without saying. I have always said that we agree with trade agreements in principle, but that our support is not unconditional. In fact, the sovereigntist movement in Quebec was initially a major driving force behind the shift towards free trade and opening up the economy. It was Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry who worked very hard in the 1980s to convince Quebeckers to embark on this venture. It has been beneficial to us.

If an agreement is flawed, if it contains aspects that will have negative repercussions, we will not agree to it, obviously. That goes without saying.

Business of Supply May 5th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, what is happening today goes way beyond a temporary trade spat. Since the U.S. administration's April 6 executive order, we have been seeing a methodical, systematic and deeply harmful hardening of the rules that our businesses were required to follow.

Up until yesterday, there was a logical rationale behind the already excessive steel and aluminum tariffs. Today, Washington chose to hit hard by imposing a flat tariff of 25% on the total value of products that contain more than 15% Canadian steel, aluminum or copper.

In other words, it is no longer just a tax on a raw material. It is a tax on our ability to process, innovate and export. It is a tax on our economic intelligence. The consequences are immediate. Products that were once protected by trade agreements are now being hard hit. According to available analyses, nearly a quarter of our U.S. exports are affected.

This figure of one-quarter needs to be taken seriously. It is a major blow to our economy. However, and this is where the problem lies, the government's response so far has been timid, if not downright inadequate. The recent economic statement included zero provisions, and the subsequent measures announced yesterday—while showing some awareness of the situation—essentially rely on businesses taking on additional debt when, in many cases, they are already stretched to the limit. They are being offered loans, when what they need is breathing room. They are being offered bureaucratic processes, when what they need is predictability.

Meanwhile, the reality is harsh. Orders will fall off, perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow morning, but in the coming months, once the current orders have beeen filled. At that point, it will no longer be a question of worrying. It will be a question of closures, job losses and entire regions on shaky ground.

The government needs to stop managing on a day-to-day basis. It must act with diligence, consistency and, above all, ambition.

We must start by protecting human capital. A temporary wage subsidy, modelled on what has been successfully implemented in times of crisis, would enable us to keep workers employed, maintain expertise and avoid a brain drain that would take years to recover from.

Next, we have to defend our strategic sectors: wood, aluminum, steel. These are not things of the past. They are the pillars of our industrial future. We need safeguards to counter unfair practices, whether from the U.S. or any other country.

We also have to take a smart financial approach. Buying back part of the countervailing duties that our softwood lumber producers are subject to, for example, is not an expenditure; it is strategic repositioning.

Above all, we need to stop trying to act as if buying local were optional. It must become a nation-building obligation. The government has to be an economic driver, not a spectator.

We also need to take concrete, pragmatic measures: simplify duty drawback mechanisms, offer centralized support to SMEs and, above all, develop a clear, complete and detailed picture of impacted businesses. Governing means understanding, and understanding requires measurements.

Finally, I will say it bluntly: Quebec is facing $8 billion in potential losses, but the response from across the aisle is only $1.5 billion. Numbers do not lie: The response is not serious, it is not enough, and it is not the way to protect our economy.

We have to tell it like it is. Donald Trump's executive order is a direct attack on SMEs in Quebec and Canada. It is a targeted, bold and deeply destabilizing attack. This is no mere trade dispute. These are trade-distorting tariffs imposed by a foreign country with no regard for the established rules.

The change in the way section 232 tariffs are calculated, which is now based on the full customs value of the product rather than just the metal content value, is exactly the type of foreign economic interference that the House has always spoken out against. We are talking about a rule that was imposed unilaterally, without notice, which distorts competition and penalizes those who made the right choice: to process here, invest here and create value here.

Let us make no mistake. These tariffs are being imposed in bad faith. To keep those measures in place, the White House is circumventing the very spirit of certain United States court rulings. In other words, the American President is governing as he pleases. In light of that, Ottawa's responsibility is clear: It must protect the Quebec and Canadian economies, protect their workers and protect their businesses. Yet what are we seeing? We are seeing Ottawa dragging its feet, hesitating, reacting, but always one step behind.

The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to defend our economy against this type of trade aggression; yet still today, he remains on the defensive, as though the situation were going to resolve itself. That is not going to happen. Things are only going to get worse. There are more tariffs now than there were when this government took office. While Ottawa is dithering, this is having very real consequences on the ground. Quebec, which is already more vulnerable to the United States' tariff policies than the rest of the country, is being hit extremely hard.

In the manufacturing sector alone, thousands of jobs have been lost over the past year. Entire industries, from forestry to certain segments of the cultural sector, have seen their employment rates decline significantly. With the new measures announced in April, the situation is only going to get worse. It is not just the metal being taxed now. It is the labour, the ingenuity, and the value added by Quebec and Canada. Every processed product becomes a target. Every company that has chosen to move upmarket is penalized. It is a perverse logic that rewards raw materials and punishes economic intelligence. We cannot accept that.

Supporting our motion is not a symbolic gesture. It is a necessary step in defending the very credibility of our trade agreements, including the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. We negotiated these agreements in good faith, with the goal of creating a stable, predictable and equitable economic space. Washington has decided to change the rules midway through the game. This is not trade. It is commercial predation. Predation cannot be met with a wait-and-see attitude. It must be met with firmness. It must be met with concrete measures. It must be met by rising to the challenge.

On April 21 in the House, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked the Prime Minister a very simple question: Will there be any transitional measures to support our businesses and workers affected by the new U.S. tariffs? The answer was clear: Yes, they will be in the economic update. However, the update was tabled on April 28, and it does nothing to address the urgent situation. I mean it when I say “nothing”. There are no targeted measures to counter the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump's administration. There is no structured response to support the businesses directly affected by the tariffs. There is no plan to protect our industrial base.

What we are presented with instead are improvised financial schemes, a $25‑billion so-called sovereign wealth fund, which is sovereign in name only and whose mandate could just as easily have been given to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which, by the way, has not even used all the funds allocated to it. Meanwhile, the debt continues to grow, and with it the cost of servicing that debt, which will exceed $80 billion within a few years, far more than what is being transferred to the provinces for health care. I would remind the House that Ottawa is not complying with its own legislation.

However, there are proposals. We had some, we still have some and we will continue to have more. The Bloc Québécois came up with a series of concrete and realistic measures that were adapted to the crisis. Not only were these proposals ignored, but Ottawa did not even see fit to consult us. That says a lot. That is indicative of a government that governs in isolation. That is indicative of a government that confuses a parliamentary majority with not having to listen. Even more troubling, while our businesses are suffering, Ottawa is patting itself on the back for its revenues. More than $10 million was collected in tariffs, but just over half has been redistributed.

The remaining $4.5 billion is sitting idle in Ottawa's coffers while SMEs are forced to shut down and workers are losing their jobs. The tools are there and the money is there. What is missing is the political will.

To add insult to injury, the government continues to rely on outdated data to assess the impact of the tariffs. That is not good crisis management. That is improvisation. In an economic crisis, improvisation always negatively affects the same folks: workers, the regions and SMEs. Recognizing a problem is one thing, and that is great. That is probably the first step. Taking action, however, is another matter entirely.

At pivotal moments, the nations that come out on top are not those that wait for the storm to pass, but rather the ones that mobilize to confront it directly. While Canada may not be ready to do so, Quebec will do it every time. There are many solutions that just need to be implemented.

I hope the House will adopt today's Bloc Québécois opposition day motion. This is what it comes down to.

Report Stage May 4th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague spoke about the work we managed to achieve in committee. This showed that, given that this is a minority government—since it was elected a year ago as a minority rather than a majority government—we were able to get things done.

I am the Bloc Québécois MP who sits on this committee. I worked extensively with my Conservative colleagues on this issue, as well as with my colleague from the NDP, who is no longer with the NDP but who used to come and see us and nevertheless proposed motions similar to those we eventually adopted.

What does my colleague think of the fact that this legacy is now under threat from a government that is no longer a minority government, but that claimed it would collaborate? I would point out that, as we speak, this bill is being considered under time allocation.

Report Stage May 4th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who provided a very good outline of the situation, describing a government that was not supposed to have a majority, but that has managed to build one anyway, a government that is demonstrating its utter arrogance, particularly by reversing amendments that were adopted by a majority of committee members. The composition in place at the time was a majority of opposition party members in the House and in committee, as democracy had intended. That was before some members crossed the floor.

Now, on top of all that, the Liberals lost their vote, but now that they have a majority, they are trying to reverse that vote with these amendments, in addition to imposing closure on us. They have been telling us all along that they are open to discussing things with others, but now they are imposing closure.

Does my colleague not find it outrageous that, on top of everything else, the icing on the cake is a closure motion on a subject as sensitive as this one?

Report Stage May 4th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about intentions. We agreed on the intentions behind the bill. I would remind everyone that we voted to refer the bill to committee. That meant we were also listening to the victims.

I agree with what my colleague said in support of the civilian courts. He praised their expertise, and I agree 100%. That said, it is possible that, in light of that very expertise, the civilian courts may consider that in certain specific cases it would be better for matters to remain within the military sphere. Our amendment allowed for this, but the Liberals' Motion No. 5 will remove that possibility.

Report Stage May 4th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is doing some excellent work on these issues at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and who is studying a number of topics related to the ones I am studying at the Standing Committee on National Defence. Naturally, we often have overlapping areas of focus, and this is one of them.

In committee, many victims came to plead in favour of freedom of choice. It is important to note that one of the major proposals in this bill is that all cases, without exception, be transferred from military courts to civilian courts. We in the Bloc Québécois proposed a compromise that was adopted, but that amendment is now threatened by what the government is trying to do.

We were not even asking for complete freedom of choice, but we were saying that in some cases, if the civilian court felt that it would be better to leave a case with the military court, it could stay there. That does not seem like the end of the world to me. What does my colleague think about that?