Pauline Picard

[Minister of Foreign Affairs, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, while the government attempts to minimize the Minister of Foreign Affairs' negligence, it has come to light that his former girlfriend had ties with criminal elements until 2005 at least. In addition to her having been the girlfriend of two people with business connections to the Hells Angels, her father was sentenced in 2001 for growing marijuana for bikers and a third boyfriend was jailed for possession of stolen goods and had ties to organized crime.

How could the Minister of Foreign Affairs disregard his former girlfriend's shady past when the country's security could have been at risk?

[Official Languages Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have introduced Bill C-482. I would also like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her remarks, in which she really explained the bill. I am a little disappointed to see that my colleagues on the opposition side and my colleague who has just spoken have not sufficiently understood Bill C-482. In fact, it does not take away anything. It only amends the Official Languages Act so that businesses respect the spirit of the charter dealing with the language of signage and the language of work in related legislation on businesses. I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, my colleague from Joliette and my colleague from Gatineau, who travelled all across Quebec to explain Bill C-482, what it would change and what it would modify. I can say that it takes away absolutely nothing from the privileges of minorities within Quebec.

It is essential to specify in the Official Languages Act that French is the official language of Quebec. I would like the members who spoke on this bill could really recognize that French is the official language of Quebec. That is why it seems significant to us to amend the preamble to the act to state that the federal government recognizes French as the official language of Quebec and the common language of Quebec.

This bill would amend two parts of the Official Languages Act: Part VII, which deals with the advancement of English and French in Canadian society, and Part IX, which deals primarily with the mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Recognition of the Charter of the French Language in no way diminishes the rights and privileges of the Quebec anglophone minority that are set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I emphasize that point. These amendments strictly limit the power of the federal government to intervene in Quebec's language policy.

Let us talk about a concept. The concept of nationhood is to recognize a nation. It also means recognizing its identity, its language, its culture, its history and its institutions. For the Conservatives, the concept of the Quebec nation is an empty shell. The Conservative game is nothing but a manoeuvre intended to trivialize the Quebec nation.

Logic requires that the identity of Quebec be recognized; in the North American context, that the predominance of French in Quebec be recognized; that Bill 101 adopted by the National Assembly be recognized and respected since a statutory reference is possible. We have used an example on many occasions, the example of minimum wage legislation. The reality is that the Conservatives do not have the courage to move from words to action. The Quebec nation in a united Canada is just window dressing.

The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has already publicly committed himself to the need to defend and protect the French fact in Quebec. Speaking of Bill 101, he said in 1997 it was, and I quote, “The opposite of a racist law.” He even told the Canadian Press that Bill 101 was a great Canadian law. In that context, I invite honourable members and, in particular, all members from Quebec, to support this bill.

[Minister of Foreign Affairs, May 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as the head of Canadian diplomacy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be subject to a more stringent security screening than his fellow cabinet ministers.

Since the government and the minister were aware of the shady past of the spouse of the Minister of Foreign Affairs but failed to do a security screening on her, is that not further proof of this government's carelessness?

[Minister of Foreign Affairs, May 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if the matter was of no consequence, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs claim, it is hard to imagine why a journalist from The Hill Times had such a terrible time trying to obtain the name of the minister's companion. She contacted Foreign Affairs, Industry Canada and the Privy Council to establish the identity of the minister's companion, but no one would talk.

Is this not further proof that, at the time of the swearing in, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister's Office were aware of this woman's somewhat shady past and that they wanted to conceal her identity?

[Regional Award Ceremony for Women, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the École d'agriculture de Nicolet hosted the award ceremony for the regional winners of the Chapeau, les filles! contest. This ceremony was an opportunity to congratulate 11 women from the Mauricie and Centre-du-Québec region who are enrolled in a vocational or technical training program, and who intend to work in a traditionally male-dominated field.

I am proud to pay tribute to Vicky Brousseau, who is studying machining techniques at the Centre de formation professionnelle Paul-Rousseau, and Rosa-Julia Asalde-Martinez, who is studying transport logistics techniques at the CEGEP in Drummondville.

The Chapeau, les filles! contest aims to challenge stereotypes by encouraging women to choose unconventional careers. There is no doubt that women have a role to play in less traditional fields that for too long have been strictly reserved for men.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of answers to those questions. First, if he what he really means is that the fact that the House will express its will this evening is not smoke and mirrors, then the Conservative Party has to vote in favour of the motion and the House has to express its complete and utter confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The Conservatives have cast doubt on the impartiality and neutrality of Elections Canada. They have cast doubt on this institution that is the guardian of our democracy.

If they are not guilty, if they do not feel guilty and have nothing to hide then they should not be using schemes to completely block a committee that wanted to shed light on the activities of the Conservative Party. For seven months, they have used procedure to prevent the work of that committee from moving forward.

Second, since the hon. member is a lawyer, I will remind him that when there is an investigation and the RCMP wants to conduct a search somewhere because it is unable to get any cooperation from people such as the Conservative Party, it must obtain a warrant from a judge. The judge issued the warrant in full knowledge of the facts. Elections Canada and the RCMP were able to enter the Conservative Party offices to get all the receipts and documents they needed.

We have not been investigated because we have always respected the Elections Act. We have always submitted our plans to Elections Canada, before and after. We have always had our strategies approved by Elections Canada. Thus, every Bloc Québécois candidate has received reimbursement from the Chief Electoral Officer because they truly respected the rules and regulations of Elections Canada.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is not without significance that the motion that we have brought forward deals with the trust that we, men and women from different political parties as well as the electorate we represent, must have in the institution that is the watchdog of the democratic process, Elections Canada.

What the party in power has been doing for several weeks now is nothing less than launching a concerted attack on the integrity and neutrality of Elections Canada, an independent and above all non-partisan organization whose mission is to make sure that citizens can exercise their democratic right and stand for election.

What are the values that underlie Elections Canada's actions and decisions? Transparency in everything, the public's trust, a staff that is knowledgeable and professional—the Chief Electoral Officer's office here in Ottawa has a staff of more than 330. When a general election is called, returning officers hire more than 160,000 people across the country. In each constituency, the returning officer administers the electoral process by which a member of Parliament is chosen. The values that the governing party are questioning are the cohesiveness and consistency in administering the Canada Elections Act.

Since the 2006 election, the Conservative members have essentially been accusing the current Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, the sixth person to hold the position since it was created by the House of Commons in 1920, of showing bias. It is important to point out that, because he is appointed by the House of Commons and reports directly to Parliament, the Chief Electoral Officer is completely independent of government and political parties.

That being said, the facts that have been made public about the Conservative Party's election spending scheme are disturbing. The most recent election campaign came on the heels of the sponsorship scandal, a Liberal scandal that was strongly condemned by the parties in this House. The information brought to light by the Gomery commission about irregularities in the management of the sponsorship program landed the Liberals on the opposition benches. The Conservatives would use this sad situation to make political hay. The party went to the polls determined to be pure as the driven snow. But the allegations and revelations that have been made in recent weeks prove just the opposite.

We can be glad about one thing: thanks to the stubbornness of the Prime Minister and his party, the Chief Electoral Officer had no choice but to act. The Conservatives' refusal to cooperate led to the disclosure of over 500 pages of affidavits last week. The party's offices were raided twice by the Chief Electoral Officer, with the RCMP's help. In spite of everything, the Conservatives are sticking to their guns, even though they are unable to justify the system whereby they transferred money between the party's coffers and those of 67 candidates in order to spend more on advertising than the law allowed.

But there is worse. In addition to this botched scheme, the Commissioner of Canada Elections discovered that invoices had been forged. This was another scheme to enable Conservative candidates to obtain a refund of expenses that were not really theirs.

I am talking about allegations of forgery, an offence under the Criminal Code.

When questioned by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the government remained evasive. The question is simple, though, and I invite the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to answer it. Can he confirm, from his seat, that no invoices were forged or falsified?

While the party opposite was trying to put off revealing the truth about this issue, Ronald Lamothe, assistant chief investigator with the office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, submitted a 68-page affidavit to obtain a search warrant. Mr. Lamothe's allegations stated that Conservative Party officials produced election spending statements that they knew contained false or misleading information, which contravenes section 431(a) of the Elections Act.

As such, the Conservative Party's Quebec lieutenant must answer the question we asked. Can he confirm that there were no false invoices and that no documents were altered?

It would be interesting to hear the minister's response, particularly since Mr. Lamothe claims that Conservative Party officials produced false invoices in December 2006 on letterhead belonging to Retail Media Inc. of Toronto, the agency that was responsible for buying nationwide ad space for the Conservatives during the last election, to justify the election spending of 14 candidates—six of them from Quebec.

These allegations are very, very serious. The Conservative Party's shadowy manoeuvres make all politicians look bad. Regardless of what happens with the motion currently before us, justice will take its course, and a ruling will eventually be made. We are patient. It took a lot of time and patience to bring to light the sponsorship scandal. We will take as much time as we need to bring to light the Conservatives' schemes.

For many long weeks, Conservative members did everything they could to paralyze the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was trying to study the file that the Chief Electoral Officer took over. Rather than cooperate with parliamentarians and act responsibly and honourably, Conservative members did their utmost to prevent the committee from doing its job. They were determined to paralyze the committee so they could avoid answering questions. It is ironic to hear the Conservative whip complain about the fact that committee work was not moving forward when he and his fellow party members were the ones refusing to work.

There will be another election within the next 18 months. I wonder how the Conservatives, who are in so much trouble, current Conservative members, the candidates targeted by the investigation, could possibly run again. I would not be surprised to see some candidates back out, preferring not to see their name associated with such a scheme. The Liberals have been through it. The Conservatives should have learned from the Liberals' mistakes.

Beyond the current scheme, from now on, every move made by any representative of that political party will be scrutinized and analyzed. We will ask for the Chief Electoral Officer's opinion on any action that draws our attention.

Should we be concerned about certain candidates who have suddenly become very visible in our ridings? It has come to the attention of parliamentarians that Conservative candidates have set up shop in clearly identified offices. It is only natural to wonder if it is all legal. If a party can produce false invoices, which is what the Commissioner of Canada Elections is saying, and maintain that its actions were completely legal, one might easily wonder about the rest of the management practices of that political party.

In short, the Conservative ethic is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is obvious that the Conservatives tried to circumvent election spending limits and were beat at their own game. Just like the Liberals with their sponsorship scandal, the Conservatives made up false invoices, according to the Chief Electoral Officer's affidavit. Clearly, the tables have turned.

We definitely think the Conservatives must stop undermining the authority of Elections Canada, which is why we are giving them the opportunity to show some degree of repentance, by asking them to vote with us on the Bloc Québécois motion:

That the House express its full and complete confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

[Elections Canada, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, he should stop playing games. When the law states that the content of a warrant cannot be disclosed, it is to be fair to the party named in the search warrant. Nothing is stopping the Conservatives from simply telling us what the warrant said. They must know, since the police would have had to show it to the party officials before entering the building.

Why are they not telling us what the search warrant said if they have nothing to hide?

[Elections Canada, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the Government said, and I quote, “We have offered every document to Elections Canada”. But that is impossible. There was a search, and in order for there to be a search, Elections Canada would have had to prove to a judge that it could not obtain the information without a warrant. He should stop misleading the House.

What is the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons waiting for to table the warrant in the House right now?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion.