Lost his last election, in 2006, with 30% of the vote.
Auditor General's Report February 11th, 2004
Exactly, Mr. Speaker, the special counsel for financial recovery is mandated to recover the $100 million pocketed by the Liberals' buddies.
Does the government intend to broaden that mandate so that the special counsel can also recover the contributions given to the Liberal Party by the companies who benefited from the sponsorship program?
Auditor General's Report February 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, Groupaction contributed $112,162 to the Liberal Party of Canada's coffers, Groupe Everest $77,033 and Lafleur Communications $56,834. The fundraising list shows that the sponsorship program was profitable for the Liberal Party of Canada.
The Prime Minister states that he knew nothing about it. As someone who was unaware, does he realize that the sponsorship program was profitable for the Liberal Party of Canada?
Auditor General's Report February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the last defence used by Jean Chrétien to save the skin of the ministers involved in the sponsorship scandal was the opinion of Howard Wilson, his ethics counsellor.
Will the Prime Minister agree that the mandate of the commission of inquiry will cover the decisions of the ethics counsellor, who provided a shield for the ministers involved, the same shield the current Prime Minister is using to protect himself?
Auditor General's Report February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, given that Jean Chrétien always ended up hiding behind Howard Wilson, the ethics counsellor, to whitewash the ministers involved in the sponsorship scandal, will the Prime Minister admit that a public inquiry worth its salt should necessarily cover the decisions made by Howard Wilson?
Radiocommunication Act February 9th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-2. Once again, this is a bill about problems which force us to deal with a situation in the quickly changing world of communications and computer technology.
Before getting into Bill C-2, let me say that signal theft is nothing new. In the early eighties, when pay television was introduced in Quebec and Canada, some people immediately started making and selling decoders so that viewers could receive pay television channels. Who out there has not tried to rig the cable wire to hook up one and then two televisions, or the radio set?
Such behaviour has taken root over the last twenty years. However, the lawmaker never introduced legislation to make people understand that, whenever they steal signals, be it cable or satellite signals which we are discussing today, many companies are losing substantial revenues. As I said, satellite piracy takes millions away from Canadian broadcasters and various funds like the Canadian Television Fund.
This bill was first introduced in the House in October 2003. Members know that our agenda was seriously disrupted by the changes on the other side. Parliament was prorogued and a new Prime Minister came into office. As a result, they are once again playing catch up on the legislative agenda, that is, they are trying to show that at least some of the bills are being reinstated. This one was called C-52 before prorogation and was considered to be as priority. It is being reintroduced today as Bill C-2, but no bona fide solution to the satellite piracy issue has yet been found.
Recently, print and television ads have been broadcast widely to raise public awareness of people who buy decoders. However, things go so fast that, as soon as companies like Star Choice or Bell ExpressVu put new products on the market, decoders are immediately put on the market to allow their customers to steal the signals.
In Canada, it is estimated that between 500,000 and 700,000 households engage in this kind of theft. According to the coalition formed to fight piracy, this is causing the Canadian broadcasting system to lose an estimated $400 million per year.
Often, our colleagues rise in the House to ask that Star Choice or Bell ExpressVu provide better services to the regions. Every time broadcasters have to make cuts, the regions are always the hardest hit. We are receiving signals from the United States, but have difficulty finding out what is going on in certain regions of Quebec. We have the same satellite and are charged the same price, but the regions are always the ones penalized.
Not only must the bill deter dealers from importing and selling unauthorized equipment in Canada, but a change in attitudes must also be brought about. In the last 20 years, this has become normal practice, not only with respect to cable and television. We know of the many artists from Quebec and Canada whose CDs are being copied, which is very costly to them in lost earnings. We are also aware that the artist's share of the profits on the sale of CDs and DVDs is extremely small. With the little money they get out of this big production machine, artists find themselves in financial difficulty.
Also, performance fees are based on official ratings and do not take into account stolen signals. In fact, sweeps are carried out using the devices installed, to monitor media penetration. But when signals are stolen, sweeps become unreliable. If a many decoder users tune in to Canada-wide television programs showcasing artists from Quebec or Canada, they alter or distort the results.
I do hope we will be able to tackle this issue head on. We have, however, to rely on accepted standards. We should not go overboard and have inspectors or investigators enter houses to see if there are decoders or not.
The right to enter dwellings is important, but I think investigators and inspectors should rather target those who sell the products. We could work in cooperation with the sales representatives of Star Choice and Bell ExpressVu, who certainly know where the decoders end up. I think the legislation should focus more on those who manufacture and sell the products than on officials entering dwellings to determine whether homeowners are in possession of decoders.
More specifically, clause 5 of the bill would allow inspectors to enter a home and examine any computer they might find. As we know, with today's technology and computer science, decoders are often found within computer software. Also, in our households, the computer is where much of our private and confidential information is stored. People often use computers to file their income tax returns. They use them to do the record keeping for their farms or small and medium businesses, as the people in Lotbinière—L'Érable do.
This bill would give inspectors the authority to seize computers. Not only could they search for software, but they would have access to any private or confidential information stored in the computers. We cannot, on the one hand, make it possible to eliminate the scourge of piracy and, on the other, give investigators the authority to invade people's privacy.
The privacy commissioner should come to testify and guarantee that Bill C-2 is consistent with existing legislation. For some time now in this Parliament, especially since the events of September 11, 2001, we have been quick to allow investigations and detailed inspections. We are losing sight of what is important: protecting the public.
I hope the government will take the time to focus on the possible danger with respect to clause 5 in Bill C-2. In our efforts to eliminate piracy, it is important that we have tools that are consistent with existing legislation and that will, together with what already exists for protecting privacy under the Civil Code or the Criminal Code, provide a real solution to this problem.
Above all, people need to change their behaviour. The trend toward stealing cable signals, and now satellite signals, started some 20 years ago. Where will it all end? I do not know, but I hope everyone is well aware of what this bill involves.
First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act November 6th, 2003
Yes, tourist attractions. What is the first thing a foreign visitor sees on arrival? How do we show them what is unique about Canada?
I remember when Canada put in its bid to host the Olympics. The first thing they did was to showcase aboriginal dancers. Canada pays attention to its aboriginal nations when the time comes to trot them out for political or sports purposes. But when the time comes to address their problems, the federal government avoids taking responsibility.
We have a lot to learn from the aboriginal people. In Quebec, considerable strides have been made. I issue an invitation to all those listening to us in Quebec, who have unfortunately been exposed to certain media coverage that may have created prejudices against them.
These were isolated cases involving the defence of certain interests. But they involved a minority. The aboriginal people are not as they have been portrayed by the media in recent years. They are people with a heritage. They protect us, and share their traditions with us. What is more, they are our best allies when it comes to environmental causes. Despite all this, the government wants to impose Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19 upon them. As my colleague for Champlain said, “Enough is enough”.
We would have hoped that, after 40 years with the member for Saint-Maurice and present Prime Minister, the aboriginal people could have finally felt that at last one man had understood them. But no, they will be saying that unfortunately no one has understood them.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act November 6th, 2003
There are 138 forms every year, and many of them are out of date. Furthermore, rumour has it that there are consultants helping them, good friends of the Liberals, who are familiar with the forms, but who keep the aboriginals in the dark.
The Auditor General has reported these facts. In the past five years, there have been at least ten reports condemning the federal government's administration with respect to the aboriginals.
Today, the House is considering Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19, and this is supposed to be the Prime Minister's legacy? I do not think so.
Once again, the Bloc Quebecois and Quebeckers are taking a stand. Aboriginals mean a great deal to us. Whenever there is a project that threatens the environment, who is our primary partner? The first nations. Who speaks out, often, against the Americans or multinationals threatening our environment? The first nations.
Just now, my colleague talked about the current problem in Belledune, on Chaleur Bay. Another project of great concern to everyone living along the St. Lawrence River was the proposal to ship plutonium, which is extremely radioactive. Once again, the aboriginals got involved, and they blocked these initiatives.
The aboriginal people have given us an incredible legacy. My father followed all the signs he learned from an old Indian. Excuse that expression, but that is how we called them at the time. I learned to read all the weather signs. They made a valuable contribution.
We could learn something new every day from talking to aboriginal people. Unfortunately, all we have done for them is to park them on reserves. Then we set up little displays of little aboriginal knick-knacks. We keep them on the reserve and we sell their handicrafts as gifts just about everywhere in Canada. That is the way we behave toward them.
And it is unacceptable.
First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act November 6th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I also rise to speak to Bill C-19. You are aware that a few hours ago, about 3:30 p.m. or 3:45 p.m., we paid tribute to the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Calgary Centre pointed out that the Prime Minister had been very sensitive to the aboriginal issue.
Permit me to say that, if being sensitive to the aboriginal situation results in Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19, even though the Prime Minister has been here for 40 years, he has never understood the situation of the native peoples. He kept them in ignorance. He did not allow them to flourish. Once again, today, with his legacy, Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19, he is putting them firmly in a box. He is telling them what to do and preventing their development.
In addition, I am the public accounts critic and I respond to the Auditor General. Not a year goes by without a report that denounces and decries the way the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is behaving toward the native peoples.
I can talk about some of these headings: overuse of medication, inadequate housing, the tons of forms that have to be filled in—
Criminal Code November 3rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I just hope that we will be able to look at this famous report, which is expected to come out on November 25, and that we will have the time to ask questions to the ministers and people concerned.
There are all kinds of rumours in the Parliament of Canada, that is that we might finish Friday and come back after the convention of the Liberal Party of Canada. I understand that the member opposite has made many comments on the recommendations or perhaps on the corrections that were made.
However, I essentially asked her whether public funds were used to support polls to help the Liberal Party of Quebec. She talked about polls, but did not specifically answer this question.
If this is the case, let me tell you that, on November 25, we will once again vehemently condemn the federal government's intrusion in an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, it is Quebec that administers a provincial election.
Criminal Code November 3rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by pointing out that I have been on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for five years now. It is therefore my pleasure to deal with all reports, remarks and comments by the Auditor General.
As hon. members are aware, two weeks ago certain parts of the report were leaked to the press, and I find this regrettable. Normally, when a report is to be released, it has a specific release date. In this case, that date is November 25. The leaks reported in the Globe and Mail of course again referred to amounts that had supposedly been authorized by the Prime Minister. There was mention of $100 million to Bombardier for the Challenger aircraft.
There was reference to the possibility that, during the last election campaign, money had been paid out by the federal government to carry out polls on behalf of the Quebec Liberal Party. That really got my attention, because it took me back to the unfortunate occurrences at the time of the 1995 referendum.
I was present when the big thinker behind that program—what we called the Canadian campaign—said that we were at war. That war later was the excuse for a kind of reward program for the advertising agencies that had contributed to setting up the Canadian pride campaign.
It eventually ended up in the Groupaction affair; that company was found at fault for having published three similar reports. We remember that the Auditor General later asked the RCMP to investigate.
We tried, with the means at our disposal, to establish the links between the Prime Minister's office, Groupaction, and the other companies named in what has been called the sponsorship scandal.
I am on the offensive again today, because I want an explanation. Through these leaks, we are told that, possibly, some money were taken from Canada's treasury to finance studies or polls for the Liberal Party of Quebec; once again it closely resembles what has happened in the past.
I hope that the House will continue to sit and that we will have an opportunity to see the famous Auditor General's report on this matter. In the meantime, however, I would still like to ask the Government of Canada if it has any more information to give us on the subject of the leaks to the Globe and Mail , the questions my colleagues have asked, and the question I asked myself on this specific topic.
I would like to know whether there have been further developments, and whether further information has been obtained about the possibility that funds were used to subsidize polls for the Liberal Party of Quebec.