Suzanne Tremblay

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this debate needs to focus on the real issues. The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona does not appear to have understood the essence of our motion. Since we have been talking about former this and former that, I was surprised to learn that the former NDP leadership candidate did not understand our exact intention. We want the person calling the shots to take over, nothing more.

When I was a kid, we used to have a hymn that went, “The old and the new, there is only one god in the heavens”. Here, two people are trying to rule. That is why nothing is working.

I was listening to the speech by the hon. government House leader. He trotted out everything he could find in Montpetit-Marleau. He tried to make us believe that it would be really horrible if, by some chance, the Liberals dared to vote the way their conscience tells them to.

What would happen if, by chance, the Bloc's motion were carried? Are the Liberals even able to answer that question? Something very simple would happen. In our British parliamentary system, the Governor General would urgently call back from Asia the Prime Minister—who must have travelled there on his Challenger bought from Bombardier—and tell him, “Minister Prime Minister, I think you have a little problem”. He would say, “You are right, Your Excellency. It would seem that I have lost the confidence of the House”.

Having come to that conclusion, what could the Governor General do? She could ask, “Can you think of anyone in your party who could form a majority government?” Now, the cat would be out of the bag. The Prime Minister would say, “Sadly, yes, the member for LaSalle—Émard is ready to take over and form a new government”. The Governor General would then ask him to form a new government. We would not be facing a crisis, as the government House leader would have us believe. We would be out of the current crisis. That would make a big difference.

My hon. colleague and friend from Hyacinthe—Bagot said earlier that the picture of the future prime minister was making the front page of newspapers. That is not all we could see in the papers today. Eddie Goldenberg made a remark in a conversation that was overheard. The PMO is pretty sophisticated now. It can overhear conversations. Mr. Goldenberg, from the PMO, suggested that Team Canada missions abroad would be cancelled under the future prime minister. That is what came out of China today. The Prime Minister was asked about it. He said that, naturally, it would be up to his successor to answer the question.

We could go on for hours listing all the problems we are having because the man pulling the strings and running the show is not among us. He is the invisible man. Yet, like God, he is omnipresent. He influences every government decision. He is just everywhere. We can see him making comments here, and cancelling this or that there. He said we could pass legislation if we wanted to but that, once in office, he would not enforce it.

So, what did the government do? It shelved the bill. It is no longer dealing with it.

Consequently, I think that the fundamental meaning of our motion needs to be understood. We are tired of hearing that, on November 7, we will all go home because we have to wait for the Liberal convention, which will be held on November 15. The current Prime Minister wants to go to Africa, because he has not seen his friends in a long time; he wants to go to Mexico in January and he will do some major house cleaning on Sussex Drive in February. Then, he will let the other one take over.

We are saying that this is taking too much time. As members of Parliament, what are we going to do in the meantime? We will be waiting. We will not even be able to see the Quebec-Windsor train go by, because the Liberals cannot make up their mind; the future prime minister does not want the train, he prefers to fulfil his promises in western Canada and keep the money.

He surely will have plenty of time to choose his cabinet. If the Liberals are to be believed, I think they will break the record of Bangladesh, which has 63 ministers. I believe the Liberals will appoint 64 ministers, because so many backbenchers think they should be appointed to replace the current ministers.

Since the time is short, I believe it is important to get serious about this process. I tried to put some levity in my speech, because it is lunch time. We need to give this motion all the importance it deserves and we need to know that it is in the interests of Canadians that the Bloc motion get massive support from members of the House.

[Labour Market, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, again, I will quote what the premier of Ontario said in front of thousands of people during the debate:

“We are phasing them out. Therefore we are not prepared to give Ontario an agreement”. That is what the Prime Minister is supposed to have said. Did he, yes or no?

[Labour Market, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, during the Ontario leaders' debate, the premier of Ontario said that the Prime Minister of Canada had told him that the labour market agreements with the provinces are done and he told him: “We are phasing them out.”

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether or not he said such a thing?

[Labour Market, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario's premier was clear: he said the Prime Minister would not sign such agreements in the future.

Did the premier lie during the televised debate, or is it true that the Government of Canada intends to withdraw from these agreements?

[Labour Market, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during the Ontario leaders' debate, Premier Ernie Eves was criticized because there is no labour market agreement between his province and the federal government. The premier of Ontario reported that the Prime Minister said the agreements were winding down and there would not be any in the future.

Will the government confirm its intention to withdraw from the existing labour market agreements?

[Government Contracts, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking of the company known as Modes Conili. It obtained over $700,000 for fictitious jobs. What I wonder is, if close to two years later, the RCMP has not got any results, perhaps the file should be taken back from the RCMP and a public inquiry held.

Is the minister prepared to give us the results?

[Government Contracts, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, when we questioned the Minister of Human Resources Development on the case of Modes Conili, which had obtained grants for the creation of fictitious jobs, we were told it was a matter for the RCMP. The RCMP does not want to tell us anything and, since then, there has been complete silence.

Is the minister able to tell us the results of the RCMP investigation and whether the company has repaid HRDC for the money it received.

[Family Supplement, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak this morning in the debate on Motion No.395 brought forward by my hon. colleague for Ahuntsic. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should index the family supplement to the cost of living in the next Federal Budget.

First, I will remind the House and our listeners that last spring, in a previous hour of debate on this motion, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay clearly expressed the position of the Bloc Quebecois, which I shall summarize.

The Bloc Quebecois supports Motion M-395. As my party's critic on this subject, I have recommended that my colleagues vote in favour of this motion, as did my hon. colleague for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay in the spring when he replaced me on this issue during my long absence.

I should like to take this opportunity, if I may, to express my special thanks to the hon. members for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and for Laurentides, who shared my duties in addition to their own heavy workloads.

Getting back to the motion and the Bloc Quebecois position on it, the members of the Bloc should vote in favour of this motion, because it is important that all the various programs which support families be indexed to the cost of living.

Clearly, if the amount of money destined for families is not indexed to the cost of living, some families will become poorer.

It is also important to remember that the family supplement is paid to low-income families. Most of our fellow citizens would agree that these families suffer the most from cost of living increases. Indexing the family supplement should be an obvious step.

The Bloc Quebecois still has reservations, however, about some of the measures affected by the motion. For example, several aspects of the family supplement, a federal program, unfortunately infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction.

That is why Quebec has obtained a right to opt out with financial compensation with respect to some of these programs.

And if this motion were to be taken up in the next budget, I would ask the hon. member for Ahuntsic to be particularly vigilant to ensure that her government also transfers an amount equivalent to the cost of living indexing on amounts transferred to Quebec under the agreement on the right to opt out with financial compensation.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois would have liked the motion for cost of living indexing to go beyond the next federal budget and for this provision to be added to family supplement legislation to make indexing automatic.

Let us look at the list of programs that, at first glance, could be affected by this motion.

There is the Canada Child Tax Benefit, with two types of benefits going directly to families: the National Child Benefit and the Child Disability Benefit.

In the case of the National Child Benefit, the Government of Quebec signed an agreement with the federal government giving it the right to opt out with compensation for this benefit. The Government of Quebec pays the benefit rather than the federal government.

The Child Disability Benefit is a new program that came into effect in July 2003. The federal government says that it will work together with the provinces and territories to implement this program. We hope the government will keep this promise and uphold the jurisdictions of each level of government.

The Early Childhood Development Initiative is another type of program. This initiative is based on the September 2000 agreement promising Quebec it could opt out with compensation.

First, there are early learning programs, which are also available to first nations children on reserves.

The Early Childhood Development Initiative includes daycare programs. Discussions are underway with Quebec, among others, to reach an agreement on this. Once they are finalized, the provisions relating to Quebec and first nations children on reserves will be made public.

Given that Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over early childhood development—since it is essentially the foundation for education—this is consequently and unquestionably an area over which Quebec, the provinces and the territories have jurisdiction. The federal government must therefore conclude agreements so as not to infringe on jurisdictions that are not its own.

There is a third type of program, which is the child-centred family justice strategy. This totally new program is being administered by the Minister of Justice. Its primary aim is to assist children during the separation or divorce of their parents. This is therefore a program which falls fully under federal jurisdiction, and we recognize this.

Finally, I want to thank the hon. member for Ahuntsic for moving this motion in the House, and I want to express two wishes. First, I hope that the future prime minister of Canada will be as sensitive to the needs of young children and their families—primarily those most in need—as he is with regard to the rich, tax havens and major businesses that have given him the millions of dollars required to buy him the position he has long coveted. His sensitivity must be followed by action in the next budget, since the current Minister of Finance has stated that the prime minister's guidance is essential to drafting a budget. This explains the government's current inability to make any budget-related decisions.

My second wish directly relates to the responsibility of the hon. member. Since she represents a Quebec riding, she is, to a certain extent, morally and socially responsible for representing the consensus of Quebeckers. Therefore, she must ensure—and I hope that she will re-read my speech since she is doing something else while I talk—that the federal government signs agreements with the Quebec government guaranteeing that its jurisdiction will be respected and that it can opt out with financial compensation as it wishes and as promised.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think that four minutes is better than nothing. It is not as great as ten, but I will take what I am given.

I agree with my hon. colleagues who spoke today. It is late afternoon, and new viewers may be tuning in to CPAC. They should know that today we are debating Bill C-49.

it is odd that, at the request of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, who has not yet gone through all the steps to becoming the next Prime Minister of Canada, the Liberal government in this House is already going along with a person who will take office in three or perhaps four months.

According to what the newspapers reported over the summer, this is a person who did not even want to face his opponent in a debate, the hon. member for Hamilton East. She sought him out. She wanted to debate critical issues for the future of Canada, but he declined.

It is rather odd to see that he got through to the government House leader, who unfortunately went along with this bill, which is a veritable affront to democracy.

As all my colleagues have explained, a non-partisan process has suddenly become a highly partisan affair in this House. I think that is unfortunate. We may rightly wonder what led the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard to ask for this legislation. What has led the current Prime Minister to grant him this privilege, he who has always wanted his successor to be someone other than the member for LaSalle—Émard? Why is it that he is now helping him along? It appears that he too—like everyone else—is admitting the obvious, that the member for LaSalle—Émard has been holding confidential discussions for a year in his bid to get the job of Prime Minister of Canada, just as he might take steps to acquire a shipping company or an airline.

For him, it seems to be exactly the same process. Thus, he has held talks with the people who are able to give him the millions of dollars he needs in order to move from the seat he now occupies in the House to that of prime minister.

Still, we also can wonder if the member for LaSalle—Émard might possibly be afraid of being in the House. Is he afraid of facing the opposition parties, who will ask him questions and who may be able to show the people of Canada that the member for LaSalle—Émard, who is preparing to become prime minister, perhaps does not have any ideas? That would be disturbing; sitting in the House and not having answers to the questions.

It is too bad that my time has nearly run out. Still, I hope that the people will remember that the first move made by the man who wants to become prime minister was completely antidemocratic.

[Employment Insurance, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. minister that he listen to the question before he answers this time. The EI program is now providing benefits to less than half of the men and women contributors who lose their jobs, which means that, for all intents and purposes, this so-called employment insurance plan is nothing more than a disguised tax on employment.

Does the minister intend to continue his predecessor's irresponsible policy?