Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac

[Federal Spending Power Act, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to hear her opinion about the fact that Quebec took measures regarding its areas of jurisdiction back when education was transferred. Quebec asked for compensation. However, the federal government did not give Quebec the compensation it rightly deserved, which created a deficit. I think that the Bloc Québécois has brought to light what is known as the fiscal imbalance. I do not feel that this issue is settled.

It is all well and good to say that the federal government will not interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction, but I would like the member to also explain the importance of the fact that the federal government must compensate the provinces that choose to opt out of certain programs and the importance to the provinces of receiving this funding.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie and it leaves me with a number of questions.

First, given her speech, it comes as no surprise that it was the Liberal Party that unilaterally patriated the Constitution in 1982. The hon. member says that the issue of pension plans is important to her, so when the Bloc Québécois introduced two bills this week to help people who are swindled, I was surprised to see that my colleague remained seated for one and abstained from voting for the other. If this issue is her top priority, as she keeps saying, then I would have liked to see her vote in favour of what the Bloc Québécois was proposing.

The hon. member says we live in a federation. In my view, when Quebec joined, it was a confederation. I am not surprised to hear her use the word “federation” instead of “confederation”.

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie says that sovereignists are single minded. However, when motions are unanimously passed by the National Assembly, it means that federalist members also voted in favour of these motions. I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about that. Does the Bloc Québécois represent what the National Assembly adopts, or does it represent only sovereignists?

[Petitions, October 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this petition, and I hope that the government will pay attention to the 86 pages filled with just over 1,050 signatures from people calling on it to improve the guaranteed income supplement as well as spousal and survivor allowances. Motion M-300, which I tabled in the House and which was adopted by the majority of elected members—only the Conservatives were opposed—proposed this same idea. The Conservative government needs to do something quickly for seniors, who built today's society.

I would like to draw attention to the fine work being done in my riding by the Richelieu-Yamaska region of FADOQ and by Mr. Leblanc and his members. I would also like to mention the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, our seniors critic, and her unrelenting efforts on behalf of Quebec's seniors.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his speech. I have a question for him. He was a prominent attorney in his first career. He was one of Quebec's best-known attorneys, and he is still an attorney.

I would like to know whether the Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions) violates the right of the accused to consult with an impartial lawyer of his or her choice. Under the current Canadian system, lawyers must respect solicitor-client privilege.

Does this law not violate one of the fundamental rights of the accused, solicitor-client privilege?

[Citizenship Act, May 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-467 because I believe that it will correct a legislative error.

When the Citizenship Act was amended in 2008 through Bill C-37, the principle of restricting the transmission of citizenship by descent was included to ensure that Canadian citizenship was not passed on in perpetuity.

But in wanting to create an exception to restricting the transmission of citizenship for our military and officials who are overseas on a mission, we complicated matters. We created an exception to the citizenship exception that had just been passed. The goal was to maintain privileges for our citizens who have children overseas. However, as is often the case when a law is created or amended, unanticipated problems or gaps surfaced in the legislation.

Bill C-467 would remove the exception to the exception that was created and propose a new category of citizens in order to make the Citizenship Act fairer.

The law, in its present form allows our military and officials, who were themselves born abroad, to transmit their citizenship to any children they have when they are on a mission. However, rather than being considered citizens in good standing as though they were born here, these children have the status of Canadians born abroad, which does not allow them, in turn, to transmit their citizenship.

Bill C-467 would make these children full-fledged citizens with the same rights and privileges as the children of the military and officials born here and posted here.

When the government amended the Citizenship Act to restrict the transmission of citizenship, it maintained that the provision would ensure that Canadian citizenship is not transmitted indefinitely to individuals who have no ties to Canada. Although I believe that there should be nuances in this rule, I agree with the general principle.

Given the employee-employer relationship of these two parties, it is obvious to me that, for this category of citizens, their right to citizenship does not have to be proven because it is explicit. Consequently, their children should be considered as though they were born here—even if they were born abroad—just like children adopted from abroad, who now have this recognition.

That is exactly what the member for Vancouver South wants to achieve with this bill.

Here is a simple example to illustrate what I am talking about. I was born in Vietnam and adopted in 1974. I now have a Quebec birth certificate, which is my legal identification in Quebec. However, when I renew my passport, I have to send my Canadian citizenship card, not my Quebec birth certificate, as do all people born in Quebec.

I was adopted in 1974, long before the law was changed to allow children adopted from other countries to obtain citizenship upon arriving in Canada. If I were a member of the armed forces, any grandchildren of mine born abroad would be stateless. That situation is unacceptable.

In this case, my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, has five children, including one born abroad when he was Quebec's delegate general in Japan. That child will not have the same status as his four children born here.

This is an example that illustrates the need for this bill. The current citizenship criteria, which are essentially based on birthplace, seem to me to be outdated in these cases, just like the discrimination against parents who adopted children abroad in my time. The flaws in the system should be corrected by the bill my colleague has introduced.

With globalization and international labour mobility, more and more government employees, members of the military and other people will be going abroad to work.

Moreover, the Bloc Québécois has long been calling on the government to introduce exit controls for non-citizens, but the Conservatives have consistently refused. They recognize the problem, but refuse to take action.

Clearly, Bill C-467 does not correct the whole problem, because it only focuses on government employees. I feel we are going to have to take a much broader approach and review the principle of restricting transmission of citizenship by descent.

We support this amendment, but I want to say that this bill will not completely fix the flaw in the current Citizenship Act.

However, it does give vital recognition to people working for the government abroad.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yukon for his question.

Ever since this Conservative government has been in power, we have seen a culture of secrecy develop and that is unacceptable. The latest example came out in the Jaffer affair. When I refer to Mr. Jaffer I also mean his wife, who was removed from the Conservative caucus. The last time a government removed a member from its caucus was under the Mulroney government. The allegations made against that person were disclosed.

In closing, since this is a matter of allegations, I would add that this government has a double standard. It says that it removed the former minister for the status of women because of the allegations. However, when we ask about the allegations of torture in Afghanistan, we are told there cannot be an investigation into mere allegations. What is more, they say the minister was removed for matters that do not affect the government, but they are not investigating a matter that does affect the government, namely, torture in Afghanistan. This is just another example of this Conservative government's inconsistency.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. The Bloc Québécois will certainly never be opposed to measures that will provide an effective framework for lobbyists.

I would go even further than my colleague and say that it is not right that lobbyists should not have to register if they do not spend the majority of their time lobbying. Lobbyists, whether they spend one hour or 40 hours of their week lobbying, should have to register.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

It is rather ironic that the Liberals are putting forward this motion today, in light of their poor record of transparency. The sponsorship scandal went on for more than six years before the Bloc Québécois blew the whistle and brought this scheme to light.

Whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in opposition or in power, it makes no difference, and I will explain why. When the Conservatives are in opposition, they behave in a certain way, and when the Liberals are in power, they behave just like the Conservatives. Take the anti-scab law, for example. When the member for Jonquière—Alma was in opposition, he said it was a good law, but when he became Minister of Labour, he said that it was not the interests of workers, but the interests of all Canadians that counted and that he was therefore changing his position. Once he was in power, his ideology changed.

The same is true of the program for older worker adjustment. When I ran in a byelection in my riding, the same member for Jonquière—Alma came to tell my constituents that the program for older worker adjustment would be restored shortly. We are still waiting for this program.

I have a colleague who, during this session, introduced a bill in the House that would abolish the employment insurance waiting period. Even though most of the opposition members supported this bill, the government is refusing to grant the royal recommendation that would allow this change to be made.

The Liberals did the same thing when they were in power. When in opposition, the Conservatives supported employment insurance measures, but the Liberals did not grant the royal recommendation.

The Liberals and the Conservatives say one thing when they are in opposition and another when they are in power. For all these reasons, I am a bit surprised to see the Liberals move this motion.

That said, we will not oppose greater government transparency, because it is a good thing.

I talked about election promises. I would remind the House that in 2006 the Conservatives campaigned on the promise that their government would be much more transparent than previous governments. So far they have not kept their promise. We are still waiting for this transparency.

In fact, what the government is doing is worse than a lack of transparency. It often uses the Access to Information Act to justify its lack of transparency. However, if transparency is so important to them, I urge the government and the Prime Minister to appoint an information commissioner. As we know, the current commissioner was appointed on an interim basis in July 2009 and her term will expire in June of this year. No one yet knows or can tell us if the government plans to fill this position, which is so essential to our democracy, permanently as of June 2010. It does not cost the government a lot of money and would demonstrate its goodwill. That said, we are still waiting.

The Access to Information Act is over 25 years old. To put this in context, my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour was first elected to this House 25 years ago.

I was not even old enough to vote and my parliamentary assistant was not even born. This legislation has been around for a very long time. It is often said that one day in politics is an eternity, so imagine what 25 years means.

Twenty-five years is a quarter of a century. I must remind the government party of this. In 25 years, the government has had the time to reform the Access to Information Act. Also, 25 years ago, media such as the Internet, Twitter and Facebook did not exist. If for no other reason than to adapt to these new realities, the government should update this legislation.

I am not surprised that the government is dragging its feed regarding these announcements. One of the Conservatives' promises was to give all regions and rural areas high-speed Internet access. This measure was meant to bring our communities into the modern world. We are still waiting to hear from the government regarding these commitments, which are so vital to our communities. I am not surprised to see that the government is not making it a priority to ensure that Quebeckers and all Canadians have electronic access to information. It is also dragging its feet when it comes to offering these services to our communities.

Moreover, the current legislation does not include parliamentary secretaries on the list of public office holders, which is not good from an ethics point of view. Parliamentary secretaries often have to answer ministers' questions and fill in for them. Because they are delegated by ministers, the same code of ethics and responsibilities should apply to them.

The government answered many questions about lobbyist registration from my leader and the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, our ethics critic. I am very worried by the government's assertion that Mr. Jaffer cannot be considered a lobbyist because he did not sign a contract with the government.

Does this mean that from now on, when budding lobbyists go hunting for contracts, they do not have to register as lobbyists until they actually bag a deal? Will this measure apply to every individual who wants to become a lobbyist? If so, then democracy will suffer. What the government is saying is that there is a double standard.

The ethics commissioner appeared before the committee and told us that she had received no documents from the Prime Minister's Office. In response to numerous questions from my leader, the Prime Minister said that as soon as he found about the allegations, he forwarded the relevant documents and information to the ethics commissioner.

However, when the ethics commissioner appeared before the committee, she said that she had never received any such documents. I know that Canada Post—which the Conservatives are planning to cut too—can be slow at times. However, I also know that those documents left the Hill over a month ago. There is no reason why the ethics commissioner should not have received them yet.

By making such statements, the Prime Minister's Office is once again trying to mislead us, and that is not right.

[Vietnam Day on Parliament Hill, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today is Vietnam Day on Parliament Hill, organized by the Vietnamese Canadian Federation. A major forum has been organized to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the impact of communism on Vietnam.

As the first MP of Vietnamese origin elected to this House, I am proud to be associated with and to sponsor this important day for many Vietnamese people living here, in Quebec and Canada.

Respect for human rights, the rights of workers and intellectuals, freedom of expression and religious freedom in Vietnam will be among the topics discussed today. It is essential that these issues take centre stage.

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the hard work the organizers of this day have put in. They have been working non-stop to promote Vietnamese culture and to defend fundamental rights in Vietnam.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question.

Currently, so-called environmental refugees, people seeking refugee status because of natural disasters, as my colleague mentioned, are not mentioned in the convention. This concept has not been included in international conventions. It should be. It is certainly a good idea.

Nonetheless, I am not surprised to see that the minister did not include this concept in his bill, since it is not yet recognized in international conventions.