House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 46% of the vote.
Passports May 16th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, in a speech to the Canadian Association of New York on Monday, the Canadian ambassador warned the Bush administration, as the governors and the Premier of Quebec have done, against the negative impact of requiring passports at its borders.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for to explain to President Bush that this measure is expensive for both countries and useless from a security standpoint?
Passports May 16th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, at the Cancun summit, the Prime Minister accepted as a done deal the decision by the United States to require the use of passports at its borders, contrary to the statements by the Minister of Public Safety yesterday. Yet everyone thinks this is a bad decision.
Will the minister see reason, take the position of the Government of Quebec, four provincial premiers and the governors of New England, and wage a real battle against mandatory passports?
Canada-U.S. Border May 15th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, this is not the impression we have received from the Prime Minister’s messages since the meeting in Cancún.
Really, can the Prime Minister’s refusal to add his voice to those of Quebec and the New England states not be explained rather by the fact that his primary concern is much more to please President Bush than to defend the interests of Quebec?
Canada-U.S. Border May 15th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, on October 25, the Bloc Québécois had a unanimous motion passed in this House condemning the American initiative of making the use of passports at border crossings mandatory. The Government of Quebec took up the idea and is now part of a common front with Vermont, five other American states and four Canadian provinces.
Rather than blindly following the position of the American administration, what is the federal government waiting for to support the initiative put forward by Quebec and Vermont, and to ask the United States to abandon this idea, which is as costly in economic terms as it is useless in terms of security?
Public Safety May 8th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past year, the media have revealed on many occasions that aircraft chartered by the CIA have flown over Canadian territory while transporting prisoners. Similar observations have been made elsewhere. The Council of Europe and the European Parliament have received a number of reports highly critical of these practices.
Will the Minister of Public Safety tell us whether he approves of the fact that the CIA is using Canadian airspace to transport prisoners?
Correctional Officers May 1st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the previous government left correctional officers without a labour contract or collective agreement for four long years. It is to be hoped that the new President of the Treasury Board will not emulate his predecessor and let the situation deteriorate further.
What concrete measures has the President of the Treasury Board taken to address this issue since he was appointed?
Federal Accountability Act April 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, you are right. I apologize. I will rephrase.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot had a great deal of experience. For example, he said that he can forecast what the actual government surplus will be. As a matter of fact, he said that anyone with the same background he has—he is an economist—can do it.
Consequently, if the government came up with a different forecasted surplus based on the same numbers, there certainly was a reason for that. The member talked in his remarks about the need to appoint an official who would be totally independent and who would have the necessary tools to make these kinds of forecasts.
Federal Accountability Act April 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a system where accountability does exist. The government is accountable to the House. We have various tools at our disposal to hold the government to account. Question period is one of those tools, and committees are another one. I think it forces the government to be more transparent so that those who were elected by the people and can hold the government to account are better informed.
I would like to add that it is important to take Mr. Loubier's suggestions seriously. I am not an economist—
Federal Accountability Act April 27th, 2006
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had not noticed.
Obviously, these reasons are given in a spirit—
Federal Accountability Act April 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I will say straightaway that I think this is a good bill. This is a good time to discuss it, for all sorts of reasons which we all know and on which we can agree, regardless of our different political opinions.
It would be an illusion to think that a bill of this scope can be made perfect in a hurry. This bill necessarily contains certain weaknesses which I would like to illustrate in a certain way. I do not wish to blame those who designed it. However the legislative process, if properly conducted, can improve a text. That process includes discussion in Parliament and review in committee. I also believe there should be public sessions at which witnesses are invited to comment on this bill and its provisions. Also, if this bill is arriving at the right time, it is because we consider it necessary to do this at this time. So we would like to do the best that is possible.
Among other things, when I read this bill, I cannot help detecting signs of a certain partiality, a certain desire for vengeance or destruction aimed at another political party. During review of this bill, the government should be open-minded enough to accept the criticisms made to improve it. In any case, that is certainly that attitude that my party and myself will be taking, in our desire to improve the bill and see whether it does not go too far at times.
I will speak now of the title, as other francophones have done. Even here I seem to see a sign of a spirit of vengeance. When I first saw the title, I ran to check a dictionary. And indeed, my question was whether “imputabilité” was the appropriate term. It is dangerous to rely on the dictionary only. When we were children, we would do an exercise that involved looking up the definition of a word. We would find various terms describing it. Then we would look up the definition of those other terms, which in turn were described by various other terms. At some point we found ourselves back at the first word. So words are defined by other words. However, one should not refer to the dictionary as an authority for saying that word X has the meaning of word Y; it is clear that different words have different nuances. With the word “imputabilité”, when you impute something to someone, the nuance is generally pejorative.
I offer an example. Mr. Kagame’s visit to the country is in the news. Those who are against this visit and demonstrating their opposition “impute” to him the role of provoking the airplane accident that triggered the terrible genocide. He denies this and defends himself: he instead “imputes” this act to Hutu extremists. This shows the connotation of accusation that is carried in the French word “imputer”.
In addition, when we read the highlights of the accountability action plan, we see that imputability is not what is meant. It seems to me that the government is pointing the finger at the members of the former Liberal government and saying that now there will be an act to punish people who do not carry out their responsibilities properly. The government gave us a booklet that explains the action plan, and it is funny to see that, from the very start, it uses different French terminology:
Dans le cadre de la Loi fédérale sur l'imputabilité et du plan d'action qui s'y rattache, le gouvernement du Canada prévoit des mesures précises qui visent à accroître la responsabilisation, la transparence et la surveillance des activités gouvernementales.
The introduction to the document begins as follows:
La responsabilisation constitue la pierre d'angle du régime canadien de gouvernement responsable. Un régime rigoureux de responsabilisation est essentiel pour garantir au Parlement et à la population canadienne que le gouvernement du Canada—
Further on, the document states:
Une responsabilisation efficace suppose également que les gestionnaires des ressources publiques —
The text continues:
Dans une culture de responsabilisation, les rôles et responsabilités sont clairement définis, de sorte que les gens savent ce que l'on attend d'eux et qu'ils répondent de leur rendement, le bon rendement est dûment récompensé et il existe des conséquences immédiates lorsque les règles sont sciemment contournées.
These excerpts, which use the word “responsabilisation”, reflect an open-mindedness that I did not sense in either the title of the bill or certain other provisions.
Transparency and accountability will be upheld. Imputability will take care of itself, as it always does when rules are broken.
I found another interesting passage on page 30 of this explanatory guide. It says in French that the purpose was to “renforcer la vérification et la responsabilisation des ministères”. This supports the arguments made by authorities in these matters. Translators say that this term is incorrect, as does the Office de la langue française du Québec and certain utilizers of the language and French teachers. This term should therefore be corrected in the bill to give it the general character that it is meant to have.
I also noted that some provisions really need to be improved, or at least raise questions. In this respect, the Bloc finds itself in a good position. We do not aspire to form the Government of Canada. On the other hand, though, I always remind the House that the Bloc is not here just to “block”, contrary to what some people like to say. Like all my colleagues, I am happy to state over and over that I do not dislike either Canada or Canadians. As a matter of fact, I like Canada much more than any other country in the world. What I do detest, though, is the Canadian constitution from which we want to escape in order to create one on the basis of the sovereignty of the two great nations that make up Canada. In so doing, we will be more open to the other nations living here as well.
They want to impose a $1,000 limit on contributions. I feel compelled to compare the ways in which the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are financed. It is true that the Liberal Party received contributions from some very rich people. The Conservative Party, like the Bloc Québécois, I might add, is funded by ordinary citizens. This was also true of René Lévesque’s party. He had the advantage of being a great media star. It was easier for him, therefore, than it is for other, less well-known people. Even he, though, imposed a limit of $3,000. This corresponded at the time to about $5,000 in 2006.
Some contributors are prepared to give more. I might humbly say that, personally, I have been contributing more than $1,000 to political parties for a long time. I do so out of conviction, without ulterior purpose. And I know other people who do the same. The limit established in the bill seems to me specially chosen to upset the Liberals. There is a spirit of vengeance here that I do not like.
There is a bit of the same thing in the rewards for whistleblowers, even though this is not aimed directly at the Liberal Party. We respect whistleblowers. We feel that they really are acting in the public interest and have no personal reason for blowing the whistle on things they find unacceptable in the conduct of government affairs. So I have a lot of respect for these people. It is very important to protect them and provide legal support, as the bill does. Whistleblowers will be able to go to an independent commissioner, I think even anonymously. However, the idea of giving them a reward detracts a little from the respect that people might have for them.
The Conservative government will always have the honour of being the originator of this bill. But if we address the problem in a spirit of openness, the honour will go to all the political parties in this House.
How much time do I still have, Mr. Speaker?