Debates of May 2nd, 2005

Committees of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

My hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party asked the questions and said that he really wanted to hear the answers. Now he is heckling so loud I cannot even hear myself think, let alone respond to his earlier questions. I do not understand that. If the member wants to hear my answers then he should be listening instead of talking.

The reality was that there was no secret deal. We said at that time that we would abstain. He asked where our members were. All our members or the vast majority of our members were in the chamber. We chose not to vote to allow Parliament to survive. That is what we said and that is what we did.

Now the member says that it is all an issue of polls. He cited the polls that many of us have seen in the last little while that say the majority of Canadians do not want an election.

I have news for my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party. The reality is, and I do not take any pride in this, that in Canada in the last election only about 60% of people voted. I think the number might have been even a little less. I would argue that roughly 40% of Canadians who are answering a poll about whether they want an election do not even vote in an election. Why would they want an election? We can take 40% right off the top.

Then, depending on the current numbers, there is probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25% or so Canadians who, for reasons unfathomable to me, still support the Liberal Party of Canada. Despite what has come out of the Gomery inquiry they still support the Liberals. Why would they want an election? They know the Liberals are going to lose.

Whatever the NDP have, traditionally 4% or 5% or whatever it is, we can add that on top and it probably does not want an election either.

The point is that it is not a surprise that Canadians do not want an election. I would argue that Canadians very seldom want an election. It shows in the turnouts we get during election campaigns where many Canadians unfortunately do not participate in that democratic process.

The member talked about what has taken place with this so-called secret deal of the Conservatives. We were very open about what we were doing and why we were doing it. We communicated it to Canadians. I think Canadians generally accepted the fact that we had no intention of supporting the budget or of voting with the government but that it was sufficient enough that we did not want to vote against it, unlike the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party which both exercised their right, and I defend their right, to vote non-confidence in the government's budget.

However the New Democratic Party has now changed its mind and has decided that unfortunately it will have to fall all over itself to prop up the corrupt Liberal government. It is just unconscionable.

The reality is that we in this party have taken a principled stand. We understand that when the government brought forward the budget it defended it all along until it knew that in order to garner a few votes it would have to try to buy them. It will cost taxpayers $4.6 billion, if the government survives until next March, to buy 19 votes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the time allotted to me, I would like to tell my hon. colleagues and those listening to us about this motion put forward by the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, after I raised a question of privilege in this House on December 1. This question was ruled in order by the Speaker of the House and discussed at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which eventually led to this twenty-first report being concurred in.

Having just used up approximately 30 seconds of the 20 minutes allotted to me, before getting to the heart of the matter, I will take the next 19 minutes to address the tactic currently being used by the Liberal government in the House of Commons.

This government is making indiscriminate use of the media and any other forum to accuse the opposition of paralyzing the work of Parliament. The Standing Orders allocate opposition days to the parties in opposition. The other week, we saw the tactic used by the Government Leader. At 7:59 p.m. on the Monday, just before the end of the 48 hours allowed to the Conservative Party to indicate the subject of its opposition day, the government decided to gag any possibility of holding any opposition days before the June 23 adjournment.

As parliamentary procedure allows, routine proceedings was used to present motions. What was the government's response to that? It tabled 49 motions. That figure can be checked in the order paper, but I believe that is it. The purpose of that tactic is to block the parliamentary agenda.

It is now 4:55 p.m. We have just started a three-hour debate. That will mean that today, apart from the time allocated to members' business and the debate begun prior to oral question period, this House will have spent three hours on a report tabled some months ago concerning an event that occurred on November 30, 2004. At that time, I drew the attention of the House and of the Speaker to this matter via a point of privilege. This matter has been settled to some extent by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The government has literally copied numerous committee reports in order to present a motion aimed at ensuring no real parliamentary business gets done.

I wish to inform you that the people listening to us are not fools, nor are those sitting on this side of the House. I am obliged to specify “this side” because the people on the other side are all in the same party. We have witnessed the alliance between the Liberal Party of Canada and the NLP. You know, a new party has been registered with the Chief Electoral Officer, called the NLP, or New Liberal Party. It was created by the merger of the Liberal Party and the former NDP, or New Democratic Party.

The electorate will be able to judge the NDP on the action that it has taken. I want to tell you that, in terms of democracy, the people are never wrong. I have confidence in the intelligence of the people. When the time comes, they will judge severely and sanction this government, which no longer has the moral authority to govern.

The attitude of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is unfortunate. By the way, this committee has a reputation for discussing matters widely and openly and for trying to reach a consensus among the parties.

This committee is made up of whips from all parties and I know that the parliamentary leader of the official opposition sometimes sits on this committee. Since it governs, you know that the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is very wide and that many decisions are made by way of consensus. That is why, as much as possible, there is no partisanship in this committee.

However, I want to caution the committee chairman and hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell that, by introducing this motion, he has just broken, to a certain extent, this consensus approach. He has tried to be an accomplice in a shamelessly partisan action to literally interrupt the work of the House. He has made this decision, but he will have to live with it.

These are not threats. The government wants to act like this. It has made a decision. It has the right to do so. However, the government must expect a trade-off. We know that the purpose of all this is to try to avoid a final verdict by the people. Right now, the Liberal Party is only buying time. The agreement with the NDP, the so-called “NLP”, is only aimed at buying time to ensure that, in case there were a vote, it would have 131 Liberal members, plus 19 members from the “NLP”—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have raised this before and I will raise it again. On the matter of relevance, talking about the coalition between the Liberals and the NDP, if we are going to talk about something interesting, we could talk about the coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois or, in other words, the right and the wrong.

However, we are here to debate an issue about the infringement of the rights of members of Parliament. To frustrate the debate on this concurrence motion is indeed infringing my rights to deal with this issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Since the Bloc Québécois whip was about to make his point, he has the floor.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like an explanation from the technical services of the House as to why the member's microphone is still on and he can go on with his remarks when you are standing. Normally, when the Speaker stands, all microphones should be turned off. But I sit on the Board of Internal Economy, and we will get a chance to raise this problem.

I need a long introduction to give some background on the events after the adoption of my question of privilege and this report. Even if the hon. member cannot see how my remarks are relevant, I can excuse him. He does not always pay attention. I need a long introduction to explain how we came to discuss in the House today this 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

As I said, the government resorts to diversion tactics when it needs them. Obviously, the government was not able to manage the security services during President Bush's visit. Since the government is not able to manage House proceedings either, it has to use diversion tactics such as a three hour debate on a motion.

Without a doubt, Canadians will not be fooled. They know what is true and what is not. Events, such as those told to the Gomery commission, show how one party can agree to associate itself with another party strongly suspected of corruption. As proof, we need only recall the testimony of Benoît Corbeil, who was director general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.

However, with regard to the adoption of this budget, the Bloc Québécois cannot support the budget implementation bill for the simple reason that this is a bad budget. I have trouble understanding how the NDP—which voted against the budget—because it obtained funds that will be spent only in 2006 and 2007, can now consider this is a good budget.

Why are we unable to support the budget implementation bill? It is because it does not contain a single measure to resolve the fiscal imbalance, for one, or the problems with employment insurance, which is fundamental to the regions, for another.

Yesterday, in Malbaie, I attended a protest by workers in the Sans-Chemise movement. They asked us not to do what the NDP is doing and partner with a corrupt government. They hope that the Bloc will stand on its own two feet.

There were 54 Bloc members who voted against the budget and 54 Bloc members will vote against the budget implementation bill. This is what is known as being consistent. We must be honest with ourselves and with the people who elected us. We said that we would go to Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebec and our actions are consistent with our promises.

Why do some politicians lose voter confidence? Because, due to optimism or other political calculations, such as knowing what side your bread is buttered on, they change their opinion. People do not like flip-flopping. The public prefers politicians with backbone, who stand on their own two feet, remain true to their principles and act accordingly.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I sense some members have come back from the week break a little crankier than when they left. I came back from northern Ontario feeling refreshed as a result of the wonderful northern air. I would like to invite members to come and refresh themselves because there definitely seems to be a sense of having lost a place in the week we were gone.

I also sense unjustifiable anger. Fifty-four Bloc members came here to say no. Because they have said no, they have been sidelined and seem to be upset. They did not come here to make Parliament work. Instead they came here to undermine Parliament. As a result of their being put off to the margins, they feel they are not being heard.

There is a greater sense of frustration from our friends in the Conservative Party who are upset because 19 members of the New Democratic Party did what 99 members of the Conservative Party had no interest in doing, which was ti make this Parliament work.

We came here to keep certain promises, promises to deal with the infrastructure deficit, promises to deal with education for young people, promises for new housing in our first nations communities and promises to get pension protection for our seniors and our workers. We came here to do that, and we have done that.

What do we see in return? We see outrage, horror and scandal from the people who sit on the margins because they came to Parliament to destroy this place. We see that from the other party that came to this Parliament to seize power. I can understand why they are feeling a little miffed and uncertain.

I would like to point out that the leader of the official opposition told us a week ago that he was going to talk to his constituents and test the waters. Here is an example of Conservative mathematics. The Conservative member told us that 40% of the people do not vote so therefore 40% of their views do not count. We were told that 20% vote for the Liberals so they do not count. We were told that perhaps 4% vote for the NDP so they do not count. What is the rump? The Conservative Party will listen to the remaining 25% because they count and they will support an election.

Let us look at some headlines in newspapers right now. One states, “Tories gag returning MPs”. What message did they hear back home that they have to gag their members? Another headline states, “Tories told to keep quiet on constituents' views”. I find it staggering that Conservative members came back with a message and that message was to sit down and get to work.

Unfortunately, the Bloc does not listen to the people in Quebec who want those members to get something done too in terms of infrastructure and student debt. That is what our party came here to do. That party came here to destroy Parliament so its members have nothing to show their constituents. Perhaps it wants corporate tax cuts.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Ask the question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I know it is a long question mon chum. I am sorry. I am just all wound up from a week off relaxing in the warm northern air.

I have to ask my compatriot a question. What does he think the issue is that the Conservative Party is trying to gag its own MPs from coming back and delivering to the House? Is it the same issue that the hon. member is hearing back home, that Canadians want something done for a change instead of bickering about who controls power?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am convinced that the people in his riding who voted for the member from the “NLP”—the “New Liberal Party”, formerly known as the New Democratic Party—are proud when they see him in such a flight of oratory. We were able to follow the beginning of his flight, but we could not see the landing. The member reminds me of a Canada goose because he lands like one, with his belly in the mud. We did not understand how this flight ended.

I will try to answer the question. The member's remarks remind me of a Canada goose or a snow goose. However, I am sure that his constituents are not proud to see him being applauded by the Liberals here in the House.

If there is a distinction to be made, I will say that the Bloc Quebecois did not support the budget. We voted against the budget and we will vote against the budget implementation bill. That is what it means to stand up for what one believes in, to have real backbone instead of bending with the wind. The member does not seem to understand that.

I am tempted to ask him what the unemployed in his riding are getting, despite the agreement between his leader and the leader of the Liberal Party, and the answer is absolutely nothing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs dealt with this issue of the infringement of the members of Parliament and indeed members of both chambers. It finally recommended:

The Committee recommends to the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy that as a matter of urgency it enter into discussions to merge the House of Commons and Senate security services into a unified parliamentary security service for by January 1st, 2006.

This was the recommendation of the committee after it heard all the evidence. I know the member raised the point that was referred to committee in the first place. I asked this question earlier and I would like to ask him the same one. Does he feel the recommendation to simply merge the security services will be satisfactory to ensure that such an occurrence does not occur again as opposed to a requirement that whenever there are matters to do with security arrangements on the Hill for special visitors like the President of the United States that those discussions also involve the arrangements to protect the rights and the privileges of members of Parliament?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see that my colleague from Mississauga South read the recommendation very well. I do not think I need to repeat it, since it is in writing.

Since I voted in favour of the report, I consider it to be a good recommendation and I hope it will be implemented as quickly as possible.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech and for his flight of oratory. However, I wonder if he agrees with me that, these days, the NDP has taken a position vis-à-vis the Liberal Party that we could describe as “prostitution”? Is there a secret reason they do not want to reveal?

The NDP is usually funded by the unions of English Canada and also receives an overall cheque of $5 million, $10 million or $20 million. I do not know the exact amount. Now, with a new act on public funding, it will only receive $1,000 from the unions. Thus, it will have to campaign with empty pockets.

Moreover, NDP members are not used to going to see the people, meeting with the people, the way we do to get public funding. For example, from January 20 to April 1, I ran a fundraising campaign in my riding and I collected $36,000 with an average donation of $17. That is going to the people and getting funding from them.

The NDP is funded almost entirely by corporations, like the Liberal Party. It does not have any public funding and has trouble going into an election campaign. That argument by my colleague was not raised earlier.

Since my time has expired, I will get back to this in a speech later on.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that my hon. colleague raised some points that deserve consideration. At a rally for seasonal workers last weekend, Quebec's central labour unions expressed great disappointment in the NDP's position on this deal. There is nothing in the budget for employment insurance, nothing to correct the fiscal imbalance. The NDP will have to live with—

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst now has the floor.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the very fine speech of my good friend from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. This report deals with his complaint and the fact that, even when George W. Bush visits Canada, this Parliament belongs to its members. We have been democratically elected and should have access to Parliament without any restrictions of the kind encountered on the day of his visit.

I attended the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. I remember feeling at the time as if we had been invaded by the U.S. We had U.S. helicopters hovering over us in Quebec City as if they owned our country.

The U.S. president was invited to Parliament. When he got here, parliamentarians were unable to access Parliament because of all sorts of problems they encountered.

Perhaps my friend from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord should listen to what I have to say. A previous speaker from the Bloc Québécois qualified as akin to prostitution the move by the so-called NLP in making a deal with the Liberals concerning the budget. I wonder where they were when the throne speech was read. They too engaged in prostitution, because they were in favour of the throne speech. We had entered into agreements at the time. If memory serves, it was already known that there were problems. Justice Gomery had been appointed to investigate, and the commission had already started hearing witnesses. Everyone was aware of possible corruption.

The only difference is that, at that time, the Bloc Québécois thought it would be losing its shirt, and losing seats in Quebec. That is why it voted in favour of the throne speech. It would even have voted in favour of the budget.

Again, the Bloc Québécois has just said we were unable to reach an agreement on employment insurance. Perhaps if the Bloc Québécois had joined with the NDP—a minority party—instead of the Conservatives, then we could have tried to get something for the unemployed. Instead, it is working with a political party that is against employment insurance. I have been in the House of Commons for eight years and every time a bill on this topic has been introduced in the House, the Conservatives have voted against it.

Now the Bloc Québécois is working with a party that is against the francophone minorities in Canada, as we know, and against economic development in Atlantic Canada since it wants to get rid of the ACOA. That is a party that wants to privatize health care. That is who the Bloc Québécois is dealing with. I do not need to take any lectures from the Bloc Québécois today.

I am proud to be a member of the NDP. In the days of Tommy Douglas, during a minority government, the NDP helped give us a public health care system. Yesterday I was at a hospital in Quebec, in Saint-Jean-sur Richelieu, and there were patients waiting in the hallway to receive care. We see the same thing at home in New Brunswick, in Ontario and in British Columbia. It would have been grand if, in this minority government situation, the Bloc had joined us in fighting the battle for social democracy, instead of leaning to the right as it has. It is shameful. It pains me to see my dear cousins join the Conservatives, a right-wing group. The only thing the Bloc was thinking about was how to get more MPs.

But they know they have not helped the cause of the unemployed. I would have been proud to see the Bloc onside with us on employment insurance, since the people of the Côte-Nord really wanted to become eligible for it. We had five months to improve EI, and regrettably were not able to do so.

When I hear it said that we in the NDP have made a pact with the Liberals about an agreement, my response is that the purpose of that agreement is to help the poor, and that I take pride in being on this side, and not with the Conservatives. We are told we are taking a backward step with a budget that is helping people who can no longer afford their own housing. My response is that we need housing for people. The phone calls we get in our riding offices come from people who do not have any housing. I am certain that my dear cousins in Quebec have the same kind of problems as we do.

I repeat, it would have been great if we had all been united, because we have fought some battles together. Where employment insurance is concerned, it was not the Conservatives who hit the streets with us. In Forestville, when 2,500 workers hit the streets with their employers, it was not the Conservatives who were out there saying they were going to change employment insurance. They say it is too costly for Canada. The workers who have lost their jobs cost too much and that is not how jobs are created. That is what the Conservatives are saying.

I would be ashamed to have taken sides with the Conservatives today as they have. I far prefer being an NDP member to being onside with the Conservatives as the Bloc members are. Where were they in November during the vote on the throne speech? Maybe that day they were being Liberals? But of course not.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Order, please. There has to be less noise. This is a place for debate.

This is a House of debate. Could we hear the member who was debating? Order, please. Let us be respectful to each other.

The NDP whip has the floor.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, emotions run high sometimes. What Parliament and Canadians are going through right now is sad. It is sad to watch the hearings of the Gomery commission every day. A friend of mine told me that he never was interested in politics, but now he watches these hearings until 2 o'clock in the morning. He cannot sleep because of all these public funds that were given to friends of the Liberals. It is sad indeed.

However, it is just like going to a movie. When one pays to see a movie, one wants to see the ending. That is what Canadians are saying. The member of the Bloc Quebecois said that people want an election, but that is not what the majority of people in my area are saying. They want to see the rest of the movie. They want to see the end of the Gomery commission.

The NDP said that it would get what is best, as Tommy Douglas did. He got a public health system, which helped all Canadians. Today, we are getting something in the area of affordable housing for those in need. We are also getting something for workers. When employers go bankrupt, workers cannot stay without any income. I am proud that we can help all these people. It does not mean that we support the Liberals.

We got money in the Liberals' budget for workers. That is what we did and that is why the Bloc members are angry today, because they were not able to. Today, I think they are ashamed, because they did not seize the opportunity. They opted instead for an election. It makes no difference. They will not be in government in Canada. They will just be trying for a few more members. For the leader of the Conservatives, it makes no difference.

For me, getting something for social programs, for our people, made a difference. Together, we could have got something for the workers, like employment insurance. I could debate this at any time. I am sure that, had we been together, we would have got something for the workers. Instead, they let us do it alone. But, perhaps it is not too late.

[An hon. member]

Why did they not promise it in the budget?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You see, they have no respect even for the person speaking.

To return to today's question, you can see the importance of democratic rights. We have to come to the House of Commons to debate and vote on bills. There was no system in place to recognize MPs when George W. Bush came to Canada. That is why we have to have a system to recognize MPs, so that Parliament can function.

This is why the question raised by our Bloc Québécois colleague is very important. Some think that the RCMP should look after security for all the Parliament buildings. I have some reservations on that. I have respect for the RCMP, but Parliament is Parliament. We have good security guards at the House of Commons. They know us. We should continue this way.

As the report provides, there should perhaps be a joint House and Senate security system. These are things that could be done to improve the operation of Parliament. A lot of work has been done in this regard. There are agreements to come between the two Houses to provide for a way of working together. It can be done with the help of the report and discussions. We should find a solution by 2006.

As regards the report, perhaps the Liberals can be accused of wanting to take the House of Commons hostage. The House was taken hostage two weeks ago already, with the result that we are not able to review legislation that is so important to everyone. There are bills that we would have liked to pass. There is one that is very important to me, namely Bill S-3 on francophone minorities in Canada, which should enjoy the same respect as anglophone minorities.

This is a bill that I would like Parliament to pass. We have been working on this legislation for 10 years and it is currently before the House of Commons. The Bloc Québécois should not boast about this legislation, because it voted against strengthening Bill S-3.

If we deal with security around the House of Commons when a dignitary comes here, we should first ensure that security is not only provided on the west side, but also on the east side. This is where the problems originated. Second, the identification card of members of Parliament was not even recognized. How many police forces were involved? There was the Ottawa police force, the RCMP and the Parliament's security staff. This was unacceptable. Some members of the Bloc Québécois, NDP and other political parties were not able to have access to Parliament.

As for this report, I would like to see it go forward, so that the problem can be settled and not occur again. There is a problem when a foreign visitor comes here. I have travelled to several countries, and I can assure hon. members that it is not us or the Prime Minister of Canada who would visit a foreign country and prevent their House or Congress from operating. This will not happen. Therefore, refusing entry to the House of Commons to parliamentarians was a lack of respect. This is what happened in November, when American President George Bush came here.

Today, I know the remarks that were made concerned many people. The debate on security in the House of Commons and the exclusion of members from Parliament ended up in a confrontation between political parties. It is a pity. I think about Canadians watching us at home, and I wonder what they think about the circus the House can sometimes be. Since we are not even capable of having respect for one another, how can we expect Canadians to have any respect for us. Looking at the list of the 20 professions that are least respected in Canada, we are first. And we deserve that because of the way we behave. We deserve it because governments abused the system and taxpayers' money. I hope someday those who abused public funds will end up behind bars, because it is the only place money cannot buy. They will be put in prison and stay there for years.

Once again, I am proud we took this opportunity, at a time when Canadians want to get to the bottom of this matter, to wrest something from the government. The Conservatives are unhappy that we could get $4.6 billion for ordinary citizens. They would have preferred to keep that money in the hands of big business. Let them live with their decision. Personally, I think we made the right decision. Canadians will give us credit for what we did. We are prepared to pay the price. I have no worries about what we did and what we managed to get. The electorate will pass judgment on us, the Bloc and all parties. I am not concerned.

A Bloc colleague said that we had acted in such a way because there was no money left in our coffers. To which I respond that if an election is called tomorrow, one thing will happen. One of those days, the vote will come and the citizens will vote. They know who I am and they will know who the other candidate is. We will not be stopped by money come election time and we know it. However, I also know that does not please everybody. Let me say again that it hurts to have seen the Bloc in cahoots with the Conservatives, that is to say members of the left with members of the right.

[An hon. member]

We are not in cahoots; you are.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

They say they are not in cahoots, but we are. There was a division in the House of Commons. The only thing that brought about that division is when they saw where they stood in the polls, because before that, there were no problems. Everybody was doing their part so that the minority government would work. Everybody was in agreement so that the minority government would work to the maximum. However, as soon as they saw their popularity increase, it did not work any longer. Corruption has not changed.

As far as I am concerned, corruption has not changed. Justice Gomery has been investigating since early 2004. By the fall of 2004, we were already aware of what was going on. There was the throne speech and there were negotiations. At that time, the Bloc Québécois negotiated just like the NDP and like the Conservatives. This is what a minority government is all about and we should understand that.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I raise on a point of order. When you rose to ask if there were questions and comments, two members of the Bloc Québécois rose to ask a question before the Liberal member did. Members who rise first should be recognized first by the Chair.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

That is not a point of order.