Yvan Loubier

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it might be crystal clear for the government House leader, but I find his arguments rather muddy and inconsistent.

Several months ago, the current Prime Minister announced that he would be leaving office in February. When he made his announcement, did anyone think it would mean the dissolution of Parliament? No, which goes to prove how ridiculous the member's arguments are.

Our request is based on the fact that we currently have a two-headed government. We have two prime ministers. One who sits here but has no power, and one who is on the outside, enjoying all the perks that come with the job without taking any risks at all.

The government is left paralyzed. We ask questions and get answers that are in fact non-answers. The members opposite do not want to answer us. They do not want to take any position that would go against the positions of the one who is standing behind the curtain. There has to be a limit to such demagogy.

What the minister said has nothing to do with this issue. Maybe we should ask John A. Macdonald about this, but unfortunately he is no longer with us. But presuming to know what John A. Macdonald would think of this is going a bit too far. The precedent the member mentioned has nothing to do with this motion either.

All we are asking is for the current Prime Minister to leave office earlier than what he has announced, so that we can deal with the real prime minister and ask him real questions about the real agenda of the government.

[1995 Referendum, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would call the minister's attitude two-faced.

Are we to understand that preparations for sending the army into Quebec were not discussed in cabinet, that such an important decision was made by one man, the Minister of National Defence, at the time? Is that what we are to believe? Well, we do not.

[1995 Referendum, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when asked about the government's intentions to send the army into Quebec in the event of a yes victory in 1995, the Minister of Transport maintained outside the House of Commons, that he would not talk about cabinet discussions. For his part, the Deputy Prime Minister said that this issue had never been discussed in cabinet. This is clearly a contradiction.

Could someone who was there indicate whether, yes or no, this possibility was discussed in cabinet?

[1995 Referendum, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, he was not there in 1995 when the Prime Minister said the following in Verdun just days before the referendum, “To stay or to leave. This is the issue of the referendum—the fundamental and irreversible choice of a country”. Once the outcome was known, that is the no vote, that very evening he said, and I quote again, “In a democracy, the people are always right”.

Is the minister trying to tell us that the government had decided to do the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister said, and to thumb its nose at democracy and send the army into Quebec?

[1995 Referendum, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has had more to say outside cabinet. According to him, Ottawa's position had not changed since the Trudeau days. The federal government must ensure that order is respected, which was what led to the War Measures Act and its many excesses in 1970.

Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether, following in Trudeau's footsteps, the federal government was prepared to send the army into Quebec the day after the 1995 referendum, if there had been a yes vote? Is that what he was referring to?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we must make things clear in this debate. I heard the deputy government House leader say things that made my blood curdle.

In his testimony before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Elly Alboim admitted to my colleague, the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, that he had intervened directly with Mr. Kingsley in the spring, when the member for LaSalle—Émard expressed his preference for an early election in the spring of 2004. On that occasion, Mr. Alboim said, and I quote:

Well, obviously I was calling because of my interest as an adviser to Mr. Martin and the need to establish information about what Mr. Martin had publicly articulated as a preference.

This was in connection with an early election in the spring.

That statement was made before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on September 30th. Mr. Elly Alboim, a senior adviser of the strategy team for the member for LaSalle—Émard, admitted candidly that he had contacted the chief electoral officer. I have the highest respect for the chief electoral officer, but when they say in the House that there were no interventions and that the Canadian Alliance leader was the first to express his preference for an early election, I have to say that this is not exactly what happened.

There was a public statement made by the member for LaSalle—Émard, who said he preferred a spring election. Right after the interventions by Mr. Elly Alboim, towards the end of the summer, the process was initiated for the tabling of this bill.

They have to stop laughing at us and treating us like fools. The member for LaSalle—Émard did make a statement. If we are discussing this bill today, it is because he spoke out publicly, because he wants to carry out his own personal agenda and because he is too cowardly to stand before us. He does not want to answer our questions about the drastic cuts made to employment insurance, social welfare, education and health. He is too cowardly to answer our questions about the companies he still owns. He lacks the courage to table the letter of assignment transferring Canada Steamship Lines to his children. I suspect he is still drawing benefits from that company.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are very happy that western Canada obtained four more ridings. We agree with the electoral boundaries readjustment process, although we do not agree with the fact that Quebec is losing two ridings and that its demographic weight is being reduced from 25% to 24%.

But this has nothing to do with the bill. The fact is that we will soon have a new prime minister and that he has asked that the new electoral map be implemented as soon as possible to allow him to move his personal agenda forward.

The man does not come here, and he does not make any commitment on the important issues. We will not see his true colours before the election campaign. The problem is that we and the Canadian Alliance are being manipulated so that the new prime minister can map out his electoral strategy as he sees fit, and wipe out the Alliance also.

Very strange things are going on here, with the Alliance showing strong support and Alliance and Liberal members working closely together. We see them together all the time.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the least we can say is that it is difficult to follow the drift of the Canadian Alliance, as is so often the case.

How can they pretend to be serving democracy and the non-partisan process of adopting new electoral boundaries when in fact they are supporting the member for LaSalle—Émard and the carrying out of his own personal agenda? What would happen if the new electoral map were to be adopted quickly?

Instead of coming into force next August, it would take effect in the coming months. Then the future prime minister would have carte blanche to prepare a spring election, but most of all he would get out of sitting in the House to answer our questions. That is the game.

I do not understand members of the Canadian Alliance who play along with such a trick, who support such a partisan move which will allow the member for LaSalle—Émard to adjourn the proceedings of the House and prepare for a spring election.

Members of the Canadian Alliance are not easy to follow. They just launched a process to unite the right. They need time. It is not that I am right wing myself but, if we follow their logic, they have just concluded negotiations to set in motion a complete restructuring of the Canadian right into one single united party.

They need time but, instead of buying time, instead of leaving the electoral map to come into force in a year's time, they are giving the member for LaSalle—Émard and future prime minister carte blanche. He will not have to appear before us and answer our questions. The House will recess and he will have all the time he wants to call a spring election.

The member for LaSalle—Émard and future prime minister will not have to answer to us for his actions, for being the man behind the cuts to social assistance, education and health, for stealing the $45 billion surplus from the EI fund. He will not have to answer to us. The House will recess, he will call an election and that will be the end of it.

People will forget that when he was finance minister for nine years, this new leader of the Liberal Party slashed provincial transfer payments, which were there to help the less fortunate in society.

The Canadian Alliance is playing along with this trick. Talk about wasting the House's time; who does he think he is, blocking our freedom of speech, preventing us from achieving our mandate, which is to inform the public of this trap being presented today for the purpose of preparing the future prime minister's agenda? Who does he think he is, preventing us here in the House from taking the time we need to inform the public of the future prime minister's strategy and personal agenda?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out first that the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the electoral boundary readjustment process. That is not where the problem lies. What bothers us is that, normally, if we had followed a non-partisan course, as the government and the government House leader claim we have, the new electoral boundaries would not have taken effect until next August. But there was a partisan intervention by the member for LaSalle—Émard, the future prime minister. He sees himself as prime minister already, and is already acting like a prime minister, while in fact he has not yet even been chosen as Liberal Party leader.

That does bother us and I have a question to ask of the government House leader. Is he not uncomfortable with the fact that partisan intervention has interfered with the non-partisan legislative process that should lead to the new electoral boundaries? Is he not uncomfortable, especially when the member for LaSalle—Émard talks about the democratic deficit? That gentleman calls himself a great democrat, but he has interfered from the outside to speed up a non-partisan process whereby the new electoral boundaries would not apply before August. Was it not to further the electoral ambitions of the future prime minister and current member for LaSalle—Émard that this approach was used?

Once again, I would like to state that we support the electoral redistribution process. What disturbs us is that someone like the member for LaSalle—Émard can intervene to serve his personal agenda as future prime minister; the democratic and non-partisan rules governing the new electoral boundaries are being trampled upon.

[War on Drug Traffickers, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, farm families were living daily with threats from cannabis growers who had taken over fields in the region. Along with other stakeholders, I decided to set up an Infocrime citizens committee in order to break the wall of silence that had grown up during this reign of terror.

Thanks to the determination of individuals like Raymonde Rivard, chair of the school board and co-chair of the Infocrime committee, Sylvain Michon, a farmer, and Claude Denis of the Sûreté du Québec, along with the municipalities and the media, such as Le Courrier in Saint-Hyacinthe and Boom FM, we are now seeing a definite improvement.

Unfortunately, the situation is not as good in all regions and that is why I have asked the Quebec minister of public safety to set up a commission of inquiry in order to get an overall picture of the situation and develop the tools we need to continue the fight.

I would like to point out, however, that the most powerful tool we have in standing up to organized crime is having citizens take responsibility for the future of their community. Do not give up the fight.