Réal Ménard

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct.

The government’s motives are motives of division and dissent. Legally, it is clearly to respond to an electoral base. It is clear that there is an element of public opinion that is not in favour of giving gays and lesbians the right to marry. Nevertheless, we do not expect that a government will feed such prejudices. The first duty of a government is to uphold the dignity and equality of its citizens.

I agree with our colleague. This government is cruelly shirking its responsibilities, especially since it is the duty of a government to ensure that any legislative measure introduced is compatible with the Charter.

We know very well that if, some day there was a bill calling for the exclusion of gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage, the person introducing the bill would have to invoke the notwithstanding clause. When that clause is invoked, it is used to suspend rights and it is certainly not to the government’s credit.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about this since 2002.

Former minister Martin Cauchon published a book that offered a number of options. As soon as this former minister submitted this book, there were consultations in parliamentary committee. There were some in Ottawa and in major cities: 467 witnesses came to talk about this.

This debate has monopolized a lot of energy and taken a lot of time. It is important for us to spend time and energy on this because the concept of marriage reflects religious conviction, ethical conviction, personal conviction and public conviction. It is important to take our time in addressing these factors.

However, if the matter has been closed by the Supreme Court, eight courts, parliamentarians and a debate that has been going on since 2002, it is safe to close the debate once and for all in the name of equality. The ideal of equality should be our primary motivator when we are standing in any parliament.

I do not understand the government's stubborn determination to cause division. In fact, I do understand it. The Conservatives are doing this for their electoral base, for ideological reasons, but fortunately, our constituents, our fellow citizens, will not go down this path with them. Their past behaviour is a discredit to them if they are thinking of forming a majority government one day.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, once again the fact that someone is opposed to the right to marry of gays and lesbians is not a sign of homophobia. However, when a government or an official opposition votes nine times against the rights of a sexual minority, then I think there are grounds for speaking of homophobia.

I have made a list of the nine times when the Conservatives, and before them the Alliance members, voted against the rights of gays and lesbians. If at some point the Bloc Québécois decided to vote nine times against the rights of native peoples, I believe that it would be said that the Bloc Québécois is against native peoples. If at some point we were to vote nine times against women's rights, I think it would be said that the Bloc Québécois was against women's rights.

Having said that, I repeat that the Supreme Court was clear on the fact that churches and religious denominations are not required to officiate or to celebrate marriages if this runs counter to their dogma or the teachings of their church. That was included in Bill C-38. The freedom of religion provision in the Charter does not require it.

The Supreme Court was clear. Bill C-38 is clear. In any event, what we are discussing today and what we discussed in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 is civil marriage celebrated in courthouses before notaries, prothonotaries or laypersons hired by the government. That is what we are talking about.

Yes, I respect the right of a person committed to a specific religion not to celebrate religious marriages.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

And I do not say that it is a matter of homophobia not to support that kind of marriage. However, the system has been tested nine times.

I am curious to see whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works will have the courage that he had when he was on the other side of the House. I think that he will because he is a courageous man, but I am curious to see which way he will vote tonight.

Allow me to recall all the votes that the Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance have recorded; all the votes that they cast to collectively deny rights in matters of labour relations, hate crimes, collective agreements or on the subject of surrogate mothers in connection with new reproductive technologies or again in terms of the Criminal Code. In a systematic manner, the Conservatives have told our fellow Canadians that they do not recognize persons of homosexual orientation as citizens. It is unbelievable. It is unbelievable that a political party could act in such a way in a democracy such as Canada.

In 1995, I tabled a motion calling on the government to take the necessary measures to legally recognize same sex spouses. All the Conservatives—who at that time were members of the Progressive Conservative party—voted against that motion.

On June 8, 1999, an hon. member, Eric Lowther, tabled a motion proposing:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

That was a second denial of the rights of gays and lesbians: 53 Reform members voted against the motion, as did 13 Conservative party members. At that time, they were two separate parties.

Third, in 2003, a motion by the current Prime Minister reiterated the debate in the same terms. It was the third denial of the right of gays and lesbians to civil institutions. That is clear.

Fourth, in 1995, Allan Rock tabled Bill C-41 to reform sentencing, specifically, section 718, which recognizes certain aggravating circumstances when crimes are committed. The gay community mobilized in favour of anti-hate, anti-racist legislation. The government wanted to include beating someone up because of their sexual orientation as an aggravating circumstance in the Criminal Code. They voted against it. Can you imagine that? We were in a situation where people were being beaten up. In Ottawa, some people had been thrown off a bridge. Nevertheless the Conservatives voted against the addition to the Criminal Code of provisions respecting hate crimes, and they voted unanimously.

In 1996, further to a court decision, moreover, Bill C-33, amending the Canadian Human Rights Act, proposed the addition of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Conservatives did not want sexual orientation to be recognized as a prohibited ground of discrimination. We were a long way from the question of marriage.

I repeat, every time they have had the opportunity, the Conservatives, almost unanimously, have behaved like institutional homophobes. This alone makes them quite unfit and unworthy of forming a respectable government respected by our fellow citizens.

The conservatives voted against the addition in collective agreements of rights for gays and lesbians. In 68 laws, they voted against the recognition of common-law spouses and therefore homosexual common-law spouses. They voted against the bill by our former colleague for Burnaby—Douglas, a riding now brilliantly represented by his NDP successor. They voted against the provisions concerning hate propaganda. Of course they voted against Bill C-38 almost unanimously.

So what message is it sending? What message does it send when a government says that, whatever the circumstances, whether we are talking about education, the Criminal Code, labour relations, emotional relations or hate propaganda, it will never respect the rights of one category of citizens? What they said is that the simple fact of feeling sexual desire that is different from that of the majority makes us less entitled. That is what the Conservatives have said throughout their history. That is what is quite incredible.

Imagine what that means for someone who is 14, 15 or 16 years old and discovers that he or she is homosexual. No later than last year, we were reminded that 30% of young people who are homosexual still put an end to their lives. They commit suicide. Is it not our responsibility as parliamentarians to do something about that? This is not about promoting conversion therapies. This is not about telling heterosexuals that they should undertake to become homosexuals. That is not what we are talking about. We are speaking to our homosexual citizens.

We can argue about whether it is hereditary or whether it is acquired behaviour. There is literature on this. Opinions may vary. One thing is sure, though, and that is that I will never have any respect for people who rise in the House and say that just because a man is gay or a woman is a lesbian, they do not have the same rights. That is the essence of the debate. When we are seated in Parliament, the only value that should motivate us is the right to equality.

There is no state religion in Canada, regardless of what people might say or think. It is not because people belong to a certain religion that they can deny the rights of other citizens. That was the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court.

The previous government made use of its prerogative under section 53 of the Supreme Court Act to ask the court to provide answers to certain questions.

The first question was whether marriage and particularly civil marriage as defined in clause 1 of Bill C-38 was a federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court said yes. I respectfully admit to my hon. colleagues, of course, that a person does not need a doctorate in law to know that.

The next question was whether freedom of religion could give various religious denominations a right not to perform a religious marriage. The Supreme Court explained, with the supporting jurisprudence, that neither Bill C-38 nor the existing Charter of Rights and Freedoms obliged anyone, any member of the clergy, to perform a religious marriage, regardless of their religious denomination.

I would not want to live in a society where, because of my religious convictions, I was obliged to do things that are contrary to the tenets of my own faith. It is entirely reasonable, desirable and fortunate that the Supreme Court answered that the Charter or Bill C-38 would never oblige members of the clergy to perform marriages against their will. The Supreme Court said this, and obviously that had been confirmed by a number of expert witnesses.

We must remember that in 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice held hearings across Canada. We heard 467 witnesses. Obviously there were witnesses who had some expertise. It was explained to us, over and over again, that despite what was being said by the official opposition of that time and also by certain ministers, freedom of religion would never require that there be an obligation to perform marriages.

The Progressive Conservative Party has a record of bad faith. There is a desire to deny rights, and to sow the seeds of dissension and division. That is the purpose of the motion. Let us look at the dishonesty of the motion.

That this House call on the government to introduce legislation—

They have not yet introduced their legislation. They are asking for permission to introduce it.

—to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions—

Let us talk about civil unions. Eight provinces, including Quebec, have enacted various legislation that has recognized various types of unions between persons of the same sex. This may take the form of civil unions or registered partnerships, but all of the existing legislation has two characteristics. It is never a religious marriage. It is therefore not marriage. People sometimes told us that civil union is marriage. Civil union is close to marriage, in terms of the rights protected. Most of the provinces have granted the same rights in respect of inheritance, access to health care and pension rights. Granted, the provinces that have legislated in relation to this have given the same rights to common law spouses, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

But can we understand why people want to get married? This is where what the Conservatives are saying is totally incoherent. If the institution of marriage is an institution that should be celebrated for heterosexuals, surely it should be celebrated for homosexuals. It is not true that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. Otherwise, just like that, we would be saying that all of our fellow citizens who do not have children will be excluded and disqualified. There are people who want to get married, people who have been married for years and other people who will get married in the future, who will not have children. That is entirely their right. It takes nothing away from the legitimacy of their union.

I would say that parenting skills have nothing to do with sexual desire. That has been documented for a number of years. How can we think that the way that an individual decides to express himself or herself sexually could qualify him or her to be a good or bad parent? If that is the case, there would never be any homosexuals in our society. In my case, my parents were heterosexuals. I was reared in a heterosexual family and I have a very heterosexual twin brother, not polygamous, but very heterosexual.

Surely you will understand that homosexuality is not something that is transmitted within a family. One thing is certain, however, and I will say this again, I firmly believe that when we are sitting in Parliament, we may not get up and tell people that they have fewer rights because they are different sexually. That is what the Conservatives want to do. The reference in the motion to civil unions is not appropriate, because the federal government has no responsibility for that. It is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and there are eight provinces that have legislated in that regard.

Let us look at what it says a little further on in the motion. In order to get the support of other parties, it says that not only should the government introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions, which do not have anything to do with marriage and do not concern the federal government, it adds: “while respecting existing … marriages”. Forgive me for saying it, but it would be pretty unbelievable if anyone thought we had the power as legislators to say that.

Do you know how many people got married in Canada? In November, there were precisely 12,438 people who got married. Obviously we cannot tell them to end their union. The first principle is that a law is never retroactive. We cannot say that to the 12,438 people who got married. There are some in all the provinces, even in very conservative Alberta where 409 people got married. I do not think that there were many Conservatives invited to the weddings of those 409 people. So there are some in every province, and it is pretty dishonest and pretty misleading to include in a motion that someone even thinks that they are not going to undo the unions of people who are married.

I repeat, I think that it is not to the government’s credit to reopen the file on same sex marriage. In my opinion, once and for all, we must say that as parliamentarians we believe in the most complete equality among people.

Every time there is talk of making some social advances, I am sure that our elders will recall how some people behaved when the question of legalizing divorce came up. It used to be that getting divorced involved private legislative initiatives and was more a matter of Senate responsibility.

I am convinced that people will remember how the most conservative minds reacted when the subject of establishing a lottery system arose. I am convinced that people will remember how the most conservative elements in our society behaved when there was talk of the equality of women. Seventy-five years ago, women were not even recognized as legal persons. Women had no standing in court and could not run for office.

Yet, all these changes were made in the name of the ideals of tolerance, equality and generosity and we are all the better for them. In my opinion, the best thing that can happen in life is to fall in love because it is when we love that we desire to do things for our community. To deny individuals the right to be in love is quite shameful and I hope our citizens will remember that.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion, although it is not really a pleasure.

It is quite unbelievable that we have been discussing these questions certainly since 1994 and even after a decision by the Supreme Court, after a vote in this House and after eight courts at various levels of jurisdiction, including of course the Supreme Court, have rendered their verdicts. It must be remembered that three appeal courts—British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario—and four other different courts in Canada have affirmed that the denial to gays and lesbians of free access to the institution of marriage constitutes a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that it is incompatible with section 15, which provides for equal treatment for all.

It is not surprising that the Conservative government has chosen to reopen this debate. There is no doubt that Conservative members, as individuals, are respectable people and that they can even be quite endearing. Nevertheless, we know that, collectively, they are people who throughout their history, as long as they have been in this House, have practised an institutional policy of homophobia.

Homophobia does not consist solely in gay bashing or threatening gays. Homophobia is also the systematic and organized denial of rights to homosexuals. The Conservatives have always taken a hostile approach to gays and lesbians. I believe our fellow citizens should know that.

I do not say that someone is a homophobe if he or she is not in favour of access to marriage. I know people who are rather ill at ease with that.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for our colleague.

Does he agree that this is basically an issue of rights and that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not acceptable for a Parliament to deny same-sex couples access to marriage?

What if one of his loved ones, his daughter, for example, came home one day and announced that she was homosexual? Would he not want his child to grow and develop in the most gay-tolerant society possible?

If we, as parliamentarians, are questioning decisions that strike a balance on what the Supreme Court has stated is a rights issue, then does he agree that his government is not up to the task of acting with the generosity and tolerance people have a right to expect from those who have the responsibility to govern?

Once again, I invite him to really think about this. If one of his loved ones, his son or daughter, his nephew or niece, came to see him one day and he found out that person was homosexual, would he not be glad to be living in a more tolerant society? Does he not agree that parliamentarians are responsible for leading the way on this issue?

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the rights and freedoms of a minority should not be subject to an arbitrary decision by anyone.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this House must make decisions irregardless of religious convictions and with respect for civil rights and freedoms, and that it is a dangerous precedent to submit the rights of some to the religion of others?

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the motion on marriage tabled by the government presages a serious breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Will the Prime Minister admit that if his motion is adopted, individuals will not be treated equally and there will be those who had rights before the Conservative government was elected and those who will no longer have rights afterwards?

[Federal Accountability Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who is the Bloc Québécois critic on this issue, if I am not mistaken.

Certainly, the Conservative government is no stranger to contradictions. Here is one contradiction. For years, when the Conservatives were in opposition, they spoke very negatively about the Senate. What was the first thing the Prime Minister did? He went and appointed his election campaign financing head to the Senate. That took some nerve. For years, when they formed the opposition, the Conservatives spoke out against the Senate, and the first thing they did, like Pharisees, was to appoint Michael Fortier to the Senate. He has refused to run for election in Repentigny, and he heads one of the largest departments in the government, the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Yet the Conservatives find nothing wrong with this.

In public life, if you want to maintain your credibility, you cannot change your tune when you move from opposition to government. Many parliamentarians have demanded that Michael Fortier stand for election, and it is sad that he has resisted this democratic challenge.

Let us talk about the Senate. Certainly, there are excellent people in the Senate, people who are working extremely hard. I am thinking of Marcel Prud'homme and Serge Joyal. I also know that Gérald Beaudoin worked very hard when he was in the Senate. But the calibre of the individuals does not alter the fact that when laws are passed in a representative democracy, there must be democratic legitimacy. The Senate will never have such legitimacy. Of course, senators can analyze legislation and make appropriate amendments, but the Canadian Senate will never have democratic legitimacy. That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that the Senate is an institution that should be abolished.

In the event a second house should be created, perhaps, in a sovereign Quebec, there will be a house of the regions in the National Assembly. Perhaps there will be a bicameral parliament. However, when it comes to passing legislation and participating in the legislative process, there must be democratic legitimacy, which is conferred only by a general election.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to emphasize that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2 in principle and in much of its practice.

There is no denying that nothing is more important than ethics and accountability in the work of an MP. The way we practice politics and the way people have access to public office holders clearly reveals the strength of democracy, which is the beauty of our democratic system, even if it is not perfect.

Earlier, I heard my friends, the neo-Bolsheviks, talk about electoral reform, suggesting that the current system, the first past the post system, had given Bloc Québécois members over-representation in this House.

No matter how hard I rack my brain, I do not see how this House could possibly do without a single member of the Bloc. In fact, the Bloc Québécois caucus is a formidable democratic tool, and each and every Bloc member makes an invaluable contribution to the work of this House. Naturally, I am bound by the confidentiality of our caucus meetings, but I can assure you that every Bloc member does an outstanding job. With every voting opportunity, our constituents have the opportunity to assess the relevance of the Bloc's role, and every time, in the end, we are supported in our conviction that it is important to have a political party dedicated exclusively to defending the interests of Quebec, a party that will not compromise its principles, and one that has the ability to accurately discern what Quebeckers want.

That said, of course we are not completely opposed to the idea of holding a debate on the issue of better representation. When Quebec becomes a sovereign nation, it is not certain that we will maintain the current voting system. In fact, sovereignists have thought long and hard about this issue. I am thinking of the former member for Borduas, Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, as well as André Larocque, who was deputy minister to Robert Burns, the member for Maisonneuve, in the 1970s. Robert Burns was the minister responsible for one of the most important laws enacted by René Lévesque's government, the democratic financing legislation, which is based on the concept of knowing on whose behalf we speak.

I remember certain discussions with American senators. In the United States, it is virtually impossible to get elected if one does not have millions of dollars. Yet, in many cases, having such a fortune means that individuals become spokespeople for special interest groups. In contrast, our democratic system makes it possible to secure financing thanks to strong popular support.

For example, during the last election campaign in Hochelaga, I spent $25,000. Obviously, that is not very much given the number of voters in my riding. That money did not come from businesses, interest groups or lobbies. Members of the Bloc Québécois executive in my riding, Hochelaga, raised the money during meetings with grassroots activists. That is what we do every year.

Let me say a few words about Bill C-2, which was introduced by the President of the Treasury Board. The Bloc Québécois supports the underlying principles of the bill. However, much like its creator, the President of the Treasury Board, the bill is clearly not perfect. That does not prevent him from being a respectable parliamentarian, of course. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill because it provides for a ministerial code of ethics to be entrenched in the law.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2 because it will put an end to the tradition that enabled political staff to gain privileged entry to the public service. Of course, that is not to say that the people who work in the offices of ministers or members cannot be useful in the public service, or that they are not competent people, but we have said and we still say that they should not gain entry by a somewhat privileged mechanism but rather by means of properly conducted competitions.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2 because it gives greater power to the Auditor General, Ms. Fraser, and it gives more power to the Ethics Commissioner. It should be remembered—and obviously I say this very seriously—that for many weeks, and indeed for several months, the Bloc Québécois has led the battle to extend the Auditor General’s powers of audit and control. My former colleague, the member for Repentigny, had tabled a bill to extend the control of the Auditor General to include a certain number of foundations. The principle of the bill had been agreed to by the previous government, and it has also been accepted by the Conservative government. That is good news because these foundations hold and manage millions of dollars that come from the public treasury.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2 because it will lead to the disclosure of compulsory reports in the case of leadership races. It will restrain the potential for uncontrolled spending in the great public relations exercises that leadership races have become.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2 because it contains many of the traditional demands of the Bloc Québécois. I am happy to remind the House of the battle that several members of the Bloc Québécois fought to ensure that returning officers are chosen through a more democratic process. I see my friend, the parliamentary secretary, who is the youngest member of this House. Obviously, as everyone knows, being young is a failing from which one suffers a little less each day. However, I know that my colleague, who is the youngest member of this House, and who is also the parliamentary secretary to the minister, has worked very hard in committee.

For a long time now the Bloc Québécois has tried to justify a more democratic process for returning officers. It cannot be possible, on one hand, for a person at the riding level to be responsible for making the system work, ensuring there are no irregularities, that all rules are being followed and that all the candidates have equal chances, and, on the other, for these same returning officers to be appointed by the government. In my riding there was a returning officer who was very well respected as an individual, but who certainly was not neutral politically. Mr. Léger, a notary, served as returning officer in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. He is a very respectable person, but he was my opponent in 1993.

In 1993, I had to show him a thing or two about elections and I won a majority by several thousand votes. It was at the time when Lucien Bouchard, one of the great sovereignists of the movement, was Premier of Quebec. He ran an absolutely extraordinary election campaign and, if my memory serves me correctly, the Bloc Québécois won 49% of the vote and 55 members were elected. We clearly had a very strong hold. It was a young political party and there were a number of young members such as Pierre Brien and Michel Bellehumeur. At the time, yours truly was in his early thirties. I was 31 when I was elected and I am 44 now, but I feel just as young as I did then.

Obviously, I no longer have the same resources. There was a time when I could work for 15 or 16 hours without sleeping. Today, I could no longer do that.

To get back to the subject, and to Bill C-2, the bill contains very wise provisions to allow returning officers to be selected by competition. This was a Bloc Québécois initiative, which is to some extent reflected in Bill C-2.

The Bloc Québécois would have liked to see more democratic funding. It had also hoped that we could have refocused the provisions relating to whistleblowers. It is important that when improper conduct, bad management or fraud is witnessed by people who have responsibilities, particularly strategic responsibilities within the public service, they be able to report it to their superior and report it publicly without suffering reprisals.

An amendment has come from the other place that expands the concept of reprisal. We must of course ensure that such reprisals do not in any way prevent a public servant from pursuing a worthwhile career plan in the public service.

We support Bill C-2. In fact there are few questions that will call for more of our attention in the years to come than the question of ethics. What is our vision of public governance that meets ethical responsibilities? That is one of the questions that will concern us in the years to come.

A debate is underway in Quebec regarding the place for minorities in society. I am sure that such a debate is also taking place in other provinces. There is also the question of reasonable accommodation. How do we reconcile our broad democratic values with recognizing the place for minorities and preserving a spirit of a common public culture? How do we organize our social contract? This is what we mean by reasonable accommodation. How do we interpret the charters, be it the Quebec Charter, one of the most generous charters when it comes to human rights, and compatibility with individual values, particularly when it comes to religious convictions?

I hope that the parliamentary secretary will give us an explanation of this a little later. We do not understand why the government has not chosen to revise the Access to Information Act, when that act was part of the Conservative Party’s campaign platform. When we talk about democracy, political party financing and voting methods are not the only issues; our ability to make our institutions function in a way that allows us to have access to information within a reasonable time is also an issue.

The Access to Information Act is a major concern. Recently, I had the opportunity to take part in a seminar. Three weeks ago, my party whip asked me to make a speech on a Friday at 6:30 p.m., here in Ottawa. I cannot begin to tell the House how grateful I was that he would give me this opportunity to share the stage with a number of experts on the Access to Information Act. The seminar took place at the government's conference centre. What an archaic piece of legislation.

Here is a very specific example. In June, the Bloc Québécois made about 40 requests under the Access to Information Act. To this end, we relied on our research services and on my friend, Dominic Labrie, a powerful intellectual and an extremely brilliant man who is very familiar with the whole issue of the Access to Information Act. He is a highly educated person with great intellectual finesse, as there are in all political parties.

As we know, there are costs associated with this. A five dollar deposit is required for each request. We must also pay for each page of information that is provided to us.

Believe it or not, we submitted those 40 or so requests for information in June, and only about five of them had been dealt with by the time I made my speech, two or three weeks ago. We have yet to receive the information that we requested back in June and this is now November, just 10 days away from the month of December. Moreover, I was told that there is an increasingly common practice whereby a fee is charged for those access to information requests, based on the number of hours of research required to get the information. I was also told that this change coincided with the arrival of the Conservatives in office. I hope that this trend will be corrected.

Again, we cannot fulfill our parliamentary duties properly and we cannot have a true democratic system if we do not have access to meaningful and conclusive information. The Bloc Québécois longs for the day when each access to information request, and its reply, will be stored in the Library of Parliament, as is the case with the notices in the order paper. It would definitely be a good thing if all parliamentarians could benefit from that information.

I have even been informed that certain departments now refuse to produce written information for strategic executive meetings, for fear that someone will request access to it.

Once again I do not understand why the government did not make more of this bill, which has much to be said for it and which the Bloc Québécois supports. Indeed our political party believes in ethics and we know that this question will be of great concern in the coming years.

Our fellow citizens will no longer accept authoritarian models, ways of doing things in which members of parliament are not fully involved in the development of public policies.

It is quite unbelievable, I repeat, that the government chose to table 200 clauses in this bill. Would it not have been better to review the Access to Information Act? I recall that the Conservatives made a commitment to modernize it. The Conservative platform even contained this promise:

A Conservative government would:

Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.

The Information Commissioner himself tabled a complete bill. He did the work; he proposed a complete bill in October 2005.

I think this is hard to understand.

I am going to end with the following comment, because time is running out.

The bill, once it came back from the other House, also proposed a number of points which the Bloc Québécois unfortunately could not agree with. I understand that the other House would have liked there to be a commissioner.

I am going to conclude by recalling three major points. For the Bloc Québécois, it is important to be able to say yes to this bill, on the basis of a number of historical battles waged by the Bloc Québécois: the appointment of returning officers by competition; more work and greater authority for the Auditor General respecting trusts and foundations; and the possibility of restricting expenditures in leadership races and making them subject to public disclosure.

We nonetheless would have liked the Access to Information Act to be modernized so that it would work better and members of parliament would have more information, and especially so that requests for access to information might be filed in the Library of Parliament.

We would also have liked to have a broader definition of the budget officer’s role. In spite of all this, the Bloc Québécois will support the proposed amendments in Bill C-2.