Gilles-A. Perron

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Mercier. I did not know she could get mad, but she has just proved it today.

I have a question or a comment for her. The Prime Minister—and I am not talking about the member for LaSalle—Émard but rather about the little guy from Shawinigan—announced a few months ago that if the Canadian government accumulated a surplus in the current fiscal year, $2 billion would be returned to the provinces for health care.

About three weeks ago, on a Wednesday afternoon, the current Minister of Finance proudly announced that the government would have a $7 billion surplus. A few minutes later, in a press conference, some journalists asked him if he would hand over to the provinces the $2 billion promised by the Prime Minister. He answered that he would not, that it would be premature. He said that he had to study the situation and that he would give an answer later on.

What does she think about the reaction of the current Minister of Finance?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, they cannot vote in favour of a motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Why? This morning, the government House leader came up with all kinds of reasons and excuses, even going so far as saying that the motion could lead to an election. It is not true.

The motion would only bring about what the Liberal members have been telling us since the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is in the hot seat, since he has been chosen as the next captain. Their statements keep popping up in newspapers.

They should be consistent and vote in favour of the motion. But we know they will not do so.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague had listened carefully, and I do not want to pick on the interpreters. I said in my answer to the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel that this was happening in most committees. There are exceptions. The committee on which I sit with my colleague works just fine, but this is a committee whose mandate is to scrutinize everything that has to do with the administration of the former captain. It has nothing to do with anything the new captain could have been or could be implicated in later.

Picking on the former captain is fine. We hope the problem will be settled before the new captain arrives.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In all committees or most of them, it is crystal clear that if we are examining a bill the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is pleased with, Liberal members try to make things work and to push the bill forward.

However, if it is a bill sponsored by the one who is still captain of the ship, they try to stop it, instead. When it is a bill promoted by the present Prime Minister, the inertia is complete.

It is there for everyone to see. There is no need for lengthy explanations.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this subject. I will share my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I will tell a story to try to inculcate to you how today, at 4:30 p.m., we have a government that is not working. In order that members understand me well, I will compare the government to a ship, which I will call CSL. No, do not be afraid, my ship is not called Canada Steamship Lines, it is called Canada Sans Leader.

In 2000, during the last election, voters chose a ship, the CSL. It was red and white, with large maple leaves. The Liberals chose a captain, who is the current Prime Minister. The first officer on the ship was the former Minister of Finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard. When the ship was sailing, some people noticed that things were not going very well and that the first officer, our member for LaSalle—Émard, wanted to become the captain.

There is a lot of jockeying going on; all kinds of deals have been made. The captain of the ship had to say, “Enough. First mate, if you want to take my place, fine; but it has to be done right and by the book”.

What did the first mate do? He left and became a deckhand. He started a mutiny. He became a mutineer. During his mutiny, all the Liberal sailors put on their life jackets and grabbed a flotation device so they would not drown if the boat sank.

For the past few weeks, or about a month, they have picked the delegates who will choose the new captain of the CSL ship. Unofficially, not officially, the nod went to the former first mate, former finance minister and member for LaSalle—Émard. At that point, things started to go wrong.

The deckhand from LaSalle—Émard already has half the wheel since he will be the next captain. So he started to take a port tack. The other took a starboard tack. The ship started to roll from side to side. It was impossible to tell if the ship was going forward or backward. That is where things stand now.

The ship is in dry docks. The anchor has been cast, and the ship is at a standstill. Work in committees has ground to a halt. The mechanics are unable do anything because they do not know who they report to, the current captain or the future captain.

The proof is that the first mate, the current Minister of Finance, has a $7 billion surplus.

On the one hand, the current captain had promised to give the provinces $2 billion for health. But the future captain, the member for LaSalle—Émard, is saying, “No decision has been made on that”.

So what do we do? The new first mate, the current finance minister, is staying put and waiting. The future captain, who is currently a deckhand, has started putting his team together to form a government. That is terrible. No wonder the ship is not moving.

Where does this inertia lead? Bills are not going anywhere. Everything is on the rocks, so to speak, because it does not please the future captain. The current captain wants to move his bills forward as his legacy, but the future captain is saying no. They are at loggerheads. That is what happens when a ship has two captains. It does not work, as we can see. I am not the only one who says so. Let me quote a few others.

The hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois or the Canadian Alliance, but a government member. Since the ship is at a standstill, he says, “It is clear that some major projects are on hold. If the Prime Minister decides to remain in office until January 28, we could find ourselves, as a government, paralyzed”. These remarks were reported in La Presse , on September 13, 2003. That was before we moved our motion. What he said then is along the lines of our motion.

I could also quote the hon. member for Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles. She said, “If the Prime Minister announced he is retiring from politics, everyone would be relieved”. That is from Le Nouvelliste , on August 5, 2002.

I could quote many others, but I am running out of time. Nevertheless, I will quote the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, who said, “The best time for the Prime Minister to leave is immediately after the leadership race. It would make no sense for him to stay on after that. How could things work with two leaders?” That is from La Tribune , on August 27, 2003.

On these brilliant quotes from members of the Liberal Party and potential cabinet material—since they openly support their future captain—I leave you to ponder. Our motion must be seriously considered. I cannot fathom why one would choose to remain at a standstill and vote against this motion.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. I will try not to be too tough on my colleague.

When I hear that you do not need any lessons from the Bloc, I think the member is fantasizing a little. There is nothing in today's motion that says the Prime Minister did not do his job. What the Bloc wants through this motion is that for government to get on with its work.

This morning, the government House leader started to say that the motion was a non-confidence one. I would like to quote the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia and I would like the member to comment on this. I quote:

My guess is that [the Prime Minister] will step down maybe two, three or four weeks after the convention. I think it's in the interests of all.

The member said this on September 23, 2003 and it was reported in the National Post . These words from the member sum up exactly the Bloc motion we are debating today.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Jonquière. I would like to direct a comment to her and ask for her opinion on the matter.

Just now, we heard an hon. member from the other side of the House telling us about the fiscal imbalance, the famous fiscal imbalance. The hon. member let it be understood that all the finance ministers of all the provinces of Canada, including the Liberal finance minister of Quebec, Mr. Séguin, are a bunch of fools, zeros, or are just careless, because all of them agreed there is a fiscal imbalance, except the member opposite.

Who is right and who is wrong?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining before question period, I would like my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis to comment on the statement made, on September 23, by the new future former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The facts are clear. The member for LaSalle—Émard is the de facto leader. Is this not a case of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds?

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just heard your concern. I would like to know what inappropriate terms my colleague for Lotbinière—L'Érable is supposed to have used. If it is the word coward, I do not believe it is unparliamentary.

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

By a ship captain.