Benoît Sauvageau

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to tell us on what we will be voting this evening, at 6:30 p.m., and what is the Bloc Quebecois' amendment to the amendment.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will put the same question again to the hon. member.

This evening, at 6:30 p.m., she will probably vote against the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I would like to know why.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat puzzled by the comments of the Minister of State for Northern Development. I looked at the Projected Order of Business and it says “Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (resuming debate on the subamendment of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and on the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary Southwest)”.

If I may, I will put my question to the minister, based on today's debate. She will rise this evening, at 6:30 p.m., to vote, probably against the Bloc Quebecois' amendment to the amendment, after hearing the other speeches—not hers—made by members of her party.

I wonder if the minister could tell us the reasons why she disagrees with the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our new colleague, the hon. member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. I want to congratulate him and, more importantly, to point out that he is sending a message of courage and hope to the whole community.

Recently, in August, during the Olympic and Paralympic Games, people witnessed true examples of courage, hope and tenacity. Through his presence among us, our colleague is setting the same example. In sports, athletes in all categories and from the whole community are welcome. By being present on the political scene, the hon. member is sending the same message.

This is why I wanted to make this comment, to congratulate the hon. member and to tell him that we are pleased to have him here.

Like us, he has listened carefully to the speeches made by members from the various parties. He also listened to the Prime Minister, who said that, under a minority government, we should display greater cooperation. This attitude can be seen in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne by both Conservative and Bloc Quebecois members. Heaven knows that we rarely agree. However, there are times, when higher interests are at stake, where we can do so.

I wonder if the hon. member could share with us his impressions on the thrust of the speeches that he has heard from the government in reply to the throne speech and to our motion.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île is trying to express the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois about the throne speech, our colleague opposite is calling us traitors, is telling us to take our paycheque and go back to France. I cannot name the riding of this member because I think he is not sitting in his seat. If he is in his seat, he only has to name his riding.

In this House, the Prime Minister talked about cooperation and goodwill. I would like to have the member retract, apologize, stop calling us traitors and stop telling us, during the speech of the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, to return to another country.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.

I have been listening attentively to the remarks by the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, who has demonstrated his knowledge of politics and international affairs. I had a great deal of trouble understanding the meaning of his support or opinion regarding the Speech from the Throne. Perhaps I misunderstood or did not fully grasp what he was trying to say.

I would like, very humbly, if I may, to bring him back to the throne speech and ask him a question. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to reduce the financial pressures on the provinces and at the same time, I believe, to continue to completely respect provincial jurisdictions. Does he agree with the words of his leader, the Prime Minister? If I could just return to the throne speech and the amendment to the amendment we are discussing today, I would ask the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard if he personally agrees that provincial jurisdictions should be respected and does he recognize that they are suffering financial pressures that should be alleviated? In other words, does he support the Bloc Quebecois's amendment to the amendment?

[Public Service, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if we have an exemplary public service, it must not be used for base partisan purposes as the Liberal Party is doing.

Nevertheless, since the government named Mr. Gauthier as special counsel to recover the millions of dollars from the sponsorship scandal, does the government intend to broaden Mr. Gauthier's mandate to make the Liberal Party pay the salaries of the public servants who have been requisitioned by the Liberal Party to write its bargain-priced platform?

[Public Service, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has federal public servants working hard to create a campaign platform for the Liberal Party of Canada at low cost to the party, thus, once again, diverting public resources to basely partisan purposes.

Since public funds are involved, are we to understand that the government intends to make its campaign platform public before the election is called, or must we, once again, rely on the Access to Information Act to get a look at it?

[Supply, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is partly right. When we are debating figures, we can indeed make them say many things. The Canadian Labour Congress has certain figures. The Liberals have their own. We like to use figures coming from the most independent sources. If we took a Bloc Quebecois report and compared it with our own, and if the result was 3% against 48%, I would probably suggest, in order to achieve some consensus on the issue, to scrap both studies, and to rely on an independent one. Such a study would probably more closely reflect the reality.

That is why the studies referred to by the Bloc today are not internal studies made by our party, as are those of HRC that talk about an 88% rate. I believe there is a gap between the two, which must be explained and debated.

However, we do not need many figures when we travel to the Lower North Shore or the Gaspé. This is also true for other provinces. Unemployment does not exist only in Quebec, as if there were a wall and that reality did not exist on the other side. When we travel to the Maritimes, the Prairies and just about everywhere, there exists a reality that need not be expressed with figures. We visit people, we talk to them and we can see their distress. The situation is very obvious.

I will again engage into partisanship. It is so obvious that the member for Bourassa, former minister Gagliano, the Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, and former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made solemn commitments. They did not do this by mentioning figures and by saying that it was 38%, 39%, 52% or 56%. They said that there was a situation that had to be dealt with.

Immediately after the election, they decided, in order to fulfill their commitment and their promise, to set up an all-party committee, as is the custom in this House. That committee proposed 17 unanimous recommendations. Now, three years later, we are saying that the time has come to sound the alarm, and we are asking them to make good on their commitments and promises. The Liberals must respect their signatures on the unanimous report. Accept it and let us implement these 17 recommendations. That is all.