Benoît Sauvageau

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made myself clear. I expressed my concerns five times in my speech so that he would understand. Nevertheless, I will repeat them. I was formerly a teacher and sometimes it took quite some time to explain things.

First, an amendment was adopted: the French title of the act has been changed from “Loi sur l'imputabilité” to “Loi sur la responsabilité”. That is one of the Bloc Québécois' victories.

Next, by stating that this bill only deals with the executive, he is openly saying that a Conservative member may have a real or perceived conflict of interest. A member may own a hotel and ask for a feasibility study. To my knowledge, the member for Simcoe North is the second to do so. The first was the member for Shawinigan, who owned a hotel in Shawinigan and asked the federal government to finance part of it.

I asked the member for Simcoe North if he also owned a golf course, just to see if there were other similarities. He did not respond.

As for the question from the President of the Treasury Board, subsection 67(1) of the current act—the large document with many pages— states: “Within five years after this Act receives royal assent—”. The amendment proposed by the President of Treasury Board states: “Within five years after the day on which this section comes into force—”

Why?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-2, specifically the first group of amendments, which includes amendments 1, 2 to 4, 6, 7 and 9, if my memory serves me correctly. I will speak to these amendments.

As I begin, I will talk about the review of Bill C-2 and the problems we encountered. If I go off topic I am sure you will rein me back in.

Many amendments are being presented today at this stage because of how very quickly Bill C-2 was considered. We had very little time. I ordered a study from the library on similar bills, that is, bills with 300 or more clauses. I learned that the average duration of consideration of these bills since 1988 was roughly 200 days. We had more or less 40 days to review Bill C-2, which shows how hastily it was done. It is clear that a number of aspects of this bill should be improved; a number of witnesses pointed this out when they came before the committee.

Today, reading the proposed amendments, we recognize that this bill can and must be improved. It is also very important to remember what the Auditor General said about the sponsorship scandal, as our leader very eloquently pointed out during a scrum yesterday. The Auditor General's remarks have a direct bearing on this bill.

Before Mr. Justice Gomery and at a press conference, Ms. Fraser said that all the rules had been circumvented. The rules were in place, but they were circumvented. The fact that the government, through the Treasury Board president, is introducing an accountability bill is a good thing in itself. Reaffirming certain existing rules is a good thing in itself, but what is most important is whether the government will have the will to abide by these codes of conduct and these accountability rules that are before us today. Time will tell.

It is very important to remember that the rules were in place and were circumvented. Whether or not the rules set out in Bill C-2 are circumvented will depend solely on the government's will.

The government's will will very quickly become apparent as Bill C-2 is implemented.

The first motion, made by the President of the Treasury Board, reads as follows:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 6 with the following:

“No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall, in his or her capacity as a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, debate or vote on a question that would place him or her in a conflict of interest”.

This was originally in the bill. The committee members defeated this clause and deleted it from the bill, but the Conservatives want to reintroduce this part. This is interesting, but I have this question: does the spirit of the act apply solely to ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries or does this part of the act also apply to government members, Conservative members?

I see that the President of the Treasury Board is present. What follows may be of interest to him and to the whip. It is useful to remember that last week, the member for Simcoe North introduced a Conservative bill asking the federal government to release funds for a feasibility study on a waterway in order to promote tourism. Strangely, when we visited his website, we noticed that this Conservative member owns the main hotel in this tourist area.

In fact, it was noted that his family has owned that facility for five generations, since 1884.

Will this standard be applied haphazardly or scrupulously? What will be permitted? If anyone is wondering to which member I am referring, it is the member for Simcoe North. He tabled a bill that would seem to involve a conflict of interest, at the very least.

If the Conservative party confirms that this respects the spirit of Bill C-2, that the ethics counsellor supports it and that everything is in order, we from the Bloc Québécois will reconsider our position and perhaps support the member. However, when a party purports to be cleaner than clean, purer than pure, and then, at the first opportunity, a member tables a bill that goes against the principle and spirit of Bill C-2, one might wonder how that bill will be applied in the future.

Speaking of the future, we have a problem with another amendment in the first block of amendments. Surely the President of the Treasury Board will be able to alleviate our concerns, which seem legitimate to me at this point. I am referring to Motion No. 4 regarding subsection 67(1) on page 33 of the bill—since we must compare like with like. The section now reads as follows:

Within five years after this Act receives royal assent, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee—

The following amendment to subsection 67(1) has been proposed:

Within five years after the day on which this section comes into force—

Why change something that does not appear very important? Instead of saying that the act should be reviewed five years after receiving royal assent, this indicates five years after subsection 67(1) receives assent. Fortunately, we have meticulous, effective, attentive experts to point out minute details that may seem trivial, but that are very important in practice.

We always said that we supported the principle and philosophy of Bill C-2. We wanted to be in favour of more accountability and all those aspects of the legislation. However, no legislation is perfect. I defy the members of this House to show us perfect legislation. It was very important, therefore, to be able after five years to review not all of Bill C-2 but just the part on wrongdoing. That is why we wanted the committee to be able after five years to review what had worked well so that it could be established and continued, as was done with the Environmental Protection Act and several other pieces of legislation. If some aspects did not work so well, however, they could be re-assessed.

If amendment No. 4 passes, the government could say that Bill C-2 comes into force tomorrow morning, apart from subsection 67(1). It could decide to have this subsection come into force in four or five years. This would mean that the legislation would be reviewed only when the government wanted.

In committee—the Conservatives voted in favour of this amendment to review the act after five years—we were told that there might be some shortcomings and some things might have to be corrected. What is implied by this change? Maybe there is an explanation that can convince us. Why take correct wording, which appears in other legislation and says that the act will be reviewed in five years, and change it to say that the act will be reviewed five years after subsection 67(1) comes into force? What were they trying to say?

Usually, amendments are not introduced just for the fun of it. We have better things to do.

We ensure that amendments are introduced to correct or improve the bill. Sometimes, maybe, they are introduced to distract attention from certain gains that some think they made in committee. By a little word, a little sleight of hand, the gains are erased.

We cannot support amendments that would restrict the ability to review this legislation. We will ask questions until we get answers, in particular: what was the underlying intent of these changes?

[Official Languages, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is a sad answer when we are talking about a situation that has gone on for 30 years.

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommended that, beginning in 2007, the Canadian armed forces should no longer promote general officers who fail to meet the linguistic requirements.

In view of the fact that many of them are already in positions that they should never have been offered if the Canadian Forces were complying with the act, does the Minister of National Defence intend to take strong action to implement this recommendation of the official languages commissioner?

[Official Languages, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real scandal that has hurt francophones in the Canadian Forces. Despite negative reports by different commissioners of official languages in 1977, 1981, 1989 and 1993, no chief of staff has ever done what was necessary and the forces have never complied with the act.

What quick, vigorous action does the minister responsible for the Official Languages Act intend to take in order to force the Canadian Forces to comply with the act for which she herself is responsible?

[Trent-Severn Waterway, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately have to introduce a note of discord with respect to the statements made by the previous speaker and the hon. member who introduced the bill. I have absolutely nothing against the river in question, or tourist development in general. The hon. member for Simcoe North, who introduced the bill, is very familiar with the region and the industry. He was involved with various tourist development organizations in the region: the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, Resorts of Ontario, Tourism Ontario and the Huronia Tourism Association. The problem I see, however, is with the fact that, as he told us, since 1884 his family has owned and operated tourist facilities located in the area directly affected by his bill. When I put my question to the hon. member, I was hoping he would give me a different answer.

I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member through you that, as we speak, his party which boasts about being whiter than white has a bill before a parliamentary committee of the House, namely Bill C-2, the accountability bill. Under this bill, any public office holder, minister or parliamentary secretary is prohibited from placing themselves directly or indirectly in a real or apparent conflict of interest situation. Granted, members of Parliament are not included.

So, theoretically, under Bill C-2, the hon. member has the right to present us with his sweet little bill. He would have it nice and neat, he wants everyone to come, everyone to say it’s great. However, he is respecting neither the electoral platform of his party nor the spirit of Bill C-2, which would have all members demonstrate that they are in no way in a conflict of interest when they vote or when they table a bill. In any case, I hope that that is what the bill says, that is, that it concerns not just ministers and parliamentary secretaries, but MPs as well.

If the hon. member wishes to table a bill to improve the environment, the tourism industry, or whatever else in the administrative region he represents, he is entitled to do so. That is what all of us do here, in this chamber, when we want to improve the situation in our riding. That is the rare privilege we are afforded by a private member’s bill.

Nonetheless, if I am the owner of a hotel on the edge of the St. Lawrence River in Repentigny, and through a private member’s bill I ask the government for money for a feasibility study, perhaps my neighbours in Berthier, Montreal or elsewhere along the St. Lawrence would be justified in claiming that I am using my privilege as an MP to obtain money for my hotel on the river’s edge. The people who would tell me that or who would tell the population that would be right. This is true for all members of the House, but above all for a member who represents the party that says it wants to be whiter than white. I have nothing against this hon. member, personally; I am just getting to know him today.

However, the question can be asked: is this hon. member respecting the spirit of Bill C-2? That is my first question. Did he ask the current ethics commissioner whether he had the right to table such a bill? That is my second question. If I am told that the answers to these questions is yes and that I am mistaken, fine! Earlier, however, when I asked the hon. member if he was still the owner of a hotel affected by the bill, he told me he was. So if there is no problem, there is at least the appearance of a problem.

In January 2006, he said quite frankly on the front page of his paper that with respect to local issues, he would work in Ottawa to put forward a project for Simcoe Lake, to which the federal government might contribute financially.

On his own website, he says that his family owns Bayview Wildwood Resorts Limited, and that he is vice-president of The Cottages, a family business going back five generations.

According to a company brochure, Bayview Wildwood is located in a beautiful setting on the Trent-Severn Waterway and has a great view of the lake. It sounds like a very nice countryside tourist destination.

All members of this House would like for more tourists to visit the area by boat, for the Canadian tourism industry to flourish, for everyone to be happy, for the unemployment rate to drop below 1% and for everyone to have jobs. That said, we cannot presume to use our privileges as parliamentarians to support an industry that has been in one family for five generations.

The motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of evaluating the future of the historic Trent-Severn Waterway, one of Parks Canada’s National Historic Sites, and its potential to become: (a) a premier recreational asset;

How much will that cost?

(b) a world-class destination for recreational boaters;

Why is this not being done elsewhere in Canada? There are tourists in my colleagues' ridings. I could ask the federal government, in the form of a private member's bill, to conduct a feasibility study for the Théâtre Hector-Charland in my riding. I could thus ensure the development of the theatre in order to increase the number of visitors to this major tourist destination and increase business next year. If I owned that building or the business, I am sure that my party's whip—a man who I greatly respect—would warn me that I would be in a dangerous position, being judge and jury for my own bill. That is where the problem lies.

(c) a greater source of clean, renewable electrical power;

How much money has the federal government invested in hydroelectric resources in Quebec compared to what it has invested in nuclear energy in Ontario and in what is happening in Newfoundland? A member has tabled a bill because he owns a hotel. The Liberal member that preceded him said that business has gone down a little. He is therefore asking that a feasibility study be conducted so that his hotel can be a little more profitable.

Someone has already tried that. That someone was the member for Shawinigan. It was called Shawinigate. He also sold his golf course—I do not know if there is a golf course on the member's hotel property—he signed it over on a restaurant napkin and sold it. The RCMP has been investigating this matter for who knows how long.

If the member unequivocally states that he definitely did not table the bill for his own or for his family's personal gain, if he affirms that he is in complete agreement with the accountability bill tabled by his party, that is Bill C-2, and that the ethics commissioner said he could table his bill without reservations, then the Bloc Québécois will reassess its position on whether or not to support this bill.

In principle, the bill in general is good; however, we must be prudent when we are the judge in our own case. That is what happens when we are elected. We must consider our personal affairs from a different perspective. We must not become the main lobbyist for our own company. The term lobbyist is very popular among my Conservative friends.

If light is shed on these points, if we respect Bill C-2 and the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons, if the ethics commissioner confirms that there is no conflict of interest, then we shall see whether or not we will support this bill. However, what appears to be just apple pie is much more than that. We would like further information on this matter.

[Trent-Severn Waterway, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe North. He seems to be very aware of the situation.

Here is my question. I will preface it with an excerpt from page A 1 of the January 6, 2006 issue of the Midland Free Press. It reads as follows:

On local issues, the president of Bayview-Wildwood Resorts said he'll work to have Lake Simcoe listed as an area of concern, making it eligible for federal funding.

On the member's website, it says:

[He] is the 5th generation of the [family name] family to own and operate a tourism business on Sparrow Lake since [the family first built the present inn] in 1884.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he still has ties to the Bayview Wildwood Resort or if any ties he had to that industry have been severed since January 6, 2006.

[Monsieur Pointu, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was with sadness that we learned of the passing last night of Paul Cormier, better known as Monsieur Pointu. He was a prolific fiddler and with his favourite instrument he became a veritable musical institution in Quebec, France and throughout the world. He immortalized the Mockingbird reel and added his bow to many musical selections from Quebec, including Raoul Duguay's unforgettable hit, La Bittt à Tibi.

Wearing his bowler hat, turtleneck sweater and a huge flower on his lapel, he went everywhere, including two world tours with Gilbert Bécaud; between 1970 and 1978, they travelled across five continents. Who can forget his brilliant contribution to the success of La vente aux enchères by Gilbert Bécaud?

In 1974, the NFB produced an animated film about him that won a number of awards in London, Geneva, San Antonio and Bilbao.

The Bloc Québécois offers its condolences to the family and friends of Monsieur Pointu.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my Liberal colleagues to take careful note of the question I am about to ask, which they know is a relevant one.

My question is for my honourable colleague, with whom I have been privileged to sit on several committees. It is about the former bill and some of its clauses, which do not appear in Bill C-3. I am referring to Bill C-44, which served as the inspiration for Bill C-3. Specifically, I would like to discuss what happens when a company abandons a rail line. The former bill provided that in such cases, the company must offer to sell the line to the urban transit authority first, while giving the municipality priority in such transactions.

In my riding, Repentigny, and in greater Montreal, the commuter train issue is very important. Our prefect, Chantal Deschamps, is doing exemplary work with Montreal and industry stakeholders to make the commuter train happen as soon as possible. The industry supports her.

I would like my colleague to tell me why this part of Bill C-44 was removed from the new Bill C-3. This is a very important issue for people in Repentigny and for residents of greater Montreal. I am certain that it is equally important in other parts of Canada where commuter train issues are coming to the fore.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the parliamentary secretary and concerns an excerpt from the accountability action plan. On pages 8 and 9, under the heading “Strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner”, we can read the following about the process. This federal legislation will:

give the public the ability to bring forward, through a Member of Parliament, information to the Commissioner for the Commissioner’s consideration and action, as appropriate. Members of Parliament will be required to attest by oath or affirmation that, in their opinion, public complaints are well founded. The Commissioner will have the authority to reject complaints deemed to be frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

I would like my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party to tell me how he thinks this plan can be put into practice. It might sound appealing in theory, but as far as I am concerned it is almost totally impracticable.

Allow me to explain; it will take but a minute. A citizen in his riding goes to him about some potential wrongdoing. Let us say it happened in an employment centre without any of the staff noticing. That is what is called the conspiracy theory. But the citizen does notice and goes to his member, who then has to determine whether the complaint is well founded or not. Should he find it admissible, he refers the matter to the Ethics Commissioner, who in turn finds it inadmissible.

We have to get elected in our ridings and we have to deal on a daily basis with constituents. I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell me how he intends to make this impracticable theory practicable?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. One of the shortcomings of the bill is that it does not give enough details about the process. We are scrapping the governor in council appointment process for returning officers and handing the responsibility for appointing them over to the Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley—not to name any names. The process is not clearly defined in the bill.

I would humbly suggest that, for a long time now in Quebec, we have been operating according to a competition process that invites people to submit their applications. Thanks to a process established by Quebec's chief electoral officer—whose name I have forgotten, but Pierre-F. Côté held the position for many years—we have a totally impartial and non-partisan process. During a competition, after receiving several applications for each of the ridings and—I believe—testing the candidates, the chief electoral officer identifies the candidates who are most competent and capable of doing the job.

We think this is much better for the electoral process than governor in council appointments.