Lost his last election, in 2006, with 30% of the vote.
Criminal Code November 3rd, 2003
There are still people wearing masks who have a hard time telling the truth when they are asked real questions.
I would like my colleague from Jonquière, since she too has been here since 1997, to sum up the numerous instances where the federal government has meddled in Quebec's jurisdictions.
Criminal Code November 3rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague from Jonquière who again was able to define the various elements of Bill C-46. This bill proves once again that the federal government is prepared to interfere in jurisdictions that belong strictly to Quebec.
Since 1997, the year I became an MP, I have seen many bills nibble away at Quebec's jurisdictions. I have also seen the one that Bernard Landry, the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, so aptly described, at the Bloc Quebecois general assembly on Saturday, as the strangler. The strangler is the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, who, since 1993, has been working at cutting funding to accumulate a large surplus. He then goes to the people he penalized, and who were short money, and he acts like Santa Claus.
It is November 3 and far too early to start playing Santa Claus. Halloween has just gone by.
Member for LaSalle—Émard October 31st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, today, hundreds of thousands of young people will go door to door asking for candy from behind their disguises.
Here in the House of Commons, many politicians wear a disguise all year round, but we always manage to recognize them because sooner or later, the truth comes to light.
In recent months, a supernatural phenomenon has been occurring regularly in Canada's Parliament. Is there an invisible man lurking about, or the same way there was a phantom of the opera, are we dealing with a phantom of Parliament?
The person behind this eerie dramatic political phenomenon is none other than the former finance minister, who remains invisible in the House of Commons and continuously haunts the current Prime Minister. The phantom of the opera sings, the phantom of Parliament speaks, but his message is inaudible and, when he sings, he sings off key.
Despite his many faces, Quebec will always see him as the person responsible for all the drastic cuts to EI, health and education.
Let us unmask the member for LaSalle—Émard, right now.
Auditor General's Report October 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, according to leaks of the Auditor General's report, the federal government paid for polls that might have been used for partisan purposes in the last election in Quebec.
Will the government confirm whether federal funding was used for polls that ultimately benefited Jean Charest during his last election campaign in Quebec?
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act October 21st, 2003
Madam Speaker, the decision is really not complicated. On the issue of Bill C-49, if you, the Liberals, are so democratic, why do you want to pass Bill C-49, whose purpose is to change the normal process, which is to wait one year before applying an order?
If you are great democrats, you should propose today to maintain the date of the order at August 25, 2004, instead of moving it forward to April 1, 2004. Then you would prove that you are democratic. Currently, the only thing you are proving is that you are fiddling with democracy.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act October 21st, 2003
Not yet officially, but he pretends to be the prime minister: he holds caucuses and organizes meetings. What is happening here is amazing. Imagine the image of Canada that we are projecting internationally.
Nothing has happened in this Parliament for the last year. The American president, Mr. Bush, even refuses to meet with the current Prime Minister, because he knows that the Prime Minister does not make the decisions, that it is not him who is the Prime Minister, but the member for LaSalle—Émard.
All the bills that are ongoing, everything that has been done in committees will be lost. We will go backwards. We have been wasting our time for the last year and we will lose another year for just one man. We are waiting for this man in the next election campaign. You will see.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act October 21st, 2003
Madam Speaker, the answer is quite simple: everything is done here to please one man, the member for LaSalle—Émard. He wants to become the prime minister and he does not want to talk, to take his—
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act October 21st, 2003
Madam Speaker, I have proof once again that members on the other side do not see things the way we do.
I said it before and I will say it again, if the order were to come into effect on April 25, 2004, as planned initially, instead of April 1, my new constituents would have had 12 months to get to know who I am.
Second, I never said that the government and the House of Commons were creating the boundaries. What I pointed out, and I think my hon. colleague is a democrat, is that there is no appeal process. Once the commission has made a decision, if the people do not agree, it would be interesting to have an appeal process.
Or is this like the pre-budget consultations, which I call bogus consultations, since they are for naught? Is this what we are aiming for, bogus consultations that distort the truth and reality?
I do not play those kinds of games. I represent a riding. I represent my constituents. I want to be able to clearly express their needs and their expectations, which is more than can be said of members opposite.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act October 21st, 2003
Madam Speaker, instead of saying coward, perhaps I should say “lack of fortitude” or “lack of leadership”? A man who has been waiting for 10 years to become prime minister and is unable to face his responsibilities is a man who lacks fortitude, lacks leadership, shirks his responsibilities and uses the Liberal majority to change, through Bill C-49, a process provided for by an act that normally should be a most objective and non-partisan act.
By moving up to April 1, 2004, an order that was supposed to come into force on August 26, 2004, the future prime minister is obviously showing that he has trouble facing his responsibilities.
Earlier, my colleague from Champlain said that the way the democratic deficit has been increasing in this House, we might sit for only 3 out of the next 12 months. In the meantime, there are problems in our society and people are counting on the future prime minister.
As I said before, it is a real competition among advertising agencies. They show him from every angle, but when the time comes for him to say something, he seems to be at a loss for words. We are facing a real democratic deficit.
You will understand why I said at the beginning of my speech that I was deeply disappointed to see my riding disappear. When I learned the news, I was confident, because under the Canada Elections Act that governs the approval of new electoral boundaries, I would have a year to meet with the new people and to get them to know me. These 12 months seemed to me like a reasonable time frame for those members who were greatly affected by the changes to the electoral boundaries.
But no, Bill C-49 brings us back to a five to six month time frame. I do not want to engage in a direct attack against the future leader of the Liberal Party, but I doubt that there will be a democratic process for the nomination of the 308 Liberal candidates in Canada.
The way things are shaping up, once the order comes into effect, there will be a partisan nomination process like we have never seen before in Canada. That shows that there is a democratic deficit and that Parliament is currently paralyzed. Nothing is getting done.
We have one king who is on his way out, and another who is anxious to take his place on the throne but who looks for opportunities to greet his loyal subjects without saying anything to convince them that he deserves to accede to the throne.
I would have liked Bill C-49 to be a little more democratic, with an appeal process for the people of Quebec and for all the ridings that were greatly affected by the new electoral boundaries.
What happened is that bounderies were imposed and a committee process was put in place, and then the commission decided that there was no recourse available any more.
How can we go visit our constituents to tell them that we live in a democratic country, that we are sensitive to the needs of the people and that we live in a country where consultation is allowed, when the government shows no respect for such a fundamental issue and for the sense of belonging that exist in a riding?
All this is part of a plan developed by the member for LaSalle—Émard in June 2002, when he was fired by the Prime Minister. This is a plan to ease him into power. Not only will it take him there, but it will also allow him to stay quiet, letting this series of images convince the general public.
It is too late, but I would have liked Mr. Kingsley at Elections Canada to put off the decision, and I wrote him about that. We all know how it went with the report; we waited and waited, not knowing when it would be presented and, finally, it was released on August 26. I wanted those of our colleagues hard hit by the readjustment to be able to run in the election using the current boundaries.
There could have been eight more seats. Of course, none were assigned to Quebec. Western Canada and Ontario got some, and the four in Prince Edward Island were maintained. The population of Quebec is larger, but the number of ridings remains the same, at 75. Once again, there is a political will not to treat Quebec right.
Why should we keep quiet when there is a democratic deficit in this place? Why should we not condemn this approach in this House? Why should we not worry about an adjournment, perhaps as early as November 7, to allow the future king to be crowned in Toronto in November? There will be a pre-election, but most members affected by the readjustment will be torn between the services they must provide to the public and the efforts they will have to make to get re-elected.
In making my decision, naturally my priority will be those who put their trust in me on November 27, 2000, but at the same time, understandably, I ought to intensify my efforts to try and convince the 50% or 60% of new voters I will have in my riding. Is it right that we should have another election now? Normally, we should be asking the public to assess and justify our work, which will not happen in my riding. Wherever I go, I will end up with about 30% or 35% of my riding. That makes no sense, and it is undemocratic.
In closing, I want to say that Bill C-49 des not solve anything. It is only the result of the future leader of the Liberal Party working with the House leader in order to be able to call an early election and especially to avoid his responsibilities as prime minister in this House.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act October 21st, 2003
As my colleague for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles says, it is like wanting to change ships' captains, but I do not want to talk too much about ships. The present member for LaSalle—Émard is engaged in what I would call a popularity contest rather than a leadership race. We have reached the point where the Liberal leadership race has become a competition to see which advertising agency can sell Paul Martin the best. No one can get a word out of him any more. We cannot get him to speak. He does not know what to say.
I have never seen a government as cowardly as the one over there. In 1997, a new leader was elected by the Bloc Quebecois. The Prime Minister called an election a month afterward, for fear of losing them.
In November 2000, another new leader showed up, the leader of the Canadian Alliance. Again, the Prime Minister called an election. When Liberals are re-elected, government becomes a temporary thing. No longer one in place for four or five years, but rather one in place for three years and a bit. This costs the taxpayer a lot of money.
The present member for LaSalle—Émard and future Prime Minister is the most cowardly of the cowards I have ever seen. He is trying to find a way to become Prime Minister without being one.
Bill C-49 leaves me greatly disillusioned with the government House leader, who I always felt was the most loyal supporter of the present Prime Minister. But no, he too has got involved in the fancy footwork of the member for LaSalle—Émard. With Bill C-49, he is proposing an affront to democracy, in order to help the most cowardly member of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Madam Speaker—