Lost his last election, in 2004, with 30% of the vote.
Iraq March 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the war has begun. Even if Canada is not participating in it, the government has a duty to take steps to protect itself against potential repercussions that could affect our country.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the special cabinet committee struck following the events of September 11 has planned any specific actions to deal with the current situation?
Highway Infrastructure February 24th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, just before the last general election, the government made formal commitments regarding highway 30. The moneys earmarked so far by the government are very far from the $357 million promised to the region.
Since people from the Montérégie are here this afternoon to ask the government to make good on its promise, is the minister prepared to sign the memorandum of understanding and invest 50% of the public portion of the costs to complete highway 30?
Lynda Lemay and Natasha St-Pier February 17th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate two artists who have again won international honours, Lynda Lemay and Natasha St-Pier. This weekend, they were celebrated during the Victoires de la musique awards in France.
Lynda Lemay was nominated for the fourth year in a row as female artist of the year. This year, this singer from Quebec, who has been a hit in France for years, finally won this award that she deserved.
Natasha St-Pier won the best new artist award. This award is all the more important because it was voted on by the French public, which only adds to the legitimacy of this young singer's triumph.
The Bloc Quebecois joins me and all Quebeckers in congratulating Lynda Lemay and Natasha St-Pier for these honours. Continue to amaze us. We are so proud of you both.
Supply February 13th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to comment on the speech made by the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who is now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The minister told us that we were here to have a debate. However, we heard comments in the House such as “Yes, but you have to do your homework”. We did hear such reactions. I am quite prepared to have a debate, but I hope the minister has not already made up his mind.
I find it dangerous to include such information on the national identity card. Will the card be compulsory or optional? It is very important to know that as well.
For what reasons do we still not have an identity card in Canada and in Quebec? This is 2003 and we have never needed an identity card because our identity, whether we are Canadians or Quebeckers, is ours alone. We are entitled to our privacy and to be who we are.
The government is trying to put on a card information that has no business being there, such as medical information, or other information on a person. We are not just talking about the person's name and address. We are talking about biometry, and we are even told that the card will protect us from the theft of various other cards. We are told that it will make things safer.
However, if a person's fingerprints already appear on a card, it is not just to protect his identity, but also to provide information, whether to the police or CSIS. My identity is my very own. It is mine and it is free. My fingerprints belong to me. But now I will have to put them in the hands of the state and several others who will be able to get information on a card.
I think that—
Supply February 13th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, government representatives are saying that, in seeking to create such a card, they are leading the way.
Are they not leading the way to destroying democracy and freedom, both in Quebec and Canada, in seeking to introduce a card chock full of private information? How can people think they are leading the way if they want to destroy something as fundamental as the right to privacy in a free country such as this? I am sure that members do not want to just hand over their private life to the government on a silver platter. How is that progress?
I would like to know what the hon. member for the New Democratic Party thinks of this.
Terrorism February 12th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, today, the Solicitor General added three new names to the list of terrorist groups under the Criminal Code, bringing the total number on this list to 19 since July.
As you know, the Bloc Quebecois opposed the creation of such a list. Today, the Solicitor General has talked about the rule of law. We presented amendments to this list. Why? The law allows the Solicitor General to place these groups on a list of terrorist groups without legal authorization and without allowing them to have access to the evidence against them. And people are invoking the rule of law. It is hard to believe what we are hearing.
During this time of uncertainty, fear and violence, the Bloc Quebecois believes that our commitment to liberty and democracy must be clearly reaffirmed. The measures resulting from the national security policies indicate otherwise. It is not true that Quebeckers and Canadians have voluntarily agreed to surrender their rights and freedoms. We do not want to fall victim to fear; we want our freedom to be unfettered.
This is truly a value that we must not only preserve but foster and develop further. I am concerned to learn that the groups added today managed to sabotage our freedom. Our rights have taken a back seat.
The government talks about reconciling collective rights and security with our individual rights and freedoms. I think this is not so much a case of reconciling, but of caving in.
The Solicitor General says that this is one simple step in a work in progress. He also says that this list has been carefully compiled. In the end, however, we Quebeckers and Canadians are the ones who are paying with the loss of our freedom. Where will this end?
I also find it troubling that the Solicitor General is not required to explain or justify the choice of these groups. Obviously, there are security issues, but there is also a fundamental principle. We are elected by the people to represent them. We therefore have the responsibility to question the government on its actions. So then, why are these groups on the list in question?
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the actions of the government must not limit our rights and freedoms. We must not give up any more freedom out of fear. We must not yield to fear. Fear must not dictate our conduct.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that we must follow the directives of the United Nations. This organization is qualified to guide us and we should listen to it. Are these groups on the United Nations' list? I would like the Solicitor General to confirm this.
Supply February 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I find it rather contradictory for a member to talk about his fellow citizens and then make such a statement. I cannot believe that your fellow citizens are different from my fellow citizens. They do not want us to merely debate the issue, they want us to vote. They want you to represent their views on whether or not to send soldiers to war and what we ought to do. There has to be a vote.
The motion by the Canadian Alliance is clear. Your government and you, as a government member, claim to be listening to your fellow citizens. Your fellow citizens are asking that you vote, not just debate.
Public Service Modernization Act February 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the minister for having taken the initiative to make this change to legislation that has not been amended for at least 35 years. Clearly, this legislation needed to be updated. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois will participate in improving this bill.
During the briefing we got this morning, we could, unfortunately, already see the bill's shortcomings. However, the minister told us that she is willing to consider all amendments in order to improve the bill.
I think that, as far as public servants are concerned, it is not just a bill that will bring about this change. The new management needs to be improved so much that they might as well start from scratch.
The bill will at least provide us with a point of reference against which to compare the existing relationships between the employer, the government and the unions. The workers themselves are the most important of all. They should, at least, be able to be proud, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, of competently delivering services. These are services for the public. They are the reason that public servants are paid and that we pay taxes.
Public servants and senior management must be able to give their views. Of course, a very important provision, to protect whistle-blowers, is missing from this bill. There is nothing in the bill that allows public servants to do their job properly.
I say this because, this week again, the person responsible for informatics refused to answer the questions put to her, saying that the minister responsible would provide the answers. She is, however, one of the managers in charge of this issue.
It is essential to clearly protect these people who could provide us with the information we need, and that they not fear doing so, so that this information can be provided to the public.
Of course, the Bloc Quebecois will participate actively in the work of the committee. The committee will certainly study the bill in question in the hope that this legislation will bring about a change in culture, that there will be fewer political appointments, and that people will be judged on their abilities, so that the public service is truly active and responsible.
Government Contracts February 5th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the sponsorship affair, the Minister of Public Works wants to wait for the end of the investigation before taking action against certain departmental employees.
The deputy minister responsible for the investigation, Janice Cochrane, told the committee that the problems with the sponsorship program were not because of any ethical shortcomings on the part of departmental staff. The Auditor General, however, has already said otherwise.
Is it not surprising that the person responsible for getting to the bottom of this affair is already drawing conclusions before even starting to investigate? Is this not proof of the need for an independent public inquiry?
Grands Prix de l'Entrepreneuriat de Roussillon February 4th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I want to congratulate the winners of the 2002 Grands Prix de l'entrepreneuriat de Roussillon.
In categories ranging from retail business to community involvement and tourism, the winners distinguished themselves by their professionalism and the quality of their products.
I want to congratulate Construction CF Jacob, Transport S.R.S., Entretien de voies ferrées Coyle, Thermofin, Vulcain Alarme, Les produits Zinda, le Complexe Le Partage, Les Élevages du Ruban bleu, la Société locative d'investissement et de développement social, and Webecom Technologies 2000.
In the young promoters category, an award went to Au petit violon.
These winners are working for the economic, social and cultural development of the Montérégie region, and we are all very proud of them.