House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 43% of the vote.
Canada Pension Plan September 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has noted that the government's reassessment activities are still falling short of the mark, despite the very firm recommendations he made in 1993.
When does the minister finally intend to take the necessary action so that only those who are eligible benefit from the public disability pension scheme?
Canada Pension Plan September 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Canada Pension Plan legislation places considerable limits on the exchange of information between the various private and public benefit schemes for the disabled. The auditor general is of the opinion that increased circulation of information between private and public schemes would result in improved service to clients and reduced program costs.
Does the minister intend to amend the Canada Pension Plan in order to rectify the shortcomings in the present system and thus ensure that only those truly entitled to disability benefits actually receive them?
Criminal Code September 24th, 1996
Yes, Mr. Speaker, until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow.
Criminal Code September 24th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I request that the division be deferred until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow.
The Death Of Rose Ouellette September 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, at the age of 93, Rose Ouellette, affectionately nicknamed "La Poune", a legendary figure in Quebec burlesque, passed into history at the end of a long career spanning three quarters of a century.
During the most painful depression years in the 1930s, this lady so close to the people gave her audience a ration of good humour that carried them through the harsh reality of their daily lives. Beyond the stage, her friends and neighbours at the Chez-nous des artistes confirm that Rose Ouellette was generous and jovial.
Making frequent appearances at the Cartier theatre, Dominion theatre, National theatre, Mocambo, Café de l'est, she was a pillar of Quebec culture. Together with her stage partners, Olivier Guimond, Juliette and Arthur Pétrie, Paul Desmarteaux, and Jean Despré, she touched Quebecers' hearts.
Madame Rose, our people will remember you for ever.
Committees Of The House September 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will give one response to that comment: in its highly democratic spirit, of course, the House agreed to have a committee examine the case of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
What I mean is, if the Reform Party had not introduced a motion, as far as I know, I do not think the House would have had to use such precious time to come to the conclusion, following the tabling of the procedure committee report and our minority report, that, ultimately, there was nothing to make a fuss about.
It must be recognized that we sometimes waste our time. It is not because a decision was made that, a posteriori, we cannot say that, in fact, there was nothing to fret about. So, our time was wasted somewhere.
Committees Of The House September 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, your point is well taken.
I want to inform the hon. member that whether something is extreme depends how you look at it. Yes, I referred to the case of the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I made that reference to use an example everyone would be familiar with. You know, when you teach a class, the best example is one that is crystal clear. For everyone in Quebec and the rest of Canada, the case of the hon. member for Charlesbourg is an example that is self-explanatory, and a case that took quite some time. The hon. member may think it extreme of me to bring this matter up, but I do not think that just because this case was closed by the House, we were bound never to discuss it again.
Fielding candidates in all Canadian ridings is an interesting point, but the hon. member should remember that we are here to defend the interests of Quebecers and to stand up and say what is wrong with this system, because there is something wrong with it. I see the hon. member is smiling. I am sure this means he agrees with me. There is something wrong with the system, and we believe it is not only our right but our responsibility to say what is wrong on behalf of the rest of Canada, when we wear our official opposition uniform, which we do quite elegantly.
Committees Of The House September 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the most extraordinary thing about parliamentary life is how one always has to expect the unexpected. Last night, when I went to bed, I certainly did not think that, this morning, I would be debating a report tabled by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In 1993, during the election campaign, four major parties were trying to win the support of Canadians. There was the Liberal Party, which claimed to be in the best position to manage the affairs of the country. There was the Conservative Party, which, of course, made the same claim. There was the Reform Party, which wanted to change Canada and knew how to do it. And then there was another group, made up of separatists, sovereignists, who said: "We want to go to Ottawa to protect the interests of Quebecers".
On October 25 of that year, the Liberal Party formed the new government, with a strong majority and, of course, the responsibility that goes with it. When you have a strong majority, you ultimately have the power to do what you want. This comes with a price though, and I think that, when the time comes, voters will make the government pay that price.
The Reform Party got 52 candidates elected, not bad for a new party. Unfortunately, the Bloc got 54 candidates elected in Quebec. In other words, we became the official opposition by a narrow margin. It was a narrow margin indeed-only two members-but we got it nonetheless.
The value of parliamentary government and the respect in which society holds it derive entirely from its rules and tradition. Accordingly, we became the official opposition. This did not thrill the members of the Reform Party, and I can understand that.
What I have more trouble understanding is that after three years, they have been unable to sort out common sense, logic and, finally, their responsibility as a party in this House to ensure that the House's time is used intelligently. They wanted to reform Canada. When their members are capable of taking up the time of this House for matters which are very interesting but somewhat dubious, we have to wonder what is going on.
What does the time of the House mean? It means 295 members who are here to defend their constituents' interests, it means staff who work with these members, it means the House's support staff. When the House's time is wasted, tens of thousands of dollars are being thrown out the window.
My colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, mentioned the Jacob affair. Everyone remembers the Jacob affair, I should think. In any future discussion of the 35th Parliament, it is one issue that will stand out. We listened to the Reform Party, we appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, much work was done and the final conclusion was that there was not really any basis for the charge.
As for what we are hearing this morning, and with any luck the debate will be over at 1.55 p.m., there is not really any basis for it. I can understand that it is frustrating for the Reform Party to see members of the official opposition holding the position of vice-chair on each of the committees for three years, but that is one of the responsibilities of the official opposition. The governing party has understood that, and finds it perfectly reasonable to vote for the candidates the Bloc Quebecois submits to committees.
There are certain actions that go along with the recognition of responsibility. I feel that the governing party can live with us as the opposition, and I am totally in agreement with that. I have no problem with that.
It is quite another thing, however, to say that it is easy to work in committee. It is not. Sometimes one has good ideas, is convinced they are excellent ideas and can make a valuable contribution to the government's bills, but sometimes, unfortunately, our valuable contributions end up in the waste basket. That is the government's choice and the choice of the majority in committee.
What we have to demonstrate is that our arguments, our contributions, are important and have real potential for improving the lives of our fellow citizens. When we work in committee and try to convince our counterparts on the government side that this or that amendment is important and should be passed by the committee, and subsequently by the House, we are doing our jobs.
We may regret that we are not always successful in doing so, but I do not think it is productive to take up three hours of debate to say that one is not in agreement with the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that really, everything ought to be done according to a free vote.
When we ask ordinary people, the people who constantly switch channels on their tv and end up getting bits and pieces here and
there, who sit around discussing this and that, what they think about politicians, their answers are not always very reassuring.
It hurts to hear this, when we have the impression we work hard and are doing our best. However, if they are watching us today, and I imagine some of them are, they will inevitably start wondering and say: "What on earth is going on? Let them go to work in committee, instead of wasting their time". They may have a point there.
However, I wish the voters watching us this morning would remember one thing, and that is that the parliamentary system works according to certain rules, which means there is a price to pay when we have a majority government and there is also a price to pay when a party is the official opposition thanks to a single member.
I would therefore urge them to elect a sizable official opposition in the next election, which will probably be held within a year. I am convinced the official opposition will come from Quebec, because to me it is clear that as far as the rest of Canada is concerned, the Reform Party is not up to forming an official opposition with a sense of responsibility and capable of acting accordingly.
Amazing, Mr. Speaker. You are signalling that I have one minute left, so I will do you a favour: I would rather not take it. I am sure my Reform Party friends have plenty of questions to ask and perhaps members opposite as well, you never know, so thank you, and I will wait for their questions.
Death Of Lucille Teasdale September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Lucille Teasdale, who died of AIDS related complications on August 1. It was during my training as a nurse that I had the opportunity to work with this extraordinary woman.
In a profession that was then an almost exclusively male preserve, Lucille Teasdale, one of the first female surgeons in Canada, earned the respect and admiration of her colleagues.
In the early 1960s, she founded a hospital in Uganda with her husband, Dr. Pietro Corti. Despite threats, fear and the war, she continued for 34 years to provide care with devotion and skill. In 1985, as the result of cutting herself during surgery, she became seropositive. Nonetheless, she continued her work until the end.
She gave her life to relieve the suffering and misery of her African compatriots. Her unbeatable tenacity, her exceptional discipline and her courage made Lucille Teasdale a great Quebecer and we thank her.
The Quebec Superior Court September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, during the summer, the government appointed lawyer Lyse Lemieux to the post of chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court. Ms. Lemieux thus becomes the first woman to fill this position in Quebec.
Ms. Lemieux has had an impressive career. She was director of legal services at the Quebec department of justice, where she also worked as deputy minister for three years. For the past two years, she was assistant chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court.
The Bloc Quebecois commends the appointment of this competent woman to head Quebec's highest court.
We wish Ms. Lemieux the best of luck in tackling the major challenges awaiting her in her new post. We especially hope that, in addition to modernizing the legal system, she will help promote a solid balance between men and women in this area.