André Bellavance

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative ministers have come up with a new argument for their time allocation motions. They say that the bill has been on track for years. When speaking about a bill on the railways, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recently told us that we had already been discussing it for six or seven years. Now, the Minister of the Environment is telling us that we have been discussing this bill for two years.

Then why now? The parliamentary session is winding down and now suddenly there is some pressing need to pass these bills even though the Conservatives have been in power since 2006. If it has been such a long time, then it seems to me that we should have had formal discussions and debate on all these bills sooner.

In closing, I want to correct the Minister of the Environment. He said there was agreement among all parties about the number of speakers. I can assure you that he certainly did not talk to the Bloc Québécois to find out when we might speak. It is funny because when they need us they do not talk to us and we are a non-recognized party and when they do not need us then we no longer exist.

I would remind the House and all parties that all 308 members here are legitimately and democratically elected, from the Prime Minister to the ministers, to every other member, regardless of where they sit.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hockey fan colleagues that the Halifax Mooseheads play in the Quebec major junior hockey league. We are very proud of winning the Memorial Cup for the third straight year.

I have a more serious question for the member, who, much like his Conservative colleagues in this debate tonight, is sitting on the fence. The Conservatives are trying to have it both ways. Maybe because things are not going too well in the Senate, suddenly there is the possibility of abolishing the Senate, although the Conservatives' rhetoric since they came to power in 2006 has centred on Senate reform. Even the Minister of State for Democratic Reform focused on this quite a bit this evening.

Are the Conservatives suddenly talking about the possibility of abolishing the Senate because of all the underhanded shenanigans going on there? Are they opposing the abolition of the Senate to protect the friends they appointed to the Senate to help the Conservative Party? It is either one or the other.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to comments from both sides of the House. Members will not be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion to stop funding the Senate. I would even suggest that members of the House be able to sit in the Senate while the House of Commons is being renovated. That would help us save money.

The one thing we do know for sure is that the public needs to hear the truth. When the NDP talks about abolishing the Senate, it is careful not to mention that this would require opening up the Constitution. The Conservatives and the Liberals are against abolishing the Senate, an archaic institution that serves no purpose and is undemocratic, because they appointed their friends to this institution. They at least admit that we would have to open up the Constitution.

I do not want to speak on behalf of the Government of Quebec, but I can say that if the federal government ever chooses the excellent solution of cutting funding to the Senate and then abolishing it, we will have all kinds of things to ask the federal government for and all kinds of things to patriate.

Could my Liberal colleague explain why he thinks the NDP chooses not to mention that we would have to open up the Constitution?

[Points of Order, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on another point of order.

I would like to give the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his government the chance to make amends since he did not really provide a clear answer as to whether the government has decided to allow the Auditor General to review the management of the Senate as a result of the spending scandal.

For the sake of consistency and transparency, I seek unanimous consent for the following:

That this House allow the Auditor General to conduct regular, statutory audits of the expenditures of senators and MPs.

[The Senate, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when the government ran out of ways to cover up the Senate expense scandal, it asked the Auditor General to look into the senators' shady claims.

In 2010, the Bloc Québécois was the only party to immediately agree to the request by former auditor general Sheila Fraser to conduct such an audit for the House of Commons.

Why stop there? Why not ensure that the Auditor General can go over senators' and members' expenses with a fine-toothed comb and make it a regular, statutory review?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has read us the contents of the bill.

It does indeed contain some measures that would be very important to the police.

However, he has not told us what is not in the bill. In view of his former occupation, he could certainly argue that there are changes to be made, particularly with respect to the resources available to the police. That would be a very important change. Everyone agrees that anti-corruption legislation is needed. We will therefore refer the bill to committee, where we hope to be able to make some changes to improve it.

The police need adequate and effective resources. They are not incompetent, but they often do not have the resources they need. I think that the minister is in a good position to pressure cabinet on this point.

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

I want to ask him whether he shares my view on this government's way of doing things. Personally, I do not quite share my colleague's optimism when he says that the government has taken some positive action. I think that the government is reacting rather than being proactive.

Let me explain. We are aware of the incident involving SNC-Lavalin in Libya. Three Alberta companies were also recently involved in wrongdoings or offences abroad. I think the government took a “marketing” approach, as it always does. That is how I describe its behaviour. In the end, the government reacts because the media has reported on these incidents. However, as my colleague so clearly explained, this is already well known, because Canadian mining and gas companies have done bad things and violated various laws.

Why did the government not react and, more importantly, why did it not take action sooner? Why did it wait until it no longer had any choice because the media had a hold of certain stories?

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this issue.

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, even though we are in favour of the principle underlying this bill, I have some questions.

I have a specific question for the member who just spoke about paragraph 5(1)(b) of Bill S-14, which says that a permanent resident who commits an offence under the Corruption of Foreign Officials Act outside Canada is not deemed to have committed that offence if the person does not return to Canada. That could last for years, and on the day the person returns, he or she could face certain charges under the act.

I would like my colleague to state whether a Canadian resident would receive the same treatment as a permanent resident. In the United Kingdom, care was taken to place limits on this provision. Bill S-14 is different from what is found in other countries.

[Ethics, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, never has a culture of control been such a defining feature of a government. It is refusing to answer reporters' questions, muzzling scientists and interfering in access to information requests and private members' bills.

Now Public Safety Canada officials, just like their Environment Canada colleagues, will have to notify the minister before they make public statements. The Prime Minister and his ministers have to know absolutely everything.

As the driving force behind this obsessive need for control, how can the Prime Minister claim that, until the media broke the story, he knew nothing about the $90,000 cheque his chief of staff wrote to keep the Duffy scandal quiet?

Is the Prime Minister suggesting that he controls everything except what goes on in his office?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have always said in the House—and the parliamentary secretary can check the speeches I have given since 2004—that every bill has pros and cons that must be weighed before voting for it.

In this case, we are not debating the budget, but the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60. What I am telling the parliamentary secretary and all members of the House is that amendments should be adopted in order to improve the bill.

With respect to securities, I understand that the member is supporting her Minister of Finance and that she has found some phrases that suit her purposes in the Supreme Court ruling. However, I have an article here that says that the Supreme Court of Canada does not at all agree with the Conservative Minister of Finance.

According to the Supreme Court, “the government...is violating the principle of the division of powers of the Canadian Constitution by attempting to create a national securities commission.”

What more do I have to say?