Denis Coderre

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to remain quiet through all these hours of Reform nonsense. Our viewers can see how pathetic it is to watch people elected by the public bad-mouthing democracy. Furthermore, they have just insulted me by saying that, because I come from Quebec, I am not entitled to speak to this important matter.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled to take part like everyone else and I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. I think the hon. member—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was fine with the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, but now I think he is off topic. I would like to hear what he has to say about Bill C-4, not a litany of government appointments.

[Government Of Quebec, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak out vigorously against the partisan remarks made by Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard this past weekend concerning the Canadian government's assistance to disaster victims.

The Government of Quebec is going too far with its barefaced statement that the federal government is attempting to stop it from attaining its objective of eliminating the Quebec deficit, by refusing to comply with Quebec's request that it assume the costs incurred in getting the hydro-electric system up and running.

Once again, the federal government is being blamed for Quebec's administrative shortcomings.

We must make it clear. Right from the start we have insisted that assistance to the victims of this catastrophe go to families, small businesses and communities, not to viable major public and private corporations.

The Premier of Quebec even wants to make this into an issue in the next election. Well, we are ready and waiting for him. Let him go ahead, and we will not even have to say a word.

Go right ahead, Mr. Bouchard. The people in the affected areas are ready and waiting for you. But take care, because sometimes shots like that backfire.

[Pairing, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that, as a young member and newcomer here, this is the type of situation one must often deal with. Still, I cannot believe that members from other parties can possibly think that to vote under an absentee proxy system would enable them to do a better job and to better serve democracy.

I fully support the comments made by my friend, the hon. member for Chicoutimi, by the parliamentary secretary and by Bloc Quebecois and NDP members. When I got elected, it was to represent my constituents and, of course, democracy must go hand in hand with voting. When I am here, when I am representing my constituents by voting on legislation, I have no intention of waiving this responsibility and letting my whip or someone else vote on my behalf. I believe that one serves his or her constituents by assuming one's responsibilities, and assuming one's responsibilities means to be present when a vote takes place.

The practice of vote pairing is totally irrelevant. We all know that, most of the time, there is no vote pairing. When we must vote, we are here in this House. As my friend, the hon. member for Chicoutimi, pointed out, vote pairing is a tradition based on an honour system involving two members, and we must respect and preserve that tradition.

I am also pleased that the subject of electronic voting has been raised, because, obviously, we will have to look at what enables us to do our work effectively as parliamentarians. But I do not think the two should be mixed.

My constituents are happy to see that their member for Bourassa is not only present in his riding but also physically present in the House. I think a lot of people follow our debates on television, and when I vote, the entire riding of Bourassa votes.

I do not think that this practice is hypocritical or that it undermines democracy. On the contrary. However, we should look very seriously at the time of voting. We should set aside a specific time for voting every Tuesday or Wednesday.

I know that this is negotiable, that we could sit for four days rather than five. I work Saturday and Sunday as well, so Friday, Saturday and Sunday we could work in our ridings.

There exists a form of technology called the telephone. It permits great efficiency on the days we have to be in Parliament to resolve certain issues. I think everything lies in the way things are orchestrated. There has to be a work plan.

Personally, I think we should be focusing on the number of days we sit in the House. I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party that our constituents want to meet with us, to come and talk to us. They expect us to be physically present not only in the House of Commons but also in our ridings, because they need us. Proxy voting will not solve anything.

I add my voice to that of all my colleagues who opposed this motion. I think that not only is this a false debate but it undermines democracy and makes this institution appear even more cynical. Perhaps we could fulfil our duties differently and come up with a better system in the House, but there is no way I will give anyone a proxy to vote in my place.

[Victoria Bridge Restoration, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is good news about the Victoria bridge. This morning, the Government of Canada and Canadian National jointly announced a $46 million agreement in principle to share the costs of repairing this infrastructure, which is essential to Montreal's south shore and to the whole island of Montreal.

All stakeholders are quite rightly pleased at this outcome, which is the result of the extraordinary mobilization of the communities concerned and the willingness of the Canadian government to find a solution in this matter of importance to Quebec.

I would like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by Liberal members. Particular praise is due the members for Brossard—La Prairie and Saint-Lambert for their extraordinary contribution.

While the Bloc Quebecois looks for a raison d'être, and spends its time tarnishing the government's reputation and serving as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the pre-election strategy of its head office in Quebec City, the Liberal government and its members have once again delivered the goods and worked for Quebec's best interests.

Congratulations!

[Maple Syrup Industry, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

It is clear that the Canadian maple syrup industry, with its $120 million of business yearly, has been heavily affected by the recent ice storm.

Can the Minister tell the House what financial assistance is planned to compensate the maple syrup producers for damage to their trees, and what reassurances they can be given?

[Ice Storm, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the use the Bloc is making of the ice storm is scandalous. Clearly, the Bloc has some political catching up to do and it is trying deliberately to score political points on the back of workers.

Either the Bloc does not know what it is talking about or it is putting on an act with the obvious aim of muddling everyone up in the matter of compensation to storm victims who were without work for a number of days.

The conduct of the Government of Canada and the Minister of Human Resources Development in the matter is beyond reproach. We have put resources at Quebec's disposal which were appreciated by both the people in the regions affected and by the Government of Quebec. And the premier himself, Lucien Bouchard, noted the excellent co-operation between the two levels of government.

Consequently, rather than make political hay on the backs of the victims, rather than be nothing more than a vulgar source of propaganda for the mother house in Quebec City in a sad and blatant preprovincial election strategy, the Bloc should acknowledge and pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of the people and the Government of Canada.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague, the member for Lotbinière, I had the impression he was on Sudafed, like the Team Canada hockey players. He was pumped. He should calm down.

I find it shocking that he would use a debate on C-28 to indulge in petty politics on the backs of storm victims. He tried to bash the Canadian government, which was present during this disaster and spared no effort to help victims. While the people of Lotbinière, Montérégie, and all over who suffered the effects of the storm appreciated the Canadian government's contribution, there is an attempt to play politics on the backs of the storm's victims.

I am extremely disappointed. I was familiar with the great decency and respect of the member for Lotbinière. Today, he has greatly disappointed me by saying that the Canadian government did not do its share. If the Canadian government had not done its share, if it had not contributed $9 out of every $10, if it had not sent the army, I do not know how serious this disaster could have become.

I ask the member for Lotbinière if he did not get carried away, and if he does not recognize that the Canadian government, through its Ministers of Agriculture, Human Resources Development and National Defence—and even his own leader, the Premier of Quebec, said so—demonstrated remarkable collaboration.

Why is the member for Lotbinière playing petty politics on the backs of storm victims, who are not interested in playing this game? Why has he gone so far as to use C-28 to criticize the Canadian government's response to the ice storm? He should be ashamed. He should apologize to all storm victims.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Chair. Earlier I saw a member indicate he did not agree. There was, however, unanimous consent on the motion of my hon. colleague, but the person who did not give his consent was not even in his seat. So I do not understand why his remark would be recognized. I therefore believe that there is unanimous consent and I would ask you to reconsider the motion.