Denis Coderre

[National Defence, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I realize it must be embarrassing for the government to have him as its Minister of National Defence. I realize he has to read the lines the Prime Minister gives him, but the truth is that thanks to its investment in its former lobbyist, Stewart Stevenson has unprecedented access to the minister, and certainly has an undeniable commercial advantage, which exposes the government to legal action before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Given the evidence of this conflict of interest, will the minister protect Canadian taxpayers by doing the only honourable thing worthy of his rank—he was once a general—and cease his involvement in this issue?

[National Defence, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the Minister of National Defence has worked as a lobbyist. As we have seen, he had a very long client list.

Now we know, because he himself told us, that he lobbied actively in seven different departments for Stewart Stevenson, one of the first companies to bid on a billion-dollar National Defence truck contract.

Imagine: as a lobbyist, he was paid thousands of dollars a month to be familiar with every nut and bolt in the trucks he wanted to sell to National Defence.

Can the minister confirm that he attended all of Stewart Stevenson's corporate briefing sessions so that he could do his job well?

[Official Languages, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made a big deal about a letter from the Commissioner of Official Languages—which was dated last January 25, by the way—and he tried to take credit for it. He forgot to mention that she hoped the Prime Minister's campaign commitments would find their way into the Speech from the Throne. They were conspicuous by their absence. Last Tuesday, the commissioner said that the Prime Minister's actions were not living up to his election platform and that she has become somewhat apprehensive and concerned.

What will the minister responsible for respect for official languages really do now that she knows this issue is not a priority for her government?

[The Environment, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we knew she did not know her stuff. Now we see that she does not know how to count. It is pathetic.

Canada is about to become the laughing stock of the international community because of this government and its Minister of the Environment. The world's most influential and most credible environmental groups are threatening to boycott Canadian products if the Minister of the Environment persists in refusing to honour Canada's commitments. What is more, they are on the verge of demanding that Canada resign as president of the conference of parties.

That is what they are saying.

Does the Prime Minister agree with Steven Guilbault of Greenpeace, who says that if that were to happen, his Minister of the Environment would be nothing but a figurehead?

[The Environment, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to see the date on the letter the Prime Minister just mentioned.

Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said in this House that countries that did not sign the Kyoto protocol were responsible for 73% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. But in order for the Kyoto protocol to come into effect, the signatories had to be responsible for more than 55% of emissions. With the addition of Russia, they account for 61%.

Can the minister simply explain to us how she reached the conclusion that 100% minus 61% equals 73%?

[Quebec Zoo, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, seeing how people work on the other side of this House, I think that the Prime Minister will have to appoint another senator as minister responsible for the Quebec City region.

Could the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—who does not place his trust in his officials and who has decided to personally look after all his files—be proactive, as he wishes to be in his region, and provide the $35 million that the entire population of Quebec is asking for in order to save this Quebec City institution?

[Quebec Zoo, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members from Quebec City, led by the Minister responsible for the Francophonie, have betrayed their constituents.

The Conservatives had promised the people of Quebec City that they would resolve the issue of the zoo, but instead they put their heads in the sand. The mayor of Quebec City and more than 65,000 people have since asked Ottawa to do something. Still nothing.

How will the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec make up for the betrayal by his colleagues from Quebec, who, as Easter approaches, call to mind Pontius Pilate washing his hands? Will the minister also wash his hands of this issue?

[Telecommunications Act, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, we will not disagree much today. We have reached consensus and I think we have covered the issue.

The name of the game is simple. Are we fed up enough to be bothered? The issue is we have to respect the citizen.

We have all been interrupted by phone calls during supper time or when we are watching television. It is irritating. At some point consumers need to be protected. Obviously there are important situations that we must continue to protect.

My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques mentioned the health care sector. When business relations have been established, whether in insurance or life insurance, it is essential and important to keep them. It was time to clean house with this type of bill.

You will not be surprised to learn today that, unless I am mistaken, all the political parties were in favour of these two amendments. They are two simple amendments regarding protection that will impose harsher penalties on certain people who might abuse the public. Some might say it is more flexible in terms of dollar amounts, but we now have a maximum fine. In that vein, it is important to mention that the fines for offending companies can be between $5,000 and $15,000.

All this telemarketing is intrusive and almost abusive. Personally, I think the consumer is king and needs to have an opportunity to protect himself. Canada is not the only country with a national do not call list. It is a good idea to provide a tool like this.

There is something else that I also find interesting. I am not a great fan of the CRTC. In my opinion, it is in need of an in-depth reform. There are certain things that should be done differently. However, we do need a body to manage telecommunications and cultural institutes. At some point, we will have to take a very serious look at this issue.

We all remember the satellite radio issue. That really bothered me, and I was not afraid to speak my mind, as usual. With the tools that we currently have, the CRTC will, of course, have to ensure that it implements this bill and its proposed amendments. I think that fines are a very good idea. It goes without saying that having administrative monetary penalties will help us deal more effectively with these people. We will be better equipped.

I will not go so far as to say that it is a cure-all, because we should show some restraint. When my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois has an opportunity to make a remark on Canada, I suppose it is only fair to let him do so. However, we should not forget that some good things are done on the North American continent. There is real cohesion as regards crime or certain other issues.

The purpose of these amendments was not only to increase transparency and accountability—and I will discuss this later on—but also to provide tools to really protect the public.

The other thing is that we have a do not call list. We all agree on this. Why? Because we gave ourselves reasonable verification tools. We also made sure that after three years we will be able to conduct the required review not only of the fines, but of the bill itself. We will see how well everything worked and then we can make changes as needed.

It is good to have this national do not call list. Obviously there are exemptions for the health sector and for existing business relations, as was mentioned earlier. The intention is not to impede the business sector. I am a former life insurance agent. Selling life insurance is a long process that does not happen overnight. Changes occur in our personal lives. There are needs in the financial services sector. It is necessary to maintain constant contact and to distinguish that from the abuse and irritating people who call proposing all sorts of things. There is nothing more irritating than listening to a machine. At first it seems like we are talking to a person and then, two minutes later, we realize that a machine is trying to make us jump through all sorts of hoops. At some point, things need to be done properly.

I want to say one last thing. I am entirely in favour of both amendments and I wish the hon. members of this House a good weekend.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the issue is very clear. If the member does not want anyone to be smeared, why did he smear the member for Bourassa without waiting for the results of the Gomery report? These results are very clear in regard to what is in the householder and show very clearly that we were exonerated. Was he inspired by the member for Argenteuil—Papineau, who sent out a householder explaining the dirty money trail?

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for bringing back wonderful memories of my wedding, in my home town. I would also congratulate him on his decision not to distribute this rag. So the first question he should be asked is why he did not do so. We may disagree on a number of points. The member for Hochelaga is an eloquent speaker. I do not agree with the substance of the question, but we have always been able to have frank and honest debates without sullying people’s reputations.

I would like to know what the member for Joliette thinks of the comments made by his leader. Are we not in a situation of “Do as I say but not as I do”?

On November 10, 2005, in Le Soleil , he tried desperately to defend his friend Boisclair. He said. “In a society, attitudes fraught with hypocrisy and innuendo are not to be tolerated.” I agree with this comment.

He also said: "If there is evidence, let it be known, do not let the rumour mill run. Rigour is required at all times; otherwise, we end up with statements starting with 'Someone told me they have heard'. That is hearsay, gossip, and it is not right, be it directed at politicians or anyone else. There is nothing more harmful than rumour because it is not factual.” I do not know why, but he has become an expert in the Salem witches. He ends by saying, “If it turns out that the rumours were unfounded, those who floated them will have to face the consequences. What goes around comes around. It is the reverse slingshot theory. Eventually, it comes back and hits you in the face.”

Does the member not agree with me that the most honourable thing to do, in this House, is to accept this question of privilege and to apologize formally, to repay the money that his 26 colleagues used improperly to sully reputations and to make appropriate amends?