France Bonsant

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Drummond.

I am pleased to join the debate today to reaffirm the full and complete confidence of the Bloc Québécois and, I hope, of this entire House, in the work of Elections Canada.

We know very well that our democratic system is recognized around the world for its transparency, its fairness and its integrity. This is why teams created by Elections Canada are often invited to supervise voting in other countries, the Ukraine and Haiti being two recent examples.

If Elections Canada’s expertise has become a touchstone internationally it is mainly because voting in Canada is conducted within a very strict legal framework that allows the different parties to compete on an equal basis during an election campaign. Generally speaking, everyone respects the legal framework, which allows us to hold elections that are fair and democratic.

Obviously, it happens that some candidates make mistakes, through error or ignorance of the law. That is why we have Elections Canada; to monitor the parties and candidates, to ensure that no one abuses or infringes the law.

To ensure democratic elections, the people at Elections Canada have to feel that they have the trust of Parliament, of the candidates and the voters. If that trust is broken, the quality of our democratic life is affected.

For several weeks now, the Conservatives, in particular the member for Nepean—Carleton, have implied that Elections Canada is prejudiced against their party. As long as he was fantasizing, the member might also have said that Elections Canada is a nest of Liberals and horrible separatists. Why not go all the way?

Such remarks constitute an attack on the quality of democratic life. They create the impression that the agency has lost its independence. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to record my disagreement in that respect.

What is happening right now is a beautiful example of the principle, “If you do not like the message, shoot the messenger.” In fact, since the election in the winter of 2005-06, the Conservatives have run out of ways to justify the things they did. The Conservative Party tried to get around the rules. They thought they were above the law and now they are clumsily trying to justify their actions. But there is no doubt in my mind about what happened.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections was doing his job when he refused to reimburse the expenses of 67 Conservative Party candidates, since the expenses were in violation of the Elections Act. Elections Canada maintains that the Conservative Party developed a system to surpass the authorized spending limits for a political party by having some candidates pay for national advertising.

Of the 67 candidates who allegedly helped their party surpass the authorized limit, several are from my region. In my riding of Compton—Stanstead, one of my opponents was caught up in this shady affair.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last summer, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable made an announcement in Sherbrooke. Perhaps I should call him the member for Mégantic—Maple. He sent a memo to the media that was written in English only. The media in the region of Sherbrooke are primarily French-language media, and the member surely knew that. These media and reporters did not appreciate the fact that even a parliamentary secretary would not respect Quebec's official language in his releases.

This is a far cry from respecting the Quebec nation and its language, as the Conservative government likes to boast. Could my colleague explain why the Bloc Québécois is the only party that defends Quebec's interests, language and culture in this united Canada?

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the member has not understood the Bloc’s Bill C-482, so I will remind him about it. The bill will require that the federal government recognize the Charter of the French language within Quebec—not China—and will allow it to apply the Charter to enterprises under federal jurisdiction.

I would like the member to tell me what I should tell my fellow Quebeckers when they decide to take an Air Canada plane and go from Montreal to Toronto or Montreal to Vancouver. There are no French language newspapers and they do not even have services in French. When they board, they do not hear “Bienvenue à bord”, they hear “Welcome aboard”. These Air Canada employees are subject to federal regulation and they are in Quebec.

We want to be served in French by employees to whom the Canada Labour Code applies. I would like him to answer that.

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was asking whether any Conservative members were at all in favour of the death penalty.

I have a document here that I will read slowly for the interpreters: “At the time...Canada intervened to ask that the death sentence be commuted, but was not successful.” This was in the case of Stanley Faulder, a Canadian who was executed in the United States in 1999.

However, while Canadian authorities and a delegation of members from this side of the House were making their case, a member of the Canadian Alliance, who is still a member for Calgary Northeast, went to Texas to affirm his support of the death penalty. He now sits in the Conservative caucus.

I would like to know what the member thinks about this statement, which came directly from the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance.

[Employment Insurance, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, female workers in Quebec who are governed by the Canada Labour Code are covered only by the employment insurance program when they have to withdraw preventively because of pregnancy. Considering that only 33% of women who contribute to employment insurance are eligible for benefits, many women have no protection.

What is the government waiting for to introduce a preventive withdrawal program comparable to Quebec's program, for women governed by the Canada Labour Code?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic. As I understand it, the government wants to adopt a bill to amend primarily the Income Tax Act because Canada is already subsidizing regular or child pornography or hate propaganda. That is my understanding. Canada is already financing pornography, and that is why the government is making a change with regard to public policy.

I would like my colleague's reaction.

[Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, 2001 to 2011 has been declared the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. It deserves to be recognized.

More than 60 years after the UN declared the right to self-determination and even after the withdrawal of European countries from Africa, colonialism still exists. This colonialism is more insidious than at the time of the conquest, but the fact remains that certain populations and nations are still trying to assimilate others through their actions and their values.

When I see the Conservatives' attitude towards the French language today and their actions that go against the values of Quebeckers, and above all, when I see members from Quebec acting against the best interest of their nation, I wish that colonialism really was a thing of the past.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's comments, I felt as though I was back in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security talking about passports.

I would like to ask her a simple question. Female members of Parliament receive the same salary as male members of Parliament, and 80% of unionized women in Canada have pay equity.

As a woman, a member of Parliament, and the representative for her riding, why did she not rise to ask the Conservatives what their budget has to offer in terms of pay equity between men and women?

I would like her opinion on the Conservatives' utter failure to address pay equity between men and women in their 2008 budget.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question from the member for Wild Rose. In my opinion, the solution is simply to abolish the Senate. Then we would not be discussing whether or not it should be elected. Even if it were elected, as my friend said, the senators would represent a party. And if they represented a party, they would tow the party line.

I like it when the Conservatives cry wolf, even though the first thing the Prime Minister did was to appoint an unelected minister, Michael Fortier, who is in charge of one of the largest departments, Public Works and Government Services Canada. He does as he pleases. He is paid as a senator. He has a card and he punches in and out, which takes only 30 seconds. He is paid by the Senate to punch in and out. He is campaigning on a bus paid for by the Senate and taxpayers.

I believe that the Senate should just be abolished. Senator Fortier would run for election at the same time as everyone else.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on the Senate reform this Conservative government wishes to achieve. First, I would like to mention that from time to time, at receptions or on Parliamentary trips, I do exchange greetings with my colleagues in the Senate. As far as I am concerned, they are human beings just like us and friendliness is always in order whenever we have an opportunity to discuss matters. I make no secret of the fact that many of them have the best interests of the public at heart. Yes, what is more, some senators have even accomplished great things in our society. I thank them for their contribution. However, that is not the question.

Despite ideological differences I may have with the senators, it is not the senators who disturb me but rather the institution of the Senate itself. I find it absurd that a democratic society, such as Canada claims to be, can still accept the notion that unelected people should play a role in approving legislation and in governing the affairs of the country.

I am not a historian, but I can easily remember that Canada’s upper chamber, the Senate, descends directly from the British House of Lords. At one time, those lords argued it was essential not to give power to the people and that it was necessary to offset the elected House with a chamber comprised of aristocrats. The Senate is the last sign of an old, obsolete monarchy in which the seats of power are allocated according to blood ties.

That way of thinking has not changed much. Today, some senators are appointed because of their family relations. I think, for example, of one senator from Quebec who was appointed because his father was a minister in the Trudeau government. In the case of other senators, the reasons for their appointments may be slightly different but they owe their places to connections, friends or political allegiance.

Will electing senators change this selection process? Not at all. In fact, the Conservative government must think electors are gullible if it would have them believe that this reform will make a big difference. In the formula proposed in the bill, the Conservatives are trying to reform the Senate with a simple bill, without getting into any constitutional details. I can understand their fear of starting a constitutional debate, as they did with the Charlottetown accord in 1992, because the Conservatives know full well that a reform of the Senate or the Constitution, like the one they are proposing, is unacceptable to Quebec.

Last November, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously—including the government's ADQ friends—passed the following:

That no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

Quebec is not alone in opposing the idea of Senate reform, as proposed by the Conservatives. Premiers Calvert, Doer and McGuinty have mentioned that it would be better to abolish the Senate than to try to renew it. Curiously, our party, the Bloc Québécois, a sovereignist party, has support from the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario to abolish the Canadian Senate rather than have a piecemeal reform. For the Bloc, whether the Senate is reformed or not, it is still a useless institution.

For those who support Senate reform, the upper chamber draws its legitimacy and its need to exist from the fact that it provides a sober second look at the work of the House of Commons. Allow me to be skeptical. Senators are meant to take an objective and perhaps even a regional look at bills that are sent to them and review the work of the House of the Commons, but they are not elected and are not accountable for anything or to anyone. Over the years, partisanship has gained the upper hand over this supposed objectivity.

Electing senators will not change this partisanship in the least. According to the Conservatives' bill, the members of the upper chamber would be elected under a political banner and then appointed by the Prime Minister, if he so wishes. Since these new senators would be elected with a political affiliation, we can expect that they will toe their party's line.

The Bloc Québécois and I are not alone in saying this, and not only today in this House.

On October 1 of last year, Le Droit printed a quotation by Elaine McCoy, an Alberta senator. She said:

—the institutional structure causes senators to close ranks around party discipline and to hold the party line.

According to this senator, we would have to do much more than elect members to the upper house to put an end to this kind of discipline. In other words, electing senators would do nothing more than duplicate the House of Commons.

As everyone here knows, none of the provinces have had upper chambers since Quebec abolished its Legislative Council in 1968. In Quebec and the Canadian provinces, parliamentary democracy is working just fine without a second partisan review of decisions made by elected representatives. Furthermore, I am certain that Quebeckers would be delighted to find out that just by abolishing the Senate, we would avoid duplication and save between $80 million and $100 million per year.

Before wrapping up, I would like to make three points to illustrate the connection between the issue of Senate reform and other current issues.

First, as I said before, neither the existing nor a reformed Senate can be of any use, as evidenced by the fact that the institution slows down and hinders the democratic process. Bill C-2, the omnibus bill we talked about earlier, has been blocked in the Senate for partisan reasons even though this House, which was democratically elected, passed it unanimously.

Second, the Prime Minister rails against the Senate, but he, too, uses it for partisan purposes, as shown by his appointment of the Minister of Public Works. Many people no longer believe the Prime Minister when he talks about democracy, transparency and a new way of doing politics. What a wonderful show of federalism and openness. The Minister of Public Works has had four opportunities to run under his party's banner in Quebec byelections, but he chooses to be a ghost-like presence by putting in precious few appearances in the upper house. He gets paid pretty well for the tiny amount of time he spends there.

The third and final point that connects the bill with current events is being played out in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the courts. Certain Conservative members and ministers broke Elections Canada's rules during the last election. I have no doubt that the Conservatives would consider themselves above the law and use the same tactics when the time came to elect senators.

The simplest solution for everyone—and I would recommend it to my Conservative colleagues who have not yet gotten the point—is simply to abolish the Senate. We should not waste our time on piecemeal reform. The Senate costs a fortune, has no legitimacy and more often than not holds up decisions of the House.