Gilles Duceppe

[Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is refusing to say whether he agrees with what his Quebec lieutenant said about the participation of directors of Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated in a partisan activity. These directors, who are government appointees, broke the ethics rules. It is these same directors who awarded a contract to study the condition of the Champlain Bridge to BPR, a firm for which Senator Housakos was working at the time.

Yes or no, does the Prime Minister agree with his political lieutenant, who does not consider it very important that the directors he appointed broke the ethics rules? The question is clear.

[Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I note that he did not answer the question and is therefore condoning breaking the rules of ethics, just like his political lieutenant.

Here are the facts. On the day of the cocktail party organized by Senator Housakos, he announced $212 million in funding to repair the Champlain Bridge and attended a pre-cocktail gathering that was also attended by officials from the bridge and BPR, one of the firms that was awarded the $1.4 million contract to study the condition of the bridge. Senator Housakos works for that firm.

Is this not a case of partisan appointments made to facilitate favouritism? The Prime Minister once condemned—

[Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the political lieutenant for Quebec said that he had no problem with officials from Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated attending a Conservative Party fundraiser. However, the rules of ethics prohibit such activity. The political lieutenant for Quebec therefore condoned the fact that officials appointed by his government broke the rules of ethics and awarded a contract to BPR, a firm that employed Conservative Senator Housakos.

Does the Prime Minister stand by these statements made by his own political lieutenant for Quebec?

[Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the political lieutenant—

[Federal Bridge Corporation, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Raymond Brunet, the owner of a construction company and a generous contributor to the party, is a director of the Federal Bridge Corporation. Serge Martel, who has had ties to the Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance since 2001, is on the board of directors of Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated. Paul Kefalas is also a member of that board and, together with Mr. Martel, attended the fundraising cocktail party organized by Senator Housakos.

Does this not prove that there is a system that appoints friends to key positions so they can award contracts to companies such as BPR, where Senator Housakos worked?

[Federal Bridge Corporation, October 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister declared that Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated was independent. Yet, it is the government that appoints the members of the board of directors of the Federal Bridge Corporation who, in turn, appoint the directors of Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated which, in turn, awards contracts to BPR, a corporation that employed Senator Housakos.

Can the Prime Minister explain how Jacques Cartier and the Champlain Bridges Incorporated is truly independent?

[Justice, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it will make the system so much stronger that the Minister of Justice was unable to refer to a single case from the past 20 years. I am so impressed by that kind of strength.

The only reason that the government is not planning to eliminate release after one-sixth of a sentence is that it wants to introduce another bill with a poison pill so that it can play the tough guy. They remind me of right-wing American preachers. It is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

[Justice, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government is using all kinds of ridiculous excuses to justify not eliminating the practice of releasing offenders after they have served one-sixth of their sentence. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice and the political lieutenant for Quebec stated that getting rid of this practice was a very complicated undertaking and that they could therefore not include it in their white-collar crime bill. However, all it would take is revoking sections 110.1 and 126.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what is so complicated about eliminating the practice of releasing offenders after one-sixth of their sentence?

[Supreme Court of Canada, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in a ruling handed down this morning, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Bill 104 unconstitutional. This law is designed to close a loophole in Quebec's charter of the French language that allows parents to enrol their children in public English language schools even though they are not entitled to.

This shocking decision is contrary to the primacy of the French language in Quebec and ignores the language laws passed by the National Assembly of Quebec, the supreme body of the Quebec nation.

Historically, the Supreme Court of Canada has always ruled against the legitimate choices of the Quebec people, who are seeking with Bill 101 to ensure the survival of French in Quebec.

In 1979, 1984, 1988, 1992 and again today, the Supreme Court denied the Quebec nation the right to adopt the means of protecting the French language appropriately.

It is even clearer today that the Supreme Court of Canada is the court of another nation, the Canadian nation. The real way to ensure that French survives in Quebec is for Quebec to become a sovereign nation.

[Speaker of the House of Commons, October 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, speaking for myself and for all of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, congratulations.

After eight years, eight months and twenty-two days in the Speaker's chair, you have become the longest-serving speaker in the history of the House of Commons. This longevity shows just how much the members of this House value your work, because they elected you to this position on January 29, 2001, and have re-elected you since.

Your conscientious and impartial work, your fair decisions and your constant desire to serve the best interests of members from all parties are some of the characteristics that qualify you for this highly valued role in parliamentary democracy.

I can say that in the past eight years, eight months and twenty-two days, it has not always been easy. Far from it. Everyone here knows that. There have been many confrontations, arguments and heated exchanges. I can imagine what that has been like for you.

You have had to make decisions that are sometimes difficult, sometimes sensitive and sometimes firm, but they are always important. What is remarkable is that you are always able to get everyone to accept them. We are grateful for your good judgment, your tact and your sense of humour.

You have also had to ensure that debates are orderly and respectful. You have applied these two basic principles consistently in this House.

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. You have proven to be a great referee in these ongoing debates.

In conclusion, I wish you success as you continue your important role. With a minority government, it is hard to know how much longer your term will last. Good luck.