House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 38% of the vote.
Shipbuilding Industry November 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, those are just words. The lack of policy on shipbuilding allows the current Minister of Public Works and Government Services to favour the Irving shipyards over those in Quebec.
Does the minister realize that if there had been a true shipbuilding policy—as the Bloc has been asking for for 10 years—it would have favoured not only regional development, but also healthy competition and real distributive justice?
Shipbuilding Industry November 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, in granting contracts to repair ships, the current government policy factors in the cost of moving the ships, which favours Maritime shipyards over those in Quebec.
Since the government is currently reviewing its policy, does it intend to consider regional equity in order to give Quebec's shipyards a real chance?
Shipbuilding Industry November 21st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the government is currently conducting a special review of its policy on the costs of ship transfers imposed during the assessment of bids relating to refitting work.
Considering that, when it comes to procurement, the federal government's responsibility is twofold, in that it must get the best value for taxpayers' money while also promoting economic development, does the minister not think that, in the name of regional equity, he should correct his policy, which systematically penalizes Quebec's shipbuilding industry?
Treaties Act June 23rd, 2005
Indeed, it resembles an absolute monarchy. It is secrecy. The executive decides, negotiates and, in the end, imposes its decision on everyone.
I will give you another example in the minute I have left. In the 1980s, I remind members opposite, the Conservative government signed a free trade agreement. An election was held on this agreement. Was that not popular consultation? It was indeed.
Today, I am not hoping that we have election campaigns on the treaties to be signed, but at least consultation or even a referendum when the treaties involve the public as a whole.
Treaties Act June 23rd, 2005
Yes, the future members of the opposition, I should say. I thank my colleague from Joliette.
So all I have heard from the government members is that democracy is too onerous; that it is very difficult to consult and, in good Québécois, that it could interfere with the federal government's culture of secrecy. That is what I have heard. However, is this not a democracy? Does the public not have the right to be consulted? Would it not be reasonable, in matters of health, education and public interest that they be consulted? It seems to me that that is what democracy is about and that is what the bill before us calls on us to do. It seems to me that—
Treaties Act June 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say since I am truly under the impression that the members of the government and some of the members of the New Democratic Party did not read the bill. I just want to read clause 3 of Bill C-260, which completely contradicts the position of the governing party and the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre when he praises the federal government:
The Government of Canada may, without consulting the government of each province—
I repeat:
The Government of Canada may, without consulting the government of each province, negotiate and enter into a treaty in a sector within the exclusive legislative authority of Parliament that does not affect an area under the legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces.
We have never claimed in this bill, contrary to what I have been hearing for the past hour, that we want to prevent the federal government from negotiating and entering into treaties under its authority. What we are saying is that when it is a question of an exclusive authority of a province under the Constitution—note, under the Constitution—that province or those provinces should get a say in the matter.
I will give a very clear example. Let us talk about education. Who is responsible for education under the Constitution and who is responsible for culture under the Constitution, if not the provinces?
The provinces are asked to give the federal government the power to negotiate treaties on education, culture, health and other areas under provincial jurisdiction. It is obvious that this bill has been completely misunderstood. Therefore, I am asking everyone to re-read the bill in an intelligent and non partisan manner. That way, we will be able to see, in the text of the bill itself, what I have just said and quoted.
We have no pretensions of preventing the federal government from signing treaties in areas under its authority. What we want are public consultations and real democracy. I do not know what planet some MPs live on but they have to face the fact that, in this world today, it is impossible to negotiate treaties in secret and without consulting the public.
I can give some recent examples. The Maastricht Treaty and the recent events in France in relation to the EU Constitution are two. Was the public consulted? Yes, it was. The No vote in France and the Netherlands is only justice and democracy. That is what it is.
Since I have only five minutes, I want to conclude with this. Everything I have heard from opposition members—I mean, government members, since obviously I am a member of the opposition.
National Defence June 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, last week, when I asked the Minister of Defence simply whether he would finally decide to meet with the people in charge of the Cap-Chat cadet camp to reassure them about their future, he provided nothing more than a very general, vague and totally unclear reply.
The question is clear and requires a clear answer. Will the minister be meeting soon, as promised, with the people in charge of this cadet training centre, yes or no?
Rock Banville June 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, we were greatly saddened to hear of the passing of Dr. Rock Banville in Terrebonne at the age of 74. Dr. Banville was a staunch defender of workers' rights.
Dr. Banville was a native of Saint-Octave-de-Métis, and was extremely active in the labour movement, particularly as the co-founder, with well-known union leader Michel Chartrand, of the Fondation d'aide aux travailleurs accidentés du Québec.
His 1999 book La peau des autres spoke out against dangerous working conditions in the construction industry and on construction sites.
In the 1970s, he played a hand in the founding of the Front des travailleurs unis de Sept-Îles.
Dr. Banville remains a source of inspiration to us all and will live on in our memories.
The members of the Bloc Québécois join with me in extending our most sincere condolences to the family and friends of Dr. Rock Banville.
National Defence June 7th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the uncertainty the Minister of National Defence is allowing to surround the matter of the Cap-Chat cadet summer training centre is totally irresponsible. The centre is threatened and at risk of closing, if nothing is done in the short term. If this happened, it would mean the loss of 70 jobs in an area already hard hit by unemployment.
As he has already made a commitment, why is the minister not meeting representatives of the community who want to eliminate the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Cap-Chat cadet camp?
Fisheries Act June 6th, 2005
Madam Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague's question. I have the same type of concern. I think he understood my speech very well. He has made similar comments previously.
In my view, we cannot pass Bill C-52 because we would be giving power to public servants that should be reserved for the House of Commons alone. We cannot give public servants the power to send people to prison. Bill C-52 goes that far. If someone commits an offence under Bill C-52 or one of its regulations, it is the public servant who has the authority to assign the penalty, and not the House of Commons.
It is important to specify that any criminal penalty must be passed by the House of Commons. Here, that is not the case. This is a slippery slope, which seems extremely dangerous to me.
If we presented this to the fishers on the west coast—my colleague talked about this and I thank him for it; I enjoyed my time there—or the east coast, or even in Ontario, they would say this makes no sense. The day they understand the meaning of Bill C-52, people will say it is nonsense. They would not be able to defend themselves in court because of the arbitrary power of a public servant. This is extremely dangerous. I think my colleague understood that very well.