Jonathan Tremblay

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, at the moment, the rule on facilitation payments is applicable at the cabinet's pleasure.

Does the member agree that the committee should determine whether cabinet or Parliament should decide?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill deserves to be studied in greater depth.

Does the Liberal member believe that the committee should determine whether the facilitation payments rule should come into force at the pleasure of the cabinet, as is currently the case, or whether the decision should rest with Parliament?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it might also be relevant to ask whether the Conservative members know where they made cuts and whether they are aware of the consequences of how their new measures are affecting the country, for example, in terms of culture or heritage.

I am particularly thinking of the 80% of archeologists who were laid off. Only ten or so are left to take care of 167 sites in Canada. This bill seems to be an attempt by the Conservatives to make it seem they care about culture.

Does my hon. colleague share my concerns?

[Contribution of Women to Society, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a moment to celebrate the contributions of women to our society. Whether in urban or rural areas, in business or community organizations, in politics or the service industry, we need women—strong, engaged, influential women.

I am thinking of women like Micheline Anctil, the mayor of Forestville and reeve of Haute-Côte-Nord; Line Sirois, who has been a volunteer advocate for the unemployed for over 10 years; Danie Harvey, who has remained dedicated to defending those less fortunate for the past 25 years. I am also thinking of women like Chantale Cormier, director of the CLD de l'Île-d'Orléans; Isabelle Lusignan, director of the Chambre de commerce de Charlevoix; Chantal Lachance, who, with her colleagues, has made a name for herself in business; and Ginette Faucher, who runs an organization that makes the Montmorency area a better place to live.

I am especially proud to be part of a caucus that has a record number of women. Municipal elections will be held in Quebec this November. I congratulate organizations like Réseau femmes et politique municipale de la Capitale-Nationale, which encourages women to enter politics and promotes women candidates. I say hats off to you all, ladies.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to ask my question very simply to ensure that the member does not go off topic in his reply.

There are costs associated with a bill such as this. Who will foot the bill?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member would likely agree that such a bill—one that changes so many measures and creates an obligation to monitor these individuals—will cost money.

After the costs are assessed, we are left with two options: the government either passes the bill onto someone else or it pays for these changes.

If these costs are not included in any programs, has the government decided what it will do? Will the provinces be left to foot the bill or will the government pay for these changes?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are willing to support this bill in principle and examine it more thoroughly. However, it does raise some questions, and I wonder if the member could clarify one thing for me regarding this bill.

Passing bills and trying to play the father figure are all well and good. However, is it not the father figure's responsibility to pay for changes made to certain laws?

There are often direct and indirect costs associated with changes to legislation. In this case, some of the costs could be downloaded onto the provinces.

Did the government think of that? Does it know if the provinces will be left to pay some of the costs of these changes to the legislation? Is the government also considering footing the bill for these new changes?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat amused by the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou's use of the expression, "we are not asking for the moon" because that is exactly what I said to myself.

We are simply asking that the Auditor General have the tools to do his job. I do not see how anyone can oppose such a motion. Therefore, I hope all members of this House will vote in favour of the motion.

My question is about transparency, which was so dear to the hearts of the Conservatives before they came to power. We have also learned recently that they have spent millions of dollars to spy on each other, because they are simply unable to talk to each other. That is the answer we got a little while ago. If they want to know exactly what is going on, they should talk to each other.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about transparency, which the Conservatives once loved so much, and about the complete lack of dialogue within the Conservative caucus.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not do very much, aside from quoting the Auditor General partially and out of context. Talk about bad faith.

I do not understand why the Conservatives were screaming so much when the Liberals used the same strategy. The Liberals lost three times less money than the Conservatives, who are now saying that it is no big deal and that they are good fiscal managers, even though $3.1 billion is missing.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague has opened the door, and I will therefore ask him the question that I put to his colleague from Ottawa—Vanier concerning employment insurance and the EI fund.

Is transferring money from the EI fund to the consolidated revenue fund in order to pay down deficits elsewhere a form of veiled tax?