Marc Lemay

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the President of the Privy Council, she seems to be saying that the words she just quoted were spoken by the member who asked her the question, which is not the case. I would very much like the member to apologize if she is insinuating that the words that she just quoted in the House were spoken by me.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the following question: will we know the names of the Liberal candidates who received money during the 2000 election campaign? Can the President of the Privy Council, who was then President of the Treasury Board, tell us if she appeared before the Gomery inquiry on January 28, 2005, yes or no?

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. President of the Privy Council. She alluded to some things that I am not comfortable with.

She said that we have taken over Quebec's symbols. What about her party, her government, which has taken over $46 billion from the EI fund, and hundreds of millions of dollars that should have gone to seniors under the guaranteed income supplement, which they did not receive? Does she have an answer to that question?

I will cut to the chase. The hon. President of the Privy Council brought it up, so I will ask her a question about it. We have the evidence. Is she saying that she did not appear before the Gomery inquiry on January 28, 2005?

At no time does this householder attack the integrity of anyone in this House. What we have done is inform the public pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House. I have been here for 16 months and I can assure the hon. members that I have no intention of attacking the integrity of the hon. member for Bourassa. However, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind. In his case, he has sown the wind and he will reap the whirlwind since we will be debating this amendment and the amendment to the amendment for a long time.

I would very much like for the President of the Privy Council to tell us which members from eastern Quebec received money between 1997 and 2000, for the election. We would very much like to know whether the President of the Privy Council—

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say how important this evening's debate is. It is extremely important and fascinating because it presents two opposing arguments, that of the Conservative Party and that of the Liberal Party. I want to cite Marleau and Montpetit, the procedural reference book of the House of Commons. It clearly states that members must assume the responsibilities inherent in their status. They have a central and very important role since they are the incarnation of direct democracy. They are elected directly by their constituents. It is their name, as incumbent or candidate, that appears on the ballot and not just the name of the party with which they are affiliated. That is extremely important.

At home we say that once your face is on the poster, you are the one people vote for or not. According to Marleau and Montpetit, members sit in the House of Commons to serve as representatives of the people who have elected them to that office. They have wide-ranging responsibilities which include work in the Chamber, committees, their constituencies and political parties. The members assume responsibilities in many areas. Among others:

They act as ombudsmen by providing information to constituents and resolving problems.

They act as legislators by either initiating bills of their own or proposing amendments to government and other members’ bills.

They develop specialized knowledge in one or more of the policy areas dealt with by Parliament, and propose recommendations to the government.

I was elected in June 2004 and that is precisely the work I do in this House and in the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It is an extremely important role that transcends the role of the party, once the member is elected. We are members of a party, but we represent and defend our constituents.

We have done some research. I will not even read the figures on defectors, or as Quebeckers often call them, turncoats. We have analyzed how often they were re-elected or were candidates in another election. It is not right to say that Canadians scorn a turncoat, because most of them were re-elected. It is important to stress that. Are we to interpret this as a gesture of political indifference, or as a gesture of support for the individual rather than his party? I would prefer to think it was the latter.

If this is not the case, the price will be paid by poorly represented citizens. Clearly, it is not necessary to have an MP who has crossed the floor for people to be poorly represented, judging by the statistics we consulted. People's confidence is, no doubt, shaken by a defection, because crossing the floor is no small thing. Regardless of the reasons, the MP owes an explanation to his constituents, and they must be the only ones to judge the validity of his explanation. The figures clearly demonstrate, however, that independent members are far less likely to run again. This is absolutely normal, because not only are they unable to benefit from the logistics of a political party, they have the machinery of other parties to contend with.

Moving on to Bill C-408, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of this bill, for a number of reasons.

First, we absolutely want to help democracy. This bill, however, is even more restrictive because it does away with the possibility for an independent, or someone who wants to become independent, to complete his mandate.

Let us imagine the following scenario, which is a realistic one. Taking the Bloc Québécois as an example, let us assume that it decided at its congress to do away with article 1, which is on the promotion of sovereignty. I can assure you that a number of Bloc Québécois members would leave this party to sit as independents. Under Bill C-408, byelections would have to be called within 30 days.

Let us just imagine the situation for a moment. The government has just had a general election, in June 2004. There are 54 of us, and there would have been a convention in September. At first glance that makes no sense. It gets worse. If our constituents are displeased, I can assure the House that, particularly in a riding like mine, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, they will let us know. We are really tough on turncoats, and very often they are not accepted. The voters in my riding will have the power to sanction that individual in the next election if they do not agree with his decision.

However, even if the MP is independent, his responsibility remains unchanged, that is, to represent his electors ahead of meeting his party's demands. Oftentimes, that can cause considerable debate. I sit in the House of Commons and represent Abitibi-Témiscamingue in Ottawa and not Ottawa in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. I have always maintained this and it must be understood. I also felt much better placed within in the Bloc Québécois in order to defend the interests of my region and Quebec in Parliament in Ottawa. This is why I am in the Bloc.

Instead of trying to reduce the democratic deficit, this bill accentuates it. Under the bill, a member expelled from his caucus loses his seat. This amounts to giving each caucus the power to dismiss a person. Let me explain.

Let us say that a member of your party is unsuitable and causes trouble. The best way to resolve the problem is to expel him from caucus. If this bill were passed, it would mean a new election at the end of 30 days. It would be the best way for a party to divest itself of someone less popular.

That is what I saw when I studied this bill. Clause 21.1 warrants careful reading:

If a member of the House of Commons leaves the political party to which that member belonged when the member was elected to the House of Commons, that member shall sit in the House of Commons as an independent for a period of 35 days.

That means exactly what it says. If you are expelled, you become an independent.

Once the period of 35 days has elapsed, the member’s election to the House of Commons shall become void, the seat of that member shall be vacated—

This is why, based on all of these remarks, we will be unable to support this bill.

[Abitibi-Témiscamingue International Film Festival, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue international film festival is being held from October 29 to November 3. This joyful celebration of cinematic arts is an extremely important event that is drawing the attention of cultural media in Quebec and elsewhere.

For the 24th year in a row, this festival, with its program scripted in detail by an experienced team, is an opportunity for film buffs, actors, journalists and cinematic artists to join together in a spirit of conviviality and share a passion that creates a bond beyond compare.

For six days, Abitibi-Témiscamingue is in full swing. Restaurants, hotels and theatres focus on this event, along with the media, businesses and local organizations, to make it the best possible experience for festival-goers and residents.

The Bloc Québécois salutes the daring and genius of the organizers of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue international film festival. Long live the festival.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my question will be short. Could the hon. member tell us if he believes that an oil price information bureau could keep Canadians, Quebeckers and people from his own province informed of the oil price variations? If so, why? And if not, which is more important, why?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's remarks. I want to make some comments and put a few questions to him.

I am a little surprised. I do not know whether the hon. member agrees, but this bill seems particularly suited to large cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver, which are getting a lot of attention. But many other areas are forgotten, namely the so-called remote regions. The hon. member can correct me if I am mistaken, but this bill does not seem to provide much, if anything, for remote areas.

I am asking myself some questions, because there is no direct assistance for taxi drivers, independent truck drivers, agricultural producers, or independent forestry companies. With the exception of taxi drivers, who are present in large numbers in major centres, businesses located in the regions are hardly getting anything.

This assistance is also provided to seniors, but only those who are getting the guaranteed income supplement will be eligible for it. This means that the overwhelming majority of seniors will not qualify. I wonder if the hon. member could comment on this.

And what does he think of the office that will be put in place? This office will not have any investigative powers. It will merely be allowed to make recommendations. Moreover, it will not be fully independent to make real recommendations to the House of Commons.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure for me, as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, to speak in this take note debate.

I would like to provide the minister with a specific example. We are going to get down to brass tacks tonight. In my riding, we have Tembec, Kruger and Domtar. These companies are all having incredible difficulties at the present time just because large amounts of money are being held at the border.

These companies want to ask the minister, through me, why it is so hard for this government to give them advance loans on the money that they have already deposited. It is only loan guarantees that they need.

I will provide an example. Tembec is currently completing construction of a laminated panel factory in Amos to be called Temlam. It has invested $ 99 million. The only thing it wants—not money or new programs or projects, not at all—is to know whether the government can give it an advance loan on the money that is frozen at the border and that it knows it will get back. That is all it wants to know.

Can the minister tell us whether or not the government will be able to provide these advance loans? That is all people want to know in my riding.

[Trade Compensation Act, October 19th, 2005]

I will not be long, Mr. Speaker. I know that my colleague from Joliette will explain the Bloc's position on the subject. However, it is obvious that I will personally support the bill with all my energy.

The Tembec company was born in my riding. Right now, it has about $340 million blocked at the border. Tembec could invest that money to become more profitable, to expand and to make sure that its operations in different parts of Canada can continue to thrive and to grow.

As recently as last week, I received calls concerning the private member's bill introduced by my colleague for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. I think that that bill is very important. No matter what the Speaker's ruling on the validity of that bill is, I will say that at least the bill has forced the government to introduce procedures.

What we ask for are loan guarantees to allow the companies to survive the crisis. If the government does not understand that, I do not know how we can convince it to do something. Do we need to bring all the lumber companies to the Hill with all their employees? I do not know.

Here is my question for the hon. member. I think that his bill is very interesting. How can we convince the government that, contrary to what it argues, the bill does not require the expenditure of public funds since the money is already blocked at the border?

[Telecommunications Act, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comments. First, I want to thank her for her work. I sat with her on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We did not have much of an opportunity to meet and get to know each other, since I am now on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. However, I was able to see that she does a great job and she is very familiar with the CRTC and this whole environment.

My question is: How will the CRTC be able to ensure that the register is kept properly during the first year? Can we get such an assurance? And does the hon. member think that costs will skyrocket over the next few years, as they did with the infamous gun registry, going from $2 million to $20 million to $200 million and now to $1.8 billion? But, above all, how can the CRTC, with which the hon. member is very familiar, ensure that this registry will be kept properly during its development?