House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 20% of the vote.
Agriculture March 26th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Standing Orders allow for a member to table a document referred to in question period. I therefore would request that you ask for unanimous consent for me to table the documents that I wanted to quote from.
Afghanistan March 26th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from one of the documents tabled yesterday.
Oh, I am sorry. As we can see, that would be impossible.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the tabling of these documents was proof of their transparency. This does not seem very transparent to me.
Transparency means answering for one's actions. It does not mean dumping boxes of redacted documents, without prior notice, to delay the work of parliamentarians.
Why such contempt for Parliament? Why this provocation? Why hide the truth from Canadians?
Afghanistan March 26th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government literally dumped 2,500 pages of redacted documents concerning torture.
Many of these redacted documents are not even pertinent. We were given 2,500 pages of completely disorganized documents.
The Conservatives are literally obstructing the work of parliamentarians and increasing our impression that they have something to hide.
When will they stop this censorship? When will they call the public enquiry that Canadians want?
Maureen Vodrey March 25th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to one of our interpreters, Mrs. Maureen Vodrey, who is retiring after 37 years of loyal service to Parliament.
Members of this House would be unable to do their work without the support of this team of competent and devoted language specialists. Maureen Vodrey is a member of this team, one of the many who work in the shadows, lending their voices so that we can better understand the content and subtleties of parliamentary debate.
Throughout her career, Mrs. Vodrey has seen a succession of governors general, speakers and clerks. During a turning point in our nation's history, she interpreted Prime Minister Trudeau, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and René Lévesque during the patriation of the Constitution, and was present to interpret many of the Meech Lake negotiations.
I am told that parliamentary procedure is one of her passions. Her in-depth and unmatched knowledge thereof has enabled her to react promptly to the countless unforeseen and challenging situations arising in this Chamber, and to train the next generation of young interpreters.
I invite all colleagues to join me in thanking Mrs. Vodrey and wishing her a happy retirement.
Supreme Court Act March 19th, 2010
Especially coming from a francophone.
Afghanistan March 19th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, despite all the criticism, the Conservative government is still transferring detainees to Afghan prisons, where the risk of torture is well documented. The International Criminal Court is even reviewing the matter. Apparently Justice Iacobucci's mandate could take two years to complete. By then, Canada could be subject to an investigation or even brought before the International Criminal Court.
Will the Conservative government spare us that dishonour and finally call a public inquiry?
Madam Speaker, the accountability obligation of civil servants is limited to their appearance before parliamentary committees. The minister is the only one who is accountable to the House of Commons.
At the beginning of their mandate, the Conservatives were crowing about concepts like accountability and responsibility. Today, ministers want to see their picture everywhere, they want to cut ribbons as often as possible and promote their party with taxpayers money. But ministerial responsibility is not about partisanship. It is part of the checks and balances of our parliamentary system.
Why would the minister want to weaken the concept of parliamentary responsibility? Is it to give more power to the Prime Minister and to his ministers?
Madam Speaker, on March 10, I put a question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services regarding government spending. There were reports in the newspapers about Public Works and Government Services Canada having agreed to pay rather step bills. Even the minister said that she found these expenses to be unreasonable and over-the-top.
Then she said: “This type of contract is awarded and managed by the department and not by the minister.” Such a statement is a clear abdication of ministerial responsibility, which is totally contrary to the main principles of our parliamentary system in Canada.
Indeed, the minister is trying to shift responsibility for these expenses to our civil servants. But they are not the ones who have to account to the House; the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is.
I have no intention of giving a lecture on ministerial responsibility. I will simply commend to the minister a document entitled “Responsibility in the Constitution,” which deals with ministerial responsibility. It is still topical, even though this Privy Council Office document dates back to 2003.
The history and Constitution of Canada cannot be manipulated, something I am sure our friends across the way would do if only they could. Here is an excerpt:
In our system of parliamentary and cabinet government, ministers are constitutionally responsible for the provision and conduct of the government. This is to say that through the law and the convention of the constitution, power and hence responsibility are concentrated in the hands of ministers... Our system of parliamentary and cabinet government is, therefore, based on the constitutional responsibility of ministers to the elected House of Commons...
After the adoption of the Federal Accountability Act, the Prime Minister presented a guide entitled “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State”. In his message to ministers and parliamentary secretaries, he declared, and I quote:
in Canada’s system of government, the principles of accountability have no greater expression than in Parliament, to which Ministers of the Crown are individually and collectively responsible and accountable. You are expected to demonstrate our Government’s respect for Parliament, and help strengthen its effectiveness as our system’s foremost institution of law-making and accountability, through close and conscientious attention to your parliamentary duties.”
A little bit further, under the heading “Powers, Duties and Functions”, we read, and I quote:
“Ministers are individually responsible to Parliament and the Prime Minister for their own actions and those of their department, including the actions of all officials under their management and direction, whether or not the Ministers had prior knowledge.”
Why did the minister abdicate her ministerial responsibilities and why did she try to put the blame on civil servants?
Business of Supply March 16th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite who just spoke must have overlooked part of the motion.
As much as I respect my Bloc colleagues' right to their opinions, I have no respect at all for those particular opinions.
My colleague seems not to have realized that the government is being criticized for what it did for the forestry industry, manufacturing, the environment, the aerospace industry and the fight against poverty. He forgot to mention that the Conservatives invested billions of dollars in Ontario's auto industry, but a mere pittance in the forest industry, which is heavily concentrated in Quebec and eastern Canada.
He should stop talking about hypocrisy and take a look in the mirror.
Business of Supply March 16th, 2010
I can hear some federalists opposite voicing their objections even though they are supposed to be with us against the Bloc. It boggles the mind. How about a little common sense?
It is fine to say that all sorts of things are not working for Quebec, and I agree to a significant extent. But it would be a mistake to think that federalism itself is causing the problems. The real cause is the present Conservative government.
My colleague who likes to promote sovereignty, separation, or what have you, is taking aim at the wrong target. The cause of these problems is the Conservative government, not federalism.