Michel Guimond

[Points of Order, May 6th, 2010]

Could the minister be quiet so that we can respond? We listened to what the member for Calgary—Nose Hill had to say.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois has never questioned the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter has never been called into question. I respectfully submit that the point raised by my colleague is a point of debate. She will have an opportunity to reread the question the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked and the supplementary question about cuts the Conservative government made to the budgets of 12 allegedly pro-choice groups.

However, the government is giving $800,000 in additional funding to religious groups and sects that preach a specific ideology and values. The leader of the Bloc Québécois has never challenged freedom of religion, freedom of thought or freedom of speech.

My colleague used very strong language to describe what was said, which was debate. To my way of thinking, there is no point of order.

[Points of Order, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the leader of the Bloc Québécois has ever attacked democratic values in the House.

[Points of Order, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the last two interventions, I would first say to the hon. member for Crowfoot that the translation for the word “token” was never used by our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He used the expression “Québécois de service”. This is further proof that if the Conservatives would agree to appointing bilingual judges to the Supreme Court, it could avoid the kind of misunderstandings that we just saw here.

Second, I would like to respond to the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou by saying that the expression “Québécois de service” was repeated just last week by the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, who said he is proud to be a “token Quebecker”. So it can be used intentionally and there should be no problem.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the mental agility of my colleague from Hochelaga, who listened closely to my speech, especially since I am only a few centimetres away from his poor ears. I tend to raise my voice when I get wound up.

Since we have used the theme of cleanliness, it would be good to reveal some other things along that line, and I am convinced that we will have the opportunity to do so during the next election campaign. However, I think that the Conservatives' hypocrisy about the Rahim Jaffer affair demonstrates that we need to actively work on the Conservatives' black book.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion presented by our Liberal colleagues. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for her presentation and the very good work she does on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on all things related to ethics and on the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee.

As my colleague stated, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion for a number of reasons. Unfortunately, the time allotted to me is too short to speak in detail about each one. Therefore, I will outline the reasons and spend more time on certain points.

One of the Bloc's reasons for supporting this motion is that we condemn the fact that a program such as the green infrastructure fund, which has a $1 billion budget—yes, that is the figure—is administered by a parliamentary secretary.

Furthermore, the Conservatives have not kept their promises to the people and democracy. I remember well that, in 2006, in the wake of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, the Conservatives played the transparency and ethics card. They boasted that their party would set things right, clean house, and champion ethics. They almost called themselves the Mr. Cleans of federal politics. They promised to wash everything cleaner than clean. That was the Conservative claim.

In 2006, when the current Prime Minister came to power, one of the first bills, Bill C-2, known as the Federal Accountability Act, sought to clean house in a number of areas.

Unfortunately, with time, we realize cannot see any difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. They conduct themselves exactly the same way. Anyone who was not out of the country or cut off, for whatever reason, from modern communications such as the Internet, or traditional media such as newspapers, radio or television, will have seen how the Conservatives conducted themselves in the case of Mr. Jaffer and the member from Simcoe—Grey. The more witnesses who appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the more we learn about the illegal lobbying activities of Rahim Jaffer.

Members will recall that Rahim Jaffer is the husband of the former status of women minister, who was kicked out of the Conservative caucus for unknown reasons. When he was in opposition, the Prime Minister accused the Liberals of hiding things, but since he took power, he has done exactly the same.

The Conservatives' actions now make it clear that they have not kept their promises to the people and democracy. When opposition members demand answers in a parliamentary committee or ask questions during question period, they are not doing it for themselves; they are asking on behalf of the people who elected them democratically in each riding to represent them and their needs in Ottawa.

That is democracy. People trust Bloc Québécois members and our party because we defend their interests in Ottawa. That is surely why the Bloc Québécois has won a majority of the seats in Quebec since 1993, in the last six elections. The public realizes that the only party who can truly defend the interests of Quebec in Ottawa is the Bloc Québécois.

Unlike the members of the old, traditional parties, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, we have no majority to protect in the west, in Ontario or in the Maritimes. Our only loyalty lies with Quebec, all the regions of Quebec, and with Quebeckers.

The Conservatives have hardly made ethics and transparency a government priority. Instead, they have promoted the culture of secrecy and cronyism, expressed as “Tell me who you know, and I will tell you how I can help you.” That is exactly what Rahim Jaffer does when he makes contact with his former Conservative Party buddies, the people he sat here with.

Let us not forget that Rahim Jaffer is a former chair of the Conservative caucus. That is why the government cannot turn a blind eye and wash its hands of this situation like Pontius Pilate by saying that meeting with a parliamentary secretary is not the same as meeting with a minister. That is why I made it clear from the outset that this Conservative government has a parliamentary secretary that manages a fund worth about $1 billion.

When Mr. Jaffer, an illegal lobbyist, has a meeting with this parliamentary secretary, there is no denying that some lobbying is going on. That is why the Liberal motion to include parliamentary secretaries makes sense and that is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

We are pleased to see the Liberals take this approach and we hope that if they return to power one day, they will remember that the wrongdoings in the sponsorship program went on for more than six years because of the culture of secrecy in Ottawa.

For that reason, we in the Bloc Québécois are calling for two things that go hand in hand: first, an appropriate access to information system, because the public has the right to know and to be informed; and second, effective whistleblower protection. These two conditions are indispensable for true transparency. We do not want superficial transparency nor transparency based on complacency just because the Federal Accountability Act has been passed. That is why the Conservatives are literally laughing in our faces. In the absence of those two things, the Federal Accountability Act is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

In closing, in supporting the motion, the Bloc Québécois is calling on the Conservatives to keep their election promises on ethics, and those on lobbying in particular. There are other loopholes in the act. I do not have enough time to go over them, but the different parties will be talking about this all day. For these reasons the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

[Ethics, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, here is more proof that the token Quebecker is once again playing the role of doormat.

Rahim Jaffer's lobbying of the former public works and government services minister was successful, since he got a meeting with her officials. The minister's political assistant, the same one who blocked the publication of incriminating documents, put so much pressure on the officials that they gave in.

Will the political lieutenant for Quebec lay the blame on his employee, who simply carried out the lieutenant's dirty work? Will the doormat take responsibility?

[Ethics, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Rahim Jaffer used the email and name of his wife, a former Conservative minister, enabling him to get preferential treatment. Emails also show that the office of the former public works and government services minister promoted the interests of Rahim Jaffer by putting pressure on public officials to give priority to his proposals.

Why did the Conservatives' Quebec lieutenant, who has told us many times that the government wants to clean house, not mention earlier that he was helping move Rahim Jaffer's files forward?

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I recently learned about an ad found on the Facebook page of the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

This ad, entitled “Come visit the national capital and meet your MP”, says:

—member for Lévis—Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, in collaboration with Voyages Paradis in Lévis, is pleased to invite you to take part in the 2010 trip to Ottawa on May 12 and 13.

We are talking about a trip in a luxury coach, lodging at a hotel and a continental breakfast. The ad indicates that this price includes everything, except the dinner on May 12 and the lunch on May 13. The ad, which I will be tabling shortly, also states:

—all this for just $200 for double occupancy and $265 for single occupancy, payable at the time of reservation, and including all applicable taxes.

I should have said that at the top of the ad are the House of Commons logo and a picture of a coach. At the bottom, it says that for information and reservations, people can contact Christiane Tanguay, the member's executive assistant. A telephone number, a fax number and an email address are also given. On the other side, people are asked to contact Ms. Nolin of Voyages Paradis Inc.

Page 236 of O'Brien-Bosc states:

The By-laws were first enacted by the Board of Internal Economy in 1993 and are a series of guidelines regulating the use of parliamentary resources made available to Members to help them perform their parliamentary functions. The term “parliamentary functions” is defined as “duties and activities related to the position of Member of the House of Commons wherever performed and includes public and official business and partisan matters”.

Moreover, section 1 of by-law 102, the general limitation and application by-law, stipulates that:

The funds, goods, services and premises provided pursuant to the by-laws are to be used for the carrying out of Members’ parliamentary functions or for matters which are essential or incidental thereto.

This ad raises a number of questions. Why did the member for Lévis—Bellechasse decide to promote the commercial interests of Voyages Paradis over other carriers? What about the other companies that cannot use the resources of the House and the member to serve their clients?

By using publicly funded resources—telephone lines, the fax machine in his riding office and a parliamentary email address—and by designating one of his employees paid for by taxpayers to provide information to and take reservations from clients of Voyages Paradis, in short, by running a travel agency out of his riding office, did the member for Lévis—Bellechasse follow the rules concerning the use of the resources made available to members to help them perform their parliamentary functions? I am asking you, Mr. Speaker. Is organizing a trip on behalf of a private company a parliamentary function? Did the member for Lévis—Bellechasse use the House's resources for commercial purposes?

Before deciding whether I should refer this matter to the Board of Internal Economy, I would like to have the opinion of the Chair.

In conclusion, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the ad in question.

[Quebec Bridge, April 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion. Even though I do not have much time, I would be remiss if I did not mention the outstanding job my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, has done on this issue.

This issue has dragged on for a number of years. I was elected in 1993, and I recall the member for Louis-Hébert who was elected in 1993, Philippe Paré, who is still alive and well and who raised this issue in the House. Thanks to the tenacity of the current member for Louis-Hébert, the issue of the Quebec Bridge is before the House today. There are people in this House who know that the Quebec Bridge is a historical jewel. In 2008, Quebec celebrated the 400th anniversary of its founding.

Unfortunately, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have dragged their feet so much that we are still talking about this issue today, in April 2010. I wanted to mention the work my colleague from Louis-Hébert has done.

As I said, the Quebec Bridge has been declared an international historic monument to civil engineering, but it would appear that this jewel is in very poor condition. The deterioration of the structure and major corrosion problems are increasingly cause for concern.

At a chance meeting, I had an opportunity to talk with someone who had done some inspection work on the bridge. This worker, whom I will not name, told me that some parts of the bridge were unbelievably corroded. The corrosion was so severe that with minimal pressure, one could almost poke through some pieces of steel. I do not want to cause panic among the people in the Quebec City area who frequently cross the river in both directions to go to work. They are the reason this bridge, like the Pierre Laporte Bridge, is so busy.

I will say it again, it does not mean that trains and automobiles should not be able to use the bridge, but desperate times call for desperate measures. This is no joke. The problem is that Canadian National, which is no longer a crown corporation as we once knew it but is a private company owned mostly by Americans, is refusing to undertake the necessary maintenance to repair the Quebec Bridge or to keep it in proper condition.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you represent an Ontario riding. I do not know if you visit Quebec City often, but this bridge is part of the city's highway system. It is a vital piece of infrastructure. It is historic and part of our heritage, but it is also essential to traffic.

The Bloc Québécois—and this is the idea behind the motion moved by my colleague from Louis-Hébert—believes that the federal government must buy back the Quebec Bridge immediately and undertake the necessary repairs as quickly as possible.

Since the Conservatives came to power, they have gotten very good at putting the blame on others, at putting their heads in the sand and at sweeping things under the rug. They have perfected these techniques. Since the Conservatives came to power, not one spot of paint has been applied to the Quebec Bridge.

The current minister of Foreign Affairs, who was the minister of transportation when the Conservatives began their mandate, simply began a lawsuit against CN. Because going after CN made things happen. Teams of hundreds of workers are now preserving the bridge. No, the Conservatives merely sued CN. These are the Conservatives, after all.

However, in the 2006 quest to elect Conservative members in the Quebec City area, the current Conservative Prime Minister did not hesitate to say that he would work on the file. I remember the wonderful press conferences with all of the Conservative candidates on the Dufferin boardwalk with the Château Frontenac in the background. I remember that. In Quebec, it so happens that we have a fine motto: “Je me souviens” or “I remember”. And I do remember. And we will remember what the Prime Minister said to us in 2006. He made great promises, especially because in 2008 Quebec City was going to be celebrating the 400th anniversary of its founding. Since then, there has been nothing, zip. Nothing has been done.

Instead of taking effective, practical action, assuming their responsibilities and moving forward, the Conservatives decided to ignore the problem, as I said earlier. This lawsuit is meant to cover up the Conservatives' inaction in this file.

What we are asking for, what our dynamic colleague from Louis-Hébert is asking for, is that the federal government resume work immediately and assume the cost while we wait for the courts to decide, or that the government take steps to reclaim ownership. If we wait for this problem to be resolved, we will inevitably watch as the Quebec Bridge continues to deteriorate for the next 10 or 12 years. Technically, this case could wind up before the Federal Court. It could end up going as far as the Supreme Court of Canada and we all know how backlogged the courts are at this time. Nothing will be done.

That is why we are calling on the government, if it really cares about the interests of the people of the Quebec City area, to take steps to reclaim ownership of the Quebec Bridge.

I do not mean to completely dismiss them, but we are dealing with a bad corporate citizen, namely, CN. CN is not assuming its responsibilities and is behaving like a bad corporate citizen. Of course, it was a bad decision at the time to hand the Quebec Bridge over to CN. There is a saying, which I did not invent, that states that we cannot put toothpaste back into the tube. In other words, we cannot go back in time.

If the Conservatives wish, if they have an ounce of good faith or an ounce of good will, they will begin steps to reclaim ownership of the Quebec Bridge and they will immediately begin the repairs that are so urgently needed.

[Government Assistance, April 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the municipality of Lac-aux-Sables is hoping to renovate its waste water treatment system.

The Quebec government has said that it wants to move forward, but we are still waiting for confirmation from the federal government. The deadline for the bid guarantee is today and municipal officials are very worried.

What is the minister waiting for in order to act and confirm that this municipality will finally receive funding?