Michel Guimond

[Minister of Natural Resources, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, at the time of the member for Beauce's problems with Julie Couillard, the Prime Minister had promised to make changes to the handling of ministerial documents. Yet it appears to have taken six days for the government to realize that the Minister of Natural Resources had misplaced some documents.

Does the Prime Minister realize that he must not only dismiss his minister, but must also share the blame with her because of his own inaction?

[National Philanthropy Day Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really understand what the member means by “normal consultation”. The four whips met. We are members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and we have been asking the Chair to submit this report for two weeks now.

I do not see what the problem is. We even talked about this yesterday. The Liberal Party's deputy whip was there. The Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is at his wit's end, and for good reason. I feel the same way right now.

[Points of Order, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the Bloc Québécois, the Minister of Canadian Heritage showed the second part of the stimulus plan presented by the Bloc Québécois, the April 2009 version. The minister mentioned that, in the stimulus plan, there was nothing for culture. Therefore, I wish to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the first part of the stimulus plan that was presented on November 24, 2008 and in which the Bloc Québécois specifically asked for cultural programs to be restored.

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was merely seeking unanimous consent for the Prime Minister and the two ministers concerned to table the documents.

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I rise to request unanimous consent for the tabling of a document concerning the so-called assistance the federal government is providing to the forestry industry.

Last week, the Minister of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec talked about assistance worth $8 billion. Today, in question period, once again on the topic of assistance to the forestry industry, the Prime Minister talked about $50 billion in assistance. In response to another question, the Minister of International Trade talked about $14 billion in assistance.

I therefore request the unanimous consent of the House to call on the Prime Minister and the other two ministers in question to table the relevant documents so that we may determine just how much assistance is actually being provided.

[Point of Order, May 27th, 2009]

The Liberals and Conservatives can go ahead and make fun of what I am saying, but I want to warn you right now, Mr. Speaker, that if you, as the person responsible for maintaining decorum, do not rule immediately on these standing ovations that are depriving us of our democratic right, there will be standing ovations by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP during upcoming question periods.

This situation has been raised repeatedly at the weekly meetings of the House leaders and whips and in informal discussions among the whips, but to no avail. If the Liberals and Conservatives think that this adds lustre to the work of Parliament and MPs, they are sadly mistaken. They should ask their constituents whether they agree with this sort of behaviour, which is more what one would expect from braggarts. That is what they look like, a bunch of braggarts.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest a way of dealing with this situation.

If a party abuses standing ovations, under the discretionary authority you have by virtue of the Standing Orders, you should cut some of the Conservatives' planted questions or eliminate some of the Liberals' allotted questions so that we can have our quota of questions.

[Point of Order, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 10 of the House of Commons, which states at the beginning: “The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order.”

We must consider the fact that time is immutable and that the Standing Orders set out that question period takes place from Monday to Thursday between 2:15 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The quota of questions from each party is determined by the results of the last general election and reflects the representation of each party here in the House of Commons.

The members of this House, as well as those listening in the gallery and watching question period on television, all witnessed the standing ovations specifically from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I am weighing my words and I can confirm this. We counted the number of standing ovations by these two parties that we saw today. Given the number of these ovations and the fact that time is immutable, as I stated earlier, this has deprived the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, yesterday and today, of the opportunity to put a question that had been negotiated on the basis of the quotas established according to the results of the last election.

As proof, I will tell you how many standing ovations have taken place today. There have been six standing ovations by the Conservative Party. There have been four by the Liberal Party. There have been none by the Bloc Québécois or the NDP.

[Oral Questions, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order concerning the withdrawal of unparliamentary language by the Minister of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to him, through you, that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord did not use the word “falsehood”, as the minister did. I believe it is clear in our standing orders that, when a member is asked to withdraw his words, he does so without any commentary and without any attempt to minimize the gravity of what was said.

[Points of Order, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that, under the Standing Orders, mentioning the absence of particular members is proscribed, but given that you said the Minister of State for Science and Technology should also withdraw his statement, and that he did not do so, will you invite him to do so today after question period?

[Employment Insurance, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is a lovely tape prepared by the Prime Minister's Office.

Instead of perpetuating the injustices that resulted from the Liberal government's cuts to employment insurance, the government should realize that the current system does not meet the needs of people who are losing their jobs, such as the 600 workers at CAE in Montreal.

He should play his tape to those workers. Then he will see whether they are really happy.

Will the government finally carry out a radical reform by introducing, as the Bloc Québécois has been calling on it to do for a number of years, a 360-hour eligibility threshold—