Michel Guimond

[Business of the House, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a motion. This one seeks the unanimous consent of the four parties in this House on the issue of electors identifying themselves with their face uncovered for voting.

I seek unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: “That notwithstanding any Standing Order or the usual practices of the House, Bill C-465, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (identity of electors), be deemed read a second time and referred to committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.”

[Employment Insurance, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers in 21 regions of Canada will miss out on five weeks of employment insurance benefits if the government does nothing. In fact, the current pilot project will come to an end on December 9.

In June 2006, the then Minister of Human Resources and Social Development granted an initial extension.

Will the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development make this pilot project a permanent measure to help get seasonal workers out of the black hole they find themselves in year after year?

[Canada Elections Act, October 23rd, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-465, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (identity of electors).

Mr. Speaker, we all remember the controversy caused by the Chief Electoral Officer's decision to allow voters to vote while wearing a veil. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I promised to introduce a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act.

This bill will require all voters to establish their identity, with their faces visible, before they can vote. The bill also provides that when a voter does not have photo identification with their name and address, the voter can provide two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer.

As we have mentioned, this situation is absurd and must be corrected through legislation. This is why we are introducing the bill.

In any case, I believe this bill will easily receive unanimous consent. I would remind the House that every party has indicated its support for this approach. Furthermore, the government announced this very intent in the Speech from the Throne.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Privilege, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know that you do not want to hear from many members about this, but the matter raised by my NDP colleague is so serious that it deserves a thorough examination on your part, and I am confident that you will examine it. We think that this was a breach of members' privileges that should be examined in greater detail by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I would like to point out that this is becoming common practice for the Conservative government. I would like to provide an example that we are currently documenting. We intend to report on this to the House in due time.

I am talking about the unelected senator, Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works, who, it seems, is going to be a candidate in the riding of Vaudreuil. He appears to think that this riding is his, that he represents it. He opened an office there and is using the House of Commons logo on his website even though he is not an elected member.

I would refer you to this morning's press conference during which the government announced its omnibus bill. Mr. Fortier talked about the riding of Vaudreuil as though it were his own. On the contrary, I believe he is the senator for Rougemont, which is not even in the riding of Vaudreuil. At any rate, the riding of Vaudreuil belongs to the House of Commons, and the unelected senator, Michael Fortier, is using the same strategy.

Mr. Speaker, it is up to you to decide, but based on these reasons, I would suggest that you thoroughly examine the question of privilege raised by our NDP colleague and allow it so that our procedure committee can study it in depth.

[Petite-Rivière-Saint-François Massif, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Charlevoix region is waiting for close to $30 million over five years that was promised by Ottawa to help complete a major project: the development of the Massif de la Petite-Rivière-Saint-François by developer Daniel Gauthier. This project has yet to be launched because the Charlevoix region is still waiting for the millions promised.

The project involves upgrading the railway between the Gare du Palais station and Pointe-au-Pic, and includes a 150-room hotel, a multifunctional conference facility and a public market for locally grown products. We cannot allow this project, which has support from the community, to wither away, just because the federal government did not want to sign an agreement in time. Without a signed agreement, the developer cannot start work, since it would no longer be eligible for available grants.

This major project, which would create 600 permanent jobs is crucial to the region's economic development. I am calling on the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec to keep his word. Why is the Conservative government so quick to find money for military equipment and not to help a project that will create jobs and put Charlevoix on the map?

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Was that Bill C-62? I did not hear the terms of the motion.

[Points of Order, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my hon. colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North, as well as the three other independent members of this House, my. hon. colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia and the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. This morning, at the public meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I tabled an amended version of the 53rd report. I amended that report simply for tabling.

The four independent members will be consulted before the next discussions, which are to be held next Tuesday at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am certain that we will be able to find a solution.

Nevertheless, I changed my approach somewhat as a result of the comments I received earlier this week.

[Option Canada, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Guité also acknowledged that millions of copies of a brochure had been printed and paid for by the Privy Council and the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.

Given that Daniel Paillé is already probing polls carried out between 1990 and 2003, why not change his mandate so that he can also conduct a public inquiry into federal expenditures before, during and after the referendum period?

Daniel Paillé is already at work. Could he not investigate this even though it happened 17 years ago?

[Option Canada, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Chuck Guité told the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that undeclared expenditures had been made during the 1995 referendum campaign. Flags, pins, various promotional items that were not declared, as well as travel on the very day of the famous “love-in”, which he organized, are all expenses that were not looked into by Justice Grenier.

Given that the Prime Minister tells us that everything has been investigated, can he tell us if he was aware of these facts?

[Committees of the House, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that that you decided to accept and to open the debate with the completely unfounded intervention by my colleague for Mississauga South, we will run with it.

As for the point of order of my colleague for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I will add the following point. I would like to remind my colleague and all those listening that, contrary to her comments that everything was carried out behind closed doors and that the committee was not transparent, yesterday's deliberations of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs were public. That is the first point. As for the second point, I know that you are the keeper of the standing orders. Rather than getting our names in Hansard and debating, as the hon. member for Mississauga South is adept at doing by talking about just about anything, we will keep to the standing orders.

I refer you to section 108, paragraph 3, section (a), subsection (iii). With regard to the components, duties and responsibilities of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am vice-chair, it states in black and white what can be done, namely:

the review of and report on the Standing Orders, procedure and practice in the House and its committees;

That is exactly what my colleague for Cambridge has done on behalf of the committee.