House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Option Canada May 31st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that a former Quebec MNA, who is now in the service of Canada, would accept the fact that Quebec law was violated.
Contrary to what the minister said, this is not a minor issue but, rather, a very serious matter.
Does the Prime Minister agree that basic decency calls for a public inquiry? If, as he claims, everything was investigated, then let him tell us what that money was used for.
Option Canada May 31st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister has just said is that they have the right to break the law in the name of Canadian unity. Is that it?
We know that the federal government spent $31 million during the year of the referendum for projects related to Canadian unity. In his inquiry into Option Canada, Justice Grenier found explanations for $11 million, so there is still $20 million as yet without explanation.
While we know that federal funds were used to violate Quebec legislation, no one in this government is capable of telling us what those millions of dollars were used for. Let them tell us, then—
Option Canada May 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Prime Minister is refusing to hold a public inquiry on actions taken during the Montreal love-in because it was not only the federal Liberals who violated the Referendum Act, but also the Conservatives and the New Democrats, who are all federalists?
Option Canada May 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, this sounds a lot like the former Liberal prime ministers.
Judge Grenier concluded his report with these words, “The evidence presented before me did not enable me to determine the funding source for the October 27 rally in downtown Montreal”.
Does it make sense to the Prime Minister that the funding source that paid for one of the federalist forces' biggest events, the Montreal love-in during the 1995 referendum, in violation of Quebec law, remains unknown?
Option Canada May 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, there is open federalism that is not quite open enough to be transparent.
The report also reveals that two people who were being paid public money by the office of Jean Chrétien, the prime minister at the time, were not working for the Government of Canada, but for the No committee in offices rented by the No committee in the Côte-des-Neiges section of Montreal.
Will the Prime Minister finally agree to hold a public inquiry into the federal government's involvement in the 1995 campaign or will he be complicit in what happened?
Option Canada May 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, a few days before the 1995 referendum, thousands of Canadians came to supposedly declare their love for Quebeckers. It was called a love-in in Montreal. Judge Grenier said he was unable to determine exactly how much money was spent on that event.
Does the Prime Minister, who says he is all for transparency, agree that a public inquiry is needed to fully investigate all the actions of the federalists during the 1995 referendum?
Petitions May 28th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 270 people, a vast majority of whom reside in the riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. The petitioners call upon the Conservative government to give a royal recommendation to Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), so it can be adopted quickly at third reading. This bill is aimed essentially at correcting flaws in the Employment Insurance Act to make it more responsive to the needs of residents of the Upper North Shore.
Privilege May 28th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to appear to be telling you what to do because I am certain that you will do your work as conscientiously as always.
The matter raised by my colleague, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, is a very serious one. If the committees are considered to be a legal or parliamentary extension of the House of Commons, we must examine how the privilege of members of this House has been breached, altered or modified by the document in question.
I would also like to refer to page 50 of Marleau and Montpetit. The authors, who cite Erskine May, provide a classic definition of what is known as parliamentary privilege. If I may, I would like to quote the author:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
We have to figure out whether the government deliberately set out to paralyze the committees. I think that is the key. When I spoke up to criticize what was going on in the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I said that the chief government whip wanted to turn this into a battle of public opinion. Now that he has lost the battle, the chief government whip appears to be trying another strategy to bog things down in various committees. He says that the Standing Committee on Official Languages is not working and that the three opposition parties ganged up on the government-appointed chair and demanded that he be removed. Instead of doing that, the chief government whip should have taken note of what the opposition parties wanted and what they were saying, which was that this minority government cannot make unilateral decisions. Even though it is in power, it must take the opposition parties into account.
The chief government whip, who is usually a sensible man who listens to reason, should have recognized the democratic will of the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, who no longer want this member as their chair. But no, instead of putting out the fire, he is adding fuel to it. The chief government whip is acting like a pyromaniac who happens to be the fire chief. That is exactly how he is acting. He is using this manual to disrupt the work of several committees. Then, he will say that the government cannot get bills passed or govern reasonably.
Before the break week, he even accused us of forming a coalition government. He should define that for us. What is a coalition government? We do not even know. We are not allied with the Liberals or the NDP. We take a common sense approach. There is absolutely no coalition. There is absolutely no perceived or planned coup against this government.
I do not know what the Conservatives want. Are they looking for a reason to call an election? They say that they were elected democratically and that the three opposition parties are preventing them from moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that you are beginning to be concerned about the rule of relevance. I will impose the rule of relevance on myself.
In closing, on page 51 of Marleau and Montpetit, the rights and immunities accorded to members are categorized under the following headings: as individuals, freedom of speech; the regulation of our own internal affairs; the authority to maintain the attendance and service of members; the right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers; the right to administer oaths to witnesses; the right to publish papers; and so on.
What is happening at present shows that we have gone off the rails. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is part of your duties and responsibilities to acknowledge the question of privilege raised by the NDP House leader. It is a way of saying that the parties would benefit from talking to and understanding each other, because the situation we are in is deteriorating hour by hour, day by day.
Privilege May 16th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Conservative reaction to this very serious question of privilege raised by my colleague for Ottawa South clearly shows what this party thinks of the rules of this House.
On this side of the House, we also witnessed the conduct of the member for Ottawa—Orléans who, moreover, is the Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House. Even though he is a chair occupant, he must retain the confidence of this House accorded to him in that role of Deputy Chair of Committees of the whole, just as you must carry out your responsibilities, which, I might add, you do properly.
I will quote from the second edition of Professor Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, on page 230, where he deals with the right of members to speak freely in this House and in committee, without any obstruction or intimidation. The conduct of the member for Ottawa—Orléans and Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole is an act of intimidation directed at the member for Ottawa South, who was only doing his job as a parliamentarian. I quote from Maingot:
Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. The assaulting, menacing, or insulting of any Member on the floor of the House or while he is coming or going to or from the House, or on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament, is a violation of the rights of Parliament.
This quote from Maingot concludes as follows:
Any form of intimidation...of a person for or on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt.
The conduct we saw from this side of the House is very serious and, to some extent, calls into question whether the member for Ottawa—Orléans has the legitimate moral authority to occupy the chair when you are not in it. I refer you to your responsibilities as Speaker of the House. Page 79 of Marleau and Montpetit clearly describes the authority of the speaker.
A further limitation on the freedom of speech of Members is provided by the authority of the Speaker under the Standing Orders to preserve order and decorum, and when necessary to order a Member to resume his or her seat—
In conclusion, I believe you should take a serious look at this matter and remember that when we ask a question in this House—whether or not the government likes the question—it is our privilege to do so, as we are representing the people who elected us democratically, even though there are people here who think that it is not partisan.
As I said yesterday, this is not a bridge club. We have people to represent. The member for Ottawa South was just representing the people in his riding who elected him democratically. And he has the right to do so unimpeded, just as the member for Ottawa—Orléans, who is the deputy chair of committees of the whole, has done.
We ask that you conduct a thorough investigation.
Official Languages May 16th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in 2004, this Prime Minister stated: “It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party”.
The Prime Minister needs to face facts: he has a minority government and he cannot control everything. If the Conservatives think they can behave in this way when they have a minority, just imagine what would happen if they had a majority and what impact it would have on official languages.