Michel Guimond

[Access to Information, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in its election platform this government promised a complete overhaul of the Access to Information Act. This is quite appropriate in view of one of Justice Gomery's recommendations that public servants keep records of their activities and that the unlawful destruction of documents be penalized.

Can the government explain why it has done nothing in this regard even though in its election platform it had promised to reform the Access to Information Act?

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impugn the government's motives. But the fact is that the government does not want these provisional measures to become permanent, at least for the time being.

Clearly, we on this side of the House want something different, as do our NDP colleagues, I am certain. They will realize that, with these amendments to the Standing Orders, the NDP is gaining a votable opposition day. I am therefore convinced that our NDP colleagues will vote with the Bloc and the Liberals.

At the risk of repeating myself, I do not want to impugn the government's motives, but the fact is that it does not want these measures to become permanent. I think that, thanks to opposition solidarity, they will become permanent.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will employ the boomerang effect.

My colleague, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, mentioned a spirit of cooperation and minor changes. I would like to send the boomerang back to him by saying that we should adopt these Standing Orders immediately and make these provisional measures permanent.

If problems remain concerning the Standing Orders, if other changes must be made that will not result in major changes to procedure and operations, representatives from all parties could sit down together. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the House leaders committee could have a look at it.

Don Boudria previously set up a House leaders committee that analyzed the Standing Orders. If three or four minor changes are needed, they could be reviewed after the provisional Standing Orders are adopted.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

): Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order in connection with your last comment. I am not in fact intervening at the special request of the government. According to the principle of rotation, a Liberal member rose first, then you recognized a second Liberal member. Since no one from the government rose, it is automatically my turn to rise.

I was standing and you recognized two Liberal members. My point of order having been raised, I inform you that I will split my time with my colleague from Hochelaga.

I am pleased to speak to this motion, in my capacity as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. From the outset I have been involved in discussions within our parliamentary committee. I do not wish to repeat here everything that was said in committee. In order to maintain a certain credibility, we parliamentarians in this House have a certain obligation to be consistent and behave logically.

Nevertheless, regardless of their allegiance or political opinion, we note that some politicians have credibility problems. They claim one thing when they are in the opposition and, when their party is in power, they claim the opposite.

Implementation of these Standing Orders—implementation that we wish to be permanent but that has been provisional for more than 20 months—requires some consistency on the part of the Conservative Party and the Conservative government.

Let me explain. When the Speech from the Throne was adopted in 2004, following the election on June 28, 2004, discussions were held among the three opposition party leaders: the leader of the Conservative Party, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP. During these discussions about the arrival of a minority government, it was agreed that we should adopt some new rules to reflect the reality of a minority government. I will recall that the current Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, was in full agreement with this approach.

The Conservative Party, now in power, no longer likes the rules it thought were fine when it was in opposition. The government, with its attitude and its parliamentary tactics, is preventing the provisional Standing Orders from becoming permanent. We have seen it in this file, as we have seen in many other files, such as those concerning the environment and the government’s foreign policy. I am thinking of Afghanistan and the bombing in southern Lebanon.

Fortunately this Conservative government is a minority government. Fortunately this Conservative government cannot do what it wants. Fortunately the members of the opposition parties, whose numbers are greater, can prevent the Conservative Party from doing what it wants.

I am asking the government and the Conservative Party to be consistent. They agreed to change these rules. At the time, the Liberal Party was in government and opposed the changes. Now that it is in opposition, it supports them. The Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois agree that these provisional standing orders should become permanent.

I would like to discuss one rule in particular that is really important. I am referring to subsection 106(4) of our Standing Orders, according to which any four members of a committee may, with five days' notice, convene a meeting of a standing committee.

The previous rule required ten days' notice. The Conservatives agreed with us to reduce that to five days, for the very good reason that this standing order comes into effect mainly when Parliament is not sitting and an emergency arises. As you know, most committees meet twice a week, so there is no need to convene the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We met this morning and we will meet Thursday morning, unless some event occurs to change that. This standing order comes into effect and is used most often during the summer and winter holiday recesses.

Previously, ten days' notice was required. We agreed to reduce this to five days because of the exceptional nature of the measure. Convening a standing committee requires some unusual event, some emergency to have taken place to bring parliamentarians together as quickly as possible, hear witnesses and report to the House once the session resumes.

Given how quickly certain events progress, whatever made headlines this morning will still be an issue in five days, but it might not be in ten days.

It is a clear-cut case of the Conservatives having agreed to reduce the number of days to five but now that is one of the points of contention. Let us reread the transcripts of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The government whip was explicit: it is one of the Standing Orders with which the government does not agree, and one that the government would like to change back to ten days.

I reminded the government whip that, as far as I could recall, we had used this Standing Order three times when we were the official opposition. We had asked, during the summer, that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be convened to answer questions pertaining to the discovery of prisoners of war and to the JTF2 unit. We had asked for light to be shed on these matters by convening the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The Conservatives agreed.

We asked that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology be convened due to the rising cost of petroleum products caused by the greed of oil companies eager to pocket greater profits. The Conservatives agreed.

Furthermore, in the summer of 2004, I clearly remember being at the centre of a strategy to convene the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, chaired by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, to examine the sponsorship scandal. The Conservatives agreed with us regarding the five day rule.

They should behave as they did when in opposition and consider the logic behind these changes to the Standing Orders.

[“Québec, carrefour international” Symposium, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, after the symposiums on Quebec's identity and on globalization, over 300 people gathered in Quebec City yesterday to participate in a symposium organized by the Bloc Québécois and entitled “Québec, carrefour international”. The purpose of this event was to identify future projects to promote the dynamic development of Quebec's national capital region.

The establishment of a UNESCO convention on cultural diversity secretariat, the promotion of the St. Lawrence River as a gateway to the Atlantic and the building of a high speed train between Quebec City and New York are some of the topics that were thoroughly debated by the participants.

These projects are designed to ensure a thriving future for our communities, but they require a direct involvement on the part of the federal government. However, the government is slow in following up on its financial commitments to these collective initiatives, which make us envision the future of Quebec City, and that of the greater Quebec City region, with optimism.

[Points of Order, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my level of English is not good enough, but I am always listening. I would like to know if the minister is apologizing for what he did. He gave us a justification of his behaviour, but my question is very clear: does the minister apologize for this inappropriate and disgraceful behaviour, which is a violation of the decorum in this House? That is my question.

[Points of Order, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 13, defines what order and decorum means. I am quoting from page 503, which states:

One of the basic principles of parliamentary procedure is that proceedings in the House of Commons are conducted in terms of a free and civil discourse. In order that debate on matters of public policy be held in a civil manner, the House has adopted rules of order and decorum for the conduct of Members towards each other and towards the institution as a whole. Members are to show respect for one another and for different viewpoints; offensive or rude behaviour or language is not tolerated. Emotions are to be expressed in words rather than acted out; opinions are to be expressed with civility and freely, without fear of punishment or reprisal.

While the leader of the official opposition was putting his first question, we on this side clearly saw the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Immigration display inappropriate behaviour, literally putting their fingers in their mouths and pretending to be throwing up. I am weighing my words carefully.

Mr. Speaker, that kind of gesture cannot be tolerated in this place and we think that it is up to you to ensure that decorum is maintained in the House.

In closing, I would ask that the two ministers involved offer explanations and apologies, if they are indeed worthy of their ministerial duties. One might also wonder if the people of Medicine Hat and Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon are proud of such totally unacceptable behaviour on the part of their respective representatives.

I ask that both ministers apologize for making these inappropriate gestures.

[Canadian Women's Curling Championship, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter addressed to the General Manager of Curling Québec, dated July 31, 2006, Warren Hansen, Manager of Event Operations and Media at the Canadian Curling Association announced his decision not to hold the Canadian women's curling championship, the Scotties Tournament of Hearts, in Quebec City in 2008. The association cited linguistic issues, among others, for this decision.

Quebec City is host to many international events and the language laws have never interfered. Refusing to hold an event in Quebec City for reasons of language is simply incomprehensible.

The linguistic issue was resolved in Quebec a long time ago and nothing can justify Curling Canada's decision. The government should approach this agency to ensure that Quebec City is no longer discriminated against because of the French language.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find unanimous consent in the House for the following motion. All parties agree:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Chambly—Borduas, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Monday, October 16, 2006, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Employment Insurance, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on September 21, 2006, my colleague from Compton—Stanstead asked the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development if she will extend the transitional measures intended to alleviate the adverse effects of the reorganization of the economic boundaries for EI in eastern Quebec. The minister dodged the question at the time and responded with her usual mantra, that is, that she would make informed decisions at the appropriate time regarding the boundaries. October 7 is not far off; the time has come.

Can the minister tell us what decisions she has made regarding the reorganization and the extension of transitional measures? October 7 is only four days away.