Michel Guimond

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am convinced that the people in his riding who voted for the member from the “NLP”—the “New Liberal Party”, formerly known as the New Democratic Party—are proud when they see him in such a flight of oratory. We were able to follow the beginning of his flight, but we could not see the landing. The member reminds me of a Canada goose because he lands like one, with his belly in the mud. We did not understand how this flight ended.

I will try to answer the question. The member's remarks remind me of a Canada goose or a snow goose. However, I am sure that his constituents are not proud to see him being applauded by the Liberals here in the House.

If there is a distinction to be made, I will say that the Bloc Quebecois did not support the budget. We voted against the budget and we will vote against the budget implementation bill. That is what it means to stand up for what one believes in, to have real backbone instead of bending with the wind. The member does not seem to understand that.

I am tempted to ask him what the unemployed in his riding are getting, despite the agreement between his leader and the leader of the Liberal Party, and the answer is absolutely nothing.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like an explanation from the technical services of the House as to why the member's microphone is still on and he can go on with his remarks when you are standing. Normally, when the Speaker stands, all microphones should be turned off. But I sit on the Board of Internal Economy, and we will get a chance to raise this problem.

I need a long introduction to give some background on the events after the adoption of my question of privilege and this report. Even if the hon. member cannot see how my remarks are relevant, I can excuse him. He does not always pay attention. I need a long introduction to explain how we came to discuss in the House today this 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

As I said, the government resorts to diversion tactics when it needs them. Obviously, the government was not able to manage the security services during President Bush's visit. Since the government is not able to manage House proceedings either, it has to use diversion tactics such as a three hour debate on a motion.

Without a doubt, Canadians will not be fooled. They know what is true and what is not. Events, such as those told to the Gomery commission, show how one party can agree to associate itself with another party strongly suspected of corruption. As proof, we need only recall the testimony of Benoît Corbeil, who was director general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.

However, with regard to the adoption of this budget, the Bloc Québécois cannot support the budget implementation bill for the simple reason that this is a bad budget. I have trouble understanding how the NDP—which voted against the budget—because it obtained funds that will be spent only in 2006 and 2007, can now consider this is a good budget.

Why are we unable to support the budget implementation bill? It is because it does not contain a single measure to resolve the fiscal imbalance, for one, or the problems with employment insurance, which is fundamental to the regions, for another.

Yesterday, in Malbaie, I attended a protest by workers in the Sans-Chemise movement. They asked us not to do what the NDP is doing and partner with a corrupt government. They hope that the Bloc will stand on its own two feet.

There were 54 Bloc members who voted against the budget and 54 Bloc members will vote against the budget implementation bill. This is what is known as being consistent. We must be honest with ourselves and with the people who elected us. We said that we would go to Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebec and our actions are consistent with our promises.

Why do some politicians lose voter confidence? Because, due to optimism or other political calculations, such as knowing what side your bread is buttered on, they change their opinion. People do not like flip-flopping. The public prefers politicians with backbone, who stand on their own two feet, remain true to their principles and act accordingly.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, during the time allotted to me, I would like to tell my hon. colleagues and those listening to us about this motion put forward by the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, after I raised a question of privilege in this House on December 1. This question was ruled in order by the Speaker of the House and discussed at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which eventually led to this twenty-first report being concurred in.

Having just used up approximately 30 seconds of the 20 minutes allotted to me, before getting to the heart of the matter, I will take the next 19 minutes to address the tactic currently being used by the Liberal government in the House of Commons.

This government is making indiscriminate use of the media and any other forum to accuse the opposition of paralyzing the work of Parliament. The Standing Orders allocate opposition days to the parties in opposition. The other week, we saw the tactic used by the Government Leader. At 7:59 p.m. on the Monday, just before the end of the 48 hours allowed to the Conservative Party to indicate the subject of its opposition day, the government decided to gag any possibility of holding any opposition days before the June 23 adjournment.

As parliamentary procedure allows, routine proceedings was used to present motions. What was the government's response to that? It tabled 49 motions. That figure can be checked in the order paper, but I believe that is it. The purpose of that tactic is to block the parliamentary agenda.

It is now 4:55 p.m. We have just started a three-hour debate. That will mean that today, apart from the time allocated to members' business and the debate begun prior to oral question period, this House will have spent three hours on a report tabled some months ago concerning an event that occurred on November 30, 2004. At that time, I drew the attention of the House and of the Speaker to this matter via a point of privilege. This matter has been settled to some extent by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The government has literally copied numerous committee reports in order to present a motion aimed at ensuring no real parliamentary business gets done.

I wish to inform you that the people listening to us are not fools, nor are those sitting on this side of the House. I am obliged to specify “this side” because the people on the other side are all in the same party. We have witnessed the alliance between the Liberal Party of Canada and the NLP. You know, a new party has been registered with the Chief Electoral Officer, called the NLP, or New Liberal Party. It was created by the merger of the Liberal Party and the former NDP, or New Democratic Party.

The electorate will be able to judge the NDP on the action that it has taken. I want to tell you that, in terms of democracy, the people are never wrong. I have confidence in the intelligence of the people. When the time comes, they will judge severely and sanction this government, which no longer has the moral authority to govern.

The attitude of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is unfortunate. By the way, this committee has a reputation for discussing matters widely and openly and for trying to reach a consensus among the parties.

This committee is made up of whips from all parties and I know that the parliamentary leader of the official opposition sometimes sits on this committee. Since it governs, you know that the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is very wide and that many decisions are made by way of consensus. That is why, as much as possible, there is no partisanship in this committee.

However, I want to caution the committee chairman and hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell that, by introducing this motion, he has just broken, to a certain extent, this consensus approach. He has tried to be an accomplice in a shamelessly partisan action to literally interrupt the work of the House. He has made this decision, but he will have to live with it.

These are not threats. The government wants to act like this. It has made a decision. It has the right to do so. However, the government must expect a trade-off. We know that the purpose of all this is to try to avoid a final verdict by the people. Right now, the Liberal Party is only buying time. The agreement with the NDP, the so-called “NLP”, is only aimed at buying time to ensure that, in case there were a vote, it would have 131 Liberal members, plus 19 members from the “NLP”—

[Sponsorship Program, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yet the Prime Minister said, when the Gomery inquiry was created, that everyone who knew anything ought to speak out.

How could the Minister of the Environment ignore that appeal by the Prime Minister, not let it worry him, and act as if he had suddenly forgotten that he had made use of the unity fund to hire BCP to promote his clarity bill? How could he conceal that from Justice Gomery when he was a witness under oath?

[Sponsorship Program, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment took great care not to disclose to the Gomery inquiry that the national unity fund had been used to promote the clarity bill, Bill C-20.

How was the minister able to conceal that from the Gomery inquiry when he was required by his oath to disclose everything he knew about this matter?

[1995 Referendum, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that Option Canada provides us with one more illustration of the extent of that Liberal network identified by the former director general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, Benoît Corbeil?

[1995 Referendum, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Option Canada, a not-for-profit organization funded by the taxpayers' money, was created by the Council for Canadian Unity. Option Canada has been identified as being at the centre of the Liberal network. That organization was knowingly in violation of the Quebec referendum legislation in spending $4.8 million on behalf of the No campaign.

Can the Prime Minister, who was at that time Minister of Finance and vice-president of the Treasury Board, confirm that Option Canada was the vehicle used to violate and trample over Quebec's referendum legislation?

[Sponsorship Program, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Corbeil also confirmed that he was told by a minister's office that he would be getting $100,000 in dirty money from Jean Brault.

With revelations like these, can the Prime Minister still claim that no minister was involved in the sponsorship scandal?

[Sponsorship Program, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Benoît Corbeil, the former director general of the Liberal Party of Canada Quebec wing, directly implicated the office of Jean Chrétien. He said, “One fine morning, I received a call from the Prime Minister's office and was told there was someone coming to see me and I had to find a way to pay him. I replied that there was no money and was told to find some”.

Is that not proof that not only was the office of the former Prime Minister aware that dirty money was circulating within the Liberal Party, but that they themselves encouraged the director general to find other sources of dirty money?

[Government Contracts, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport would have us believe that he invoiced only for policy analysis or brainstorming, but not for time spent arranging so-called social gatherings with ministers for his friends, and their subsequent meals.

I hope he does not expect us to believe that, because we do not. If he was not lobbying, then what was he doing?