House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program April 12th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister explain that he decided to get rid of Pelletier, Gagliano and Ouellet before the end of the Gomery inquiry yet refuses to do something else—put the dirty money in trust—with the excuse that the inquiry is not over?
Sponsorship Program April 12th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, in his haste to distance himself from the sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister fired some of those associated with it, such as André Ouellet, Alfonso Gagliano and Jean Pelletier.
What we would like to know from the Prime Minister is the reason for his decision to dismiss these people. Was it based on allegations, or was he certain that they were part of the little parallel group directing the operations of the sponsorship scandal?
Standing Orders and Procedure April 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that it is the privilege and the right of the hon. member to ask a question. The issue I raise, however, is his remark about our refusal earlier to grant unanimous consent, saying that we were not interested.
Members can reread the debates. I to not want to deny him that right, but I would like him to withdraw his allegations against me after my refusal to give unanimous consent.
Standing Orders and Procedure April 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member should not be making such comments. Let us assume that there are many people in this House and that they are all interested in the debate. This is why we should continue. Accordingly, the hon. member should withdraw his remarks.
Sponsorship Program April 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, these ordinary supporters were misled by Liberal Party of Canada leaders. In addition to having paid bogus fees to senior Liberal Party officials, Groupaction also paid bogus salaries to Daniel-Yves Durand, Serge Gosselin, John Welch, Marie-Lyne Chrétien and Georges Farrah.
Are we to understand that the Prime Minister intends to ask the Liberal Party to refund the salaries paid to his cronies in the party as well?
Sponsorship Program April 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport stated that the alleged actions, the illegalities committed during the sponsorship scandal, were the work of a small parallel group.
However, when we are talking about the minister responsible for Quebec, Alfonso Gagliano, the director general of the Liberal Party's Quebec wing, Benoît Corbeil, very close friends of Jean Chrétien, his brother Gaby, full-time party organizers, how can it be a parallel group, when, clearly it is the very core of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Standing Orders and Procedure April 11th, 2005
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this take note debate aimed at improving certain elements in the Standing Orders, which guide our work here in this House.
The committee on modernization has already done some serious and fairly complete work, in which our House leader, the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, participated. The committee was chaired by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who was the government House leader at the time.
Since the House consists of human beings, representing diverse regions, belonging to different parties, having a certain diversity of opinions, we owe it to ourselves to have Standing Orders to govern our proceedings that can, necessarily, change as well. In fact, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons cannot be set in stone for long periods of time.
That is why it would be a good idea to improve certain elements. I would like to focus on private members' business, since I only have ten minutes to outline our point of view on this issue, which has an impact on our party.
Previously, members names were drawn, and then they had to go before the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business to defend the votability of their bills. This aspect was seen by a number of our colleagues sitting on the modernization committee as being too dependent on the arbitrary decisions of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. I have sat on that committee and I agree with this, although each and every member of this subcommittee approaching it with good faith and common sense.
With respect to the question we had to answer, who are we to decide whether a particular bill should be votable or not, despite the fact that we had drawn up a list of fairly well-defined criteria?
We decided on March 17 and October 29, 2003, and on March 23 and October 29, 2004, to improve the procedure. We adopted sections in the Standing Orders called provisional Standing Orders. What we in the Bloc Québécois are asking for is simply that these provisional Standing Orders be made permanent.
Perhaps I should clarify for the benefit of those who are watching us—since we are dealing here with a rather technical aspect of parliamentary procedure—that the provisions in question are Standing Orders 86 to 99.
Under these new provisions, all bills or motions selected under private members' business are automatically votable. However, it would not have been appropriate to allow members of Parliament to bring forward just any kind of measure, not because we did not trust them but because we had to ensure that the bills considered by this House would follow certain basic principles.
We decided to create what I would call a minimal filter, by which all items are votable provided they meet certain criteria.
Here is the first criterion. Bills and motions must not deal with matters that are not under federal jurisdiction. Of course, we are here in a federal parliament, and until Quebec achieves sovereignty, as far as Quebeckers are concerned, certain matters will be under federal jurisdiction and others will be under provincial jurisdiction. In a sovereign Quebec, this will no longer be an issue since all matters will be under Quebec's jurisdiction. However, in the current system, we have to deal with matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Second, this is a major point, and we have had the opportunity to dispute this with representatives of certain parties. Bills and motions should not violate, obviously, constitutional law, including the acts of 1867 and 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must ensure that the bill is consistent with the charters. Would it be acceptable for an MP, whether in good faith or maliciously, to introduce a bill to restore discrimination based on language or skin colour, or to go backwards like some countries in Africa some time ago—such as South Africa with its Apartheid—or a situation similar to the one existing in various American states before the 1970s. The member could not say that it is his privilege to introduce such a bill. It would be totally unacceptable. The bill must comply with the requirements in the charter, particularly section 15 on equality rights. That is why we are talking about the civil marriage bill, but that is another debate.
The third requirement states that bills must not refer to questions already debated in the House to avoid redundancy. I will conclude quickly so as to mention the improvements whereby bills must not concern questions on the order paper.
However, once these requirements have been fully complied with, the bill can be introduced, debated in the House and voted on. One of the things the Bloc Québécois wants is for the provisional Standing Orders to be now deemed permanent ones.
However, there are various problems with the current system. Among those problems is the reference to similar items. Provisional Standing Order 86(5) seems to pose a problem because we realize that it indicates the following:
The Speaker shall be responsible for determining whether two or more items are so similar as to be substantially the same, in which case he or she shall so inform the Member or Members whose items were received last and the same shall be returned to the Member or Members without having appeared on the Notice Paper.
The Speaker in this context refers to the Journals Branch.
We think this needs to be changed so that two similar items are not standing in the order of precedence. Currently, the problem is that a member can present 42 different items and, in a way, monopolize everything. If the member presents 42 bills and motions and we try to present ours, Journals could say the matter has already been presented. We have to make sure that once the member's item is selected, all the other items are dropped and become available to be presented by another member. Each member could introduce 20 similar items, for instance, but once one has been debated, the other 19 become available for other colleagues.
We could propose the following amendment, “The Speaker shall be responsible for determining whether two or more items standing in the order of precedence are so similar as to be substantially the same, in which case he or she shall so inform the Member whose items were received last and the same shall be automatically removed from the Notice Paper.
I also want to talk about the law clerks' interpretation of amendments to private members' bills or bills which table clerks still maintain involve appropriation. Many amendments are refused because they are deemed to require a royal recommendation. I know that my colleague, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, talked about this earlier today. We definitely must review Standing Order 79 on royal recommendation.
Parliament of Canada Act April 6th, 2005
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I will try not to get too passionate in replying to my colleague, but I am just as passionate whether the questions come from one side or from the other side. I simply want to answer the question of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.
This is why I said at the beginning that this was a perfect issue for grandstanding. I want to go back to my colleague and to the Conservative member and ask them this question: What will be the position of each of the parties in this House when we will deal with the 10.8% salary increase for judges? If 10.8% is too much for MPs, it is probably too much for judges also.
Parliament of Canada Act April 6th, 2005
Madam Speaker, the reply I have in mind is going to displease the hon. parliamentary leader of the Conservative Party with whom I sit on various committees and for whom I have a great deal of respect.
I said that it is a perfect bill for grandstanding. We will be marching here on Wellington Street holding signs that say, “Do you think MPs earn too much?” We will take a poll of the people who sit in the galleries. We will hand out sheets asking, “Do you think MPs earn too much? They should work for nothing.” It sets the stage for grandstanding.
I will bring up some bad memories for the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. When the members of the Reform Party were sitting here, Preston Manning sent out a memo objecting to the large number of Christmas lights on Parliament Hill. He said it was costing the taxpayers too much in electricity. Of course, that was popular.
When the Bloc Québécois was the official opposition, he said that Stornoway should be transformed into a bingo hall. But as soon as they became the official opposition, they jumped on Stornoway. Preston Manning once said that the free lunches, which make us fat—look what it has done to me, with the lunches we eat in the lobby—cost the taxpayers too much. But when the lunch comes, the Conservatives eat it. We could say that is not logical because it is the taxpayers who pay.
Once again, I say it is a fine bill for grandstanding, and I say with respect that my colleague from Prince George—Peace River has done just that.
Parliament of Canada Act April 6th, 2005
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga South for his question.
In January 2001, when we adopted the principle of linking the salaries of MPs and judges, the consensus was that the Prime Minister should earn as much as the highest official he appoints, namely the chief justice.
I do not want to get into mathematical formulae because, first, math is not my strong suit and second, I do not want to confuse the public. However, if, based on the industrial index that will serve as the reference for Bill C-30, this results in a maximum increase of 8% for the next four years instead of 10.8% spread over the same period, this means that at the end of that four-year period, starting in 2005-06, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada will earn more than the Prime Minister.
This violates the principle. This means that, ultimately, the Prime Minister will earn less than the highest official he appoints. I am not defending the Prime Minister and his salary increases. He has no need of his salary. With all the perks he gets, he does not need his salary.
However, this is about the principle and we fight for principles. After four years, the chief justice will earn more than the Prime Minister and that makes no sense.