Michel Guimond

[Auberge Grand-Mère, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is strange to see that the Minister of Industry is now concerned about this issue, considering that, at the time, the ethics counsellor said everything was fine.

Following the sensational revelations made in that ruling, which highlighted the ties between Jean Chrétien and Michel Vennat, and considering that the latter was appointed president of the BDC by Jean Chrétien services rendered, is the Prime Minister not putting himself in a very embarrassing situation by leaving this individual at the head of the Business Development Bank of Canada?

[Auberge Grand-Mère, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the Auberge Grand-Mère issue, a court ruling was just issued in the case of François Beaudoin, the former president of the Business Development Bank of Canada, and that ruling is very damning for Jean Chrétien and his two henchmen, Michel Vennat and Jean Carle.

Considering the very strong condemnation of the behaviour of Michel Vennat, who is still the president of the BDC, will the Prime Minister recognize that he must immediately demand Mr. Vennat's resignation as BDC's president?

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Chairman, I did not finish reading the excerpt from this open letter.

The Jean Guilbert family from Saint-Maurice says, “Sometimes it costs more to have a specialist treat the animal than what the animal is worth on the market. No, the cow is not mad, it is its protector who is desperate and who has been wondering for months where the profit margin is going, between the paltry sum he receives from the sale of his animals and the high price consumers pay at the grocery store. Think about that before judging the person who slaughtered a cow on television out of desperation”.

I would like my colleague's comments on this point.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Champlain for his excellent speech. I will begin by saying that the subject we are debating tonight is a very important one, and one of great concern to the farmers in my riding, particularly those in Côte de Beaupré or Île d'Orléans. Many of them have come to my riding office to tell me so.

I must tell my colleague that I have noted the main thrust of his speech. Having followed the debates since 7:15 p.m., I have noticed he is one of the few to stress the human aspect of this crisis, its impact on farm families.

In this connection, I would like to hear my colleague from Champlain comment on an open letter from the Jean Guilbert family of Saint-Maurice, which was printed on the rural voices page of the newspaper La Terre de chez nous .

I am not sure whether Saint-Maurice will be in my colleague's future riding, because we all know he will be the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain after the merger. I would like to read him excerpts from this letter to get his quick his comments on them.

The Jean Guilbert family of Saint-Maurice writes, “In Quebec, there are children who are leaving for school in the morning with their heads filled with worries about their families because of debts and the imminent danger of losing the farm to creditors, a farm where they live and where they often work every day. After years of sacrifice, of working seven days a week, just about 365 days a year, to get their farm up and running, their parents are now seeing their farms on their last days”.

Saint-Maurice has one of the highest concentrations of dairy farms anywhere in Quebec. I would therefore like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Speech from the Throne, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's throne speech has confirmed that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Quebeckers were hoping to find real solutions in the throne speech, such as annual and ongoing funding for health, a commitment not to appeal concerning parental leave, a commitment to provide full retroactivity on the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, a commitment not to participate in the missile defence plan with the Americans, a commitment not to accept the expansion of the St. Lawrence Seaway—a project that would increase the risk of pollution all along the river.

Moreover, one group of fellow citizens was forgotten in this Speech from the Throne: unemployed men and women, particularly seasonal workers. There was nothing, not even one line, about a commitment to change the EI system to permit the creation of an independent EI fund to administer a system in which the number of hours required to qualify would correspond to the real situation of seasonal workers, many of whom now have to get through the coming weeks of the spring gap.

Where are the wonderful promises that were made in Baie-Saint-Paul on June 11, 2003, by the Liberal Party leadership candidate who has now become the Prime Minister of Canada?

[Address in Reply, February 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has given such good answers, I will be seeking unanimous consent of the House to extend the question and answer period by 10 minutes.

[Canada Elections Act, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the government House leader's speech and I hope he will stay with us for a long time. Yesterday, when he answered the Thursday question, we weighed his every word when he said something to the effect of, “My colleagues, the House leaders, who have given me their support for all these years”. It sounded a lot like a farewell speech.

But we are not there yet. My question is mainly on the Supreme Court ruling in the Figueroa case. If I understand correctly, the government had no choice but to accept this Supreme Court decision because requiring a minimum number of candidates for an election was deemed unconstitutional.

Consequently, one candidate could be enough. With the 50-candidate rule no longer applying, the government has to adjust its legislation. That is what the government is doing with Bill C-51.

Later, I will have an opportunity to speak to this bill, but I would like the government House leader to reply to this question first. Would it not have been a good idea to take advantage of the Figueroa decision, which in a way amends the Canada Elections Act, to respond to a repeated demand from the Bloc Quebecois—from myself, as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and also my colleagues from Verchères—Les-Patriotes and Laval Centre, who are associate members of that committee—to review the procedure for appointing returning officers?

The government House leader, insofar as I can read his lips, says that there is no connection. However, I am asking him if it would not have been a golden opportunity to clean up and modernize the way elections are run, to have returning officers chosen through an open, honest, transparent and public process. That is how it is done in Quebec.

I can see the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who was a minister in the Quebec National Assembly. He was a minister of some stature, if you consider his height. He had it over me, because I am only 5' 6" tall. Well, I am not going to flatter him too much.

I would simply like to suggest that the government House leader consult the people involved. I use the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry as an example, because he is right in front of me, but I could also mention the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, who also was a minister in the Quebec National Assembly, or the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies who also sat in that legislature. We remember one evening in the National Assembly, when the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, after a few glasses of wine, decided to seize the mace and leave the chamber. The official record tells it all.

The government House leader could consult his colleague, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who also sat in the National Assembly, to find out—there are some on our side, too, for instance the hon. member for Champlain—that the process of holding a public competition to appoint returning officers in Quebec works well and is not a source of patronage as it is here, where we get the list of 308 nominations for federal returning officers for our hasty approval. They are known Liberals and it is a process known for patronage.

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable should be given the time to express his thoughts.

With all due respect, my colleague from Portneuf did not even let him finish his sentence. He wanted to make an analogy or use an allegory to illustrate his point. An allegory, by definition, is a figure of speech used to make us aware of reality. I think that is what my colleague from Lotbinière—L'Érable wanted to do. Out of respect, he should be given time to make his point.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting no on this motion.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.