Michel Guimond

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 30th, 2003]

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

[Canadian Grand Prix, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the secretary of state that the federal government stands to lose a lot of money in GST alone. I would also remind him that the only idea everyone is supporting at this time is for a temporary, two-year, transition fund.

Does the government not feel it is imperative to send a clear message that, if industry does its share, the government is prepared to do the same, in order to save the Montreal Grand Prix and the $80 million in economic spinoffs that go with it?

[Canadian Grand Prix, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice's response to a suggestion by the Bloc Quebecois to save the Montreal Grand Prix was to reject the idea of using public funds to compensate the racing teams. Yet it seems that industry is heading toward that solution.

Given this new development, does the government not feel the need to send industry a clear signal that it too is prepared to do its part?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, September 23rd, 2003]

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

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

My hon. colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville tells me that we could also mention tax havens; we could talk about companies that do not pay taxes here and which transfer all their revenues to tax havens. We could talk about this for a long time.

So, this ethics commissioner would replace the government's ethic's counsellor, Howard Wilson. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is considering the adoption of a code of conduct, and Mr. Wilson has been following the committee's work quite diligently. There were rumours that he might be interested in this position.

But, with all due respect for Mr. Wilson, it is not necessarily him, but the role he played over the past ten years. He was the independent ethics counsellor the Bloc Quebecois had hoped for. Over the past ten years, Mr. Wilson has acted as a political advisor to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. He did not act like someone responsible for ensuring that the government behaved ethically.

Let us say, whether out of ignorance or incompetence, or what is termed in legal parlance wilful blindness, Mr. Wilson had a rather questionable view of ethics. If anyone needs convincing, they need only think of the example of the Prime Minister's ethics adviser authorizing secret meetings between the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, owner of Canada Steamship Lines—a situation he has apparently regularized recently—and the directors of that company.

This is a rather dubious view of ethics, a rather elastic view. The property of elastic is that it can be stretched to suit us. There can be no denying the fact that, at these meetings, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard certainly acquired certain information about his assets.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of the ethics commissioner receiving complaints from members, and those members receiving feedback and follow up.

We also are in favour of having the ethics commissioner report to Parliament. At the present time, the ethics adviser reports to the Prime Minister in total secrecy, behind closed doors, unbeknownst to anyone, away from prying eyes and ears. This is not what is expected of an ethics commissioner.

We are told that there is total transparency on the government side. If it has nothing to hide, the government has only to appoint an independent ethics commissioner. That is what the bill indicates and I can tell hon. members that, on this side of the House, we are in favour of having the commissioner report to Parliament.

We were in favour of referring the bill to the procedure and House affairs committee prior to second reading, because we wanted to see certain points clarified by that process. Today it is very hard to get a precise idea of the provisions, as long as we are unable to analyze the bill in parallel with the parliamentarians' code of ethics, which we are currently involved in drafting in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In all humility, we believe that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has all the expertise it requires to analyze the bill and make any necessary amendments.

Some issues must be clarified. Among them, is this question: in what particular ways should the rules apply to ministers? After all, the code of conduct we are now working on is intended to govern parliamentarians.

We all know that a minister, is, of course, a member of Parliament, and governed by our code of conduct. Nevertheless, what will become of the code of conduct for ministers that the Prime Minister has a member of Parliament sign when he or she becomes a cabinet minister? Which of these rules will take precedence? Is it the code of conduct which governs the work, decisions, and functions of all MPs, or that governing the minister in decisions made in that role? The bill should clarify this issue.

Is there a complaints process if members should fail to respect the code of conduct? That also should be clarified. What will the penalties be, and so on? There are a certain number of points in this regard on which we would like some information.

In short, our party is pleased that the bill has been referred to committee before second reading. We believe that this bill requires very serious analysis, and that this analysis, as I said before, should take place in conjunction with the study of the code of conduct we have doing in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

There is one more element of interest to us. When I say this, I hope it will show the House that we are not an opposition party that criticizes simply for the pleasure of criticizing. When elements of a bill do not suit us, we say so loud and clear, and we defend the interests of Quebeckers. On the other hand, when we in the Bloc agree with certain elements, we also want that to be known.

The element in question is that we will be assured from now on that the leaders of recognized parties in the House will be consulted on the subject of appointing the ethics commissioner, since this obligation will be written in the law.

When we questioned Mr. Wilson's competency, the Prime Minister told us, “Yes, but you were consulted. We consulted you.” Obviously, there are different kinds of consultations, one of which is more informative: “I hereby advise you that I have made such and such a decision.” There is another possibility, which is: “I am asking for your opinion.” The presumption is that the decision has not yet been made.

In this case, consultations by the Prime Minister regarding Mr. Wilson's appointment were bogus: “Please be advised that I have appointed so and so. This is the person I want.” It is important, nonetheless, to be careful.

This legislation would make this a statutory requirement from now on. This was not part of the Prime Minister's commitment set out in the draft legislation introduced on October 23. So, now the House of Commons is supposed to adopt a resolution to approve, as well, the appointment of the ethics commissioner.

This provision was not included in the draft legislation. In a unanimous report tabled in April 2003, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommended that these provisions be included.

In closing, I want to say that we also welcome the formal establishment of a complaint process for parliamentarians with regard to ministers, ministers of State and parliamentary secretaries.

Additionally, each year, the commissioner should table in the House a report of his activities. These provisions are set out in the draft legislation introduced last fall.

In short, our party supports Bill C-34, but we must recognize that there is still room for improvement.

I know that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be able to make constructive suggestions to ensure that this legislation is improved.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will restart the clock at zero. That is a good way to make us lose our concentration, and all the more so since we do not actually have a time clock, something I requested of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons. It seems that my voice was not heard by the committee members. But that is not my point and I would not want to cause you trouble.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-34, which provides for the creation of the position of ethics commissioner. In particular, today we are examining the bill at third reading.

When talking about an ethics commissioner, I would like to begin by saying, “At last.” I would like to add, “Better late than never.” I would like to suggest that members read the Liberal Party's red book, a veritable bible for all Liberal candidates in the 1993 election. The red book entitled “Creating Opportunity: the Liberal Plan for Canada” talked about an ethics commissioner. This red book clearly stated:

A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor...The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all the parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

That is why I would say, “At last. Better late than never.” Sometimes we find that our constituents or other people we meet tend to view politics and politicians with rose coloured glasses and sarcasm. I think that the fact of having waited 10 years and gone through three elections with this recommendation shows how much the Liberal government wants to live up to the promises it makes in its campaign literature. It is high time that this government decided to keep its promise.

We must not forget that, over the past ten years, various events occurred within this government in relation to which the appointment of an independent ethics commissioner—and I stress the word independent—would have been quite appropriate. Let me explain.

Over the past decade, the Liberal government has faced numerous scandals, which remain unresolved. This is true of the majority of these scandals. We only need think, to name only the biggest, of the Auberge Grand-Mère and HRDC scandals, as well as the sponsorship program, in relation to which the RCMP laid charges just a few weeks ago. However, the Bloc Quebecois noticed that the Minister of Public Works avoided the issue for nearly a year and said that it had been referred to the RCMP for investigation. It took a year before charges were laid.

I remind this government that the corrective measures taken do not change the past. In Quebec, we have the wonderful motto “Je me souviens” or “I remember”. Unfortunately, we do not repeat it enough. I hope that people will remember this Liberal government's ethical failures. Although the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard was all but crowned leader yesterday, it is important to remember that he was a member of this government and a cabinet minister for most of the past ten years.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. Other hon. members from my party will also speak on Bill C-34, the bill to create the position of ethics commissioner.

[Transportation week, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, during public and alternative transportation week, which runs until September 21, the Comité régional des usagers du transport en commun have organized a series of activities in the Quebec region to encourage public awareness of the numerous socio-economic and environmental advantages of public and alternative transportation.

With the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, public awareness of the importance of viable transportation is more necessary than ever. The transportation sector is responsible for 38% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec; consequently, more must be done to promote alternatives to travelling by car.

Over the course of this week, seminars, information kiosks, the Enviro-Course and a bike ride will be held to increase awareness in the Quebec region of the benefits of public and alternative transportation.

I want to congratulate the organizers and the volunteers, without whom this week would not be possible.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government has chosen to use a procedure consisting of 10-minute speeches with no questions or comments. We do not have any time to ask questions of the hon. member who has just spoken. I am not going to waste my precious 10 minutes on replying to the claims made by the Canadian Alliance member. Instead, I will explain the Bloc Quebecois position on this bill.

First, I will say that the Bloc Quebecois is going to vote against Bill C-49 and against referring it to committee, for the good and simple reason that it interferes politically—since the bill was introduced by the leader of the Government—in a neutral and non-partisan process.

Right from the start, I should say that we in the Bloc Quebecois do not agree with the final report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. That does not mean that we contest its legitimacy. As a lawyer by profession, I have had to live with judicial decisions I did not agree with. That is the reason for the transparent system we have, that is, the courts of law, so that issues can be examined and adjudicated.

Therefore we have no reason to doubt the neutrality of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, chaired by the Hon. Pierre Boudreault. The commission has made a decision that is not to our liking, but the process was transparent and neutral. We believe it was completely untouched by any political interference.

But the Government is using this bill to interfere and in a partisan way. In the Liberal Party of Canada—and this is not news to anyone—there is a leadership race going on. The current Prime Minister has announced that he will leave. This summer, one of the candidates in this leadership race wrote to Mr. Kingsley, the Chef Electoral Officer, to ask him to speed up the process and, as was left unsaid in the letter, provide him with a window of opportunity to call an election in the spring of 2004.

What is this government's legislative response? It is giving the member for LaSalle—Émard the opportunity to open this electoral window in the spring of 2004. The government will table a bill whereby, in the procedure that was adopted by this House, the new electoral map will come into effect once the last commission tables its report. The last commission to table its report was the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, which did so on August 25, 2003. By law, the new map comes into effect one year after the last commission tables its report. In theory, the new map will not come into effect until August 25, 2004.

However, the member for LaSalle—Émard was given the opportunity to hold an election in the spring under the new electoral map. The member for LaSalle—Émard knows full well that if he called an election before August 25, 2004, there would be seven fewer ridings based on the current map and he would run the risk of alienating westerners. With the new electoral map, there are two more ridings in Alberta and two more in British Columbia. So he would alienate westerners, who say they are under-represented. They are entitled to their view.

The member from North Vancouver can say what he wants about the Bloc Quebecois's intentions, that does not concern us in the least.

We do not have to address the fact that there are two more ridings in British Columbia and three in Ontario. What is totally unacceptable is the question of the demographic weight of Quebec in this new electoral map.

I would remind hon. members that Quebec had 75 seats in 1985, out of a total of 282 in the House. At the present time, it has 75 out of 301. Under this bill, it will have 75 out of 308 with the new electoral map.

What we are saying to the people of Quebec is that this is further evidence proof of how Quebec is marginalized within this system. It is the reason behind the brief the Bloc Quebecois members presented to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission on behalf of their party. The brief pointed out that, given the increase in the population of Quebec, and also to maintain the relative weight of Quebec within these walls, there ought to be 77 seats, not 75. We were not justifying the need for 88, but saying that the number ought to go up from 75 to 77.

We submitted this to the commission in good faith, but our proposal was not retained. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the commission is not the one to decide how many ridings there will be; it is the House, the government, through a legislative process. We are challenging the government to bring in a bill promptly to make the number for Quebec 77 instead of 75.

There is one other reason for our opposition to this bill. Moving the effective date of the new electoral map up means sanctioning the fact that the regions of Quebec will be deprived of a voice within this parliament.

One need only look at regions like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, which will lose a seat, or Mauricie, where Champlain is merged with Saint-Maurice. Overall, then, Mauricie is losing one seat. Then there is the North Shore, where Manicouagan takes in part of Charlevoix. The new riding of Manicouagan will encompass an area 58 times the size of Prince Edward Island, which has 4 MPs. In other words, PEI would fit into the new riding of Manicouagan 58 times.

Mr. Speaker, this summer, you were active in your riding, in Cornwall and elsewhere. You met people at the shopping mall, at various parties or municipal pool openings. You met with people who undoubtedly complained to you about the political process or the role of elected representatives, saying, for example, that they never see them and that not enough is known about what they do.

How will a member whose riding covers an area 58 times larger than Prince Edward Island be able to be present, how will he be able to represent his constituents? Physically, it is impossible in some ridings, where there are no roads between municipalities and where winters are long and harsh. Sometimes, people wonder why those listening have lost confidence in politics and politicians. It is because of decisions such as this one to adopt an electoral map like this.

As a party, the Bloc Quebecois does not have to endorse implementation of this new electoral map by April 1, 2004. It is out of the question. We will defend our position and defend the interests of Quebec and its regions. It is unacceptable for this bill to be pushed or bulldozed through by this government, as usual.

My colleagues are of the same view, and that is the position of my party.