Mr. Speaker, rather than looking for ways to spend surplus funds, should the government not give this money back to drivers who, thanks to its actions, have paid nearly $1 billion over the past five years?
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Gasoline Prices June 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, rather than looking for ways to spend surplus funds, should the government not give this money back to drivers who, thanks to its actions, have paid nearly $1 billion over the past five years?
Gasoline Prices June 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, in 1995, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, then Minister of Finance, implemented an additional tax of 1.5¢ per litre of gasoline to fight the deficit. However, this tax has not been needed for several years now, but it is still being maintained by the federal government.
How can the taxpayers not feel wronged by a government that acts in such a way and keeps a tax that is no longer needed?
Points of Order May 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I shall stick to the facts. In making your ruling, you should, I suggest, look at the notice of meeting for meeting No. 30 of the Standing Committee on Transport; in it we see that the committee was to meet on Wednesday, May 28, 2003, from 3:30 to 9:00 p.m. In fact, the meeting was suspended at 9:30 p.m., for lack of a quorum.
For your further understanding, I refer you to the notice of meeting for meeting No. 31 of the Standing Committee on Transport which reads as follows:
The meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 29, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 209, West Block is cancelled.
This morning's meeting was an informal one. We cannot fault the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for requesting an interpreter. Contrary to what the Chair of the Standing Committee on Transport was saying, the fact that the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel asked if he could be accompanied by an interpreter was not tacit consent: he wanted to be accompanied by an interpreter for this informal meeting that took place at 8:30 this morning because the meeting scheduled for 9 a.m. had been cancelled.
Points of Order May 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight. I was informed last night that when the committee adjourned at 9:30 p.m., the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel went to the interpreter's booth on his own initiative to ask one of the interpreters to accompany him this morning at breakfast at 8:00 a.m. in the parliamentary restaurant. That is the first thing we need to clear up.
Moreover, when we as francophones try to follow a conversation using an elbow interpreter, we feel that we are at a disadvantage. Let me be clear, I am not disparaging the Hill interpreters. They do tremendous work. That is not the issue. However, since the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel was accompanied by an elbow interpreter, he could not have appreciated the full scope of the discussions in committee.
That covers the first point. We agree with what the government leader read in the House earlier.
As for the second point, there is something I do not understand. In the dining rooms of the parliamentary restaurant, room 601 or 606—I do not remember which it is—how can recording services be provided? How can the deliberations be recorded? When a committee meets outside the House at a hotel—I went with the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North to the Valhalla Inn in Thunder Bay—the necessary equipment is provided to electronically record everything that is said. With all due respect, this was not possible in the parliamentary restaurant dining room. When the Chair of the Transport Committee and member for Thunder Bay—Superior North says that the discussions were recorded, I find this hard to believe.
Business of the House May 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, but we would indeed agree with the motion moved earlier by the government House leader. We had come to an agreement earlier, during the meeting of the House leaders.
Thus, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the motion to defer the vote on Bill C-25 until 3 p.m. tomorrow.
Library and Archives of Canada Act May 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no on this motion.
Budget Implementation Act, 2003 May 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no on this motion.
Government Contracts May 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the police have a saying, “First find out who benefits from the crime”. In this instance, the $63,000 directly benefited the Liberal Party of Canada.
Since this is the governing party, would the minister not say that he is defending the indefensible, and tarnishing the reputation of those of his colleagues who are not implicated by hiding behind an RCMP investigation that we will never hear anything more about?
Government Contracts May 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said he will not defend the indefensible in connection with the advertising and sponsorship issue. However, when we have Alain Renaud confirming that important people asked him to make political contributions of more than $63,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada, it becomes indefensible.
If he wants to protect the integrity of those government members who are not implicated, the minister has to disclose the identity of those who are. On behalf of our fellow citizens, will he tell us who in government is implicated in this affair?
Political Party Financing May 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am not happy that the Leader of the Government in the House has not answered a very clear question.
Since he refuses to tell us if the vote on this legislation is a vote of confidence in the government, does this mean that the Prime Minister is giving in to the President of the Liberal Party of Canada, who wants this legislation dropped, is giving in to the member for LaSalle—Émard, who is running a leadership campaign with a campaign fund that has been condemned by the other candidates? Is this not what is happening with the political party financing legislation?