Monique Guay

[Justice, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly evident what path this government is going down.

While preparing to sacrifice the rights of individuals for religious groups, it has appointed to the Human Rights Tribunal Kerry-Lynne Findlay, a former Alliance candidate who supported the candidature of chief of staff Darrel Reid, an adherent of the extreme right religious organization Focus on the Family.

Does the Prime Minister realize that in the presence of such ideological cronyism it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Ms. Findlay will have the requisite impartiality to make objective decisions, particularly in cases of discrimination?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government must act more quickly and act now. It is evident that because of his irresponsible behaviour Commissioner Zaccardelli failed to do his job. In these circumstances, it is quite questionable whether he has the necessary leadership to implement the O'Connor report recommendations.

I am asking again, what is the government waiting for to demand the immediate resignation of Giuliano Zaccardelli?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when he appeared before the committee, Commissioner Zaccardelli acknowledged that he had known since early 2003 that the information leading to the deportation of Maher Arar to a Syrian prison was false. He even went so far as to say that he was convinced of his innocence. Instead of taking remedial action, he let Maher Arar rot in jail.

Does the government not feel that, on the basis of these revelations alone, the resignation of Commissioner Zaccardelli is imperative?

[Journal Le Nord, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago in the beautiful riding of Rivière-du-Nord, a newspaper took root that was just as audacious as its founders. Over the years it has witnessed the events that have given our community its identity and, through it all, the Annonceur, which became the Journal Le Nord, has been punctuated with success.

Its creators were passionate about delivering news that is fair, straightforward and respectful of the readers, which made this paper a leader in the information industry. It has stood out for its great independence and journalistic rigour.

I commend the extraordinary work of the president and editor, François Laferrière, and the assistant editor and director of information, Mychel Lapointe. I also want to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the collaborators who simply want to offer their many readers a top notch newspaper that is accessible and to ensure that this wonderful relationship they have had with the public over the past 20 years is a lasting relationship.

My colleagues at the Bloc Québécois join with me in wishing a happy 20th anniversary and long life to the Journal Le Nord.

[Taxation, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that eliminating the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and Quebec starts with increased transfer payments and equalization reform; and that the final settlement is a new, fairer sharing of the tax base and the end of the federal government's power to spend in Quebec's jurisdictions?

[Taxation, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government, which promised to resolve the fiscal imbalance in the next federal budget, told us that it would share its intentions in the fall budget statement. It is high time.

Can the Minister of Finance acknowledge the extent of the problem right now and give us an idea of the total amount he intends to give back to Quebec and the provinces?

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether we have fixed election dates or not, we are still stuck with a lame duck three years into the mandate. This will change nothing, because everyone knows that elections will be held within six months, or the following year, or two years later, because a mandate can last up to five years. I do not think this will change much.

The four-year fixed term would change things: it would make it possible for us to develop better structure and get organized in the ridings. It would also give us the freedom to do our work as parliamentarians until the end. This would enable us to work together to decide what we think is important in this or that bill, and then to focus exclusively on the election when the time comes, which is not currently the case. We are always organizing, looking for an office just in case an election is called. We are forced to do two jobs at once, and we cannot focus on our parliamentary work.

We could get a lot more work done in Parliament if we had fixed election dates every four years. Things that move very slowly right now would progress much more rapidly. We could get our real work done here and concentrate on our campaigns for a short time when the election rolls around. That way, we could stop wearing everyone out, including ourselves. That way, we could get things done like we are supposed to and do a better job of legislating here in Ottawa.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is a suggestion from my colleague. It is not written down anywhere, of course, but we generally know very well that there is a vote of confidence on the budget here in the House of Commons.

The government can obviously decide any time that there will be a vote of confidence on any given bill. That is happening now in the case of softwood lumber. It would certainly be possible to ensure that there cannot be a vote of confidence on any bill at any time. This should be studied by a committee, though, and we must ensure that the process is democratic. This question should therefore be examined. It is possible. It would enable Parliament to do its work instead of always preparing for elections in the middle of winter or summer.

All these factors will have to be studied when the bill is brought before the committee. I am pretty sure that there will be representations from various groups. These delegations will come and tell us how they see these things and we can make amendments. Then we will see what the government decides to do with it and we can debate it again in the House of Commons.

For the time being, I think that it is a good idea. It will also enable my two colleagues behind me to catch their breath because they have been through two elections one after the other and they are two new members. This is very difficult to go through when a person is first entering politics. In short, I think that we really should be able to have fixed dates and four years is a very reasonable period.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill should be studied thoroughly. I have not done so yet but I will over the next few days. We should also hear from witnesses because they are the people who can tell us legislators exactly what should and should not be in the bill. Can it be improved? Should it be amended? I have confidence in these people.

We will be able to examine all parts of it in committee and make it a really serious bill. As the hon. member said a little while ago, there have been four election campaigns in seven years. It is very difficult, therefore, to find funds, volunteers, and so forth. Personally, I have been through five elections in 13 years. People can hardly believe it when I say that I have been through five elections. Fixed election dates would bring much greater stability to our organization and funding. We have to get back to that.

Let the committee do its work. I have confidence in the committee. There will be people from all the parties and that is where we can amend the bill.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. Certainly there is a risk in this bill, and that risk will remain because we are dealing with a minority government. We have no choice. We must work with the current situation. The situation would be different if Bill C-16 were approved by a new parliament, unless, once again, a minority government had been elected.

I am sure that passing this bill would make the government look good, while the government knows very well that it is in a minority position. That would appear very positive. At the same time, this is a measure that will modernize our system and for that reason, I believe we should support the bill without being fooled. We are engaged in politics and the government is playing politics with this bill. That is one of its prerogatives. However, if it tries to make us bring down the government by introducing some measure calling for a vote of confidence, we will try to defeat it.

I have no doubt that people will answer the government when they go to the polls and give it a clear message. I do not think the voters will appreciate calling an election on just any subject. We know that votes of confidence deal with specific matters. We saw that the government called for a vote of confidence on the softwood lumber deal. A vote of confidence must deal with a very important issue. We will see how they act in the future. In the meantime, let us hope that we have time to adopt Bill C-16. Since it will be examined in committee, let us hope we will have time to review it and adopt it in the House, for the future, for a future government. We will see what happens.