Monique Guay

[The Environment, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a spokesperson for the Minister of the Environment made it clear that the Conservatives are waffling on the Kyoto accord. It is becoming obvious that the government prefers to sit on the fence on this issue. On the one hand, it does not plan to withdraw from the Kyoto accord, but on the other, it has no intention of complying with the Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%.

Do the spokesperson's statements accurately reflect the minister's position?

[International Cooperation, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the question is very clear. I want only a yes or a no.

Was the share of GDP 0.45% and is it now 0.32%? Are those the correct figures or are they not?

[International Cooperation, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance launched into one of his tirades in order to try to make Canada's stance on international aid look better. What the minister failed to mention is that Canada's share of its GDP devoted to international aid is far from increasing; it has, in fact, decreased over the years.

Does the Minister of Finance admit that, when the Liberals assumed power in 1993, that share was 0.45% of gross domestic product, while today it is 0.32%?

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is a fault of logic here somewhere. If what she says is true, we would never have voted with the government, as we have done on numerous occasions.

When something is good for Quebec, fine, we vote with the government. She is well aware of that. This is nothing but petty politics, and I will not get involved in it.

I can sense the frustrations on the other side of the House and I can understand them. It is tough, they are going to go through some tough times in the weeks to come. That is life. It is the same for everybody.

In conclusion, I would like the hon. members across the way to do some thinking. We will soon all be out on the hustings. I hope that, when they are talking with their fellow citizens, they will not just be mouthing pleasantries but will be finding out what is going on with them, in order to represent them properly.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were debating a confidence motion today.

Quebec will make its decision, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. It will be a political decision and Quebec will manage this issue.

In the meantime, we will not lick anyone's boots here. We will always and forever protect our voters' best interests. We deserve our salary, and we will continue to deserve it to the very end. The same cannot be said of certain people.

Be that as it may, we, Bloc members, will definitely work very hard here, and we will truly represent our voters. We will work for them, and we will try to improve their situation through various bills and acts. We will table motions in the House to try to improve the situation of our fellow citizens.

I would like members opposite to pay more attention to those citizens who are in need, and to sometime take the initiative of drafting legislation designed to help these people.

What will the member do with the guaranteed income supplement? What will he do about the seniors in his riding who need it? Will he ignore them? Will he avoid them? This is what is important: to remain in touch with the reality and with our people, and to represent them here with dignity and honesty.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I may not have the eloquence of my colleague, but I think we all have a lot to say today.

There is great nervousness on the other side of the House, and I think that they may be afraid that they are going to make a wrong move and find themselves in opposition. That would perhaps do them some good, however, for it would allow them to clean up their party.

I have been here for 12 years and the Liberal Party has been in power all that time. During that time, I have seen scandal after scandal. As far as the sponsorship scandal is concerned, we are criticized for focussing only on what suits us in the Gomery commission report. Judge Gomery himself says the following, which I will quote, as it is important that people remember it:

The Commission of Inquiry found: clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the Sponsorship Program [...]

Judge Gomery said it, not us. He also noted the existence of a “culture of entitlement”—this is something that is said every day here, in the House of Commons—“among political officials and bureaucrats involved with the Sponsorship Program, including the receipt of monetary and non-monetary benefits”. We are not the ones who said that. The Gomery commission said that "the Liberal Government had betrayed the people". We are not the ones who said that either.

For the past 12 years, the Bloc Québécois and other opposition parties have been trying to find solutions to things and make changes to benefit the people. We have been working for 12 years to save people, to help the unemployed, pregnant women and nursing mothers. On this subject, a bill was unanimously approved yesterday on second reading. And what is the government going to do with it? Its response is appalling.

I have heard some things today. I am very familiar with this bill, as I introduced it in turn, and another of my colleagues also did so. We will introduce it again and again in the House of Commons until it is passed. This bill should be included in part II of the Canada Labour Code, which covers occupational health and safety. That is where it belongs. And then we are told today that part III is to be revised and that it will be looked at after that.

That makes no sense. The government always postpones things when we know full well that it will do nothing. We know very well that it will not move on this, but we will not give up, we will continue to prod them constantly.

A pregnant woman has the right to bring a child into the world in good health, and these few weeks can be of the utmost, vital importance for the women and for their babies. People are no longer having children. Would it not be possible to allow pregnant women to have a child—since they have maybe one, sometimes two—and to experience this precious moment in their lives as they should? The government refuses to grant them that. It wants to do nothing; it prefers to squander our money.

As far as the employment insurance fund is concerned, what they have done with it is unbelievable. They refloated the Liberal Party, they refloated the government with the money from the fund. They used this money to give it to others, whereas the employment insurance fund should be for the benefit of the unemployed. That has not happened. They have reduced the number of hours and the percentage of income. Let us imagine ourselves unemployed. It is no joke. It is difficult, as you have to take the time to find a new job and do the necessary research.

We see textile industry plants closing their doors, one after the other, and jobs being lost in softwood lumber. Are these workers going to find another job the next morning? They need employment insurance benefits. But on the other side of the House, they turn a deaf ear. These people do not count. My colleague spoke about a guaranteed minimum income. That is a priority.

Not many poor people know what it means to have $5,000 in one's pocket. They have never had that. They work for minimum wage and earn around $8,000 a year. Imagine them getting retroactive payments. Then they might be entitled to about $5,000 at most. Would that not help a little bit? These are people who paid into employment insurance all their lives. They paid employment insurance premiums and taxes. Now they are told no, because the government is too cowardly to wake up and do something for them. This is unacceptable.

I can say for sure that we will not be afraid to talk about it during the election campaign. Nor will we be afraid to say how hypocritical they have been with this. They voted in favour of a bill and then they try to make us believe that they could not have done anything afterward.

Where there is a will, there is a way. We have done it for other bills here. We have negotiated and reached agreements with the government. All the parties, whether the Conservative Party, the Bloc or the NDP, have agreed to comprise so that bills could pass, and this one should have passed. The government is hiding behind anything at all so that it does not have to face up to its responsibilities. It is a disgrace.

As I was just saying, the Liberals should spend a little time in the opposition. Then people could go and see them and tell them that they are living in dire poverty and need help. But no, it is not the Liberals who see these people but we. These people come to see us and speak with us in our offices. They are furious with Liberal policy. They hate having millions and millions of dollars stolen from them and given to friendly companies. Not only that, the money is then given back to the party to keep it going. It is indecent and unacceptable. It can never be said enough, and we will continue to repeat it.

The sponsorship scandal is not all of it. The firearms issue, too, will be huge. A budget of $2 million was allocated for the gun registry. How much has it cost? Two billion dollars, and the meter is still running. Where did the money go? What happened? We asked the Auditor General to look into the matter, to do a study, investigate—to be sure, it was not the government that made the request—and she will be reporting to us in February. Who knows what she will find. Think of what we could do with that $2 billion. How many people and small businesses could we help? The Liberals do not care about that.

It is odd: barely three weeks ago, we were told that there was no money left. All of a sudden, billions of dollars are dropping from the sky. The promises made this past week total $20 billion. Where is this money coming from? It is coming from the unemployed and the employment insurance fund, because the money is not being put back where it should go. The employment insurance fund should be increased and made fully autonomous. I guarantee my colleagues that until that happens, we will be fighting for fairness and justice. That is not the case right now; the fund is controlled by a small clique that makes decisions on its own without taking people’s real needs into account. Liberal politicians are out of touch with the real world. We, however, are still in touch and will remain in touch. We want to continue helping people in need who pay taxes. Everyone pays taxes except those who cannot afford to, and that is a good thing.

These people have the right to speak and will have their say come the next election. Their message will be loud and clear. The Liberals can quit blaming us for wanting to have an election during the holidays. On Monday, they had the chance to vote with us and pass a motion that allowed the government to call an election after Christmas, on January 4, for a vote in mid-February. They declined that offer. It will be their fault if an election is held during the holidays. That is what we will keep telling the public.

[André Cherrier, November 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at the 18th international festival of the Order of the Canardiers, held on October 22, in Rouen, Normandy, André Cherrier from Prévost was awarded the title of master duck breeder.

This honour is all the more prestigious since the owner of Canards, Délices et Pommes is only the third person in the world to receive this title.

In addition to adeptly managing his business, Mr. Cherrier invented a beautiful and modern duck press, which was used during this renowned festival's reception.

Today, it is my pleasure to welcome André Cherrier and his wife, Diane Couët, to Parliament Hill and tell them how proud I am of their success.

The Bloc Québécois salutes your company's contribution to the Laurentian region, applauds your success and congratulates you on this well-earned international honour. Three cheers for you.

[Sponsorship Program, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what the court said was that the grounds for the dismissal were wrong.

In light of the commission's findings demonstrating Jean Pelletier's unequivocal involvement in the sponsorship scandal, does the government not think that there is more than enough evidence to uphold his dismissal?

[Sponsorship Program, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the dismissal of Jean Pelletier as chairman of the board of VIA Rail has been overturned by a Federal Court judge on the grounds that the dismissal based solely on Myriam Bédard's testimony was unjustified. The judgment concluded that Jean Pelletier ought to be reinstated in his position at VIA Rail.

Does the government intend to comply with this judgment and reinstate Jean Pelletier, despite the fact that he was seriously fingered in the Gomery report?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced its intention to intervene with social assistance recipients and even to repair class rooms in educational institutions.

How can the federal government claim to be respecting the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec when it is going so far as intruding into our very classrooms?