Pierre Paquette

[Petitions, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by several dozen residents of my riding, more specifically from the municipality of Sainte-Émélie-de-l'Énergie, who are asking the Government of Canada to demand that the Canada Post Corporation maintain and improve its network of public post offices and that it consult the people and the members of Parliament who were elected to represent them, the postal unions, and other major stakeholders, for the purpose of designing and improving a democratic and uniform process to make changes to the public postal network.

These constituents are very worried about the closure of post offices in the regions, in particular in the municipality of Sainte-Émélie-de-l'Énergie. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, under the guise of good management, the government requires community groups and festivals, even the smallest festivals, to submit solid business plans to obtain even very meagre grants.

What would have been the government's response if an association had submitted a project to organize an international conference with an artificial lake beside a real lake, with cardboard scenery, virtual surroundings, a steamboat that would be ready after the event, and bear-proof garbage cans?

What would have been the government's response? Once again, with the Conservatives, there is a double standard: do as I say, not as I do.

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when they were in opposition, the Conservatives railed against the Liberals' waste and patronage. They promised to change things. By buying themselves an artificial lake and flooding the Minister of Industry's riding with projects that have nothing to do with the G8 and G20, they are proving that they are capable, like the Liberals, of the worst abuses and excesses.

Will the government admit that its only concern is to buy the re-election of the Minister of Industry and certainly not to keep spending associated with holding the G8 and G20 meetings under control?

[Education in Quebec, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois, the Parti Québécois, the NDP, unions and French-language-defence groups have joined together to oppose the Government of Quebec's Bill 103. This bill is a threat to education in French and to the integration model based on the French-language public education system.

If it were passed, Bill 103 would give parents the opportunity to buy the right for their children to go to school in English, provided that one of the children has spent three years in an unsubsidized, private English-language school. Although students will be required to attend these bridging schools for a longer period, the problem is still there. As odious as it is, only the rich will be able to pay to get around the Charter of the French Language.

I urge the public to defend our language, to defend the model of integration through education in French, and to come out en masse to the various demonstrations that will be held against Bill 103.

The Bloc Québécois will never accept a bill that would weaken French, our common language.

[The Environment, June 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the fossil awards the Government of Canada won in Copenhagen, there is more evidence of the Conservatives' lack of interest in fighting climate change. In 2012, five years after the announcement of their so-called plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the plan will have had no significant impact on the increase in those emissions.

Do the Conservatives realize that their plan is just a sham, smoke and mirrors, and that it is high time that Canada came up with a real plan to meet its international commitments? Respect your international commitments.

[The Environment, June 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives unveiled their plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the national round table on the environment, the Pembina Institute, Greenpeace and the Bloc Québécois criticized them for overestimating the impact their measures would have. We now have proof of how wrong they were since the 5 million tonne reduction in emissions for 2010 is 10 times lower than the 57 million tonnes the government had announced.

Will the government admit that it never intended to have a real plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it is in fact working for the oil companies?

[Ethics, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney received more than $2 million in an out-of-court settlement in his libel suit against the Canadian government, maintaining that he did not have any business dealings with arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber.

Now that we know that Mr. Mulroney lied during pre-trial questioning, will the government undertake legal proceedings to recover the taxpayers' money, even though there is no recommendation about that in the Oliphant report?

[Louise Warren, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Louise Warren, a poet and author, was the guest of honour at the 11th Marché de la poésie de Montréal, which concluded on Sunday. This poetry festival kicked off with the unveiling of a commemorative plaque on Saint-André Street, in honour of Gaston Miron.

Louise Warren, who now resides in Saint-Alphonse-Rodriguez, wrote Attachements. Observation d'un bibliothèque, published by Éditions de l'Hexagone this spring.

As part of the festival, Louise Warren organized an event to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first collection of poetry written by a Quebec woman. Fleurs sauvages, by Léonise Valois, was published in 1910 by Éditions Beauchemin. Louise Warren, who is the great-great niece of Léonise Valois, wrote an essay about her.

In her book, Attachements. Observation d'une bibliothèque, Louise Warren describes her relationships with various poets, including Fernand Ouellette, Dany Laferrière, Jean-Paul Daoust and Fabienne Courtade.

I congratulate Louise Warren on her life's work and on her unwavering commitment to promoting Quebec poetry.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 31st, 2010]

With respect to deputy minister, assistant deputy minister and associate deputy minister positions, as of December 31, 2009, what was the breakdown: (a) by first official language spoken; and (b) between Anglophones and Francophones who did or did not meet the linguistic requirements of their positions?

[Committees of the House, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that I must rise in the House this morning to speak to a ministerial statement, which is yet another example of the Conservative government's profound contempt for Parliament, its institutions and democracy itself.

It is unacceptable, though not surprising, that the Leader of the Government refused to provide a copy of his ministerial statement in advance, as parliamentary traditions dictate. In his statement, one of the government's supposed reasons for implementing a new directive prohibiting staff members of ministers or of the Prime Minister from being called before committees to testify is the tyranny of the opposition.

I think that the public knows full well which side—the opposition or the government—triggered the election in September 2008 to avoid being held accountable in Parliament, even though the Canada Elections Act sets fixed dates for elections.

In December 2008, who requested that Parliament be prorogued to avoid being defeated by the opposition? The Conservative government. In December 2009, who requested that Parliament be prorogued yet again, to avoid having to hand over the documents that the House called for in a December 10 motion? It is very clear that the only tyranny here is from the Conservatives, and not the opposition, which is just trying to do its job.

During one of my most recent speeches in the House, I commented on the agreement reached on May 14 following your April 27 ruling about documents concerning allegations of torture in Afghanistan. At the time, I said that I would like to see a better balance between the executive and legislative branches. Many experts and opposition members, including Bloc Québécois members, believe that, under the Conservative government, this imbalance has increased even more, with the executive assuming far too much power relative to the legislative branch. This morning's statement makes that abundantly clear.

Despite your historic April 27 ruling, the government still has not grasped Parliament's role in our parliamentary system. You made things very clear in your ruling: Parliament's role is to hold the government to account. That is what the opposition—the Bloc Québécois in particular—plans to do.

Parliament has been given significant powers to carry out that task. In your ruling, you quoted the following passage from page 136 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

By virtue of the Preamble and section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament has the ability to institute its own inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents, rights which are fundamental to its proper functioning. These rights are as old as Parliament itself.

It is clear that parliamentary committees have the power to call witnesses.

On page 975 of O'Brien-Bosc, we see that this power is not restricted: “The Standing Orders place no...limitation on this power. In theory, it applies to any person on Canadian soil.”

In practice, however, we all know that this power is limited to a certain extent.

A committee cannot require the attendance of a person who is not in Canada, nor can it call parliamentarians from other legislative houses protected by parliamentary privilege. It cannot call a member of the House of Commons, a senator, the Governor General or a lieutenant governor.

Upon hearing that the government leader was planning to read his ministerial statement this morning, I searched everywhere but found no mention of an exception that would apply to political staff in general or to the Conservative government's political staff in particular.

In addition to accusing the opposition of tyranny, the government has invoked the principle of ministerial accountability to justify its decision.

This principle is also defined in O'Brien-Bosc on page 32:

...its Ministers must be accountable or responsible to Parliament...The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates.

This principle means that, ultimately, ministers are responsible for the actions and errors of their subordinates. But the government is trying to distort the meaning of this principle. According to this principle, a minister's subordinates include both political staff and the entire staff of their department.

This principle of ministerial responsibility has never meant and will never mean that the subordinates in question cannot testify in committee. Things would become downright ridiculous if we followed the government's logic. Would civil servants no longer be able to appear before a parliamentary committee in order to explain a government bill, program or expenditure?

Keeping political staff from testifying means that Parliament would no longer have access to those people who are closest to the everyday use of power, and these people would no longer be accountable to Parliament.

The Conservative logic is completely contradictory: the closer you are to power, the less accountable you are. That is exactly what this statement is getting at and it is the Conservative government's latest ploy to avoid accountability. Once again, it shows incredible contempt for Parliament's needs and powers as well as the powers of democracy.

Yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources told the media that it is not up to political staff to testify; it is up to the ministers.

Does this mean the Prime Minister will appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics at 11:00 a.m., instead of Dimitri Soudas? Is that what the statement means and what the last sentence in the ministerial statement is suggesting?

Will the Prime Minister appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics at 11:00 a.m.?

Really, what the government has just done is invent a new strategy to prevent Parliament from doing its work. The truth is that the parliamentary committee cannot force a minister to testify. The truth is that when the subject matter is too difficult, Conservative ministers refuse to appear before committees to testify.

The truth is that only a few weeks ago, the Minister of Natural Resources—who made the statement yesterday that it was up to ministers to testify before committees as part of their ministerial responsibilities—refused to testify regarding the Jaffer affair.

The truth is that the government shows profound contempt for Parliament, its institutions and democracy, and is doing everything it can to try to create another parliamentary crisis so it does not have to answer for its actions. The Bloc Québécois, and all opposition parties I hope, will not allow the government to do that, especially since it is a matter of confidence in the government.