Pierre Paquette

[The Environment, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute have published a study showing beyond a doubt that Canada can adopt the international community’s greenhouse gas reduction targets while maintaining strong economic growth. This study contradicts the catastrophic evaluations of the Conservatives.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his approach of pitting the economy against the environment does not hold water and is only intended to help oil companies continue to pollute with impunity?

[Privilege, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first, I appreciate the apology by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Works concerning Bill C-52. However, as I said this morning, I have the impression that the message has not been adequately understood on the government side. It seems to me, with respect to Bill C-53 which was made public at a press conference by the Minister of Public Safety, that we had the same problem as with Bill C-52. The Minister of Public Works also took part in that media event.

Essentially, the Minister of Public Safety is telling us two things: first, when he held the press conference, the bill was on notice. What I contended in my point of privilege on Thursday, if I recall correctly, is precisely that when a bill is on notice on the order paper it must not be disclosed publicly until it has been given first reading in this House. As a result, his argument completely fails to address the argument I made. I had referred to a number of decisions and quotations, some of which came from your decisions, Mr. Speaker. I am still wondering about that initial aspect, that is, that it seems to me that a press conference should not disclose the content of a bill before the bill has received first reading. That is his first argument.

His second argument is that the press conference did not give explicit details of the content of the bill. However, Mr. Speaker, I would still like to refer you to a document that I sent you this morning, entitled “Backgrounder—Government of Canada to Fix the Problem of Early Parole for Criminals”. It contains some very short phrases that give the essence of the bill, “Changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act… towards the abolition of statutory release”.

They are announcing that, essentially, the bill will deal with that. When we read Bill C-53 we can see that, in fact, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to eliminate accelerated parole review in the Corrections Act. The issue is not the quantity of details but the quality of the details provided in that backgrounder. In the news release, which I have not had a chance to read as carefully, the Minister may have stuck to the ins and outs of the environment in which the bill is being introduced. However, in the technical information sheet that accompanied the news release, it is very clear that the essence of Bill C-53 is being disclosed to the public and the media before being disclosed through first reading in this House. I believe that is contempt of the House.

I defer to your decision, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I just want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to know that I have a problem not only with the fact that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services did not apologize for the Bill C-52 incident as the Minister of Justice did, but also with the fact that, yesterday, both the Minister of Public Safety and, once again, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services did exactly the same thing with Bill C-53. I offer as proof the press release that I provided to you as well as the backgrounder that goes into great detail about Bill C-53.

Once again, I believe that there has been a breach of parliamentary privilege. I hope that you will consider this fact if you believe it to be relevant.

[Privilege, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after the apology made by the Minister of Justice regarding the question of privilege I raised last Thursday, you said that, unless you heard further, you considered this matter closed. But this morning, I have more to add.

I would first like to say that although my question of privilege had to do with two ministers, only the Minister of Justice apologized. But the Minister of Public Works and Government Services also disclosed critical information about Bill C-52 before it was introduced in the House.

However, the main reason I have brought the issue up again today is that we are still very concerned about government ministers publicly disclosing information about bills before their first reading in this House. Despite the apology from the Minister of Justice, we fear that the government did not fully learn its lesson.

Although the Minister of Justice apologized in this House for disclosing information about Bill C-52 before it was introduced in the House, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, yet again, held a press conference on Bill C-53, which was on notice but had not yet received first reading in the House. In a press release and a backgrounder that were made public before first reading of the bill, it is clearly indicated that the government intends to eliminate accelerated parole review from the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Moreover, I sent you these documents with my letter.

Having read Bill C-53, I can say that this is exactly what it does. It eliminates accelerated parole review and makes some consequential amendments. Once again, the government disclosed the content of a bill before it was introduced in the House.

As the Bloc Québécois House leader, I am often called on to advise my colleagues on the legislative process and private members' business. If there is one thing I stress, it is that bills that Bloc Québécois members want to introduce must remain confidential before they are introduced in the House. I always advise my colleagues to hold their press conferences after their bill has received first reading.

So, Mr. Speaker, if there is no longer any reason to strictly apply the rule of confidentiality of bills on notice, I would just like to know so that I can give my colleagues different advice.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I ask you again to consider the question of privilege I raised last Thursday and the new information I have brought to your attention this morning concerning Bill C-53.

I repeat that if you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Points of Order, October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to know whether you would like me to wait until the end of routine proceedings to raise my question of privilege. That is fine with me. What would you prefer?

[The Environment, October 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, not only has Canada not respected its signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol, but it has not stopped sabotaging negotiations ever since, so much so that during the preparatory meeting for the Copenhagen conference in mid-October, almost 75 countries left the room in protest during Canada's presentation.

Will the minister admit that Canada has lost all credibility when it comes to climate change, both domestically and abroad?

[The Environment, October 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' bad faith when it comes to global warming is no secret, but the Minister of the Environment's statements are out of line. Requiring Canada to have less stringent reduction targets than Europe and Japan under the pretext of its energy-consuming and polluting industrial structure is not only ridiculous, but it illustrates to what extent this government does not want an agreement at the Copenhagen conference.

Do the minister's statements not prove that Canada will do anything to sabotage the negotiations at the Copenhagen conference and prevent a new environmental pact?

[City of Joliette, October 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently released its annual ranking of the top entrepreneurial cities. This year, Joliette ranked third among a hundred or so cities in Canada and first in Quebec.

The index developed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is based on a dozen indicators that measure data such as the number of business start-ups, self-employment intensity, future full-time hiring expectations, local government sensitivity to local business, and future business performance.

The results of this study show that businesses in Joliette are optimistic about the future and expect their business to perform even better over the next 12 months. It is comforting to see the optimism of Joliette's businesses considering the gloomy economic climate prevailing elsewhere.

I want to commend the numerous local players who, through their energy and determination, contribute to making Joliette a place where the entrepreneurial spirit can flourish.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his question.

A bill was introduced before the House to abolish the two sections that allow for parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. It was not complicated. The Conservative government was asked to pass it at all stages in the House, but it refused to do so. It has some explaining to do to the public regarding why it refused to pass a very simple bill at all stages, a bill that would have eliminated the practice of granting parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served.

Perhaps the Conservatives still had something else in mind—that is possible—but there was no reason to delay that. If Vincent Lacroix should happen to be released in January 2011, at one-sixth of his sentence, the Minister of Public Works—although I must say, I doubt he will still be the minister by then—will have some explaining to do. He will have to live with the fact that, because of partisan politics, he refused to work with the Bloc Québécois to find a real solution to deal with crooks. In that regard, I think the Conservatives will have some explaining to do in the days ahead, especially in committee, regarding their refusal to help eliminate the practice of parole after one-sixth of the sentence.

In closing, I would remind the House that this proposal has been in the Bloc's platform since 2007. In their 2007 budget, the Conservatives put an end to double deductions of interest. Today, we are still proposing the elimination of parole after one-sixth of a sentence, but the Conservatives are backpedalling on their 2007 proposal concerning double deductions of interest for Canadian investments abroad.

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think this is a very good example from history. In Quebec, we talk about pyramid schemes, but we need to remember that it was Mr. Ponzi who invented this system. Once again, it seems to me that the government could send much clearer signals that fraud does not pay in Canada and that victims will not be left out in the cold.

For example, if the Criminal Code provisions on confiscating proceeds of crime were amended to include fraud of $5,000—we are not talking about fraud of $1 million—that would send a very clear signal from the outset that offenders cannot benefit from the proceeds of their fraud or crime.

The police forces could also be reorganized, as my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin proposed. As minister of public safety, he had experience with the Carcajou squad, which is now a model for similar squads. Again today, the Government of Quebec announced that it was setting up a squad modelled on the Carcajou squad. It takes police to deal with white collar crime, but it also takes accountants and financial experts who can track down these fraudsters. I do not sense either from this bill or from any of the Conservative government's actions that it has a real desire to attack the root causes of economic fraud, white collar crime and white collar criminals.

As I said, on the contrary, a number of political decisions that have been made in recent months and years show that the Conservatives are making white collar criminals' lives easier.