House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 15% of the vote.
Canada Labour Code September 22nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Vancouver Island North on her bill.
My question is this: could she underline the importance of an anti-scab law to the social climate in labour-management negotiations during a labour dispute?
Eva Avila September 19th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is extremely happy to join me in congratulating Eva Avila, the talented singer from Gatineau who won the finals of Canadian Idol 2006.
Chosen from over 12,000 contestants from across Canada, Eva Avila captivated the television audience with her huge talent. Fans of singing in Quebec and Canada were dazzled by her performances. In 2004, Eva won the title of “Jeune Diva du Québec”.
The new ambassador for Gatineau, Eva will represent this new big city with grace wherever she travels, while serving as a model for young people.
We also congratulate Eva's parents, Suzanne Gougeon and Carlos Avila, on instilling their passion for music in their daughter.
Bravo, Eva, and keep on spreading joy wherever you sing.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 18th, 2006
With regard to government jobs in the National Capital Region, what is: (a) the number of Public Service employees in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (b) the number of employees of government agencies, Crown corporations or any other government bodies in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region, from 1998 to 2006?
Questions on the Order Paper September 18th, 2006
With regard to leases signed by the government in the National Capital Region, what is: (a) the number of such leases expiring in 2006 in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (b) the number of such leases expiring in 2007 in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (c) the number of vacant premises in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region in 2006?
Federal Accountability Act June 21st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I think of GIlles Rocheleau, who was a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and was the mayor of Hull at one point. He was also a minister in the government of Robert Bourassa. He was here. He had come to meet John Turner and had supported the Liberal Government of Canada. He was one of the founders of the Bloc Québécois.
I think also of the current member for Outremont, who was a Bloc Québécois member and founder and who returned to the Liberal Party. I do not know whether my hon. colleague is looking to correct the situation, but that would be a good place to start.
I think of my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who has been here since the inception of the Bloc Québécois. If I remember correctly, there was the Conservative Reform Alliance Party. Under Preston Manning, a portion of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada became the Reform Party, which became the Canadian Alliance, which did away with the Progressive Conservative Party and created what we have today, the Conservative Party.
The same thing happened with the New Democrats. I think of Robert Toupin, who, during the Mulroney era, left the Progressive Conservative Party to become a New Democrat. Mr. Broadbent welcomed him with open arms. Ms. Venne left the Progressive Conservative Party to join the Bloc Québécois. This type of situation has occurred in the history of Canada and even in the history of Quebec. People in the Union nationale have become members of the Quebec Liberal Party. Think of René Lévesque, who was elected to office representing the Quebec Liberal Party. Think about other members like Gilles Grégoire of the Social Credit Party, who was one of the founding members of the Parti Québécois.
When people share ideologies, they want to form a new political party together. Society evolves. These people have the right to evolve. Some would say “regress”, but that is a matter of opinion. The fundamental basis of a democracy is that all of us here are elected by citizens who want us to represent their riding. The vast majority of us represent a political party. There can also be independent members. We need to think about what a member of Parliament is. This is how we need to see the situation.
Federal Accountability Act June 21st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it is an inordinate pleasure for me to be able to speak at such a late hour. This shows how much we want better rules under which political parties and a parliamentary system can really come into their own and on which a democracy can be based. Nothing is perfect, but these rules will certainly help.
Not so very long ago, I was a teacher in Franco-Ontarian and Franco-Saskatchewanian circles. I taught ethics and philosophy. When I think of all that has happened over the last few years in Quebec and Canada, when I see that the Gomery commission had to be established because of all the corruption that was in the air, prompting a feeling of resentment in the public toward politics, I said to myself that it was time to set things straight.
The word “democracy” is derived from dêmos and cratia; dêmos meaning people and cratia power. It means, therefore, power to the people. When we speak of ethics, we mean what is good, and the trust that people must have in the institutions that govern us in a democracy.
We should remember one basic thing. Bill C-2 did not happen by chance but as a result of a situation that Canadian federalism was keeping quiet but that the Gomery commission fortunately exposed. They were trying to stamp out Quebeckers’ pride through fraudulent means. The Guités, Corriveaus, Gosselins, Braults and Gaglianos created a situation where money was given to agencies to stamp out the idea that Quebeckers are a proud and noble people who have a right to their sovereignist aspirations.
We should also remember Mr. Guité’s statement before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, or at the Gomery commission, where he spoke about war with the separatists—a term often used by federalists—these big bad wolves. It was in the name of this war that things went as far as they did.
One of the basic principles of democracy is that there are opposing and different ideas, but that in a democratic forum like the Parliament of Canada, these ideas can co-exist.
For example, currently in Quebec, 68% of the federal members are sovereignists. They are in the Bloc Québécois. We were legitimately elected by the people of Quebec.
I will give an illuminating example where the ignominy of the Liberal Party made it possible for some pretty ugly things to happen. There is still much to investigate in this regard. I am referring to Édith Gendron, a public servant whom I know very well. She was fired because she was the president of an organization called “Le Québec, un pays!” She was returned to her job one year and ten months later thanks to the staff relations board tribunal. It turned out that this public servant had a right to her political views outside of working hours. On the job, all that could be said of her was that she was an excellent federal public servant. In the end, the idea of stamping out Quebeckers’ pride went beyond all bounds.
I should point out that three political parties still supported this public servant. Ed Broadbent, who was the member for Ottawa Centre, supported the sovereignist Édith Gendron. The current member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington supported Édith Gendron on March 25, 2004. Even though he did not share her views, he maintained that she had a right to her opinions. In addition, the current member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel supported this public servant on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.
It is an attempt to crush Quebeckers' pride. The federal cabinet will go to Quebec City a day from now on the occasion of Quebec's national holiday, but it does not recognize the nation of Quebec. This entire idea of nationalism implies that Canada has the right to its nationhood, that the first nations have the right to their nationhood and that Acadians are entitled to their nationhood. I recognize them even though the nation of Quebec is not recognized in the House of Commons of a G-8 nation, a so-called democratic nation. At any event, we do not need this institution of Canada to know that we are a people and that we are proud of it.
The sponsorship scandal was a disgusting example of how the money of Canadians and Quebeckers was used to try to deceive Quebeckers. We are not immune to such a situation. I know that at least one member from Saskatchewan remembers that at least 15 ministers in Grant Devine's government went to court on charges of corruption. That was the Conservative Party of Saskatchewan. That party was forced by a moratorium to disappear. There is no longer a Conservative Party in Saskatchewan. It did away with itself and created, together with the area Liberals, the Saskatchewan Party, a type of Reform Party of the era. Today, it is the official opposition to the NDP in Saskatchewan.
Corruption can taint the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois. We must protect ourselves from it. Legislation, whether omnibus or more specific, protects us from such situations. We must be on our guard. Senator Bernston was forced to resign, as he was the deputy premier of Saskatchewan at the time. However, he tried to hide behind his senatorial robes in order not to be brought to justice. Fortunately, in 2001, the pressure was so great that he resigned. He too had to face the music.
Laws are needed. I am also thinking of another aspect that I will not discuss in detail. My NDP friends were talking about crossing the floor, that is, leaving one party to join another. They should be careful, or maybe they should start reviewing recent history. A former premier of British Columbia was a minister in the previous government and is still a Liberal member to this day. Bob Rae, Ontario's only NDP premier, is running in the federal Liberal leadership race. Chris Axworthy, once the member for Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, was a member of the NDP here. He ran in the leadership race and lost to Mr. Calvert, then became Saskatchewan's Minister of Finance as a New Democrat. Yet in 2004 and 2006, he ran under the Liberal Party of Canada banner. One would be justified in wondering whether the NDP is just the farm team for the Liberals. As for crossing the floor, you have to be aware of your own recent history and not start pointing fingers until you know your own party's history.
That said, in light of my statements, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. The bill is not perfect, but it is important. As part of our support, we have to shine some light on a few very important things. This bill has the advantage of ensuring that returning officers will no longer simply be appointed, but will be selected according to merit criteria. The same goes for the registrar of lobbyists. Some things have been brought to light in this regard as well. There is also the whole issue of giving the Auditor General more power to ensure that she can keep an eye on how the government spends taxpayer dollars contributed by Canadians and Quebeckers. This money must be spent effectively and honestly.
The goal is to ensure that every person who goes to work every day and pays income tax to the government can have honest accountability.
Federal Accountability Act June 21st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I do not hear the answer. There is a lot skating going on in the party in power.
The accountability bill is noble, and we have no objections to it. We are going to pass it. Nevertheless, at present, in the federal cabinet, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services—everyone knows this—was made a member of the Cabinet without being elected. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities told us earlier that it was because someone important was needed from Montreal. It is true that no Conservative was elected there. As far as I know, no Conservatives were elected in Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke or Laval, either.
Why talk about an accountability act? We were elected under a democratic system. And in such a system, those elected by the people are the ones that represent them and are accountable to them. How can the member explain then, without making it difficult and without trying to put us to sleep, that something as fundamental as appointing a minister from among the elected representatives was rejected?
Mr. Speaker, I would have been interesting to get an answer to the question. However, I will continue.
The inequity between the two banks of the river is obvious: eight museums on the Ottawa side for only one in the Outaouais; eight to one. Of these eight museums, four were built recently in Ottawa, that is the Art Gallery, the War Museum, the Photography Museum and the Portrait Museum. The city of Gatineau already has two sites available for the construction of the Science and Technology Museum. The elected people in the region unanimously support this project. The Minister of Transportation is the only one who has not supported it yet.
Twenty years ago, the federal government had decided to build the Science and Technology Museum in the former city of Hull. People have waited long enough. The federal government must keep its word. It made a commitment to this 20 years ago, and the Minister of Transportation committed to it on April 13, 2006. It up to the federal cabinet and the Minister of Transportation—
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this is the first time that I have participated in adjournment proceedings. I assume that I start immediately and that my colleague will then second the motion.
On June 7, I gave the Minister of Transport the opportunity to clearly state his position on his commitment to moving the Canada Science and Technology Museum to Gatineau. The City of Gatineau passed motion No. CM-2006-363 on April 25, 2006, stating:
Whereas over 20 years ago the federal government decided to locate the Canada Science and Technology Museum in the former City of Hull;
Whereas the federal government is today preparing to relocate the Canada Science and Technology Museum;
Whereas new museums have been built and established in Ottawa recently, namely the National Gallery of Canada, the War Museum, the Museum of Contemporary Photography and the National Portrait Gallery, not to mention the $100,000 spent on renovations to the Museum of Nature;
Whereas it is vital to this Council that the Canada Science and Technology be located in Gatineau and thus that the decision previously made by the federal government to locate this museum in the former City of Hull be respected;
Whereas the City of Gatineau has two sites (Jacques Cartier Park and Des Chars de Combat Park) available for the Canada Science and Technology Museum;
It is proposed and unanimously resolved that this Council formally request the federal government locate the Canada Science and Technology Museum in the City of Gatineau.
This resolution was sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Transport, and to the federal and provincial members from the Outaouais.
That said, on April 13, before the Gatineau chamber of commerce, the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Pontiac in the Outaouais formally promised to attract the museum to Gatineau. The same minister went back on his word in The Citizen on June 1 and Le Droit the following day.
I should hope that the Minister of Transport was having a momentary lapse and that it was not undue pressure from a federal cabinet colleague unaware of the promise to locate the Museum of Science and Technology in Gatineau that distracted him from his noble task, which is to defend the interests of the Outaouais.
During the last election campaign, the Minister of Transport kept saying that he wanted it to be understood that the region would come out a winner if it elected a minister. Since his election, it has been a lucky thing that the Bloc Québécois is in the Outaouais to remind the minister of his commitments.
Will the minister ensure that the Canada Museum of Science and Technology ends up in Gatineau as soon as possible?
Business of Supply June 15th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the following question of the distinguished member who is quite familiar with the situation: what does he think we could say to the Conservative government so that it would show respect to seniors in the matter of the guaranteed income supplement? The current government seems somewhat at a loss.
I know that there are parliamentary secretaries present—at least one—and a minister, who could listen carefully and put forward some plans to respect the seniors of Quebec and Canada.