Richard Nadeau

[Museum of Science and Technology, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage must soon choose a location for the new Museum of Science and Technology. The city of Ottawa already has eight museums, but there is only one in the Outaouais.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree with the Minister of Transport, who, during a meeting with the city's Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favour of locating the new museum in Gatineau?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from British Columbia.

Before asking him my question, I must say that listening to my colleague from the NDP talk about members who cross the floor of the House has got me thinking. For example, Robert Toupin, a Progressive Conservative MP, crossed the floor to join Ed Broadbent in the NDP during Mr. Mulroney's first or second mandate. This begs the question, if it was acceptable at the time then why is it no longer acceptable now. Why put so much emphasis on this if you cannot lead by example? What is more, a former NDP minister from British Columbia is currently a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and a former NDP premier of Ontario wants to become leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

My question is on clause 44 of the bill, about the information from the public. I find that elected members are being given a very heavy responsibility in having to accept reports of acts of wrongdoing. Hon. members are being asked to judge the reports of wrongdoings by an individual, a member of society. Under the bill, if we deem the report serious enough, we have to take an oath and try to clarify the situation.

I simply want to know whether we could have a system like the one used by the official languages commissioner for example. In that system, the complaint is addressed to the commissioner rather than to an hon. member—

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. The idea is to take the time we need in committee to meet the civil society partners who could enlighten us on how to get the best bill possible.

Considering that committees might start up this week, but more likely next week, we have to be sensitive to the schedules of the stakeholders we would like to meet with.

The summer ends on September 21 and the fall session goes until December 21. It is not a matter of season, or about when Royal Assent will be given. It is a matter of ensuring that we have the best bill possible on such an important issue.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

We currently have before us an omnibus bill that will amend some 40 bills through rewriting 317 clauses. This is purely and simply in the mechanical structure of the bill. As far as the content is concerned, we are dealing with a highly sensitive issue that shook up the guilty political parties during the last election. I say “parties” because we know that the Conservatives were just as involved as the Liberals in the Option Canada plot to steal the last referendum from us.

That said, it is important to get the best bill possible on such a major issue. It is out of the question to fast track this bill and make a mess of it. We will take the time we need in committee with the parliamentarians to ensure that this bill responds, as much as possible, to the questions that were raised at the Gomery commission, to avoid this type of situation from ever happening again.

There are also questions about what is lacking in this bill. I could go into detail about other problematic aspects of its clauses, but we do not have enough time. We will get into that in committee.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of the accountability act.

Let us recall that, during the last two federal election campaigns, the Bloc Québécois criticized the Liberal government’s misuse of public funds and corruption. With the word “ethical” are associated such synonyms as “integrity”, “loyalty”, and “reliability”. This is in contradiction to such antonyms as “pettiness”, “arrogance” and “ingratitude”.

The Bloc Québécois wishes to spare Quebeckers scandals such as the dishonourable sponsorship scandal, of which the Liberal Party of Canada showed us the entire ignominy from the mid-1990s, or the Option Canada scandal, which was orchestrated by federalist forces, both Liberal and Conservative, during the last referendum.

With regard to the current Bill C-2, called the accountability act, the Bloc Québécois took part in the Gomery Commission in the constructive spirit we are known for, by developing 72 recommendations which must now be implemented.

In this regard, I am happy to note that several proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois, some since 1990, have been taken up. For example there is the merit appointment of returning officers by Elections Canada; the independence of the lobbyists registry; the act respecting the financing of political parties, which will be more like Quebec’s in its prohibition of corporate donations; strengthening the power of the Auditor General.

The Bloc Québécois, however, has always maintained that the reinforcement of laws and policies was of no effect if there was no real commitment of elected officials to change things.

As far as lobbying is concerned, for example, it is curious to see the Prime Minister tolerate what he criticized the Liberals for. In the Conservative Party’s ethical platform on page 3, the Prime Minister criticized the Liberals for allowing people to move back and forth between political offices and lobbying firms. I quote:

Under the Liberals, lobbying government--often by friends and associates of Paul Martin and other Liberal ministers--has become a multi-million dollar industry. Senior Liberals move freely back and forth between elected and non-elected government posts and the world of lobbying.

The new Minister of Defence, however, was a lobbyist for some ten years for ordnance suppliers. We are entitled to ask ourselves the following question: will he defend the interests of citizens or the interests of his former clients?

The same is true in the case of the Prime Minister's director of communications, who represented the interests of a dozen or so businesses potentially doing business with the government. Will she defend the interests of the public or of her former clients?

The same may be said for the current director of parliamentary affairs for the Minister of Public Works, who worked for Summa for a number of years. There, he represented the interests of Purolator Courier, Enbridge and SAS Institute Canada or he lobbied the government. Will he defend the interests of the public or of his former clients? That is the question.

It is surprising to note that the Conservatives have learned nothing from the mistakes of the Liberals. Like the Liberals with Alfonso Gagliano, the Conservatives appointed their political organizer in Quebec to head the public works department. The Minister of Public Works, who has acknowledged doing political funding work for the Conservative Party, is responsible for $10 billion in government spending. If the accountability legislation freely permits this sort of activity, where does the accountability lie?

In this regard, we hope that the Conservative government will take the amendments by the Bloc Québécois into account to ensure it really does want to change things.

If the current government really does want to change things, it will have to revise the sanctions for conflict of interest. As my colleague from Repentigny said yesterday, a fine of $500 for infringement of the Conflict of Interest Act is far from acceptable given that contracts can exceed $200,000, as we have seen in the past.

If the government really wants to change things, it will have to examine this aspect of the bill very closely.

It is important to note that the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner is authorized to impose penalties. Unfortunately, this power is not very clearly defined. Can the commissioner impose financial penalties exceeding $500? This issue must be cleared up.

With respect to the Access to Information Act, here again the government seems unwilling to budge.

This Act was adopted in 1983. Since then, despite numerous calls for it to be revised, it remains essentially unchanged. The Conservative government has chosen not to reform the Access to Information Act as part of its omnibus legislation, despite the fact that the bill proposes changes to about 40 acts in its 317 clauses. The Access to Information Act should have been among them. The President of the Treasury Board claims that additional consultations will be necessary.

Nevertheless, the Conservative government promised reforms to the Access to Information Act many times over during the last election campaign. For example, on page 7 of their election platform, they said:

A Conservative government will:

Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.

The Conservative members, like all the other members who sat on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, rejected the suggestions made by the former Liberal Minister of Justice, who wanted to study the bill further. On November 3, 2005, the committee unanimously agreed to the act proposed by the Information Commissioner and asked the government to legislate without delay.

Various governments have been holding consultations for 20 years. Back in 1987, the Standing Committee on Justice made 100 recommendations for reforming the act. In August 2000, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice formed a task force of public servants to review the act, regulations and policies on which the present access to information scheme is based. In November 2001, the Bryden committee proposed a dozen recommendations that it regarded as priorities. It will be recalled that the present Minister of Justice signed that report.

This House also had an opportunity to debate this act, when a number of members introduced private members’ bills. The Information Commissioner even proposed a complete bill to the government in October 2005, as he had also done in 1994.

Is the unspoken truth that the Conservative government is in less of a hurry to reform the act now that it is in power? That is the question.

The Information Commissioner recently observed that this is a consistent reaction by all governments. I quote him:

The reason that action, not more study, is required is that governments continue to distrust and resist the Access to Information Act and the oversight of the Information Commissioner.

In conclusion, I reiterate that the Bloc Québécois has always maintained that it was ineffective to strengthen laws and policies if this were not accompanied by a genuine intention on the part of the elected ministers to change things. Let us say that the signals we have been receiving from this government in the last few months are a cause for concern.

We have identified a number of loopholes in this bill that might allow wrongdoing to occur. On that point, we invite the President of the Treasury Board to take the time that is needed to properly analyze the amendments to the bill that will be proposed, in order to reduce the risk of wrongdoing like that which has greatly contributed to the cynicism about politics and the people who are responsible for upholding the public interest.

My colleagues may rest assured of my full cooperation in efforts to improve this bill.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kitchener—Waterloo spoke of his support for this legislation, in principle. The Bloc Quebecois also supports it, in principle. We know that the reason for this bill is the infamous sponsorship scandal. The Gomery commission has aired a fair bit of dirty laundry

This is my question. In a spirit of cooperation proving the goodwill of the party he represents, would my colleague be agreeable to his party repaying the $5.4 million made available to the Liberal Party by agencies and individuals involved in the sponsorship program?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship scandal has left people feeling quit burned by and cynical about politics and politicians, at the federal and all other levels. Not just in Quebec, but everywhere in Canada. As our colleague stated, it has even tarnished our reputation internationally.

With regard to the accountability legislation, would it not be logical to include a ceiling for donations to leadership races? At present, the legislation does not provide for a maximum donation to leadership races, which runs counter to the maximum donation of $1,000 that will be applicable to individuals. The election of a candidate and that of a party leader are not treated the same.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed income supplement is no mere device, and it is not just temporary assistance. The federal government, the Government of Canada, in the last Parliament, had the opportunity to see to it that all seniors entitled to the guaranteed income supplement might receive it with full retroactivity. This money they are rightfully owed could sometimes total $6,000 per year. This would have alleviated the hard times and improved the quality of life of seniors. Unfortunately, the government did not have the courage to do this, in the last Parliament.

We in the Bloc Québécois have met with seniors. We have done field surveys to find out how we might help them. We have checked, and some persons were entitled to this supplement.

During my election campaign, in fact, I mentioned that I would lend a helping hand to seniors—

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the program for older worker adjustment is a cornerstone in the life of a person of a certain age who has just lost his or her job. Finding new employment in such circumstances demands a lot of effort and courage.

The program for older worker adjustment responds to situations such as those we are seeing in my riding and the adjacent one, on the other side of the Ottawa River, where the Domtar mill has just closed its doors. The people who worked there for 20 or 25 years are entitled to respect. They are entitled to expect to be provided with the resources they need to find another place in life.

After a worker has held a job for 20 or 30 years, he is told that he is finished and given no help at all. So he has to turn to employment insurance and even social assistance. At a certain time of his life, he must even go so far as to part with property he has accumulated, whether it be a house or other property. Often these are things he has worked all his life to acquire.

The federal government must reactivate the program for older worker adjustment so that these workers can recover their human dignity. They have worked for the enrichment of Canada and Quebec and of plants and industries. We have no right to toss them aside.

That is why it is very important to bring this program back and to respect workers of all ages, especially those in difficult situations.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

This being the first debate in which I have spoken in this House, I would like, first, to thank the people of Gatineau for their support. I will be worthy of their confidence because they voted to have a member who is accessible and who will listen to their concerns and take action to help them in order to improve their quality of life.

I would also like to take advantage of this opportunity to say that I will be a true defender of Quebec’s interests. Until our national independence is achieved, I will attend valiantly to this task along with my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

Insofar as the Speech from the Throne is concerned, I want to point out some oversights regarding matters of great concern to many of our citizens so that the newly elected government is well apprised of them and able to act accordingly.

One problem is of particular concern to me, namely that the government should do what it can to combat the unfairness that exists between the two shores of the Ottawa river, between the Outaouais region and Ottawa. In the past, the Liberal governments took my region, the Outaouais, and my riding, Gatineau, for granted. As a result, they neglected the Quebec side of the Ottawa river. They considered the Quebec side just an extension of the city of Ottawa. This mindset must end. The Outaouais and the riding of Gatineau are part of Quebec and share its aspirations and distinct vision. The Outaouais should get its fair share in all respects. I am talking here about including the Outaouais, which is just as important a region as Ottawa.

Twenty-two years after the federal cabinet set itself the goal of raising the proportion of federal public servants who worked on the Quebec side of the Ottawa river from 22.6% to 25%, the proportion has actually fallen. If Crown corporations and agencies are included, only 20% of public servants work in the Outaouais, in comparison with 80% in Ottawa. This shortfall added up to more than 5,500 public servants in 2004, or a loss in annual income for the Quebec side of the river of nearly $300 million. Now that this situation has again been pointed out, it should be remedied.

Still with regard to the inequities between the two banks of the Ottawa River, in the federal capital area, the Government of Canada spends over a billion dollars on research and development. Of this amount, 93.6% goes to Ottawa, while a slim 6.4% comes to the Outaouais region. This is explained in large part by the number of federal research centres in each area. Out of a total of 31 federal research centres, 30 are in Ottawa and only one is located on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River: 30 to 1. It is more than time the federal government made sure that one-quarter of the research centres were located on the Outaouais side, and three-quarters on the Ontario side.

There is one file that has been open for over 20 years and that could be closed with the good will of the current government. This is the construction of an anti-noise barrier in the Promenades area of my riding. The previous Liberal government reneged on its promise to participate, with the Government of Quebec and the City of Gatineau, in its construction last November. I sincerely hope that the current Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will formally join the project so that it can be completed once and for all. After waiting for 20 years, the citizens concerned are entitled to expect the federal government to keep its word.

With regard to the distribution of museums between Gatineau and Ottawa, the Outaouais is now entitled to get the next museum. The Science and Technology Museum has been waiting 40 years for a permanent location.

Since the inauguration of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, the City of Ottawa has obtained the National Gallery of Canada and the Canadian War Museum. Now it is the turn of Gatineau to get the new museum within its borders.

I also hope that the federal government will take a significant part in the Rapibus public transit project in Gatineau. I hope that it will do likewise for the building of a four-lane Highway 50, when the Government of Quebec asks it to do so.

As for realities that go beyond Outaouais-Ottawa relations, we should think about employment insurance. The EI fund became a real cash cow for the previous government, even though it had not paid a penny into it since 1992. That has to stop now.

A study conducted by the Canadian Labour Congress shows us that the restrictions on the employment insurance program accounted for an annual loss, between 1993 and 2003, of $3 billion in Quebec. For my riding, Gatineau, this means a loss of $52.1 million for each of those ten years.

What will the Conservative government do about that? The Coalition des sans-chemise and all the people who contribute to the employment insurance plan are waiting to see whether the openness of the Conservatives will close up tightly when the time comes to discuss this issue.

Seniors in Gatineau have been forgotten. As if the precarious economic situation of seniors were not difficult enough, the previous Liberal government was determined to refuse to make full retroactive payment to seniors identified as being entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement. As a result of the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, the party was able to identify some 42,000 seniors who were entitled to this, out of the 68,000 Quebeckers eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. From 1993 to 2001, no less than $800 million, for all of Quebec, should have been paid out by the previous government to the most vulnerable seniors. In the riding of Gatineau, 800 to 900 people were cheated, with the losses averaging nearly $4 million. The government must locate those people and pay them what they are entitled to.

The Speech from the Throne did not mention social housing. From 1993 to 2001, the federal government completely withdrew from funding new social housing units. That withdrawal is one of the causes of the current shortage of rental housing and the growing problem of homelessness. This is a serious crisis.

Because nearly 6,050 renters in the city of Gatineau spend at least 50% of their meagre incomes on housing, and nearly 12,470 households pay at least 30% of their income to rent the roof over their heads, the federal government has to loosen its purse strings for social housing.

There is also SCPI, the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative. That program has generated investments of over $4.5 million in the riding of Gatineau since it was created in 2001. In addition to meeting the essential needs of socially excluded individuals and families, it has promoted the hiring of dozens of experienced workers.

I sincerely hope that the new government will renew and expand the SCPI program so that organizations involved in the fight against homelessness are able to continue their good work.

The Bloc Québécois will stand up against inequality between the two sides of the Ottawa River. It will also continue to stand up for the rights of Quebeckers in this House.

The Conservative government has promised a lot for Quebec. The Outaouais is a region of Quebec in its own right. The ball is in the Conservative government’s court. I am always ready to work with the government for the proper development of the riding of Gatineau to the level to which it is entitled.