Thierry St-Cyr

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171).

Mr. Speaker, in June 2002, this House passed legislation to amend the number of board members hearing refugee claims, lowering it from two to one. In the past, only one board member was needed to rule in favour of a claimant to approve his or her claim. For the sake of efficiency, it was reduced to one. In their great wisdom, parliamentarians at the time created the refugee appeal division in order to ensure that people's fate would not be decided arbitrarily. In any justice system, one must have the right to appeal. Unfortunately, neither the Liberal government at the time nor the Conservative government since has ever implemented this appeal division, as called for by the House.

The purpose of my bill is to force its implementation. A similar bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois made it through all stages in the House and the Senate during the last Parliament. I hope there is enough time to do so once again. I urge all members to fully cooperate in order to get it passed. Perhaps we could even begin second reading of this bill today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's remarks. I noticed that only the Bloc Québécois copied the unanimous consensus of Quebec's National Assembly. Since we are never able to have the same consensus in this House as they have in the National Assembly, and since Quebeckers are a minority here, what political option do Quebeckers have if they want to control their political destiny and choices for their society?

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite say that this was her first speech in the House. I am not sure that I understood correctly. I gather she talked about unprecedented consultations with Canadians.

Pardon me, but that is really not the case, because there is already a long-standing precedent in this House: the prebudget consultations conducted by the Standing Committee on Finance. The precedent lies in the fact that this is the first time there has been no prebudget consultation. That is the real precedent.

The government held pseudo-consultations. Various organizations from various sectors called me to say that someone had called them and given them two days' notice of a meeting to be held in Ottawa. They did not think it was a real committee because the opposition members were not even there. All of this pseudo-consultation is nothing but a joke.

At the very least, will the member admit that no real consultations were held and that it was a load of rubbish?

[Immigration and Refugee Board, January 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in a recent decision, the Immigration and Refugee Board refused a lawyer's request to hold the proceedings in French. This decision goes against his client's interests as he wishes to be represented by his lawyer in French in order to have the best defence possible.

What does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration intend to do to ensure that the IRB respects this person's right to be defended by his lawyer in French?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, everyone wants to speak this morning. According to the Conservatives' logic, your chair will have to be changed, because the flag to your right will have to be positioned behind you. According to the Conservatives, it is not good to have a flag off to the side. It must be behind people. This is a completely fallacious argument.

I have a slightly more serious question about how the Conservatives are changing their tune, depending on whether they are speaking French or English. It is funny: when I listen to the interpretation provided by the people in the booths, who do an outstanding job, I notice that when the word “separatists” is used in English, it is translated as “séparatistes” in French and that when the word “souverainistes” is used in French, it is translated as “sovereignists” in English. Everyone understand that. Only the Conservatives are using double-talk. In French, so as not to offend Quebeckers, they are using the term “souverainistes”, and in English, to do a little Quebec-bashing, to show their hatred for Quebeckers, they are using the term “separatistssssssss”.

Is the hon. member aware that he is taking people for fools with this double-talk?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my Liberal and Conservative colleagues.

Once again, we have the start of the Quebec bashing that is so characteristic of the Reform members. They attack those elected by the Quebec nation, whether federalists or sovereignists. Yet, they are all members who were democratically and legitimately elected. They are attempting to attack the separatists, I would go so far as to say the evil separatists, such is the ferocity of the attack. But in the end, they are attacking those elected by the Quebec nation. And what stands out is that the separatists are attacked in this way only in English. For example, the Liberals are being accused of associating with bad separatists. but when speaking in French to the Bloc members, they say the opposite. The Bloc Québécois is criticized for associating with the bad Liberals. It is ridiculous and an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.

I would like to ask my colleague whether she believes that when a government conducts itself in this uncaring way that it confirms that it does not deserve the confidence of citizens.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

I am almost done.

I would like to tell my friend that not so long ago, during the last Parliament, the Conservatives repeatedly asked this House for its confidence, and they asked the Bloc Québécois the same thing. In fact, the Conservatives were able to remain in power during confidence votes on the first two budgets of the 39th Parliament because they had the support of the Bloc Québécois.

At the time, that was obviously a good thing. It was fine for the government's survival to depend on the Bloc Québécois. But when it is not the government's survival that is at stake, but the survival of a coalition government, suddenly that is a bad thing.

Had my colleague been a member in the 39th Parliament and had he been forced to join with the Bloc Québécois on a confidence vote on the budget, would he have resigned? Would he have left the Conservative Party? What would he have done if he had had to vote with the Bloc Québécois?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is truly pathetic. It is a little like the burglar who is caught before he breaks into a house and says that it is okay because he was caught before he committed a crime. Come on. That is nonsense. The fact is that the Conservatives are concerned about only one thing, and that is losing power. That is the only thing they are afraid of.

I would like to tell my friend—

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today we caught a glimpse of the Conservative Party's Reform roots. Earlier today, we heard comments that were downright offensive about the Quebec nation's legitimate, democratically elected representatives. Among others, we heard the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke read rather unimpressive, even despicable emails and letters from Reform activists and supporters, missives that were hostile toward Quebec. It is distressing to see this kind of Quebec bashing rear its head in the House of Commons once again. This proves that the Conservatives are ready to do whatever it takes to cling to power, and that includes attacking the Quebec nation's legitimate, democratically elected representatives.

Does my colleague feel our pain when people call us baboons?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am the member for Jeanne-Le Ber, and it gives me great pleasure to ask our Liberal Party colleague a question.

Today, during question period, we heard something rather strange in the House. The Conservatives changed their tune depending on whether they were talking in English or in French as they tried to point their finger at the opposition party that was the biggest sell-out.

We heard the Prime Minister say, in English, that the Liberals had sold their souls to the Bloc Québécois, and we heard his political lieutenant for Quebec say, in French, that the Bloc had sold out to the Liberals. I get the impression that they are trying to pull a fast one on either Quebeckers or Canadians, or possibly both.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the credibility of a government that engages in the kind of double-speak where the English version is the polar opposite of the French version.