House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.
Official Languages May 9th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages reminded us today that there is still a legal void in terms of the linguistic rights of Air Canada passengers and employees since its restructuring.
Why has the government still not followed our example and tabled amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act to ensure that the linguistic rights of francophones and anglophones are respected at Air Canada and all its affiliates?
Access to Information May 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Information Commissioner goes even further. He says, and I quote:
The government’s access to information reform plan will not strengthen the accountability of government through transparency—it will weaken it.
The word “weaken” does not mean “more”, but “less”.
So I would like to know why the Prime Minister continues to take shortcuts with the truth and not listen to the Commissioner, in whom he had such confidence during the election campaign.
Access to Information May 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, someone is not telling the whole story about what has occurred in this House, for on page 9 of his special report tabled in this House, the Commissioner says, and I quote: “It is regrettable that the new government did not consult with the Information Commissioner with respect to the need for, or the wording of, the 12 new exemptions to, and exclusions from, the right of access”. The Commissioner himself says that you did not consult him.
Who is telling the truth? The Commissioner, the Prime Minister or the Minister?
Softwood Lumber April 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Minister had only to listen to the television news this morning to know that Ontario is totally opposed. This morning, Quebec told the government to go back and do its duty. Moreover, British Columbia is expected to make known its position in a few minutes.
We do not need a diploma to understand that the people of Canada recognize that this government leaves them to fend for themselves and favours the interests of Americans rather than Canadian interests.
Softwood Lumber April 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard is unbelievable. The American government announced, Tuesday night, that an agreement in principle had been reached between the two governments.
Are the Americans lying or is it the minister? In fact, the announcement by the American government confirms the agreement as of Tuesday evening, after which there were consultations.
Speaking of consultations, the Government of Quebec and Quebec industry are calling on the government to return to the table and do its homework. Will the government go back to the table or will it allow the Americans to hold a knife to their throats?
Softwood Lumber April 26th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, this minister announced measures he described as urgent to help the industry, communities and workers.
What has gone on in his head that the matter is no longer urgent, that there is no longer a need for loan guarantees, help to workers and help to communities? What has changed? Is it his changing sides?
Softwood Lumber April 26th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Conservative government is currently negotiating the future of the forestry industry in Washington without consulting it, behind its back and in secret. Worse still, the government has put the $5.3 billion that belongs to the Canadian industry on the table.
Is the government grovelling so low before the Americans that it puts the United States ahead of the principle stakeholders affected by these negotiations?
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply April 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North does not realize just how proud the outgoing Liberal government can be of its record. We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 32 years. We have a generation that does not even know the word "recession". We have the lowest interest rates in decades, which means that young families can dream of buying property. Statistics show that poverty is in decline. Better yet, our public finances are the envy of the whole world. Canada's economic record was the envy of all G-7 countries during the former Prime Minister's mandate, particularly during his tenure as Minister of Finance. Therefore, I fail to understand the member's defeatist attitude. The current government is blessed indeed to have us as its predecessors.
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply April 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I wish to share my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.
This being my first opportunity to speak in the House as the re-elected member for Outremont, I too would like to thank my constituents for the confidence they have again shown in me. I would like to tell them that I intend to serve and work as hard as possible on the matters entrusted to us that are of interest to them.
Let us look, for starters, at this government’s first move, which was the Speech from the Throne. There is no need to go into it in great detail because it is quite thin. Let us go over what was in it. First they talked about a 1% reduction in the GST. No one can say he or she is opposed to tax cuts. Everyone knows, though, that an income tax cut would be much better. It is nice to reduce a tax by 1%, and it is even very generous for people buying a Mercedes. But it amounts to far less money for people who do not earn a lot.
In this sense, the GST is a regressive tax, and this is clearly a regressive tax cut. That is why we, the Liberals, have always preferred real income tax cuts. In fact, some income tax cuts were announced and approved last November. We hope that the government will not be so obnoxious as to increase Canadians’ taxes when its representatives talk constantly about doing exactly the opposite.
There is also the taxable family allowance of $1,200. How can one be against a family allowance? We should not have to choose, though, between a family allowance and accessible child care. They cannot possibly persuade me that with this $1,200 a year, they are giving Canadian families a choice. That amounts to $100 a month. With income tax deducted, not much is left. The result is that people in this country, outside Quebec, cannot afford child care.
The Conservatives certainly do not lean in the direction of accessible child care. I heard the member who spoke just before me saying everything bad that he could about child care. I found it rather embarrassing.
However that may be, the $1,200 allowance is a good thing, but they should not try to tell us that it will provide access to a national child care program.
The Government of Quebec has some $800 million or $900 million at stake in the cancellation of the national day care program. I can not wait to see what happens and how the government will compensate for something already established by contract by the Government of Canada. I imagine that the signature of the government, whichever it may be, is worth something. That is why we must be on the watch in the coming weeks.
In criminal justice terms, the Conservatives are known to strongly favour punishment. If we listened to them, we would fill all of the world's prisons and be building others. They do not seem to have a lot of faith in rehabilitation and do not seem to believe in a second chance. I do not share their opinion. Accordingly, we will examine the bills they introduce, which run the risk of being on the far right. We can assess them as they come along.
The throne speech talks of accountability. No one can oppose virtue and motherhood. However, we have to look at the details of this bill to be sure we are not bringing the machinery of state to a halt. I have no objection to additional audits. However, the pendulum must not be allowed to swing so far as to hit the opposite wall. In the coming weeks, the members will be able to examine the proposed accountability measures.
As for wait times for health care, the government has produced nothing new. It was part of our platform and our government's action. The provincial governments have the very same concern.
This throne speech is very thin especially since the real challenges facing us as Canadians and particularly as Quebeckers are much more economic in nature. There was absolutely no mention of the economy in this speech. It has to be said that the government has inherited an enviable situation along with a healthy economy and solid public finances.
However, we should take nothing for granted. We need to diversify our economic base. There are sectors that are suffering greatly at the present time.
I do not need to tell the House about the furniture sector, which is currently in distress. There is also the textile sector, the apparel sector, in Montreal, for example. Quebec used to have 66,000 jobs in that sector; now it has about 25,000, and there is talk of more closures to come.
Then there is sporting equipment, and forestry as well. On December 17 of last year, the Prime Minister made a formal commitment to the forestry industry, a commitment to:
Use the repayment of illegally collected American tariffs as security for loan guarantees to affected lumber companies and ensure adequate support for displaced forest workers and their communities.
This was announced on December 17, but we find nothing at all in the throne speech. Yet that sector is going through some very hard times. There are individuals who are suffering immensely. There are elderly workers who see no future, who are reaching the end of their employment insurance and whose only prospect is welfare. As a result, those workers are going to lose their dignity. They need support. There is absolutely nothing about this in this throne speech.
I do not want to speak again about sponsorships—heaven forbid. However certain major events which have had government support in the past need to maintain that support, because they have major economic impact on specific regions, on Quebec and on Canada. Of course we have to find something to help them out.
I note a total silence on the aerospace industry. If we are talking about sectors of the future, where is the aerospace policy? God knows it is a field where we can be competitive, where we can be world leaders. Yet all that this government is trying to do is to discredit the Technology Partnerships Canada program, the only program that has enabled Canada to rank among the world leaders in aerospace. We do not have a wealth of sectors in which we can boast of being among the leaders. In short, a lot of things were left out of this speech.
With regard to the trade challenge, particularly with the United States, the whole issue of the trade corridor is absent. Worse still, at his first meeting the U.S. president, the Prime Minister gave in to the Americans’ demand. We will need a passport or special identity card to cross the border, and that is going to have a huge impact on the flow of people and goods. There is nothing at all about this in the speech.
I should also mention infrastructure. God knows there are serious infrastructure needs in Canada. We have aging infrastructure that needs a lot of investment. The government has not said a word about this.
This Parliament may not last long, but one thing is certain: the government cannot be so simplistic. The dynamics of life in Canada are much more complex than the government's five priorities.You cannot govern on the basis of one small part of what is going on in the country. You cannot govern by totally ignoring the economy. This is what I find most unfortunate about the Speech from the Throne.
Over the coming weeks and months, we will be keeping the government informed about the concerns of various sectors of the economy. We hope that the Speech from the Throne was just an aperitif. Certainly a few little olives cannot be considered an appetizer, let alone the main course, or we might as well say that Canada will not be governed at all. We might even be led to believe that the federal government does not care about its citizens' daily preoccupations.
We can start with these five little kernels, and we will look forward to the rest when the main course is served. That said, we look forward with great interest to the bills that will be proposed in these areas.
Softwood Lumber April 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, workers have already been displaced, and communities are already being affected.
What does the minister plan to do for these workers and these communities, to make good on the Conservatives' promise?