Luc Harvey

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

In recent weeks, we have had an opportunity to talk about the bill we are debating this evening, and there has never been any question of adding a new amendment.

I would simply like to know what fas happened in the last hour.

[Taxation, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the opportunity this afternoon to thank the Minister of Finance who, in his budget of May 2, 2006, changed the excise tax on beer produced by microbreweries.

This tax adjustment had been requested for more than five years and will help these brewers take their rightful place on the highly competitive beer market.

Among other things, this tax holiday will enable them to create more than 2,500 jobs all across Canada. The microbrewery proprietors in my region, who helped me become very familiar with this issue, asked me to insist on its inclusion in our budget and have shown their appreciation and asked me to thank the House for resolving this.

These sentiments have been echoed all across Canada through their association. I therefore thank the Minister of Finance.

[Canada Labour Code, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for my Bloc Québécois colleague. First, he referred to a number of people who were apparently involved in drafting this bill. He spoke only of union representatives. Were people other than union representatives also involved? Did people from the management side have an opportunity to suggest approaches, developments or ways to proceed?

Second, he says that statistics show that disputes do not last as long when there are anti-scab laws. Yet according to the large amount of information I have here, a strike lasts an average of 32 days longer and the risk of a strike is 12% higher as in the case of Nikitin & Baud. I have a lot of other information that does not necessarily corroborate his data. We are talking about people who are very well known in industrial relations, labour relations and union-management relations. Was this information also taken into account when the bill was drafted?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member from the Bloc Québécois on her very fine speech. However, I have a few additional questions for her.

The member says that Quebec has finally reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% thanks to its energy efforts.

If Quebec is considered on its own, independent or not, in terms of the Kyoto protocol, the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is much less. The problem is, air comes into Quebec from Ontario. It sometimes even comes from the United States, from the Atlantic, from the north, or from the south.

The global solution of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8% may be mathematically good for Quebec, but it will not substantially improve the quality of the air Quebeckers breathe.

When we talk about a global solution, we have to look at it globally. Quebec, not as a culture or a people but as a territory, is not large enough to solve the problem. Air comes from everywhere. The same is true of water.

It was suggested that no financial cuts be made. However, where should this money be invested? It was said earlier that the government should not invest it in prisons. But which program should we invest it in? What programs and solutions does the Bloc Québécois have to suggest? It is true that we are talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are prepared to do so. We all want to do the right thing, but what is the solution? It was mentioned that the money should not be invested in prisons. We agree, and we will not invest it in prisons, but where will we invest it?

It was suggested that the money be invested in research. Yes, but what sort of research? Research into public transit or something else? I did not get an answer to that question.

It is true that we are trying to find a solution to environmental problems so that we can have better quality air. Everyone agrees on that. But what concrete proposal does the Bloc Québécois have to successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc Québécois gave some interesting statistics concerning Kyoto. Indeed, since 1990, not only have we not been able to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but the situation has gotten worse because of the previous program.

Despite the billions of dollars that were invested and the structure that was put in place, there has not been any progress made. On the contrary, the situation has gotten worse. In fact, we are now being told that we should reduce our greenhouse gas emissions not by 24%, but by 32%.

The situation that we have perpetuated to this day proves that the path followed was not necessarily the right one.

I want to ask my colleague the following question. If the path followed was not the right one—hybrid cars were mentioned earlier—what other measure would the Bloc Québécois suggest to improve the situation?

We cannot be against virtue. However, we want to review the plan and work towards improving the situation with regard to the environment. We did not say that we were not willing to listen to the Bloc. We are willing to work with that party. Funds have already been allocated for that. What is the Bloc proposing?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, members talked about buying hybrid vehicles but studies have shown that the environmental impact is perhaps not as important as expected.

Apart from environmentally friendly cars, we can still spend considerable amounts of money. I would like to ask my colleague opposite what the Bloc Québécois is suggesting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There is talk about investing money, but where does the Bloc think we should put this money?

I would really appreciate a suggestion that would not be limited to hybrid vehicles.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of my hon. colleague on the other side of the House and I have a question for him.

He spoke about daycare and the federal program we had before. I would like to remind my hon. colleague that the Liberals’ proposal for Quebec was $1.25 billion over six years, or about $208 million a year. The various early childhood centres or CPEs in the great province of Quebec take 200,000 children. The subsidy per child was therefore $1,040, while our proposal is for $1,200.

Second, in addition to these 200,000 children, another 230,000 do not go to day care in a CPE. Either they stay with relatives, their mother or a family member, or they use an alternative care system. So our program covers 100% of the children and provides an additional $160 over what was originally promised. That makes it very flexible.

I want to raise a final point before asking my question. In his or her first year, about one child in six goes to a CPE, while the other five children stay with their relatives or their mothers, who can get parental leave or something of that kind.

So when talking about fairness, what is my colleague referring to here?

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked questions more related to the subjects I addressed in my speech. I spoke a great length about day care. This is a subject that the Bloc Québécois liked very much, but now that it has the figures, it goes off and finds another subject. Now that we have been talking about sports and they have seen that there is already a saving of several million dollars for Quebec, they change the subject.

So finally we arrive at the employment insurance fund. We have been speaking about it for years. However, I did read the budget. There is no mention in it of returning the money that was spent.

Finally, I think that if the hon. member has other questions, he could maybe ask the Minister of Finance directly in order to get a better answer.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Louis-Hébert mainly comprises Sainte-Foy, Sillery and Cap-Rouge. The primary industries are the university and research. The technology park, which also focuses on research, is in my riding, as is the National Optics Institute. Furthermore, I am working with Laval University so that my fellow citizens can get new research chairs for work in technical and technological development at several levels.

As the member for Louis-Hébert, these are my priorities. I have nothing else to add about seasonal work.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will share my speaking time with the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

Since this is my first speech, I wish to take the opportunity to thank the citizens of my riding, Louis-Hébert, for the trust they showed me by voting for me to represent them here in the House of Commons. I hope to do a very good job here.

I can take pleasure in the content of the budget presented by our Minister of Finance. I will take the liberty of evaluating certain advantages of this budget in the light of my personal experience.

Though I was born into a low-income family, my parents nevertheless managed to give my sister and me a solid and generous education. When I was just little, I often went with my father, Paul, who got up before dawn to deliver the milk to his customers in Saint-Fulgence. My father, a milkman, and a tenacious and resourceful worker, always managed to put bread on the table and provide his family with the means to grow. My mother, Rachelle, stayed at home to surround us, my sister and me, protect us, encourage us and, of course, spoil us from time to time.

This family atmosphere of love, decency and work left influences on me that will be useful to me throughout my life. I am now trying to imitate my parents in my relations with my own children.

After attending Université Laval, I married, 19 years ago, a young student called Catherine, from Saint Lucia in the Caribbean. We have four daughters, aged 8, 11, 15 and 17, who are active in sports and studious, children who fill us with pride and happiness.

As can be seen, I am in a good position to evaluate the relevance of the $1,200 that our Minister of Finance will give to parents of children under six.

When my children were preschoolers, my wife, Catherine, took a year off work to take care of them, on sabbatical leave. Then came a grandmother for a full year, and a sister for another. So for three years we had precious help to provide care for our children. Some of my daughters also went to early childhood centres and I am happy because there they experienced integration and this is helpful for them now.

I would have been very happy at the time to have an extra $100 a month to help us make ends meet. My youngest daughter has just turned eight, so I cannot take advantage of the program. I can, however, appreciate its benefits. It is true that $1,200 does not cover all the costs of child care. However, the assistance given the family budget is significant. Most of the families with children in early childhood centres are generally two income families, taxed at a rate lower than that of families reporting only one income and thus having more money available after tax.

The initial proposal by the Liberal government represented some $1,040 per child in Quebec, given that we had 200,000 children taking advantage of the program. However, one thing must not be forgotten. There are 423,340 children in Quebec. So that means that over 220,000 children did not receive any support. In all, the some 423,000 children will generate $508 million in additional revenue for the Province of Quebec, so nearly $300 million more than the previous plan.

I get comments that the day care program falls short. We have to remember that it represents more than double the amount of the previous program.

In the light of these figures, we have to conclude that the system proposed by our government is the fairest, because it is universal, it benefits everyone and it allows parents to choose the most effective way to invest.

What a fine way to invest in the Canada of tomorrow!

The Minister of Finance is rewriting the story of the Canadian government’s finances. For example, he is proposing a major income tax reduction approaching $20 billion, while supporting an initiative to reduce government spending to 4%, from the 8% we saw under the Liberals.

In his desire to return to Canadian citizens the excess income tax collected by previous governments, our minister is allowing individuals and businesses to regain control of their money.

This is the first time in human memory that the middle class is seeing its tax obligations reduced. Everyone will benefit. Seniors will work, and so will students, families and companies. The promise of a balanced budget in the near future, as made by the Minister of Finance, is restoring hope to Canadians.

In conclusion, there is no question of not trusting the Canadians who have decided to entrust their destiny to a Conservative government. Let them decide what to do with their money. If they want their child to do sports, so much the better! They will get a tax reduction of $500.

I am very familiar with soccer, having coached the sport for many years. In saving $80 each, the 160,000 players in Quebec will manage to save over $13 million a year, in Quebec alone, and for soccer alone. One cannot call that nothing.

Government intervention in decision making in family life is over. This budget underscores our unshakable confidence in the people of Canada, and allows them to profit from the robustness of our economy. I am a Conservative with a big C. Naturally I am an unfailing advocate of this approach of reducing government influence over the spending power of citizens. Obviously I am biased, but bolstered by the praise I am hearing from many electors in my riding of Louis-Hébert, I must say I am delighted at the content of our budget. I believe in income tax reduction, I believe in reducing the big government machine, I believe in free enterprise. I am proud of our government.