Christian Paradis

[Main Estimates, 2006-07, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech. I paid close attention. Obviously, I agree with him on certain aspects. We must put things in perspective. The Conservative government made some effort beginning in 1984 and in subsequent years. The minister at the time was Marcel Masse. He was from my riding, formerly the riding of Frontenac. He was the one who created the Asbestos Institute so that Canadians and the countries that purchase chrysotile could benefit from research on how to use the product safely. Furthermore, that scientific research still forms the foundation of today's discussions. Earlier, I mentioned the Ontario Royal Commission on Asbestos, but there have been many additional studies since that time. It is one of the most researched products and, when used safely, it is fine.

However, what saddens me, is that my colleague is playing partisan politics here today by saying that he is now exerting pressure. He said himself that, in this file, we can only wait.

I have a question for my colleague. Can he bring the debate beyond partisan politics and say that he is prepared to cooperate on this file, given that the Canadian government bases itself on scientific fact? That is what is important. Just as he himself said we must not tolerate grandstanding, what we need to encourage is a scientific debate. That is the only way to work in the best interests of Canadians in this file.

[Main Estimates, 2006-07, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, following the example of my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska, the points raised by my colleague for Winnipeg Centre lead me to ask this question. Has my colleague for Winnipeg-Centre taken into account the fact that there exists scientific proof dating back to the 1980s? I am referring to the Ontario Royal Commission. They were not medical specialists financed by the industry, as my colleague would lead us to believe, but independent institutions.

Then he is talking about replacement fibres without knowing whether or not they are regulated. We do not know the risks they pose or their impact on human beings.

Does my colleague take this troubling information into account when he makes a speech such as the one he has given tonight?

[Natural Resources, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to spouting rhetoric, we do not need to take any lessons from the party across the floor. That party was in power for 13 years without getting anything done, with catastrophic results. We must now clean up its mess. We are now taking action to come up with effective measures.

[Natural Resources, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the streamlining promised by the minister, certain programs have indeed been maintained.

The opposition is now asking us to act in haste. The Minister of Natural Resources is streamlining things in a manner that is efficient and logical, and that is what will be delivered.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. In my remarks earlier on, I wanted to read the motion as written, which mentions the Québécois. I think that is what matters here.

The member for Brant raised this point for good reason. I think it is the people, not the territory, who form a nation. Regardless of where Quebeckers find themselves in this country, they belong to the Quebec nation. That is how I understand the motion and that is also why, in my remarks just now, I chose my words with great care so as not to distort the motion, but to talk about it as it is written.

As for my colleague's other comments, there was some build-up to this. That question was raised this week and is being raised again.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his interesting question. It is very interesting indeed. My constituents are very pleased with what is happening today because we are talking about open federalism.

Once again, we see that the Prime Minister of Canada wants to move things forward and make things work for our country's unity. That is leadership, and it shows that he is really listening to Quebeckers.

I speak on behalf of my riding, but it is clear that this motion is welcome in all regions of Quebec. People are ready to talk about it and they want to hear people talk about it. Putting forward a motion like this one, which is about recognizing reality and has nothing to do with abstract ideas, shows the path that the government plans to take by creating open federalism, correcting the fiscal imbalance, recognizing Quebeckers for who they are and valuing their immeasurable contribution to Canadian culture.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Of course, when I say that I support the motion introduced by the Prime Minister which recognizes that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada, I think that the word “Québécois” makes sense because we talk about all Quebeckers, no matter where they are.

Thus, it is a fundamental perspective that takes this aspect into account and reflects the Prime Minister's wisdom; I think that it is important to go that way.

Once again, I express my support for the Prime Minister's motion. I think that it is a big step forward and I am proud to say that we recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation in a united Canada. One does not contradict the other.

Once again, at the risk of repeating myself, I will say that Quebec's culture enriches Canada. Even though it is a statement of fact, even though everybody knows that it has been there for many years, it is satisfying, and, from a historical point of view, it is important that the Prime Minister of Canada is now ready to recognize that fact with a motion like the one he introduced this week.

I think it is a courageous gesture that will be beneficial to our country's unity and one that represents a great step forward.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to show my support for the motion put forward this week by the Prime Minister. I consider this an historic moment.

Yesterday, my hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin shared a number of quotations to clearly illustrate the current state of affairs in Quebec. I find it very interesting that he quoted great Quebec premiers such as Daniel Johnson, Jean Lesage and Robert Bourassa.

I will not list all of them here, but something came out of all that. It is a fact. Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.

Why is it a fact? Because Quebec has a specific culture, one that is based on the French language, its own history and its French heritage. This is very important because this creates something extraordinary. In Canada, our country, we have two main cultures. One is English and the other is French. This is what enriches our country.

For my part, I will give the following example: I was trained as a lawyer. I studied law in the early 1990s. What I found fascinating during my studies was that Quebec has a civil law system, but it also has to consider the whole common law system, which comes from British law. It is an asset. Few places in the world give us access to such an asset. Lawyers in Quebec, in Montreal, are in demand because they have a double knowledge of the culture of law.

Such examples show what our country is today. Quebeckers come from one of the founding peoples of Canada, our country. In all the numerous Canadian institutions, Quebec has left its mark. It is a great asset.

I take this opportunity to recognize the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown this week. He did something courageous. It is the first time that this issue has been brought explicitly before the federal Parliament. The Prime Minister agreed that the debate should take place here.

Although this is a given in Quebec, and people are aware of it and it is part of their lives, the Prime Minister felt that he had to take a stand on this issue. This is in keeping with the fundamental view of government held by our party, which wishes to exercise an open federalism and not centralize everything as the previous government tried to do.

Each region in our country is different from the next and each is equally rich in its own way. This diversity has enriched our country. I believe that open federalism will enable us to evolve. The same applies to the discussion of any issue: the less we debate the issue, the less chance that we will arrive at a complete understanding.

In our country, we have various points of view that make Canada what it is today, a credible and recognized global leader.

I am pleased that the words “united Canada” are part of the motion. Personally, when I entered politics as a Conservative, I believed in open federalism. We must not be satisfied with defending the interests of Quebec. We must promote them. We must move forward and take the offensive.

We live in a united Canada and we are moving our interests in that direction.

I believe that is how we will succeed. We will not succeed by arriving with the idea of separation.

These are my points of view that I wished to put forward today. I will be pleased to support this motion.

[Repentigny Byelection, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that the Bloc candidate in Repentigny refused, not once but twice, to publicly debate his ideas. If the Bloc Québécois' strength is to float ideas, the expectations of the Conservative candidate Stéphane Bourgon and the voters of Repentigny certainly were not met. Ironically, the Bloc Québécois, the party that claims to have a monopoly on representing the interests of Quebec in Ottawa, refuses to debate its ideas.

Is that because, apart from its pipe dream, the Bloc Québécois has nothing to offer voters as it can accomplish nothing in Ottawa? The Bloc Québécois is so entrenched in the opposition in Ottawa that it now shows contempt for the voters of Repentigny.

In next Monday's election, Stéphane Bourgon deserves to be voted in by the people of Repentigny because he will never step back from promoting the interests of the people of Repentigny in Ottawa, and above all, yes above all, he will be able to accomplish things for them. The people of Repentigny deserve better than to be out in the cold forever. On November 27, Repentigny deserves to be in power.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain. I salute the Prime Minister for his leadership on this matter. As he said yesterday, it is a fact. Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.

Everyone knew it. Everyone is in agreement on this fact. My colleague opposite may not agree with the words “within a united Canada”, but everyone else does. Now, a federal forum may not be the place to say it, but we were asked and we are responding.