Denis Blanchette

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

Some of the things she talked about were a bit different from what I have heard so far from other members. We tend to think about the relationships between the different levels of government from a purely economic perspective, but there are other things in life, such as culture and housing.

I would like the member to elaborate on this thought. A federalism that works is a federalism of co-operation. The current government, like its predecessor, does not seem to understand that co-operation does not mean unilaterally imposing measures and it is not just about funding for infrastructure, even though that is important.

I would like the member to elaborate on what kind of attitude is needed in co-operative federalism.

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in a federation, representatives of all levels of government are elected by the people. They elect us to represent them at the federal level, just as they elect provincial and municipal representatives. People expect us to work together for the well-being of all Canadians.

Why then is the government systematically refusing to bring together all interested parties to talk about the major issues, such as health, labour, the environment and the economy? It is fine for the member to say that there have been more than 300 meetings, but when did everyone get together to do some good, productive work, as Canadians expect of all elected officials?

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, January 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 85th time allocation motion.

Once again, the government is disrespecting the people's house. In the parliamentary process, there are steps we have to follow. I do not understand why a minister would not want to listen to the experts and accept amendments to improve his bill. I do not understand what he is trying to achieve with all of this. He says there has to be a balance between action and debate. That is great, but only if there is a real debate.

My question for the minister is therefore very simple. What is he afraid of that is prompting him to prevent and restrict debate? What is he afraid of?

[Quebec Winter Carnival, January 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite you and all Canadians to Quebec City's 61st winter carnival, which will take place from January 30 to February 15. The carnival president is Isabelle Hurtevent. Last year, 520,000 people attended. This year, there are 200 activities on the program and 1,200 volunteers on board.

Come join the party with your arrow sash, your effigy or your trumpet. Come see the night parades, the ice palace, the snow bath, the canoe race and the snow sculptures.

Do not miss the dogsledding, the peewee hockey tournament, the Hockey Canada century tour, snow golf and festive streets such as du Campanile and Maguire.

Lastly, I would like to wish the duchess of Sainte-Foy–Sillery–Cap-Rouge, Marie-Andrée Boucher, good luck on the evening of the coronation.

Come join the fun at the world's biggest winter carnival together with the king of the party, Bonhomme.

Enjoy the carnival, everyone.

[Victims Bill of Rights, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for her speech. She did a good job of explaining this bill's shortcomings.

Even though this is more symbolic than anything, the government has to walk the talk. Symbols are all well and good, but we need concrete measures.

Having fought for women, can the member tell us a bit more about the kind of concrete measures we need? Why should the government give people more than just hollow symbolism?

[Victims Bill of Rights, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there was something else in my colleague's speech that I would like him to explain. He said that the charter was like an empty shell or a sham of a charter.

What does the member think a real victims charter should look like?

[Victims Bill of Rights, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

Ten minutes was not enough time for him. He could have spoken for an hour and gone into even more detail. I want to thank him for that. He spoke a lot about the bill of rights and its shortcomings. He concluded his speech by talking about clause 21.

I would like to hear some more about that, since it is a very important point, especially in terms of the costs associated with it.

[Victims Bill of Rights, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He touched on a rather interesting aspect. Like all the others, he talked about how the intentions of this bill and the ability to follow through on those intentions do not quite match up. What I found especially surprising was when he spoke about the Canadian Bar Association's appearance before the finance committee. What I find worrisome about all this is that, yes, there are good intentions, but the assistance for victims stops as soon as the trials are over. Then, apparently, there is no more money.

Could my colleague talk to us a bit about what the Canadian Bar Association said when it appeared before the finance committee, so we can figure out where the problem is? Are there some serious financial issues with respect to the support that this bill would provide?

[Victims Bill of Rights, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to wish my colleagues, you, those watching on CPAC and all House of Commons employees a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. In a few minutes, she was able to put things into context. As she said, this bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is based on good intentions, but generally speaking, the resources are not there to follow through on those intentions. I am somewhat worried about that.

Could my colleague elaborate on the lack of a comprehensive approach and funding for the charter? What does she believe should be added immediately to make this a better bill?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her dynamic speech. A country's budget is meant to provide direction. It sets out the government's main priorities. Based on what I have seen and heard, and my colleague eloquently illustrated this, the government is out to get votes. It is bringing in piecemeal measures, hoping that maybe some of them will stick. There is some wishful thinking going on here.

I have a question for my colleague. Since she spoke about issues such as youth unemployment, for which she is our party's critic, and since she has an interest in privacy matters, what directions would she like to have seen in this budget? What does she think is missing?