Robert Vincent

[Bicycle Industry, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the short term, this safeguard would have made the local bicycle industry more competitive in light of the onslaught of cheap imported bicycles. This measure would have allowed the Canadian and Quebec bicycle industry to adjust.

Does the minister realize that the purpose of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal decision is to give the industry time to adapt to globalization?

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understood quite well the speech by my learned colleague on the other side of the House. But he talks at the same time of serious crimes and sentences of less than two years. He should know that sentences of less than two years are handed out for minor crimes and that they are served in prisons in Quebec and in other provinces. Who will build these prisons when more room is needed? You stated that 15,000 additional people would be incarcerated. Where will we put these people if we have no prisons? Will you build them? Will you maintain them and pay the staff? If it costs $50,000 per inmate and we multiply that by 15,000, I think you will be running up quite a bill. However, I believe that you will pass that bill on to each province. That is the first thing.

We must consider something else that is important in all of this. People will think that they have a lot of money to do this. They have so much money. But fighting crime does not go together with poverty. Eliminating poverty and helping the poor would reduce slightly the number of people who go to jail, because they want to incarcerate people serving sentences of less than two years. That is another issue.

Then, if too much money is left over, they must think about older people who receive pensions and are living below the poverty line. If we can afford $50,000 per inmate, we should be able to give a little money to these older people who do not even receive minimum wage. We must help these people who live below the poverty line.

If you still have too much money, you should also help people losing their jobs. There will be more such people in two industries since the minister did not uphold the Canadian International Trade Tribunal decision to apply a surtax on bicycles for Raleigh and for Pro Cycle. They did not think of that. This is not serious. The lobbying that is going to take place elsewhere, at the retail level, is more important. However, in terms of workers and businesses, that is not important. By the way, both of those businesses are located in Quebec.

If that is not considered important and you still have too much money, there is also the program to help older workers, which we have been working on for years. We have been demanding such a program to help older workers, but there has been no progress in this area.

I think that the gentleman at the other end does not know where he is headed. The problem is that you have too much money, too large a surplus. You want to build prisons and put everyone in them. As I was saying earlier, before instituting such repression, we could start by tackling poverty, which is where the true problem lies.

Thus, here is my question. What do you intend to do to tackle poverty to ensure that these people do not end up in prison?

[National Defence, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government must be aware that a significant majority of the population, especially in Quebec, opposes the missile defence shield because this project could be the first step in a new arms race.

Is the government ready to participate in a project that would include sending weapons into space?

[National Defence, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on May 10 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, released a statement that it would pursue discussions to put a missile defence shield in place.

Since Canada is a member of this organization, will the government tell the House what its position on NATO's intentions is?

[Finance, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I asked the Minister of Finance what he intended to do about the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's recent decision to allow a surtax to be imposed on cheap bicycle imports from certain countries. I was told to wait for Tuesday's budget and look for the answer in it. There is, however, no mention of this important issue anywhere in this budget.

What is the Minister of Finance waiting for to act and enforce the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, before the bicycle industry in Quebec and Canada disappears?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to my colleague. He says that the softwood lumber agreement is a miracle. Personally, I would say that the Prime Minister was more a magician than a miracle worker. After all, he was the only one who made a billion dollars disappear, so the agreement was not a miracle, it was magic.

Coming back to the bill, I would like to ask the hon. member the same question my colleague asked. Clause 14 states that the government may make regulations about the maintenance—I repeat, the maintenance—and repair of bridges. It can also make regulations about the operation, use and security and safety of international bridges and tunnels.

My question is clear. Repairs to these bridges are paid for by the municipality that makes the repairs. The cost therefore comes out of Quebec infrastructure funds. In the case of the Sutton bridge, Vermont pays 70% of the cost of repairs or maintenance. How will the government be able to order repairs to a bridge in Quebec, such as the Sutton bridge, when we know that the Americans are going to pay 70% of the bill?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to comment on Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges and tunnels.

The term “international” makes me think of the softwood lumber agreement signed yesterday. The Prime Minister and members of the government are all puffed up over this agreement, but they should think the matter over a bit more.

A NAFTA tribunal already handed down a decision in our favour. The tariffs imposed by the Americans were excessive, not to mention illegal. How can a government accountable to Canadian and Quebec industries negotiate an agreement when a tribunal has already ruled in our favour? I do not understand. I have a problem with that.

The Conservatives think that losing a billion dollars is a good deal. They should have negotiated knowing that the industry is in a slump and has lost a lot of money. They should have reached an agreement that really benefits the industry, which deserves our support and encouragement in this dispute. We cannot just throw in the towel, sign an agreement with the Americans and present it to the industry, saying that we know its back is to the wall and it has no money because it has already shelled out $5 billion to try to foil the U.S. government's plan to destroy the Canadian softwood lumber industry. I have a problem with that.

Why did the government not support the industry, by recalling that the court had ruled in our favour? Why did it not support it financially so that it could continue to fight? We will not let another government do this to us. We are right and we must support that ruling that was in our favour.

Unfortunately, this is not what the government is doing. It is negotiating a $4 billion agreement, which makes us lose $1 billion. It then says that this is not bad, because everyone, particularly the provinces, is happy that we have reached this agreement with the American government. I do not think that everyone is happy. Businesses had to accept it because they did not have any money left.

Last year, the Conservatives were bragging, saying that this money should have been given to businesses in the softwood lumber sector in order to support them financially. What are they doing now that they are in office? They solve the problem right away and reach a $4 billion agreement, that is $1 billion less than expected. And they are happy with this. However, I believe that the industry is not so happy.

For months, the Conservatives urged the Liberal government to support the softwood lumber industry. Once they get in office, they do nothing of the kind and have reached an agreement that is unacceptable to the industry. I have a hard time understanding how they could stand up and brag that they have settled the softwood lumber dispute, something the previous government was never able to do. I am sorry, but I do not agree.

Let us go back to our bridges. I find equally ridiculous that the government would propose bills that do not mean anything. They do not even know what they are writing. We see a good example in clauses 14, 15 and 16: “The Governor in Council may...make regulations respecting the maintenance and repair...the operation and use...[and ] the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels—”

My colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert was just extolling the bridge in Sutton. I would like to underscore that the municipality is responsible for repairs, through the Quebec Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, while Vermont assumes approximately 70% of the cost, depending on resources. How can the Canadian government make maintenance decisions when the American government is paying 70% of the costs? Really now. The federal government has nothing to do with it. Quebec pays 30% and the Americans pay the other 70%. And yet the federal government wants to decide when repairs should be made? I think it will find itself alone on that bridge.

One clause states that the government will order the maintenance and that the Americans will pay for the maintenance. Can my colleague explain this contradiction?

[Finance, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, is the government going to subject the bicycle industry to the same fate as the softwood lumber industry, and by that I mean will it do nothing until the industry is forced to throw in the towel at the last minute? What will it take for him to do something?

[Finance, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last February, I wrote to the finance minister to find out his position on the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's recent recommendation to impose a surtax on the growing number of cheap imported bicycles. The main manufacturers affected are located in Quebec, namely, Raleigh Canada Ltd. in Waterloo, in my riding, and Groupe Procycle Inc. in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, in the riding of the current industry minister.

Does the Minister of Finance intend to enforce the tribunal's decision and support the Quebec and Canadian bicycle industry?

[Canada Labour Code, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is still time for the Liberals to change their mind, since my bill was adopted at second reading and we could still have third reading, if the government wanted.

Therefore, I am asking the Prime Minister this: how can he make all sorts of announcements just before the election campaign and not give pregnant Quebec women priority, by ensuring that they receive the same benefits that the Quebec government gives its working women?