Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his support for our motion.
As a member from Quebec, I am keenly interested in the issue of jobs. There seems to be some suggestion that the Prime Minister's bad behaviour can be forgiven because he was standing up for jobs. We all want to protect jobs and the flagship companies of Canada or Quebec. What we take issue with is corporate corruption, of course, but also the fact that the Prime Minister is using workers to justify unacceptable behaviour in a society founded on the rules of justice and law. Let me elaborate.
Why did the Liberals change the law so that Air Canada would no longer have to meet its legal obligations with regard to jobs at Aveos?
Why did they decide to force Canada Post workers back to work when all they wanted was pay equity and a pension system that was not two-tiered?
Why did they reject the NDP's proposals to update the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect retirees who worked at companies like Sears or Nortel?
The Prime Minister tends to support companies, not workers. Can my colleague tell us why it is suddenly so important for the Prime Minister to help his friends? Why can he simply not state that this was unacceptable behaviour? Why not shed light on this controversy?