Paul Crête

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I want to wish you all the best in your new position.

I am going to split my time with the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

This is my first speech since the throne speech and I would like, of course, to thank the people of my riding for electing me. I also want to point out that when the voters were making their decision, they had to assess the future performance of the parties and candidates they were choosing. The Quebeckers in my riding made no mistake, as in most of Quebec, where 49 members of the Bloc Québécois were elected.

The Conservatives have produced a Speech from the Throne that is completely out of touch with what is going on in Quebec. It seems to be directed at the rest of Canada with no consideration for the needs and issues clearly expressed by Quebeckers during the election campaign.

It is all the more amazing, therefore, to see that this throne speech has the support of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is the same old bunch of federalists. They insist on their highly centralizing positions that are entirely contrary to what Quebec wants and could benefit from.

For example, the Conservative government is persisting with its cuts to culture and to the economic development agencies, even though the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie said during the election campaign that there would be other programs to replace the ones that were eliminated. Now the axe has fallen and there are no other programs. The new Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has confirmed that there will not be any programs to offset the cuts. The Conservatives say that reducing Quebec’s cultural presence on world markets suits them just fine and they can live with that. In their view, culture is a commodity like any other. There is a clear disconnect on this between the views of Quebeckers and the views of Canadians, and that is one of the reasons why we will oppose the throne speech.

Finally, the Conservatives are still insisting on imposing regressive legislation against young offenders and on dismantling the firearms registry. Over the years, we have developed a rehabilitation system for young offenders in Quebec that works very well. Our rehabilitation rates are higher than in the rest of Canada. This throne speech just shows the right-wing Conservative steamroller still barrelling along in the same direction and in the same spirit we saw at their convention in Winnipeg. It is an approach based more on punishing than rehabilitating. That too is contrary to the wishes of Quebeckers.

The Conservatives are insisting on creating a federal securities commission. Here too, they are acting contrary to the entire consensus in Quebec, including both the political parties and the economic experts. If I were a Conservative member from Quebec, I would not be very proud of having an approach like this, which is neither wanted nor accepted in Quebec, as we have seen over the last few years. The position of Quebeckers is very clear. Here too, there is a disconnect between what the Conservatives want and what Quebeckers want.

Next, the speech does not even contain the word Kyoto. Today, a certain approach should be in place, at a time when we are faced with a financial crisis, an economic crisis: there must be sustainable development solutions. In this connection, the Conservatives continue to draw a clear line between economic development on the one hand and environmental issues on the other. Yet we know that they cannot be separated. Quebeckers figured that out a long time ago. The people of Quebec view sustainable development as the way of the future. They would have expected to see some indication in the throne speech that the Conservatives got the message, especially since they are now really isolated. Even the Americans, with the election of a new president, will move far away from the approach they had in the Bush years. The Australians have changed governments, and with it their attitude to this subject. Soon Canada will be the only one left with this restrictive and regressive approach of not requiring development to be sustainable, and of continuing to view economic development and environmental issues as opposites rather than parts of the same movement, as they must be.

The speech also announces another reduction to the political weight of Quebec; constituencies will be added and the result will be that the number of Quebec members compared to the whole of Canada will be reduced.

This intention is repeated, yet it has no support whatsoever in Quebec. We can see that there are a great many points on which there are very marked distinctions between the approach of the Conservative Party. with the backing of the Liberal Party of Canada, and the approach of the people of Quebec, which is transmitted to this House by the Bloc Québécois members. Quebeckers have made their wishes very clear. In six elections in a row, they have shown that they would prefer to have a party like the Bloc Québécois represent them, even if they knew from the start that it would be in opposition. They are therefore certain that the positions defended before, during, and after the election will remain unchanged and that the Bloc Québécois members will be focused on the development and defence of the interests of Quebec and the promotion of sovereignty.

The government also promised to interfere more in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, like health and education. There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne about the fiscal imbalance or education transfers. It has been 14 years now since the Liberal government made cuts to this sector, and the Conservative government is turning a blind eye. It is going down the same path and is not fixing the situation. This has a huge impact, because knowledge is very important to face the current economic crisis and the challenge of a world economy, and Quebec needs the post-secondary education transfers it should be receiving. But this was not in the speech.

The government also clearly announced that it wants to support the development of nuclear energy and continue unrestricted military spending. This goes completely against what Quebeckers want. Quebeckers are against the development of nuclear energy because other clean energies or alternative energies can be developed, and they do not want us to go in that direction.

As for military spending, yesterday we saw the report assessing the mission in Afghanistan. It is going nowhere. We are up against some difficult situations, and there is not much progress being made. But it is clear that we could have used this money and invested it much more constructively. I think the way the mission has been run clearly shows that the Conservative government, which decided to purchase equipment without having foreign affairs or defence policies, must now face the facts. It purchased military equipment without first thinking about what was needed. The government needs to go back to the drawing board, and there was no indication of that either in the throne speech. Furthermore, the government is repeating the same promise about federal spending power, with a formula that was rejected by Quebec.

This Speech from the Throne does not take into account the Quebec nation, or the interests and values of Quebeckers. There is no sign of the spirit of openness we were hoping for. I think Quebeckers sent a very clear message during the last election—as we saw, over 70% of the population voted for a party other than the government—and most of the members here proposed an approach very different from the one taken by the Conservative government. Quebec saw a decline in Conservative votes and a decrease in the number of members, but in they end, the Conservatives did not seem to get the message. Naturally, Quebec will eventually draw its own conclusions. Whether we have a federal government that is Conservative or Liberal, Quebec never wins. It is never given enough of a say, because the federal government's priorities are never the same as Quebec's priorities. Once again, this is true of this throne speech, and I hope Quebeckers will begin electing many sovereignists, both in Quebec and in Ottawa. The best way to defend the interests of Quebec at this time, and this is clearly what Quebeckers chose, is to elect a large majority of Bloc Québécois members. I hope Quebeckers will choose a sovereignist government in Quebec. That way they will have the best team to defend the interests of Quebec, until sovereignty is achieved.

I understand why Quebeckers elected members of the Bloc. They predicted that the Conservative government would show no openness towards the priorities of Quebec.

[Justice, November 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that young Omar Khadr should be immediately removed from Guantanamo and brought back to Canada—everyone but the Conservatives, that is. The Supreme Court of Canada, senior Foreign Affairs officials, the Canadian Bar Association, the Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal, the opposition parties, everyone condemns the government's inaction and insensitivity. We are talking about a child soldier, a Canadian citizen, who has been tortured and mistreated.

Instead of giving us empty rhetoric about something that is tarnishing Canada's reputation, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs take his role as a diplomat seriously and do the right thing by bringing Omar Khadr home?

[Justice, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that Omar Khadr is the only citizen of a western country who is still at Guantanamo.

The president-elect of the United States himself, Barack Obama, has confirmed that he plans to close this detention centre. The Conservatives persist in refusing to repatriate young Omar Khadr.

Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs plan on taking the first step to re-establish Canada's international reputation by calling for the immediate repatriation of Omar Khadr? This is something the new minister must do, absolutely.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's speech, especially his conclusion, when he said that we need a strong central government. This helps me understand why the Liberals decided to support this throne speech, which has been widely rejected by Quebeckers.

In the recent election, the Conservatives received fewer votes and had fewer members elected in Quebec. One of the reasons was that Quebeckers found that the Conservative approach did not correspond at all to what Quebec wanted. That is why we proposed an amendment to the amendment to the Speech from the Throne, which called on the House to “denounce the fact that it does not respond to the consensus in Quebec respecting, for instance, the legislation on young offenders, the repatriation to Quebec of powers over culture and communications, the elimination of the federal spending power and the maintenance of the existing system of securities regulation.”

This is what I understand from the hon. member's speech: the Liberals voted in favour of this throne speech because a centralized approach corresponds to their vision of Canada, as it does for the Conservatives.

Can the hon. member not understand why Quebec's solution is to leave Canada and become a country as quickly as possible? Then, Quebeckers would have autonomy and their own decision-making powers. Canadians could have the kind of government they want, like the one the Conservatives and Liberals are currently working together on, in their search for a centralized government.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

I see that the Conservative members are defensive because they know that it is actually true.

Something else is rather paradoxical. Today we are discussing a throne speech in this chamber; however, the real throne speech was delivered by the Prime Minister in Peru on the weekend. He said that there will be a deficit and there will be a recession, even though he qualified it as a technical recession to soften the blow. That is quite the opposite of what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign.

The banks have been helped; industries are going to get help, and that is fine. Will the government use common sense and, in keeping with the Prime Minister's statements on the weekend, will he also ensure that the most disadvantaged in our society, those who will lose their jobs in this recession, can count on an adequate employment insurance system? For example, we could eliminate the two-week waiting period that currently penalizes people who lose their jobs and need this money to make ends meet at the end of the month.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that what is preventing the government from eliminating the supply management system is the motion adopted in this House under a minority government, which the current government is forced to respect. As soon as we have a majority government in Canada, particularly a Conservative one, supply management will be swallowed up by the huge global market, by the open market that the Conservatives wish for. That is obvious and, in that regard, Quebeckers have proven to be very wise indeed—

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He represents a region that made it very clear during the election that it wanted the Conservative government to take a different approach. The member himself referred to the cuts affecting regional development.

However, one thing is clear, and I find this remarkable: the current government ignored the results of the recent election. The Bloc Québécois' subamendment—which I will read quickly—states that we will be voting against the Speech from the Throne because “it does not respond to the consensus in Quebec respecting, for instance, the legislation on young offenders, the repatriation to Quebec of powers over culture and communications, the elimination of the federal spending power and the maintenance of the existing system of securities regulation”.

The Conservative machine continued to steamroll over all those issues, as though there had been no election in Quebec. Thus, this shows a degree of contempt for democracy in the throne speech and we hope the House will adopt our subamendment. It would serve to correct the Speech from the Throne.

The hon. member raised an important issue when he mentioned the cuts made to regional development. One good sign is the fact that the minister responsible before the election is no longer here and there is a new minister. We hope he will have a more open mind. Indeed, the cuts in this area definitely had a negative impact on Rimouski, as they did on the Lower St. Lawrence. We saw the same thing with PÔLE Québec Chaudière-Appalaches, in the Quebec City area.

We are heading into a recession. The Prime Minister said so yesterday. He added the word “technical” to try to play down the situation. Nevertheless, he acknowledged this reality, although, during the election campaign, he denied any possibility of a recession.

Now that the recession has been acknowledged and active measures are required, the first concrete action for regional development in the short term should be to ensure that these organizations are once again able to step in to support our regional economies, should it not?

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my Liberal colleague, I am very pleased with the amendment that the Conservatives have finally decided to put forward. It is in line with our position in committee—we wanted this change with respect to American pensions.

Today, I urge every person receiving an American pension, or whose parents receive one, to pay close attention to this debate over the coming weeks and months.

The Standing Committee on Finance studied a bill to rectify a long-standing inequity. Let us remember that at one point, the government decided that Americans should tax pensions paid to American pensioners, but there was no way for the United States to collect that tax.

Several members of the House participated in the debate. I remember Herb Gray, who was a member here at the time, and several other members from all over the region, including François Langlois, the member for Bellechasse. Together, we managed to restore the balance so that people could collect their pensions. Then the government set a tax rate that was higher than the one in place before this whole crisis started.

The member who introduced this bill wanted to follow through on a commitment made by the Conservatives. At the Standing Committee on Finance, I do not know why, we ended up wanting to kill the bill.

Members should always be willing to change their minds once they realize their mistake. The Bloc Québécois had said that it was important for the bill to be passed. We voted in favour of that in committee. However, the Conservative majority—we just heard the Liberal critic speak—felt otherwise. Now, the Conservatives are realizing that this bill still needs to be examined for two main reasons. First, on the substance of the issue, we need to be fair to people who collect American pensions, and, at the end of the day, ensure an appropriate tax rate. Second, the Conservatives realized that they were blatantly ignoring an election promise made by their party and brought forward by an MP. He was even cast aside by his own party.

Today, the amendment before us will enable us to continue examining the bill, and hopefully to implement a government measure that will rectify this situation. It is possible that the government plans on dragging this out until the next budget, but at least we will have the chance to once again discuss the issue and rectify the situation.

Some people are perhaps not familiar with the American pension issue. In the ridings I have represented, particularly during the period from 1993 to 2004—the regions of Témiscouata, Les Basques and a large part of the new riding I represent, Montmagny-Sud and L'Islet-Sud—a number of people worked for a living in the United States. They paid into an American pension plan. Now, when they retire, they collect those pensions, just as those who worked in Canada collect the Canada Pension Plan. However, I do not agree with the tax rate that applies to them. It needs to decrease and take into account the fact that the income was earned in the United States. A portion of the income was already taxed the way it is in the United States.

We must therefore find a solution that will be fair to the parties. It is true that we are not talking about large amounts because these people did not earn millions of dollars. Often they are pensioners, families, people who worked in the lumber industry. They worked very hard and this pension plan allows them to retire with dignity. They contributed to this pension fund when they agreed to work in the United States. They must continue to receive these pensions but they must be taxed fairly.

These people have gone through ups and downs. About ten years ago, their pensions were barely taxed. Then, they were taxed at 85%. Now, the time has come to review this matter and the bill will allow us to do just that.

Therefore, I invite the pensioners as well as citizens of the regions in question to learn about this matter because there are significant economic repercussions.

In many border towns in my riding, 25%, 30%, or 50% of retirees receive American pensions. These people make a significant economic contribution to their communities. It may be because of them that the local convenience store remains open.

It is a return on the investment they made by working. It was not easy to leave for weeks or months at a time to go to work. For example, at the time, reasonable work could be found in the State of Maine. But that meant leaving one's family for several weeks or months and then regularly coming back to seasonal jobs. Obviously it was not easy to make their contributions to the American pension plan. They needed this money for their daily survival, but they made the necessary sacrifices. Now they are happy to receive the amounts accrued.

Our responsibility is to ensure that the tax rate is adequate, fair and justified and that it provides maximum economic benefits for both those receiving the pensions and the economies of the regions involved.

I was ready to make a speech to the effect that the government had reneged on its own promise. That is what it was preparing to do. I think that it realized what it was about to do and decided to pull an about-face. What really matters is that the people in our ridings—those that I and the deputy for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques represent, as well as a number of others along the border—are able to receive the necessary benefits.

Tonight I am committing to one thing. Since the bill has been referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, which will be able to take the time to study it, we will make sure that people let the government know that they want this matter resolved to their satisfaction. It is very important that a satisfactory result be achieved.

As members, we certainly have the responsibility to contribute to a better distribution of wealth. In this case, we will do just that.

Since the beginning of this debate, the Bloc Québécois has been responsible and logical, saying that there must be a reasonable tax rate. We saw the government, and even the official opposition, engage in all sorts of gymnastics when it was decided not to follow up on the bill.

Today the government has seen the reality and the political fallout that would come from such a decision. On the substance, I will give the government the benefit of the doubt and say that it realized the current treatment is unfair and that changes are essential.

We will therefore be in favour of the amendment, which would allow us to continue to discuss this bill.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the amendment, but I want to be sure about its technical interpretation. Could the Speaker clarify this? If not, everyone will interpret it their own way. If it means that the bill will just be referred to committee, we will adjust our position accordingly. I just want to be sure that it does not mean that the bill is dead and that only the subject will be referred to committee.

[June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to OECD remarks, but the OECD also make the following comments.

First, right now, Canada has a two-speed economy, and that is a very dangerous trend because it creates a spiral that puts Quebec and Ontario at a disadvantage. We could well find ourselves in the same position as Holland when petroleum development gained significant momentum and brought other industrial sectors crashing down.

Second, the OECD asked for a new approach to climate change. A lot of jobs could be created in that field.

Finally, some companies are doing well. Five out of 25 industrial manufacturing sectors in Quebec are moving forward, but 20 are moving backward.

Will the government finally provide an assistance program for older workers that will not only retrain people to do other jobs, but also ensure that if they cannot be retrained, they at least have access to something to bridge the gap to retirement?