André Bellavance

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville will certainly understand that this is of particular importance to the Bloc Québécois, especially in light of our present situation. We are concerned with keeping the proportion that was established after the election, at the beginning of the session, so that we can keep our speaking time.

I note that this motion is directed at one party more than others, that is, the Conservative Party, which seems to find it difficult to manage its members' statements. That is not the case for our party, and from what I have heard from other parties, I do not believe that is the case for them either.

We have five statements every 20 sitting days since we added a fifth member. We would not all want to speak on a Monday or Friday or even later than others.

What I take away from the motion, and I would like the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville to confirm this, is simply that within our own party we will speak in alphabetical order and we will have the flexibility, when it is our turn, to trade with members in our party or even other members if possible. We do not have a problem with that. We do not see this as a bad thing.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Champlain Bridge, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since the new Champlain Bridge was announced, the Minister of Transport has never appeared open to building a structure that meets the real needs of Quebec's metropolis and the south shore.

We really feel that the minister only wants to do the bare minimum and that he is reluctant to include public transit. However, this morning, the Government of Quebec announced its intention to build a light rail transit system in order to properly serve the thousands of people who take the Champlain Bridge every day.

Will the minister understand that he cannot build a bridge in a vacuum? Will he acknowledge Quebec's request and contribute his fair share of the funding for the LRT project?

[Canada Post, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is slowly but surely moving towards privatizing its services.

Quebec is once again being targeted for closures, cuts and downsizing. This comes 20 years after the post office in Saint-Clément was occupied, which resulted in a moratorium on the closure of rural post offices. Since then, the federal government has done nothing to stop the loss of essential services.

In 2011, Quebec fell victim to half of the closures and reductions in hours. Last year, 17 of the 31 closures happened in Quebec. In April of this year, three postal outlets in the Montreal area will close, and another seven will make staffing cuts.

In my riding, local mail will no longer be processed in Asbestos or Victoriaville; it will be processed in Montreal. The same is true for the post offices in Plessisville, Sherbrooke, Magog and Cowansville.

The Conservative government has already partially deregulated Canada Post, and it is doing everything in its power to undermine this universal public service that Quebec's regions want to preserve in order to avoid their decline.

The Bloc Québécois will fight the government's privatization efforts, and like mail carriers, we will be there come rain or shine, snow or sleet.

[Taxation, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit is another frontal attack on Quebec and its workers.

In addition to impoverishing people who are trying to save for their retirement, the federal government is also going to deprive Quebec SMEs of a key economic lever.

Labour-sponsored funds are an integral part of Quebec's economic organization, as demonstrated by the fact that $312 million of the $355 million Ottawa plans to take away from workers will be from Quebec.

How can the Minister of Finance eliminate a program that encourages workers to save and an economic development tool that works? Why did the government table an anti-Quebec, anti-worker, anti-union budget?

[Champlain Bridge, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport's position on the Champlain Bridge issue simply does not cut it.

From the beginning, Ottawa has refused to co-operate with the Government of Quebec regarding what form of public transit will be included. The Minister of Transport is shifting the blame onto Quebec, accusing it of not saying what mode of transportation it prefers. How can Quebec settle on a transportation mode when Ottawa refuses to say whether the bridge will be adapted to it? Quebec is not about to lay down tracks, only to stop at the bridge and wait for the federal government to decide what it wants to do with the bridge.

Will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities stop working in a vacuum and confirm that the new bridge will include whatever sort of public transit infrastructure the Government of Quebec wants?

[Official Languages, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is refusing to recognize one of the Quebec nation's fundamental rights: the right to protect its language, French.

The Minister of Industry released a report whose outcome was preordained, a report that ignores workers' problems. The whole thing was just a front for the federal government's complacency when it comes to French language issues.

Rather than hide behind a report that comes out of nowhere, the minister should do as the Bloc Québécois suggests and apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. Nothing could be simpler, clearer or easier.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the minister had to say, and I agree with my NDP colleague who just spoke that the current debate is about another gag order, another guillotine motion imposed on the opposition parties, witnesses and members of the public who want to testify with regard to this important bill.

I have a very specific question to ask the minister, which is similar to the one I asked the Minister of Justice yesterday. When are we going to see the government introduce time allocation down to the day, hour, minute and second? We are practically there. To date, I have counted 33 gag orders imposed by the government.

Earlier, the minister was criticizing the fact that it took 11 years to come up with this massive bill, and with good reason. This bill contains positive measures.

However, the Conservative government has been in power for seven years now. How is it that the Conservatives did not move more quickly to introduce this bill so that it could be properly debated?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I must contradict the member for Trois-Rivières, who said earlier that time allocation is an exceptional measure. It is no longer an exceptional measure. Members were just saying that it has been invoked 29 or 30 times; I have counted 32 instances.

My first question for the minister is how many times has it been invoked? It would be good to know the exact number of times.

Furthermore, I was listening carefully when he answered the opposition members. He said that there have been 15 days of debate and that that is enough. He then said that is a good bill, that he does not see why it should be amended, that the opposition members have debated it long enough, that the government is sick and tired of listening to them and that it is time to move on to other things.

Is 15 days now the Conservative government's standard even if the opposition does not listen to reason at some point and wants to continue hearing from witnesses? If members of civil society want to express their opinions about a bill, is that the point when MPs are muzzled? Is that the criterion? I would like to know exactly what triggers time allocation, so that we do not get prepared for nothing.

The Conservatives need only introduce bills and immediately invoke time allocation. That would speed things up.

[The Quebec Nation, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, tonight's vote will be telling. On November 27, 2006, the House formally recognized the Quebec nation. The time has come to recognize all the powers that come with nationhood, including the inalienable right to self-determination. In passing the Clarity Act, the federal government unilaterally claimed the right to interfere in the democratic process by determining what question and what majority are acceptable and on what terms Quebec can be master of its own destiny.

Under René Lévesque, Quebec's National Assembly passed the Referendum Act, which paved the way for the referendums. The “yes” and “no” sides voted in those referendums, and no one questioned the act's legitimacy. None of the parties in the National Assembly, sovereignist or federalist, accept the idea that the Clarity Act takes precedence over Quebec's laws. No one accepts the idea of a trusteeship or a veto.

This evening, the members who recognize the Quebec nation should be voting in favour of Bill C-457.

[Service Canada, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with a new season of farm work approaching, the federal government has abandoned Quebec producers who need temporary agricultural workers.

Producers who call to find out why their applications have been delayed, to ask questions about forms or just to make sure that their files have been received get nothing but an outgoing message that states their call will not be returned. Service Canada is not providing any service.

Will the government come out of hibernation and wake up to the fact that agricultural producers need access to service at that number now?