André Bellavance

[Labour Relations, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, by threatening to pass special legislation, the Conservatives are causing harm to postal workers by preventing an agreement negotiated in good faith. Knowing that the government will table special legislation as soon as a strike is declared, the employer has no interest in considering employees' legitimate demands. On the contrary, the employer is attempting to have the special legislation tabled sooner by imposing a lockout.

Is this not the Minister of Labour's real strategy, to rush to the assistance of employers who take a hard line as soon as the strike they themselves provoked is called?

[Business of Supply, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member that the Bloc Québécois will support her motion. I would be very surprised if any member in this House did not support this motion for seniors.

Does she believe that the government has its priorities right when, for example, the purchase of fighter jets will cost the government $35 billion and a one-point GST cut means the government loses $12 billion to $13 billion?

If members of the Conservative government vote in favour of this motion today, does the member believe that the government will finally make poverty a priority and take action to bring seniors out of poverty, specifically by giving them easy access to the guaranteed income supplement to bring them above the poverty line, with $110 per month, instead of the $50 included in the budget?

[Points of Order, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like to join the minister and my colleagues in saying that I am glad that the situation at Air Canada has been resolved. I congratulate the negotiators who were able to come to an agreement in principle. This is good news not only for the employees, but also for the passengers and all the people who are no doubt preparing for vacations at this time of year.

The Bloc Québécois is obviously happy about this news, but, like my colleagues, I want to say that announcing or enacting legislation is not the way to bring about a quick resolution at Canada Post. The government must focus on a negotiated agreement, as was done with Air Canada. Unionized workers should not have a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, forcing them to accept what the employer wants to give them, because this would upset the balance of power.

I repeat my request to the minister to ensure that a negotiated agreement is signed at Canada Post as quickly as possible. That is what everyone wants.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Essex for agreeing to share his time with me. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-3, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011, introduced on June 14. The bill consists of 12 parts, one of which is very attractive for Quebec. I am talking about part 8, which directly concerns Quebec and its government, since it provides a payment of $368.9 million for equalization.

That is just one more reason for me and my Bloc Québécois colleagues to support this budget, especially since it already provides $2.2 billion in compensation for our sales tax harmonization. Of course, we could not pass that up. I have been a member in this House for seven years now, and this will probably be the third time I have voted in favour of a budget. Every time, the only reason I voted for it was because it was in the best interests of Quebeckers. The people of Quebec have sent us to the House of Commons to represent their interests, to stand up for them. When budget 2006 provided $3.3 billion in 2006 for the fiscal imbalance, voting against it was out of the question. For the same reason, we will support this budget here today.

With any budget, we must be careful. The government will always say that its budget is perfect, that all of the measures are wonderful and that there are no shortcomings, while the opposition will find everything that is wrong with it, criticize the measures and always say that it does not go far enough. In the House, we must take stock and weigh the pros and cons of a budget before voting. In this case, there are a number of shortcomings in the budget, and I will perhaps have time to list a few of them. However, in weighing the pros and cons, members from Quebec cannot, in good conscience, vote against a budget like this. Members will recall the long battle waged by the Bloc Québécois and the Government of Quebec regarding the $2.2 billion for tax harmonization.

The Government of Quebec harmonized its sales tax with that of the federal government in 1992. However, only Ontario, the Maritimes and British Columbia received several billion dollars in compensation, while Quebec was left waiting, supposedly for administrative reasons. I am wondering why the federal government did not act before now, particularly since this measure was in the budget before the election was called; the Bloc Québécois would have immediately supported the budget. The Conservative government, a minority government at that time, would then have been assured that it would keep its place. We likely would not have had an election, as we unfortunately did over these past few months. Everyone was saying that an election costs a lot of money and that it was the fault of the opposition. The Conservative government had the opportunity to prevent an election. We can look back and replay the past but it does not do much good.

As a result of pressure from the Bloc Québécois and the Government of Quebec, an announcement was made during the election campaign that $2.2 billion in compensation would be allocated in the budget. I am not the type to be content with the answer that the cheque is in the mail. We therefore waited to see whether that money would be in the budget, in black and white. It is, and we are very happy about it.

However, like the hon. member for Essex, I question the reaction of the NDP MPs from Quebec who have decided to ignore the measure giving Quebec $2.2 billion in compensation. This measure will help not only the Government of Quebec, but all Quebeckers. The NDP MPs have decided not to support the budget. They will have to answer for their actions and explain to their constituents why they disregarded this measure by voting against the budget.

The hon. member mentioned some examples from his own region, where the MPs also decided not to support the budget. It is an entirely democratic choice, but I was rather shocked to see that many of the NDP MPs from Quebec decided to reject this measure.

There are other interesting measures, including some for seniors, namely $300 million to help seniors living in poverty. The measure having to do with the guaranteed income supplement is a step in the right direction.

That is another lengthy battle we waged in the House. The Bloc Québécois moved a number of motions to improve the guaranteed income supplement. The math is not hard: another $110 a month is needed to lift the least fortunate out of poverty. It is not going to make them rich. Now there is talk of $50 a month; the necessary amount has not been reached, but I have to say that at least this is a step in the right direction for the least fortunate seniors.

As the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, this also makes me want to vote in favour of the budget. That is not to say that the battle is over, that we can sit back and finally say that the guaranteed income supplement issue has been resolved. It is not resolved, especially since there is a shortfall of $60 a month and we also want—

[Labour Relations, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is all well and fine for the Minister of Labour to say she is hoping for negotiated settlements at Canada Post and at Air Canada, but the actions of her government prove the complete opposite. By threatening to introduce special legislation, the Conservatives are sending the crown corporations a clear message: there is no point in negotiating with employees since the federal government will impose back-to-work legislation at the first hint of pressure.

How can the Minister of Labour condone the attitude of her government, which is exacerbating the tensions, as we just saw at the Victoriaville post office back home, unless she too wants to muzzle unionized workers?

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to welcome the hon. member who gave her first speech.

We have heard the NDP talk at length about the problems with health care and waiting lists, whether in emergency rooms or for surgery. The NDP also talked about this during the election campaign.

The hon. member says she wants to work with all the hon. members of this House on improving life for the general public. Can she tell me what tangible ideas she and her party have that will improve the health care system in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada? I do not need to tell the hon. member that health is an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

The hon. member and the NDP are saying that we must help improve health care. How can the federal Parliament get involved in these matters in any tangible way when it is the provinces, Quebec in my case, that have the means—or should have the means—to ensure that health care is improved?

[Victoriaville, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my home town, Victoriaville, is currently celebrating 150 years of history. The first person to build in Victoriaville was Louis Foisy, who, in 1861, asked to have the town of Victoriaville incorporated. He was a merchant, innkeeper, postmaster, church warden and, naturally, the first mayor of Victoriaville.

Victoriaville was once the furniture capital of Canada and, over the years, other industries have flourished there, including textiles and agriculture. The famous hockey sticks were also made there. Economic diversification helped many SMEs get a start there, and Victoriaville was known as the cradle of sustainable development thanks to the visionary Normand Maurice, the father of recycling in Quebec.

I commend the builders of Victoriaville—as well as those of Saint-Valère and Chesterville, which are also celebrating their 150th anniversary this year—for having left us an economic, cultural and community legacy that is so dynamic, vibrant and modern.

I would also like to invite my colleagues to come and visit us this summer to see the Laurier Museum, attend the cheese festival or simply partake in one of the many activities associated with the 150th anniversary of these municipalities.

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the member did not answer the parliamentary secretary's question about a positive measure in the budget. One measure is very important to the Quebec government and the general public, and that measure is the $2.2 billion in compensation for harmonizing the sales tax.

I would like to know what she, as a member from Quebec, personally thinks about this measure. Does she intend to vote in favour of the budget so that it passes and so that this issue is settled once and for all? I would like to remind her that in April 2009, the Bloc Québécois tabled—

[The Budget, June 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend my hon. colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, who just gave an important speech on the budget. He talked about the problems experienced by some of our most vulnerable seniors concerning the guaranteed income supplement. What is really missing is another $50—or half of the amount needed to ensure that these people are not living below the poverty line.

The member talked about certain sectors. For example, the government has tripled the amount it spends on advertising since it came to power. I could suggest a few other things to my colleague, who could explain them further, things like tax havens and the tax breaks given to oil companies. The Conservatives need to get their priorities straight.

[The Budget, June 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on being chosen as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.

I have a question for my colleague, with whom I sat for some time on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I see that in the budget, which has not changed a single bit, there was not a single line added concerning agriculture.

I want to know whether the member and parliamentary secretary can tell us why the government did not think to create a specific program for pork producers, who are currently going through an unprecedented crisis in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. The same goes for the issue of specified risk materials. I think my colleague is familiar with this issue that affects cattle producers. The budget should have renewed the slaughter program.

I would like to know what answer my colleague has for Quebec producers.