Annick Papillon

[Search and Rescue, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, closing the Quebec City maritime search and rescue centre could have serious consequences. Every summer, there are between 1,000 and 1,500 distress calls on the St. Lawrence River. This government plans to centralize all operations in Nova Scotia, which will not be able to provide reliable service in French.

How can this government claim to keep all Canadians safe when its actions are jeopardizing safety?

[Search and Rescue, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine regarding the closure of the search and rescue office in Quebec City, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that the Halifax centre would be offering the same services as the Quebec City office.

Can the minister explain how those services could possibly remain the same, without any impact on quality, when just last Friday, some people calling the centre in Halifax were not able to receive adequate, prompt service in French?

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my colleague is saying.

On another note, I would like to add that if the government really wanted to make cuts—since it strongly favours cuts to balance the budget—at this time, it could have chosen not to cut subsidies to political parties and instead made cuts to the Senate. The Senate costs so much more and the government could have really saved a lot of money, which is what it wanted.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. If that is where all of the cuts are made, if part-time jobs are created and if big business gets favours, jobs risk being uprooted. I also heard my colleague say that things are not going well for Electrolux. We heard that in 2010, Electrolux uprooted jobs after receiving a subsidy from the federal government. And that is what I am saying—this approach concerns me.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am worried. I heard a member on the other side of the House say that tax cuts equal job creation. I am not so sure about that. I do not think that creating part-time jobs—and the majority of jobs created have been part-time positions—is exactly a good solution and a good way of doing things. I doubt that and would like to make that point.

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, by proceeding in this way, the government will surely increase the burden on the taxpayers, requiring more from the provinces and particularly from the municipalities, which can already barely meet people's needs. That is not the role that the federal government should play. What we are asking the government to do is very simple, and that is to fill in the gaps rather than making them bigger. Greater investments in community infrastructure would make it possible to both create jobs and improve the lives of Canadians. Rather than doing this, the Conservatives preferred to give $15 billion in tax giveaways to companies that did not need them.

Why should big business and oil companies profit from the economic recession while the middle class goes deeper into debt? Is it to pay for the government's wrongdoing and mismanagement? Who does this budget really benefit? One thing is clear: it does not benefit middle-class families or the less fortunate.

How can we believe in the budget forecasts of this government when, at the first sign of the economic recession, it promised that Canada would not go into debt and, in the end, it led us into the largest deficit in the history of the country? Each time the government promises to balance the budget but instead it continues to add billions of dollars to the national debt. We have reason to be concerned about this budget, even more so when we analyze its logic.

The Prime Minister said that there would not be a recession or a deficit. He was wrong on both counts. And if he continues on the same track, as the saying goes, things come in threes. I am in favour of economic recovery but please let it be a sustainable economic recovery. In order to achieve this goal, we need a new way of thinking. We can no longer wait to create wealth before distributing it.

Sociologist Paul Bernard said that we need to redistribute wealth in order to create it. That is true. Look at where we are now, over 50 years after implementing universal public education and health care. This would not have been possible had we not made these investments.

I would like to read a quote from an article by Camil Bouchard that appeared in last Friday's edition of Québec Science, in which he indicated that OECD studies on this subject are clear. He said:

...it is not so much rising employment that decreases poverty. Rather, this happens when countries invest a considerable proportion of their gross domestic product in social programs or policies.

For example, although the United States and Norway have very high labour force participation rates, the U.S. invests half as much of its GDP in social programs as Norway does. The result is that poverty is five times higher in the United States than in Norway. And that is just one example.

Studies of poor children over many years show that the use of high-quality, educational daycare centres produces healthier, better educated citizens who are better integrated into their community and more active in the labour force and require fewer costly government support services. This strengthens economic productivity and increases government revenue. Given the unprecedented zeal to shrink government, this bears repeating.

I cannot ignore the $57 million in cuts being made to maritime search and rescue centres, which will directly affect the Quebec City rescue centre. Once again, the Conservatives are on the wrong track with this strategy. By wanting to close service points and decrease administrative costs, the government will instead increase operating costs considerably, since each rescue will become more and more costly. The goal is to maximize response time in order to save lives. It is certain that not only will the government not save money with these cuts, but it will also put lives in danger.

In addition to being responsible for this country's worst economic debt, this government is leaving us the worst social and environmental debt we have ever seen.

My question is this: who will benefit from this budget?

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank the people of Quebec City for their confidence in me. In the latest election, they rejected what the Conservatives were proposing, and they were justified in doing so. This budget, just like the identical version we saw in March, does not protect their interests. It is true that our country is facing a large and worrisome federal deficit—the largest in its history. The solution proposed by the Conservatives in the Flaherty budget is to cut billions of dollars from government programs and services. The fact that the Conservatives do not even know exactly where these cuts will be made proves that this measure lacks seriousness and transparency. By proceeding in this way, the government will surely—

[Veterans, June 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with warm thanks to the voters of the riding of Québec for the confidence they showed in me in the May 2 election. People voted for change and for MPs who will listen to their socio-economic concerns and I will do everything in my power to live up to those expectations.

Today, June 6, 67 years after the Normandy landing—as my Liberal colleague pointed out—a day when so many young men and young women sacrificed themselves to defend our values against oppression, we remember them with gratitude, respect and pride.

Let us keep their memory in mind as we face today's challenges and as other young people follow in their footsteps, serving their country in Afghanistan and Libya.

Our past and future veterans deserve our unwavering support.