Christian Paradis

[Agriculture, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware of everything that has been done to open up the markets for beef. Money has been transferred and agreements have been signed with the provinces. Eighty million dollars has been allocated to help the provinces move forward in this area. We have taken action, and this program will help the Atlantic provinces and all of the other provinces.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean asked an excellent question. I agree with him that the Bloc is not in a position to advance the interests of Quebec. In matters of agriculture, the Bloc cannot and will never be able to do anything for our producers. After 13 years of inaction, it is the Conservative government that is defending supply management, supporting our hog producers, investing in biofuel and encouraging the next generation.

All of that is in the Speech from the Throne. It presented clear commitments, but, again, the Bloc voted against it. With the Bloc, Quebec is idling. With the Conservatives, the nation of Quebec can finally move forward and flourish.

[Agriculture, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that since the combined 2006-07 budget, the agricultural sector has received an additional $4.5 billion. That is real help. We moved on article 28. Supply management was right there in black and white in the Speech from the Throne. My colleague voted against it. It looks like they are the ones who are against producers.

[Agriculture and Agri-food, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if they want to talk about numbers, so be it. To date, $3 million has been paid out to 225 producers. Fifty applications are still being processed.

If they want to talk about action, then the member and his colleagues should explain why they voted against supply management as raised in the throne speech. This is historic and is now part of the record. The Bloc voted against it. Now it should explain to the producers why it did so.

[Agriculture and Agri-food, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, we are working on the new agricultural policy framework.

As for the sugar maple growers, my colleague knows very well that interim payments of significant amounts were made. We will continue to work in the interests of producers in this matter.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for that very pertinent question. It must be said that the Bloc is doing nothing here in Ottawa. It is making no headway. All it does is talk. It will never be in power. It is selling dreams. It talks about defending Quebec's interests, but we are offering to promote and further Quebec's interests.

For example, on farming, they talk about supply management and say that we are against it, even though we are taking unprecedented steps to help our farmers. This is in the throne speech. They are sacrificing our producers by voting against the throne speech and against supply management. Does that help Quebec? No, it is a useless gesture.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis for his two questions.

First, in terms of the environment, an historic step forward has been taken since we came to power. We distributed $1.5 billion to Quebec through the Canada ecotrust. We gave $358 million to Quebec, although the Bloc was asking for less. Once again, we see that the Bloc is useless in the House.

This is an open federalism that works. You will also recall that, for the 2007 budget, our government held consultations with the provinces and territories to finalize its commitments made in good faith and with the intention of making our federation work. The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, knowing that it is useless, only wants Quebec to separate from the rest of the country.

As for the second question raised by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, he might find it amusing to say that our comments on the fiscal imbalance are all part of lines we have received in e-mail, but at least they are part of our own lines, whereas they are not part of his leader's lines. The Leader of the Opposition denies the existence of the fiscal imbalance. Thus, I find it amusing to hear my opposition colleague ask how we will resolve the fiscal imbalance when it has been resolved and, furthermore, when his leader continues to deny it.

Over a fixed period, $39 billion has been committed to resolve the fiscal imbalance. That is action and that is what citizens want. We keep our promises and, unlike the Bloc, do more than just talk.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Mégantic—L'Érable and a Quebec federalist, I am honoured to take part in this debate today on the Bloc Québécois motion. I would like to talk about the concerns that have been raised in the past about the federal spending power and how our government proposes to address this issue.

This power must not be eliminated, as the Bloc is demanding. The Bloc will never form the government and therefore does not have to come up with realistic, achievable solutions. The Bloc has no responsibilities.

The Prime Minister's Conservative government is practising open federalism. We are acting responsibly, and that is why we are keeping our word and proposing to limit and not eliminate the federal spending power.

The Bloc cannot contradict itself at every turn and yet hope that the people of Quebec will support it in this effort. This Bloc motion quite simply means the end of any money transfers for health, social programs and even equalization.

This motion comes on the heels of the speech the leader of the Bloc Québécois gave in this House in response to the Speech from the Throne. I invite you to read Hansard. The leader of the Bloc Québécois said that one of the five conditions his party had set for supporting the throne speech was the elimination of the federal spending power.

As my colleague so aptly put it earlier, the Bloc cannot, on the one hand, call for the elimination of the federal spending power and, on the other, demand that the federal government invest in communities going through hard economic times. Quite frankly, no matter what the Bloc thinks, Quebeckers are much smarter than that. They showed just how smart they are when the byelection was held on September 17. They recognized that our party, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, is delivering the goods for Quebec. That is why they decided to support us.

The Bloc introduced this motion in a desperate bid for credibility. The motion is irresponsible and bad for Quebec and for the country. I know they are trying to connect with the people, but they should still act responsibly, even if they are not accountable.

What is frustrating the Bloc is that Quebec is growing stronger with the Conservative government. Quebeckers want a strong Quebec in a better Canada, and that is frustrating our separatist friends opposite.

The Bloc Québécois do not try to hide the fact that they want to tear Canada apart. They therefore oppose any positive initiative that would improve our country. It is unfortunate, but that is the sad truth.

During the last election campaign, we in the Conservative party promised to respect all areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and to ensure accountability by clarifying roles and responsibilities.

In just a little over a year, we have kept our word once again. We did what we promised. In 2006, when we came into power, we set out to change how things are done here in Ottawa, because, for 13 long years, the Liberals practised a centralist, paternalistic federalism.

Let us not forget that our government, a Conservative government, is the one that, in budget 2007, finally corrected the fiscal imbalance. We did so by ensuring that our financial relationships with the provinces and territories are based on principles that are predictable over the long term.

In the past, unexpected federal surpluses were used to spend enormous amounts of money in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, often without much consultation. This spending led to unnecessary, unfortunate tension between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. It resulted in new financial pressures on provincial and territorial governments. All too often, it distorted the provinces' spending priorities, especially when they had to come up with matching funds. This spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction created uncertainty, when initiatives were launched without any stable, long-term federal funding in place.

Our government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has proven that there is another way to practise federalism. This new federalism is one of openness. It only makes our country stronger and more united. Our government's policy, and this goes for Quebec and the rest of Canada, is to act in accordance with our Constitution. The Fathers of Confederation never imagined, when they drafted our Constitution, that it would provoke the confrontations we have seen over the past few decades.

Unfortunately, the Liberal governments of the past 30 years are to blame. These Liberal governments did everything they could to squabble with the provinces. They should be ashamed. The Liberal governments of Trudeau and Chrétien practised an ineffective and centralist federalism. Their goal was quite simple: divide and conquer.

Quebec suffered for it under the Trudeau government and under the Chrétien government, when the current leader of the official opposition was an influential member of cabinet.

The leader of the official opposition is here in this House carrying on the old Liberal tradition of proposing a centralist federalism to the detriment of the legitimate aspirations of the nation of Quebec. Our approach, however, could not be any clearer: we are practising open federalism. Contrary to the Bloc members and the Liberals, we are not trying to pick a fight; we are trying to find common ground. The nation of Quebec comes out a winner and I am very proud of that.

The way we practice federalism allows Canada and Quebec to strike a fair balance. We can pursue national objectives while taking into account various local and regional considerations and by constantly adapting to change. Quebeckers can now see that the word “federalism” does not necessarily mean “paternalism”, or at least not when a Conservative government is in power.

Liberals in power dictated social policy to the provinces through an unlimited power to tax and spend. This power has been the biggest irritant over the past 60 years and we are in the process of resolving the problem.

Our approach toward the federal spending power is respectful of Quebec and the other provinces. We are going to set new parameters in which the federal spending power can and must be used. Our goal is not to discredit the federal spending power that has been an important factor in the social development of our country. It allowed the allocation of funding for the establishment of programs in health, social services and education.

Our goal, as I was saying, is to define new rules for fairer use of the federal spending power. That is what we will do by introducing our bill to impose explicit restrictions on the federal spending power for new cost-shared programs in exclusively provincial jurisdictions.

This bill would also allow the provinces to opt out with fair compensation if they offer compatible programs. Completely eliminating the spending power, as put forward in the Bloc Québécois motion, is not in the best interest of Canadians or of Quebeckers. The Bloc has to understand that times have changed. Quebeckers and Canadians realize that times have changed. That is why they chose our Conservative government to change the way business gets done in Ottawa. That is why, during the September 17 byelection, they elected a new Conservative member in Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, a riding held by the Bloc for the past 14 years.

Quebeckers like our approach. They want to strengthen the Canadian federation by recognizing the strengths and contributions of Quebec and the other provinces.

Naturally, this approach, which promotes Canadian unity and the development of our Quebec nation, is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Our government has already done so much to reconcile Quebec's legitimate aspirations with our goal to strengthen the Canadian federation. Our government promised to invite Quebec to be a part of the Canadian delegation to UNESCO and to take its place at the table, a place that reflects Quebec's exceptional contribution to our shared heritage. Our government kept its promise.

Our party is the only one in this country's history to recognize the Quebec nation.

The Bloc Québécois has been in this House for 17 years. In that time, what has it done for Quebec? Nothing. How many promises has it made? Seven hundred and fifty. How many of those promises has it kept? Not a single one.

The House of Commons has 308 seats, and the Bloc Québécois will be fielding only 75 candidates during the next election. The Bloc will never be in government, nor will it ever have any responsibilities toward Quebeckers. It should tell Quebeckers that.

We, on the other hand, are providing Quebeckers with a government that takes action, that keeps its promises and that fulfills its mandate in accordance with its policy of open federalism. Quebeckers know that Liberal means a step back and that Bloc Québécois means running around in circles. They also know that with the Conservative Party, Quebec will make great strides forward.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that our government has shown leadership in this issue. A lot of money was put on the table and it continues to flow. Things are going well with the producers. We are talking and a plan is being implemented as we speak. That is what I call taking action.

Say what you like, but we know that with the Liberals nothing would have happened, with the Bloc nothing could happen, and with us there is leadership. We are getting things done.

[Agriculture, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean for his excellent question. The hon. members know that, over the past 20 months, we have taken compelling action to defend supply management, this after 13 years of inaction on the part of the Liberals. In our Speech from the Throne, we indicated strong support for supply management. Let it be known that the Bloc Québécois has sacrificed our farmers on the altar of partisanship. By voting against our Speech from the Throne, it has voted against supply management. That is not pretty.

The Bloc Québécois, which will never be in government, just keeps voting against the Speech from the Throne. To be consistent for once, it could have voted in favour. I hope that, the next time they are out, the Bloc members will not duck the issue for fear of being told to take a hike by our farmers.