Denis Coderre

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Gatineau, I can say that there was a day when she was tempted to come back to the Liberals.

I will talk about the budget because that is more important, especially since it affects things that are important to Quebec. Unlike other budgets that were meant to unify the country, this budget, once again, divides the federation. I would like my colleague, the leader of the Liberal Party, to say a few words about skills training and the fact that this budget has a negative impact on small investors in Quebec who wanted to invest in the labour-sponsored funds, whether at the CSN or the FTQ. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

[Points of Order, March 19th, 2013]

Can the Speaker hear me? I am talking to him. I hope that the Speaker will take note. That is how we will achieve real decorum, by the Speaker as well.

[Points of Order, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully submit to the speaker that there is a tradition here. We cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's attitude here this morning a bit odd. He seems to think that he is the only one who knows the absolute truth, that he is the only one who can walk and chew gum at the same time.

But let us focus on the debate. I think it is great that we are talking about the future of the second chamber, but certain realities need to be taken into account. The member also needs to answer certain questions, since he can walk and chew gum at the same time. The reality is that if we want to abolish the Senate, we also need to take action regarding other existing legislation. Abolishing the Senate would also mean abolishing the right to veto.

Is he prepared to take away Quebec's right to veto? Is he ready to abolish that legislation, too?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am having some problems hearing.

[Employment Insurance, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will not spout such nonsense in response to my question, which is very clear and simple.

While the Conservatives are engaging in petty politics, seasonal workers are losing their jobs and are now in the spring gap. They may have to apply for social assistance.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that this reform was based on research. However, the minister said yesterday that such was not the case. What we do know, however, is that the government has to find $330 million.

My question is for the Quebec lieutenant, since this issue affects Quebec, particularly the eastern part of the province. Is he prepared to take practical measures—by implementing a pilot project, for example—if the Conservatives do not want to talk about a moratorium?

[National Defence, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that we got taken with regard to the F-35 program, but we also learn that the Conservatives are now taking us for a ride on a boat that will not float. The fact is that they do not know how to count. Even as they are going through their great crisis management exercise, they are saying that not only might they be forced to redesign the ships, they are not even sure they can afford them.

There are two options here: either the budget gets bigger or the government buys fewer ships. Is that clear? Is it going to be a bigger budget or fewer ships?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in this House with my colleague for years, and I hope that one day he will lose the recorded message and answer for himself. I will quietly ask him a very simple question, so that he can understand it clearly. What is more, a simple yes or no will suffice.

Is the parliamentary secretary in favour of dedicated infrastructure funding? I do not want to hear that the Liberals voted against infrastructure. Liberals are in favour of infrastructure.

Is he for or against dedicated funding?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about what the government has done. We voted for that measure and even proposed it before the infrastructure programs. Now we need to talk about what is next. In 2014, the infrastructure plan will be renewed. The $131 billion infrastructure deficit is a fact.

The Canadian government will tell us that the municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. When he was mayor, I was minister at the time and I made announcements in his riding for the Roberval airport. I know that the federal government has a role to play in this.

Is the hon. member prepared to move forward with a long-term plan? The gas tax is one thing, but it is not enough. Will he ensure that we can make plans for sustainable infrastructure?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps some questions need to be put to the provincial NDP governments.

It is not a matter of labelling; it is a matter of what is for the future. That is the reason why, in 1993, we put up that infrastructure program. It is never enough. Of course we have to recuperate for the sake of our future. We just mentioned in Montreal that we are losing 40% of our drinkable water. So it is not about who we should blame; it is about what are we ready to do together to make things better. I think that is the essence of the motion. It is everybody's business, in a non-partisan way. We have to push forward.

New structures and funding plan timetables will be just as important as increases in funding. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is also asking for increased infrastructure funding based on a percentage of GDP, to match levels reached between 1950 and 1970.

Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step. Yes, solutions have been put forward, but between now and 2014, the infrastructure plan needs to be renewed in keeping with certain parameters and investment strategies. The Canadian government has a role to play, and it needs to invest in our infrastructure.