House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 41% of the vote.
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Outremont accused me of being a sell-out. That is unparliamentary language. He is not one to be lecturing. As a result of a court ruling in a libel suit, he has already had to pay damages to one member. I would ask this member to act honourably , to conduct himself as an MP who must do his work and to not call his colleagues various names. I ask him to withdraw his remarks.
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, we have become accustomed to higher standards from the hon. member in the files he handles. He asks this kind of question with certain innuendoes. Perhaps he was too busy working on his laptop and did not take the time to listen to what I said.
We have said we will vote against the motion, because we are responsible. That said, the hon. member for Winnipeg North said that we should vote in favour of a national securities commission. Yet the hon. member for Outremont said he was against this idea. As for confusion, the NDP could certainly give the Liberal Party a run for its money.
It is our responsibility to make decisions that will prevent legal problems from arising later on. I have a problem with the idea of a national securities commission, and I said so during the debates during the last election campaign. We could save some time here if the government, through the Minister of Justice, could refer to the Supreme Court—
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert. This is the first time we have had the opportunity to debate in the House, and I congratulate him on his election.
That is exactly why we need to refer this to the Supreme Court. Our role is to ensure that the laws we make do not become problematic later on. Given that this budget states, with regard to a securities commission, that there will be additional legislation in three years, it is obvious. It is important to look at the bigger picture, and I am sure my colleague would agree that the public does not want an election tomorrow morning.
Everyone is saying that we need to have lots of latitude to give the people the financial help they need, as quickly as possible. Referring this to the Supreme Court is one answer, a responsible alternative. I do not believe it when they say it is voluntary. I do not believe it when they try to tell me that centralization will work. We could have better standardization and better regulations, but we eventually need to have a debate about regulations and operations.
And then we will see. For now, in our opinion, this motion is adding fuel to the fire for no reason. We should pass the budget and then decide. As for a national securities commission, since there are jurisdictional issues, we should take it to the Supreme Court.
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I might continue on from the excellent speech by my colleague from Markham—Unionville.
We have a job to do. As members of Parliament, there are times when the public interest must prevail and we must live up to our responsibilities, having regard to the situation and the circumstances we find ourselves in. One of the reasons why we agreed to vote for this budget is the economic situation. This is not rocket science. We do not need to look both ways to determine that first, the public does not want an election, second, they want us to do our jobs, and third, they want to know how we are going to be able to help them not just pay their bills, but put food in their refrigerators. We are having to face a reality that comes down to basic needs. I therefore think that we here have the responsibility for making these decisions.
We are voting for the budget because we are facing an unprecedented economic crisis. And because we are voting for this budget and we have taken the time to read it, we are in a position to criticize it. I welcome the Bloc Québécois motion. I understand what they are trying to accomplish in political terms. I have to say that it is a bad strategy, in my opinion. What I think, as a member from Quebec, as the Quebec lieutenant for our party, is that there is a time when decisions have to be made in the public interest. That is exactly the reason why we will be voting against the motion. That being said, we can sit down and talk about equalization and we can also talk about this much-vaunted national securities commission.
I have reservations about a national securities commission. Why? Because section 92 is clear and it seems that this is something that is under provincial jurisdiction. And so even before making a decision about whether such an institution is a good idea, the least we have to do is look into it by following an established procedure to determine whether the jurisdiction is there.
This is not the first time we have discussed the securities commission. We were talking about it during our time. There have been reports written about this for years. There were reports in 2003 and 2006. There have also been motions and debate about it. So this is not the first time we have talked about a national securities commission. I think that before going any further, we will have to know the arguments pro and con. The minimally decent thing for a government to do is to bring good bills forward. When a bill is to be introduced, we have to make sure that it will achieve consensus and is consistent with our Constitution. What should be done? It has been done with other bills in the past. I think it was done at the time with the clarity bill. There is a procedure to be followed. The Minister of Justice should refer the question to the Supreme Court and ask whether it is consistent with the Constitution. If the first argument to be made by people who are against this commission is to raise a question of jurisdiction, we could save time and find a solution. In fact, I think the government is aware of this, because another bill will be introduced in three years for the creation of a national securities commission.
The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Leader of the Official Opposition, has already stated a few weeks ago that our position is that, even before continuing this debate, the first thing to do is to get an opinion from the Supreme Court, to provide some clarity on the question of jurisdiction. This is not the first time that this subject has been discussed. Many experts will say that it is constitutional and others will say that it is not. Others, who have less backbone, will try to sit on the fence. One thing is clear; before proceeding further, an answer is needed.
I want things to be clear. This is not just about Quebec. The Bloc may have raised the matter, but that does not mean we should think this is just about Quebec.
The Bloc members can speak on behalf of the National Assembly if they want to. We have friends as well. We can speak to the Charest government. The fact is that as soon as the budget has been adopted, several provincial governments will be in the courts, asking the same question about the jurisdiction of the national securities commission.
Many business people say that it is a good thing. However, I agree with my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville. It has been tried in the United States, and in Great Britain. This was supposed to be the greatest invention since sliced bread. That did not prevent an unprecedented economic crisis in the United States. It has not prevented problems in Europe, especially in Great Britain. Any attempt to make us believe that we absolutely need this to resolve the economic crisis is an argument that does not hold water.
Once again, it is extremely important that we consider the quality of life of Canadians; that, first and foremost, we adopt the budget. Measures in the budget are necessary to help our regions. There are needs in terms of infrastructure. There are measures that will directly improve people’s quality of life. We know that this government will not last forever. People know that when we were in power—and it will happen again—we always had our hearts in the right place. We were able to help people, and to have better relations with the provinces.
Let us talk about equalization. The equalization formula has been changed four times in as many years; it changes every year. We signed agreements. I completely disagree with this government's claim that it is engaging in open federalism; it should be ashamed. There have never been as many quarrels between this government and the provinces as there are now. The government is incapable of keeping its promises to the Atlantic provinces or to Quebec. For example, it is not keeping its promise to Newfoundland and Labrador about transferring energy revenues. I find the government's attempts to talk about open federalism appalling: it cannot even respect its own agreements.
That being said, the equalization formulas have been amended four times in four years. We were part of the government and, as such, we worked hard and reached asymmetrical agreements, which we always respected. We will vote for the budget, but the public need not worry. One day soon, the Liberal Party of Canada will be in power, and we will keep our promises.
In the meantime, wherever I go in Quebec, I see that people want to come to some kind of agreement and work together to help those who are suffering. Some people are already being hit hard by the economic crisis, and others will be. So it is our responsibility to pass this budget once and for all.
However, the government is on probation. There are three dates: March, June and December. Come those dates, if the government is not doing its job, we will form a government and prove that we are the best alternative, that we are capable of helping people. We have done it before: in 1993, we inherited a $42 billion deficit. We were known as the “Canadian miracle”. We know how a government is supposed to work. We have led this country back into prosperity and we have helped the people. We are the alternative, but now is not the time for that debate. Now is the time to pass the budget.
Canada-U.S. Relations February 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the economy. The trade relationship between Canada and the United States is worth close to $1.7 billion a day. However, in these difficult times, we are obviously worried about protectionist measures being implemented, and with good reason.
Although we do a lot business with the United States, there are still some important issues such as intellectual property and regulations such as ITAR.
Will the Prime Minister raise this question with President Obama since it will affect the growth of our industries?
Canada-U.S. Relations February 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to this important question. On January 18, the minister himself publicly announced that he was working with his American counterpart to set the agenda.
The event takes place in almost a week, and we are not sitting next week. Transparency will be important. I do not know if he has secrets, but can he give us the specific agenda for President Obama and the Prime Minister?
National Defence February 12th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that we have heard of management problems at the Department of National Defence. The chief of review services sounded the alarm. He has determined that supply projects worth $9.6 billion are currently at risk. He even refers to 20 projects carried out by very underqualified lead suppliers. That is worrisome.
In this recession, does the minister really know what is happening in his department?
National Defence February 12th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
We learned today that the Conservative government has no idea whether it is getting value for money from a military communications project. This project was supposed to cost $105 million and has since ballooned to $290 million, three times the original cost. The defence department audit flagged that sole source contract.
With such a mess, could the minister explain why he agreed to extend and expand this land command support system with General Dynamics?
Aerospace Industry February 10th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, this is false, and not an answer to the question.
The aerospace industry was indeed supposed to benefit from the spinoffs of the military procurement contracts, but this is not the case. As for the C-130J, according to Claude Lajeunesse, president of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, so far all Lockheed Martin has made available is work packages that lack any substantial design, engineering support and development activities. That is the very reason for the existence of the aerospace industry in Canada.
So where are the positive spinoffs promised by the Conservative government?
Aerospace Industry February 10th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, Quebec lost close to 26,000 jobs this past January, in aerospace in particular, a key sector of our Canadian economy. The Minister of Industry and his colleague, the Minister of Public Works , however, see no need to create a program to assist the aerospace industry.
Yet during the last election campaign, the Conservatives were promising a $200 million envelope for the strategic aerospace and defence initiative. That amount is not to be found in the budget, however. Why is that?