Denis Coderre

[Point of Order, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the statement by my colleague, the member for Laval—Les Îles, left us with the impression that this entire House was disgusted by Jan Wong's article in The Globe and Mail. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of this House to introduce the following motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, an apology be given to the people of Quebec for the offensive remarks of Ms. Jan Wong in a Globe and Mail article regarding the recent Dawson College tragedy.

[Afghanistan, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister does not have the courage to apologize, we would like to pay tribute to our veterans and our troops.

We now learn that our government's exit strategy for Afghanistan is nothing less than total success. The Prime Minister declared yesterday that we are at war and suggested that we will stay as long as necessary. The Prime Minister also said he felt it was unfortunate that Canadians do not understand the danger of the mission.

Is this new approach part of the $5 million CIDA investment to change the image of the mission in Afghanistan?

[National Defence, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Ministerfinally had some time for the media yesterday. In a performance worthy of Guy Fournier on Tout le monde en parle, he showed contempt for our military, our veterans as well as for all Canadians.

Does the Minister of National Defencewho has served under the Canadian flag believe, like his Prime Minister, that Canada has not fulfilled its peacekeeping responsibilities over the past 30 or 40 years and, even worse, that we let other countries take the lead? What will he say to the families of the 25 soldiers killed in Bosnia?

They were hanging back.

It is a disgrace. We expect an apology from the Prime Minister.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order.

We often hear from the government that one region cannot be responsible for another. My colleague from Malpeque, who is the agriculture and agri-food critic asked an important question of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In his reply the latter gave the impression that because my colleague is from Prince Edward Island he is unable to look into the affairs of the west.

I would like a clarification and an apology on behalf of all Canadians. He is a full Canadian.

[National Defence, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a transparent process does not include secret meetings, negotiations and politicking when there has been a procurement policy in place for 30 years. If we wish to show respect for Canadians, we must follow the process.

The current minister is a lobbyist and general. Of his $15 billion purchases, $8 billion worth are being bought from former clients.

Will he recuse himself or has the Prime Minister set aside some money for legal challenges that will cost an arm and a leg?

[National Defence, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are not impressed.

The Minister of National Defence has misled the House by declaring that no decision had been made with regard to purchasing military equipment , particularly the much talked-about C-17s, the new Conservative toy that will cost Canadian taxpayers $4 billion rather than leasing them for $42 million. Even General Hillier agrees with that. Now we have learned that next week they will go on a $15 billion spending spree as well as announcing its new toy, the Boeing C-17.

Why are they being so secretive and hasty in this matter. What are they hiding when the Minister of Industry secretly goes to Washington on his knees—

[National Defence, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I imagine the industry minister's knees must be sore, what with all the negotiating in Washington.

In a public relations strategy and, let us be honest, in an attempt to hide the facts, the Minister of Industry secretly met in Washington with directors from Boeing and Lockheed Martin to make us forget the total lack of transparency in the C-17 issue.

The Conservatives are now getting ready to announce more military procurements. The agreement allegedly proposes that maintenance of the tactical helicopters and aircraft over a 20-year period will be assigned to the industry, but through a competition run by these two U.S. companies.

In addition to giving up Canada's security and sovereignty, is the Minister of Defence now preparing to leave our procurement policy to the Americans? Is that what he is saying?

[National Defence, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we would like to have a minister who answers; we do not want the official in charge of the Titanic.

The Minister of National Defence takes us for idiots—he probably thinks Canadians are naive, as does the Prime Minister—and then tries to pull a fast one. The Minister of Industry was in Washington yesterday to secretly meet Jim Albaugh, president of Boeing Defense, and it certainly was not to have a beer.

He secretly went to Washington to make a deal. Not only are we giving our neighbours to the south a nice $4.5 billion gift but, in addition, they are told they need not go to any bother and that we will go there to report to them, just them and no public servants.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us if the C-17 planes, like the Minister of Industry, have to go through Washington? Do the new rules for purchasing military planes have to go through Washington—

[National Defence, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government says that it has not yet made a decision regarding the C-17s. The Minister of National Defence knows full well that this matter has gone through all the cabinet stages. They are just waiting for the House to adjourn and then will announce this project because they do not like answering embarrassing questions. Yet, experts agree that a call for tenders can save taxpayers between 10% and 30%.

Why does the government refuse to give taxpayers the benefit of a more intelligent procurement strategy? Is it because the Minister of National Defence knows that a bid by Airbus to provide aircraft would have him up to his neck in a conflict of interest?

[Employment Equity Act, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, not only are we in favour of tabling this report but we, the Liberals, governed during the last 13 years and did our job. What I find sad, unfortunately, is that back in 1994, when we wanted to improve the Employment Equity Act, the Reform Party, which corresponds to the current Conservative Party, voted against it.

They have a right to change their minds. I know what a progressive fellow my colleague, the Minister of Labour, really is. I hope that, in addition to congratulating employers, he will take his responsibilities seriously, because the federal government has a responsibility. When it comes to equity, employers must try to proved a better workplace environment, while also trying to make a profit. The government has the important task of ensuring that there actually is a decent environment that is conducive to good relations between workers and employers.

It is everyone’s responsibility to show that we champion equity in all regards, whether in respect of aboriginals, minorities, people with disabilities or young people.

We were also proud, as the government at the time, to be able to model this pursuant to successful negotiations. In this regard, I want to congratulate the then minister and Treasury Board president. She did outstanding work to ensure this kind of equity between public employees and our government.

Much remains to be done. We live in an aging society. Some situations are considered all too often to be isolated cases when they are actually increasingly frequent. We have to find better ways of reconciling work and family. For example, when family members are sick, there should be a way to ensure some peace of mind on the home front and thereby ensure this equity.

I do not like hearing the minister say that he is pleased with the employers. It is pretty obvious that it is everybody's business, not just the people who hire. It is the government's business and it is our business as members of Parliament. It also a matter of culture, not just legislation. When we talk about aboriginals, visibility minorities, youth and elderly people, we need to show the example. Our role as members of Parliament is to show the example.

We trust everybody but as legislators we should not only promote legislation but every time we have an occasion we should change the laws because they are living things.

Equity is an ongoing issue. We must always be vigilant to ensure Canadians have a decent quality of life, and quality of life means that we need to find a way to fight against the fact that there are still women who, with the same competence and the same skills, receive a salary that is inferior to that of men. We need to work on that.

The official opposition will work on this, especially during the sessions of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.As our official labour critic, I offer my help to the labour minister. However, I think that he should take his responsibilities more seriously and not just rely on employers.

I was also rather concerned that he thought it was acceptable for a 12-year-old to work at McDonald's. My 13-year-old daughter does not sell McNuggets; she eats them.

We have to work together to find a solution. We cannot always make the excuse of jurisdictional issues. We have to assume our responsibilities. I am sure that this is not what the minister wanted to say. We will have to work together.

The official opposition is proud to support this report. We know that during the 13 years of Liberal government, we always worked to provide people with a decent environment. Much remains to be done. It is not a partisan issue. We will work together with the government.