Diane Bourgeois

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

It is always interesting to speak right after a Conservative member, particularly when it is a member who has always been afraid of separatism and views the Bloc as being here only to block all bills.

I will remind him that according to the polls, his party has only 16% support in Quebec while we have 40%. If we have been here for so long, it must be because the people of Quebec have confidence in us and think that we defend Quebec well.

That being said, today we are debating a motion introduced by my party. The motion says that federalism does not respond to Quebec's aspirations and needs. The motion stems from the totally empty Speech from the Throne and budget the government introduced. One would have thought that closing Parliament for almost two months would have given the government time to think and produce something outstanding for the new session. However, we realize that like all the proposals the government has made since our return to the House, it is just an empty shell.

The Bloc Quebecois talks about an empty shell that is costing money to Quebeckers, to the tune of 25% of their taxes, since we account for about 25% of the Canadian population. We are justified in expecting to get back the equivalent of what we are paying, but we are not getting anything. Moreover, Quebeckers' needs are not acknowledged. It is not the Bloc Quebecois and its members who defined these needs. It is Quebeckers, through a broad consultation process held across Quebec by the hon. member for Hochelaga, who is our finance critic. The ideas presented to the Minister of Finance—only to be rejected—were submitted during that consultation process.

A problem that is not solved will constantly keep resurfacing. Year after year we formulate the same requests to the government, but it never listens. The government is supposed to have recognized the Quebec nation and given it a seat at UNESCO, but it is not even able to recognize the needs of that nation.

What happens when a group does not recognize a person's needs? That person leaves. That is why the Bloc Quebecois believes it would be better to leave Canada, because this association does not benefit Quebec.

In its motion, the Bloc Quebecois mentions five issues, but it could have added several others. The five issues that were retained are those which, given the economic context, are the worst for Quebeckers and affect many of them.

Federalism does not fulfill the goals and requirements of Quebec. For example, the government will not commit to allocate $2.2 billion to Quebec for harmonizing the QST and GST.

Why does the federal government agree to pay such compensation to Ontario and British Columbia, but not to Quebec? That is not normal. It is an injustice.

There are some water carriers from Quebec. There are yes-men who are prepared to say that this government is doing a lot for Quebec. In fact, this government is unfair and it does not give us what we are entitled to, like the others. Why is it that we cannot get our due?

This government does not recognize Quebec's needs in another area: it is not providing the forestry industry with an assistance plan equivalent to that given to the automobile industry.

Earlier, I heard the member thank his cabinet colleagues who, supposedly, have helped the forestry industry. Why is it then that, on March 4, the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec, the CIFQ, and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, or CEP, both felt that the Conservative government's budget was not meeting the needs of Quebec's forestry industry?

Why is it that Guy Chevrette told us that, for most of our businesses, it was critical to get new funding at a commercial rate of interest, to make it through the crisis?

Why is it that Gaétan Ménard, who is the secretary-treasurer of CEP, said that this was another budget full of rhetoric and platitudes, and that it would not do anything for workers?

We have just seen—this is no joke—an hon. member from Quebec on his knees, a yes-man heaping praise on his colleagues and the government by saying that they are giving lots of help and money to Quebec for the forestry sector. It is appalling and shameful.

Meanwhile, in February, 11,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing and forestry sectors in Quebec. That is significant.

They tell us that 8,000 jobs were created. These are not good jobs. They are part-time jobs, poorly paid jobs, jobs that people cannot live on.

[CTZoom Technologies, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak today about the success of CTZoom Technologies, a company from Terrebonne—Blainville.

Established in 1997, the company specializes in the development, manufacture, sale and installation of cutting-edge zoom camera infrastructure inspection and diagnosis solutions.

A rewarding work environment where creativity can flourish has made CTZoom Technologies a leader in its field of expertise. The Centre for Expertise and Research on Infrastructures in Urban Areas (CERIU) gave CTZoom Technologies the 2009 CERIU corporate member award. The success of CTZoom Technologies shows the promise of the Quebec nation. It can be proud of its success.

On my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, congratulations and best wishes for continued prosperity.

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

If they are in agreement, they should mention Quebec along with British Columbia and Ontario. Let the sales tax be harmonized as soon as possible for Quebec.

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, one must not compare cabbages, apples and oranges. There is a lot of material in the NDP's amendment to the amendment. We agree with taxing large banks and big corporations, but not with the NDP putting the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan in the same basket.

The member must realize that these are two different things. The Canada pension plan is a Canadian, and therefore federal, plan, whereas the Quebec pension plan belongs to Quebec, and we do not want anyone to mess with it. That is clear.

The member is asking for British Columbia and Ontario to receive compensation for harmonizing their sales taxes. That is what Quebec has been asking for since 1991.

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish good luck to my colleague, who will be sitting on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where there is a lot of work to be done. Women will have to clearly explain to him what it means to be a woman with no career who is trying to find housing, and raise and feed her children.

We used to sit on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and will perhaps again. It is true that I defended small- and medium-sized businesses. The government is not even giving loans or loan guarantees to SMEs in the manufacturing and forestry sector. These companies have no money; it is time to wake up.

I understand why my colleague would ask a question like that, but I would be ashamed to ask it myself.

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget today for two or three small reasons. First, this is International Women's Day and I believe women have something to say about this budget presented by the federal government. Yesterday was a rather special day because I was in my riding where many activities were organized in women's centres. Women told me that they are not fools and they realize the extent to which they have been ignored by this government over the past few years, since the Conservatives came to power, and especially so in this budget.

I would like to acknowledge the women in my riding of Terrebonne—Blainville, who asked me to give this government some messages. Of course, I did not really have to explain the budget in order for them to tell me that it is a hollow budget and that it contains nothing for women and does nothing to improve living conditions for them or their families. Nor is there anything in this budget for Quebec.

Furthermore, it meddles in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Today, we must debate the NDP subamendment. I will start by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this subamendment because it sanctions interference in areas that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.

With this budget, the Conservatives have once again missed an opportunity to properly meet the economic, social, environmental and financial needs of Quebec.

For this government, and for certain members of the other opposition parties, it is as though Quebec does not exist. The Bloc Québécois does not systematically oppose every budget; however, it does oppose a budget that does not acknowledge the existence and the predominance of the needs of the Quebec nation.

The policies in this budget are geared towards Ontario and Alberta to the detriment of the pressing needs of Quebec. We have just come through a recession. In fact, we are only emerging slowly from it. All economists agree that the next year will be a very difficult one for Quebec. Quebec will experience the most difficulties pulling out of this recession. The economic recovery will be weak in Quebec compared to Canada.

There is nothing in the budget for the forestry sector, aerospace, the environment or culture. The Bloc Québécois did a prebudget consultation tour in order to ask Quebeckers about their needs, what they wanted to see in the budget and whether they felt the government truly recognized the nation of Quebec. What budgetary items could the federal Conservative government include for Quebec?

A number of Bloc MPs, our finance critic in particular, did a tour of Quebec. They proposed things, compiled information and even delivered that information to the Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, none of those items are found in the budget.

Some items were extremely important to the ordinary Quebecker. None of those items are found in this budget. I will list them.

There is nothing for seniors, the unemployed, social housing, the homeless, older workers or informal caregivers. And these needs are found not just in Quebec, but throughout Canada. There is nothing for women, transportation, harmonized sales taxes or equalization. What is in this budget?

There is still no answer for the agencies that, throughout the recession, which is still not over, have made recommendations to the federal government. Canadian food banks requested items that Quebeckers were looking for as well. Women from Quebec and elsewhere also asked on behalf of their children, their families and themselves. There were recommendations calling for maintaining the levels of federal transfers. Of those, the Canada social transfer is being maintained, but we have not heard anything about maintaining the other transfers. There is not a word about this. Worse yet, even if some transfers are maintained, more will be lost because they are not indexed or increased.

Canadian food banks had called on the government to keep working to make the employment insurance system fairer and more comprehensive. There is nothing in the budget about this. It is not the Bloc that asked for it, but Canadian food banks. The manufacturing sector is continuing to decline as a source of jobs, whereas low-paying service jobs are growing.

Conservative members of this House often said that it was not the end of the world if people did not necessarily have extensive employment insurance programs, because they would find jobs elsewhere. Jobs have been proposed, created and made available to people, but these are low-paying jobs with no security—what we call short-term jobs. How are people supposed to live off such jobs without help from employment insurance?

What the food banks were calling for was for the government to continue increasing participation in the guaranteed income supplement. The food banks asked for that, just as the Bloc did. They also called for an increase in guaranteed income supplement and old age security benefits. They said that people can barely survive on $14,000 a year. They also called on the government to invest in social housing and to continue investing in affordable housing. There is nothing about that in this famous budget.

What we do find, as I said earlier, are intrusions, such as the creation of a single securities commission. Not only will Quebec experience a weaker economic recovery than Canada, but I imagine that Quebec will also see businesses leave for Ontario, for Toronto, where the securities commission will be set up. It seems clear that what the government wants is to make people poorer, make the system poorer, make Quebec poorer, give Quebec nothing. The government wants Quebec to toe the line and keep coming on bended knee, as many are doing at present, to beg the federal government for a few pennies.

I do not have much time left, so I will say that my message was this. First, to the Conservative members who say that we do not understand the budget, that we are not reading it correctly, I say that we understand it quite well. Clearly, the budget has nothing for Quebec. It is also very unfair to Quebec.

If the members opposite are consistent and honest, they will do their research. They will stop looking at the budget with blinders on, as they are doing now, and they will open their minds—

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend my colleague from Hochelaga for his presentation.

I would like to know how much money Quebec is losing with the harmonized sales tax. The March 2010 issue of CAmagazine talks about the Canada wide harmonized tax and praises Quebec's action in 1991 to harmonize its sales tax with Canada's.

How much money is Quebec losing in this harmonized sales tax venture?

[Jean-Hugues Chicoine, December 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Jean-Hugues Chicoine, who this year is celebrating the 20th anniversary of his ordination to the permanent diaconate.

Mr. Chicoine provides assistance and support to the most vulnerable members of society on a daily basis. In 1984, he founded Auberge Galilée, a community organization that helps the needy in the Terrebonne region. Auberge Galilée remains to this day a very important player in the field of community and volunteer services in Terrebonne.

The Knights of Columbus also recognized the steadfast contribution of Mr. Chicoine and his family to their community by awarding them the title of “Knights of Columbus family of the year” in 1989. That was the same year that Mr. Chicoine was ordained a permanent deacon.

Throughout his life, Mr. Chicoine has been unconditionally supportive of his fellow citizens, and his kindness knows no bounds. On behalf of the community of Terrebonne—Blainville, I would like to thank and congratulate Mr. Chicoine for his years of dedication—

[Status of Women, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for the awareness campaign on violence against women launched by the major unions, the Canadian Labour Congress, the UFCW and the FTQ.

The “20 Days - 20 Ways to end violence against women” campaign, which runs from November 16 to December 6, asks women to send a postcard to the Canadian government, urging it to take action to stop violence against women, including maintaining the firearms registry.

The Prime Minister's insensitivity towards women is matched only by his lack of action on women's issues, in particular their inability to take legal action concerning pay equity issues, their lack of funding for social housing and their lack of accessibility to employment insurance.

We hope that thousands of women will take this opportunity to put pressure on the Prime Minister.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have always had a great deal of respect for the member who just asked me this question. I see him in this place all the time. We have even agreed on certain bills that have been extremely important to us, in terms of social justice. I continue to have a great deal of respect for him. He mentioned three options.

The first option would be to send the bill back to committee for amendments. That is in fact what the Bloc Québécois wanted. My colleagues who are members of the committee that deals with employment insurance proposed some amendments, which were flatly rejected. This is no joke. The actuary even came to explain the monetary implications of the bill, but no one would even listen to him.

Second, we cannot always count on the Senate to do our work for us. As members of Parliament, it is our duty to consider all aspects of a bill and examine it carefully.

Third, regarding an undertaking by this government, is the hon. member joking? In my opinion, when a government is not even open enough to listen to an actuary, it would never honour such an undertaking.