Jean-Claude D'Amours

[April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, things should be clear, and I will clarify one thing. That the parliamentary secretary says what she likes in a speech is one thing, but for her to say that pilot projects were not created by the Liberal Party of Canada is untrue. The Liberal Party of Canada set up these pilot projects in the field of unemployment insurance. To say the opposite is simply untrue. She should be ashamed of making such statements in front of Canadian citizens.

Can she answer once and for all? Why do workers have to wait until the last minute for pilot projects to be renewed? Why are the Conservatives not even able to make these pilot projects permanent? Is it because, according to their ideology, they will want one day to eliminate the pilot projects which seasonal workers in my riding and elsewhere in Canada need every day?

She just said that the economy is doing well. I invited many times the Prime Minister to come to my riding to see the crisis we have to deal with, but he refused each time.

[April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight because of a reply I received from the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. My question was about the extension of employment insurance by five additional weeks. We knew that the Conservative government was delaying renewing this pilot project. The Minister came back with answers, and since then, as we know, the pilot project has been renewed, but certainly not to the complete satisfaction of workers, for two specific reasons. I will come back to this in a moment.

The reason why we have to work to ensure fairness in the employment insurance system is that in many cases, workers are going through hard times, and not just in the last few months. When seasonal workers lose their jobs, they have to be able to pay for groceries and electricity and make the payment on the house, and so on. These are the basics, and they have to be paid even if a worker loses his or her job. Who are the groups who have the most to lose in this situation? Workers certainly lose a great deal, but family members also stand to lose a lot in these situations.

It is all the more deplorable that since the Conservative government came to power, every time we talk about the pilot projects, it is always about whether it will be renewing them or not. This pilot project, which provided a five-week extension to fill what we call the spring gap, was renewed, but when I asked my question, it had only seven days left to go before it ended.

This is not the first time. Since the Conservatives first came to power in January 2006, we have had to fight and push the government repeatedly to ensure that it restores these pilot projects that are so important for our workers, and as I said a moment ago, are even more crucial for their families. Without these measures, the families would not be able to support themselves.

We must always ask why workers and families have to get down on their knees to the Conservative government to have these pilot projects renewed. At the very least, if it had said, in response to the repeated representations we made, that it was going to restore all these excellent pilot projects that the Liberal government initiated and make them permanent, that would at least have been something accomplished. We would not have to keep coming back to the House of Commons every 12 or 18 months and pressuring the government, to ensure that our workers and their families can get the assistance they need.

These are examples. When I asked my question, there were only seven days left in the pilot project, and the holiday season was about to start. Why is the government always trying to show workers and their families that it is the boss, that it has the key of the coffers and that it will give them money when it pleases? These people need help. They do not need to be told to kneel down in front of the federal government. They need help from the government.

We should ask ourselves a question — and I will ask the question directly, then continue. To start with, why is the Conservative government always waiting until the last minute to renew pilot projects related to employment insurance? Second, why is the Conservative government not making these pilot projects permanent? Is it because it would like to completely eliminate them one day? Is it leaving the door open so that, when comes renewal time, it would be easy to just delete them?

[Seal Hunters, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the people affected by this tragedy are entitled to get answers to their questions. The reality is clear: a crew member is missing and his family is waiting.

Will the minister see to it today that a Coast Guard representative goes to the Magdalen Islands to answer the questions of this family and the other Magdalen Islands families in their own language? Will the minister go there himself to meet with the families affected by this tragedy?

[Seal Hunters, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the human tragedy in the Magdalen Islands deserves some compassion; it is a must. The families affected by the tragedy deserve to have the federal government's full support.

Yesterday, the minister indicated that he would cover the cost of bringing the fishers' bodies back home. Will he do the right thing today, now, and work with his department to bring the fishers' bodies back to the Magdalen Islands?

[March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the parliamentary secretary may not want to answer, but the facts are clear. What are the “financial considerations”? The Prime Minister mentioned them, as we can hear on the tape. He was aware of these things. Given that Mr. Cadman's widow, daughter and son-in-law were aware, are the parliamentary secretary, the Prime Minister and the government trying to say that everyone is lying?

The fact is that the Prime Minister acknowledged that the voice on the tape was his and that people sent by his party were trying to find a way to pay “financial considerations” to a dying man so that he would vote to bring down the Liberal government. It is shameful to try to use such schemes. The parliamentary secretary should simply stand up at least and answer for the minute—

[March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, I only have one minute left.

[March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today seeking clarification on an answer I was given a few weeks ago concerning an ethics question that I asked the Prime Minister. As we all know, we do not always get answers. My question had to do with ethics and with what is now known as the Cadman affair.

The situation is most alarming and very serious. Let us review what happened. In 2005, there were a number of crucial votes. Canada had not had a minority government in years. Bills were put to the vote. We all remember the late Chuck Cadman, who was the member for his Vancouver area riding. Despite the fact that he was seriously ill, he decided to come to the House to vote and carry out his duties as a member of Parliament.

However, we later found out that what happened was far less noble, particularly on the part of a government that claims to be transparent and pure as the driven snow. In the last federal election, the Conservatives said that they had never done anything wrong and never would. However, some of the things the government tried to do were certainly disturbing. The people of Canada found it disturbing. I think I will have a hard time getting clear answers, because there is a tape that proves what the Prime Minister said to a reporter not so very long ago.

Clearly, as I said earlier, there is more going on than the Cadman affair. Here are a few examples: the Mulroney-Schreiber affair; the Baird-O'Brien affair; the NAFTAgate affair concerning the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie—not that I am naming names—who commented on certain allegations and uncovered some information. And that's not all. There was also the “in and out” scheme with Elections Canada.

It is clear and plain that we have here a government which refuses to be transparent; it tries to control everything and hide things from the people of Canada. In addition, the allegations made in the Cadman affair about discussions the Prime Minister apparently had concerning a “financial consideration” are alarming. It is very difficult to imagine a Prime Minister attempting to somehow convince a member to give him his vote, when in a recording he finally admits that both he and his party knew that some “financial consideration” was offered to an unfortunate, gravely ill member in order to secure his support in bringing down the Liberal government of the day.

It is clear that this Conservative government has hidden many things from Canadians. I think it is time the Conservative government owned up to its role in the Cadman affair, stop hiding behind interviews given by the late Mr. Cadman and tell the people of Canada the truth, namely that it has indeed—

[Seal Hunters, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply saddened by the tragic death, last Saturday, of seal hunters in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We still do not know for sure what made their boat capsize and why these hunters were still on board.

In light of this tragic event, what is the government now doing to ensure that it can never happen again?

[Magloire Dionne, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to congratulate Mr. Magloire Dionne on his 100th birthday, which he celebrated on March 2, 2008. Mr. Dionne is a remarkable person who put a lot of time and energy into his family. He currently lives in Saint-Quentin, near his family.

I had the great pleasure of attending the party organized for Mr. Dionne at Manoir Mgr Melanson, along with his relatives and friends and staff of the residence. Like many other people, I was inspired by Mr. Dionne's remarkable courage and energy and his warmth.

On this unique and joyous occasion, the people of Madawaska—Restigouche join me in wishing Mr. Dionne a happy 100th birthday. We hope that he will remain in good health and continue charming us with his vitality and dignity for many years to come.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the clerk of the Privy Council is the Prime Minister's highest ranking official. The Prime Minister's chief of staff is the most senior political employee. These two men are required to rub shoulders and work together on a regular basis.

How can the clerk of the Privy Council investigate someone he has to work so closely with? Does the Prime Minister realize that we do not need some phoney investigation for him to fire his chief of staff?