Jean-Claude D'Amours

[35th Annual Tournament of the Northwest Firefighters Association, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to congratulate everyone who took part in the 35th annual tournament of the Association des pompiers du Nord-Ouest, which took place in Saint-Basile.

I have great admiration for the members of this association and the work they do to make our communities safer. These firefighters do not hesitate to risk their own lives when a fire breaks out, and they deserve recognition.

At the tournament banquet, I had the opportunity to speak to the firefighters, and I again pledged my support for Bill C-219, which proposes to reduce taxes for volunteer emergency workers, including volunteer firefighters.

I want to congratulate the Green River brigade, which won the 35th annual tournament and will represent the northwest region at the provincial tournament.

I also want to thank all the volunteers and the organizing committee members for all their efforts in planning this memorable event.

[Equalization Formula, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of things in recent months about promises to Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia being broken. All of it was justified.

Now we have independent proof that the four Atlantic provinces have been had by this budget. My province, New Brunswick, is losing $1.1 billion, according to a report by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. We know it, and New Brunswickers know it.

Why will this incompetent minister not admit that his budget ignores Atlantic Canada, and that it will be a disaster for New Brunswick?

[Petitions, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House concerning Bill C-263, which has to do with eliminating the waiting period for employment insurance. I move: “That Bill C-263 be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read the third time and passed”.

[International Trade, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister has changed portfolios, because the question was addressed to the Minister of International Trade.

While Canadian poultry producers, including those in Madawaska—Restigouche, provide a high quality product under supply management, the Minister of International Trade, without any reason, decided to allow an additional 8.7 million kilograms of chicken to be imported from other countries.

How can this government claim to defend supply management and poultry producers when it is jeopardizing the very future of our producers, not to mention jobs that are very important to rural communities in Canada?

[International Trade, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives have been in power, they have not been walking the talk, and we saw proof of this again today. The Conservatives and the Minister of International Trade are destroying an industry that does not need subsidies, but rather unwavering support to remain competitive.

When will the Minister of International Trade listen to the needs of our poultry producers and reverse his decision to allow for increased imports of poultry from outside Canada? When will the minister firmly support supply management, once and for all?

[June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the message that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada would like to send, but my question had nothing to do with legal aid for criminal matters.

However, one has to wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada does not think that official language minority communities wishing to defend their rights should apply for legal aid in the criminal court system. I do not think the government fully understands the needs facing minorities in terms of defending their rights. Such comments are completely unacceptable.

Will the government finally show some understanding and bring back the court challenges program in its entirety—not partially, but in its entirety? Do we have to elect a Liberal government for the court challenges program to be fully reinstated, and not only for official language minority communities, but for all minorities, including linguistic minorities, people with disabilities and all other minorities?

[June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak during the late show this evening about the court challenges program.

On September 26, 2006, almost a year ago, the Conservative government abolished the court challenges program, which provided minorities with the means to defend their rights in court. When we say “defend their rights” we must not forget that it is extremely expensive to go to court, so it was a way to help minorities.

Let us remember the facts about the court challenges program. Initially, this program was introduced by the Liberal government. After Brian Mulroney's Conservative government was elected, the program was cancelled, only to be reinstated by Jean Chrétien's government several years later. Then this program was once again abolished. By whom? It just so happens that it was by another Conservative government, in September 2006.

There are some myths to debunk. The court challenges program is very useful, as I mentioned earlier. In terms of official languages, it helped francophones outside Quebec. We must look further than that. This program also helps anglophones in Quebec, religious minorities, the disabled, women and all other minorities. I say “women” despite the fact that women in Canada are not a minority, but a majority. But this is still the reality. This was what the court challenges program was for.

We can see the benefits of this program for all minorities across Canada. Under the court challenges program, several groups were able to defend their language rights with respect to their schools or hospitals, or to obtain French-language services. This has allowed many communities and many families to obtain services in French. This has also helped many young people in various communities, often rural ones, to receive services in French. Previously, it was difficult to obtain them because governments—federal and provincial—did not take the issue seriously and decided that they would not provide services to the minority, even though this is a right in our country. The court challenges program was definitely a useful tool and should definitely be reinstated.

We have the example of French-language schools in the regions and ensuring that services are offered in both official languages. There is also the example of Montfort hospital, located in Ottawa, which would not have survived had the court challenges program not been available, as is the case today. The reality is that people need such a program to assert their rights. It is not so much about respect for the law as it is about asserting one's rights.

The Conservative government has trampled people's rights. In addition, it is contravening the Official Languages Act. As you know, since Bill S-3 was passed in the 38th Parliament, the Official Languages Act has been amended. As it stands, the government must take positive action to ensure that official languages communities have the requisite tools to advance the cause of the French language in their community. By positive, we mean making progress. By eliminating the court challenges program, the Conservative government—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for his comments, which were particularly important for people in Atlantic Canada.

Looking at everything the Conservative government has done—signing agreements, making promises—it is clear that if it changes its mind, it will say whatever it wants and break its promises and agreements.

With a government that does things like that, New Brunswickers should be afraid right now. Consider child care, where the Conservatives cut $116 million that was supposed to go to parents and children in New Brunswick. It is clear that people in New Brunswick have many other needs too.

Should the people of Madawaska—Restigouche, whom I represent, and the entire population of New Brunswick be afraid that the Conservative government will take the promises it has made and the agreements that have been signed and toss them in the trash whenever it feels like it?

[Jean Pedneault, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswickers were very saddened to learn of the passing of Jean Pedneault on Tuesday evening, at the age of 67.

Mr. Pedneault was a great humanitarian and worked in the journalism industry for more than 30 years, in particular, for the weekly Edmunston newspaper Le Madawaska and, more recently, as a columnist for the daily newspaper L'Acadie Nouvelle.

A dedicated journalist, Mr. Pedneault was actively interested in international development, politics and social justice. Personally, I always held Jean Pedneault in the highest esteem.

Mr. Pedneault received an award from Pope John Paul II for service to the church and was named Knight of the Order of the Pleiade of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians in 1989. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate in communication from the Université de Moncton in May 2001 and received the Louis-Napoléon-Dugal award in 2003 for his dedication to the French and Acadian cause in Madawaska.

Mr. Pedneault marked all of our lives in some way, and we owe him one last tribute to thank him for his active contribution to our community. I would like to extend my sincere condolences to his family and friends.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition here this afternoon signed by hundreds of citizens, mainly from my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche.

These people are petitioning this minority Conservative government for two things. First of all, they are calling on the Conservative government to acknowledge and take action on the elimination of the waiting period within the employment insurance program.

Let us be clear. Although the government sometimes has considerable difficulty understanding this change, the petitioners are demanding it because seasonal workers, or those who work and lose their jobs, are not always able to make their mortgage and car payments, buy gas, or pay their grocery and utility bills, as many other citizens are able to do, and all because of the waiting period when they apply for EI benefits.

Second, the petitioners are asking that people who apply for EI benefits have the choice or the right to file their application either on paper or electronically, and that they not be obligated to file using only one format. People should have the choice.