Jean-Claude D'Amours

[Supply Management, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see why the government is so reluctant to talk about its tactics for protecting supply management: it has none. Ministers from the Prairie provinces, as well as certain agricultural sectors, claims Canada is the only country at the table looking at sensitive products. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food also said that being alone at the table is an untenable position for Canada.

Does this mean that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will continue to support supply management at the WTO talks even though he, himself, said that this is an untenable position for Canada?

[Supply Management, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade said that we have to be prepared for the possibility that WTO negotiations might be unsuccessful. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that Canada will not walk away from the negotiating table. The Conservatives are spending their time talking the talk, but let us remember that the former Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Andy Mitchell, walked the walk in Hong Kong to save supply management, even though there was an election going on.

Given these contradictions, can somebody tell us what the government's position on WTO negotiations really is?

[Employment, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not what we heard. There was a concrete plan. The minister can try to present the facts in a better light, but the fact remains that this is not the first time such radical comments, about the region I represent, have been uttered by hon. members of the government. It is clear that this government does not understand anything about the Atlantic provinces. It is even more obvious that they do not want to understand anything.

The government's objective seems clear: it wants to drive Atlantic Canadians out of their regions. Is that the Prime Minister's hidden agenda for dealing with the Conservatives' defeatist attitude toward the Atlantic provinces?

[Employment, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the hon. Conservative member and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities announced he had a plan for permanently transferring unemployed people from the Atlantic provinces to Alberta. It is totally unacceptable for the government to make such comments, let alone think them.

My question is simple. How can the government justify such a radical policy by members of its caucus?

[Government Policies, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, more “harpocrisy”.

Number 131: the environment minister praises the one-tonne challenge three weeks before cutting it.

Number 132: mislead Canadians by using absurd examples to support the government's claim that Canada cannot reach its Kyoto targets.

Number 133: ignore the United Nations protocol on the rights of indigenous peoples.

Number 134: gag a Conservative MP to prevent him from commenting on the government's gun registry policy.

Number 135: disclose refugee claimants' personal information.

Number 136: prevent cabinet members from exercising their fundamental right to freedom of expression, even when they have just spoken about issues of national importance.

Number 137: replace a comprehensive child care system with a tax cut that will cost twice as much.

Number 138: in a letter he signed, the natural resources minister praises the EnerGuide program a few weeks before cancelling it.

Number 139: mislead Canadians about the facts concerning carbon sinks and international trade markets.

Number 140: mislead Canadians about international support for the Kyoto protocol.

There is still more to come.

[Human Resources and Social Development, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear. The minister says, yes, defend your citizens and you will buy their votes.

This party is beginning to show its true colours. It is enough to recall the comments made the current Prime Minister relatively recently when he said that Atlantic Canadians are a defeatist people.

The minister should apologize to everyone in the Atlantic provinces. There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to ensure a decent future. The reason for an extension of the pilot projects would be just that.

I asked a very simple question and I would like a clear answer. Will the minister show the slightest compassion for the seasonal workers in my riding?

[Human Resources and Social Development, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit an answer given yesterday by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. Perhaps the minister should visit our regions in order to understand the realities facing workers in agriculture, forestry, construction and tourism. She has no sympathy for them and looks down on them. The only thing these citizens want is to be able to continue providing for their families. If the minister had a little compassion for these people, she would immediately announce an extension of the pilot projects.

My job as an elected member of Parliament is to defend the citizens in my riding. Does the minister truly believe that defending the public is a tactic to buy votes?

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to hear that. This situation is completely unacceptable. It is terrible to leave the people who are most in need in the lurch while the government ponders and evaluates.

I repeat that these pilot projects, including the pilot projects on the five additional weeks and the lower St. Lawrence and Madawaska economic zones, are very important to thousands of Canadian workers.

Time is running out, and the situation is urgent. I call on the minister to act instead of hiding behind evaluations.

Why is the minister refusing to help the unemployed while she waits for the evaluations of the pilot projects?

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative agenda contains nothing to improve the employment insurance system. It is not even one of their priorities.

The Prime Minister does not understand anything about this issue and the extremely difficult situation thousands of Canadians face every day.

In recent years, the Liberal government introduced measures including pilot projects to improve the lot of seasonal workers.

Why does the Prime Minister not promise right now to extend all pilot projects until the programs have been reviewed and to support my private member's bill on eliminating the two-week waiting period following a job loss?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be relatively brief because I know time is limited.

The new government decided to cancel the program that we had created for day care and early childhood development. I ask my colleague if it is true that, by cancelling this program, the government has also abandoned workers--who might have received better salaries--as well as the day care and early childhood development infrastructure that would have allowed them to acquire more recent manuals.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the program would have allowed parents to benefit from reduced costs. Would my colleague agree that, by cancelling the $5 billion program, all of these people have been abandoned: young people, parents, grandparents, and child care workers? This is unacceptable.

I would like my colleague to confirm that this is true--that by its actions the government has abandoned all of these people.