Joe Volpe

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I did more than that when I was a member of Prime Minister Martin's cabinet. We implemented many programs to put all areas of Canada, including Quebec, on a level playing field. We were building Canada as partners. Today, we talk as individuals who are not on the same level. That is a strategy that may be convenient for the Bloc, but it is not constructive, it is divisive.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to appease the people of Quebec so they will stay in a federalist Canada. The government implements programs for all citizens but to me, Quebec's weight has always been very, very high. There is no reason to feel sorry for Quebec. This is not a province that bows down to Canada. Quebeckers are on an equal footing with other Canadians. Quebec has its place within Canada. There are still hon. members in this House who are denying or ignoring the truth. They will not accept the fact that there is a much larger goal for Quebeckers than the one the Bloc Québécois is offering them.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to participate in this debate because I was one of the members who sat in this House at the time of the Meech Lake accord and the subsequent agreement. I know there was only one member of the Bloc who was also in this House. So, when we talk about this motion in relation to Quebec's position in Canada or outside Canada, we must also be familiar with the political situation at that time.

I wanted to participate as a Canadian citizen, as a member of Parliament, and as former minister of the Government of Canada. At the time, there was no Bloc Québécois. There were only Mr. Mulroney's Conservatives, the Liberals and some NDP members. At the time, Mr. Lucien Bouchard was one of the most influential ministers in Mr. Mulroney's cabinet. He was Mr. Mulroney's éminence grise on constitutional issues.

I was here in the House where the member from Montcalm currently is. As a member of Parliament, I had the opportunity to hear Mr. Lucien Bouchard when he talked about Quebeckers' aspirations and his vision of a united Canada. He was to me—I speak as a member—an individual who had a certain kind of presence, who wanted Quebec to enter a more welcoming Canada, but also a Canada focused on building a future together.

I recall one of my colleague's thoughts at the time. If Mr. Bouchard had continued a little longer, in fact, some of the members of the Liberal Party might have been convinced by his speech. Some things were accomplished. We can say that Mr. Bouchard changed the dynamics of the House by creating the Bloc Québécois with members of the Liberal and Conservative parties. He had a vision. Today, the same Mr. Lucien Bouchard, former minister of the Government of Canada, former premier of Quebec, says that this whole experience is no longer required and that there already is a place for Quebec and Quebeckers within Canadian federalism, a place that the rest of the world envies.

The Europeans are studying the Canadian experience and are wondering how to achieve the kind of federalism found here in Canada, how to protect the culture, language, tradition, history of various nations and still be part of a great nation, an ambitious nation, a progressive country, a country that has earned everyone's respect. It is the same question Mr. Bouchard was asking himself. With no malice, I wonder why today Mr. Bouchard is no longer part of this Bloc Québécois that is very different in its aspirations and ambitions from twenty years ago.

As an individual, I was experiencing a very strange situation at the time because there was talk of a Canada that was in danger.

What was my role as a citizen? At that time, as a citizen and a member of Parliament, I agreed to improve the concept behind the Meech Lake accord.

Some people here, even Bloc members, will recall that the Charlottetown Accord had been negotiated by the present Quebec Premier and other people, including senators from Quebec, true Quebeckers, who always wanted the best for the people of their province and of Canada too. Together, they designed an accord to attract attention, to reinforce the conviction and the participation of all Canadians.

As a citizen, I felt compelled to promote Canada in the context of the Charlottetown Accord. That accord gave even more than the Meech Lake accord to Quebeckers.

During the referendum, I chaired 17 public conferences in my Toronto riding. Most voters were in favour of the Charlottetown Accord. They wanted to say yes to all Quebeckers and all Canadians who shared the vision of a strong and united Canada respecting all differences.

After that, I had the privilege to be a member of Mr. Martin's cabinet. We always talked about the role of Quebec within Canada. We discussed ways of moving forward, as a united Canada, to meet the challenges of Canadians, in Quebec as in all other provinces, from all cultures, traditions and nations. Quebeckers were included in our plan.

The other ministers and myself reviewed all previous demands from Quebec and the demands of that time. When we talk about immigration today, we see that there is a Canadian model and a Quebec model. I dare say that the Quebec model has a strong influence on Canadian immigration. That was an innovation of Canadian federalism. It is an innovation that Europeans want to emulate.

We also see Quebec as a leader in public health. That is thanks to the funds the federal government transfers to the provinces.

I want to finish in just a few moments and I want to do it in English. I only have a moment or two. It is important to keep in mind that when one talks about Quebec, the Québécois and a nation, there are many who speak another language in that province and who have just as much of a desire and ambition to be a part of a new Quebec and a new Canada. That has to be reflected in any motion.

This motion is very narrow. It restricts. It has no ambition. It has no future. It excludes rather than encompasses, includes and grows. I try very hard to speak in French if I can, but in English I must say that I cannot support this. It is not because I am speaking in English, but because there is not room for everyone in a Bloc Québécois view of the world and of Canada.

[Automotive Industry, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, eight months since the Toyota recalls began, Canadians are still looking for action from the Conservative government.

While the U.S. is acting swiftly to punish offences and rectify legislative shortcomings, the Minister of Transport has not even left the starting gate.

Worse, the U.S. action against Toyota relied in part on Canadian documentation, which our government does not seem able to obtain.

A paper trail from Transport Canada confirms that as the minister was publicly praising Toyota, his departmental employees were pleading for action against the company. They also reveal that Transport Canada received dozens of sudden acceleration complaints but investigated only a few.

In Canada, the Minister of Transport's wilfully negligent approach allows for potential property damage and personal injuries to accumulate.

Perhaps the Minister of Transport should spend less time practising his question period performances and a bit more time focusing on his responsibilities to protect Canadian drivers.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed by the fact that some people in the House are engaging in the debate and are actually talking about statistics and studies that either address the issue or undermine the government's position on the issue.

My hon. colleague will be interested in reflecting again on a couple of the main issues. One of them is the government's sincerity on this. We have already been given an indication on this. We have seen it because we have been in the House and we have lived it. The government presents legislation and then says that we do not agree with it because we are bad and it is good. Therefore, it rams it through, tells the public it is tough on crime and then allows the bill to lapse with prorogation. Its sincerity and seriousness is always up in the air.

Second, instead of supporting the legislation with statistics, arguments and studies that support the issue of what to do in society when there are offenders and instead of looking at issues like how much we should invest in the process of arresting offenders, how much we should invest in the process of bringing those to justice and then how much we must invest if we actually incarcerate them for a particular period of time, the government comes up with zero answers.

Will my colleague reflect on those two main principles and tell us whether in fact the government is serious about—

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue speaks knowledgeably and from experience. He said that even after four years, the Minister of Justice and his government still have not bothered to present any studies in support of their bill. That is surprising.

The Minister of Justice just presented us with a document that reflects his ideology more than anything else. Even the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale said that this bill had been introduced previously. But even after four years, the Minister of Justice has changed nothing. What is more, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue said that the government had not even conducted any studies yet.

The government wants to convince the House without any evidence. The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale said that there might be opportunities for members of this House to debate instead of accepting the Conservatives' ideology. That is shocking.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague from Yukon for a very incisive approach to a very serious problem in the country.

Because we are talking about a justice and crime agenda that the government has laid out, he has taken the trouble to actually look at dissecting the problem and proposing solutions. The member has analyzed exactly what the problem is.

I note with some optimism that both our colleagues from the other two parties, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and the member for Elmwood—Transcona, have underscored two very important issues that I would like to have my colleague from Yukon comment on.

First, this is a very large and very diverse country, not just geographically but culturally, and in a large geographic environment like our own, where people develop local, regional approaches to maintaining harmony and co-operation in communities, legislation like this might not be the very best solution.

Second, if we are going to implement legislation such as that which the government has proposed, and as my colleagues from Yukon and Elmwood—Transcona have pointed out, there has been no indication of the resources that will be put in place to achieve restorative justice, rehabilitation and reintegration. I think those are very important issues to keep in mind.

I wonder whether my colleague would step away from his learned approach to this and reflect on the other practical measure here, which is that this is a regurgitation of bills that have been presented prior in this Parliament and in a previous Parliament and were abandoned by the government through prorogation. Is it, in his estimation, a situation where the government is simply not taking its own legislation seriously and that perhaps we are lonely voices in the desert crying out for justice with the government's deaf ears as our audience?

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after having heard that and the government's position, I can only suggest to you and to anybody who is watching that one can craft words in order to deprive consumers of their rights. One can shape arguments so as to prevent them from moving forward. Indeed one can fabricate facts to support those who are in a position of authority and power against those who would be served by the companies that are mandated to provide a service.

This bill is about protecting consumers against unscrupulous behaviour by service providers who care not a whit about them, and more importantly, it is about reflecting the will of this House.

Keep in mind, and you were here, Mr. Speaker, that on June 12, 2008, by a vote in this House of 249 to 0, there was unanimous acceptance of a motion by the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, which mandated the government to come up with a list of rights for passengers not only on scheduled flights but on chartered flights. The House will recall as well that this concern had been raised as a result of some unscrupulous and rather dismissive behaviour by some operators that kept passengers on a plane, on a tarmac, for 12 hours.

We are trying to work with the airline companies to provide a service that would be acceptable, and indeed I say humane, for all those who pay for the privilege of flying from one place to another. All this business about the weather in Canada and the business model of all of these companies is mere hogwash, because the government members accepted, as part of that 249-to-0 vote, that the government would be obligated to come up with a bill of rights, not legislation.

We were all in the mood to work with the companies, and the government took until September of 2008 to come up with a flights rights bill. It was nothing more than a recounting of all the rights that a consumer has when he or she buys a ticket, and it referred to the websites of the appropriate companies. It was laughable. The only reason the government was not laughed out of this House is that it prorogued Parliament and went to an election.

Subsequent to that election, to his credit, the member for Elmwood—Transcona introduced Bill C-310 in February of 2009. He did it following what that motion indicated, that the will of this House was for the government to come up with a model. It was not that difficult. It was provided by legislation in the European Union and in the United States that said these are the rights a passenger acquires once he or she buys a plane ticket, elementary service considerations. We want those for our Canadian passengers on Canadian routes and on routes that go from Canada to elsewhere.

Every single consumer who embarks upon one of these flights in Europe already has the protection of legislation that has been operative in the European Union for 10 years, by the same companies that came before the committee. No, I am sorry, they did not come before the committee. They went first to the minister's office and said that he could not do this to them. It would destroy their business model. It would make them less competitive. It would increase their costs. They could not operate in Canada because they would not be able to offer service to those remote communities. All the members of his caucus who come from remote areas would never get another flight there again. They begged him to understand what this meant.

The government understands the word “fear” really quickly. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that the government was concerned about security. Notice that he did not say “service”. He said “security”, and then he said “safety”, because now the fault is all about those pilots, who might do something irrational like take off in the middle of a situation that clearly calls out danger. For example, in the last several weeks, a cloud of ash came out of volcanic eruptions in Iceland. Pilots said they could not travel, that they would not put passengers at risk.

The government is going to blame pilots, then an economic model and then consumers for wanting the service they paid for. The airline companies went to the minister's office and asked the government to fight back against this thing because they would come up with something. They said they would come up with some sort of accommodation in their tariff structure. They promised that, as long as this bill would not go forward.

Imagine a private company going to the Government of Canada, thanks to the minister, and saying it does not matter what Parliament comes up with and it does not matter that there is a piece of legislation that could be improved. It said nothing good could come out of this legislation or the process of debating, second reading, going to committee, garnering some amendments, trying to reach a compromise, making accommodation and trying to see the interests of business and how they are coincident with the interests of consumers. The companies came to the government and asked it not to do that, and the government said yes, aye aye, ready.

That being said, this bill still passed second reading and went to committee, where we were looking for amendments. Then the companies, especially Air Transat, said we could not do this. I have to mention names because the parliamentary secretary started to name some. They said we could not do any of this because it would be unfair to the companies. Imagine this, that the companies and the Government of Canada are now in bed together to destroy any chances of service the consumers might have. That is great.

We had an opportunity to present some amendments to address their issues. For example, notwithstanding section 1, the amount of compensation under the section would never exceed the total amount paid by the passenger for the flight in question. That means that, no matter what happened, the company would be off the hook beyond the actual cost of that flight segment.

We also wanted to propose amendments that would keep the companies safe, harmless, in the event that conditions were precipitated by circumstances beyond their control, such as decisions by the airport authority or by NAV Canada, or the weather. It is the same sort of things Europeans abide by. It is the same sort of thing these same companies abide by when they travel to Europe or the United States. But no, they could not have it in Canada because consumers in Canada who are using Canadian product do not deserve the same level of service as consumers in Europe and in the United States from those same Canadian companies.

Imagine the audacity and the insolence of those companies and the subordination of the Government of Canada to those kinds of presumptions. We were deprived of the opportunity to present amendments that would strengthen the bill, because the government accepted lock, stock and barrel the position of the companies that said this bill should not go forward because it was unacceptable to them. The companies said that we could not amend it or make it better and that the only people who could make it better were the companies.

They went on to promise that, if we killed this bill, they would do something. They have not done anything for a year and a half. The Government of Canada is aiding and abetting the total insolence of companies that hold consumers to ransom and then deny them the rights to the service that they should have and that they do enjoy everywhere else those companies operate except in Canada. Shame on the government for accepting such tripe as that which was enunciated a few moments ago by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the companies and against Canadians.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 26th, 2010]

With respect to the evacuation of Lebanese-Canadians from Lebanon during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War: (a) what security checks were applied before evacuation to ensure none were members of Hezbollah; (b) how many of the evacuees returned to Lebanon within six months; and (c) what was the final cost of the evacuation itemized by specific category?

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a serious topic like this one requires a much more thoughtful and methodical approach than what is normally given in debates.

Today, we are looking at a part of Canadian history. Contrary to what some of my colleagues opposite have been saying, this is about Canadian history, and the actions of a Canadian government against some of its own citizens. It is about remembering what we should not do against those who are for the moment much more vulnerable, when we have a position of responsibility.

For this, I want to give a special thanks to my colleagues who just spoke a moment or two ago.

The member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, who spoke in French, was able to recognize all the good, the harmony and the productivity of his fellow citizens, even at a young age.

I wish to thank my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for giving us some of the historical events that related to a very serious part of Canadian history.

When a Canadian government, as we have seen happen at other times, issues the War Measures Act and under its cover determines to move against its own citizens by labelling them as enemy aliens, completely ignoring whatever history they have built up in this country prior to that, is not something that we should again allow to happen.

Regrettably, this happened again more recently. Some will always find a reason to justify it but we in this place should never tolerate it. I acknowledge that we live in a different time and we share different values. I also acknowledge that our society and our government have established a different infrastructure of law and rights than those that existed in the 1940s.

However one of the principles that we have established over the course of the last couple of generations is that governments are prepared and willing, notwithstanding the challenges, to look back, to reflect, to remember and to reconcile.

This is an issue that needs reconciliation. It does not require partisanship. Colleagues opposite have been talking about those people from a different party who did some things at another time and so on. I feel a little pained by that.

On a personal basis my grandfather and my great grandparents came here in the 1880s. My grandfather left this country after 35 years as a Canadian citizen and his children followed him back here immediately after World War II. There was an interruption of about 10 years. Many of us felt ourselves to be Canadian even though we did not live here at the time.

Therefore, when people say that we are being divisive, that my colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel is being divisive, by introducing legislation that calls on the government to remember and calls on all Canadians to reflect on those issues, and those actions that were very un-Canadian by today's standards that says that we have a model for reconciliation, let us reconcile, I feel disturbed by those who would suggest that that is somehow divisive.

I am not here to trumpet my own values or to beat my chest about the culture into which I was very fortunate to be born and which generated some of the values that I bring to this place. Good, bad, or indifferent, they are values that allow me to make a contribution as a Canadian.

Those Canadians who found themselves at the mercy of a government that was determined to vilify them during World War II deserve, at the very least, the thoughtful approaches of today's legislature, a Canadian Parliament that looks back and says, “That was wrong”. We know it was wrong. No charges were ever laid against any of the individuals who were interned.

It matters not that the number might have been 700, 7,000 or whatever the number one wants to find historically accurate. What matters is that not one of them was charged with anything, let alone sedition and betrayal of Canada, the country that was theirs. This is not a bill that came out of the blue. It is a bill that talks about what happened in the past and how governments have taken a look at this. They have simply asked for some of those records to be expunged.

Maybe the people are not alive anymore, but their children and grandchildren are and they live with the stigma of having their family identified as enemy aliens, undesirables and a people whose lives as a result were separated away from the growth of the community, not for just those two to three years where it took place, but for virtually a generation afterwards and more.

They asked for that. They did not ask for money. They asked for a simple recognition and apology. It is fine and maybe it is fine to say that it was a particular party with prime ministers in power who were indifferent to these people. I remember talking to some of those prime ministers. They had a particular view of the way the world should have worked and might have worked, except that all of that changed.

Prime ministers from both parties changed all of the rationale for not doing anything and for not recognizing that they had slighted their own citizens, jailed and detained their own citizens, disrupted family life, interrupted community and severed growth without saying so much as, “We apologize”. Today, we do that. It is done. In the government of which I was a part, there was a negotiation with all the representatives of that particular community. A foundation was put together, a coordination of all of those groups, and asked how we can reconcile. It was their decision on the processes that took place.

Today's government said no. I am sorry about that. I do not want to engage in partisanship, but as I said, I am sorry that the Government of Canada today hides behind two members whose parents fit the profile. The member for Peterborough and the member for Oak Ridges—Markham talk about dividing the Italian community. This is not about the Italian community.

This is about the Government of Canada reconciling itself with the citizens of Canada, citizens it valued and it values today, citizens who asked for nothing but respect and the opportunity to integrate and contribute. They asked for the records to be expunged and for an apology to be made in the House of Commons, because it was the House of Commons where the government of the day sought the authority to detain them.

They asked for an opportunity to build that into the history, not as those who have been vanquished, but as part of the victors of the new Canada so that their tale, their story and their history can be part and parcel of the history that we are building and that we all love. It is the history that we today call Canada and it starts with remembering, reconciling and vowing not to do it again. That is why this bill has to be supported.