Joe Volpe

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse is always animated when he speaks in this House. He is obviously a federalist, and obviously a Quebecker, but above all, he is a Conservative. That is clear in the way he is trying to steal all the credit for the nation building that happened before he was around.

When he said that the Conservative Party had made a massive transfer to Quebec, that was not the whole truth. I would like to take a minute to explain to him what happened before he was elected to this House. Five years ago, before this Conservative government, the Liberals had already announced, approved and initiated an annual transfer of $1 billion for public health to Quebec for the following 10 years. Let us think about that for a moment. At the same time, the Liberals gave Quebec an additional $2 billion in equalization payments. That is an extra $3 billion. Where are the Conservatives getting their numbers from?

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to put any words in anyone's mouth, but once again, I listened to what was said. Perhaps my colleague from across the floor sensed and heard the same thing. The Bloc Québécois wants to maintain its position within Canada and here in the House of Commons to engage in nation building. The goal of all the members of the House is to ensure that this nation building happens despite the Conservatives' efforts to abandon Quebec and Quebeckers.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to be surprised. The speech by the member from Trois-Rivières leads me to believe that there is a strong bond with Canada because Quebec can have no weight unless there is a vibrant Canada. I congratulate her for she has spoken eloquently about the future of Canada. She wants Quebec to have some weight in the existing and future Canada, which will have a certain vibrancy.

I have to admit that I also heard in her speech a complaint, that I believe is legitimate, about the fact that the Conservatives have abandoned a future for Canada that includes Quebec. That comes across in her speech, and I hear her speaking on behalf of the citizens of Quebec. She calls them a nation, but she says that they want their place in Canada and the possibility of continuing to participate in the future of Canada. The Conservatives want nothing to do with that. They do not wish to keep Quebec in Canada. They have abandoned Quebeckers and the province of Quebec.

Is that not how I should interpret this speech?

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

There is something ironic about her presentation and the Conservatives' bill. I agree that the Conservatives did not consider all the implications of this bill. I find the position of the hon. member a bit surprising, and I would like to hear her comments on the following.

If they are concerned only with the interests of a province outside Canada, who will take care of the interests of Canadians living in that province within Canada? I agree that the future of all Canadians does not matter to the Conservatives. To my mind, everyone in Canada is a Canadian. As for the hon. member and her caucus, who seek the sovereignty or separation of Canadians living in Quebec, why does it matter if the Conservatives introduce a policy that does not, in a sense, reflect the interests of Canada?

Forgive me if my French does not lead the hon. member....

[Proactive Enforcement and Defect Accountability Legislation (PEDAL) Act, April 14th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-511, An Act respecting the reporting of motor vehicle information and to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (improving public safety).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that would strengthen the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This bill comes in direct response to the legislative shortcomings resulting in the consequences from the Toyota recalls.

The bill, called the proactive enforcement and defect accountability legislation, PEDAL act, would mandate four major changes to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. First, to clarify definition of safety-related defect; second, to provide new powers to the minister to initiate a recall of vehicles and equipment if the minister makes a preliminary determination that a vehicle or equipment contains safety-related defects; third, to initiate an early warning detection system that requires manufacturers to provide the minister with quarterly reports containing domestic and foreign data related to potential safety-related defects; and fourth, compel the installation of brake override systems on vehicles that use electronic throttle controls.

Canadian drivers are depending on us to ensure that their government has the tools and legislative authority needed to protect them.

As public safety is a non-partisan issue, I look forward to working with all members of the House from all parties on getting this bill passed, along with my colleague who was so good to second my bill, the member for Cardigan.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the hon. member has noted, despite the great number of members from the government side present in the House over the course of the last couple of days, that not one of them has had the temerity to speak in favour of their own bill; 880 pages of no vision, 880 pages of imposition of taxes. We know there are going to be lots of taxes, because the Conservatives have to make up for having squandered, yes, I used the word “squandered”, the absolute legacy of surpluses they had, the lowering of the national debt, and now they have to make up for a $53 billion deficit.

Through these 880 pages, they are going to charge Canadians $60.2 million per page. Think about that, because the hon. member has referred to it as a Trojan Horse and there was disaster in Troy as a result of that Trojan Horse. The government side is too shamefaced to speak to a bill it presented to the public of Canada for consideration, the 880 pages of taxation. Squandering is their history and taxation is their future.

I wonder whether the member would agree that is their Trojan Horse.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know that my colleague was talking about gaspillage. As I said earlier on, this is a government that is determined to be known as a squander and tax punitive government.

Do members know that every one of these 880 pages in Bill C-9 is costing every Canadian taxpayer $60.2 million a page? And do members know what they are getting for it? They are going to get something that they did not expect: $1.5 billion in additional taxation for security. At the same time, the government is going to withdraw services. It is going to withdraw police services from airports, so that it can pick up another $16 million.

I wonder what my colleague has to say about that.

[Business of the House, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, members in this place often get carried away with the intensity of debate, but I know that my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville probably wanted to put a cap on everything that she said by saying that this is a government of squandering and spending and tax--

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague's intervention and the very clear and eloquent fashion in which she pointed out some of the deficiencies of the bill. It goes beyond sneaky that the government would place its agenda in a bill that is 880 pages long and not its vision, as my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville has rightly pointed out.

There is no vision, no sense of purpose and no sense of direction. There is no purpose to government in that 880 page document. It is a cut and slash, privatize, eliminate government from the life of Canadians type of document. There is very little there that one could say represents a step toward the future or a step toward a more expansive Canada, one where citizens and communities take care of each other and develop a format or procedure whereby individuals and government interact. There is none of that at all.

However, we are immediately going to have government members saying that we voted for this, that it is in the budget, that it is in the book. Remember that humourous little skit “It's in the book? I do not know whether it can tell us where it sees a vision of Canada in those 880 pages. What line would it refer to? Where in that book do we find protection for Canadian jobs, for stimulating Canadian jobs and for providing a future for Canadians?

Maybe my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville can tell us whether that is empty rhetoric and garbage in that 880 pages or whether it is a document worthy of any consideration.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member has focused on one very important issue, which is that the budget does not address a vision of where Canadians see themselves going, both domestically and internationally. I am sure that he, like all other members of Parliament, have been receiving information, postcards, lobbying and pressure from all kinds of groups like the Group for Development and Peace and their Life Before Profit campaign.

They ask one simple thing. They ask the Government of Canada to demonstrate that it has a vision of responsibility throughout the world. Since we will be hosting the G8 and G20, they are asking, and I wonder if the member for Ottawa Centre would be in agreement, that we put pressure on the government, because it seems to be susceptible to very little else, to increase support for small scale, sustainable agriculture in the global south.

Mr. Speaker, you come from an agricultural community, and agricultural policies should be and ought to be guided by the principles of food sovereignty. Hunger and poverty can be reduced by giving priority to small scale farmers, to local production for local markets and other needs for the future.

The member will know that current agricultural policies support industrial agriculture and threaten food sovereignty of people everywhere--