Joe Volpe

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I welcome the member's interventions. However, on three separate occasions, he said this is a dark chapter in Italian Canadian history. I am sure that what he meant was that this is a dark chapter in Canadian history, because there is not yet a recognition that there was an Italian Canadian history. This all happened in the context of Canadian history, where some members of Italian origin were victims of the War Measures Act.

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 30th, 2010]

What kind of nonsense is that? Everybody here is proud to be a Canadian.

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 30th, 2010]

Oh, oh!

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I spoke in favour of this bill basically on principle, which is something some of the other members opposite may not appreciate. However, we have a circumstance that is purely Canadian. It involves Canadian citizens who were at the time known as British subjects and who were subjected to an indignity and some duress by a Government of Canada. When charges were not laid, nobody's record was expunged. People have asked for a recognition that there was a tort committed against Canadian citizens.

We have put a label on some of those Canadian citizens. They are called Italian Canadians. What this bill really asks for is a recognition that this indignity was put forward and there is a solution proposed, a solution that was negotiated by all the stakeholder organizations in the Italian community, not only on behalf of the people who had suffered those torts, but by extension, on the community that has dedicated itself to building this country.

There is nothing more that is being asked other than simply to recognize those events, to move forward on a negotiated agreement and to implement that negotiated agreement.

[Air Security Tax, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, during prorogation, the Minister of Transport announced that he was increasing the air security tax by a stunning 250% over five years. Troubling?

In 2002 the then transport critic, now Minister of Canadian Heritage, issued a press release entitled, “10 Reasons to Hate the Air Tax”. He said, “This tax grab represents one of the most arrogant, wasteful, and irresponsible public policy decisions ever made by Canada’s government”.

In another release he said, “This is stunning proof of failure to understand basic economics”. And further, “The government should pay for increased air security from general revenue, and should stop fleecing fliers”.

Now that he is at the cabinet table, is the former transport critic content that his cabinet colleagues “fleece fliers” to the tune of $1.5 billion?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, you must be as shocked and surprised as I am to listen to the litany and recounting of information, I guess propaganda would be a more impolite term, of what the government members opposite have been delivering.

Can anyone imagine, in an environment where we have seen all of the institutions of Canada being dismantled one by one, where we have seen the economy fall apart over the course of the last 24 months, where we have seen one person after another lose their jobs, where factories have been closing one by one, where the forestry sector has been collapsing mill by mill, where the mining sector alone has been able to survive and where the fishing and agri-production centres have been collapsing, that the members opposite come forward and shamelessly recount all of the great things they have done?

They seem to have forgotten. The parliamentary secretary is part of a government that has increased the national debt by $100 billion. Every Canadian is now on the hook for $3,000. It has increased the deficit by $53 billion over the course of a year, another $2,000 for every man, woman and child, and he sits here recounting the great glories of his government.

When will he be embarrassed enough to say, “I apologize”?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to make a brief comment about the Speech from the Throne. I see that my Bloc Québécois colleague is trying to give Canadians the impression that certain things are important from a Bloc perspective.

I have a question for him and his party. Do they believe that the government across the floor really understands the aspirations and needs of all Canadians, no matter where they live?

Would they not agree that, because of the incompetence shown by this government so far, it has not presented a throne speech that fulfills anyone's aspirations, as any government should at the beginning of a new session?

Do they agree with the Liberal Party's position that we still need to look at much of what was said in the speech?

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would have agreed with the member on everything he said had he not tried to limit the incompetence of the government just to its economic strategy in Quebec.

He pointed out that the government was absolutely indifferent to an industrial strategy that would help communities throughout Canada. He focused specifically on the forestry industry. There are some 350 communities throughout Canada that rely almost exclusively upon the forestry business, and they are not all in Quebec. They are in northern Ontario, New Brunswick and British Columbia. The government has done nothing about them. It has done nothing about stimulating that business, that sector of our economy such as opening up new markets and doing something that will provide the inhabitants of those communities with a sense of a future in the community, in the language and in a culture they have become accustomed to having define them.

Therefore, I am asking the hon. member, and I am doing it deliberately in English, whether he really feels the government is against all francophones in Quebec, or that maybe it is so ruddy incompetent on industrial strategy that the francophones in Quebec are just a secondary situation as far as the Conservatives are concerned.

[Automotive Industry, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, even on this issue, because over 90 incidents of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles were reported to Transport Canada since this party came to power, yet the minister chose to do nothing. Worse, today he complains that Toyota should have notified Transport Canada sooner, but he knew about the problems. He should have been investigating them proactively. Instead, he makes empty statements about car safety.

Will he rise today and take responsibility for ensuring that unintended acceleration problems will not happen again in Canadian cars?

[Automotive Industry, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the government could not care less about consumers. The government is blaming Toyota for the recent vehicle recall instead of taking action for Canadians. This morning, Toyota pointed a finger at Transport Canada.

Departmental documents show that the minister knew about the problems long before the media became involved.

When will the minister stop saying that he has not seen or heard anything?