House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 18% of the vote.
The Budget March 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, we have here another deficit budget. The size of this deficit is record-setting. The Conservatives often say that they have cut taxes and this and that, but there are a lot of hidden taxes they use to find money elsewhere.
Does the Liberal Party agree with me that taking money from the employment insurance fund to pay down deficits elsewhere is a hidden tax?
The Budget March 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservative government does not really like to say it too loudly, but it is following the example of the Liberals and learning a lot from them. It is cutting transfers in health, old age security, employment insurance, public safety and infrastructure. All that means that the provinces ultimately end up footing the bill. In addition to fobbing the bill off on the provinces, the government is unable to create a balanced budget.
Is this government capable of running a country?
The Budget March 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on what a Conservative member just said.
The few positive aspects of this budget are not worth much, given all that is being done and, especially, all that is not being done. There should be no expectation that we will strongly support this budget.
Since 2008, the government, which is supposed to be a very good administrator, has run a deficit. When we look at each budget, we can see that the Conservatives could very well have come up with a balanced budget, but that has not been the case.
Is this the government's strategy, so that it can say, in the next election, that it balanced the budget and that it is the best? However, if its predictions prove correct, there will be more than $175 billion in additional deficit over the accumulated debt.
The Budget March 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, since 2006, the Conservative government has run up a debt of $177 billion. Is that what it calls the sound management of public money?
The Budget March 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member about infrastructure investment. We heard the Conservative government brag about the fact that it is increasing infrastructure spending. The truth is that it is investing money over 10 years instead of seven, which represents roughly the same amount per year. According to some calculations, over this 10-year period, there may even be $1 billion less in infrastructure spending.
Personally, I believe that it is important to give Canadians the truth. To stimulate the economy, does it make more sense to reduce infrastructure spending, or provide about the same amount for infrastructure as before?
The Budget March 21st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, in two hours, the Minister of Finance will table his budget. People in Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord are worried. They are already dealing with fallout from changes to the employment insurance program. They hope that the government will finally wake up and realize that it has to continue investing in the economy if it does not want to sabotage and depopulate our regions.
The government must not balance the budget at the expense of our economy, our regions, our workers and our families. It must not balance the budget by cutting provincial transfers.
Canada is a huge country, with different job market realities from one region to the next. The provinces are well aware of these realities, and that is why they are in the best position to take charge of worker training.
The government has an opportunity to listen to what the people are saying. Where I come from, people want the government to invest in infrastructure and job creation. They want government measures that will spur economic recovery, not measures that interfere with what the provinces do best.
Business of Supply March 20th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, science is non-partisan.
I know that the Conservative government has cut “non-partisan” from its vocabulary, but if we want to get things done in Ottawa, we need impact studies so that we can know whether something will have a positive or negative impact, or both. This does not apply only to basic science.
For example, the minister responsible for employment insurance herself admitted that she had not done any impact studies on her EI reform. Was that because she was afraid of what those studies would show? I have to wonder.
Why does the government not conduct studies when it does things here in the House?
Northern Jobs and Growth Act March 4th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, my colleague will have an opportunity to finish his remarks.
We proposed 50 amendments, and they were all rejected by the government. This bill is years in the making, and it is urgent that we pass it today. There are people in the north who know what the reality is, who are worried, who want their message to be heard and who want amendments to the bill.
Is my colleague also concerned about the lack of time? Will the government respect our parliamentary system?
Northern Jobs and Growth Act March 4th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, how interesting that the debate has come around to economic development. My question is about sustainable development.
Government members talk about Canada's prosperity, economic development and so on, but does this document contain a genuine vision for sustainable development?
There are two aspects to sustainable development. First, there is the environment, because permafrost and other factors call for different construction techniques in the north than elsewhere. Second, social factors and the people who live in the north are also very important.
Can my colleague comment on these aspects?
Northern Jobs and Growth Act March 4th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague. I always enjoy her passionate speeches.
Throughout the day today, we have been talking about this government's poor use of the parliamentary system.
Not one of the 50 proposed amendments was accepted. The government systematically rejected them all. It could have introduced this bill long ago, but it did not. It introduced it now.
The various organizations and companies in the north are being given no time. They want to put forward amendments, convey their message and say what changes they would like to see in this bill.
I personally feel it demonstrates a lack of respect for our democracy. Could my colleague talk a bit more about that?