Jonathan Tremblay

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we talked about the 50 or so amendments that were systematically rejected. We talked about the fact that the agreements were reached over 20 years ago and that successive governments could have done something long before now, but they did nothing. We also talked about the companies that represent first nations and that would have liked to have more time to propose other amendments to improve this bill. This work should have been done 20 years ago. Now it is being done quickly, without listening to people.

I wonder what my colleague's thoughts are on this, but I think it is perhaps time to see a new government.

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the land claim agreements were reached in the early 1990s.

Can my colleague enlighten me? Why was this not done immediately after those agreements? Why did we have to wait over 20 years for the government to address this?

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, these are not new issues. Something could have been done as early as 1990, but we have seen nothing until now. Only the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives have been in government since 1990. Now the Conservatives are in power, and nothing was done until today.

I think this comes a little late. This needs to be done, and it needs to be done fast.

What does my colleague think of the fact that this issue has been dragging on for so long and no one has done anything until now?

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Compton—Stanstead just spoke about the rejected amendments.

People asked for more time so that they could make certain amendments in order to improve the bill. That is a good thing.

I would like my colleague to tell us what she thinks about the idea of giving certain groups more time so that they can study the bill some more and have some input on the amendments.

[Employment Insurance, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. For months, workers, employers and representatives of my region have been trying to meet with the minster to get her to listen to reason. The gutting of the EI program will unfairly punish seasonal workers.

It will also deprive industries of valuable expertise. The costs associated with training and lost productivity will be enormous. People in my riding think that the Conservatives want to empty the regions.

After months of pressure, will the minister finally meet with representatives from a number of the affected regions? Will she listen to them and work to find solutions to the problems that they raise?

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to hear the Liberals passing the buck earlier, saying that they had not done anything. In 2009, it was suggested that a bill like this be introduced every year. The first legislative amendments proposed in such a bill date back to 1998, almost 15 years.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. What was the government's attitude towards our country's administration during those years?

[Employment Insurance, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, unemployed people must have access to employment insurance.

The Conservatives are not content to lay waste to employment insurance; they are also leading the charge against workers in seasonal industries. The Service Canada guidelines force these workers to accept any kind of job under any conditions, even if that means they must abandon their seasonal employment. If they refuse, their benefits are cut off. We may be facing regional shortages of specialized workers.

Will the minister finally admit that her reform is an absolute disaster, both for the workers and for our regional economies?

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it tells me that up to now we have been governed by poor administrators who have created uncertainty in the economic sector and among the general public. If we suddenly bring in tons of amendments to the statutes that affect the economy, the transition will be much more difficult than if a few laws were changed each year.

Thus, we have some poor administrators and they must realize that there are important things to be done, and that a bill like this should be introduced at regular intervals, and not once a decade.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will always be in favour of reducing the tax burden on Canadians. Still, we are talking here about all Canadians. It is not true that the NDP would decrease taxes on large corporations without requiring that they reinvest in their communities, as the Conservatives have done.

We can all agree that tax reductions were provided to large corporations without any conditions. They simply put the money in their banks. That was money belonging to the Canadian people, which has not been redistributed throughout the society and which is not making any contribution at all to the economy. That is not good economic management.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the actual scope of such a bill is important because legislation must be amended. The bill we have before us now is Bill C-48.

However, there is a problem because while this bill is being debated, other amendments that need to be passed pile up. This bill already contains a huge number of amendments. So, the process needs to be undertaken regularly. It is good for our economy and will combat tax avoidance. It is necessary and, in the future, it must be done every year.