Karine Trudel

[Ethics, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing against the Prime Minister taking vacation. However, he promised to be transparent, not only with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, but also with all Canadians.

We expect the Prime Minister to answer questions here in the House. He said in public that “travel back and forth from Nassau to the island happens on the Aga Khan’s private helicopter”. He told Canadians that travel to and from the island “only happens through private means”.

I have a question for the Prime Minister. Why did he mislead Canadians?

[Softwood Lumber, April 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, once again today, the unions, the municipalities, and the industry were in Quebec City to demand that the government show leadership on the softwood lumber file. Less than a month from now, the Americans are expected to start taxing Canadian imports. The cries for help are growing, but they are falling on deaf ears, and the federal government still has no plan to offer loan guarantees.

The government is constantly bragging about all the consulting it is doing with Canadians, but will it listen for once and do something to protect our jobs?

[Privilege, April 6th, 2017]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I got carried away. It is a subject that is creating a lot of emotion right now. Indeed, we see the government's stubbornness in not wanting to discuss the problem in committee, in not wanting to shed light on the matter and in not wanting to find a solution. We do not want it to happen again.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why does the government insist on not talking about the situation in committee, so that we could have all the necessary documents in place to shed some light on the current situation?

[Privilege, April 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to all the exchanges taking place here in the House.

I ran for election, was elected and am proud to represent everyone in my riding of Jonquière. I have the honour of being here, in the House, every day to speak to bills, take part in debates and vote. Those are our main duties in the House, and democracy is important to me.

However, we are finding that our rights are increasingly violated. The right to speak, particularly in committee, and the right of the opposition to take note of what the government is not doing and what it should do is part of our duties, but the right to vote in circumstances such as the budget, where it is important to be present in the House, is of paramount importance.

Therefore, I wonder why the government members, who are absent or do not speak—

[Access to Information, April 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are indefinitely postponing the reforms they had promised to access to information, despite the very comprehensive report released by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada in 2015 and the report by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in 2016. We would like the President of the Treasury Board to explain this sudden flip-flop to parliamentarians.

Can the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics tell the House what business the committee will be working on next?

[Softwood Lumber, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, time is marching on, and we still do not have a plan B in place on the softwood lumber issue. The budget represents a missed opportunity to protect the industry and the workers. By April 24, an additional surtax of up to 30% will be added to Canadian lumber sold in the United States.

The Union des municipalités du Québec is asking for loan guarantees to deal with the economic impact this will have on our industry. We have to act before the industry is brought to its knees and thousands of jobs are lost.

Will the government stop talking and take action?

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the future and the most vulnerable Canadians, but he only touched on the issue of veterans. That is probably because there is not much for them in the most recent budget.

The government really missed an opportunity to implement the recommendations of our veterans, especially with regard to the need to provide them and their families with permanent financial security.

We can find nothing in the budget that gives them financial security. I would like to know how my colleague explains that.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, softwood lumber will be subject to a surtax as of April 24. Since September 2016, we have been asking the government to introduce loan guarantees. We really need to have a plan B to protect our forestry industry. The current situation is serious. The Union des municipalités du Québec asked for loan guarantees, as did Quebec forestry associations and the Government of Quebec. Deals have been signed with Ontario to reinforce the message sent to the Trudeau government.

Just because the word “wood” appears in the budget twice, that does not signify any real willingness on the part of this government. No money, no plan B, and no loan guarantees were included in the budget to protect our softwood lumber industry.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that and what the government intends to do. Is it waiting for the industry to be brought to its knees before it will fix this situation?

[The Budget, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

I would like to make a comment about day care. One of our campaign proposals had to do with day care because there is a desperate need for action in that area. In Quebec, we are lucky to have a good child care system, but elsewhere in Canada, families have to pay a lot of money to send their children to day care.

Right now, the government is offering mere peanuts to meet families' child care needs, and these measures will not take effect for another year. Once again, we can see that the government is planing its budget in preparation for 2019. There are no practical measures for 2017 and 2018.

I would like to draw a parallel with SMEs. My riding of Jonquière is home to many small businesses, and they had high expectations. The Liberals campaigned on the promise to lower the tax rate for SMEs. That should therefore be part of the budget in order to help our small businesses.

[The Budget, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we asked the government several times, here in the House, for its definition of the middle class. We now realize that it refers to those earning $90,000 or more a year.

We have also often heard that the definition of middle class includes those who work hard. Then why is there nothing in budget 2017 for all those working hard? There is nothing at all for the forestry workers. We have been asking the government for several months to protect our forestry industry by providing a loan guarantee program. There are more than 11,000 forestry jobs in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. That represents a lot of work and good jobs. In Quebec, this industry employs 60,000 people. They are mothers and fathers who are putting food on the table.

If the middle class consists of people who work hard, why is there absolutely nothing in this budget for the forestry industry?