Mario Laframboise

[Transportation, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government always says that it is concerned. Yet, Transport Canada did not hesitate to change an important study on aviation safety by removing two recommendations concerning the effect of the biological clock on a pilot.

How can we believe that Transport Canada is worried about aviation safety when it has hidden information and refused to act since 2001?

[Transportation, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board, 12 airplane accidents that led to 28 deaths were caused by extreme fatigue experienced by the pilots, who have to fly ridiculous schedules. Airlines even advise pilots to fudge their logbooks. According to a number of studies, tired pilots act as though they are drunk.

How can the government ignore passenger safety when it has known for years that some companies are breaking the rules?

[Status of Women, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has instituted the Prix Égalité to recognize projects that promote gender equality. The award has several categories, including “models and behaviour that promote equality”, “economic equality”, “work-life balance”, “health”, “violence prevention” and “power and regions”.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to commend and congratulate the Carrefour des femmes du grand Lachute, a community organization whose project “trip de coeur” received an award in the health category.

I would like to point out that the “trip de coeur” project is the result of cooperation between the Carrefour des femmes du grand Lachute, the Centre André-Bourbeau and the Réseau des femmes des Laurentides. Those organizations worked together to create a training manual for people who work with women who have problems with alcohol, prescription drugs and other drugs, suggesting concrete ways these women can regain control of their lives.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi, who is doing an excellent job, because every day he has to fight two Conservative ministers who would have their region understand that, in the end, what the Conservative government is doing is good for the forest. The mills are closing, but it is good for the forest. There you have the Conservative reality.

Listening to the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, I see that my colleague is right. He told us quite candidly that there was $30 billion at EDC for accounts receivable guarantees and other measures for the entire manufacturing sector. Since 2008, $300 million has been invested in the forestry sector. That is what the government has been saying right from the beginning. That is next to nothing. There is $10 billion for the automotive sector, but a paltry $300 million for accounts receivable guarantees for the forestry sector.

That is the Conservative reality: sweep things under the carpet and hope that no one will understand.

Once again, luckily, the region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean has the hon. member for Chicoutimi to tell the people what the real situation is.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I am proud because every day that I rise in this House I am defending the interests of Quebec. If, when defending the interests of Quebec, I can defend the interests of the forestry sectors in the other provinces of Canada, then so much the better, because obviously, all we want is for Quebec to get its fair share.

At present, in the development sector, considering all industries, when we look at the aeronautics industry and the forestry industry, we see that the Conservative government has made different choices. It has decided to assist the automotive sector, which is mainly in Ontario, the aerospace sector, which is mainly in Ontario, and above all, through tax credits, the oil sands industry, which is in western Canada.

The Conservative government is making strategic choices, but it has obviously decided to ignore Quebec. It is always surprising to see the Conservative members from Quebec receive these slaps in the face and never say a word.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member on her passionate speech, which was excellent.

For the benefit of the Conservative members, I will take the time to reread the Bloc Québécois motion that was brought forward today on this opposition day:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government demonstrated in its Speech from the Throne and its Budget that federalism does not fulfill the goals and requirements of Quebec, as there were no commitments to allocate $2.2 billion to Quebec for harmonizing the QST and GST, to provide the forestry industry with an assistance plan equivalent to that given to the automobile industry, to offer stimulus measures to the aeronautics industry, to meet Quebeckers’ expectations regarding the environment, and to enhance programs to assist the less fortunate in Quebec.

This motion says it all regarding Quebec's presence in this federation. I am always astounded by the position taken by Conservatives, especially Conservative members from Quebec, when it comes to protecting the interests of our fellow citizens. The $2.2 billion for harmonizing the QST with the GST is not something new. The dispute has been going on for 16 years between the Quebec and Canadian governments. Quebec was the first province to harmonize its taxes. In recent months, we have seen piecemeal agreements signed with other Canadian provinces that had not harmonized their taxes, as Quebec had already done. So Quebec will probably be the very last to sign such an agreement, if it manages to reach an understanding with the federal government on the matter.

The government can try to convince us this is a good budget, but the fact remains that all parties at the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously requested that the government harmonize this tax and give the Quebec government $2.2 billion in compensation. Ontario got nearly $4 billion, and other equivalent amounts were given to other Canadian provinces. There are always questions asked, and, for us, the question is simple. What is Quebec doing in Canada? The matter of compensation for harmonization is a perfect example.

The forestry industry had been going to very difficult times for at least three years before the current crisis. In 2006 or 2007, the forestry sector began to experience a crisis. Year after year, week after week, month after month, the Bloc Québécois asked the government to intervene. The government of course always said that it was the softwood lumber agreement that was behind the sector's troubles. But that issue was settled. We came to an agreement with the Americans on softwood lumber, but the forestry companies were still having difficulties. So that was the reality.

There was a problem in the automotive sector, and the government immediately found funds to help the industry—$10 billion—because it is based in Ontario. I take note of the items in the current budget. Over the past two years—I am referring to the 2009-10 and 2010-11 budgets—$9.7 billion has been invested in the automotive industry, whereas $170 million has been invested in the forestry sector. And yet the forest industry is a very important industry in Quebec, more so than in other Canadian provinces. However, there are no automobile manufacturing plants in Quebec anymore. The last one, the General Motors plant in Sainte-Thérèse, Boisbriand, close to my riding, closed its doors in the 2000s.

Once again, this is a measure that targeted Ontario. When the time comes to help the forest industry in Quebec, the government always comes up with excuses. Earlier, the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, explained that the forestry sector problem was a problem related to marketing and sales.

What was the problem with the automotive industry? The two largest American companies were unable to sell their vehicles. They were beaten out by their competitors, and the government had to come to the rescue of the automotive industry.

The government did not want to do the same thing for the forestry sector, claiming that the WTO would not accept loan guarantees. We advocated for this industry in the House; that debate has already been held. The Conservatives decided to deal with loan guarantees by saying that they would interfere with WTO agreements. They challenged what their own lawyers said as they were defending these measures before the London tribunal. The objective of the Conservatives was to torpedo the negotiations and ensure that the forestry sector would receive as little assistance as possible.

This reflects the Conservative philosophy, which is based on laissez-faire. Business is left to its own devices, and inevitably the biggest business is the one that will manage to survive because of the government's lack of intervention.

Why did it not do the same thing for the automotive sector? It is not the same, because there were plants in Ontario. It is OK to close forestry plants in Quebec regions. It is not serious, because there will always be one surviving in Canada. It may not be in Quebec, but somewhere else in Canada. So much the better for the Canadian federation but too bad for Quebec. That is the way it is.

The latest budget announced investment in the aerospace sector, but nothing for the aeronautics industry. Seventy per cent of the aerospace industry is in Ontario, while 52%, 53% or 54%--in recent months the government has prevaricated on the size of the industry in Quebec—of the aeronautics industry is in Quebec. The government simply decided to do nothing for the aeronautics sector. In order to compete with foreign firms, this sector would need a real development policy.

All the firms in other countries receive help from their government, but Canada has decided not to support the aeronautics sector, or, at least, to not announce any development plan. They are leaving it on its own.

The government decided to help the aerospace industry, because 70% of the plants in this sector are in Ontario, and the automobile industry because all of its plants are in Ontario. As to the aeronautics industry, they let it fend for itself.

The situation is the same with the environment. Quebec is the only province that will be capable of achieving the objectives of the Kyoto accord. And the financial advantages? There is talk now of the environmental economy, of a green economy.

If a business could achieve the Kyoto objectives, that is, to produce fewer emissions than in 1990, it could sell credits on an international carbon exchange. In Canada, it was decided that there would be no carbon exchange because the polluting industries would have to buy the rights to pollute from industries saving energy and meeting the objectives.

If Quebec were a country, it could participate in the international carbon exchange. Our paper mills and aluminum plants, which have made a huge effort to reduce their emissions with reference to 1990, the reference year in the Kyoto Accord, could already be selling carbon credits on the foreign market and on the European carbon exchange, which would bring them huge amounts of money.

Once again, because Quebec is within Canada, it has to please the polluting and dirty oil industry of Alberta, which hinders the development of an environmental economy and prevents Quebec from participating in the carbon exchange. In Canadian fetters, Quebec is held back in its development.

The terrible part is that the Conservative members from Quebec support these policies, which work against Quebec.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am smiling because the hon. member is telling us that EDC has invested $300 million in loans while his colleague, the hon. member from Roberval, says that the investment in the forestry sector is $30 billion any time he sets foot in Quebec. The hon. member has done his research and the investments are $300 million, it is true. But we know that they are loan guarantees mainly in order to protect the receivables of exporters. It is happening in all kinds of businesses. The $30 billion amount is for all export industries. Guarantees are provided.

I will come back to those remarks from the perspective of the Bloc Québécois. In the Conservative Party, they do not know what the right hand is doing and what the left hand thinks of the right hand, or what the head in charge is thinking. The Minister of Finance actually congratulated us because, budget after budget, we are the only party to put proposals before the government. For example, we are not just asking for the $2.2 billion for sales tax harmonization in Quebec that have been owed to us for more than 16 years now. We also suggest ways of getting the money back, such as $4.8 billion from a surtax on incomes of $150,000 and more, and $3 billion from the elimination of tax havens. We provide examples. I would like the hon. member to at least show some appreciation for the work that the Bloc Québécois has done in the House.

[Aerospace Industry, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget does not meet Quebec's needs. The aerospace industry is a critical component of Quebec's economy, but it is receiving no targeted assistance despite soft sales and countless layoffs in the Montreal region.

The industry—especially its small and medium-sized businesses—needs targeted measures to support research, but the Conservative government is refusing to do anything.

Why is the government refusing to implement a policy to support the aerospace industry and breathe new life into the sector?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but smile every time a Conservative member stands in the House to tell us all about how much money the Conservatives have saved. They may have frozen ministers' and members' budgets, but they increased the budget for the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office by 21% so that he could control all of his ministers.

Speaking of fighting the deficit, just today, Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, said that the deficit will be $20 billion more than the Conservative government expected. We know about outrageous Public Works and Government Services Canada expenses, such as $1,000 doorbells and $5,000 lights. The way the Conservatives spend public money reminds me of the time when Brian Mulroney was their leader. Back then, Canada's deficit ballooned from $160 billion to $500 billion. That is how the Conservatives operate.

I would like the member to explain why the Conservatives are once again running up the deficit, just as Mulroney did in his day.

[The Budget, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the budget, which I will refer to, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

At the end of the year, once the 2009 audits are complete, Canadians will have a record deficit somewhere in the neighbourhood of $53 billion, according to the numbers in the budget.

This is a record deficit for which the Conservatives can take much of the credit. Their election promise to reduce the GST cost $14 billion per year. Their decision was political. The Conservatives' last GST cut, which cost $7 billion, came just a few months before the crisis, even though they were told, in the middle of the election campaign, that the crisis was coming. They refused to acknowledge that the crisis and the recession were around the corner.

To those who think that the Conservatives are good managers, this is how my colleague from Manicouagan described Brian Mulroney's Conservative government: a government that knows how to grow a deficit. The current government is yet another typical Conservative government that knows how to run up a deficit.

The Bloc Québécois is the only party in the House that proposed measures to the government. Our measures focused on finding revenue, not on investment. The Bloc Québécois is responsible. When it proposes spending, it also tells the government where to find the money.

Since the resumption of proceedings, we have pointed out a number of times in this House that one way to find money is to begin by eliminating access to tax havens. During today's question period, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the finance critic stated clearly that the banks had made huge profits of over $5 billion over the past three months. We have the figures, because the law requires the banks to report in their financial statements the amounts they save in taxes when they transfer funds to or invest in tax havens. In the banking sector alone, these savings amount to some $2.3 billion.

The banks are stating openly that they are making economies of scale. The Minister of Finance even told us today that the banks are the best in the world. That is not hard to understand—they do not pay taxes.

The banks do not contribute to society. They are allowed to invest in tax havens and thus save taxes to the detriment of society as a whole. What is terrible is the way the Conservatives repeatedly encourage the rich, so as to better crush and stifle the poor.

The situation is the same for the $3.2 billion in tax credits for the oil companies. It was quite something to hear the parliamentary secretary tell us that the government was creating jobs. What he does not see is that the tax credits increase the profits of the oil companies. They do not have a quarterly deficit. They pay their shareholders dividends. Their shareholders make profits. This is because the government gives the oil companies $3.2 billion in tax credits. We have suggested to the government that it recover this money.

The government could recover $3 billion as well by eliminating access to tax havens. The Bloc has proposed a surtax on society's top wage earners, 2% on those who earn $150,000 and over and 3% on those who earn $250,000 and over. This measure would have meant the recovery of $4.8 billion. Those who come out furthest ahead in a time of crisis should contribute to the overall spending to help society's disadvantaged.

We suggested to the government that it review its military spending policy so as to recover $1 billion. It chose to slash $1 billion in a review of military spending policy, a suggestion the Bloc had made.

We asked it as well to save $1.5 billion by putting an immediate end to the mission in Afghanistan. In addition, we suggested it reduce operational spending by $5.4 billion.

Like me, my colleagues no doubt saw the excesses revealed by the media this morning. When $1,000 is spent to change a doorbell and $5,000 on replacing six lights, significant amounts, in my opinion, can be recovered. The Bloc Québécois suggested that $5.4 billion be recovered from the government's operating expenditures. We showed the government how to save $18.9 billion. It chose simply to close its eyes, except with regard to the billion dollars earmarked for military spending. These savings would have meant that Quebeckers could have been given what they were requesting.

According to the figures appearing on page 259 of the budget, despite the deficit of $53 billion in 2009-10, $9.718 billion was paid out to the automotive industry and $62 million to the forestry sector.

Seen from the standpoint of a Quebecker, it is quite clear that, despite the government's accumulated deficit, much of the money was not invested in Quebec. We have always criticized the Conservative government on this spiteful way to get Quebeckers to pay. We have seen it all in the pages of this budget.

The decision to help the nuclear industry create energy—to produce electricity from nuclear power—will give rise to a new competitor for Hydro-Québec. That is the reality.

The government has decided to help the nuclear industry in order to create, with government money, a new competitor for Hydro-Québec. Quebeckers pay 23% of the bill.

The same can be said about the decision to invest $10 billion in the automotive sector, but only $62 million in the forestry sector. What this means is that 23% of Quebeckers' money is invested in the automotive industry. I would like to point out that automakers closed all their plants in Quebec. That is the reality. There was no compensation in this budget. In 2010, no additional investment is being made in the forestry sector to compensate for investments. However, $108 million will be invested in the forestry sector, bringing the total for 2009 and 2010 to $170 million compared to $9.7 billion for the automotive sector. There has been no compensation for the aerospace sector either.

What happened in the infrastructure sector is even worse. Most mayors of Quebec cities asked the government to extend the March 31 deadline for completion of work because elections were held in Quebec. It was the only Canadian province that held elections in 2009. In the midst of the Conservative government's infrastructure program, the cities asked that the deadline be extended because elections had delayed work by three to six months, depending on changes in municipal councils. Once again, the minister decided to ignore them.

That is just like the Conservative Party, to decide to make Quebec pay for something it did not do.