Michel Guimond

[Committees of the House, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc will vote in favour of this motion.

[Committees of the House, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois are voting in favour of this motion.

[Committees of the House, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois are in favour of this motion.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber has hit the nail right on the head. Once we Quebeckers become masters of or own destiny, once we stop sending $57 billion in taxes to Ottawa, and once we decide to keep all of our tax dollars in Quebec, thereby preventing the federal government from deciding what our priorities should be, we will have a government that cares about Quebeckers' needs and priorities, regardless of which party leads Quebec's first sovereign government.

Every time the federal government invests money in Quebec, the ministers strut about smugly, make wonderful announcements and sign fat cheques, but we must not forget that the money comes from taxpayers. The people in the gallery who are listening to us think that they are paying too much for the services they receive. That money does not come from the ministers. That is money we send to Ottawa. That is our money.

As Maurice Duplessis said: “Give us back what is ours.”

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about the situation with older workers. One of the things the Bloc Québécois wanted was an assistance program for older workers.

In reality, when a worker aged 55 and up loses his job, he is essentially forced to turn to social assistance. It is not easy for someone over 55 to find a new job. We hear simplistic comments, like the ones from the member for Jonquière—Alma, who told workers in his region affected by the forestry crisis and workers from the CSN that all they had to do was go work in Alberta. The Prime Minister said the exact same thing to unemployed workers in the Maritimes, telling them to go work in Alberta, where there is a labour shortage. But it is not so easy to split up or uproot a family or a community.

We were hoping for an assistance program for older workers, especially since such a program would cost just $60 million for all of Canada, at a time when the government has a $12.6 billion surplus.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would begin by noting that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

As the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this budget, on which the final vote will take place tonight in the House of Commons. I would simply like to reiterate the traditional position developed by the Bloc Québécois on a series of issues.

Our leader said clearly, before the budget was introduced, that if it met the needs, priorities and expectations of Quebeckers, then the Bloc Québécois, in its role as advocate for Quebec in Ottawa, would vote for it, and that otherwise, the Bloc Québécois would vote against the budget, regardless of what position the other two opposition parties took, and whether those members were present or absent for the votes.

That is what we have done. Last night, in the vote on the Liberal amendment, with two exceptions, all of my Bloc Québécois colleagues were present. We will take exactly the same approach tonight. The Bloc Québécois will vote against this budget unless there is a major reversal and there are significant gains for Quebec.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois, speaking for its members in the House, clearly stated the terms on which this budget would be supported. One of the things they called for was significant progress for Quebec on the economy, post-secondary education, housing, social justice, the environment and culture. Our basic premise was that the Conservatives, with the Minister of Finance in the lead, were patting themselves on the back about having a $12.6 billion surplus for this fiscal year.

Our opinion was, and we are still convinced, that the Conservative government has the resources to agree to the reasonable and realistic demands of the Bloc Québécois. However, one of the things this government prefers to do is put all its extra cash towards the debt and that is what will be done with the surplus. It is not that we are opposed to reducing the debt. We have to reduce the debt, but we have to reduce it proportionately. There should be something paid toward reducing the debt, but also some substantial amount put toward improving certain programs and dealing with major crises we are currently experiencing.

In my last few minutes, I would like to come back to two crises, and in particular the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. I would note, by the way, that the riding I represent here in the House of Commons has been hard hit by the forestry crisis. And second, we have to address the entire question of improving employment insurance. In the riding I represent there are a lot of seasonal workers, and under the current scheme they cannot qualify for employment insurance. Here we are in early March, and before operations start back up in May, seasonal workers will have to get through what is called the spring gap, because the number of benefit weeks is insufficient to cover the time until operations resume. That is why the Bloc Québécois called for the employment insurance scheme to be improved.

However, as I said, this government opted to put all its extra cash towards the debt and to continue reducing taxes paid by the big oil companies, which just go on cheating us. I do not know what the gas price situation is in every riding, but I am certain that all my colleagues must be hearing about rising gas prices when they meet their constituents in the grocery store or the corner store or elsewhere.

We are literally being strangled by the big oil companies.

This government also has its approach to military expenditures. I should say in passing that the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to the troops. When we criticize the Conservative government’s military expenditures or its position on Afghanistan, we are immediately told that we are against the troops.

I am sorry, but in the Quebec City area, the Valcartier military base consists mostly of Quebeckers and I want to say again that the Bloc Québécois is very proud of soldiers from Quebec. We can have differences of opinion, though, on the government’s approach to Afghanistan. This is very evident if we just remember that since the Conservative government came to power, it has spent $17 billion on military equipment: tanks, jeeps, aircraft and ships. We know very well that there are a lot of other priorities.

I am running out of time and want to make sure in my remarks on the budget to draw attention to the crisis in manufacturing and especially in forestry. I was very disappointed as well with the billion dollars that the government announced in January and that we passed at the end of the month. Contrary to what the Prime Minister had said, the funds were tied to the budget passing. Finally he realized that it did not make any sense to hold working people hostage by tying the billion dollars to the passage of the budget. Thanks to all the hard work put in by the Bloc members and the premiers of certain provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, the Conservative government finally listened to reason and no longer made the billion dollars conditional on the budget passing.

In five years we have seen 150,000 jobs lost, most of them in the last two years since the Conservatives came to power. This government does not seem aware of the full extent of the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

The most striking evidence of this is the fact that the billion dollars could have been increased in the budget, as the Bloc was demanding, because the method the Conservatives chose to calculate the amounts is unfair to Quebec. It will get only about $217 million for both its manufacturing and forestry sectors even though it accounts for nearly 33% of the forestry industry in Canada.

We feel that it is totally unfair to base these amounts on a formula that treats all the provinces equally. Some provinces are less affected. I cannot believe that Prince Edward Island will get a standard $10 million payment, because its forestry sector is less affected than Quebec’s, which accounts for almost 33% of the forestry industry in Canada.

I am being signalled that my time is running out and just wanted to finish by saying we would have expected improvements to the employment insurance system because it is ineffective and ill suited to seasonal workers who suffer job losses year after year. That is certainly not by choice. I meet these seasonal workers in my office all the time. If it were possible to fish all year long or work in the forest industry or the tourism industry all year long, these people would rather work all year long.

[Ethics, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, evidence is mounting concerning the offer made to Chuck Cadman. His wife, his daughter and his son-in-law have confirmed that Mr. Cadman told them that such an offer was indeed made. The fact that Donna Cadman is the Conservative Party candidate for the Surrey North riding reinforces the credibility of their statements.

Does the Prime Minister realize that extremely incriminating evidence about this affair is accumulating against the Conservatives?

[Ethics, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, during an interview in 2005, the Prime Minister showed that he was aware of discussions between representatives of his party and Chuck Cadman. In response to reporters' questions, he said, and I quote: “I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions.” Later, he clarified that it was “only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.”

In light of that recording, will the Prime Minister admit that an offer was made to buy Mr. Cadman's vote? Is that not against the law?

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in their budget, the Conservatives decided to put all their extra cash towards the debt. They increased military spending, maintained help to western oil companies and promoted nuclear development while entire sectors of Quebec's economy, hit by crises in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, are suffering because of Ottawa's laissez-faire attitude.

Workers have also been abandoned and many organizations were counting on this budget for a little help. It is true the Conservatives established a reserve for the employment insurance fund but they are endorsing pillage of the fund by refusing to return the $54 billion already drawn. This money belongs to workers and employers. The government must return it. Unemployed workers would also like to see the EI system improved.

Quebeckers want a change in direction and major gains for Quebec. Today they are disappointed and this budget does not come anywhere near reflecting their interests and values.

[Political Financing, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative ethics spokesperson has confirmed that his party is keeping its options open so that in the next election it can use the same tactic that was criticized by Elections Canada, whereby the Conservative Party was able to spend $1.2 million in 2006, in violation of the law.

Is this refusal to promise not to cheat again in the next election not proof of the culture of wheeling and dealing of the Conservative Party and the Conservative government?