Nicolas Dufour

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the hon. member's question.

The issue of pensions is an international problem. Unfortunately, it is not exclusive to Canada. It has also arisen because of the predominant mentality of the time. First, life expectancy was much lower and pensions were funded accordingly. No one really thought that people would live to be so old and retire so young. The issue of age would create a serious change, but the problem lies in the fact that there is a shortage of money. This has been an astronomical actuarial problem. The way in which pension funds are managed will seriously need to be rethought.

I think it is a shame that instead of taking action, the Minister of Finance simply offloaded the problem onto the provinces and dithered. He was no longer sure what to do and finally he decided to launch consultations even though he has the means to take real action to help our seniors.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

My predecessor and friend, Raymond Gravel, former member for Repentigny, introduced a bill in this House with regard to the guaranteed income supplement. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated, mainly because the Conservatives voted against it. This bill asked for very little when you think about how much seniors, as taxpayers, have done for the Quebec nation as well as Canada. We asked for an additional $110 a month. Considering how much the federal government spends in certain areas, especially the astronomical amounts allotted for military spending, maybe we should have redirected some of this money to those who are most worthy of it, to those who built this country. That would have been much fairer.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

This budget was very disappointing. That is one of the main reasons all opposition parties will vote against it.

Unfortunately, as usual, the Liberals will manipulate the vote to ensure that the government does not fall and that an election is not called. The government will continue going from bad to worse, in light of everything going on right now. With their outdated thinking, the Conservatives will continue governing in their own special way.

I could talk about what the bill, over 800 pages long, does contain, but instead I will talk about what is missing. The budget does not contain compensation for Quebec for post-secondary education. In 1994 and 1995, the Liberal government, under the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, cut post-secondary education transfers to balance the federal budget.

Once again, we saw the Liberal government's open-minded approach and the wonderful open federalism that all federalist parties have been practising in the House since the beginning of the Constitution. There is a serious lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions and the government refuses to give money back to the provinces so they can overcome the challenges they face. As a result, the provinces have been sinking deeper and deeper into debt for the past 20 years. All this so that the government can have it easy and enjoy surpluses and spend them on areas of provincial jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec. We have seen this on many issues, such as the sponsorship scandal, when we clearly saw the federal government manipulating things to promote and spout propaganda about its federalism.

Post-secondary education transfers were cut in 1994 and 1995, which created a fiscal imbalance of over $800 million for the Quebec nation. Because of that deficit, Quebec had to make some crucial, unpopular choices in order to be able to balance its education budget.

I find it extremely sad that the Conservative government has recognized the nation of Quebec, but has not allowed it to thrive. If you are going to recognize a nation you must give it the means to thrive mainly by promoting education and through massive investment. Young people need to be encouraged to get an education, do research and become better citizens in order for the nation to thrive. On one hand, the government recognizes the nation of Quebec, but on the other hand it is not giving that nation the means to thrive, educate itself and grow.

The government has created a deficit of more than $800 million since 1994-95. I find it extremely sad that the Conservative government has not tried to correct the problem that the Liberals created at the time. There is nothing in the budget to help the nation of Quebec in terms of education. There is nothing about giving us what we are owed. We did not steal that money. We gave it to the federal government in taxes.

What did the federal government do? It invested the money in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and we were not given the right to opt out with full compensation. The federal government invests in areas of its own interest and not in areas that are viable for the nation of Quebec.

The nation of Quebec has therefore had to make extremely difficult choices in its education budget. Again, the problem has been offloaded to someone else. Again, the nation of Quebec ends up empty handed and having to resolve major problems. There is absolutely no help coming from the federal government.

That is one of the reasons my colleague from Hochelaga introduced a bill in the House to limit the federal government's power to spend in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. When it comes time to vote, we will see where the Liberals and Conservatives stand.

How can the Conservative members from Quebec tell the people of Quebec that they practice an open federalism and recognize the Quebec nation, and that they are helping the Quebec government with its dreams and ambitions, when the government is taking away everything of interest to Quebec and cannot even give back what it owes to Quebec?

I find that very sad. Once again, it proves that federalism is not a viable option for the Quebec nation. This is compelling evidence that Quebec sovereignty is and will always be the best alternative to federalism. What is even more unfortunate is that the Liberals will probably do the same thing as our Conservative colleagues and vote against the bill on spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction introduced by my colleague for Hochelaga.

The Liberals have shown on a number of occasions that they do not intend to stop federal spending. On the contrary, the government will put provinces into debt and cut transfer payments in order to present a positive balance sheet to the world. That is very unfortunate because our fellow citizens pay taxes and will be impoverished.

The Conservatives will probably vote against the bill by the member for Hochelaga even though it fulfils an election promise they made in 2006. Members will recall the campaign speech given by the Prime Minister when he came to Quebec to explain that not only would he recognize the Quebec nation, but that his open federalism was completely different than the dominating federalism of the Liberals.

That is more proof of the Conservative Party's deceit. It promises one thing and then, when the time comes to take action and to vote in the House, it does the exact opposite of what it promised.

I will be very interested in seeing how the Conservative members from Quebec can defend the Conservative Party and its open federalism when their Prime Minister, in this budget, has broken his own promises once again.

[Daffodil Month, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, April is the month that brings good weather, but it is also the month when we are reminded that we must never give up in our fight against cancer.

Daffodil Month begins today, and that is why I invite everyone to support the volunteers who will be spending the coming month raising money and making their community aware of the fight against this terrible disease, which affects two in five people.

The money raised by the sale of daffodils, which symbolize hope and courage, will be used to fund research projects, distribute information about cancer and provide support for people who have been or will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime.

I would also like to invite all my colleagues to wear a daffodil for the month of April to show their support for all those touched by cancer.

[Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is a pivotal moment in the debate on Bill C-444, an extremely important time, because now the time has come to decide whether or not to send the bill to committee.

I listened to my colleagues' comments, from both the Conservatives and the Liberals. They had two major concerns about a vote on the bill. I will try one last time to convince them.

However, before anything else, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert from the bottom of my heart for her excellent work as culture critic for the Bloc Québécois. She has done an excellent job and is always professional.

One of the first concerns brought up by the Liberals was the issue of where the bill came from. It all started with Louis-Alexandre Taschereau in 1929, who was the Liberal Premier of Quebec at the time. The letter from Ms. St-Pierre to the Conservatives' Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages shows this. Historically, the Government of Quebec has always insisted that it should play a role in broadcasting and telecommunications. In 1929, it was the first government to legislate the broadcasting sector, given the need to safeguard Quebec culture and identity.

The Government of Quebec believes that the federal government must not act alone when it comes to broadcasting and telecommunications, and it would like to see the creation of concrete input mechanisms for the development and definition of federal policies, particularly concerning decisions related to activities that primarily affect Quebec and concerning content.

A Liberal minister is calling for the creation of a CQRT. Robert Bourassa called for that as well, as did Liza Frulla. We see that the Liberals have every reason to support their provincial colleagues and even their former colleague, Liza Frulla who, at the time, was herself a minister under the federal Liberal government.

We see that it would be in the Liberals best interest to continue in the logic they are trying to apply. Of course, knowing Liberal wisdom, when it comes time to vote in the House, there may be a different outcome.

The second concern was expressed by the Conservatives. They did not understand the importance of the CQRT and said it could create new regulations, a new organization and new problems. There would not be much more administration and bureaucracy; the intent is to decentralize. The Conservatives, the right-wing ideologues, should actually be in agreement with the idea of decentralization. Is it not logical that, by allowing the provinces to legislate in this area and to manage their own broadcasting commissions, there would be less administration and bureaucracy, which is in keeping with right-wing thinking?

The Conservatives would thus be very interested in voting for this bill for this as well as another reason. They recognized the Quebec nation in the House and it was voted on. Would passing this bill not be a fantastic tool and would it not give substance to the recognition of the Quebec nation? Instead of being just window dressing, this recognition would have real benefits for Quebec.

Those are two very good arguments directed at the Conservatives. As for the Liberals, they should follow in the footsteps of such colleagues as Ms. Frulla.

[Post-secondary Education, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister put in the wrong tape.

In addition to depriving Quebec of post-secondary education transfers and cutting some research programs, the government has now decided to cut post-doctoral fellowships, which will now be taxable, thus drastically reducing the meagre income of these students. This decision runs the risk of creating a brain drain as well as discouraging leading-edge research.

Why does the government have such a lack of vision when it comes to research?

[Post-secondary Education, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the Conservative government refusing to compensate Quebec for harmonizing the GST and the QST, but it has also not made any provision in its budget for increasing transfers for post-secondary education and social programs in order to return to the 1994-95 indexed level.

Does the government understand that because of its stubbornness Quebec is losing at least $800 million a year in post-secondary education transfers?

[22nd Quebec Intellectual Disability Week, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, events related to the 22nd Quebec Intellectual Disability Week are taking place across the province. Since March 7, hundreds of volunteers and many others have been working to raise awareness of what it is like to live with an intellectual disability.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the exceptional work of an organization in my riding, Les Amis de la déficience intellectuelle Rive-Nord.

The association includes relatives, interveners, volunteers and people with intellectual disabilities, working together to promote respect for human rights.

People with intellectual disabilities still have to confront too many stereotypes. By getting involved with this organization, many young people in my riding are working to eliminate those stereotypes and fully integrate people with intellectual disabilities into society.

[Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief.

This is a strong point that bolsters what I was saying. Unfortunately, the French fact appears to be in decline, and if Quebec were to take full control of a Quebec broadcasting and telecommunications commission, we could protect the French fact in Quebec at least.

[Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, that is not it at all. The French fact, and not only from a Quebec point of view, was treated in an outrageous manner during the Olympic games.

When I go to the other country, that is, west of the Outaouais River, I am often asked what will happen to francophones outside Quebec when Quebec becomes independent.

And yet, it is quite simple. When I see the statistics showing the decline of the French fact in the rest of Canada, I am just as outraged as my colleagues from across Canada.

If there were a strong francophone state in North America, we would be able to preserve the French fact at least in one corner of the continent. It would not be like Louisiana and we would be able to help our colleagues in the rest of North America.