Pierre Paquette

[Privilege, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose on a point of order to state that an amendment was inadmissible, the amendment proposed by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas to Bill C-304, introduced by an NDP member to—

[Michel Chartrand, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has lost a passionate and committed man, a legendary straight talker who marked the history of the Quebec nation: Michel Chartrand.

Whether as a printer, a defender of the French language or a union organizer with the CSN and other unions who took a particular interest in injured workers, Michel Chartrand worked tirelessly for Quebec independence and social justice, two causes that he felt were closely linked. He also stood up for workers in many labour conflicts in Quebec, including the asbestos strike in Asbestos and the strike in Murdochville.

This man, who had a keen social conscience, never lost his capacity for outrage. May his exemplary life inspire us all. As he said, “Everyone should get involved in politics. In democracy, everyone has a duty to do what they can to make the world a better place.”

My Bloc Québécois colleagues join me in paying tribute to this great man. We thank Michel Chartrand, for his invaluable contribution to Quebec.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague from Hochelaga is talking about F.F. Soucy in Rivière-du-Loup, in the riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, which has announced an impending closure.

When I was helping our candidate in the election, the people I met asked for loan guarantees in order to support this industry. This would support F.F. Soucy in Rivière-du-Loup as well as numerous businesses throughout Quebec. They were unanimous; there was a consensus on this. I am sure that the member for Hochelaga was hearing the same thing during his consultation tour.

The Quebec Conservative members—Conservative Quebec members would be more like it—say that market forces are to blame. If market forces can be a good excuse for pulp and paper and for forestry, they should be a good excuse for the automobile industry too. However, this was not the case for the automobile industry because the Conservative Party favours the traditional automobile and oil.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

It is clear to me that the Conservatives are unable to say anything in the House because many of them, particularly those from Quebec, are acutely aware that this budget implementation bill does not address the concerns expressed by Quebeckers and a good number of Canadians. That is why they carry on fawning instead of doing their jobs and representing people.

The member is absolutely right. I did not mention infrastructure programs. I should have done so because there should be a second phase. In Quebec in particular, there were elections in early November in all municipalities. I know that in my region, many new teams were elected and they did not have time to submit proposals.

That is why people asked the government to allocate more funds and extend the infrastructure programs, as well as to push back the submission deadlines because, as I said, there were many new elected officials. They had to pass their budgets before submitting proposals.

I will close by saying that the member is absolutely right. The Conservatives have gotten into a habit that proves they lack transparency. They put little poison pills in bills that are already quite toxic. In this case, remailing has absolutely nothing to do with the budget and the budget implementation bill. This is nothing more than a sneaky Conservative tactic.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is the budget implementation bill.

Since we were opposed to this budget, because it did not address any of Quebec's demands or concerns, we will of course also oppose the budget implementation bill. But as Bloc MPs and representatives of Quebec, we all plan to be here in the House, unlike the members of other opposition parties, to vote against this bill and try to stop this legislation that does not address any of Quebec's needs or concerns.

Before the budget was tabled, during the time the Prime Minister gave us when he prorogued Parliament and locked us out, our finance critic, the member for Hochelaga, toured Quebec. He visited Lanaudière, Gaspé, the North Shore, Saguenay, the Outaouais, the Montreal area, the Quebec City area—the national capital—Abitibi, Montérégie and the Eastern Townships. He came to Joliette to meet with socio-economic stakeholders. People expressed a number of concerns and needs during this tour. One thing that clearly emerged was that Quebec, like Canada, needs a phase 2 of the recovery plan.

Whole industries have been forgotten by the Conservative government. I am thinking of forestry, aerospace and the manufacturing sector in general. Once again, we do not disagree with the efforts made to help the auto industry, which is heavily concentrated in southern Ontario. But we are seeing a lack of fairness, since the forestry and aerospace industries are being left out. And yet we know that in these sectors of the economy, the recovery that seems to be just around the corner is having no effect. On the contrary, even more big layoffs are planned, both at the sawmills and at the pulp and paper plants, or even in aerospace, particularly among small subcontractors.

What we needed was phase 2 of the recovery plan, and that was made clear from the consultations held by my colleague from Hochelaga. The government has simply kept going down the unfair path it laid out in last year’s budget. No change is being made to respond to the concerns of the people and the various regions of Quebec.

When it comes to employment insurance, there again, there is no response to what workers, unions and municipal leaders have been calling for. We are well aware of the fact that, with adequate income security, not only would workers affected by layoffs have a minimum social safety net, but the regions could also maintain a degree of economic dynamism. Very clearly, if someone loses their job at Louisiana Pacific in Saint-Michel-des-Saints, the employment insurance benefits they receive will be used to pay the grocer in Saint-Michel-des-Saints and to buy clothing in Saint-Michel-des-Saints or Joliette. That will then help to maintain a minimum level of economic activity. The Conservatives’ approach has been to cut both corporate and personal income tax for the benefit of the wealthiest, the most well-off. What do those people do with the money? More often than not, they put it in tax shelters or send it to tax havens, as we unfortunately see all too often. Again yesterday there was a report about this happening.

In the case of corporations, the ones that get these tax cuts get them because they are making profits, while the ones that are not making a profit have received no form of assistance from the Conservative government.

On the question of employment insurance, we were hoping that the government would make an effort to make it an adequate social safety net. I would point out that in this respect the Liberals are just as guilty as the Conservatives. Let us not forget the famous Axworthy reform. The only “reform” about it was the name, because in fact it simply made a hash of employment insurance.

At the time, seven or eight people in ten contributed and could collect employment insurance if they lost their jobs. After the Axworthy reforms, this fell to four people in ten who contributed but were not necessarily entitled to benefits because of the excessively restrictive rules implemented by the Liberal government and maintained by the Conservatives. That explains why we have these huge surpluses.

Turning to what Quebec might expect regarding equalization, the Prime Minister promised for example during the 2005-06 election campaign to change the formula. He also promised not to change it unilaterally. Last year, the Minister of Finance changed it unilaterally by capping it, resulting in a $1 billion loss for Quebec. This is a recurrent loss.

The government has been unfair to Quebec in other ways as well. For example, there is the way in which Hydro-Québec revenues are treated in comparison with those of Ontario Hydro, resulting in a loss to Quebec of $250 million a year since 2008. It is absolutely incomprehensible. The capping of equalization, as I said, cost us $1 billion last year. There is talk now of $357 million a year, and this will continue. For example, between 2002 and 2004, the Government of Quebec received a little more in equalization than it was entitled to because the situation had improved. If my memory is correct, it was $2.3 or $2.4 billion more. The federal government asked the Government of Quebec to pay back the excess amount, and every year the Quebec government has to transfer $238 million to Ottawa, while the other provinces that also received too much have not been required to pay anything. That is what is called protection money. Here too there is $238 million a year that Quebec loses, which eats away terribly at its financial situation.

There is also the matter of the harmonization of the GST and QST. That is $2.2 billion that the Government of Quebec is entitled to but has not received. It is totally absurd. How is it that the first jurisdiction to have harmonized its sales tax with the federal GST has never been compensated while all the others that followed have been compensated? It is very clear that the Conservative government wants to use this debate and these negotiations over compensating Quebec for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST to try to take over the collection of the GST and the QST, which has been done since 1992 by the Government of Quebec.

What they want ultimately from the Government of Quebec and all Quebeckers is an act of submission in order to receive this $2.2 billion, even though Quebec is entitled to it for simple reasons of fairness and equal treatment with Ontario, British Columbia and the three Atlantic provinces. We obviously have an awful lot of grievances.

I am short on time, so I will not talk about the government's crazy plans for a Canada-wide securities commission, a plan despised by all financial stakeholders in Quebec, a plan with the sole objective of taking away Quebec's only remaining financial levers. Nobody in Quebec agrees with this plan. It is unacceptable to the Quebec nation and to all Quebeckers, be they federalist or sovereignist.

Everyone can see that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that is good for Quebec. That is why we will vote against this budget.

[Haiti, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 2010, the Quebec Forest Industry Council and its partners proposed to the Prime Minister that Canada should build 2,000 houses for Haiti. Since then, the industry has been calling on the government to promote this project at the conference on the reconstruction of Haiti, which begins Wednesday in New York. The forestry industry has yet to receive any response to its proposal.

Can the government tell us if it plans to promote that project at the conference in New York on the reconstruction of Haiti?

[Government Contracts, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois, like the Liberal Party, is outraged that the government did not follow the usual practice. We were advised only this morning that there would be a ministerial statement today even though we received advance notice of the one to be made Monday on World War I, which gives us time to get ready.

In this case, even though there were confidential aspects, we could very well have received the text of the statement and kept it confidential, and the government knows that. Once we were informed of this ministerial statement, we asked for the text of the statement, in order to prepare an adequate response to the announcement. Clearly, we did not get the text before the statement, but we will not do like the government and improvise responses and gestures such as we saw yesterday, for example, with the introduction of 2,500 pages of completely useless redacted documents.

I must denounce the fact that it is now common practice for the Conservative government to take actions that show contempt for the work of the opposition. I give the example of the two prorogations in less than a year. There is also the refusal to abide by the order adopted on December 10, 2009. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that we will be more intelligent than the government and that we will not respond to the minister's statement before we have time to study it seriously. We will respond to it another day.

[Afghanistan, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is a joke. The government cannot be the judge of its own case. It is up to the members of the House to decide what the government must hand over.

Despite Conservative censorship, the documents show that the soldiers were aware of the allegations of torture and that they proposed alternatives, but the government clearly indicated that the only possible option was to transfer the detainees to Afghan authorities, even though that violated international conventions.

Is the government not trying to hide the fact that it was responsible for violating international conventions such as the Geneva convention?

[Afghanistan, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the confusion, or should I say shambles, surrounding the government's tabling of heavily censored documents on torture in Afghanistan is clearly not a proper response to the House's order of December 10, 2009.

Does the government understand that, in order to avoid being found in contempt of the House, it must immediately submit all the documents in their original, unredacted version, as required by the motion adopted by the House?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, in 15 seconds I will say that I am extremely disappointed to see the Liberals turn into quislings.