Pierre Paquette

[François Lanoue, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 3, Reverend François Lanoue passed away in Joliette. Quebec is mourning the loss of an exceptional person, a man who distinguished himself through his many contributions to the world of education and culture. His memory will live on in the hearts of the people of the Lanaudière region.

One of his accomplishments was co-founding the Musée d'art de Joliette with Father Wilfrid Corbeil. He was also the president of the Joliette-De Lanaudière historical society from 1985 to 1993, where he kept alive the memory of New Acadia.

Born in Saint-Jacques de Montcalm, Reverend Lanoue taught at the Joliette seminary. Bernard Landry and Jean Chrétien, two of his pupils, paid a stirring tribute to this extraordinary teacher.

François Lanoue was ordained in 1943. He worked on a number of cultural projects, including the religious art movement, and was the diocesan representative at the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church until 2007.

It is with great respect that I salute this very dedicated man. We will remember his love for the Lanaudière region and his passion for sharing his vast knowledge.

[The Budget, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the government did away with the tax benefits for oil companies, it could start compensating Quebec for harmonizing the TVQ with the GST. It could also start improving employment insurance and the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors and introduce a real plan to help the forestry sector, instead of Conservative gimmicks.

Is it not true that this government's choices prove that there is no future for Quebec in the Canadian federal system?

[The Budget, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about forestry, aerospace, the environment or culture, Quebeckers' priorities are completely ignored by the Conservative government. This budget, which continues to favour Ontario, the west and the oil companies, is one more sign that Canadian federalism does not benefit Quebec.

How could the government table a budget that is so empty and so detrimental to Quebec?

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with an aside concerning Mr. Latulipe, given that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse has raised the matter.

It is true that he was the solicitor general in a Liberal Quebec government. He was forced to resign because of a conflict of interest. I do not think this is an example for the public. It is somewhat in the Conservative way of doing things and, in that regard, Mr. Latulippe has become representative of the Conservative government more than anything else. We will continue to voice our criticism of his appointment. I highly doubt that was the intent of the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

To return to more serious matters, I will begin my speech by recalling that we travelled around Quebec. We heard very specific demands. Unfortunately, yesterday's throne speech tells us that these demands will not be heard by the Conservative government.

I spoke about loan guarantees for the forestry industry. It is obvious from the throne speech that the government has not yet understood that these loan guarantees are necessary. I also spoke about assistance for the manufacturing sector, especially the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries, in Quebec's case. Entrepreneurs, unions and the corporate world all told us that a refundable tax credit for research and development is necessary.

On a number of occasions we also heard of the need for support to transform the Canadian and Quebec economies into green economies. The throne speech contains only a few paragraphs on global warming, which is a disgrace for a government prepared to support the Copenhagen agreement. There was no agreement in Copenhagen. Thus, it is easy to see that the government intends to continue with its current policy and do nothing to seriously tackle the causes of global warming.

Quebeckers want to work on building an economy that is prosperous and has a future while emitting less greenhouse gases.

Here is a local example. In my riding of Joliette, the downtown, Place Bourget, has been completely renovated over the past two years. The renovation plans included charging stations which are still buried because there is not yet a need for them, unfortunately. These stations will allow the owners of electric cars to recharge their car batteries when they park downtown. Such a vision is shared by all Quebeckers, except the Conservative MPs from Quebec.

One might have expected measures to be introduced to help those industrial sectors that want to move toward a greener economy. The Conservative government is sticking to its old approach of setting the economy against the environment, an approach that has not only proven its limits, but also had disastrous effects. That is clear from the announcement made in the throne speech concerning energy developments.

This is totally contrary to the vision of almost every western nation, including the United States. Canada is a rear-guard nation. I almost said something worse, but I am holding my tongue. The people of Canada are not to blame; it is the fault of this retrograde, conservative government.

The government is retrograde and conservative economically and environmentally—the economy and the environment being closely tied—as well as socially, by refusing to substantially reform EI and to increase and index guaranteed income supplement payments. In the Speech from the Throne, we would have expected the government to announce not a Seniors' Day, but rather a real desire to show seniors how grateful we are to them for their contributions by increasing the guaranteed income supplement.

This is a government that is failing in all subjects and does not deserve our confidence. We will therefore be voting against this Speech from the Throne. I am making this announcement now, even though the debate will take place next week.

[Natural Resources, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about nuclear energy, not Canadian unity.

Not only is the development of nuclear energy a poor choice that benefits oil companies, but the additional production of electricity may be exported to the United States and provide undue competition for Hydro-Québec, which has never received a federal subsidy.

Does the Prime Minister realize that not only are his energy choices ill-advised, they go directly against the interests of the Quebec people and the Quebec nation?

[Natural Resources, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech confirms the government's interest in developing nuclear energy, something that raises a number of concerns but that will also help the oil industry develop the oil sands.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, by generously subsidizing nuclear energy with Quebeckers' taxes, he is actually subsidizing his oil friends, to the detriment of the environment?

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing better than stretching out a good thing. I have no problem with that, especially since we are in a situation today where the motion before us corresponds to reality. Unfortunately, it was moved by a government that does not seem to be facing up to reality. It is quite clear that the Conservative government is up to its usual tricks of saying one thing and doing another. This is true across the board, on an economic, social, environmental and political level.

I find it somewhat deplorable that this type of motion is being moved when it is very clear upon reading yesterday's Speech from the Throne that the government did not make the diagnosis stated in the motion.

We in the Bloc Québécois did make that diagnosis a long time ago. We are well aware that this recovery is still fragile financially speaking. We see that every day on the stock market, not just in Toronto but in the western world as a whole. This is a recovery without jobs and, worse yet, a recovery where there is a risk of more layoffs. Every day we hear about massive layoffs.

It is therefore a pleasure to rise in this House, a pleasure I will be sharing with the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. One must not be selfish. Unlike the Conservatives, we in the Bloc have always been very generous.

Conscious of the fact that this is a very financially shaky recovery which, so far, has not produced results in terms of job creation, particularly in the regions of Quebec, the hon. member for Hochelaga, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and I embarked on a tour of Quebec. We have listened to people from all the regions of Quebec who shared their concerns, needs and expectations with us.

I would like to address these expectations first, without getting into the details. First, the economic crisis is not over. Again, the government is putting on its rose-coloured glasses and attempting to deny reality. This is not the first time. Barely one year ago, we were told that there would be no deficit. Later, the deficit was expected to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $34 billion. Now, that amount has reached $55 or $56 billion. This goes to show that the Conservatives have made it a habit, not only to resort to subterfuge, but also to chronically wear rose-coloured glasses.

People have told us that a second phase to the recovery program was needed to correct the shortcomings of last year's budget, particularly regarding the manufacturing sector. Except for the automotive industry, which received $10 billion in assistance—again, we agreed and still agree with such assistance—other industries in the manufacturing sector did not get anything. Of course, the forestry sector was seriously overlooked, getting nothing more than crumbs.

In yesterday's throne speech, the same measures as last year were served up again. What people asked for, be it those from industry, labour or communities as well as municipal officials, is loan guarantees. The consensus in Quebec is such that the motto for the regions of Quebec might become “We want loan guarantees.” Unfortunately, based on what the throne speech says, I doubt that the Minister of Finance will be announcing any progress in that regard this afternoon.

Over the past year, the Conservatives have ignored all other manufacturing industries. Actually, they have been ignored for a very long time by the Conservatives and the Liberals alike. For example, in Quebec, the aerospace sector has received no assistance or support. The pharmaceutical sector has also been completely ignored.

There is one measure that business, the unions and the scientific community all agree on: a research and development tax credit. This tax credit exists but it is non-refundable. Consequently, companies that undertake research and development activities, but make no profit, do not benefit from this tax credit. I am thinking, among others, of Tembec, which invests approximately $80 million in research and development every year but has not turned a profit for many years. Companies accumulate these credits but they are quite useless since they need the cash now.

This is another very simple measure that we have discussed for quite some time. We were talking about it when I sat on the Standing Committee on Finance. If the Conservatives had the political will to do something other than help the oil sector and the traditional auto sector, it would be very easy to establish this refundable tax credit. All regions of Quebec have asked for this.

On the environment, there again—

[Address in Reply, March 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, after two months of prorogation, everyone was expecting the government to review and recalibrate its agenda. In fact, that is what the Prime Minister had said the government was going to do. Sadly, it is clear from this throne speech that the December 30 prorogation was nothing but a tactic to prevent the opposition from asking legitimate questions about the economy, the environment, the federal government's unacceptable behaviour in Copenhagen and Afghan detainees.

Not only was it an undemocratic political manoeuvre to prevent the opposition from asking questions, but this throne speech contains the same old unpalatable Conservative measures. Even worse, the member is telling us that the government is going to work extra hard. For Quebeckers, that means more misery and hardship.

There is nothing in the throne speech for the forestry sector. The member should be aware of that because the F.F. Soucy plant in his riding, Rivière-du-Loup, is threatened.

There is nothing in the speech for the forestry sector, nothing for manufacturing and nothing for employment insurance. People in his riding who will run out of EI benefits will have to apply for social assistance and others will lose their employment and not be entitled to employment insurance.

Nothing. Nothing for the environment, but everything for the oil companies. Nothing to give Quebec its due. Take for example the harmonized sales tax. There is nothing to indicate that Quebec will be adequately compensated.

Worse yet—and I will close on this before getting to my question—they insist on creating a Canada-wide securities commission against the wishes of Quebec and against Quebec's recognized jurisdiction in this area. This is totally unacceptable.

I would now like to ask the hon. member a question. Unless he is just another token Quebecker in the Conservative caucus, how can this hon. member defend a Speech from the Throne that so clearly goes against the interests of the nation of Quebec?

[Afghanistan, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the minister have as much credibility on torture in Afghanistan as Richard Nixon did during Watergate. In fact, they are using the same political approach: control information, cover up, and start smearing others.

Will the Prime Minister have the decency to put his version to the test and call an independent public inquiry immediately?

[Afghanistan, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the responsibility of the minister and the government, not of the troops in Afghanistan.

Abraham Lincoln said, “You may fool all the people some of the time...but you can't fool all of the people all the time”.

That is precisely what is going on with the Conservatives who, through cover-up and falsehoods, have become entangled in versions on torture in Afghanistan that no one believes.

Could the minister show a modicum of respect for the public, the soldiers and their families, diplomats and this House and call an independent public inquiry immediately?