Pierre Paquette

[Securities Industry, November 24th, 2008]

He misled the House. Mr. Labelle—

[Securities Industry, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary lied to the House, because it is not true that there are no other countries with securities commissions.

[Securities Industry, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the vice-president of Quebec's Chambre de la sécurité financière, Luc Labelle, had some harsh words for the common securities commission proposed by the Minister of Finance. He said that such a commission would signal nothing less than the end of entrepreneurship in the financial services sector in Quebec.

How can the Minister of Finance promote a project that could, according to Mr. Labelle, end up benefiting big players in Toronto's financial district at the expense of regional and Quebec stakeholders?

[The Economy, November 21st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we have already been waiting far too long.

Since the government seems to have run out of ideas, and since the Prime Minister said, yesterday, that he was open to the Bloc Québécois' suggestions, then might I suggest that the coming economic statement include loans and loan guarantees, as well as refundable tax credits for research and development to provide the forestry and manufacturing sectors with the funds they are in desperate need of now?

[The Economy, November 21st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admitted that his throne speech did not contain any specifics about dealing with the crisis, and his Minister of Finance has warned us not to expect any concrete measures in next week's economic statement. That kind of laissez-faire attitude is totally unacceptable.

Instead, will the government listen to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has recommended specific actions to be taken immediately, and announce emergency measures to address the crisis? Time is of the essence.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is also a friend.

I would like to begin this debate on the Speech from the Throne by giving special thanks to the voters in my riding of Joliette, who placed their trust in me for a fourth time in eight years. Every two years I receive their continued support. I would also like to congratulate all the members in this house who were re-elected and also given a vote of confidence by their fellow citizens. I can assure those who voted for me that I will continue to work hard to represent them and to defend the interests of Quebec. It is in that regard that I will be approaching this debate on the throne speech delivered yesterday by the Governor General.

I would also like to point out that not only did the voters of the riding of Joliette place their trust in a Bloc Québécois candidate, but the vast majority of voters in Quebec ridings elected Bloc Québécois members. We have 49 Bloc Québécois MPs, which represents almost two thirds of the Quebec representatives in this House.

It is important to remember that during the election campaign, two visions clashed during the election debate: the vision of Quebec espoused by the Bloc Québécois—a number of consensuses that came out of unanimous decisions by the National Assembly of Quebec, as well as broad general consensuses—and the Conservative vision that led to positions that are much more right-wing and much further from Quebec's values and interests.

In recent days and weeks, the Prime Minister, some government ministers and the government leader talked about this apparent willingness to work with the opposition. It is therefore extremely surprising, on reading the throne speech, to see that the government and the Prime Minister did not use any of the suggestions made by the Bloc Québécois, even though these suggestions stem from the choice Quebeckers made on October 14.

It is therefore extremely surprising that the minority government did not take note of the fact that 78% of Quebeckers who were entitled to vote voted for parties other than the Conservative Party. As I said, it is especially surprising because, in the days leading up to the throne speech, the Conservatives indicated that they wanted to cooperate and would listen to suggestions from the opposition parties.

Obviously, I speak for the Bloc Québécois, but I believe that all the opposition parties can see that the throne speech in no way reflects any of the ideas expressed by the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, obviously by the Bloc Québécois—and I will come back to this—or by the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Why is it that in his throne speech, the Prime Minister did not use any of the proposals made by the Bloc Québécois, which is the leading federal party in Quebec? This shows a closed-mindedness, a lack of openness, that is hard to account for and, in my opinion, does not bode well for the future.

Earlier, the government House leader said that he thought the noise level was considerably lower. Maybe it was lower than at the end of the previous Parliament, but I think the partisanship we see from the Conservative members and caucus is not much different from what we saw during the last question period before the election.

This is very worrisome. The first thing that the Bloc Québécois leader and the other opposition party leaders suggested was for the government to adopt a much more conciliatory tone. But this tone was not evident in the throne speech or in the attitude of government members, particularly during today's question period.

I find this very worrisome.

What topics came up during the election debates in that 33-day election campaign? I will list them, because it seems that the topics discussed in Quebec were perhaps not discussed the same way in the Canadian nation. So it might be good for those watching at home and for my colleagues from across Canada to hear about what was discussed during the election campaign in Quebec.

First of all, of course, there was the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. As we know, for several months, if not years, Quebec has been experiencing a major crisis in the manufacturing sector, which has led to the loss of several thousand jobs. I would like to remind members about a particular table. I bring this up because the government, especially the Minister of Finance, often tends to forget its own documents. On page 28 of the October 2007 economic statement, there was a lovely table that showed five Canadian industries that are declining. Since 2005, only one sector has been growing: the petrochemical, oil and hydrocarbon sector.

The government should have realized something was wrong way back in October 2007. The Bloc Québécois repeatedly suggested ways to help and support the manufacturing and forestry industries. Unfortunately, the government ignored us, and the only thing it did was lower taxes on profits, which, may I remind the House, only helps those companies that make a profit. As I was saying, when an industry is in decline, companies are not usually making a profit. The government has been congratulating itself on this measure for months, not to mention during the election campaign, but Quebeckers are not buying it.

I would like to comment on another Conservative government decision in the same vein: the infamous community foundation or community trust—I do not remember exactly what it was called—that gave a certain amount of money to all of the provinces and Quebec. That billion-dollar trust was not much considering the problems that needed solving. Quebec got about $280 million, if I remember correctly. That was the second thing the Conservatives did. Unfortunately Alberta received 10 times more money per lost job than Quebec. The Bloc Québécois pointed out that this was unfair to Quebec, as did regional and economic stakeholders. Because of the government's unfairness, Quebeckers were extremely dissatisfied with the Conservatives' solutions.

Then came the cuts to culture in August, just a few weeks before the election was called. Those cuts were made because of the Conservatives' narrow, commercial ideas about culture. I like to point out that sometimes, as in the free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico, the word “culture”, which has extremely rich connotations in French, is often translated into English as “entertainment”. That is how the Conservative government sees culture: as entertainment. The government is just not interested in giving money to ballet companies so they can show off their skills.

That same attitude resurfaces when it comes to regional development, young offenders and the environment. I am sure that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will have more to say about that.

That is why the Bloc Québécois made those proposals, based on the support of Quebeckers on October 14. It is completely unacceptable and a real shame that the government and the Prime Minister are ignoring those results. Under the circumstances, the Bloc Québécois has no choice but to vote against the Speech from the Throne.

[Speech from the Throne, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne is more proof of the Conservative government's insensitivity towards the difficulties experienced by Quebeckers and Canadians.

How else do you explain the total silence about the problems faced by retirees who have watched their savings evaporate, placed in jeopardy by the stock market crisis and the lack of solutions in the throne speech? It is indifference and insignificance.

[Speech from the Throne, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has managed to rally all of Quebec against his throne speech because it marginalizes Quebec and does not meet the needs of the victims of the financial and economic crisis. Does the Prime Minister want some ideas? For example, he could have announced improvements to employment insurance by abolishing the two-week waiting period, which would cost nothing at all.

Is this not proof of the government's insensitivity to the fate of thousands of workers whose jobs are currently in jeopardy because of the financial crisis?

[Ethics, June 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is simply more empty rhetoric from the Government House leader. Furthermore, we are still waiting for answers in the Cadman affair, the Brodie affair, the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, the in and out scandal, and of course the affair concerning the former foreign affairs minister. In all those cases, there has been no end to the bad faith shown by the Conservatives and the Prime Minister, even to the point of obstructing parliamentary committees.

Does the government realize that it was elected under false pretences, promising transparency and ethics, but that those promises have been broken repeatedly?

[Ethics, June 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the former foreign affairs minister will speak next week in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce. To be certain that he will not be questioned by the opposition, the hon. member for Beauce decided to wait until the House of Commons adjourned for the summer. How very brave of him.

Does the government not agree that the refusal of the hon. member for Beauce, following the example of the Prime Minister, to come and testify before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security shows a lack of ethics, transparency and respect for parliamentary institutions?