House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 33% of the vote.
Taxation September 21st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, $3.9 billion a year to correct the fiscal imbalance is not a figure invented by the Bloc, it is the amount the Liberal finance minister of Quebec, Michel Audet, demanded on April 12. The Conservative government has an obligation to produce results.
Instead of trying to reduce the size of the problem, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that in order to correct the fiscal imbalance, the government must pay Quebec $3.9 billion a year, and not a penny less.
Taxation September 21st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister made a solemn pledge to Quebeckers to do away with the fiscal imbalance. Now, the National Post is reporting that the Conservatives want a watered-down deal that would see only $1.1 billion annually transferred to Quebec, which is nowhere near enough. If we update the findings of the Séguin report, on which there has been and still is a consensus in Quebec, the Government of Quebec should receive at least $3.9 billion more a year to correct the imbalance.
Will the Prime Minister, who has an obligation to produce results, keep his promise and, in an upcoming budget, finally pay Quebec the additional $3.9 billion it is entitled to?
Petitions June 22nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by more than 14,000 individuals asking the government to promote the International Labour Organization's Convention 182 on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour so more countries will ratify it and so those that have will apply it effectively.
The goal of the initiative undertaken by Amnesty International and Children's Care International is to build awareness of the worst forms of child labour, such as slavery, prostitution and exploitation, which can have a negative impact on their health and safety.
I am therefore proud to table these signatures in this House.
Committees of the House June 22nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, on the softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States.
Softwood Lumber June 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, if the government continues to deny companies loan guarantees, as the minister has just reminded us, it must be because there is a very good reason that we are unfortunately not yet aware of.
Might the Prime Minister, out of naivety or inexperience—or both—have made a personal commitment to President Bush not to grant loan guarantees to Canadian forestry companies? Would that not be the real reason why there are no loan guarantees?
Softwood Lumber June 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has stated on several occasions that loan guarantees were subsidies, that this was illegal and that they had to be included in the government’s budget expenditures. All of these notions are completely false.
Can the Minister of International Trade tell us what the real reasons are for the government to be obstinately refusing to grant loan guarantees to forestry companies? Those companies will have to go without their own money for several more months, and he is perfectly aware of this.
Softwood Lumber June 15th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, when he announced an agreement in principle on softwood lumber, the Prime Minister said that loan guarantees were not necessary because the dispute was practically settled. A month and a half later, we still do not have an agreement.
In any event, the Americans have stated that even if the agreement were signed today, they would not be able to refund the illegally collected duties until April 2007, 10 months from now.
Since companies urgently need ready cash—many are on the brink of bankruptcy—will the government finally agree to provide loan guarantees, which everyone in the industry is calling for, not just the lawyers?
Softwood Lumber June 14th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, while the minister makes hollow speeches, the American department decided this very day in a preliminary decision to increase the countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber. The minister must know that even if the agreement were concluded today, many long months would pass before the industry gets its money back.
Would loan guarantees not be an excellent way of showing the American negotiators that the government is ready to support its softwood lumber industry until a satisfactory final agreement can be reached since they are still increasing duties on softwood lumber from Canada and Quebec?
Softwood Lumber June 14th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the more time goes by, the less likely it seems that there will be a quick agreement on softwood lumber. The more time goes by, the more companies have to deal with enormous difficulties, deprived as they are of $5 billion of their own money that they still have not recovered.
In view of the deadlines dragging on for reaching a final agreement, why does the government still refuse to provide loan guarantees for companies that are still grappling with the softwood lumber crisis?
Softwood Lumber June 13th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to know that the province of Quebec prefers option B, and that this was the context in which the previous question was put.
What assurances can this government give that the compromises it is prepared to make, in order to strike a deal in a mad rush, will not result in jeopardizing any future opportunity for Quebec to make changes to its forest development strategy? What assurances can it give this House?