Raymond Côté

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for her speech.

I have the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. We proposed 33 amendments. The NDP often moved very reasonable amendments. We wanted to make sure that the parts of the bill we agreed with were amended so that they could be properly enforced.

It is absolutely unbelievable that the government representatives had already decided what they were going to do. They systematically rejected all of the amendments proposed.

How would my colleague explain the government's actions?

The Prime Minister has been calling on the opposition to collaborate and make suggestions for years. However, we keep hitting a wall. I thank the member in advance for her comments.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the President of the Treasury Board is answering our questions about the debate. One part of the bill deals with his authority to intervene in the negotiations of crown corporations. Given how easily the President of the Treasury Board confuses his own personal interest with the public interest, this hardly alleviates all our concerns.

I will reiterate what my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques said. The consultations and the work done by the members of the Standing Committee on Finance—the only committee with the authority to really examine the bill—were just a facade, especially since most of the witnesses were clearly opposed to parts of the bill. Amendments were systematically rejected by the government. Everything was obviously decided beforehand. The government wants the bill to be passed in its present form. The NDP even proposed amendments that were not threatening in the least.

How can the President of the Treasury Board justify the fact that he is completely unreceptive to any suggestions?

[Health, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was almost prepared to cry victory when I got confirmation of what I have been saying for months and months, as I passed on what the public or some particularly health conscious individuals had observed.

Unfortunately, I did not learn anything new. The fact that the Port of Québec is the biggest nickel transshipment terminal in North America and one of the biggest in the world does not seem to have been taken into account. These are huge facilities.

I believe that the Port of Québec and Arrimage du St-Laurent are going to make an effort. In fact, I had the opportunity to speak with the CEO. Of course, I was told and reassured that measures had been put in place. However, does the government really believe that this problem is going to magically disappear without government assistance?

[Health, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House in the middle of the night to address a subject that is extremely important to the people of Limoilou. In fact, this Sunday, June 2, many concerned citizens will be taking part in a demonstration on the streets of Limoilou to show their concern about this problem and their desire to come up with a solution. I will be joining them.

Before going any further and asking the Minister of Transport my question, I want to provide some context. On March 7, 2012, in the House, the Minister of Transport and his Conservative colleagues voted against a motion calling on the federal government to actively support the Port of Québec so that it could go ahead with renovations and upgrades of obsolete equipment that was falling into disrepair.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the Minister of Transport and his colleagues voted against the motion, which echoed CEO Mario Girard's heartfelt appeal. It is rather ironic that in his last reply to the question that I asked him in the House, the Minister of Transport said, unfortunately for Mr. Girard, that he had absolute confidence in the CEO of the Port of Québec and also in the chair of the board of directors, Mr. Éric Dupont.

The Minister of Transport is all talk and has done nothing tangible to support the port authorities and help them face the challenges posed by the decrepit state of the Port of Québec and the renovations required.

There is a clear, logical progression between the motion I moved in the House nearly two years ago in support of the Port of Quebec and the problem that surfaced last fall regarding nickel dust contamination. The Minister of Transport, after mocking the elected representative of the people of Beauport—Limoilou, who brought proof of this highly unusual situation to the House of Commons, scoffed at this legitimate issue.

Since then, Quebec's minister for sustainable development, the environment and parks has clearly established that it was the Port of Quebec that caused the contamination, and the public health director clearly stated that it was a serious health issue that affected nearly 20% of the people in Limoilou.

How can the Minister of Transport show such disrespect for the people of Beauport—Limoilou and disregard their concerns?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North. I think it is reckless of him to talk about certain issues, such as the F-35 file.

I would like to remind my colleague of the fiasco of the four used submarines that cost much more than just their price tag. It was a boondoggle. Furthermore, it resulted in a man's death. That was serious.

What is more, in 2004, under a Liberal government that was a pro at flying by the seat of its pants, the Auditor General's report examined the management framework for the PSAT initiative, including all funding and expenditures. She identified weaknesses in the way Treasury Board evaluated departmental funding proposals. The Liberal Party of Canada is in no position to preach to the government, let alone the NDP.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Is he not embarrassed to boast about things he has no business bringing up in the House at this time?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks, which I found very reasonable in view of what as been requested. I think her speech was just as reasonable as the motion by our colleague, the hon. member for Pontiac.

Really, we are not asking for the moon; we are simply asking to have everything we need in order to understand what happened to the $3.1 billion that has been lost in the files somewhere. That $3.1 billion is quite a large amount of money. I will talk about that in my speech later. Many families would be searching for that money and turning over the mattresses and shaking out the pillowcases to find it.

In view of the reasonable nature of the request and our experiences on different committees—my hon. colleague has seen more than I have, and it must have sometimes been hard to take—what does she think of the government's lack of transparency in this kind of situation? How far will the government go to hide questionable operations of this sort?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the member's speech was rather pitiful.

I disagree with him and would suggest that he read the delightful letter written by American multi-billionaire Warren Buffet that was published in The New York Times at the beginning of the year. That letter would show the member how the world really works. It is nothing like the caricature he presented in his speech.

I want to talk about what is really happening. At the beginning of the year, I went to a reception at the Port of Québec and met a local businessman. He told me that the business community needs recognition from government.

It is incredible that after seven years of Conservative government, the business community still feels neglected and ignored by this government.

By the way, I would like to say that things are going well in and around Quebec City. Unemployment sits at about 5%. It is a very vibrant region, much like the prairie provinces.

Billions of dollars are sitting idle in Canadian companies because of this government, which has made some terrible decisions. That is the equivalent of about $25,000 per family that is not circulating, not creating jobs and not increasing the competitiveness of Canadian companies here and abroad. Could he comment on that?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister of Labour is all talk and no action.

The government is responsible for a number of failures. I could talk about the $600 billion accumulated by Canadian corporations.

Let us focus on the government's bragging rights that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca desperately tried to have the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysts validate. The 900,000 jobs created since the end of the recession are for the most part structural in nature, but let us not forget that the government could do more damage to the economy.

If the minister wants to take credit for creating 900,000 jobs, is she prepared to take the blame for the loss of 500,000 jobs during the recession while her government was dithering?

[Intergovernmental Relations, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers want nothing to do with these history classes with a Conservative twist. They made that clear in 2011.

Once again, the Conservatives are stomping all over provincial jurisdictions. They can say what they want, but their irresponsible motion clearly talks about looking at how teachers teach in each province.

That has nothing to do with promoting Canadian history. That is interference, pure and simple. The former Reformers now want to control everything. What is the world coming to?

Does the government really think that this should be the priority of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage?

[Fair Trade, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House and congratulate my constituents for their efforts to support fair trade.

Wednesday marked the launch of Fair Trade Fortnight. This international event promotes fair trade, which in turn improves quality of life for millions of workers in the southern hemisphere.

I invite my colleagues to participate in Fair Trade Fortnight in Quebec City by going for after-work drinks tonight at the Auberge l'Autre Jardin to celebrate the 10th anniversary of their Équidurable boutique.

I will also be participating in a round table discussion on becoming a fair trade town, which aims to make Quebec City a city that supports fair trade principles. The round table will take place on May 15, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at La Korrigane brewery.

I would like to congratulate the organizing committee, which includes NAVTI Fondation Canada, L'AMIE, Children’s Care International and Équidurable, for all of their hard work and wonderful support.

Together, we will build a more united and just world.