Raymond Côté

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech.

I must confess, we agree on one thing. Like him, I do not like to see taxpayers' money wasted. Unfortunately, on everything else we part company.

I remember when this government introduced the public transit tax measure a few years ago. I was angry to see that it was passed because, with this measure—and I have not had a car for almost three years—I was unable to buy a new bus or hire a single new driver to improve the public transit system in Quebec City.

I think that this measure, like the measures for sport and culture, is funny money to pacify people while billions of dollars in tax breaks are given to large corporations that have created an artificial deficit.

How can the hon. member justify, without laughing, the fact that he is giving only crumbs, very small amounts each month to help families?

[White Birch Paper, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the 600 workers at White Birch Paper learned that the Quebec City mill, located in my riding, will be temporarily shut down two weeks before Christmas. This mill is running at full capacity with three shifts and a full order book.

Brant Industries, which owns White Birch Paper, is being sued in the United States by creditors of a paper mill for imposing astronomical management fees.

The receiver, Ernst & Young, has indicated that White Birch Papers has $53 million in cash assets.

When will we stop tolerating the behaviour of the Gordon Gekkos of the world? Just like the famous character in the movie Wall Street, Peter Brant has no regard for the interests of thousands of workers, retirees and people who do business with White Birch Papers. This anti-social behaviour is unacceptable. We cannot put up with these thousands of human tragedies caused by the whims of a single man.

On May 2, Canadians were vocal about their distaste for the repeated abuses and the reprehensible complicity we have seen from government.

This must stop.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech.

As I have already said in this House, job creation is of great concern to me.

The government can trot out raw numbers and brag about them, but the fact remains that when we take a closer look at the numbers, there are some disparities. The raw numbers do not necessarily reflect the quality of those jobs. When I look at the job creation measure for small businesses in the government's bill, I see another measure that, unfortunately, is missing the mark. Instead of applying to every job created, this measure can apply to companies that fail to create any jobs and just tweak their employment insurance contributions.

I would like the hon. member to tell me why the government is not trying to integrate our job creation proposal into this bill, because it would apply to every job created, instead of allowing companies to get money illegitimately.

[Fair Representation Act, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by the minister for democratic reform.

Clearly, taking a first step towards rebalancing the political weight and representation in the House is a good thing. However, given that there is a risk that the debate will be cut short again, I am very worried because we have some proposals to make. The minister just reached out, asked us for suggestions and proposed working together, but I have to wonder under what conditions we might be working.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this offer was merely for show, merely to look good in the eyes of the public. How could we possibly get the government to listen to us and hope to move this bill forward in co-operation with the provinces under the conditions imposed on us?

[Fair Representation Act, November 2nd, 2011]

It is not true? I am sorry. I thought it was exactly the same number. It is possible. The fact remains that the National Assembly has more seats than Quebec has members in the House. Is the hon. member suggesting that the National Assembly is going too far in the number of seats it has? That seems totally inconsistent to me.

On the contrary, a legislature has to be able to represent the demographic weight, the cultural weight, the political weight, the regional linguistic realities, and so on. This can result in an unequal configuration. What is more, that is the case when we talk about the different Canadian provinces. There are tremendous inequalities that are perfectly justifiable. How can the hon. member justify the status quo, which I have already condemned?

[Fair Representation Act, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's responses to be absolutely unbelievable. Let us take a look at the Canadian reality. In Ontario, there are exactly the same number of seats in the Ontario legislature as there are—

[Fair Representation Act, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, I do not think we can put a price on life or democracy. I am very disappointed to see that my colleague is a fan of doing nothing and that he even wants to make Canadians pay the price.

A few weeks ago, I heard about a debate going on in Calgary, where there are very few city councillors. It is seems to be a problem, because they are not saving money. Calgary city councillors must hire a very large staff to be able to manage their massive electoral districts.

We must reflect a country's dynamic, and I think that more seats in the House would reflect that dynamic. Which province would my colleague like to see pay the price of decreasing its political weight in the House?

[Fair Representation Act, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, especially his praise for my colleague, a woman I have known for years. I like to brag about the fact that I managed to convince her to run for the first time in 2008. I get a deep sense of personal satisfaction from that.

I applaud the government for introducing a bill to try to bring fairer representation to this House and to reflect some Canadian realities. However, these same ideas have already been introduced.

Could my colleague tell us whether the government will respect the need for in-depth debates? The committee will have to dig deep to find the best possible option. Our party introduced similar bills a number of times. I think that we can really find something that would satisfy the greatest number of people.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, only a fool does not change his mind.

What I find really unreasonable is that we have been making suggestions for a long time. Our late leader made them. When we speak directly to gun owners, users, these are measures that seem perfectly reasonable to them. I have hunter friends who got emotional when they told me that they hated the process of answering questions that practically made them seem like potential criminals. That makes sense and we are aware of that. That is why my colleagues here supported our leader and eventually rejected the bogus private member's bill that had been introduced at the time by this government.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as I said to an African friend of mine—from Mali, in fact—do not cry over spilled milk.

Two billion dollars was spent to create this registry. Now it is working, or at least it could be if the government did not take every opportunity to undermine it. For five years, this government has done everything possible to keep the gun registry from being efficient and useful. It is like a car owner who refuses to do an oil change or any maintenance and drives around with a flat.

How can my colleague have been complicit in this all along and now justify the destruction of this registry?