Richard Nadeau

[February 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we were somewhat surprised a few days ago when the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, a Reform Conservative, declared that the members of his party were not buddy-buddy with artists.

This was a surprising but candid statement. The Reform Conservative member said out loud what all his colleagues are thinking and revealed the contempt that the Reform Conservatives have for our artists.

The cultural industry in Quebec represents 314,000 jobs, 171,000 of those direct ones. In Montreal alone, the cultural industry in 2005 generated economic spinoffs of $1.4 billion, and was responsible for a growth rate of 4.7%.That is huge.

The culture of Quebec is a kind of formidable business card distributed by such greats as Robert Lepage, Cirque du Soleil or La La La Human Steps.

Last fall, the Reform Conservative government was true to form with respect to Quebec when it announced $45 million in cuts to programs for artists touring abroad.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages announced that $22 million of that money would be transferred to the Olympic torch relay for the 2010 Vancouver games. Just a few days ago, the Reform Conservatives were back in the spotlight with a new program, the Canada prizes, and some $25 million in funding for foreign artists to perform and exhibit in Toronto.

Yet no fewer than 23 broadcasters in 17 different countries from Japan to Belgium wrote to the Prime Minister asking his government to reinstate programs to help Quebec and Canadian artists tour internationally. He did not even take the time to reply.

Members have repeatedly questioned the Reform Conservative government about its approach to the cultural sector. We have learned that it made unjustified cuts to the touring program. Then the government announced $25 million in funding for a program known as the Canada prizes, which nobody seems to know anything about. The government tried to distance itself from the project once it realized that it was a boondoggle. But it is hard to just walk away when the budget text repeats exactly what the promoters wrote last summer. And they talk about the prudent management of public funds.

The Reform Conservatives are attacking artists, art and culture for purely ideological reasons. They will regret it because Quebeckers feel that culture is the very soul of our nation.

The headaches caused by the Reform Conservative decision to eliminate the PromArt and Trade Routes programs that supported tours abroad are just beginning. The International Exchange for the Performing Arts, CINARS, predicts that, within three years, 3,300 international performances, some 2,000 jobs and no less than $24 million in direct revenues will be lost because of the Reform Conservative cuts.

That is reason enough for Quebec to take control of its own cultural development. It is more important than ever for the federal government to transfer all culture-related responsibilities and funding to the Government of Quebec.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, these two minutes are very important. The more we talk about this, the better. I am convinced that at the end of my speech, more members will be thinking about voting for Bill C-241, which aims to remove the waiting period.

It is important to understand that the two week waiting period at the start of the employment insurance benefit period means that benefit recipients have to go without this income. We are talking about first aid. Even though the government is adding five weeks at the end of the benefit period, not everyone gets to that point. People need assistance from the government at the beginning of this difficult time. It is very important to understand that people receiving employment insurance need this help to take care of their own immediate needs and those of their family members.

It is not because the federal government lacks money that we cannot go ahead with this. It is a question of political will.

I will conclude by saying that $54 billion has been pinched from the employment insurance fund. This bill would cost $900 million. The money is available. We need to help workers and eliminate the two-week waiting period.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with congratulations to my colleague for his altruistic bill which will demonstrate the kind-heartedness of the 308 members of this assembly who will—at least I hope they will—vote in favour of helping the unemployed. Let us not forget that our children, our neighbours, even we ourselves, may one day need this assistance when a job is lost. The waiting period has to be eliminated so that EI recipients can immediately have some income to help their families.

My question is this: as far back as 2004, a motion with the backing of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was moved by the Bloc Québécois in order to get the federal government of the day to pay back the $46 billion—and let us keep in mind that a billion is 1,000 million—that had been lifted from the employment insurance fund, in order to return that money to the people for whom it was intended, who are in need of it, and who are receiving employment insurance benefits. Those people and their employers had put that money into the fund, not the federal government.

If I am correct, the figure is now $54 billion. This would mean that what the Liberals started—which was absolutely odious—the Conservatives have continued. They have continued to dip into the EI fund and the money has not been returned to those rightfully entitled to it.

Is this really the case? Would this not be a good way of getting the money to help people in need of it?

[Culture, February 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this government does not respect the cultural community. What is needed are real programs that meet artists' needs and can help them promote our culture abroad. That is what all stakeholders in the cultural community are asking for.

The question is simple: will he finally listen to reason and create real programs to promote our culture abroad?

[Culture, February 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the $25 million earmarked in the budget for the Canada prizes for the arts merely serves to satisfy friends of the minister who, without consulting anyone, tried to suggest that they had a project of which the artistic community unanimously approved. However, we now know that this project is neither desired by nor desirable for the cultural community.

Will the minister do the only sensible, intelligent thing given the number of objections and abandon this project once and for all?

[Brian Jewitt, February 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on January 24, the Outaouais suddenly lost a man who was very important to the community, Brian Jewitt.

Brian never tired of defending the French language and Quebec values, and he rarely missed Bloc Québécois or Parti Québécois events.

Brian Jewitt was born in Winnipeg and was a sailor in the British royal navy. The people of the Outaouais will never forget his contribution to the commission on the future of Quebec. His submission promoted the French language, which did not get the respect it deserved in many Pontiac businesses.

I would like his family and his sovereignist friends to know that we mourn with them. We have lost a great Quebecker, the greatest anglophone admirer of francophone culture I have ever known. Goodbye, Brian.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on the excellent speech he gave. There two parts to my question.

How can my colleague explain this lack of empathy on the part of the Reform Conservative government towards Quebec and Canadian workers? Would the standard response be to talk about their neo-liberalism and Adam Smith's invisible hand, which states that the government should intervene very little or not at all to help a struggling economy or, more importantly, to help workers who lose their jobs?

[Public Service, November 21st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the latest Speech from the Throne, the Conservative Government decided to ignore the bargaining rules in negotiations with its own public servants.

The Bloc Québécois has always thought it best for labour contracts with the public service to be negotiated to the satisfaction of the parties, but now the President of the Treasury Board wants to introduce a bill to impose his final offer without going to the bargaining table. That is unacceptable.

The Conservative government would rather go on investing more in the military than respect the members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service and the Public Service Alliance by negotiating in good faith.

The Conservative government would be crazy to privatize part of the public service, but that is what it wants to do. This would allow the government to divest itself of its responsibility to provide Canadians with the best public service possible through public servants in their communities.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 21st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my friend made an excellent speech, and I would like to ask him to tell us more about the need for Quebec sovereignty.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard the throne speech, we read it, and already the government is taking a big stick to the federal public service.

I would like to know how my colleague feels about rumours that the federal government is not negotiating in good faith with the federal public service. The throne speech suggested that the government wants to pass a bill without holding good-faith negotiations between the employees—public servants—and the employer—the federal government. Both the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and the Public Service Alliance of Canada have talked about this. That is a pretty poor way to treat public servants.

Do the Conservatives really intend not to negotiate in good faith with public service employees?