Robert Vincent

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the selection of members to ask questions is not a matter of chance. It operates according to the number of members per party. So your decisions should be consistent. I thank you for giving me the floor. I was the only one to request it.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. We on this side of the House are unanimous in asserting that there has been no increase for CBC/Radio-Canada from the government. The Conservatives, perhaps innocently, are boasting that there has been an increase, that there is $60 million more, but that is not the case.

Do the Conservatives want to control information? They have not given TQS the opportunity to be able to continue broadcasting news in French. They are still cutting news programs. They tell us that news programs will come from Montreal and then go to the regions. Do they want to control information? That is what I am wondering.

However there is something else that is a problem for me. The president of CBC/Radio-Canada went on the public airwaves and told us that there would be cuts to positions. Can the hon. member now tell us that his government will do as the French government has done and give—

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend on his speech. He spoke about how the Conservatives are not very good at coming up with new plans. That is what members of this House have been saying for some time now. They have a plan for this and a plan for that, but when the time comes to define a given plan, they cannot, so they tell us anything and give us only a general outline.

Now, they want $3 billion that they can spend in some as yet unknown way. We are trying to find out how that money will be spent. I believe that there are indicators that can be qualified and quantified. When the Conservatives were elected in October, they did not have a plan or a budget, and they did not know what to do. They said, “There is a crisis. There is no crisis. We are going to pull through the crisis. Everything is fine.” Later, they realized that they were in trouble and that we were faced with a crisis. Their reaction was to shut us out and try to come up with a plan.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Liberals supported all that. They had some bargaining power with the Conservatives, but they did not use it.

I would like my eminent colleague to tell me what he thinks of the Liberals, who support bad budgets and try to take money out of our pockets to line their own, the pockets of—

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, two messages have come across in the speeches. First, that people are playing petty politics at the Conservatives' expense, and second, that the President of the Treasury Board must tell us how he plans to spend the $3 billion. I have not yet received an answer, and I think that Canadians expect answers.

We do not want to be told that the government might inject some funds here and there or that some of the money will go to workers. Canadians want to know how the $3 billion is going to be spent. We want to know today, not at the last minute when this all comes into force and the government starts sprinkling cash wherever it pleases.

We already know that the Conservative Party is the most partisan party in the House of Commons. The Conservatives are only interested in helping their cronies, their members. That is what happened in Quebec, where a minister spent 25% of Quebec's BDC budget in his own riding.

Why should we trust a government that wants to spend $3 billion, but does not want to make sure that Canadians understand how the money is to be spent during this recession?

I would like to believe that they want to get the country out of this recession, but if that is really what they wanted to do, they would have made up their minds long ago. They would have told us what they planned to do in the economic statement, but they did not. That suggests that they have lost the confidence of the people and that members on this side of the House have lost confidence in the government.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening as the member across the floor talked about playing politics. I would like to point out to the member that that is why we are here, to practice politics. If he thinks this is not the place to practice politics, perhaps he should go elsewhere. That would be the best solution for him.

In his speech he said the government is working night and day. If this government had been the least bit responsible, the problem would have been solved long ago. When it was time to solve the problem, this government proposed ideological, rather than economic solutions, and instead decided to shut down Parliament.

As we saw in December, the government's economic statement contained nothing concrete. Now it desperately wants to spend money and get the economy going. However, during the election campaign, which was not so long ago, there was no deficit, life was good and everything was just fine. Now we have an $83 billion deficit for the next two years, and the government wants $3 billion to stimulate the economy. It should have thought of that before preparing its economic statement in December. It should have thought of that then, and taken action that would have been good for Canadians.

Why should we have faith in the government now, when it has been talking nonsense for months?

[Science and Technology, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, besides the Conservatives' ideological takeover attempts, the scientific community is concerned about their refusal to respond to the financial needs of universities for research. The association's executive director, Mr. Turk, finds it bewildering that money will actually be taken away from the three granting agencies.

Will the Conservatives finally understand that preparing the future means investing in people and ideas now?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and found it very interesting. But he forgot to talk about one thing. Forestry companies are laying off workers and closing plants. Workers who have lost their jobs are therefore going on employment insurance. The Bloc Québécois asked the government to eliminate the two-week period during which people have to wait to receive their first cheque. Here in Canada, we are poor relations because we still have a waiting period. France has none. There, as soon as workers are laid off, they get their first cheque, with no waiting period.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. What does he think about the Bloc Québécois recommendation to eliminate the two-week waiting period and the fact that we have a new bill that would enable people to immediately receive employment insurance, which they paid into?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when members are on one side of the House, they may say a lot of things, but when they are on the other side, they seem to lose their memories just like that. I would like my colleague to tell me whether his memory will remain intact if he should one day become Minister of Industry and find himself on the other side of the House.

In 2004, when the Conservatives were on this side, they promised us the earth and supported our proposal to modify the employment insurance program. When they crossed over to the other side of the House, they forgot all that and developed Alzheimer's.

Will my colleague also lose his memory when he crosses to the other side of the House, or will he remember what is happening today?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. If he were made Minister of Industry tomorrow morning, what real action would he take to help the forestry industry, the aerospace industry and other industries in terms of investment?

Since we are talking about forestry today, I would like to know where he would stand and what his recovery plan would be. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a little more time on the second question, that is, what I think of the Liberals, who supported the budget. When the House resumed in October, I think the Liberals could have decided to pursue the coalition.

In my opinion, if that party had stood up for itself, we would have a great deal more than what we have now. What we are getting now from the Conservative government is a big fat zero. From that moment on, if the Leader of the Opposition had wanted to show real leadership, we would have achieved something much smarter than what we have now.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is totally right. The situation now is that oil companies are getting funding, doing research and development and being given a lot of money in tax credits. Basically, the government is cutting in research and development in the aviation industry while at the same time paying for research and development to clean up Alberta because of the tar sands.

The contrast is striking.

On the one hand, polluting industries get paid to pollute through tax credits; then, taxpayers money is used to try and find ways to clean up. On the other hand, cuts are made to the aviation industry in Quebec, which is left to fend for itself.

This government has to step up to the plate when it comes to making investments. Where the C-17 aircraft and Chinook helicopters are concerned, we are not getting anything in Quebec, yet we are building them. First, the contract is awarded to an American company; then, because this is military equipment, Canada is given the choice as to where it wants these aircraft built. Now, because we are in the midst of an economic crisis, we will help the United States without first helping ourselves.