Robert Vincent

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member still does not understand the issue. He said that, in 1982, the members of the House did not consult Quebec and that the Constitution was patriated unilaterally. Quebec told the Conservative Party that it wants its political weight to remain the same. The message is clear. The National Assembly wants to keep the same political weight. The Conservative members from Quebec will have to listen to Quebec and vote the way Quebec wants.

I see a double standard here. The Liberals did one thing in 1982, but today, the Conservatives say that that is not important and that the same thing will not happen again. In 1982, we should have consulted Quebec and listened to what it had to say. Today, they are well aware that the political weight of Quebec must remain the same, but I am sure that they will not listen to Quebec and that they will vote against it, even though these people represent Quebeckers.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse said that the Liberals' unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982 was not quite right and that the Liberal Party never asked Quebec whether it agreed with the idea. I should point out that, at the time, 75 Quebec members were Liberals. They could have asked Quebec whether it agreed. I think that MPs from Quebec, who were all Liberal Party members, could have opposed the whole thing.

We are seeing the same thing today. Bill C-12 would further marginalize the Quebec nation within Canada by reducing its political weight in the House of Commons from 36% of the seats in 1867 to 22.4% in 2014.

My question for my colleague is simple. Some Quebec MPs are Conservative Party members. The government wants to reduce Quebec's demographic weight in the House of Commons, but Quebec has told the Conservative Party that it is not in favour of this.

Will the member respect Quebec's will by voting against reducing the province's political weight in the House of Commons? He said that Liberal Party MPs did not consult Quebec. These two approaches have much in common. I would like to know if he plans to respect Quebec's choice.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgets that we are a founding people. Canada is what it is today because Quebec was there. We are not going to deny Quebec and to bring it into line. We are going to fight all the way to prevent Quebec from losing seats in the House.

I would like to ask the member if he intends to vote in favour of Bill C-12, whose objective is to reduce the weight of Quebec in the House of Commons.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I found the Liberal member’s speech interesting. They speak in Canada's defence in Quebec, but whenever they have a chance, they will be the first to stab us in the back. They are trying to convince and appease us with every means available in order to bring us back into a united Canada. They say Mr. Bouchard has changed his mind. This does not change the fact that between 1995 and 1997, they spent $330 million to try to buy us off and keep us within Canada. They used all kinds of tricks and ads. In 2006 and 2007, we had the sponsorship scam. Of course, Canada is a beautiful country but if we can leave, we will have our own country.

The Conservatives introduced Bill C-12 to reduce Quebec's political weight. Will the Liberals vote with the Conservatives to reduce Quebec's political weight? They say they want us to stay with them.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this is an important debate and that members in the House of Commons and the party in power should be concerned about this issue. As the hon. Liberal member said, it is important that we are able to continue the debate, especially since we are talking about the New Veterans Charter.

For example, under the New Veterans Charter, a person with certain level of disability receives a lump sum. This veteran does not receive the maximum lump sum of $276,000. That is available to people who are completely incapacitated and whose mobility is 100% affected. However, the veteran receives 75% of gross pay.

After they have received all the care and once the rehabilitation period is over, they will have only 75% of the insurable amount from when they were hurt. And that amount is taxable. The veteran must pay tax on that amount.

Can my colleague tell me if it is reasonable that someone, who lost a limb in Afghanistan, comes home with an amputated arm and receives 75% of their salary when you think that, on top of that, that amount is taxable?

[International Workers' Day, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, May 1, is International Workers' Day.

Quebec has been celebrating this day since 1972, as a day for the union movement and workers to reaffirm their beliefs and to remember their contribution to our society.

This year's theme, “for a fair Quebec”, serves as a reminder of our values of fairness and social justice in Quebec. It is clear that we cannot count on the Conservative government for that.

This is the government that made pay equity a negotiable right, that is refusing anti-scab legislation, and that refuses to improve the employment insurance system. Fairness for workers is far from being a concern of this government.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I salute the workers of Quebec, and my party and I commit to continuing to work towards a fair Quebec, in spite of this government.

[Competition Bureau, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it will crack down on gas stations that are overcharging customers because of inaccurate pumps. But the real problem is that the retail price of gasoline systematically increases just before long weekends or vacation. The near-monopoly held by oil companies needs to be watched more closely.

Why is the government not really dealing with the problem by giving the Competition Bureau more power, as the Bloc proposes in Bill C-452?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a very good presentation. He has a very good understanding of the problems of Colombians. He is a former union leader and the citizens of Berthier—Maskinongé have a member who is well-informed.

The Liberals, together with the Conservatives, always try to minimize the impact of this agreement. They say everything is all right, that life is beautiful and that everyone in Colombia is doing their best to ensure that human rights are respected. That is simply not true.

Furthermore, they say that 114,000 Colombians were displaced last year in order to make more room for the mining industry. That is like moving an entire federal riding. They say that 114,000 is not a huge number because, before that, 400,000 people were displaced per year. Furthermore, Colombians are not displaced in a civilized manner. They are pressured, threatened, murdered or their land is flooded. That is how it is done in Colombia.

I would like to ask my colleague what does Canada stand to gain from signing a free trade agreement with Colombia?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the member and his party are supporting this bill so firmly. They must have some sort of interest in these activities.

The member said that there have been only 213 murders recently. I find that number shocking. More than 30 members of congress have been arrested in Colombia, including members of the president's immediate family. In addition, 60 paramilitaries are under investigation. These people under investigation work for the Colombian parliament. From 2007 to 2008, crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased from 14% to 41%.

One problem is the displacement of populations. The needs of the mining and agri-food sectors are the main cause of these displacements. What is happening to these people? They are not being properly relocated. They are being pressured by threats, murders and flooding. These people are being kicked off their land and mistreated.

How can the member and his party side with the Conservatives and support a bill that is bad for the people of Colombia?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague, who knows this issue like the back of his hand, will be able to answer my question.

An NDP member mentioned why the Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, have re-opened the Pandora's box that is the free trade agreement with Colombia.

Is it possible that these two parties in the House support the mine owners and lobbyists who have specific interest in Colombia and that that is why they want to sign this treaty and enter into free trade with Colombia?