Roger Pomerleau

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, whose speech was brilliant, as is usually the case. He is one of the people I am happiest to see rise in the House to ask questions, other than the people in our party of course, because his questions are always brilliant, intelligent, right on the mark and well put.

That said, my colleague has just talked to us about the major economic crisis hitting Canada and the world as a whole. I think he is quite familiar with this subject. If I am not mistaken, he is an economist and has worked for the banks in the past. So he is very familiar with the situation. Personally, I think this economic crisis is going to be far more serious than is being forecast, and far more serious than it is at the moment. That is my own opinion. I am not an economist, I am a carpenter, but I can tell when things are level and square. At the moment, the economy is neither level nor square anywhere in the world and for a number of specific reasons.

The basic reason lies at the very foundation of the economy. As we know, what underlies today's economies are the broad theories of Adam Smith—production, work and consumption. And it is not working anymore. It is impossible to keep on consuming, producing and polluting indefinitely. Economic theory itself is going to have to be revised.

I think my colleague could discuss that. Every day, however, he rises, intelligent man that he is, to criticize the budget of our friends the Conservatives, opposite. However, at every opportunity, he rises and votes with them. How can such a brilliant man do something like that?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

The first thing he said was that today's motion seemed odd to him because a budget was passed not too long ago in this House. I would like to point out to the member that the Bloc Québécois was instrumental in getting a budget put before the House.

Let me just say that, when Parliament resumed, all the government tabled was an economic update that offered absolutely nothing. It contained a number of attacks on the unemployed and many on women, but that was about it. On the Bloc Québécois' initiative, a coalition was formed, which forced the government to prorogue Parliament for three weeks, just long enough for the government to put together in a mad rush a budget that had not yet been prepared. Now, they come and tell us that a budget was passed. Ours is the only party that put forward a real budget plan, which was more or less included in the current budget. None of the other parties, whether the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or the NDP, put one forward. So, do not come and tell us now that, because a budget was passed, we should move on. We are well aware that there is a budget; it is thanks to us that there is one.

It has to be in bad faith that my hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country claimed not to understand why this motion was put forth today. The reason is simple: we introduced this motion to ensure that the Constitution is respected. Provincial law has to be respected, not by choice, but by force of law as written.

[Quebec Film Industry, February 12th, 2009]

Speaker, Quebec films are the runaway favourites in the competition for the 29th Genie awards. This week, we have learned that Quebec practitioners of the cinematographic arts have alone captured 41 of the 71 nominations.

Despite this domination by the Quebec film industry, it has a dark cloud hanging over it. Producers and directors are worried. Director Charles Binamé, who brought us Séraphin: heart of stone and American trap says, “The word culture is not in the Conservatives' vocabulary...We sense that we are being punished by the federal government...This country has a heritage and culture minister who has never read a book in French and has never seen one of our films”.

As for Denise Robert, producer of Everything is fine and The barbarian invasions, she adds. “Quebec is guilty of being too talented. We are being forced to cut the pie into smaller and smaller pieces ”.

It is imperative for this Conservative government to stop penalizing the artists of Quebec.

[BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is rising again— like all the other Liberals before him and like those who will come after him—to tell us that it is not a good budget. Each one of them will present an argument on a specific subject and will make comments such as: this budget does not live up to their promises; it is too little, too late; there is an obvious lack of transparency; that it is a fairy tale; that it takes a partisan approach; and that those who will suffer are ignored by this budget.

If my colleague, and all the other Liberals, truly believes what he says why is he going to vote for this budget?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by my hon. colleague from Trinity—Spadina. She talked about when the Liberals were in power. As everyone will clearly recall, at that time, they did more or less the same thing as the Conservatives are doing today. They reduced the debt—which the Conservatives are not doing—but they did so by pillaging everything in the employment insurance fund, after they excluded from the system half the people who should have been eligible for benefits. That is what the Liberals did.

They can criticize the Conservatives all they want today, but my colleague knows very well that they rise every day and vote alongside the Conservatives and support their budget. It is because the Liberals continue to support them that the Conservatives can do what they are doing. Thus, that is its own coalition.

My colleague knows very well that stairs must be swept from the top down, and not the other way around. Neither of these two political parties tackled the tax havens that allow the richest people in our society to continue to line their pockets. I would like to know what my colleague from Trinity—Spadina thinks about that.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I personally loved the speech just given by my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. I thought most of his ideas were incredibly intelligent, particularly, the fact that the depression in the 1930s was due to a lack of government regulation of economic levers and that today's crisis is due to exactly the same thing. I also agree that the buy Canada act is legal and that it has never been implemented by either the Liberals or the Conservatives, but it should have been. I completely agree with him on that matter.

However, these are topics for another discussion, not today's, when we must respond to Mr. Obama, who is coming to tell us about his plan. We will meet him very soon.

I would remind my colleague of the various aspects of Mr. Obama's plan— and the hon. member for Sherbrooke listed them earlier—that are subject to litigation. As we all know, when it comes to trade litigation, even when the United States thinks it is right, it accepts the litigation and drags it out for years, until the party suing them dies or is practically driven from the market.

Mr. Parizeau used to say—and he repeated it a few times—that when a mouse sleeps with an elephant, the elephant must always know where the mouse is. That is important for the mouse.

When the member's party leader meets with Mr. Obama, will he be able to tell him exactly where the mouse is here?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, Canada was born out of an attempt to create a permanent trade link between the eastern and western parts of this country. That is why a railway was built from east to west in the early days of Confederation. From that time on, Quebec felt the need—and has always felt the need—to strengthen its trade relationship with the United States in order to offset trade that would remove some if its political and economic power within Canada.

That is why Quebec was the first province to defend its own interests in expanding its trade relationship with the United States within the free trade agreement. Bernard Landry, who was no longer a member of the Parti Québécois at the time, toured Quebec I do not know how many times to make that happen. That is why the sovereignist forces in Quebec decided to support Brian Mulroney when he ran for office. He not only proposed to bring Quebec back into Confederation with honour and dignity, but he also offered a free trade contract with the Americans.

We are the ones who suggested a stronger trade relationship. But as soon as the Liberals took power, they decided to tear up that contract. That is what Mr. Chrétien promised at the time. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[National Battlefields Commission, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the National Battlefields Commission, which is responsible only for the Plains of Abraham and the surrounding area, has decided to mark the 250th anniversary of the events there by re-enacting the battle and holding a masquerade ball.

Will the minister responsible for the National Battlefields Commission demand—for obvious reasons—that it cancel this re-enactment and masquerade ball?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as well as the comments and questions directed to her by my colleague on this side of the House. I heard her sing the same old song we first heard a long time ago. In 1994, the Liberals were seated opposite and formed the government and the Reform Party was to the right and formed the opposition. Today we have the opposite: the Liberals are seated on the right, in opposition, and the Reform Party, under another name, is seated opposite and forms the government. But the way they speak and the arguments used by both sides in the House are exactly the same as those used at that time.

Yet, we have to say that the Liberals really did eliminate the deficits accumulated year after year since Mulroney's day—my colleague is quite right in saying so—and it is again the Conservatives who are leading us back into the red. We are told that they will eliminate the deficit by 2013 and begin to generate surpluses. Barely 10 weeks ago they were unable to tell us where we would be today and now they claim to know where we will be in five years. How is that possible?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador. She just gave an eloquent speech, reminding us just how unacceptable this budget is for the people in her province, the people of Quebec, as well as tens of thousands of Canadians all over the country who in no way benefit from this budget. My colleague used these expressions: “reprehensible, unconscionable, difficult to swallow; real impact on real people”.

How can any representative of a constituency, a riding of 80,000 voters, rise in this House and say that the budget just presented is not good for their constituents, that it deprives them of things they so desperately need, and at the same time, despite how bad it is, say that they are going to support that budget on behalf of their constituents?