Serge Cardin

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it will be hard for me to be brief.

Can my NDP colleague confirm the increasingly obvious complicity between the Conservatives and the Liberals?

For all intents and purposes, the member for Kings—Hants, who sits on the committee, dreams only of being the Minister of International Trade or the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade. Can the NDP member tell me whether he senses this complicity?

For less than 1% of our exports, they are willing to renounce human rights and environmental rights and pave the way for the paramilitaries, the corrupt Uribe government and drug traffickers to keep on doing business at the Colombian people's expense.

[Bloc Québécois Plan, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, although the Liberals and the Conservatives do not seem to know how to balance the budget, there is a party that has proposed the best plan for fighting the deficit—the Bloc Québécois. We are not the ones saying it. A southern Ontario paper has said so.

This plan proposes a 1% surtax for people who earn annual taxable income of $150,000 or more, a fight against tax havens, the end of gifts to oil companies, rationalizing military purchasing and cutting bureaucratic spending. These measures could save $16 million annually without taking even one penny from the middle class and the less fortunate.

These are the elements of the best plan to fight the deficit, the Bloc Québécois plan.

As stated at the very end of the editorial, it is in the best interests of the Prime Minister to listen to and read this article. If the Minister of Finance does not wish to be deprived of his prize, he need only implement the Bloc Québécois plan.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who, for a third time, is introducing this bill concerning the right to die with dignity. We could call it the freedom to die with dignity. Clearly, for many people, when they hear that, they hear “suicide”, “assisted suicide” or “euthanasia”, and yes, it makes us shiver, because we have probably all known, every one of the 308 members have probably known someone directly or indirectly who has committed suicide, although no one expected it. We are always surprised. That person was probably suffering, suffering more than anyone can imagine.

We now have resources to help these people, but we have to find them and help them, for they will continue to suffer until we help them. Getting to the point of assisted suicide, this means that the someone is suffering, and there are situations in which there is nothing we can do. That person is suffering, and is becoming something that he or she never thought possible, bent over in pain, or often not bent over, but bedridden and suffering for weeks and months on end, which to that person seems like an eternity. This bill does not seek to eliminate people who are suffering. That is not what we are asking for; rather, we are seeking a right for these people, people who have all their faculties about them, who are suffering, who are aware of their suffering and who want to escape it. These people could commit suicide on their own and no one could stop them. However, some people have philosophical or religious considerations. Philosophy and religion eventually cross paths.

I can say that in ancient times, the Greeks and the Romans were able to bring the issue of suicide out into the open and ensure that it was part of public discourse and debate. That was in ancient times. They decided to discuss it honestly and openly, to debate the matter. Intolerance of suicide began to take root in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and was heightened under the influence of Christianity. Naturally we do not wish to go against people's beliefs. However, we are talking about the right to die with dignity. Some people fear that we are confusing palliative care with assisted suicide, that we are taking sides.

I have experienced this suffering. Who among us has not gone through the experience of watching a loved one die of cancer? Who has not experienced that? If I look at some of the reactions, what is happening now is not any better than what we are asking for. What we are asking for is to allow people to make a free and informed choice. You have probably all seen a loved one go through cancer. At a certain point, the suffering is intolerable. Of course the person is given morphine. At first things are better, but in the long run it is not enough. What to do? How long do we let them lie there unconscious? Are the doctors not somehow assisting them? Some people have a strong heart and their life, which they are no longer conscious of, will continue for as long as their heart beats.

My father, who died at age 68, started having strokes at age 63, shortly after he retired.

He had various handicaps in addition to Alzheimer's disease. Of course there came a time when he had to be hospitalized. He was bedridden and unconscious for weeks, months. My father was strong and he had a healthy heart despite the fact that he was unconscious. It is normal for a human body to want to continue living.

We say that we want what is best for society, yet the fact that we refuse to speak openly and honestly about this issue raises a question. How can we be thinking of what is best for society when confronted with an individual in the final stages of a terminal illness who knows that they will die sooner or later and asks to die with dignity, thereby minimizing their own suffering and that of the people close to them?

I went through a second experience because I was also there when my father-in-law died in my home. He had been receiving palliative care. CLSC staff came to take care of him regularly. The same thing happened: doctors said that they might be able to help the end come sooner. In that case, the patient did not make a request.

This bill covers requests by lucid individuals. If a sick but lucid person decides to end their life with dignity—and everyone knows that they are going to die anyway—who am I to refuse?

We know that such pacts are becoming more and more common. When people know that they cannot end their own lives, they ask another person to help them in the event it becomes necessary. It is not very nice to be asked to do this kind of thing. How heartbreaking. But if there is a legal framework and people can make an informed choice, what right do we have to refuse them? Who am I to decide whether a human being should live or die? I believe that only the dying person has the right to decide whether they want to live or die.

I am certain that if we do not have this debate, more and more cases will come before the courts. People will be faced with such situations and, out of compassion, will decide that they cannot continue to watch loved ones suffer and that they must help them because their loved ones have asked for their help. Who am I to decide that someone will continue to suffer, continue to be bedridden, continue to decline, continue to no longer be the person they once were and no longer know where they are, even though that person asked me to do something for them if this sort of situation should occur?

In my opinion, we, the 308 members of this House, have a duty to consider this issue. I am not trying to convince the members to say yes so that this bill becomes law tomorrow morning. What I am trying to do is convince them to consider, discuss, debate and improve this bill. In the end, it is not up to us to choose. It is up to the person to say lucidly that, in the event something should happen, they want to have control over their life and, ideally, their death as well.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, some research grants have been diverted directly to business research, leaving nothing for humanities. As for the Mont Mégantic observatory, I believe it is the best place in Canada. At one point, the government wanted to cut its funding. Had that happened, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services would certainly have become the future ex-member and future ex-minister of public works, but he succeeded in—

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member from the NDP, I am not sure that the government's understanding is all that good yet. I think that the Conservatives are not quite there yet. The only thing they seem to understand is electioneering. At some point, they throw crumbs here and there and claim to be delivering, telling us that this actually meets the needs and aspirations of the people of both Quebec and Canada. While some money does end up in the right places, I do not think that they have even the faintest glimmer of understanding of what really happened. They have spread so much around that they actually hit the target now and then. I do not think that they have any real understanding, because theirs is truly a conservative ideology.

Shortly after they were elected for the first time, they were lagging behind the United States. What did they do? They lowered taxes, as President Bush had done in the U.S. They increased military spending and took other similar steps, almost exactly as President Bush had done, and, as a result, they found themselves in a rather precarious economic position. There are things that they cannot undo. They have cut taxes. This certainly helps some people, but they would have done much better with a more targeted measure, even if that meant forgetting this 2% cut and targeting those with the greatest needs. I do not think that they really understood anything. Ultimately, the best way to prove that the people think the same way would be to hold an election as soon as possible; then, they would see that the people understood.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, not only does the Bloc Québécois not have confidence in this government, but it does not have confidence in the government's economic forecasts.

As recently as a year ago, the economic crisis did not even exist as far as the Conservatives were concerned, and they said they would not run a deficit. Today, the deficit is $56 billion or $57 billion. What is strange is that this is roughly the same amount of money that was stolen from the employment insurance fund. This year's deficit did not go toward EI to really help workers. In fact, I do not believe the government has helped the unemployed.

The Minister of National Revenue says that employment insurance programs must have a beginning, a middle and an end. With his additional five weeks of benefits, it would seem that the minister started at the end. He should have started at the beginning. He cannot even follow his own logic.

All I can say is that he had a beginning a few years ago, he has more than past the middle and he is now approaching his end. The future former Minister of National Revenue and future former member will understand that the necessary work on employment insurance has not been done and that people still have huge problems.

It is clear that the new employment insurance program, with additional weeks of benefits, was designed for people who are lucky enough to keep the same job for a very long time, but that it represents a trap for the NDP, because it targets Ontario specifically and does nothing to help forestry workers in Quebec.

We therefore do not have confidence in this government or its policies. This government needs to be a bit more open to Quebec, practise open federalism and listen a bit more to what the opposition is saying. It is acting like a majority government, when it knows it is not. Moreover, it knows full well how that sort of behaviour affects support for this government in Quebec, because almost no one there has confidence in the government anymore.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville answered a question by my colleague from Drummond who wanted to know whether he supported this bill or not. His answer was no, because the Liberals have no confidence in the government. They do, however, intend to implement the measures contained in that bill once they are “in government”.

We in the Bloc Québécois, who voted for the ways and means motion on the same matters, which no more than Bill C-51 contained a poison pill, will be voting in favour of this bill.

We maintain that the aspects affecting the people of Canada and Quebec are very important for our constituents, whose needs and aspirations we have been monitoring on an ongoing basis, but even more actively during the campaign before the election one year ago already, on October 14.

We are capable of rising in support of things we had sought previously for the people of Quebec and which can certainly benefit the people of Canada as well.

Bill C-51 implements the home renovation tax credit. I should point out that this measure was inspired by the proposals made in the Bloc's two recovery plans. The first plan was presented around November 24, 2008, and the second around April 30, 2009.

I remember as though it were yesterday when the Minister of Finance was very appreciative that the Bloc Québécois was the only party to make proposals for the budget the government was preparing. He said something very similar when the budget was introduced. In the same sentence, or at least very close, he said that the Bloc Québécois was the only responsible party. Those may not have been his exact words, but that is what he meant: a responsible party that had submitted budget proposals with some very important points.

At the same time, he told us that he promised he would take them into account. The Bloc Québécois is a party that accepts its responsibility for the mandate it has been given by the people of Quebec. It is committed to the interests of Quebec, and submitted proposals that further the needs and aspirations of Quebec. If I may say candidly, he quite simply told us that they would take them into account, but the budget had already been tabled at that point.

In Bill C-51, the second point introduces a first time homebuyers' tax credit, a measure inspired by the Bloc's last platform. This is yet more proof that the Bloc made good proposals, always based on the needs and aspirations of Quebec, which I will repeat over and over.

It needs to be said, because Quebeckers want the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests and to promote Quebec sovereignty. We know that a lot of things can be accomplished through the sovereignty of Quebec, that is, the political freedom of Quebec.

Bill C-51 will also implement Canada's international commitments to the IMF, which were signed in 2008. It will also amend the Canada Pension Plan, from which Quebec is excluded, based on consultations with the provinces involved. It will also act on the findings of a joint expert panel made up of representatives of Nova Scotia and the federal government to resolve litigation between the parties that has been outstanding since 1984. The first two of these provisions affect Quebeckers more directly. That is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill.

We agree with these two provisions, but I must emphasize that our support for the measures in this bill does not mean that we have confidence in the government. Clearly, we do not. Once again yesterday, we rose to express our lack of confidence in this government. The federal government's comprehensive plan to fight the recession is not good enough. It is also poorly targeted. That is why we oppose it.

However, because Quebec does not object to the measures in Bill C-51, we, the Bloc Québécois, will remain true to our values and do the responsible thing and support this bill. We are always working to advance Quebec's interests. The measures in this bill may be a step forward, but the Conservative government still does not have an environmental plan with a 21st century vision, and its record on economic issues is terrible.

Now that I have covered the two most important measures in this bill, I would like to talk about the government's disastrous record on economic issues and the Bloc Québécois' recommendations for dealing with the crisis. I would also like to discuss the Bloc Québécois' green strategy and the federal government's bad faith and deplorable attitude when it comes to this issue.

Let us begin with the home renovation tax credit. In April 2008, during the presentation of the first phase of the stimulus package, the Bloc Québécois proposed implementing a home renovation tax credit for converting oil furnaces to energy efficient models. We felt that such a measure, in addition to reducing our dependence on oil, would help inject money into the economy quickly.

Although the Conservatives' measure does not target energy retrofits, it is nonetheless an effective way to stimulate the economy quickly. That is why we support this measure. Nevertheless, we still feel that the government lacked vision in introducing this tax credit. It could have gone much further and presented a real environmental plan that would have stimulated the economy while reducing greenhouse gases and decreasing our dependence on oil.

It is imperative. We know more and more—not only because we hear it so much, but also because we are experiencing it and seeing it every day—that the economy and the environment are inseparable and that we have to put as much energy into the one as the other.

In our 2008 election platform, we also proposed a tax credit for first time homebuyers. Although the measure introduced by the Conservatives is less generous than the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois, we feel it is a step in the right direction. That is another reason we are supporting this measure.

Buying a home is big step for many families. It allows the homeowner to build equity and benefit from the appreciated value of their home. Quebec is significantly behind the rest of Canada in that area. I do not want to focus on strictly economic aspects, but in terms of family life, it is very important to own a home in order to have a life that is not necessarily more comfortable, but has all the elements to be more pleasant. There is nothing like being at home with your children for living life to the fullest. Owning a home is very important and many families, unfortunately, often have a hard time saving for a down payment to purchase their first home.

In addition, since most people who are active in the workforce see their income increase over time, they often have to wait a while before they can purchase a property, so they end up in the rental market for many years. We in the Bloc Québécois are aware of this problem and planned—in fact, we still plan to—bring forward a program to make it easier for first time homebuyers. That is why we are proposing that the government give interest free loans for up to $10,000 for first time homebuyers. If this measure is introduced, it will complement the tax credit proposed by the Conservatives and will make it easier for people to buy their first home. However, the Bloc Québécois will continue to press the federal government to offer a comprehensive first time homebuyers' plan.

In light of these two elements, we support the bill, but of course we still have some criticisms of it. A good, self-respecting Conservative government must always make a few missteps that arouse criticism, and people need to hear about them.

While denying the economic crisis during the last election campaign, the Conservatives came in empty-handed at the time of the economic statement last November. When pressured to introduce a stimulus package, the Conservatives preferred instead to propose measures meant to reinforce an ideology rather than stimulate the economy. The Bloc Québécois, however, brought forward responsible proposals for economic recovery. Let me remind the House. The Bloc Québécois' recovery plan had four objectives: tighten the social safety net and restore confidence; stimulate employment and investment; support Quebec and the provinces; and stimulate strategic spending and reduce oil dependency.

The OECD suggested that countries with the means to do so should provide income support for workers who lose their jobs, and the best way to do that is through the employment insurance system. We therefore proposed that the system be thoroughly improved in order to facilitate access for everyone who loses their jobs. We estimated that, with these changes, 148,000 more people would have access every year. Furthermore, with the elimination of the waiting period, cheques could have been sent in under 14 days.

I would like to elaborate on this point. Rather than abolishing the waiting period, the Conservative government added five weeks at the end. Five weeks at the end is not the same as two weeks at the beginning. According to the Conservatives, two weeks at the beginning could create huge problems. The approach that the Conservatives have always preferred and continue to embrace is to launch programs and what they call improvements knowing very well that they will probably not be used very much, if at all. Most people never get to those last five weeks. Once again, they have missed the mark. Immediate assistance for workers who lose their jobs has never been and is still not in place.That continues to be one of the Bloc Québécois' demands.

We also proposed to help the most vulnerable with investments of $6 billion, starting with seniors, by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. For middle-class families, we proposed to double the GST tax credit for 2009.

We also proposed a series of measures to support and stimulate employment and investment. Furthermore, we proposed investments to help Quebec and the provinces maintain essential services to the public. It is never a good idea to make cuts, but this is the worst time to cut Quebec's funding. And yet, that is what the Conservatives are doing by tinkering with the equalization formula to favour Ontario and by adding even more inequities, such as refusing to compensate Quebec for the harmonization of sales taxes.

We asked that education transfers be restored to their 1994 levels both to stimulate the economy and to help Quebec and the provinces prepare for the future.

Finally, we proposed strategic investments to reduce both our dependence on oil and our greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals, on the contrary, have abandoned Quebec industries and workers in favour of those in Ontario and the West.

The federal government's bias in favour of Ontario and its auto industry is striking, as evidenced in the third progress report on the action plan. Whereas 100% of the $9.7 billion in direct federal spending for the auto industry have been spent, only 80% of the $70 billion for the development of new markets for the forest industry have been spent. In total, the government will have used only $2.1 billion from Vote 35 concurred in last spring. Yet the June report already indicated $1.85 billion in spending through this vote, which means that the government has spent only $250 million more through this vote since the last report.

I believe it is important to go back to a key point. A crisis requires quick and immediate action, particularly when jobs are lost. I may be repeating myself, but something has to be done to fix our employment insurance system. The Liberals gutted the system and the Conservatives followed in their footsteps. It is exactly because of all those things that we have no confidence in this government.

With regard to EI, what needs to be done is to reduce the eligibility threshold to 360 hours for everybody, to eliminate the waiting period, to increase benefits from 55% to 60% of earnings, to increase insurable earnings to $42,500 and to base the benefit calculation on the best 12 weeks.

Even if we support this bill, we still have no confidence in this government.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if the agreement had to be based on full reciprocity as indicated by the Prime Minister, that would mean breaking away from one of the benefits of NAFTA, and would prevent Quebec, the provinces and the municipalities from using preferential purchasing as a tool for economic development.

Does the minister realize that full reciprocity could have a very negative impact on small and medium-sized businesses?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, under NAFTA, the United States government does not have the right to engage in preferential purchasing. However, President Obama's plan gets around the problem by forcing states and municipalities, which do not come under NAFTA rules, to buy American exclusively.

Although an agreement appears imminent, does the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway realize that the real problem is not the buy American act, which has been around since 1933, but rather the provisions of Mr. Obama's plan?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker—