Serge Cardin

[Forestry Industry, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) continues to say that loan guarantees to the forestry industry are illegal, and he adopts the position held by the United States, which challenges any little initiative taken to help that sector.

Instead of once again caving in to U.S. protectionist lobbies, will the minister identify the specific section of the softwood lumber agreement which, according to him, prohibits loan guarantees?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that my NDP colleague, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, is an expert on softwood lumber and a staunch defender of the softwood lumber industry in his region. He is also an authority on shipbuilding in his region.

In this case, my colleague has great respect for the people of his riding and his province, and he is fulfilling their expectations by trying to remove this sector from the free trade agreement. However, he still refuses to accept that the Bloc had serious reservations about the softwood lumber agreement. He should bear in mind that we, too, responded to the needs of softwood lumber stakeholders in Quebec. We responded to the needs of Quebeckers, just as he responded to the needs of shipbuilding stakeholders in British Columbia.

Now, once and for all—we have covered this dozens of times already—given that he is dealing with the same situation when it comes to shipbuilding as we did with softwood lumber, I would like to hear him say that the work we did was just as much about responsibility as the work he thinks he is doing now.

[International Trade, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, we learned that Dow AgroSciences is taking court action under chapter 11 of NAFTA on the grounds that Quebec's pesticides management code violates its right to sell 2,4-D, a potent herbicide.

Will the Minister of International Trade promise to defend Quebec's pesticides management code in order to guarantee its right to legislate and adopt regulations that are in the public interest?

[Minister of Public Works and Government Services, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, now known as “member XXX”, was in Montreal to hand out “old money” that had already been allocated to various cultural organizations. There was no new money included in the $481,104 announced on Friday. The only difference is that the cheque was delivered by limousine instead of by mail truck. That is what is known as riding an old wave of announcements.

The problem is that Canada is now looked down on when it comes to investment in culture, because it is the only country in the G8 that does not help its artists tour abroad.

Is it because he is ashamed of his own government's cuts to culture and its smokescreen announcements that the minister is hiding behind the moniker “member XXX” in his press releases? We would be, to say the least.

[Service Canada, March 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, a lot of people who never needed a passport before now have to apply for one. They have to submit personal documents, which are then returned to them. They receive an official document that enables them to travel around the world, a document they need. They have to feel that the process is safe, and not everyone feels comfortable sending their application in by mail. Sometimes, applications are sent back because information may be incorrect or insufficient, or because there is a problem with the photos.

I have been a member here since 1998, and over 60,000 people have come to my office with their passport applications. I have at least two people working full time in my office to provide this service. Maybe that is why costs are so low, as the Conservative members said earlier. Although not all members deal with as many applications, many of us are in this same situation. Because we provide certain services, such as checking applications, Passport Canada does not have to. In general, once a passport application has gone through a member's office, it contains no errors. That means that Passport Canada does not have to return documents and pay for postage, a cost that I absorb for my fellow citizens. Those are additional costs. I doubt that Passport Canada will compensate me for the cost of the services I provide and for my two extra employees.

In 2004, I submitted a request to the minister responsible for the passport office, the hon. Bill Graham. I submitted a petition signed by 12,000 citizens along with 60 municipal resolutions calling for a new regional passport office in Sherbrooke. Of course, the government of the day, the Chrétien government, completely ignored our demands.

As I indicated, we have seen 60,000 applications go through my office. In 2007 alone, we dealt with 10,923 applications and, last year, there was a slight drop, with 10,436. In 2007, 2,627 applicants chose to go through the Service Canada centre.

In 2007, the passport office received from the Sherbrooke area, within a 50 kilometre radius of the city, 37,820 passport applications. During the same time period, it received 27,752 applications from the Saguenay area. In the Saguenay, however, there is a regional passport office. There is a 10,000 difference between these two areas. I guess that the Saguenay is cost effective. We are charged $87 for a passport, but seldom are we told that out of that amount $25 goes directly to other services provided by embassies. That is already $25 too much that is charged to applicants; it should be covered by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Thus, applicants are already paying too much.

We know that the volume of service has increased at Passport Canada due to the large number of passport applications received, but very limited training was provided to Service Canada personnel. I cannot say how many, but many people turned to their member of Parliament in Sherbrooke after going to Service Canada because Service Canada was unable to provide all services. There were special cases where we had to answer questions for them and help them fill out their passport applications.

[Service Canada, March 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that my colleague, the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, will be sharing his time with me, or the other way around, whichever you prefer.

Once upon a time in Quebec City, in December 2005, a pretender to the throne, in an effort to please, promised to practice open federalism and respect Quebec's jurisdictions. A little later on, he recognized in this House the existence of the Quebec nation, but within a united Canada. I should say rather that he recognized a subjugated Quebec within an integrated Canada. That was his plan. With his budget and his throne speech he proved that he wanted to unilaterally fiddle with the equalization formula and impose a national securities commission.

Equalization, as a number of dictionaries clearly set out, is the distribution of a portion of the federal government's revenues in order to reduce inequalities among the provinces. For nearly 40 years, various governments in office have tried to play with the equalization formula. Major changes have been made by the government, without warning, without consultation, and, especially, without relevant information at the time the government should have given it. It has been known for the past few months that Quebec will be out of pocket some $991 million next year. This flies in the face of the definition of equalization. It is a system of redistribution based on a province's capacity to generate tax revenues. The provinces too have responsibilities and must provide services.

The lawmaker's intention was clearly that people in each of the provinces receive comparable services, regardless of the province's capacity to generate revenues. From the taxes it gathered, the government was to provide various provinces with an amount that would equalize the revenues of the provinces. History has shown us that, one day a province is entitled to it and another day, not, and one day it is no longer entitled to it because of its revenues and its capacity to generate them.

Governments have fiddled with the equalization formula and eliminated 100% of natural resources, including oil, from the formula and then, at other times, eliminated only 50%. In the budget put before us, the consequences for Newfoundland and Labrador could have been significant, and we saw Liberal members rise to oppose this provision. In doing so, they voted against their party but not against their province. They were working for it.

There are 14 Liberal members from Quebec. They have not dared to do the same thing; to stand in this House and confirm their desire to serve the interests of Quebec. There are also 10 Conservative members from, Quebec. They, too, have not been able to rise and affirm that they are working first for the Quebec nation and not for the Canadian nation.

An example of how they are always fiddling with equalization is the difference between Hydro One and Hydro-Québec, as a result of which Quebec, once again, will lose part of its equalization payments.

Of course the government wants to establish principles that are predictable and long term. How can there be long-term predictability when equalization takes place in today’s economic context? The variations in each province’s ability to find and produce revenue could be wildly different from one year to the next. To plan and especially to freeze a formula for a number of years goes against the very principle of equalization.

We have heard several members blithely say that Quebec is a spoiled child. In terms of money, it is true that Quebec receives several billion dollars and that its share is probably the largest. However, in terms of services to the public, we need to consider the population figures. In the 2008-09 budget, Quebec receives only $1,037 per capita while Prince Edward Island receives $2,300, New Brunswick $2,011, Newfoundland $1,781, Manitoba $1732, and Nova Scotia $1,679.

That is why I spoke earlier of the 10 Conservative members and the 14 Liberal members from Quebec, who are ignoring the concerns of that province, especially the unanimous voice of the National Assembly and its 125 members. That is something. We call on those members from Quebec to confirm that they are here to represent the values, and above all, the interests of Quebec.

The second part concerns the government’s desire to create a national securities commission. Everyone knows that this falls under Quebec’s jurisdiction. Once again, the National Assembly is unanimous on this question, but we the Quebec members here in this House are not all on side. And that is unacceptable. The Liberals and the Conservatives do not dare defend the Quebec nation, preferring to defend the interests of the Canadian nation.

When this securities commission is described as national, how many nations are we talking about? This House has stated that Quebec is a nation. It has different interests and values. For those reasons, the Quebec securities commission must be maintained.

Therefore, as I said earlier, this goes against the unanimous will of the National Assembly. The federal government has centralizing visions, always in agreement with the nation building principle. Day after day, there is a federal will to build the Canadian nation to the detriment of the tools and jurisdictions of Quebec. Slowly, indeed insidiously, the federal government tries to make them disappear.

As far as securities are concerned, the government has been coming back with the same idea and making attempts for almost 40 years. Yet, section 92.13 of the Constitution Act, 1867 clearly indicates that this is part of Quebec's jurisdictions. Now, the Conservative Party and its government have decided not to bother with the Constitution, and the Liberals obviously are in favour of the establishment of this Canada-wide securities commission.

Meanwhile—I have said it and I will say it again—all of Quebec political parties are against it.

There is currently a passport system which is very effective. All provinces, except Ontario, are part of the harmonization project.

When the government is not speaking for western interests, that is for oil companies, the Liberal Party is speaking for its friends on Bay Street.

These are two unacceptable elements for Quebec. In fact, a majority of the members of the National Assembly of Quebec have stated that. Thus, all members from Quebec in this House should vote against the equalization system and against the creation of a single Canadian securities commission.

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech.

For some time now, we have been hearing about a lack of planning. I believe, however, that there was planning. One only has to look at the figures given by my colleague regarding the oil reserves. One-third of the world's oil reserves are located there. One only has to look at the enormous savings ships will realize by using the Northeast Passage. I cannot help but wonder if this was planned. Besides, it is the same thing whether the government is Liberal or Conservative. The Conservative government has already said that it was a socialist scheme, that greenhouse gases do not exist and that it was simply to make others pay. I think it was deliberately planned to ensure that the ice melts as quickly as possible. There was never any sincere, voluntary involvement on the part of Liberal governments to reduce greenhouse gases. The government's motivation was to see the ice melt as soon as possible, so they could benefit from it as quickly as possible.

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

He has made it clear that all of the elements are there to make it possible to profit from pollution. For years greenhouse gases have been allowed to proliferate. And now the Conservatives want to take advantage of all that. My colleague gave some examples. All of the world's ships will want to take this route. Pollution will increase. Of course preventing pollution in the far north makes the government look good. On the other hand, the result will be an increase in economic activity with its polluting effect. It is a vicious circle. The more economic activity there is, the more greenhouses gases there are. The more greenhouses gases there are, the more room there is to navigate. And so on and so forth. There are also imminent dangers for nature and pollution. With warm water, it is even worse. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague for her heartfelt and relevant speech. I would like to ask her a question since she is very involved with these community organizations and not-for-profit organizations.

In July 2000, Industry Canada published a consultation document entitled “Reform of the Canada Corporations Act: The Federal Not-for-Profit Framework Law”. After releasing this document, the department held a series of round tables in cities across the country to look at the ideas in the document. And so Bill C-4 was born.

Given that she is involved with these community organizations, I would like to know if she was kept up-to-date on or knew if any round tables took place in her area. If so, does she know if the organizations were allowed to participate and bring their ideas to flesh out, in the most ideal way possible, this legislation that concerns them? And knowing this, does she think it would be relevant to not only have the bill studied in committee, but to also consult community organizations of all sizes, so that the bill would be adaptable to any situation?