Serge Cardin

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville, and certainly not with the stranger across.

We have just come from an election; it was only 48 days ago. An election represents not only an opportunity but also a responsibility for members and candidates to go into their ridings; to talk with the people, to meet with social and economic groups, and all the different institutions. It is necessary to find out the real needs of the people; to learn about their hopes, but, above all, we must be able to identify solutions and take action to apply those solutions.

Of course, considering the election results; in the light of the government’s Speech from the Throne, and also the economic statement, it is obvious that the necessary and indeed essential work of talking to the people has not been done. I should allow for a caveat. If the work was done, the Conservatives did not listen. If, in fact, they did pay attention to the needs of their residents; if they did actually listen, their leader probably spoke louder than their own voters. If none of these things happened and they came forward with solutions other than the solutions proposed by the Bloc Québécois, it must be because they do not have any ridings like those in Quebec. Those are ridings that have Teflon protection, so that they are not affected by reality. However, I am sure the financial, economic and social problems affecting Quebec must also affect all of Canada.

Why then are they acting this way? Clearly, what they have presented to us is not an economic statement. It is really an ideological statement. It is an ideology that finds its roots in the tar sands. One can imagine what would grow there, what would come out of it and what the Conservatives are feeding on. That must really fog up their glasses, because we must recognize that the vision of this government is very, very short.

We have gone from one minority government to another. It is true that during the last election the Conservatives insisted it was their intention to elect a majority government. That was the reason they called the election. Now, having been denied that result, and frustrated at the fact that the great majority of voters said no to them—however, I should not exaggerate; there are limits to everything—they bring forward an economic statement that clearly shows how blind the government is to the need for urgent action. While all the governments in the world are taking action against the crisis, this Conservative Reform government—or Reform Conservative government, whatever you call it, it is the same thing—does exactly the opposite.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first, may I say that I will be sharing my time with...

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. She is very interested in heritage and culture. Today and in previous days, we heard the minister's answers to her questions, and we always hear the same speech. It is obvious that the minister is misinforming us.

For the benefit of the minister's colleagues, who have also been misinformed, I would like my colleague to tell us what transpired.

When the minister says that the Department of Canadian Heritage has received huge budget increases, he believes that these amounts were automatically allocated to culture. For the benefit of the Conservative members who are still here, I would like my colleague to explain the situation because we see that the minister did not do his duty and that his colleagues are in the dark. Thus, she should enlighten them a bit.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative government decided to call an election, we saw it as an opportunity to go back to our roots, to our fellow citizens, to the people. All members of the Bloc Québécois carried out that task admirably. At the same time, they were told many things that most people already know: we must act now, we must respond to the people's needs now, and, above all, we must come up with solutions now.

The Conservative government did ask us for solutions, and we responded. Earlier, the member for York South—Weston told my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain that the Minister of Finance had actually considered the Bloc Québécois' proposals. But earlier, I heard the Minister of Finance answer the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain's question. It was clear that the Minister of Finance had not read the proposals, so he could not—

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to invest in infrastructure in order to maintain a reasonable economic level. More importantly, this investment would fill a need that has been developing within each of our communities and municipalities over the years. However, the government's program has shortcomings.

The investments in infrastructure must be expedited. Quebec must be the sole authority. As well, the tax reimbursed to the municipalities must be adjusted. These are the missing elements. There are too many hidden agendas in this speech. It is a fine speech, relatively flexible, and it could seem attractive to many people, but there are too many things missing. The economy is a fine topic, but it has to help the public.

Yesterday, my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville asked the minister about preferential procurement. More than $50 billion is spent on purchases, procurement, goods and services, and it would not cost the government anything. However, if the money the government spent on goods and services was kept inside the Canadian market—by buying from our businesses—it would cost the government nothing and would breathe economic life back into Quebec and Canada. Certain aspects could be somewhat advantageous for Quebec, but, on the whole, it makes no sense.

Although many things have been left unsaid, we can see the direction the government is taking. This morning's newspapers indicated that the government wants to take away the fundamental elements of a healthy democracy, of the public's healthy expression during elections. In fact, it is trying to suffocate its political opponents through games, which, ideally, would allow it to achieve a majority. I will not describe these games, as that would be unparliamentary.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin if I may with my thanks to all the people of Sherbrooke for showing their confidence in me for the fifth time in a row in this past election. I was re-elected because we have confidence in each other. May I also congratulate all of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. I am sure that they, too, continue that relationship of confidence with their fellow citizens, for they are the only ones who really represent the needs and aspirations of Quebec. I also congratulate all the other members, and you, Mr. Speaker, on your election, which means that we know that decorum will reign in this House. Moreover, yesterday we witnessed the Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole ensuring the respect for decorum as well.

That said, an election campaign has just come to an end, and not much has changed. A government has been sworn in, a government which sought to obtain a majority under false pretenses, with a platform which pointed to more of the same—that is a minority government.

Judging by the throne speech, many members of the government did not campaign according to the rules. Obviously, candidates campaign to get re-elected. But they also campaign to meet with people, companies, institutions and community, social and economic organizations. They campaign to talk with people and find out what they want, to acknowledge their needs and, above all, to be able to meet those needs.

When a government does not want to meet people's needs, the best way it can do that is to not acknowledge those needs. It is easier to say that the most pressing needs are high finance and its impact on the economy. It is easier to take that line and forget about all the other needs people have and what they are going through. So it is that the government decided to deal with the economy.

On reading the throne speech, we can also see that the Prime Minister has remained totally insensitive to how the crisis is affecting the people and the economy. The Prime Minister did not learn anything from the election results in Quebec. And as my leader so aptly put it, this throne speech is just like the most recent Conservative convention: ideological. Incidentally, the Conservative ideology is rooted in the western oil sands. To all intents and purposes, its sole concern is the oil industry.

The throne speech is very disappointing. The Prime Minister came up short. We were promised a throne speech that would focus on the economy, with none of the usual irritants, but what we got was just the opposite. Even though the forestry industry is in very dire straits, the government promises to carry on as if nothing were wrong. The speech contains no commitment to improve employment insurance or create a support program for older workers. There is not even one line about providing assistance for retirees affected by the financial crisis, which shows incredible insensitivity.

The many irritants in the throne speech prove that the Prime Minister still knows nothing about Quebec. He is maintaining the cuts to culture and to economic development organizations. He continues to want to impose a repressive young offenders law and dismantle the gun registry.

He persists in wanting to create a federal securities commission. He will not even say the word "Kyoto". He persists in wanting to reduce Quebec's political power. He promises to expand intrusions into areas under Quebec's jurisdiction such as healthcare and education. There is nothing about the fiscal imbalance, but he uses untruths about the education transfer and wants to cap equalization payments. He wants to support the nuclear power industry and continue with unbridled military spending. He is making the same promises about the federal spending power with a formula that has already been rejected by Quebec. This throne speech gives no thought at all to the Quebec nation or to the interests or values of Quebec.

The openness we were expecting is not there. The worst thing is this complete lack of sensitivity to the effects of the crisis on people and the economy. It is simple. We oppose this throne speech.

This statement of intent is fuzzy when it comes to what the government intends to do to support the economy. For one thing, the throne speech is virtually silent on the enormous problems in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, when entire communities are affected and are desperately waiting for the federal government to play its role in getting the economy going again and providing support for workers who have lost their jobs.

We expected the government to do something. When it called the election, it postponed accountability. And yet we knew what might happen to the economy. The government virtually abdicated responsibility, or really, perhaps, demonstrated that it was incapable of acting. Yes, the government should act, and most importantly, it has the resources to act. All that is missing is the will.

The Bloc Québécois proposed a three-part plan this week to get the economy going again and to help people, to help the public.

The government has a lot of leeway; it could have over $27.7 billion in two years. We could keep a reserve and still invest over $23 billion. It is easy to find $6 billion in bureaucratic spending, and to close the tax havens. Why are they called “tax havens”, in fact? What they are is tax hells for taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. They are being indirectly deprived of services. To my eyes, this is really tax evasion, and the government should fix it as quickly possible.

Of course there are still all the hand-outs to the oil companies, and that could amount to $5.9 billion over two years. And there is the possibility of using the CMHC surplus.

There are other approaches for fixing the situation that cost nothing too, to encourage our domestic businesses and provide more help for our people. There is preferential purchasing, of course. We could make regulations for forestry products to be used in federal construction projects. Another thing is to eliminate the employment insurance waiting period.

I am aware of the needs and aspirations of the people of Sherbrooke, and obviously in my last election campaign I was being told important things I already knew about when it comes to people's social and economic situations. Certainly we can talk about employment insurance, an issue that has still not been resolved. It is up to the government to ensure that people at least have decent living conditions. There is also the question of social housing. In the community of Sherbrooke there are more than 1,350 households and families in extreme need of housing.

You are signalling that I have to finish. That is unfortunate, since I could have gone on, because once again the government is not up to the job.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague for the attention he gave to the needs of his constituents during the election campaign. Indeed, the members of the Bloc Québécois are in tune with the people, their needs and their aspirations.

During the most recent election campaign, it was clear that there were considerable needs. Some people really are struggling. The government has the means to fix the situation at this time, just as it had the means to fix it in the past. Yet it did nothing. It ignored the demands of Quebec. It has ignored proposals made by the Bloc Québécois since it first came to power. Essentially, the Bloc Québécois has been one of the best advisors the government has had in this House. And we did not even charge a fee.

I would like to ask my colleague the following. After really listening to all the needs and all the hopes of the people of his riding, regarding the problems they faced, for instance, in the manufacturing industry, perhaps less in the forestry sector in his case, but also in terms of culture, I would like to hear him elaborate on what he learned during the election campaign, although I am sure he probably already knew most of it.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about supply management. The government says that it will energetically defend this principle. I suppose the member has confidence in the government; after all, he will be supporting the throne speech. That means he supports the fact that the government will energetically defend supply management.

However, I would like to point out that Conservative ministers have made contradictory statements on this subject. Let us not forget that, over the past few months, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have made repeated statements that reveal the government's true intentions.

For example, the former minister of International Trade said that, sooner or later, Canada would have to consider ending supply management. The former minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that agricultural producers under supply management were making it hard for the government to protect Canadian interests at the WTO and that they should prepare for some compromises.

Can the member tell me what he stands for in voting for the throne speech? Is he supporting the government's commitment to energetically defending supply management, or is he supporting statements made by former ministers?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Quebec City. She referred to hockey legends who talked about skating to where the puck is going to be. I do not know much about hockey, but that leads me to believe that the Prime Minister does not know any more than I do. If you get ahead of the puck, you run the risk of being off side. If the goalie is out of position the puck just might slide between his legs. I see that the Prime Minister does not understand hockey any more than he does economics, even though he wanted to teach it. .

I would like to ask my colleague a question. She spoke about the manufacturing industry. Since 2005, manufacturers have been losing money. In 2005, the Liberals were in power. This situation is the result of the Liberals' economic policy. They were unable to implement potential measures, safety measures, that could have been used to protect the industrial and manufacturing sectors. They did not want to invest in research and development credits to improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. They did not want to invest in research and development in order to modernize the manufacturing industry. The Liberal government of the day missed the boat. The Conservative government has not done any better. Today, it says it will pay attention to the manufacturing sector.

What does my colleague believe the Prime Minister should do as quickly as possible?

[International Trade, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, and even against the recommendations of the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Prime Minister went ahead and announced a free trade agreement with Colombia. By signing such an agreement, there is no doubt that he is in favour of protecting Canadian companies' investments rather than human rights. Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in the hemisphere.

How can the Prime Minister justify such an agreement with Colombia when we know that union activists and indigenous peoples are assassinated with total impunity?