Thierry St-Cyr

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that very wise decision.

The Conservative member spoke a lot about his government's openness towards opposition suggestions. Incidentally, the Bloc Québécois, through its finance critic, made suggestions this week. We keep hearing that the government is very open, that we must work together in the spirit of cooperation and non-partisanship, and I think that is great.

I would simply like to ask the member to give us a list of some examples of measures in the throne speech that came from the opposition—examples that would illustrate this supposed openness, that come from opposition parties and do not reflect the Conservative government's policies.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his question. The Bloc Québécois will also not be supporting this Speech from the Throne because it does not meet Quebec's expectations, particularly with regard to assistance for the manufacturing and forestry industries.

Earlier on, an NDP colleague spoke more specifically about the forestry industry. He spoke about the softwood lumber agreement and denounced the Bloc Québécois for listening to and respecting the unanimous consensus in Quebec. We know that Quebec unions and businesses supported the agreement even though they did not want to. All Quebeckers wanted the agreement to be approved and therefore that is what the Bloc Québécois supported.

I would like to know whether my colleague believes that, as representatives of Quebec, we did the right thing when we listened to the people or should we have adopted an ideological stance—as suggested by his colleague—and rejected the demands of the Quebec unions?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as is proper, I will begin my speech by thanking the voters of my riding for again showing confidence in me and electing me a second time. My congratulations also to all colleagues here on their election. And to you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election in this House.

This Speech from the Throne does not meet the expectations of Quebeckers, the consensus of Quebeckers supported by all the parties in the National Assembly and Quebec's civil society as a whole.

There is a long list of ways in which the needs expressed in the Quebec consensus have not been met. Cuts to culture have not been restored. They still want to impose the Young Offenders Act. They still want to create a federal securities commission against the advice of those in the financial field in Quebec. There is no reference whatsoever to the Kyoto protocol in this Speech from the Throne. They continue in their desire to weaken the political power of Quebec in this House. Intrusions into Quebec's areas of jurisdiction go on and on. There is not a word about the fiscal imbalance, when no one in Quebec feels that it has been resolved. They still want to invest our tax dollars in nuclear energy and more military purchasing. And finally, of course, there is a total absence of any desire to restrict, or rather to do away with, the so-called federal spending power. All of this shows us that this government, despite its claim of openness to Quebec, is refusing to get onside with the consensus in Quebec.

We used to have a Liberal government that did not even claim to be open to Quebec, and did nothing to help Quebec.

This is what I would like to ask my colleague. What choice remains for Quebeckers in the medium term? What option remains so that we can truly move ahead with the strong consensus expressed in Quebec and not to be obliged to beg from Ottawa any longer?

[June 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the parliamentary secretary, who is so well prepared, does not have an answer to such a simple question about the refugee appeals division.

He forgot to mention that applying for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds is a process often used by refugees whose first application for permanent residence has been denied. As such, it has everything to do with Bill C-280, which is dragging in the Senate.

In the absence of a refugee appeals division, people are looking for another option for victims of bad decisions. That option is applying for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds. The current process is questionable indeed.

Let us return to the first question I would like him to answer. What are we waiting for to ask the senators to send back the amendments they made to Bill C-280? It is not that complicated; we do not need—

[June 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on this issue today. Some time ago, I asked the minister why in many cases the same immigration officer who analyzes an application for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds also conducts the pre-removal risk assessment or PRRA.

At the time, I was told that this was normal procedure. I do not feel that this is normal at all. It should not happen, because it reduces the likelihood of a fair and equitable decision. It would be like appearing before a judge who ruled against us, then appealing and having the appeal heard by the same judge. Even though the provisions of the act that apply are not the same, the fact remains that the same person will rule on the same case twice. The Bloc Québécois believes—and this opinion is widely shared—that the same officer should not analyze both cases.

First, I would like the minister to tell us whether it is an official, documented policy of the government that the same officer conducts the PRRA and analyzes the application for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds. I wanted this information, but I did not get it.

I would also like to know something else. Since this measure eliminates the possibility of an appeal and there is still no refugee appeal division, does the government plan to put pressure on the unelected Conservative senators who are stalling Bill C-280 in the Senate?

The Liberal and Conservative senators have reached an agreement on the refugee appeal division so that the bill will not take effect until one year after it receives royal assent. This is all well and good, but if an agreement is reached, it should be referred to the House as quickly as possible so that we can make a decision. The Conservatives are stalling this bill in the Senate. They are so critical of the unelected Liberal senators who block, delay or amend Conservative bills. Now, what is happening? The Conservatives themselves are using the Senate to delay a bill that was duly passed in this House by a large majority of members.

I would like to know why the government is doing this. This is important because the refugee appeal division is critical. It would ensure that nobody's fate is determined at the whim of the member responsible for reviewing his or her case.

Take, for example, the case of Abdelkader Belaouni in my riding. His case was assessed by Laurier Thibault, a member who, at the time, rejected 98% of the applications he evaluated. If any other person had to appear before a judge who was known to convict 98% of the people he or she tried, that person would not feel that justice had been served. That is why the refugee appeals division is so important, and that is why the government should not let it drag in the Senate. The government should respect the democratic will of the elected members of this House and the agreement that the Conservatives and Liberals reached in the Senate. When an agreement is negotiated in good faith, the parties to it must fulfill the terms of that agreement.

When will the Senate's amendments to Bill C-280 be considered in this House?

[Private Members' Business, June 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as there are no items to be debated under private members' business, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased because I will probably have some good quotations next time I want to promote sovereignty. My colleague has shown very clearly that in fact, in terms of duplication, money is being wasted in Quebec and Canada because two governments are providing the same services or carrying out the same activities. There has been a lot of talk about income tax, which accounts for $300 million, but there is much more than that.

At the time of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, the figure $3 billion was talked about, if memory serves. But let us assume that the figure is only $1 billion. If we consider the fact that since then, the federal government has interfered even more in matters under Quebec’s jurisdiction and so has expanded the number of duplications, we might think that the money to be saved by a sovereign Quebec would be quite substantial. That money could be used to really offer services to the public, rather than duplicating some of the work. I agree, filing two income tax returns is a little ridiculous.

In fact, this House is probably going to be asked to create a single tax return for Quebec. If I understand what my Liberal colleague was saying correctly, we might have the Liberal Party’s support to have a single tax return used in Quebec. Obviously, Quebeckers will not give up the few powers remaining to them and the little control they have over tax policy, to turn it over to the federal government without being able to control it. In fact, our proposal would be to have a single tax return in Quebec, and I hope the Liberals are going to support us. The Quebec revenue department already collects the GST within Quebec for the federal government, and so it would be very simple to have a single income tax return in Quebec, and to have a portion of the taxes sent to the federal government at the same time as the GST money.

In a sovereign Quebec, who will manage our airports? Quebeckers will. That is the goal. At present, the three parties in Quebec are unanimous on that question. If Quebec were a sovereign country, there would be no customs charges at Mont Tremblant airport because that would be considered to be harmful to the economy. The money that the government saves, it wastes because of the lack of economic development.

The comments we just heard is music to the ears of sovereignists.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in fact there is something utterly inconsistent in this government policy. Let us say on the one hand that it is obviously not a gift. The Conservatives often portray the spending of our tax dollars as a gift. We often hear the Minister of Labour say that he has allocated and handed over x amount of money to such and such an organization and so forth.

The Minister of Labour needs to understand that it is not his money. I doubt he is earning enough as a minister to go around distributing millions of dollars out of his own pocket. The money obviously comes from Quebec taxpayers. The least the federal government could do is invest in Quebec infrastructures.

When the time comes to invest in structural initiatives, Quebec never gets its fair share of federal spending. Research centres are one example that springs to mind. If we look at the National Capital Region alone, there are dozens of centres—I cannot recall the exact number—but for purposes of comparison, the number is irrelevant. There are dozens of research centres on the Ottawa side, the Ontario side, but none on the Quebec side, not one research centre.

If we look at investment in different fields of research, fields that have productive benefits, Quebec is severely under-represented relative to its population and the taxes it sends to Ottawa.

In Mont Tremblant, there is investment in infrastructure. Great. That is a good thing, and there is nothing to criticize on that front. But the government must be consistent. If it believes in that airport, it cannot penalize it by treating it unfairly, by treating it in a way that is special but negative, extremely negative. The government should not freeze bank accounts or threaten to close such an important airport.

My colleague drew a very interesting parallel with Mirabel Airport, because Mirabel Airport was also something of a questionable political decision in its day. The subsequent decisions were equally questionable, that is, transferring everything to Dorval, which will soon reach its saturation point.

Our impression is that the federal government, Liberal or Conservative, favours Toronto as the hub of Canada’s airport system, to the exclusion of everyone else. In terms of airport policy, this government’s only thought is to support Toronto.

As for the rest, in Quebec, the decisions on Dorval and Mirabel were a fiasco across the board. We see it now, too, in the case of the Mont Tremblant airport. It is yet another discriminatory decision that is not in Quebec’s interest.

I hope that during the question and comments period the Conservatives will be able to tell me the name of this famous other airport that is being treated the same way, that is, getting regular commercial flights and having to pay charges.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion before us today. I would like to begin by emphasizing how beautiful the region served by the Mont Tremblant International Airport is. I am very familiar with the area. I am not from that region exactly, but I spent some time in my youth in Saint-Donat, which is nearby. Furthermore, a new road was built a few years ago to link the towns of Saint-Donat, Lac-Supérieur, Mont-Tremblant and others. Thus, we feel a little closer to the people of the Mont Tremblant area, not geographically, but at least in our hearts and in our minds. People from around the world are investing in Mont Tremblant, but more than anything, many people come to relax, to have fun, and to enjoy the magnificent scenery and fantastic tourist attractions.

This corner of our country, of Quebec and even of Canada we could say, has been popular for quite some time. For many years, people mostly from Quebec and the surrounding area have been skiing at Mont Tremblant, enjoying activities in the Mont Tremblant national park and visiting the village's fantastic restaurants. The area's reputation is growing. Residents of the Laurentians and the Lanaudière area have been going there for decades. Then it was discovered by Montrealers, followed by people from Quebec City and many other parts of Quebec. People are travelling from further afield: from the United States, the east coast and even the west coast. How do we get all these people to this fantastic and magnificent region? It takes an air link, that much is rather obvious.

The issue came to the forefront very quickly and led to several developments. People in this community took charge and developed a quality international airport providing regular commercial flights which, interestingly enough, make it possible for travellers from anywhere in the United States, via certain cities, to fly directly to Mont Tremblant. They do not have to land in Montreal and then travel 1.5 hours by land, if there is little traffic which, unfortunately, is not very often the case in Montreal. The situation could deteriorate in the next few years with the repairs, construction and increased road traffic in future.

This international airport, which allows American tourists to fly directly to Mont Tremblant without going through Montreal, is a necessity. The number of passengers, the fact that we can establish regular commercial flights and the economics of this relationship prove that there is a demand and that we have to provide this service. I would like to point out how vital this airport is to the economic development of the region. If the airport were to close, or if unfair or disproportionate conditions were imposed that crippled its operations, the entire region would be affected.

My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue will certainly agree since this airport also serves more remote regions like Abitibi. I know that because I have talked to people who use it frequently. When leaving the Abitibi region and having to drive through the Laurentian national park, one has already been on the road long enough without having to go all the way to Montreal, especially with all the traffic.

It is an essential economic development tool for a region that has been severely affected by the forestry crisis. Again, it must be said that, in both cases, it is largely due to the incompetence or even the powerlessness of this government. I do not like to use the word “powerlessness” because the government has the ability to do things. If the government really were powerless and could not take action, we could say that it is not its fault since there is nothing it could do. But that is not so. The reality is that it has decided not to take action for reasons that are purely ideological. This is true for both the forestry crisis and the Mont Tremblant airport.

During the forestry crisis, the Bloc Quebecois called for a series of measures to help this industry, be it through refundable tax credits for research or through forward averaging. Concrete measures needed to be taken to help these people get through these difficult times and this government did not answer the call.

Long before that, there was the softwood lumber agreement, which was greatly unfavourable to Quebec and the forestry sector. The agreement was signed and supported by the Bloc Québécois, because our forestry companies were in such a tight spot that there was no other solution but to sign this agreement. Need we be reminded that this agreement was not satisfactory to Quebec and that we could have got much more if we had stood up for ourselves. If the Conservative government—and even the Liberal government before it—had agreed to offer loan guarantees to the companies in question so as to ensure them the liquidity they required to meet their needs, we would not have ended up in this situation. The forestry companies would have been in much better shape financially and we could have continued the legal battle with the United States much longer. We could have won that battle. We would have been in a position of power to negotiate a better agreement. The Conservatives, just like the Liberals before them, did not do it. So we ended up with an agreement that we had to accept reluctantly and that weakened our forestry industry.

What we can see is that there was a series of actions, by both the Liberals in their day and the Conservatives of today, that weakened the forestry industry and that by extension weakened the people of the Mont Tremblant region and the Laurentians in general.

What does that lead us to conclude? First of all, these people pulled themselves together to develop and maintain their forest industry. They did not give up. They are very combative and vigorous people. They also realized that they had to diversify their economy and compensate with other sources of economic activity. Tourism, thanks to the amazing natural setting of this region, the proverbial and legendary hospitality and the welcome extended by these communities, turns out to be a golden economic opportunity to try to make up for the effects of the forestry crisis caused by the negligence of the current government and the previous one.

What is happening? There was plenty of talk about it this morning. We have an airport, which is an economic development driver that attracts tourists—as I said a little earlier in my speech—from Quebec and the United States. People only have to connect to one airport in the United States for access to the rest of that country, and from there they can fly directly to Mont Tremblant.

This is a tool that works well, but there is a problem because the government is imposing unfair and inequitable treatment on it by requiring fees to cover customs services at this airport when it receives regular commercial flights.

It is the only airport in Canada that finds itself in that situation. It is surprising that, when the hon. member for Outremont, or some Bloc Québécois members pointed this out, namely that it is the only airport in Canada in that situation, some Conservative members said that it is not true, that it is not the reality, that it is not the case. We even heard the parliamentary secretary treat a colleague in such a way that I cannot provide details. But the fact is that we heard the parliamentary secretary strongly dispute that statement.

Yet, these Conservative members cannot even name one other airport that is in the same situation. They say it is not true, that there are other ones, but they are not telling us which ones. Is it a state secret? If the information is public in the case of the La Macaza airport, why would it not also be public in the case of other airports? Come on. This is ridiculous.

If the Conservatives know about another Canadian airport that must pay custom charges for regular commercial flights during normal business hours, then let them tell us. Otherwise, as the old saying goes, they should forever hold their peace and stop bothering us and denying the obvious, namely that the Mont Tremblant airport is the only one in that situation.

This is so true that the only time a Conservative member rose in this House to name another airport, he mentioned the Rigaud airport. Of course, this is a bit ridiculous, because there are no international flights landing in Rigaud. In fact, there is not even an airport in Rigaud. This shows the amateurism displayed by the government regarding this issue. It shows how unimportant this issue is to the government. In fact, no one is able to answer questions on this issue. No one in the government felt that it might be a good thing to have something intelligent to say about this issue.

This morning, we were told that our motion would not be supported, because there are no regular commercial flights at La Macaza, at Mont Tremblant. However, I remind hon. members that the motion refers specifically to regular flights. Perhaps, if we repeat it, the government will understand that we must vote on the wording of the motion before us:

That the Committee recommend that the Rivière Rouge Mont Tremblant International Airport (YTM) be recognized as an airport of entry into Canada, without customs charges being imposed for regular commercial flights, as is the case with the airports in Montreal and Quebec City.

This morning, when we received the committee’s motion and my colleague tabled it in this House for adoption, no one on the government side realized that it involved regular commercial flights. They said that there are no regular flights to Mont Tremblant. Consequently, the government could very well implement this recommendation, since it would not have any impact. Why is it refusing to support this motion, which applies only to regular commercial flights? The reason is that it knows we are right. It knows that there in fact regular commercial flights and that Mont Tremblant is the only airport in Canada that is in this situation.

We want a clear statement from the government that this is not an issue; that it is not going to put money into that airport; that the problems are ours to deal with; that all we have to do is pay, and that is the end of it.

We have reason to wonder about the way the government is handling this issue. Municipal councillors, elected representatives at all levels of government and all economic players are being ignored. The government does not even bother to acknowledge their inquiries, answer their questions or meet with them.

The airport was literally forced to sign a contract to pay these customs charges a few days before its first international flights landed. They came into the office like some sort of bullies and demanded that airport officials sign; if they did not, they would no longer be allowed to land planes on their runways. That amounts to extortion and is not a normal way of doing business. They seize bank accounts and operate as if the people at the Mont Tremblant airport were common criminals they are afraid will skip out on them.

I would like to reassure the government that it has nothing to worry about: they are not about to pack up the airport during the night and move it to Barbados. They are not going anywhere; they are staying where they are. If there are problems, it is pretty easy to find the people who run the airport. There is no need to treat them like criminals or take such radical action.

The reality is that the Conservatives are not all sensitive to the concerns of Quebeckers and the situation in Quebec, despite the fact that there are MPs from Quebec in the Conservative caucus. Those people are never there. They did not speak up in this House today and they will probably not speak up. If they do, it will obviously not be in defence of Quebec, but in defence of the government.

I often say that the main difference between a Bloc Québécois MP and a Conservative MP from Quebec is that the Bloc MP is there to defend Quebeckers to the government while the Conservative MP is there to defend the government to Quebeckers. The role of a Conservative MP from Quebec is to say how kind the federal government is and that it does wonderful things and hands out goodies. Conservative MPs from Quebec neglect to say that when the time comes to take real action that will help us develop and grow as a nation, the Conservative government is nowhere to be seen. We saw evidence of this recently in the case of economic development funding for not-for-profit organizations.

There is a model that everyone across the board supports in Quebec. From labour to management to every member of every party at the National Assembly and municipal officials, everyone supports it. There are only ten Quebeckers who disagree, namely the Minister of Labour and his nine Conservative colleagues from Quebec. These ten individuals are the only Quebeckers holding that view. There is ten of them and seven million of us, and they are interfering with how we want to do things. They claim that they can do what they want because it is their money. If they are going to do harm, they should give the money to the Quebec government, which will make proper use of it. It is not because we have the power to do something stupid that we should do it or that it is the intelligent thing to do.

This gives an idea of how insensitive this government is to Quebec's demands. In the medium and short term, as Quebeckers, we have to ask ourselves how come, under whatever government, be it Conservative or Liberal, Quebeckers are never able to fully implement their development model or make any of the choices they would like to make. They always have to beg permission from Ottawa, whose priorities are different from ours and which often acts in a totally paternalistic way, as we have seen on the part of the Minister of Labour.

The reason for this is that we are part of a country in which we are a minority. Obviously, the only efficient and durable solution for Quebeckers is to achieve sovereignty and become an independent country. All these futile discussions and epic battles against the federal government are nothing but a waste of energy that Quebeckers could be using instead to build a stronger society. As a sovereign nation with full control over our taxes and the ability to pass all our own legislation and speak for ourselves on the international scene, we would not have to constantly beg Ottawa for these services...

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked the remarks of our NDP colleague. We appreciate his party’s support. The hon. member drew a parallel with the recognition of the Quebec nation, and I am pleased with that, because a nation also needs economic development.

The Bloc has introduced a number of bills concerning the Quebec nation, and the NDP supported the last one, which provides that the French language charter should apply to jobs under federal jurisdiction in Quebec. We appreciate this support.

We also have another bill to exempt Quebec from Canadian multiculturalism. I presume the NDP will support us once more. I would like to highlight the fact that Mr. Julius Gray gave us his support today for this piece of legislation. I hope the NDP will be on board.

I have a question about commercial flights. Are these flights commercial or are they not? A little earlier, I asked the parliamentary secretary whether this was the basis of his position or whether he thought these are not really regular commercial flights. The motion has been read several times by the member for Outremont, and it appears to me that it emphasizes clearly that it deals only with regular commercial flights.

Does the hon. member think that, if the Conservative position were right—and we do not agree that it is—the Conservatives could very well support the motion, thinking that it does not commit them to anything, since it is not true? Does he agree with this interpretation?