Thierry St-Cyr

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech very interesting. The Bloc Québécois frequently notices that the government does not listen to the consensus in Quebec, where we want to make our voice heard and help people in difficulty. Even though the Bloc Québécois passes on what Quebeckers are thinking, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives ever take any action. The government never listens to Quebec. In the medium term, the Bloc Québécois will continue to push and fight to make Quebeckers' voices heard, so that the government will take action.

Could my colleague, as a member of a sovereigntist party, suggest how Quebeckers might get out of this situation, have real control over all their laws and all their taxes and make their voices heard on the international stage?

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague talked a lot about the program to help the auto industry in Ontario. He said that this program helps the people of Ontario, and rightly so, since Ontario has been the hardest hit.

It makes sense that an assistance program for the auto industry is concentrated in Ontario, and that there is no assistance for Prince Edward Island or Alberta, in the same way that it made sense during the mad cow crisis that money was given primarily to Alberta, where the crisis was going on.

However, today we see that with respect to assistance for the manufacturing and industrial sectors, the per capita funding is not going to Quebec, the province experiencing the most difficulties.

Why does the government not send the money where it is truly needed? When Quebec needs help, why does it not get any? And why do Alberta and Prince Edward Island receive more money per capita, when they are experiencing fewer difficulties in the manufacturing and forestry industries?

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. It is amazing to think that the House will probably pass this budget even though it does not meet Quebec's needs.

Members of the National Assembly from all three political parties, including Quebec's Minister of Finance, have unanimously condemned this budget. In fact, had this budget been tabled in Quebec's National Assembly rather than in this House, not one single member would have voted for it, and all 125 would have voted against. Clearly, Canadian federalism is limiting Quebeckers' freedom to act in their own best interest and preventing them from choosing how they want to spend their own tax dollars.

As a Bloc Québécois MP, does my colleague know of a medium or long term solution for us, for Quebeckers, that would make us masters of our own destiny and enable us to set our own priorities for spending our own tax dollars?

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have one major concern about this disappointing budget with respect to post-secondary education transfers. From 1995 on, the Liberal Party viciously cut transfers. Students across the country, and particularly in Quebec, felt the devastating effects. The Liberals surely had a lack of vision when they decided to go after post-secondary education.

Would the member have liked the Conservatives to fix this mistake?

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out that in his point of order, my Conservative colleague referred to the minister's absence from this House, which he clearly has no right to do. This is completely inappropriate.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech, with its hint of irony, as it pointed out the extent to which this budget does not reflect Quebeckers' priorities. It is somewhat pathetic to see the Liberals letting such a poor budget go through and giving the government a blank cheque, so to speak, to continue its disastrous policy.

I know that my colleague discussed this budget with many people from his riding who did not benefit at all from it. I am sure he had an opportunity to speak with students from his riding for whom this budget provided nothing. The Bloc Québécois asked that the scandalous and shameful cuts made by the Liberal Party to post-secondary education transfers, beginning in 1995, be reversed. We were not asking for the moon; we were just asking for these transfers to be restored for our youth attending CEGEPs and universities. They are the future of our society. We asked the government to make up the shortfall created by the Liberals but it did not meet our expectations.

Were the students my colleague met in his riding as enthused as the rest of his constituents about the idea of meeting the Minister of Finance?

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised to hear about help being provided to seniors in this budget. After all, the government still owes them $3.2 billion in unclaimed guaranteed income supplement benefits because the system was too complicated.

The Liberal government at the time always refused make retroactive payments and give seniors the money they were owed. Seemingly thoughtful, the Conservatives promised during the campaign to give seniors that money, but then reneged on their promise. They have betrayed seniors and they have still not followed through in this budget.

It is not that it could not afford to pay. It was swimming in surpluses, but chose to pay the banks before paying seniors the money they were owed. That is absolutely shameful. It is shameful to ask those seniors who do not have enough money to live on to get a job at the local McDonald's and tell them that the first $2,000 or $3,000 they earn will not be taxable.

I would like an explanation as to why that promise was broken.

[Canada Elections Act, February 12th, 2008]

I realized my mistake the moment I saw you rise, Mr. Speaker.

The Conservative government awarded a communications contract to Marie-Josée Lapointe, who was on this government's transition team. This contract goes against the spirit of the government's own Federal Accountability Act, since political staff are not allowed to receive contracts from the government in place for 12 months after they leave. The contract was eventually cancelled halfway through, following a hard fight in the House.

When Bill C-2 was passed, the point was raised also that the issue of whistleblower protection had not been covered. In addition, the reform of the Access to Information Act has yet to be covered. So, in terms of ethics, it is falling short.

[Canada Elections Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member has indeed summed up the situation well. He spoke of one case. If there were only one case, it would not be a problem, but it is always the case. The government of Stephen Harper awarded a communications contract—

[Canada Elections Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

We could continue with the matter of the partisan appointments of judges, and immigration and refugee board commissioners.

The Prime Minister changed the appointment process in order to be able to appoint the candidates of his choice. In the case of the appointment of judges, the Conservative government changed the composition of the selection committee in order to ensure a preponderance of votes. The four members of the selection committee who were appointed by the government hold the majority of votes, while there are only three seats for independent members who represent the Canadian Bar Association, the provincial bar and the provincial justice department. Thus, we have a committee made up of three independent members and four members appointed by this government that essentially control all the appointments.

Regarding the appointments of commissioners sitting on the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Conservative government again politicized the selection committee by reserving the right to appoint two of the seven committee members.

In both cases, the government abandoned the principle of appointments based on merit in order to have the flexibility to appoint either party cronies or people who share the same right-wing ideology.