House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 24% of the vote.
Lieutenant Governor of Quebec February 9th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the culture of entitlement is alive and well at the federal government, as details come in about the expense account of the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec: claims for the same meal in three different cities on the same day; claim for a fishing trip where the taxpayers even paid for the worms; $59,000 for a garden party.
How can this government, which claims to be preaching responsibility, tolerate that certain government institutions do not have to be accountable?
Business of Supply February 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse talk at length about a former Liberal program that the Conservative government first abolished then restored. If the environment situation were not as serious as it is, if the government's inaction were not such a major concern, it would be almost funny to hear him announce and explain once again a program that existed before the Conservatives abolished it.
Surprisingly, what he said has very little to do with the motion before us today and which asks to provide the Government of Quebec with the sum of $328 million to enable it to implement its plan, something all stakeholders in Quebec are asking for unanimously. It is not only the Bloc Québécois that is asking for it, it is not only some mean separatists who are asking for it. Of course, the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois are asking for it, but so are the ADQ and the Liberal Party of Jean Charest, which cannot be accused of plotting against Canada.
My colleague from Quebec did not say in his speech whether he would vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion, so I ask him. Will he vote, yes or no, in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion? If the answer is no, can he explain to this House what he represents: the interests of Quebeckers or the interests of oil companies in western Canada?
Business of Supply February 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak once again on this very important issue and to take advantage of the cosmic vacuum left on this issue by the Conservatives who do not dare comment on the Bloc motion.
The government has told us that it could take action and change things. It told us that it was not the government that had given the incentives and the fiscal gifts to the oil and gas companies. What can be said, however, is that the government has still not done anything to cancel any of those gifts the oil and gas companies benefit from.
Today at the Standing Committee on Finance, I tabled a motion that the committee study the money and the fiscal incentives given to the oil and gas companies. I also asked that the committee comment on the possibility of transferring those incentives to the renewable energy sector. The committee members voted in favour of this motion, except for the Conservative members of course.
Does my colleague not think that all this is in fact proof that the only interests the Conservatives are protecting are those of the oil and gas companies?
Business of Supply February 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for my colleague in reaction to the speech made earlier by the parliamentary secretary, who spoke about the clean air bill. He boasted that there would be targets and restrictive measures.
The problem is, I believe, that he is mixing up two things. He confuses air pollution, which causes smog and respiratory ailments, with greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming. It is not the same thing at all.
As for air pollutants, we can deal with them by, for example, putting filters on our vehicles. Of course, the greenhouse gases are not collected by these filters, and the only way to reduce these emissions is to reduce our use of oil to start with. That will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also, consequently, air pollutants.
It is surprising to see that the Conservatives do not differentiate between the two or refuse to do so. It could be that they are attempting to confuse Canadians. Nonetheless, there are no targets and no restrictive measures in terms of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, even in the clear air bill.
Does my colleague think that the Conservatives would be well advised to invite a scientific advisor who could explain to them the difference between the two?
Business of Supply February 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I stood up and almost fell back into my chair when I heard the Conservative member say that the problem was serious. We really do not get the impression that such is the general perception in the Conservative Party.
Earlier, the Minister of Transport mentioned that there was nothing on air quality in the Bloc Québécois program. I did a quick search on the Internet. I would like to point out that there is nothing on Kyoto in the Conservative program. If they thought this was a serious problem they would have taken the time to include something about Kyoto and global warming on their site. That is the least we could expect.
They also talked about wanting to restrict companies. And yet, there are still no objectives or absolute targets.
My question is the following. Can we envisage something other than Kyoto as a minimal acceptable target to protect our planet and to protect Quebec industry and Quebec society? Does the hon. member not think that the Kyoto targets are a starting point and that we have to do more, not less?
Business of Supply February 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to compare the Conservative and the Liberal stand on the environment.
The record of the Liberals after 13 years in power is pretty dismal. The Liberals kept saying they wanted to reach the targets set out in the Kyoto protocol, but they never did anything to get there. The Conservative approach is different. They say these targets are out of reach, and they do not want to do anything about it. Indeed, the only difference between the two is that the Conservatives are aware they are incompetent, but the Liberals did not know they were.
Here is my question: if we realize that, in this Parliament, we are not able to get the support of the government to reach these targets and help Quebec move forward, what solution is left to Quebeckers to take their own responsibilities and make their own choices?
Business of Supply February 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. She talked a lot about the various measures taken by the government, but she did not talk about today's motion, which asks to provide the Government of Quebec with the sum of $328 million to implement its plan in Quebec.
I remind her that it is not only the Bloc Québécois that is asking for this. Of course, there is the Parti Québécois, but there is also the Government of Quebec, with Mr. Jean Charest's Liberal Party in Quebec. In fact, everyone in Quebec is asking for this $328 million.
I would like to know whether, as an elected member from Quebec, she will vote in favour of our motion. If she does not intend to vote in favour of the motion, I would like her to say whom she represents here, in this House.
Post-Secondary Education February 6th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to funding post-secondary education, there is rare unanimity among the provincial governments and all the stakeholders to bring federal transfers back to the levels at which they were indexed to the cost of living in 1994.
The Prime Minister says he is seeking unanimity to resolve the fiscal imbalance. Well, here it is: he has unanimity for funding post-secondary education.
Accordingly, can he promise to resolve this issue quickly and out of respect for the unanimity of the stakeholders? In other words, will he transfer the $5.1 billion, including $1.2 billion for Quebec?
Canada Elections Act February 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my colleague from the NDP. He spoke about the fact that no one was ever prosecuted in Canada for voting illegally, spinning that as a sign that all is well. What that shows, in my opinion, is that there is a problem. It would be rather unrealistic, and perhaps naive, to think that there has never been anyone anywhere in Canada who voted illegally. In Quebec, “Infoman” Jean-René Dufort has reported that it was actually possible to vote more than once.
The reason no one was ever prosecuted is simply that it could not be proven that an individual voted more than once because that individual did not identify himself or herself. In the event that a voter is listed twice on the voters list and this list shows that an individual by that name came out to vote, it is impossible to prove that this individual did come out and vote twice. All that can be established is that two individuals voted under the same name.
Does my hon. colleague not think that, on the contrary, ID should be required, as provided in the legislation, so that people who vote illegally can be prosecuted? How can it be established beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual voted twice if that individual was never required to show any proof of identity?
Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006 January 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, much of my answer was already in my speech. This measure was announced, but so far no legislation has been passed. That is why I said in my speech I was happy to see that it was not included in the bill. I hope that it will never be introduced in the House. I do not think that it is good to eliminate the exemption for tourists who come and purchase products here and then take them back to their country of origin.
What is particularly striking in this government proposal is that it is based on unreliable data. They say that the program is ineffective because—if memory serves—only 4% of travellers make use of it. Obviously, though, this is not the right way to assess the program’s effectiveness. We have to do our calculations properly.
First, when a group of people travel together, usually only one person claims the credit. When a family of four buys a certain number of items, they obviously do not fill out four applications when they reach the border, just one. The government’s figures are therefore wrong.
Second, we need to compare the amount of the credit that is requested in dollars with what travellers are actually entitled to request in dollars. If a tourist comes to Canada to spend a weekend in Montreal and returns to the United States without having purchased any goods, he will obviously not apply for a credit to which he is not entitled. This does not mean, though, that the program was ineffective. We would have to be able to make the comparison in dollar terms to assess the effectiveness of the program, and we would also have to discuss it at the Standing Committee on Finance.
Third, there is the entire marketing aspect of this provision. Companies rely on it a lot. For example, they use the postal rebate.
Companies that offer a postal rebate know very well that there will always be a large number of consumers who never claim it. They buy the product because they are entitled to a postal rebate, but then forget to claim it. This does not mean that the marketing strategy was unsuccessful. The same applies to the GST visitor rebate: the fact that people do not claim it does not mean that the program did not work.