Robert Carrier

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues have previously drawn attention to the extreme poverty in which most seniors live. Very often this poverty is caused by the fact that they do not even know they are entitled to a guaranteed income supplement.

At present, there is a bill tabled before this House. This bill is designed to correct certain imperfections in the current law. I listened carefully to the presentation by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development and the member for Blackstrap.

I would like her to explain why this bill, which aims to correct an injustice, does not go so far as to ensure real justice by granting full retroactivity to those who in any case will realize they were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement.

The bill limits retroactivity to just 11 months. By what accounting or human logic can the present government place this limit on retroactivity? As many have pointed out, when money owed by citizens or businesses to the government is involved, retroactivity is full, regardless of the number of years the government has been owed the debt. Can she explain to me what human logic and sentiments are behind this limit on retroactivity?

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2007]

I too wish to congratulate our new colleague from Repentigny, Mr. Speaker. I think that we all stand to benefit from his life experience and his empathy for people across Quebec, and Canada as well I hope.

I wanted to tell him that what struck me most in this bill was the exception concerning new immigrants, these new Canadian citizens who, while having been recognized by our government remain excluded from the guaranteed income supplement. I think that is a great injustice. My riding regularly welcomes new Canadian citizens. The same must be true in the ridings of many of my colleagues. I know how hard these people strive over the course of many years, landing in a country where they have to be sponsored, to ensure that they have sufficient income.

Are we intent on penalizing them for the longest time possible, especially once they have been recognized as Canadian citizens? I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of this exception concerning our new Canadian citizens who have been officially recognized as such.

[Augusto Pinochet, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, died yesterday. He overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973, in a coup d'état. His 17 years in power were marked by a merciless battle against the democratic aspirations of Chile, resulting in over 3,000 political assassinations and 1,000 disappearances.

During those difficult years, Quebec welcomed many Chilean exiles. We supported our South American companions who fought for greater social justice, democracy and respect for human rights.

Pinochet died without justice being served. We regret that he was not judged for his past actions.

The Bloc Québécois is not shedding any tears over Pinochet's death and, on this day, we would like to say that we grieve for all the victims of that regime.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I would like to remind him that our government, the Government of Canada, has signed the Kyoto protocol. Despite everything that this current government has said about that protocol—that it cannot be achieved easily—and after being in office for 10 months, it comes to us with a bill that postpones any regulation to 2010. That is the main reason why we are reluctant to proceed with a bill like this, which does not reflect the urgent need for action.

In Quebec, on the other hand, we have a government that is in fact federalist, and with which the Conservative government, in theory, wants to cooperate. The Government of Quebec already has a plan for complying with the Kyoto accord. However, it therefore needs federal government funding to be able to implement it. Why, then, is the government stubbornly refusing to provide the budget that is necessary so that Quebec, at least, can comply with the Kyoto accord?

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Of course, we are hearing nice rhetoric about protecting the environment and air quality, but I see a problem. His government has been in office for 10 months and it told us that in the fall it would come up with a national program to protect the environment. However, this bill talks about various phases of consultations, discussions or dickering with the industries, so that the regulations would only take effect in 2010.

Most people are in favour of protecting the environment at the earliest opportunity, and scientists note that it is urgent to take action. Therefore, I am wondering if the government is really aware of this urgency, and if it feels that it is fulfilling the wish of the public, rather than meeting the concerns of the industry—as it seems to be the case right now—which is not yet ready to comply with this legislation.

The public expects the government to take action, not conduct yet more consultations on this most important issue.

[Léon Debien, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, November 19, the Lionel-Groulx college in Sainte-Thérèse conferred the 2006 honorary degree on Léon Debien in recognition of his exceptional contribution to achieving the mission of that institution.

Mr. Debien has been living in my riding for 41 years. He was the first principal at the Lionel-Groulx CEGEP and was head of educational services there for five years from 1967 to 1972.

This college was one of the first 12 CEGEPs created by the Government of Quebec. CEGEPs were formed in response to a recommendation in the Parent report and was the first step in a major national project for the democratization of education in Quebec.

Léon Debien has met a number of challenges through his ability to listen to and respect others. He is one of the pioneers who contributed to the development of this college. I want to congratulate him, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

[Judges Act, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I am proud to belong to a political party that is opposed to a 7.5% salary increase.

When I go back to my voters during the upcoming break week, I will be able to hold my head up high, while telling them that the Bloc felt that this increase is too high.

In our society, there are many people who only get minimal increases. For example, those who rely on pension income get an annual increase of about 1%. These people deplore the fact that they are practically living below the poverty line; they have a hard time living decently. This is not to mention the unemployed and older workers who lose their jobs, and who are currently left to fend themselves by the government. Indeed, the government refuses to set up an assistance program for older workers who lose their jobs.

There is another reason why I am opposed to this increase. I am well aware that, in any case, federally appointed judges earn more than their provincial counterparts.

In Quebec, provincial court judges are asking for salary increases to catch up with federal judges, because the latter are getting paid a lot more. This creates an escalation, an increase in salaries. By paying such salaries, the federal government is confirming, at least partly, that it has too much money. This is why the increases given are so high.

I wonder if the hon. member for Charlevoix—Haute-Gaspésie—Montmorency could tell us what he thinks of the fact that this puts undue pressure on the provinces' judicial branch.

[Judges Act, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my official opposition colleague's speech.

Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have been meeting a lot of groups from my riding. I have met people living in seniors' homes who complain about the paltry increase in the guaranteed income supplement offered to pensioners. The rate of increase is very low and does not keep up with the increase in the cost of living.

I would be very unhappy if we were to adopt the bill before us today, which offers a 7.25% increase. A raise like that would make people from every walk of life jump for joy. How many people currently find themselves in a difficult situation?

Earlier, my colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean talked about all of the older workers and people losing their jobs in Roberval, people who are affected by the government's repeated delays in implementing assistance programs that could help them meet their needs. They have no income.

How can we support the increase proposed today when there is already an indexation mechanism that has been used for parliamentarians, among others? The mechanism has proven reasonable, and it should also apply to pay increases for judges.

How can the member justify supporting this pay increase to his constituents, who are certainly not all financially well off?

[Judges Act, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the presentation by the hon. member from the official opposition.

It is no doubt always a delicate topic for those involved when salary increases for judges are debated publicly in the House of Commons. The same was true for parliamentarians. That is why an independent commission is responsible for determining the rate of increase. Where judges are concerned, it is especially sensitive since there could be a great deal of demagoguery about what increase they should be getting, particularly in comparison with politicians.

I would like to ask the hon. member whether he feels, based on his knowledge of the field, that the judges themselves would prefer a different mechanism so as to prevent discussions in the House about their rate of increase each time the issue of judges' salaries comes up.

[Aeronautics Act, November 6th, 2006]

It is Bill C-6.