Mario Laframboise

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand because just now the member told the Conservative member that a number of citizens in his riding had moved to work in the Conservative member's riding. That is not what I hope for as an MP. I hope that all my constituents will be able to work in my riding. I will be a valiant Quebecker and, unlike the NDP, defend the interests of the workers of my riding.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as my colleague clearly stated, it is true that he may not have understood everything. The point of my speech was to indicate that we will be voting against this bill, as I just mentioned.

However, coming from a Liberal member, it is understandable that he would be asking why we supported a government motion two weeks ago. Quite simply, we supported it because adopting the renovation tax credit was good for Quebeckers. I can understand that it is rather difficult for a Liberal member to rise and defend our constituents. Rising to defend personal interests is a Liberal trademark. That is his problem.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as my Conservative colleague said, there are only a few Conservative members in Quebec. If he had any backbone, he would no longer be a member of that party, especially considering the bill before us, which is clearly bad for Quebec workers. That would be the first thing he could do.

As for the rest, I understand that a program that allows workers in his riding, as he said, to transition from the forestry sector to the oil sands is a program adapted to his needs. However, I am trying to make him understand that the oil sands will not last forever. What will Alberta do when there is no more oil? After all, it is a non-renewable energy source.

In the end, perhaps they will be happy to have programs that will help all workers by considering everyone, not just auto workers, as long-tenured workers. That is the problem I have with the Conservative Party, but I have an even bigger problem with the New Democratic Party, for getting into bed with the Conservatives.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois today on Bill C-50 to reform employment insurance.

I deliberately did not intervene in the previous debate between the Conservative and the NDP members. I allowed the NDP member to ask his questions because I am trying to figure it out. This bill, supported by the New Democratic Party, will help the auto sector. The Conservative member's speech was eloquent and 65% of his presentation addressed that aspect.

It is true that the automobile sector is in crisis. In 2008, the Conference Board already forecast the loss of 15,000 jobs in that sector. Workers in the auto sector are considered long-tenured workers.

To date, 15,836 jobs have been lost in the Quebec forestry sector, more than will be lost in the auto sector. No bill or assistance has been introduced to help the forestry sector. When we talk about this to the Conservatives, they tell us that those workers must switch careers. Forestry workers will probably be transformed into oil sands workers in the riding of our Conservative colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

This is ridiculous because the forest is like a garden with trees that grow back, whereas the oil sands provide non-renewable energy. One day, there will be no more. To hear the Conservatives talk, they are going to increase oil sands production fivefold. Thus, we will exhaust these resources more quickly. This Parliament, with the support of the NDP, is attempting to transform forestry workers into oil sands or oil production workers. that is just ludicrous, especially from the New Democratic Party.

I find it particularly ridiculous that we are creating new classes of workers. There are long-tenured workers, who are the auto workers. The remaining workers—in the forestry, tourism, agriculture and fisheries sectors—are not long-tenured workers. Even though these people have devoted their lives to maintaining industries that are found in all regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada, they are not treated in the same way by the NDP because they do not consider them to be long-tenured workers.

This is an aberration, and it is frustrating, because a great deal of money is being spent. The Bloc Québécois has introduced bills in this House, and the other parties have defeated them. The Bloc Québécois has tabled plans for employment insurance. Before the latest budget came down, the Bloc Québécois was the only opposition party that proposed a recovery plan. The Minister of Finance even congratulated us. But the Liberals supported the Conservatives on that budget, all because some members of this House are trying to save their own jobs instead of defending their constituents' jobs. I find that scary.

The Liberals wanted to save their jobs when the latest budget was tabled, because their polling numbers were not very good. Now, the New Democrats want to save their jobs, because their polling numbers are not very good. No one is thinking about the workers, and that is scary.

Once again, it is a good thing the Bloc Québécois members are standing up in this Parliament on behalf of workers in Quebec, especially forestry workers. I repeat that 15,836 forestry jobs have been lost in Quebec to date. We do not care much about polls, and it will not bother us to go to an election if we no longer have confidence in this government, which is ignoring a whole slew of workers who have lost their jobs. We will not hesitate to put our seats on the line on that issue. That is the strength of the Bloc Québécois. All the analysts and reporters are wondering what is happening in Quebec and why Quebeckers do not like Canada.

It is simple. Quebeckers just want members who defend their interests. That is what we do every day, and we take pride in doing it. What is happening right now in this House is out of control. It is an aberration, especially when it comes to this bill, which is designed as an assistance program for the automotive industry.

I believe that our Conservative colleague was honest: for 60% of his presentation, he talked about the auto sector, saying that it represented 14% of GDP.

What he forgot to mention is that, according to the Conference Board, some 15,000 jobs were lost in that sector and that over 15,000 jobs were lost in the forestry sector in Quebec alone. He forgot to mention that. He also forgot to mention the fact that his party has decided to ignore forestry workers.

He forgot to mention that his party is not planning to do anything to help agricultural, tourism and fisheries workers. He forgot to mention that. What I have the hardest time understanding is why the NDP is supporting this. I know that people in ridings in the Gaspé peninsula are starting to get angry. When people—workers who have dedicated their lives to fisheries, forestry, tourism and agriculture—see a party like the New Democratic Party, which claims to be the great defender of all workers, support a bill that will help only one industry, the auto industry, I can see why people in NDP ridings might start wondering what is going on. Those people are looking at Quebec and I am sure they are very glad to see that Quebec, at least, has MPs who are defending workers' interests. The only party doing that is the Bloc Québécois.

The government has created a new category of workers, so-called “long-tenured workers”. Simply put, these are workers who, over the past five years, have collected no more than 35 weeks of employment insurance benefits. So, the government created this new class of workers, and all other workers are not long-tenured. I find this term appalling. Conservative and NDP MPs use the term “long-tenured workers” as though workers in forestry, fisheries, tourism and agriculture were not long-tenured workers, even though these people have dedicated their lives to sustaining industries that, in some cases, are seasonal and, in others, like forestry, have been going through a huge crisis for the past five years.

If the Conservative Party—and the Liberal Party in its day—had made a similar effort to get the forestry industry out of the crisis, the industry would now be leading the Canadian economy and we would be out of the recession by now. That is the truth. But once again, forestry does not get the same treatment. It never does. People forget that in the forest, the trees keep growing. There will always be trees. We are sitting on one of the best assets in Quebec's economy, and one of the best in Canada's economy.

Once again, some members in this House—the Conservatives, the Liberals last spring at budget time, and the NDP today—are ignoring the forestry industry. These people are being cast aside. They hear promises. Maybe we will see what happens during an election campaign debate. For five years now, the Bloc Québécois has been rising in this House to say that there is a crisis in the forestry industry. We need to help this industry. It will take loan guarantees. We must be able to modernize our companies. We want to be able to do so because in Quebec, the forestry industry represents 108,000 jobs. That is the reality.

There are forestry workers in the other provinces, too. If we had addressed the forestry crisis five years ago, we could have already come out of the current economic crisis. But once again, the other parties, for purely partisan reasons, have decided to save their own skins. Today, it is the NDP, who, over the next four, five or six weeks will try to make us understand that this measure is truly good for the economy. These members need only return to their ridings and talk to their constituents to understand that these outrageous measures are not good for the economy.

What we needed was a real overhaul of the employment insurance system, especially because, as of 1996, the federal government no longer contributes to the employment insurance fund. It is funded entirely by workers and employers. That is the reality. The Conservatives even have the gall to say that they will use this money to pay down the debt they have racked up.

So, once again, I am proud to stand here on behalf of forestry, agricultural, tourism and fisheries workers. We are obviously against this bill because it is unfair for all the long-tenured workers in these industries.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, June 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague who has experience as a criminal lawyer. As we know, the scales are an emblem of justice. What does it mean? It means that our society is seeking balance.

Should we disrupt this balance by amending or even removing the faint hope clause, what impact will that have on prisons? How will that affect the efforts to rehabilitate criminals?

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take the floor on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-36, the serious time for the most serious crime act, the objective of which is to restrict the eligibility of persons found guilty of treason or murder to apply for early parole. First, I will review the history of the faint hope clause, before speaking about the current procedure governing it and the changes proposed by Bill C-36.

Bill C-36 would modify the faint hope system. In 1976 the death penalty was abolished and murders were reclassified as first or second degree murder. Both are punishable by life in prison, but have different parole ineligibility periods. For first degree murder, the murderer must have served at least 25 years of the sentence imposed. For second degree, he must have served at least 10 years of the sentence, except in the following cases: when it involves a murder or deliberate murder under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the period is automatically 25 years or when, given the nature of the offence, circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the offence or any recommendation of the jury, the judge sets a period of between 10 and 25 years.

The faint hope clause, which is now found in section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, was adopted in 1976 to permit those who had already served at least 15 years of a life sentence to apply for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period. It had three main purposes: to offer some hope for offenders who demonstrated significant capacity for rehabilitation, to motivate good conduct in prison, and to recognize that it was not in the public interest to continue incarcerating certain offenders beyond a 15-year period. These were the principles at the time.

Under the initial procedure, the offender had to submit an application to the chief justice of the province where the murder was committed, asking to reduce the parole ineligibility period imposed at sentencing. Next, the chief justice had to appoint a superior court judge who was assigned to form a jury of 12 citizens to hear the application. If two thirds of the jury members were in agreement, the period could be reduced. Upon the expiry of the new period, the offender could submit a parole application directly to the National Parole Board.

In 1997 there were major changes to the faint hope system. First, the procedure was changed to prevent multiple murderers from applying if one of the murders was committed after the date the bill came into force. Second, these changes required the chief justice to do a preliminary review and examine each case before forming a jury, so as to exclude applications that did not present a real possibility of success. Finally, these changes required a unanimous jury verdict for the period in question to be reduced.

In 1999, the Code was amended again by adding section 745.01, whereby a judge, when imposing sentence, is obliged to make a statement for the benefit of the victims’ family and relatives concerning the existence and nature of the faint hope clause.

There are three stages to the current faint hope procedure: the review by the judge, unanimous approval of the jury, and the application to the National Parole Board.

First, the requester must convince the chief justice, or a designated judge, in the province of the conviction that there is a real possibility that the application will succeed. If the requester fails and the judge does not prohibit the filing of a new application, he may file a new application after two years, unless the judge sets a longer period for doing so. Second, the requester must convince a jury of 12 citizens to decide, unanimously, to reduce the parole ineligibility period.

First of all, it must be determined whether the requester qualifies,and this decision rests with a judge. If the judge concludes there is no chance of the application being accepted, he denies the requester the right. If he allows this right, the offender must submit his application to a jury composed of 12 citizens.

The jury must be unanimous in deciding to authorize parole. If the jury refuses without prohibiting the presentation of a new application, another application may be submitted after two years or after a longer period set by the jury. If the jury accepts, however, it must set a new reduced period.

Third, at the end of the new period set by the jury, the requester may submit an application to the National Parole Board.

Let us look at the success rate for faint hope applications. As of April 9, 2009, of the 265 applications submitted, 140 requesters had obtained a reduction in their parole ineligibility period. The National Parole Board granted parole to 127 applicants, of whom 13 subsequently returned to prison, 3 had been deported, 11 died, one was out on bail, one was in temporary detention, and 98 were meeting their parole conditions.

At the present time, over 4,000 persons are serving life sentences in Canada. As of April 9, 2009, 1,001 prisoners were could apply for early parole eligibility. Of those, 459 had already served at least 15 years of their sentence and so could submit an application, and 542 had yet to reach the 15-year threshold but will be able to apply in the future. On average, it will be possible for 43 of these 1,001 offenders to file an application each year.

Bill C-36 proposes some changes. In short, it proposes two main amendments. First, it proposes to completely abolish, effective the day that the amendment comes into force, the right of all offenders found guilty of first or second degree murder or high treason to apply for early parole. Thus, effective the day that the proposed legislation comes into force, the right of offenders found guilty of first or second degree murder or high treason to apply for early parole would be completely done away with.

Second, the bill proposes tougher rules for such applications for all offenders found guilty of first or second degree murder or high treason before the day that the amendment comes into force, including those who are currently serving a sentence.

This restriction to which I refer would comprise four amendments to the present procedure. First, tougher selection criteria will apply for judicial review. From now on, offenders will have to convince a judge that there is a substantial likelihood that the application will succeed.

Second, the minimum waiting period for re-application if an offender has been refused will be five years. That is, the present two year minimum would be raised to five years.

Third, there is a new five year waiting period before offenders may apply, if they have not done so within the new three month limitation.

Fourth, there is a new three month time limit, that is a window of opportunity of 90 days, during which offenders may apply or re-apply: after the date the amendment comes into effect for the 459 offenders currently eligible to apply; after 15 years for the 542 offenders who will become eligible to apply; after the newly extended five-year period for those who re-apply; and after five years for those who did not apply within the three month window.

What position will the Bloc Québécois take throughout the debate on this bill? Bill C-36 addresses the most serious crimes, such as premeditated murder, that have the biggest impact on victims and affect the population as a whole. These most serious crimes deserve the most serious punishment, so those found guilty can be put in jail for life. Lenient sentences and parole granted too soon—after one-sixth of the sentence has been served, for example—undermine the credibility of the legal system and reinforce the feeling that criminals get better treatment than victims. But the Bloc Québécois also believes that punishment should not be the only goal of the legal system, at the expense of reintegration and rehabilitation.

Parole, even for murderers, is an important part of their reintegration and rehabilitation process because sooner or later, they end up back in society. When they do, it is crucial for them to have benefited from suitable tools to help them return to society in a way that is safe for everyone.

Bill C-36, which focuses on parole, could have complex consequences on the reintegration and rehabilitation of certain criminals.

In an effort to address this issue, the Bloc Québécois will study Bill C-36 in committee even though we have some concerns about it at this point.

There are still some issues we need to discuss. Are the reasons the faint hope clause was created still valid? The faint hope clause, which allows murderers to apply for early parole, gives them a reason to behave well in prison. What would happen if the clause were eliminated? Would it put corrections officers in greater danger at the hands of people who have nothing left to lose?

Will Bill C-36 sound the knell for cases of successful rehabilitation? There are examples such as that of Michel Dunn. He is a lawyer who killed a colleague but benefited from the faint hope clause and became an in-reach worker helping criminals reintegrate into society. Will this now be a thing of the past? We must remember that he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for 20 years for murder. He behaved well. He was reintegrated and is now helping prisoners.

The Bloc expects to take advantage of the study to raise these questions and get answers that will help enlighten the debate. It is only then that we will take a final position.

The most serious crimes under the Criminal Code are likely to lead to a life sentence. In the case of some crimes, such as treason and murder, there is no other sentence but life in prison. That is the minimum sentence.

There are a number of categories of homicide—murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Murder is the most serious category of homicide. It is a premeditated act intended to kill or fatally wound or to commit an illegal act in the knowledge that it will cause death.

There are two types of murder—first degree murder and second degree murder. First degree murder is premeditated and wilful. It is planned, in other words.

Other types of murder are automatically categorized as first degree murder in the Criminal Code. This is the case with the murder of a police officer or a prison guard or when murders occur in a plane hijacking, sexual assault or a hostage taking.

With manslaughter, there is no intention to kill, but there is negligence. Firing a shot through a hedge without thinking there might be someone on the other side is an example.

The Criminal Code is clear. Whoever commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of a criminal act and shall be condemned to life in prison.

Only the period of time before an individual may be granted parole may vary according to whether it is first degree or second degree murder.

For manslaughter, the sentence is life in prison, but there is no minimum period of ineligibility for parole. The regular rules apply.

We must come back to what is called the faint hope clause. It is important to the current debate. In my backgrounder, we saw that there have been a number of amendments over the years. Eligibility for parole has been made harder to achieve. The Bloc has no problem with this approach. However, one of the reasons that criminals have access to parole is to reward their behaviour in prison, if you will. It is rather difficult to reward criminals. However, employees and corrections officers working with criminals need some support from the law for their actions.

One way of getting there is to encourage criminals to behave. Parole plays a role in this. We must ensure that criminals who want to be rehabilitated and who work hard, even in prison, to improve their lives have a hope of getting out because, in any event, they will be released some day.

Even if parole is abolished, these criminals will have served their 25 years some day and will re-enter society. We must ensure, therefore, that they are given the support and rehabilitation they need to become good citizens once they re-enter society.

That is the reality we are facing when we analyze Bill C-36 and that is why we must ask all the necessary questions and ensure that all the in-depth studies have been done.

I cited the case of Mr. Dunn, who was a murderer but was reintegrated very successfully. Parole enabled him to become a better citizen and return to society. He became a criminal justice social worker who helps to reintegrate other criminals. His is a fine example. Could a bill like this nullify all the effort and improvements criminals might make in prison? That is what we need to consider.

The tough on crime philosophy is not the Bloc’s philosophy or ideology, and it was not the philosophy our ancestors advocated over the years.

Why do we have a justice system with a judge and the possibility of a jury? It is in order to always find the best punishment for the crime that was committed. That is the result we want. When we try to replace it with minimum sentences and overturn the legal system our ancestors developed to produce the society we have today, we should really ask ourselves some questions.

Often we do things because they are politically easy. These are good decisions but the media are omnipresent. Sometimes they embellish events for their own purposes. It helps them sell newspapers and attract viewers for their newscasts. We must understand, though, that there is a need for balance and the justice system has always ensured this balance. That is what our ancestors wanted.

There are many other justice systems around the world, but they are not the one our ancestors chose. The government is trying to get rid of our system in which there are independent judges and juries made up of citizens who judge their peers. That is the system we have developed. I think we are heading off in the wrong direction every time we are tempted by events in the media to change the entire legal system by imposing minimum sentences and completely abolishing the parole system, without considering its benefits.

I asked an eminent colleague of mine, a criminal lawyer, whether he submitted requests for legislative changes to the government. Does the Bar do that? Sometimes it happens and reforms are made. Usually, though, it is politicians who decide for partisan reasons to bring forward changes to the Criminal Code in order to get some political peace.

Once again, that is dangerous for the democratic system we enjoy. The entire justice system is, in fact, part of our democratic system. The decision to supplant judges by including minimum sentences everywhere in the Criminal Code is motivated by media coverage of certain appalling cases. Often, we need to realize that the case focused on by the media is an extreme case.

The justice system obviously needs to strike a balance. It is for that reason that the symbol of justice is a set of scales. It is all about striking a balance. It is true that mistakes can be made sometimes.

Do we want the innocent to pay for a few mistakes that may have been made? The Bloc will always be completely opposed to that. That is not the type of society that our ancestors bequeathed to us. We are changing the course of history because, somewhere, some politicians decided that being tough on crime pays off. They looked at what is happening in the United States with the Republicans filling up jails to make citizens feel safer. The result is quite the opposite. There are more crimes committed per capita in the United States than in Canada. Quebec, which supports reintegration, has the lowest crime rate in North America. That is the reality.

The Bloc Québécois will act responsibly. With Bill C-36 it will try to adopt a balanced approach in order to have a justice system that lives up to our ancestors' vision.

[The Economy, June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Allan Maslove of Carleton University has said that nearly 90% of the stimulus package funds would continue to be distributed, regardless of the political situation, and the Treasury Board has confirmed this.

So how can this government claim to be worthy of the confidence of the House, when it does not hesitate to brazenly twist the facts like that?

[The Economy, June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said yesterday that, if the government were to fall, funds that have already been voted on would be blocked and that payments to municipalities would in turn be suspended, which is false. What is more, funds that were voted on in 2007 still have not to be spent.

Of the money earmarked for infrastructure in budget 2007, can the minister tell us how many projects have already begun, how many are about to begin and how many have been completed?

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in the debate on the motion by the Bloc Québécois that it is worth reading again:

That, in the opinion of the House, securities regulation falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and that, therefore, the federal government should reject, once and for all, the idea of creating a single securities regulator for all of Canada, thereby respecting the unanimous will of the National Assembly of Quebec.

It is even more important to read the motion again because the Quebec National Assembly did not adopt such a unanimous motion only once, but twice. Those who follow Quebec politics will know that there are diverging orientations. The Parti Québécois, our proud sovereignist party in Quebec, the Liberal Party and the Action démocratique du Québec all have different political orientations. On an issue as important as Quebec's jurisdiction, we were able to get the National Assembly not once, but twice, to adopt a unanimous resolution.

I will take the time to read them, so our colleagues from Quebec, Liberals and Conservatives alike, can understand well. I know that Quebec is not important for the rest of Canada, but members who have been elected to represent Quebec ridings, Liberals as well as Conservatives, should check what is happening at the National Assembly. Quebec's National Assembly unanimously denounced the federal government initiative. It adopted its first motion on the issue on October 16, 2007. Here is what it said:

THAT the Assembly ask the Federal Government to abandon its Canada-wide securities commission project.

As I said, the National Assembly reaffirmed its position on January 15, 2009, by adopting a second unanimous motion. I will read it and we will see that it is still valid today.

THAT the National Assembly demand that the Federal Government give assistance to workers, communities and businesses affected by the economic slowdown;

THAT it insist that the Federal Government provide financial support to sectors experiencing problems, particularly the manufacturing and forest sectors, as it is doing for the automobile industry;

THAT it ask the Federal Government to improve the employment insurance programme by relaxing the eligibility criteria and by allowing workers who are in training to continue to receive their benefits;

THAT it demand that the Federal Government maintain the equalization programme that is currently in place;

THAT it call for the increase and acceleration of infrastructure investments, particularly by carrying out Building Canada projects, and lastly;

THAT it reiterate its firm opposition to the Canada-wide securities commission project.

I find it hard to understand how Conservative members from Quebec could stand up and vote against today's motion. It is my understanding, from the position stated by their colleague, that they intend to vote against the Bloc Québécois motion we are currently debating. As for the Liberals members from Quebec, they will apparently abstain from voting on this unanimous resolution. I am having a real hard time understanding that.

I can understand why the Bloc Québécois and the people of Quebec are so proud to have a party that represents them, a party that stands up every day in this House for their values and interests. The Conservatives and the Liberals are not here to defend the interests of Quebeckers. I find that hard to understand. During election campaigns, the Conservatives tell us that they do not want to be centralizing, that they want to be respectful of the provinces' powers and, above all, that they do not want to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. In their last budget, the decided to promote the establishment of a Canada-wide securities body, which plainly encroaches on provincial jurisdictions. I can understand why Quebeckers are done listening to them. Because they keep delivering something different from what was announced, they are losing support among voters.

The explanation is somewhat more complicated where the Liberals are concerned. Being a Liberal means caring not as much about the interests of the people as one's own interests and those of the party. It means being driven and guided by polls and, as we have seen with the sponsorship scandal, especially by money and power. That is what being a Liberal member is all about, and being a Liberal member from Quebec is even worse.

Today, federal Quebec Liberals have once again decided to sit on their hands. They are not going to vote. That is the message their critic is sending right now. I am looking forward to tomorrow, when the vote will take place. The message we are getting is that yes, a unanimous motion was passed by the Quebec National Assembly, but the Liberals are going to abstain from voting. Why? Because if they voted against it, Quebeckers would be upset, and if they voted for it, it is Canadians who would be upset.

Therefore, since they are always sitting on the fence, they will once again end up where they belong: face down, on the ground. As always, Liberal MPs from Quebec are unable to protect Quebeckers' interests against the rest of Canada. That is the reality, and that is what has been hanging over their heads for the past 100 years. That is also what the Bloc Québécois is fighting against every day. Since 1993, Quebeckers have always elected a majority of Bloc Québécois members in every election. Why? Because Quebeckers are tired of sitting down, of being on their knees, of lying down. They prefer to stand up. It is always better to be standing up to look at the future, to look forward, then to be lying down. But that is what the Liberals are doing. That is their way of doing politics. It goes without saying that this is not our way.

One must understand that this national securities commission interferes directly with the jurisdictions given to the provinces under the Canadian Constitution. Canada has its powers and the provinces have their own. I can understand why the Conservatives would accuse the Liberals of pushing for centralization. However, in the end, the Conservatives behave just like the Liberals when the time comes to adopt policies. That is the case with this single securities regulator for all of Canada. And this is despite the fact that the World Bank and the OECD have said that the current system works well. That is probably one of the reasons why Canada did so well during the last crisis, why it fared better than other countries. I should qualify that statement, because even though we are doing well, it still hurts, it is still difficult. Earlier, I read the unanimous motion passed by the National Assembly on forestry, employment insurance and job losses. However, compared to the rest of the world, we are doing a little better. I would say that the Bloc Québécois is largely responsible for this performance.

In 2000, when I was first elected here, bank lobbyists were the first lobbyists to come to see me. They wanted to merge Canadian banks. When we would meet with them, they would tell us that they needed to be able to buy and to compete in the world banking system. They wanted to buy bigger banks. We saved them, because if they had merged, if they had bought American banks like they wanted to do, today they would be bankrupt, just like the American banks. That is the reality.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is the social and political conscience of this House. We have always been here to protect the interests of Quebeckers. We are not here to support government policies and try to tell our fellow citizens how the Canadian government should manage the affairs of the state. No. On the contrary, we are telling parliamentarians in this House what our fellow citizens want. We are here to tell the House what the public wants and what is in its best interests.

What we wanted, at that time, in 2000, was not to let the banks merge and eliminate branches in an attempt to buy up international banks and make the banks bigger so their shareholders would receive quarterly dividends. What we wanted was service and to ensure that profitable Canadian banks stayed that way. For that reason, I will tell you that we saved their lives. We have always fought in this House against all bank merger policies. Today, we see the results have been good. The results have been so good that the securities and banking system is considered by the OECD and the World Bank to be a system that works well.

Why do they want to change that? Why do they want to change that so much? Allow me to raise the question. Is it perhaps to take part of the securities market from Montreal and move it to Toronto? Perhaps that is the reality. Once again, take an economic activity that is working well in Quebec and move it to Ontario.

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec who support this measure. The Conservatives support it and the Liberals are lying low, out of sight, and not defending the interests of Quebec.

You will recognize that I am proud to speak to my party's motion that will be debated today and voted on tomorrow. Why? Because we must highlight the policies that we defend in this House. It is very well for the Conservatives to tell us they will be less centralizing, that they will respect provincial jurisdictions and that they will not use their spending power in those areas. However, as we see in the securities system, they centralize the whole system in Ontario even though this power belongs exclusively to the provinces.

The federal government would do well to concern itself with its own jurisdictions. In the field of health, one of its responsibilities is to provide isotopes to hospitals for detecting and treating cancer and other diseases. It does not manage the health system and it knows very well that the provinces do that. It is not even able to manage the isotopes that are within its responsibility. That is the federal reality. It wants to invade provincial jurisdictions while it is not even able to look after its own affairs. That is very disappointing.

It is discouraging when Quebeckers see that an economic activity such as securities will be moved to Ontario. However, if we see the Conservative members from Quebec stand in their places tomorrow to vote against this motion, which reflects a unanimous motion of the Quebec National Assembly, that will be heartbreaking. In addition, if we see the Liberal members sit in their seats and abstain from voting on this motion, that will be really discouraging. We have to watch all this when we defend the interests of Quebec in this House. It is important to understand the people who are listening to us today, those who work hard to pay their taxes and those who have worked hard to earn their retirement. Some people have paid into employment insurance all their lives and get no benefits.

Once again it is painful to observe how little attention is paid to people’s problems or the interests of the provinces. Quebec has done a great deal with its own tax revenues, even though more than half the money collected is paid to the federal government. At present, a little more than 52% of the taxes paid by Quebeckers is transferred to the federal government. Corporate tax rates are higher in Ottawa than in Quebec. That is the reality.

The fact is that Quebec succeeded in creating the most powerful hydroelectric network on the entire planet, using only its income and other taxes, and with half of its own resources and revenue, that is, with no money from the federal government.

On the other hand, the nuclear and oil industries have been subsidized by the federal government to the tune of billions of dollars. Quebeckers have paid a quarter of that money, and we have developed our own hydroelectric network with no federal contribution. When Hydro-Québec developed the electric engine, the federal government even managed to let it leave the country. We had a lot of trouble holding onto that innovation, that asset, and so the technology was sold to the Europeans. The federal government never stood up to ask why it was not kept here. And today, extensive research is being done on that motor, to develop it, and that will probably be what provides the solution to the oil crisis.

It is hard to watch as Quebeckers from other parties in this House—I am not talking about the NDP Quebecker who will support us today, and we thank him; I am talking about the Conservative Party members—rise to oppose a unanimous motion of the National Assembly of Quebec.

They prefer to centralize and transfer an exclusive jurisdiction from Quebec to Canada with the creation of a Canada-wide securities regulator. Once again, the choice is to centralize, to take part of the economic activity on the Montreal Exchange and move it to the Toronto Stock Exchange. I think this is a terrible thing to see, but it is also terrible to see the federal Liberal members who will sit on their hands for purely partisan reasons on a unanimous motion of the National Assembly. They sit there, tucked in, dug in, for purely partisan reasons because there may be an election called at the end of the week and they would not want to be embarrassed by this motion today. That is the only reason why the federal Liberal members from Quebec will decide to sit on their hands, and obviously to crumble. They have been supporting this government for over two years now.

It is wonderful to see the new Liberal Party leader say that employment insurance should be fixed when he supported the Conservatives in the last budget. We knew very well that the employment insurance problem would not be fixed and the 360 hours of employment, that we wanted to see standardized across Canada for employment insurance eligibility, was not included in the budget. Nor was the elimination of the two-week waiting period, the two-week penalty, that has cost workers so dearly, in that budget. This is insurance workers have paid for and they are being punished for the first two weeks when they have tremendous need of it to get the economy going. The Liberals knew it was not included in the budget, but they decided to support the Conservatives. Today, their fortunes seems to have risen, depending on which polls you look at. They have decided, politically, to think about their interests rather than to think about the public’s interests.

That is how federal politics works. We all know that many Quebeckers are disillusioned with federal politics for precisely that reason. Some politicians are here only for their personal power and not in the public interest. If the Conservative members from Quebec stood up for the public’s interests, they would not vote against the Bloc Québécois motion, which reiterates the unanimous motion of the National Assembly. If the federal Liberal members acted in the interests of the people they represent, they would not crumble and sit there, dug in, tucked in, when it comes to this motion, saying they prefer to sit on their hands. They would not be doing that. They would be getting to their feet, to stand up for the interests of Quebeckers.

Once again, it is obvious that the Bloc Québécois is the only party that strongly and vigorously defends Quebec's interests. The federal government must not go ahead with the proposed Canada-wide securities commission simply because it will hinder development and harm Quebec's economic interests. Quebec and the other provinces had their highly-rated passport system. I repeat that the OECD and the World Bank even congratulated Canada for the way it dealt with the whole securities issue. But once again, this centralizing government has decided to increase Canada's powers at Quebec's expense and, more importantly, to concentrate securities in Ontario, again for purely partisan reasons on the part of the Conservatives. It could not be any clearer. It is just as obvious as what they are doing for the auto sector. They are giving everything to the auto sector and nothing to the forestry sector. That is the choice they made. The Speaker is telling me that I have only one minute left, so I will conclude.

The most surprising thing is that the Liberals have decided today to sit on their hands on this motion from the Bloc Québécois, which is the same as the two motions that were passed unanimously by the National Assembly on October 16, 2007 and on January 15, 2009, asking the federal government to reject the idea of creating a Canada-wide securities commission.

Again, Conservative and Liberal members will vote against the interests of Quebeckers. That is totally consistent with what they stand for in this House. Quebeckers are proud and happy to have the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests strongly and vigorously in this House.

[Infrastructure, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, barely 6% of the money promised for infrastructure has been spent, that is, $60 million, when in fact $1 billion should have been granted.

How can the minister possibly believe he has met the municipalities' expectations, when some of them will have to wait until 2010 to begin their projects?