Michel Guimond

[Ethics, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Rahim Jaffer claims that he did not want to lobby in order to protect his wife. He is not credible because we know that the former status of women minister was doing some lobbying herself. The evidence shows that she wrote a letter to promote a business that asked for $100 million from the federal government with the help of the business partner of her husband, Rahim Jaffer.

When will the Prime Minister reveal the allegations that were forwarded to the RCMP?

[Ethics, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, unregistered Conservative lobbyist Rahim Jaffer tried to make us believe that he was not lobbying his Conservative buddies. His version of the facts is not credible, since last year alone, his business submitted projects totalling $850 million to the Conservative government. Furthermore, two businessmen claim that Rahim Jaffer introduced himself to them as a lobbyist who could give them access to substantial federal grants.

The Prime Minister has no choice; he must tell us which ministers agreed to meet with the unregistered lobbyist, Rahim Jaffer.

[Committees of the House, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.

[Committees of the House, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the question of privilege relating to mailings sent to the riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the seventh report later this day.

[Ethics, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the former minister has always claimed that she did not use her position to help her husband. Yet by intervening directly, using her office letterhead, that is exactly what she did. Not only does this violate the House code of ethics, but it may be a criminal offence.

When will the government confirm that it is these allegations of influence peddling that were forwarded to the RCMP? Just a minute. This circus has gone on long enough. It is time—

[Ethics, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have now learned that the former minister for the status of women personally intervened to promote a business with which her husband, Rahim Jaffer, the former chair of the Conservative caucus, was connected. By writing to the municipality of Simcoe to encourage officials to purchase technology distributed by Wright Tech Systems Inc., the former minister allegedly used her elected office to help her husband, who was trying to become a partner in the business.

Can the government confirm that it was these allegations of influence peddling that were passed on to the RCMP?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, five minutes are usually allotted for questions and comments following a 10-minute speech. I figure that the member used 4 minutes and 50 seconds to put his question. I will therefore attempt to answer within 10 seconds.

Banks are the classic case. Tell me who feeds you and I will tell you who you will look after later. The Conservatives are more favourably disposed towards banks and oil companies because these generously feed their campaign fund. Anything that will further regulate the powers of banks and the earnings of bankers is a good thing.

President Obama warned people that after the health reform, they will have to seriously consider reforming banks, which are making absolutely obscene and unacceptable profits, and I am all for such reform.

In the budget, the Conservatives' handouts to banks and oil companies came as no surprise. They are acting like reliable poodles. It is payback time for those who influence Conservative government policies.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois regarding this budget implementation bill. It is no surprise that the members of the Bloc Québécois will be opposing this bill, just as we opposed this budget tabled by the Conservative government. Unfortunately, I have only ten minutes to explain to my colleagues the reasons why our party is opposed to this budget implementation bill.

The reasons are many, and each of them might require a speech of at least 30 or 40 minutes. But I shall review just a few of them in the time I am allotted. One of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill is that it confirms the desire of the Conservative government to spare rich taxpayers at all costs, including the banks and large corporations.

Earlier, during question period, our colleague the hon. member for Hochelaga and Bloc Québécois finance critic was telling us about the astronomical profits made by the banks in recent months. He mentioned profits of $5.6 billion. When it is time to look for money in the pockets of the middle class and the disadvantaged, governments, and this Conservative government—a government which, by the way, is heartless—have no hesitation about making the middle class, workers and the disadvantaged pay for the deficit.

Another reason why we are not in favour of this bill is that the measures it contains are proof of the above-mentioned desire, since corporations will not be asked to contribute to the government’s coffers. It is workers, people who cannot benefit from tax havens, people who work very hard in plants, in factories, in stores, people who often work for minimum wage, that the government will turn to. But unlike the big corporations that benefit from tax deductions, they are taxed from their first penny, and as soon as they build up a little nest egg, the government is immediately upon them with its taxes.

With regard to tax loopholes, it could be said that the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, the government says that it wants to go after tax havens and, on the other, in this bill, the Conservative government is opening loopholes in the Income Tax Act to make it possible for corporations not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. It is despicable on the part of the government to take this approach.

Once again in question period, we went back to the former minister of the status of women, now an independent MP, who, according to rumours here and elsewhere on the Hill, allegedly took advantage of a ministerial trip to Belize to open three bogus companies to again avoid paying income tax. We know that Belize is most definitely a tax haven, just like Barbados and certain other islands in the West Indies or some other small countries where corporations can take advantage of tax loopholes.

In Quebec, there have been two cases of flagrant fraud where small investors were literally fleeced. I am referring to the cases of Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones. The money of the small investors who were swindled was not in the bank accounts of Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones.

That money was hidden in countries that serve as tax havens. When they have served their sentences—I will remind members that the Bloc had asked for the abolition of release after serving one-sixth of a sentence, but the Conservatives refused—they will get out and collect their money, which is somewhere in the West Indies. They will be able to resume their princely lives, unlike ordinary investors.

There is the case of two young girls who lost their parents in a car accident. The insurance award was managed by the girls' grandfather. They literally lost everything. That is unacceptable and astounding. That is what tax havens are used for. The Bloc Québécois is anxious for the government to assume its responsibilities and ensure that those listening to us, the middle class workers, are not the only ones who pay their fair share of taxes.

There is another point I want to say a little more about. This budget implementation bill will allow the government to dip into the employment insurance fund surplus until 2014-15. Once again, as we have said many times, the employment insurance fund surplus does not belong to the government. It belongs to the workers and employers who pay premiums. In 2008, the fund reached $1.5 billion and the government cleaned it out. It helped itself to that surplus. That is completely unacceptable.

The Bloc Québécois proposed an independent employment insurance fund that would be jointly managed by workers and employers, similar to the CSST model in Quebec. If there was a surplus in the fund, the board of directors—or whatever it is called—of the independent employment insurance fund could decide which categories of unemployed workers or which categories of workers would benefit from improvements to the plan.

I see my colleague from Manicouagan nodding his head. On the North Shore, in the Lower St. Lawrence, and in Gaspésie, they have to deal with seasonal work. We need to stop calling them seasonal workers. They are not “seasonal workers”; the work is seasonal. Even if they wanted to plant99 trees and do silvicultural work in the forest when there are several centimetres of snow on the ground in February, it would not be possible. It is rare to have a winter where there is almost no snow on the ground, but either way, the ground is frozen, making it impossible. The fishing industry cannot be forced to operate in February. Charlevoix, in my riding, is a very touristy location. There are inns and beautiful sites. We would love to have the inns full in February, but that will not happen in the winter. Some tourists come to go snowmobiling, but not enough to keep our inns and lodges open year-round. So, employers are forced to shut their businesses down, or those that remain open are forced to cut staff.

With the current EI system, which is totally unfair to seasonable workers, these people are forced to experience periods of unemployment on a regular basis. That is not their choice; there is just no work to be done. So, when the working season is short, as it was last summer, these workers do not get called back to work because of poor weather conditions and do not qualify under this unfair employment insurance system. They then experience what is known as the spring gap, which they are currently going through in March and April, when benefits have run out, but it is too early to be called back to work, which will likely be sometime in May. Since it is not May yet, these people have nothing to live on.

[Privilege, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understand the status of the question of privilege I just raised. If, in the next few days, you do not receive any additional evidence, does that mean that you will rule on the merits of my question of privilege regardless?

[Privilege, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in the last general election held on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives lost a seat in Alberta. In the riding of Edmonton—Strathcona, Rahim Jaffer was defeated by the NDP candidate. Consequently, since that election, Mr. Jaffer cannot claim to be an MP because to be an MP, he would have had to have been elected, which is not the case.

However, in the April 13 edition of Le Devoir in an article written by Hélène Buzzetti, we learned that:

Rahim Jaffer was defeated in the 2008 election but even recently he was handing out his MP business cards. He had the Conservative Party logo on his Internet site and was using a parliamentary BlackBerry provided by his spouse, which gave him a government address.

By allowing people to believe that he was still an MP, Rahim Jaffer committed a flagrant act of obstruction and interference. In fact, O'Brien-Bosc states, on page 111:

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.

More specifically, with regard to the matter of usurpation of the title of member of Parliament, I refer you to page 113 of O'Brien-Bosc:

The misrepresentation of someone who is not a sitting Member as a Member of Parliament has been found to constitute a prima facie case of privilege on two occasions. On May 6, 1985, Speaker Bosley ruled that there was a prima facie question of privilege in a case where a newspaper advertisement identified another person as a Member of Parliament rather than the sitting Member. He [Speaker Bosley] stated:

“It should go without saying that a Member of Parliament needs to perform his functions effectively and that anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member’s identity creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member’s functions. Any action which impedes or tends to impede a Member in the discharge of his duties is a breach of privilege.”

Page 113 also refers to a ruling that concerns you personally, Mr. Speaker. I remember that you ruled on the question of usurpation of the title of member of Parliament in 2004. I quote:

...a similar question of privilege was raised concerning a booklet published in connection with a fundraising event and which contained an advertisement identifying a former Member of Parliament as the sitting Member for the riding.

You ruled that there was a prima facie case of breach of privilege, and you referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

On the surface, since Rahim Jaffer acted in a manner that implied that he was still a member of Parliament, one might think he breached the privileges of only the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, the riding he formerly represented.

But by handing out his former business cards, the member gave the impression that the position of member of Parliament could be used for financial gain. We know that serious allegations of influence peddling have been circulating about Rahim Jaffer for several days now. He has tarnished the reputation of all politicians. We feel strongly that this is a serious impediment to the performance of our parliamentary duties. He has breached the privileges of all 308 members, including you, Mr. Speaker, who were legitimately elected on October 14, 2008. In so doing, Rahim Jaffer has damaged the reputation and credibility of the House of Commons as an institution.

Objectively, this conduct is unacceptable, but the fact that it involves someone who sat as a member of this House for nearly 12 years is totally repugnant. I am raising this question of privilege to protect my privileges and those of the other Bloc Québécois members and all members.

The use and the reputation of the title of member of Parliament must be protected, and I call on you as the guardian of our privileges, Mr. Speaker. The 308 members of the House of Commons elected you democratically to occupy the Speaker's chair because they had confidence in you as the guardian of members' privileges. That is your role, and the best proof of this is that even though you belong to a political party, you no longer attend caucus meetings because you are above partisanship. My colleagues and I need you to maintain and preserve our parliamentary privileges, which is why I am raising this question of privilege.

What Rahim Jaffer did is not a harmless act committed by mistake or in good faith. Clearly, he must have known that he had been defeated in the most recent election. He therefore acted deliberately, with highly questionable intentions.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I am raising this question of privilege on behalf of all the members of this House, from all parties, over whom you preside. In the event you should find my question to be in order, I have prepared an appropriate motion that I can move.