Robert Carrier

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières on her wonderful speech. Since she lives close to a nuclear plant, she gave a good explanation of the dangers of this type of energy. She mentioned that she was in favour of this bill since it is a huge improvement over what currently exists. However, the compensation rates set out in the bill do not correspond to international rates.

Provided that the bill is passed at this stage, does the member plan on working in committee to improve compensation and compensation criteria based on population density in the areas around nuclear plants? There can be a big difference in population density in the areas around these plants.

[Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, had the superintendent declared a general market disruption, international banks would have been forced to repay the caisse for its losses. However, because the problem seemed to be confined to Quebec, the superintendent decided to ignore it because he deemed it a local issue.

Did the superintendent fail to act because the issue only affected Quebec?

[Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first Quebec's Minister of Finance, then the President of the Caisse de dépôt et placement, and now the caisse's former head of risk management, Alban d'Amours, have all condemned Ottawa and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions for their failure to heed the caisse's repeated requests to call a general market disruption following the collapse of commercial paper.

Can the Minister of Finance explain why the superintendent did not take action?

[Tax Havens, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, while a number of states are experiencing chronic deficits, the world's richest citizens are siphoning off their profits to places where they can stash them away and shelter them from taxes. This increases the tax burden on the middle class and low wage earners. There are more than 72 places where this tax evasion is possible: the Caribbean, Jersey, Ghana, to name but a few. As a result states are being deprived of large amounts of revenue which could have been invested to improve the well-being of their population.

While $11,000 billion is safely tucked away in these tax havens, the UN is calling for $50 billion over five years to eradicate world poverty. That amount is the equivalent of a scant 0.5% of those hidden billions. This special treatment of the most fortunate must stop. It is high time that this government followed the example of the Obama administration and passed legislation to effectively deal with the use of tax havens.

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, May 13th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot calling on the government to make changes to the guaranteed income supplement in order to enable our seniors to live in dignity.

In December 2007 I had the honour to introduce a bill that proposed similar changes. I was certain that, out of respect for our seniors, parliamentarians could not possibly be against a bill that would enable our seniors to live better.

The point was made that our seniors deserved our recognition for the efforts and sacrifices they had made to build the society we have today. Yet the Conservatives, who themselves condemned this injustice when they were in opposition, all opposed improving the living conditions of our mothers and fathers.

Since 1993, the Bloc Québécois has been trying to make the government admit that it has shortchanged our seniors. It is pathetic that the Liberals and Conservatives support Bloc Québécois initiatives when they are in opposition, yet when they form the government, they find all sorts of crazy reasons to oppose the same initiatives.

The Bloc Québécois toured Quebec in 2007, in order to have a better grasp of the situation of Quebec seniors: their present standards of living, their everyday needs and fears, both now and for the future. We were able to hold discussions with them on the causes of poverty and the solutions proposed by the various levels of government, as well as to learn what they thought about Quebec society.

The findings of our tour were developed into the recommendations in this motion. Of course, our tour findings were not our only sources; we also consulted with associations, federations and seniors' groups all over Quebec.

The motion by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot wholly reflects the four themes of the bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois in December 2007. These were: automatic registration for the guaranteed income supplement; a $110 monthly increase in the guaranteed income supplement; full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement for those who have been shortchanged; a compassionate extension of six months for guaranteed income supplement recipients whose spouse has died.

On April 17, it was announced in an email that the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canadian seniors enjoy the best possible quality of life.

These fine words appeared over the signatures of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister of State for Seniors.

Does the minister realize that the number one factor contributing to well-being among seniors is financial power? It fosters independence, breaks through isolation and provides greater security. Income is one of the most important determinants of health and is the foundation for access to appropriate housing and transportation in order to maintain independence.

Yet the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and all her colleagues voted against the bill on June 4, 2008. One hundred and fifteen Conservatives rose to say no to our seniors. One hundred and fifteen Conservatives chose to leave our seniors in financial insecurity.

According to the National Council of Welfare, poverty is not just lack of income, it can also be a synonym for social exclusion.

When people cannot meet their basic needs, they cannot afford even simple activities, such as inviting family or friends to dinner. Social isolation is one of the key factors in depression. It leads to ill health and discouragement. Poverty can quickly deprive individuals of their dignity, confidence and hope.

A $110 increase in the amount of the guaranteed income supplement would only to bring recipients up to the low-income level, or what was once called the poverty line.

Full retroactivity for unpaid pension benefits would also prove that this government does not operate on a double standard.

If citizens owe 10 years' worth of income tax, the government can collect that money. The six months of compassionate deferral is to acknowledge the surviving spouse's problems and suffering. It is to acknowledge the sudden change that has just taken place in the daily life of a senior. It is to acknowledge that, although the person now lives alone, the government is committed to him or her, considering its obligations, to ensure the person can maintain a good quality of life, out of compassion.

Automatic registration at age 65 goes without saying. With all its sources of information, the government knows exactly when an individual turns 65. Every individual must register for the Canada Pension Plan six months before they turn 65 in order to receive benefits. Furthermore, through reports filed with Canada Revenue Agency, the government knows the financial situation of every Canadian.

In speeches during the debate on the motion moved by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Conservative members boasted about the budget and the assistance they are providing to the most vulnerable in our society.

I say bravo to the Conservative government's budget decision to increase the age credit amount and all other tax credits, but does the government know that, in order to benefit from tax credits, one must pay income tax? Does it truly believe that someone living below the poverty line can really benefit from such credits?

I say bravo to the Conservative government's budget decision to allow income splitting, but that still requires a decent income. Does the government believe that a person who receives only the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement benefits from splitting this small income?

I met with hundreds of seniors in my riding of Alfred-Pellan to discuss the bill I introduced in December 2007 and which was very similar to today's motion M-300. I can say how happy they were to know we were looking after their interests. They are appreciative of the fact that we want to help improve their situation.

They told me that automatic registration for the guaranteed income supplement was necessary because the instructions on the forms are in very fine print and because they do not always understand the questions asked about CPP, QPP and RRIFs. They also told me that it is unfair that, after their file is reviewed, retroactive payments cover up to a maximum of 11 months. They also told me about their poverty and the dependence imposed by the government.

These meetings allowed me to understand that our seniors have but one dream and that is to live in dignity.

I would like to take this opportunity to again congratulate my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who is taking over from all the members who worked on this file before her. She is a hard worker who is dedicated to helping our seniors by presenting this motion. I am calling on all members to support the motion. It is our shared responsibility. Every member who is at all in touch with his constituents cannot be indifferent to our seniors' need for dignity.

[Privy Council, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister might be happy about Wayne Wouters' appointment as Clerk of the Privy Council, but some of us remember the part he played in the 1994-95 cost-cutting plan that led to draconian cutbacks, particularly in transfers to Quebec and the provinces.

Does this appointment signal that the Prime Minister is getting ready to make deep cuts, like the Liberals did in 1995?

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval for her presentation on this important and very technical bill that has an impact on the entire scientific and medical community in Canada.

I want to refer specifically to a letter sent by Quebec's health minister, dated April 6, in which he states his opposition to the continuation of this bill's consideration because of its impact. Measures proposed in the bill would have major repercussions, especially on the management of medical laboratory and diagnostic services. This letter says, “Accordingly, the Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to reconsider its approach to ensuring the biosafety and biosecurity of human pathogens and toxins, rather than pursuing the parliamentary work currently underway.”

That was exactly the amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois in committee during the study at second reading. It was rejected.

I would ask my colleague what she thinks of the negotiation in good faith proposed by the current Conservative government regarding the harmonization of the QST and GST and this other situation where the Government of Quebec wants to be consulted before this bill is passed. What does she think about this attitude, especially considering that the Liberals are also thinking of supporting the bill?

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Repentigny for his excellent speech on Bill C-11. We just heard that the government is not very interested in the position taken by the Quebec Minister of Health and his opposition to this bill for reasons related to provincial jurisdiction. This is not surprising from a Conservative government that constantly ignores the interests of Quebec and its areas of jurisdiction. However, what concerns me more is the support the Liberal Party seems willing to give to this bill. I would like to know what the hon. member thinks of the position of the official opposition.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this excellent question.

I would not want to elaborate too much on other issues besides harmonization, because we blamed other members for doing the same thing earlier.

The harmonization issue is a classic example of bad faith on the part of the current Conservative government. It is as if the government had abandoned Quebec. It cuts Quebec's revenues and finances everywhere it can, even if it affects our identity and culture. The government seems to really enjoy cutting in that area. This is unacceptable for members of the Bloc Québécois. Indeed, as we all know, our main focus is to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Indeed, there are details to be worked out regarding the points that he mentioned in the harmonization process. These issues are not impossible challenges. The Quebec government is open to changes, just like Ontario is doing right now. However, the collection of that harmonized tax is a major issue. Since the early 1990s, Quebec has been collecting both the GST and the QST, and it sends the money generated by the GST to the federal government. Things are working just fine, and there has not been any complaint on the part of the federal government. That system is particular to Quebec.

As I mentioned earlier, and members are all aware of that, Quebec is recognized as a nation. Quebeckers also have a status that is different from that of all Canadians. Only in Quebec do taxpayers have to complete a separate provincial tax return, in addition to the federal one. Everything is working just fine and there are no problems in that respect. This is why Quebec absolutely wants to keep collecting this harmonized tax, because this way of doing things has always worked. This is something that is not negotiable for the Quebec government, and the federal government should accept that in good faith.