Robert Carrier

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the presentation by the hon. member from the NDP and the presentation by her colleague a little earlier.

They understand that Quebec already has legislation that protects against usurious loans, which is very good. Nonetheless, the bill also has conditions for every province wanting to be exempt from section 347. The federal big brother will impose its conditions on provinces wanting to be exempt from the application of the legislation. This is yet another encroachment by the federal government into provincial jurisdiction, which clearly states that the framework of commercial practices is a provincial responsibility.

The problem is that this becomes a bad habit of the federal government, even though Quebec can be exempt from the application of the legislation. The idea is that if Canadian unity is to be maintained, the jurisdictions of each entity must be respected. It is through such respect that Canadian unity should be achieved and not by continuing to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of my colleague from the Conservative party. First, I want to tell him that the Bloc Québécois will oppose the bill, not because we are against the principle, but because the Government of Quebec has already legislated in this field through the Office of Consumer Protection since this falls within its responsibility.

All types of lenders are subject to strict obligations. For the information of my fellow citizens who are now listening to our debates, the Office of Consumer Protection sets the annual interest rate that must be stated in loan contracts. All fees are calculated in the annual rate and it is thus not possible to add fees for opening a file or for forms. Finally, the jurisprudence has established that an annual interest rate above 35% is excessive. Therefore, Quebec consumers are already well protected by the Office of Consumer Protection set up by the Government of Quebec.

This is a flagrant example of duplication by another level of government, the federal government, that now wants to regulate everything that is already regulated within the province of Quebec, and surely in other provinces that are now considering the subject or that do not regulate it because they do not consider it necessary. It is the responsibility of the provinces to regulate all business practices related to loans.

This is really an example of duplication on the part of a government that promised during the election campaign to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and to consider the effectiveness of its legislation. In fact, what it is doing is adding a bill that affects provincial jurisdictions.

I would like to know how he feels about what I am saying.

Does he agree that the government is encroaching on the jurisdiction of the provinces and is thinking for them?

Does he believe that the provinces are not intelligent enough to legislate in these areas?

If they have already legislated in this field, does he agree with the fact that they are being exempted from this bill? Other parliamentary procedures will therefore be necessary. That is what constantly involves additional cost, and that is why the public is complaining so much about paying high taxes to all levels of government.

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation by my colleague in the official opposition. I note that he supports the bill. It is very clear that the federal government is responsible for setting the maximum interest rate. The law allows it to do that. In principle, however, it does not have the authority or the jurisdiction to regulate business practices, something that the Government of Quebec has done very well. It has met its responsibilities, and in fact, on the question of maximum interest rates, it has even set the rate at 35% rather than 60%.

We therefore have the impression that this is a bill that is being pointlessly superimposed on the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec. That is why we will not support the bill, because we do not support pointless duplication of all the regulations or jurisdictions of two levels of government. It is important to preserve provincial jurisdictions as they stand. This was in fact a commitment made by the Conservative government, to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces. By introducing this bill, it is not honouring that commitment. I am surprised that my colleague seems to be supporting this.

From his point of view, is the reason that we have this bill really to make up for the incompetence or neglect of certain provinces that have not regulated their business practices as Quebec has properly done? Is this why he would want to support the bill?

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation by my colleague from Calgary East regarding the bill, which seems to apply, given that the federal government has the necessary jurisdiction to regulate the business practices in question.

The subject was raised earlier, but I want to ask him whether he knows that the provinces are free to legislate or regulate the business practices of the companies under their jurisdiction.

The Government of Quebec, with which I am more familiar, has in fact defined this practice, by the Office of Consumer Protection, which provides very good oversight for the industry and prohibits unreasonable practices. To my knowledge, this industry is well regulated in Quebec at present. I think that other provinces also intend to legislate in this area.

What does he think of the point of this bill? Has everything else the government has to deal with been solved already? Earlier, we were talking about the fiscal imbalance. In the last budget, they promised to solve it, and yet no solution has yet been drafted. Are there no more important bills, that are not under the jurisdiction of the provinces and for which the federal government has full responsibility?

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for his very good presentation on this bill. I represent 80,000 people and I often hear comments about how governments tax people's earnings too heavily. I would add that duplication of responsibilities—when both governments are responsible for the same jurisdictions—is another example of unnecessary expenditure.

I understand from my colleague from Joliette's wonderful presentation that in Quebec, the law already provides the kind of protection we are talking about and that the consumer protection bureau is the relevant authority for the types of loans targeted by this bill.

I would like to ask my colleague whether he thinks that the current government is failing to keep its promise to respect the jurisdiction of other levels of government in Canada.

[Committees of the House, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis for his presentation. I appreciate his recognition of the Quebec fact in the work of the standing committee.

However, he said earlier that he did not share the opinions of his colleague from Saint-Lambert concerning Quebec culture. I would like to remind him that his party very recently recognized that Quebec was a nation. Culture is precisely the vehicle by which a nation expresses itself. Quebec already has a strong voice, thanks to its writers, the television programming that it produces in abundance, its films and its cinema, which are not discussed in Canada as a whole. It is precisely that expression of the nation that we in Quebec comprise that means that we must be recognized as such within Canada as a whole.

Would he like to revisit his position on the fact that he does not share the opinions of his colleague from Saint-Lambert, a member from Quebec, given that the member for Lac-Saint-Louis is also a member from Quebec, where the nation of Quebec is recognized as such?

[Transport, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities justify his refusal to support such a project, while his colleague, the Minister of Industry, said that it was interesting?

[Transport, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans have already paid for several feasibility studies regarding the construction of a high speed train between Montreal and Boston or Montreal and New York, and Jean Charest said that he supported such a rail link. Over the weekend, the Minister of Industry said he was open to such a project.

Can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who previously sat in Quebec, tell us if he supports a high speed train project between Quebec and the United States?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understood from the presentation of my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse that he respects provincial jurisdiction.

I will ask him what he thinks about the fiscal imbalance that deprives Quebec alone of $3.9 billion per year. If his government is so concerned with respecting jurisdiction, should its priority not be to solve the fiscal imbalance as it promised?

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour for his academic presentation on Bill C-19.

Although we are in favour of the bill and most of the parliamentarians will discuss it, the effectiveness of such legislation is uncertain since it applies to young people. Young people are not aware of the changes made to laws or are not even aware of the laws.

Could we improve the effectiveness of the bill by providing more information to young people? I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that or whether he has recommendations for publicizing this legislation in order to make it work.