Robert Carrier

[Employment Insurance, June 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' penchant for stealing money from workers is outrageous. Among the plethora of bills that it would amend, budget Bill C-9 would wipe out the $57 billion that the Conservative government owes to the employment insurance fund. It used that $57 billion to pay down the deficit caused by its own poor management of public funds.

In addition, this government will increase employment insurance benefits by 15¢ in January 2011. That money will not go to improve the current system but to reimburse what the Conservatives have pillaged from the employment insurance fund.

The Conservatives are making the unemployed pay for their deficit. They are taking advantage of the fact that this omnibus bill, Bill C-9, is a confidence vote, and they have filled it with all sorts of reforms and measures. They know that the Liberals will never dare oppose it and trigger an election.

But we in the Bloc Québécois will side with workers and oppose Bill C-9.

[Employment Insurance Act, June 3rd, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (maximum—special benefits).

I am honoured to present this bill, which would extend the maximum period for which special benefits for serious illness may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.This bill was introduced in previous Parliaments, but has never been passed at third reading. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas staunchly defended it, and he assures me that I have his full support in presenting this bill once again.

I feel it is my duty to present this bill today. It is my responsibility as the member for Alfred-Pellan to show my support for my constituent, Marie-Hélène Dubé, who was behind a petition with 62,700 signatures that was presented in the House by the member for Chambly—Borduas. Ms. Dubé, a mother of two children, has thyroid cancer. Despite initial surgery and treatments, the cancer has spread to the lymph nodes, and further treatment is required.

This bill would help those who must cope with this terrible illness and who are only eligible for 15 weeks of employment insurance.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for giving such a great speech on the importance of protecting the environment.

I wonder if he could tell us more about the budget implementation bill before us, which has not yet passed third reading. Hidden in that bill is a part that deals with environmental assessments. Of course the bill was drafted before the incident in the Gulf of Mexico. In light of what we have seen so far, this is due to some complicity within the government, a failure to obey the law, or perhaps some political influences.

The budget implementation bill would allow the environment minister to decide whether environmental assessments should be conducted or not, and I wonder if this is not somewhat dangerous. Could the member comment on this?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank my colleague for his question. The partial deregulation of Canada Post to allow private remailing companies already exists, and that has been established. Numerous remailing companies are currently in business illegally, which the government is not really contesting.

This bill would allow them to continue operating, which must surely be quite profitable. Canada Post would lose revenue, thus endangering the universality of the services offered by our Canadian postal service.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for such a relevant question. The fact that the employment insurance fund will be turned back to zero and the accumulated surplus all but forgotten is a real scandal for our workers who worked so hard to establish that surplus. The worst part is that according to a clause in the budget implementation bill the government will be able to get its hands on any surplus that accumulates in the coming years.

We have to look at the financial needs of the entire Canadian population. In particular, I am thinking about seniors who are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement. It seems as though the government does not have the money to authorize an increase to the guaranteed income supplement. That is just one example of what they could do with the surplus in the fund.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I do believe that is one of the parts that the NDP has suggested we remove. I did not discuss it because I only had so much time. I completely agree with him because, if we were to give that discretionary authority to the minister, we would end up in the same boat as the United States, with the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. Some studies were not carried out after political pressure was put on the former government in Washington.

I do not think such a measure belongs in a budget implementation bill, and certainly should have been the subject of its own bill, so that we could call witnesses to confirm our concerns about protecting the environment.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, here we are at report stage for Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The Bloc Québécois obviously voted against this Conservative budget at second reading because, once again, it does not meet the economic, social, environmental and financial needs of Quebec.

Nevertheless, with the complicity of the Liberal opposition, the bill was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance for thorough study.

What I find grievous is that the bill goes against two unanimous votes of the National Assembly of Quebec. We must remember that the Quebec nation was recognized, here in the House, and that this Prime Minister promised that there would be open federalism.

Quebec's unanimous request to the government for $2.2 billion in financial compensation for harmonizing the sales tax was met with refusal even though agreements totalling $6.86 billion were signed with five other provinces .

What can we say about the government's desire to meddle in the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec by creating its national securities commission, even though Quebec voted unanimously against it? Quebec's entire financial sector is mobilizing against this power grab. An editorial in La Presse, a paper owned by the Power Corporation and dedicated to defending federalism in Quebec, stated: “The expression 'predatory federalism' is overused but that is what this comes down to.”

What I find appalling is that the government is using this bill to make significant amendments to other laws. It does not have the courage to introduce and defend these amendments by introducing separate bills according to our democratic parliamentary rules.

At report stage, the NDP is proposing amendments in order to remove six parts of this bill. It makes sense and it is important that we support these amendments.

In the few minutes available to them, the witnesses that we heard in committee told us that they were dismayed by the lack of consideration given to such important matters as Canada Post's exclusive privilege, the privatization of AECL, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Employment Insurance Act.

Part 15 of the bill is entitled Canada Post Corporation Act, and it would allow Canada Post's competitors to collect mail in Canada and Quebec and ship it abroad. The fact that this measure is included in the bill shows the insidious way the Conservative government works and how it wants to completely deregulate the crown corporation.

The Bloc Québécois is strongly opposed to privatizing Canada Post, even partially. This crown corporation must remain a public agency and maintain universal services with uniform rates throughout Canada.

Many Quebeckers are concerned about part 18, which would privatize Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. There are no assurances in part 18 that the federal government will keep doing its duty and providing a supply of medical isotopes. The federal government must keep looking for suppliers of medical isotopes.

Part 24 of the bill amends the Employment Insurance Act. The Bloc Québécois called for substantial improvements to the system, including increasing the program's wage replacement rate to 60% of maximum insurable earnings, eliminating the waiting period, standardizing the qualification requirements at 360 hours of work, basing benefits on the 12 best weeks of insurable earnings and making self-employed workers eligible for regular benefits.

More generally, the government should submit a plan for reimbursing the funds diverted to its own accounts from the employment insurance fund. It should also drop its obvious intention to loot this fund once again; the fund does not belong to the government.

Instead, the current bill imposes the following measures.

The Conservatives' 2008 budget created a new crown corporation, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, reporting to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

This board's duties included administering a separate bank account. Any annual surpluses in the employment insurance fund were supposed to be retained and invested until needed to cover the costs of the program.

Budget 2010 closes the board's separate bank account, the EI account, and creates a new one, the employment insurance operating account.

The government is permanently eliminating the accumulated surplus in the EI account, effective retroactively to January 1, 2009.

This account will therefore no longer exist and will be replaced by the employment insurance operating account, which will start from zero. Magically, the EI surplus, which amounted to more than $57 billion on March 31, 2009, according to the Public Accounts of Canada for 2008-09, will disappear for good. I should point out that the money came from employers' and employees' contributions.

That part of the bill absolutely must be removed. It would be scandalous to penalize workers in Quebec and Canada like that.

The Bloc Québécois has a number of reservations about other provisions in the Conservatives' budget implementation bill.

For example, with respect to part 1 of the bill, which covers tax measures for individuals and corporations, the Bloc Québécois is particularly concerned about corporate tax strategies, specifically those involving tax havens.

We must eliminate access to tax havens. The six big Canadian banks reported net profits of $5.3 billion in the first quarter of 2010. That is all very well, but why should they continue to avoid billions in taxes thanks to their subsidiaries in tax havens? The Bloc Québécois wants to eliminate this practice and make the banks pay their fair share of taxes.

Companies use tax havens to evade taxes too. According to the Auditor General's data, companies save up to $600 million per year by doing business in tax havens.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the government to walk the walk instead of proposing pseudo-solutions made up of nothing but words.

Still on the subject of banking, the Bloc Québécois has serious reservations about Ottawa's centralizing agenda with respect to credit unions.

Part 17 of the bill would amend the Bank Act to enable credit unions to incorporate as banks. This measure amends the Bank Act to create a framework allowing credit unions to incorporate as banks. The model is based on the framework applicable to other federally regulated financial institutions.

Although it is presented as optional, the Bloc Québécois is concerned that the amendment might actually reflect the government's hidden agenda to force credit unions to come under federal jurisdiction.

Once again, the federal government is demonstrating its desire to centralize power and decision-making at Quebec's expense.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore support the amendments proposed by the NDP, but the rest of the bill will still be unacceptable to Quebec.

[Criminal Records Act Review, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I will read the motion by the member for Surrey North that is before us:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a review of the Criminal Records Act and report to the House within three months on how it could be strengthened to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public’s safety first in all its decisions.

The pardon system has been criticized recently, and the Bloc Québécois has said it is open to studying this issue. We feel that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is a very good forum for examining this issue.

The Bloc Québécois feels that public safety should be the top priority of the justice system. We feel that the best way to protect public safety and put victims first is to reduce the number of crimes and victims as much as possible. The way to do that is with prison sentences, of course, but also by rehabilitating offenders who can be rehabilitated.

In closing, I wonder what my colleague is trying to achieve by proposing that the Criminal Records Act be studied when her government this week introduced Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This bill would amend the Criminal Records Act to substitute the term “record suspension” for the term “pardon”. It would also extend the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension. It would make certain offences ineligible for a record suspension and enable the National Parole Board to consider additional factors when deciding whether to order a record suspension.

Given that the government has clearly already decided how it wants to amend the Criminal Records Act, I cannot understand how the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security could conduct a review of the act—even though that is a worthwhile thing to do—without duplicating a debate that has already taken place. Because of the three-month timeframe proposed in the motion, there is a good chance the House will have completed its own review of Bill C-23 and sent it to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for study.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona on his speech. He is quite involved in a number of different bills. However, I missed part of his presentation.

Since we are talking about Bill C-15, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, I would like to ask him whether he touched on Bill C-9, on budget implementation. If not, I would like him to say a few words about it.

Since that is an omnibus bill, the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited assets also just happens to be included in it. Tendering has begun on the sale of AECL's reactor business. I wonder whether the hon. member has studied this issue within the bill we are currently studying, in terms of liability. Are we sure that liability for the reactors will be transferred to the potential buyer? What are his thoughts on this?

[Securities, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, by trying to create a Canada-wide securities commission in Toronto, the Conservative government is disregarding Quebec's constitutional responsibilities. A broad business coalition condemns the arrogance of the government, which is trying to strip the Quebec nation of an important tool for economic and financial development.

How can the Conservative members from Quebec support a proposal that would do away with Quebec's decision-making authority and influence?