Steven Blaney

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the speech by my colleague, who spoke about the public's lack of trust in politicians. He was speaking rather sarcastically about politicians. And yet he had the opportunity to rise in this House to support the economic action plan, which helps workers, provides home renovation tax credits and tangible measures to help Quebeckers make it through this global downturn. He says that his party defends the interests of Quebec but when the time comes to rise and to vote, he remains seated.

I would like him to explain why he will not vote for Canada's economic action plan, a real measure to help the people of Quebec in these tough economic times.

[New Member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, after five municipal, provincial and federal elections in less than two years, and 16 long years of the Bloc regime, the people of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup have done the right thing and elected a new Conservative MP from Quebec.

Mayor of La Pocatière, successful entrepreneur, promoter of the Centre Bombardier with an exceptional partnership that is the envy of Quebec, Bernard Généreux and his team can now put some in the goal for Quebec.

This election proves that the Bloc Québécois no longer has a monopoly on Quebec values and that Quebeckers increasingly identify with the Conservative team in Quebec.

As Yvon Deschamps said, yes to a strong Quebec in a united Canada. Congratulations to Bernard Généreux and his team. Yes to the economic action plan. No to white collar criminals. Yes to sustainable development. Yes to action and no to an election.

[Employment insurance, November 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government looks after all those who are working—whether they are the teachers at Juvénat Notre-Dame or the parents of the students of this venerable institution in Lévis—as well as those who are unemployed. In the meantime, the Bloc members just sit on their hands and even vote against measures to help the unemployed.

Why has the Bloc abandoned workers while our government works for the people of Quebec and Canada? Can the Minister of National Revenue tell me what concrete measures our government has implemented to help workers—

[Employment Insurance, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Conservative members from Quebec rose to support employed and unemployed workers in Quebec. Not only did the Bloc members remain seated, but they also voted against the bill.

Why is the Bloc Québécois abandoning employed and unemployed workers in Quebec? Can the Minister of National Revenue explain the Bloc's ideological and doctrinaire behaviour when the time comes to help employed and unemployed workers in Quebec, and to deliver the goods?

[Employment Insurance Act, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech and I am surprised that he wanted to force the country into an election. I do not think that it would make any concrete difference, or put any food on the table for our workers.

Our government is offering measures to help workers. We are reaching out to the opposition, to make concrete changes and improvements. For instance, we included the five-week increase in benefits in our economic action plan; we allocated $500 million for career transition; and we are ensuring simplified, quick and efficient employment insurance services. We have trained new employees to deal with the increased demand in that area.

Not only did my colleague oppose that, but he also opposed the idea of keeping workers employed for up to one year, which could be extended to two years. We want to keep people employed and help employers keep their workers through work-sharing and training programs. The Canadian government has made significant investments to help workers.

Why does my colleague refuse to support these measures? Why did he refuse to support the additional 5 to 20 weeks yesterday? Instead of always criticizing, why does he not support these bills, and when they are being studied in committee, why not make recommendations to go along with these goals? Why not vote when we can make concrete changes to help Quebec's workers and unemployed workers?

[Points of Order, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order raised by my colleague from St. Catharines.

We do not have to read all of Marleau and Montpetit to know that common courtesy is required here in this House. We can debate ideas, but today we have had another example from the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie of a childish lack of manners. This, by the leader of a Quebec political party brings shame on Quebeckers. And it is not the first time.

On October 20, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie called our Minister of Justice a liar. He did not say “lies”, he said “liar”. That is appalling. Is the leader of this Quebec political party tired? Is he fed up with being in Ottawa after spending 17 years doing nothing but shouting out stupid remarks at the parties and people who govern? That is unacceptable.

My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou was called a hypocrite, and I demand an apology. Apologies are required for unparliamentary language that is disrespectful of our Quebec and Canadian colleagues. It is unacceptable. I demand an apology. I demand civil behaviour in the House, even though we may not always agree on ideas. We are entitled to disagree, but basic respect is a must in this House.

[Conservative Government, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, why do the Bloc members remain seated here in Ottawa when the time comes to stand up for Quebeckers? We increased employment insurance benefits by five weeks; the Bloc voted against that. We set the job-sharing period to 52 weeks; the Bloc voted against that. We froze employment insurance premiums; the Bloc voted against that. Yesterday, we extended benefits for long-tenured workers by from five to twenty weeks; the Bloc voted against that.

Why are the Bloc members voting against Quebeckers when our Conservative government is taking action for workers and the unemployed in Quebec and across the country?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I would like to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association concerning its participation at the 36th annual meeting, held in Paris and Toulouse, France, from July 19 to 24, 2009.

[Justice, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, organized crime keeps up with advances in technology and that poses a threat to society. That is why, two years ago, our Conservative government introduced a bill giving police officers the tools needed to fight the mob and identity theft. After two long years of obstruction and a smear campaign by the opposition, the bill finally received royal assent.

Can my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice explain the benefits of this bill for our constituents?

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue failed to mention one very important factor in this bill, and that is the victims of fraud or white collar crime.

Restitution is an important part of this bill. It affects both adults and minors.

On October 14, I was at the Centre jeunesse in Lévis, which is doing excellent work in the Chaudière-Appalaches region. Officials there told me that when it comes to preventing crime and encouraging young people to stop committing this type of crime, the idea of restitution is very important. So there is something in this bill about restitution for both adults and minors.

The bill would require judges to consider restitution from the offender in all cases of fraud involving an identified victim with ascertainable losses. There are different measures to allow for this. It would also require the Crown to advise the court what steps have been taken to allow victims to set out their readily ascertainable and quantified losses to the court so that restitution can be considered.

So this bill has an extremely important aspect that would acknowledge the losses incurred by victims. I would like to ask my colleague whether he plans on supporting these measures in the bill. Does he plan on supporting the bill in the House, but also, when the time comes to vote, will he rise in this House to support it?