Guy André

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his excellent speech about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

I was involved in a parliamentary mission to Colombia with the NDP member here and the Liberal member. We also visited Panama as members of a committee to assess the possibility of free trade.

I am keen to talk about this today because I have been following the progress of this accord for the past few years. I should reiterate that we are against this free trade agreement. My Bloc Québécois colleague made it clear that we are not against all free trade agreements. We support a free trade agreement between Quebec and the European Union. Back in the day, the Quebec sovereignty movement was very supportive of the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I want to make it clear that we are not against all free trade agreements. I have noticed that, anytime we discuss a free trade agreement in the House, there is a lot of pressure on those who oppose such agreements, as though they were opposed to economic growth and to making Canada and Quebec more competitive in a free trade environment.

That is not the case. We support free trade agreements when they are fair for workers and the economy and when they comply with environmental standards. We oppose free trade agreements when these basic conditions are not met.

When we were discussing the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, we told the House about the human tragedies that befall unionized workers in Colombia. We also talked about violations of mine workers' rights and environmental standards. We opposed that bill.

Even though things in Panama are not as bad as they are in Colombia, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement includes a number of unacceptable clauses, so we should not sign it.

First of all, there is Law 30. We tend to sign agreements with right-wing governments. We signed an agreement with Mr. Uribe, whom my colleagues and I met. We signed an agreement with a right-wing government that does not respect workers' rights, particularly their right to demonstrate and unionize to protect their rights. The government lets companies violate environmental standards.

The Conservative government, unfortunately supported by the Liberals, tends to want to sign agreements with such right-wing countries because it says they will generate revenue and improve our competitiveness.

Our imports from Panama are five times greater than our exports to that country. How will this free trade agreement spur our economic growth? I do not believe it will happen. We must immediately disregard this argument.

I do not think that the workers in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, or Quebeckers as a whole, will get rich from this Canada-Panama free trade agreement. On the contrary, without respect for labour or environmental rights, these free trade agreements put pressure on our own companies operating in Canada. In the case of mining or the production of all kinds of agricultural products, for example, they create pressure to lower standards.

We must compete against countries that do not respect labour rights. In the case of Panama, it is even said that the right-wing government condones child labour, just like Colombia. Consequently, the agreement does not improve the working conditions of our workers, and it places pressure on companies. They think that in Panama or other countries, they can engage in such activities. This agreement will allow them to set up operations in those countries, where labour is cheaper. The agreement also eliminates tariffs and promotes trade.

Panama is also recognized as a tax haven. We have discussed tax havens on many occasions, and it is important.

A number of companies here receive subsidies. Some are having serious financial problems because of this global competition. Not only do our workers have to work very hard and in very difficult conditions, but they are financing these companies through their tax dollars, to make them a little more competitive globally. Indeed, with free trade and considering the degree of competition from China, we have lost many jobs in the manufacturing sector, in the furniture sector in my riding for example.

So the workers are paying to improve our productivity in the context of globalization and, on top of that, the revenues are going into tax havens. The companies receiving subsidies are earning huge profits. They will go and set up shop in other countries that offer more attractive tax benefits and where it is easier for them to exploit workers. So they simply move and do not pay taxes. They do not redistribute this wealth or the profits they make by paying taxes in Canada and in Quebec.

As an indirect result, this leads to cuts in social programs and education. We are told there is no more money. Our current system is already under tremendous pressure, so cuts have to be made to public services and education, all because the government does not have enough money.

Quebec and Canada should at least be collecting taxes from these companies, which are earning huge profits. We could follow the example of certain other countries, which I will not name, that have chosen to put education, health, and so on first, by making taxes a priority on a national level. That money must come back. If workers are subsidizing businesses, of course the tax dollars should come back to the country.

That is why we do not support this Canada-Panama agreement. On the one hand, it does not respect labour rights—Panama passed its Law 30—and on the other hand, there are also concerns about environmental standards. Lastly, we do not believe that this agreement will do anything to stimulate the economy in Quebec or Canada. Our exports to and imports from Panama are very limited. This will not create more jobs.

We want globalization to be fair and equitable, as defined by Joseph Stiglitz—a former adviser to the President of the United States—in several books, which I invite all members of this House to read. They are not necessarily leftist readings, and I invite all members to read them.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that it seems the Liberals want to return to power. On Wednesday evening, there was a vote to improve the employment insurance system. The Liberals, who can practically taste power, have started voting against workers again.

When Prime Minister Martin was in office, the Bloc Québécois spoke out vigorously against tax shelters. Tax shelters in other countries hide money from the taxman for certain large companies, many of them subsidized by taxes paid by Quebec and Canadian workers. As a result, wealth is not redistributed to improve our health and education systems and living conditions for those who do pay taxes: workers.

How can this government and this opposition keep supporting free trade agreements that will negatively affect working conditions for Quebeckers and Canadians, agreements that will make it easier for mining and other companies to take advantage of tax shelters?

[Veterans Affairs, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the veterans charter put in place by the Conservatives in 2006 has had unfortunate consequences and created inequities. The main result is that the lifelong monthly pension for injured veterans was replaced with a lump sum payment that does not provide long-term financial security for injured veterans.

Will the minister restore the lifelong monthly pension for injured veterans, as requested by veterans and the thousands of signatories to a petition?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it just does not make sense that the Conservative Party is putting in place measures such as this when it boycotts measures that could provide more support for people, such as the unemployed or seniors. It is not too interested in that. It wants to mess with a system that works. We all know that by destroying the passport system, the Conservative Party expects to benefit from conflicts among regulatory bodies. The Conservative government is inevitably creating a reason for Canadian corporations to turn to the national commission, which will obviously be located in Toronto.

How can the Liberal and Conservative members from Quebec meekly stand by as power is taken away from Quebec and given to Toronto? That is the question raised by our NDP colleague.

We are pleased that the NDP supports our motion because, as the member mentioned in his speech, the effects will be felt not only in Quebec, but also in Winnipeg, which is in his riding. This bill must be defeated in the House once and for all.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

It is with a great deal of interest, and concern, that I am rising on this Bloc Québécois opposition day to strongly condemn this government's unrelenting efforts, and even obsession, to marginalize the Quebec nation, in particular by depriving it of the major economic lever of securities regulation. This is shameful.

Let us be clear—and I hope that all Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec are listening—securities regulation is an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

The federal plan proposed by the Minister of Finance destroys Quebec's exclusive responsibilities with respect to property, civil rights and jurisdiction. In fact, with his national commission, the Conservative finance minister who introduced this legislation wants to do Montreal out of what it has for Toronto's benefit.

A Quebec coalition made up of a very large number of stakeholders is opposing this single securities regulation system. They include Quebec City, the City of Montreal, Quebecor, Pierre Lortie, La Capitale, professor Jacques Saint-Pierre of Université Laval, the Institut québécois des planificateurs financiers, the Groupe Jean Coutu, the Solidary Fund QFL, the CSN's equity fund, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chambre de la sécurité financière, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Chambre de commerce du Québec, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Cascades and many others. Moreover, the Quebec National Assembly is unanimously opposed to this bill.

And what do we see in the House? It is a disgrace. Members from Quebec come to Ottawa to work against the will of those who elected them. Indeed, Quebeckers are overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation.

Let us also not forget that this new hostile takeover attempt by the federal government is unanimously opposed by all elected members of the Quebec National Assembly.

The plan to have a single securities regulator goes against Quebeckers' will. The federal government wants to create a single securities regulator. Quebeckers are asking the government not to proceed with this legislation.

How can Conservative members, including newly elected Conservative members, vote against the will of their own voters? I am referring to the member who just spoke, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. He was just recently elected, and he has opposed, in the House, all of these socio-economic players in Quebec. Just newly elected, and he has gone ahead and voted against the will of the Quebec National Assembly. He is voting to strip Quebec of its financial system for Toronto's benefit. That is unbelievable.

Furthermore, the Liberals have not learned their lesson over the years. They were punished. They have been in the opposition for a few years, but they are still not doing any better. They are still in favour of centralization. They still do not take into account the interests of the Quebec National Assembly and of Quebeckers. They simply defend the interests of the people of Ontario, in this case. The members from Quebec, both Liberal and Conservative, will once again vote with the federal government to create this single institution, which will weaken Quebec's financial system and which will lead to the loss of jobs.

With the complicity of the Liberals, the Conservative government is just as determined to strip Quebec of its authority over securities, ignoring the will of the National Assembly.

Since June 2009, the Liberal leader has been showing a lack of leadership on the securities issue. Instead of speaking out, he has hidden behind the argument that a Liberal government would have referred this issue to the Supreme Court of Canada before taking action. We are not discussing a legal issue in the House; it is a political issue.

In Quebec, it is the Bloc Québécois that has the support of the National Assembly, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Cascades, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, the QFL Solidarity Fund, Power Corporation, Quebecor, Transat, Transcontinental, Industrielle Alliance, and many other economic institutions in Quebec. All of the members from Quebec in this House will vote in favour of a bill that all of these socio-economic players have unanimously criticized. It is absolutely disgraceful, and for the Conservatives, it is so petty.

All of Quebec's economic, financial and business stakeholders have formed a strong coalition against the plan of the federal government.

That is significant. Mouvement Desjardins applauded community mobilization and is urging the federal government to shelve this proposal, which everyone recognizes as authoritarian, harmful, centralizing and failing to respect Quebec's jurisdiction.

Why is the government so determined to dismantle a system that, according to the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, is a model for the rest of the world? The system works. It is efficient. Let us not forget that the OECD, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund support our passport system, calling it better than that of the Americans and the English.

Moreover, the OECD has ranked Canada second in the world with respect to securities regulation. What reason could there be for changing an efficient system? That makes no sense.

That is not so bad for a system that some people here say does not work well. All of a sudden, the Minister of Finance woke up with a brilliant idea to create a single securities commission, claiming that the current system, which is recognized internationally, is no longer efficient. The new system will require major investment. Already, $150 million has been invested to implement a system that they say will be better than the one we have now. But there is no proof that it will improve things. Quite the opposite.

In addition to maintaining well-paid jobs in Montreal in the financial, legal and administrative sectors, the Autorité des marchés financiers allows us to retain expertise that is important to Quebeckers and to the proper functioning of our financial system. We want to keep it. The AMF is our last bastion against the complete disappearance of stock market activities from Montreal since Toronto acquired the exchange.

To sum up, this Conservative power grab with Liberal support will inevitably cause high-ranking positions and value-added activities to leave Quebec for Toronto.

That is not what Quebeckers want, and the Bloc Québécois will oppose this proposal to the bitter end.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill simply aims to steal from Montreal's financial sector to strengthen Toronto's.

Can my colleague from Joliette explain how the Conservative and Liberal members elected in Quebec can go against the unanimous consensus of the National Assembly? It has told the federal government to maintain our current financial system because it works and it supports our economic initiatives.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague from Joliette on his excellent speech. With their bill, the Conservatives hope to centralize the securities market in Toronto.

The hon. member for Joliette and the many members who spoke during today's opposition day have demonstrated that the current system works very well. It is effective and one of the best in the world. This is recognized by the OECD and the World Bank.

Can my colleague tell me how a Canada-wide commission might give investors less protection when it comes to securities than the current system, which is very effective?

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 7th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for her excellent speech. I have a question for her.

She said that 3% of people who are pardoned eventually reoffend. In the bill before us, all types of crimes are mixed together. The bill is meant to punish pedophiles, but it includes other crimes and extends the pardon period for other crimes that are less significant.

I would like my colleague to answer the following questions. What type of crimes are committed by the 3% of people who reoffend? Also, for those who have not been pardoned, and the hon. member covered this very well, what are the consequences in terms of reintegration into the work force? When someone has a criminal record, often for offences committed at age 17, 18 or 19, this can have a major influence on their career and their personal development and can often marginalize them.

What can we do to change this bill intelligently and not, as the hon. member says, like the Conservatives, who lump everyone together, punish people, draft new legislation and move on?

[Employment Insurance Act, June 4th, 2010]

moved that Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the parliamentary secretary told the House that everything was going well and that according to the OECD, Canada has had a major economic recovery, which means more revenue for the government. When the government has more revenue, it should be able to provide more support to those who need it most. The government is responsible for redistributing our collective wealth. It needs to provide more support to the unemployed and improve postal services instead of introducing Bill C-9, an omnibus bill that attempts to slip in reduced access to services. The government could be providing more services to the public, but it is doing the opposite.

I would like my colleague to say a few words about the Conservatives' philosophy. They are spending $1 billion on three days of security in Toronto, but they are not giving a dime to support the unemployed, seniors and the less fortunate in our society. What is more, they are not investing anything in the environment, which is supposed to be a top priority for the G8 and the G20.