Thierry St-Cyr

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we see that Quebec is not alone in its concerns about this issue. The advantage of having a system where each province has its own regulatory authority, its own authority issuing passports so that people can move from one authority to another, is that the different authorities can take account of their particular reality.

One does not need two postdoctorates in finance or economics to understand that the economic structure of Alberta is not the same as that of Prince Edward Island or Quebec. That is why the current system is much more flexible and why many other provinces want to keep their system. For Quebec this is even more important. It is not just a matter of economic structure, but also of culture, language, and our capacity as a nation to have access to the economic levers that allow us to develop.

It is a little pathetic to see the government having to invoke the cases of Earl Jones or other fraud artists to justify its commission. It is as if I were to say that there are lots of murders in Canada and that proves that the Criminal Code should not be a federal responsibility. There is lots of speeding on our roads, but that is no reason to transfer the highway safety code to the federal government. Just because the system is not perfect and we are not able to catch every single case does not mean we must transfer the responsibility to someone else. We must leave that sort of logic behind and get serious.

The cases that have been submitted in the House, notably that of Earl Jones, concern people who were not even registered with the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec. Even if we had an intergalactic securities commission, if those swindlers were not registered they still would not have been caught, and people would still have been duped.

We have to remain reasonable and take this seriously. The issue before us today is whether we should allow Quebec, and surely other provinces, to be stripped of a good part of its financial community for the benefit of Toronto.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to speak in support of the Bloc Québécois motion denouncing the efforts of the Conservative government, with the traditional complicity of the Liberals, to invade an area of Quebec jurisdiction by establishing a Canadian securities commission that would deprive Quebec of its powers over the area.

I would like to begin with a slight aside. People listening to us or reading our debates may find that the securities commission issue is quite boring and unimportant, given the difficulties we are currently facing. They may believe that it is not a major issue. I would like to tell them that, in my view, such is not the case, quite the contrary. I can concede that it may be boring, but that does not mean that it is not extremely important and pivotal.

Everything about this commission has very much to do with issues in the world of finance and the place where that financial sector is to be located. The question before us today is whether we agree that most, if not all, of the financial sector should be moved to Toronto. That is what this government really wants. Recently, we have seen that this government has no support. Its proposal has been almost universally condemned in Quebec. International organizations that have studied different systems show that the Canadian system works very well. The government has told us about cases of fraud. This is clearly nothing more than a red herring, a smokescreen. It has nothing to do with the matter. The reality is that they want to concentrate the financial system in Toronto, and that is extremely detrimental to Quebec.

We must look backwards. Before, during and after the Quiet Revolution, Quebeckers worked to free themselves from the English domination of their economy that existed at the time. Francophone Quebeckers, who made up the overwhelming majority of the population, saw that the control of the economy was entirely out of their hands. They had no control over it, and a tiny minority had its hands on all the levers. For decades, the Quebec people and their government have worked to change things.

I really liked Jacques Parizeau's explanation. He said that the Quebec government, when it was looking for funding, thought it was humiliating to have to beg for money from the Canadian financial community and be turned down. It then had to turn to the United States for capital.

Today, Quebec has strong, effective, useful and modern tools. It has come a long way. But we have noticed in recent years that it has started to slip. Montreal has already lost its stock exchange. The derivatives exchange is still there. Now, the federal government wants to pull out everything that is related to securities and move it to Toronto.

Obviously, that has significant consequences. The companies negotiating with the commission in Toronto will have to do so in English. We can see that this will be more complicated. Right now, if we want to meet with someone, we can take public transportation or our own vehicles and we can go to the Autorité des marchés financiers. We can have a meeting that way. But, if it is in Toronto, we would have to take the plane. It would be a bit more complicated. This process has started. Today, we have a federal government that wants to weaken Quebec's financial world.

Ultimately, we could understand them and see where their interests lie. What is more disappointing is seeing servile Quebeckers supporting them, sometimes even enthusiastically. We saw someone this morning laughing out loud at the comments of his ministers from the rest of Canada and taking pleasure in this weakening of Quebec.

We have a long list of people, and a coalition was even formed to denounce the government's plan. Here are some of the members of the coalition against the federal securities regulation plan: the Association de l’exploration minière du Québec, the Barreau du Québec, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Cascades, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the Chambre de commerce de Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Chambre de la sécurité financière, the Quebec Employers' Council. They are not bearded socialists, communists or separatists.

There are also the Fédération des Chambres de commerce du Québec, Fondaction, the QFL Solidarity Fund, the Groupe Jean Coutu, the Institut sur la gouvernance d’organisations privées et publiques, the Institut québécois de planification financière, Jacques Saint-Pierre, who is a professor at Université Laval, Jean La Couture, Corporate Director and Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the Regroupement des assureurs de personnes à charte du Québec, Jean-Marc Fortier, partner at Robinson Sheppard Shapiro, La Capitale Financial Group, Pierre Lortie, former chair of the Montreal Stock Exchange, Quebecor, the SSQ, the Société d’assurance-vie, the City of Montreal and the City of Quebec. We also heard from the media that Power Corporation and Desjardins are against this plan. All Quebec Inc. is.

In the National Assembly, the consensus is extremely strong. The four parties, from those on the far left to those on the far right, from the most federalist to the most sovereignist, all agree that this scheme is unacceptable. Unfortunately, 25 Quebeckers are defending the indefensible. There are only about 25 of them in Quebec, and they are in this House. These are the servile Quebeckers in the Conservative and Liberal Parties who are neither able nor willing, as we in the Bloc Québécois are, to work for consensus in Quebec, to defend it and to bring it to this House.

Some members of this House are not part of this fight. We were even criticized this morning for putting the securities commission on the agenda again. We were told that we were going to lose again. But we will not give up.

It is like the battle for nationhood; motions to recognize the Quebec nation were introduced in this House numerous times, and we finally won. We are going to continue to fight because we are neither servile nor submissive. We are here to defend the strong Quebec consensus, and we will continue to do so.

The government likes to think that we will fail again. If we do fail again, it will demonstrate the limits of federalism and the dead end that Quebeckers see it as. When we have an institution that is clearly in Quebec's jurisdiction, and we have to fight, not in order to make headway in Canada, but in order to not be pushed back, that shows that the best Canada can offer us is to not lose ground.

There are Quebec members of this Parliament who, servile federalists that they are, are going to defend the indefensible in the face of everything that is being done economically, politically and socially in Quebec. This shows that Quebec has no future in Canada and that, in the end, the solution for Quebeckers is to take the plunge, to decide on our collective future and to become a country, a sovereign Quebec.

Until that time, until such time as Quebeckers make that democratic choice, the Bloc Québécois is going to continue working passionately to defend the interests of Quebec, even if that annoys the Conservatives, and the Liberal members from Quebec.

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister had the authority to do something about this and he did not, yet again.

This government's lack of flexibility has major repercussions on Quebec's convention industry. In this case, the Union francophone des aveugles, which is meeting in Laval for a conference on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, will not have enough attendees to hold its annual meeting, which is rather discouraging to many other groups.

When will the Conservative government stop undermining Quebec's efforts to develop the convention industry?

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Immigration Canada is refusing to grant visas to 60 representatives of organizations for the blind from African countries who were supposed to attend the Union francophone des aveugles conference in Laval. Immigration Canada is concerned that the delegates will refuse to return to their country. These people are leaders in their countries. They have ties to their countries. Some of them are even being sponsored by their government.

Does this not prove once again that the Conservative government's policy on granting visas is still far too often based on unacceptable prejudice?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to comment on the bill before us today. This bill raises a moral question: should we force the beliefs of this Parliament and this country on the world?

We are asking if we should welcome someone who has refused to participate in overseas military action—which Canada is not involved in and for which there are no United Nations sanctions—and who is asking for our protection.

The Bloc Québécois' answer is yes, of course we should. The war in Iraq is perhaps the prime example, the one the first comes to mind. I remind members that there was once widespread disapproval of the war in Iraq. Despite this, some politicians supported action in Iraq. Obviously, the Prime Minister of Canada, leader of the Conservative Party, was in favour of action in Iraq. The Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Liberal Party was also in favour of the war in Iraq. However, even though these two leaders defended the war, the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers were undoubtedly against it.

Who could forget that, at the time, hundreds of thousands of people in different cities, including 200,000 or 300,000 in Montreal alone, filled the streets. They braved the cold to say that they did not want to participate in what they felt was an unjust war not sanctioned by the United Nations, an unjust and unjustifiable war. They felt that the war would unduly punish Iraqi civilians and society. People also knew that there was a hidden strategic agenda involving control over oil production and so on.

Now we know that George Bush and his administration told all kinds of lies to convince people that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were no such weapons. There was widespread consensus.

People considered the war illegitimate. Reacting to public opinion, Parliament decided it would be illegitimate to send soldiers there to fight. That is logical. If something appears to be illegitimate, stay out of it.

That being said, my Liberal Party colleague's bill raises a very interesting question. Were we justified in believing that people around the world should have shared our conviction at the time? If the Iraq war is illegitimate from our perspective, should it not also be illegitimate from the perspective of the United States, Germany, England and lots of other countries?

If, as parliamentarians, we strongly believe that this is a universal value and that human beings should not participate in immoral bilateral conflicts not sanctioned by the UN, then we should also believe that people from other countries who share that conviction should not be required to participate. That is what the bill before us proposes.

This bill would not allow people who simply refuse military service to stay in Canada, but it would admit people who refuse military service because they are ordered to participate in a mission they consider to be illegitimate or immoral. Such individuals would be permitted to apply for permanent residency on humanitarian grounds as conscientious objectors if they believe, as we do, that the war they are expected to join is immoral and illegitimate.

That makes sense to me. The government had a number of things to say about this. My Conservative colleague who spoke before me said that this does not at all correspond to the definition of a refugee. I will admit that, but we are not talking about refugees. We are talking about an application for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds. This does not correspond to the definition of a refugee and it is for that reason that the spokesperson for the bill did not put it in the section on refugees. I do not know whether my Conservative colleague read the bill before writing his speech, but his comment is irrelevant.

They also pointed out the possibility of an incredible influx into Canada of conscientious objectors from all over the world. That is somewhat exaggerated. Most people who decide on a military career will abide by the army's decisions. A certain number believe they made a mistake. They joined the army in good faith but, after deployment, they realized that it was an illegitimate war and changed their minds. Not all of them want to leave their families. If they are considered deserters in the United States, they can come to Canada, but they can never return to their country. There is no reason to believe that there will be an influx of applicants. There will be applications in particular circumstances. Nevertheless, we must listen to these people and protect them.

We also heard the government cite the issue of national security. I wonder how anyone who has been security cleared in order to become a member of the U.S. army could suddenly become a threat to national security. Was the parliamentary secretary suggesting that the American army hires potential terrorists? This seems to be a ridiculous argument.

Behind these supposedly rational arguments, the government simply does not want to rub the Americans the wrong way or jeopardize its relationship with the Republicans and George W. Bush in the United States. Then there are the Liberals who do not want to jeopardize the position of their leader, who was in favour of the war in Iraq. I applaud the fact that even though he supported the war in Iraq, the Liberal Party leader—the Leader of the Opposition—nevertheless allowed one of his party members to introduce a bill on an issue that directly concerns that unjust war. Most of the recent cases involve people who participated or are being forced to participate in the war in Iraq.

The Liberal Party leader has not yet told us whether he has changed his mind. He has not told us whether he believes, like most Canadians and Quebeckers believed at the time, that the war was immoral or illegitimate or whether he still believes that Canada should have participated in the war. Even though he has not stated his position, he allowed the Liberal Party member to introduce this bill. That is a good sign.

I hope that, contrary to what happened with a recent motion, all Liberal members will support their colleague's bill to make it the law of the land.

I would like to conclude by comparing this issue to the ongoing debate on access to abortion services in other countries, which is a major issue. We know that even though they will never say so openly, the Conservatives want to reopen the abortion debate, and they are imposing their beliefs on other countries.

It is kind of the same thing with deserters. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, they say that the war was legitimate and moral. They do not see why we would accept American deserters who refused to take part in it. The two situations are similar, and I would like them to stop.

[Firearms Registry, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the presidents of the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal and the Fédération des policiers et policières municipaux du Québec have reiterated their support for the firearms registry. For them, it is all about safety. They say that the $4 million cost associated with the long gun registry pales in comparison to the costs associated with firearm-related injuries and deaths.

Why do the Conservatives reject the opinion of police officers, who say that the firearms registry is an important tool in the fight against crime?

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that my colleague from Drummond summed things up very nicely and did a good job of explaining the facts, so I will not have to add much. He painted a clear picture. We no longer fight wars the way we used to. Our soldiers are exposed to different kinds of conflicts now. It is only logical that we should do things differently. We need a different approach to psychological issues and difficulties than the one we had 20 or 30 years ago.

He is right that the government needs a different approach to buying military equipment. Our soldiers are more often involved in close-to-ground scenarios, such as hand-to-hand fighting in the streets and alleys. They have to deal with snipers, moving targets and IEDs, all of which make large-scale intervention devices less relevant.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, much more, and more intensive psychological support and serious follow up should be provided to all of them. The reason for that is twofold. Of course, when someone is physically injured, it is not an issue, the person receives care and treatment. It goes without saying. The same amount of energy, time and money should be put into the care and treatment of those with psychological injuries. That is plain common sense.

On top of that, however, for the government to recognize that soldiers are experiencing problems, that this is normal and that they will receive care is the first step in these individuals' healing process. By refusing to give this issue the importance it has for our armed forces, the government is indirectly sending the message that this is a marginal issue and that perhaps those with psychological problems were not cut out for the army, were too weak or not strong enough, that there is something wrong with them. That has to change. Our brave soldiers returning from combat have to be told that it is quite common and normal, with the kind of trauma they have experienced, to be psychologically injured and that there is no shame in that. We must tell them that there is no more shame in that type of injury than in a physical one and that we will put the necessary energy and financial resources into helping them get through it.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-13. If I may, I would like to elaborate on the topic and go a little further than the scope of this bill. My colleagues have already mentioned the strong consensus here. The four parties all agree on this bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act to extend the benefit period when parental leave is interrupted. Parental leave could therefore be deferred if CF members are called back to duty during that leave.

Of course it is a noble intention. We know that parental leave is important for all workers, including military personnel. This bill recognizes the unique nature of military work and the requirements that that work entails. CF members sometimes have to deploy during their parental leave. Employment insurance must therefore be flexible enough to deal with this unique situation.

What concerns me is that, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, the legislation probably could have been corrected by the executive without bringing the matter before Parliament. One might wonder why we are being asked to vote on a piece of legislation, when the government has the authority to make these changes.

It is possible that the government wanted to get some good press about veterans, but in many ways it is abandoning soldiers living with emotional problems or significant physical injuries. It is also neglecting retirees who are real veterans. It is proposing a good measure, but it is only a band-aid solution for a bigger problem.

The Bloc Québécois has a great deal of respect for soldiers. Even though we do not always agree with the government with regard to the missions, we believe that a soldier's duty is to obey the orders of the government. We live in a democracy. We criticized the strategy in Afghanistan and spoke out against our possible involvement in the war in Iraq not because we do not support the troops, but because we were against these actions in principle. The Prime Minister, who was the leader of the opposition at the time, was for the war in Iraq and so was the current Leader of the Opposition.

While I was saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the troops, I saw some Conservative MPs shaking their heads. They truly do not believe that is the case. According to them, we are attacking the troops when we say that military spending is too high, that we could cut this spending, and that we do not need to by so many weapons or the latest gadgets. They think we are attacking our brave soldiers and our veterans. This is not what soldiers want. They want some consideration and when they return from a mission with physical or psychological injuries, they want some help.

I have some statistics to share with the House. Some 4% of soldiers returning from Kandahar have developed suicidal tendencies, 4.6% have symptoms of major depression, and more than 15% experience mental health problems. These statistics are taken from an article on the Canadian Forces in Le Devoir.

Do we really think these soldiers need the latest tanks, new bombs or higher-performance guns? Is that what it means to the Conservatives to support the troops? Do the Conservatives not think that the troops want us to criticize the government when it hides information about the transfer of detainees in Kandahar although it knew there was a chance the detainees would be tortured? That is not what they want.

What they want is financial and psychological support.

Let us consider the changes made in 2005 by the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, known as the Veterans Charter, which took effect on April 6, 2006. Under this charter, soldiers who are injured on missions abroad do not receive a lifetime pension commensurate with their injuries, but a lump sum.

This policy is a failure for two reasons. First, the lump sum that is paid out according to soldiers' disabilities is not enough for them to live on for the rest of their lives. Second, a large amount is much harder for soldiers to manage, because they have to divide it up in order to have enough to last a lifetime. A further difficulty is the fact that because of the traumas they suffered overseas, many of these people come home with mental health problems that can limit their ability to properly manage the money they receive.

We are asking the government to go back to the old formula of a pension, which would provide a lifetime of support for our soldiers who have fought, risked their lives and lost some of their health on mission. The government is still refusing to go ahead, even though it claims to be the champion of the military.

Is this not a prime example of the government using the military for its own purposes? Most of us have soldiers in our ridings. Some of them are friends of ours. I know that many soldiers are angry that the government is using the military to hide its reprehensible behaviour toward Afghan detainees. The government is attacking everyone who questions the advisability of combat missions and of spending additional billions on weapons.

Many soldiers have told me that they do not really like being singled out in the political battle that is being waged. They are criticizing the government for using them for political purposes. The soldiers told me that Parliament decides how much to invest in the military sector, it decides which wars we will be involved in and it decides how captured prisoners will be treated. They are simply enforcing the laws. All they want is for us to think about them and give them the psychological follow-up they need as well as the income they need to live out their lives.

To conclude, I would like to draw a parallel with victims of crime. The government is constantly telling us that if we are against their regressive crime measures it means that we are against victims. When someone's family member is killed or when they are a victim of crime themselves, if the criminal goes to prison for 2, 150 or 300 years—the way they do in the United States—the victim's situation is the same.

However, when the Conservatives vote against a bill that would extend the number of weeks of employment insurance that a victim of crime is eligible for, they are being terribly hypocritical. Victims of crime also need support after the crime has been committed.

They defend victims of crime, but they must also encourage prevention. On one hand, they are dismantling the firearms registry and putting public safety at risk. On the other hand, they are saying that if an individual uses a firearm to commit a crime, he will be put in prison for a long time. That does nothing for victims.

The government must also stop advancing its regressive policies by exploiting either the victims of crime or our courageous military personnel.

[Transportation, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite happy to talk to Quebec. He has already committed funding for the construction of shuttles to the Vancouver and Toronto airports but still has not committed funding for the Montreal shuttle. This is an important project for the Montreal economy and, furthermore, it will help reduce greenhouse gases.

What is the federal government waiting for to announce its contribution?