Guy André

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech on Bill C-9. As he said, the Liberals and the Conservatives have co-operated to some extent to deal with the crisis that has been going on for the past year.

Does my colleague believe that the Conservatives are going a bit too far with Bill C-9? With this omnibus bill, they are trying to privatize Canada Post and blatantly steal money from the unemployed.

The Conservatives are saying that there is a surplus and that the economy is healthy. If there is an economic surplus, the government could provide more support for seniors, the poor and workers. It does not have to privatize Canada Post. It could improve postal services and restore the services that have been cut in recent years.

Why do the Liberals not stand up and vote against this bill and send the Conservatives packing, instead of supporting them as they are now doing?

[Canada Post, June 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals as their accomplices, the Conservatives are threatening the viability of the postal service by including a thousand and one reforms in Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

Among other things, Bill C-9 contains a deregulation project to put an end to Canada Post's monopoly on international remailing.

The Conservative government is trying to fool the public by slipping this deregulation plan into an 800-page omnibus budget implementation bill. They are trying to privatize this corporation on the sly, without the public even realizing it.

The government is opening the door to the complete deregulation of Canada Post. The citizens of Berthier—Maskinongé and all of Quebec are opposed to this process.

I implore the Liberal members not to support this Conservative bill. They must all rise and vote against Bill C-9 to maintain universal, accessible postal service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I spoke about the fact that Canada Post is losing revenue because profits are going to the private sector and the losses are going to the public sector. That is how the Conservatives think and the Liberals are supporting them.

With this bill, Canada Post would lose its exclusive privilege, which will jeopardize its revenues and undoubtedly have other negative repercussions, such as the reorganization of rural mail delivery. Rural areas such as my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé are the most affected.

This partial deregulation is not necessary. Canada Post is currently making money and is providing a service to the entire community. We are not going to create private mini-corporations that will eventually fund the Conservative Party. It is possible that both the Conservatives and the Liberals are hoping for funding.

The most important thing is to ensure that all citizens are receiving services, especially the aging population in rural areas. People aged 80 or 85 have reduced mobility and no longer have nearby access to their mail because numerous post offices have already been closed. The government wants to keep taking profits away from Canada Post, and that would effectively reduce services.

In light of all this, we are against this bill. Once again, I am asking the Liberals to vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member is telling us that the Conservatives are helping unemployed workers. They have added five weeks with a bill that targeted specific individuals. But we have been calling for an older worker assistance program for how long? It would cost about $100 million for all of Canada, but the government does not have the money to support older workers or to improve the employment insurance system, when 50% of workers do not even have access to it.

Yet the Conservatives will spend $1 billion on security for three days. We are not asking for nearly as much to improve the employment insurance system. They are spending billions of dollars on military ships. They have the money to build up a great military force abroad, but when the time comes to help seniors and workers, they sit here and laugh in our faces. It is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable interest, but also considerable concern that I rise once again today to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures. This enormous 880-page bill, with its more than 2,200 clauses, contains many different measures. I wonder if anyone has actually read this entire document, which has a lot to hide from the people. That is what I intend to speak out against during my remarks today.

Some might think that this bill contains only budget-related measures, but that is not the case. The Conservatives introduced a bill that is a catch-all for various measures and legislative actions that will make major changes to other laws, many of which have nothing to do with the budget. This will affect all Quebeckers.

It is important for Quebeckers to be aware that the Conservatives have the support of the Liberals despite the fact that I urged them to vote against this budget so we could rescue things like the Canada Post Corporation and recover the $57 billion in workers' and unemployed workers' money that has been misappropriated. That money will simply disappear if this bill is passed. I do not believe that the Liberals really intend to stand up and vote against this bill. Once again, true to form, they will act against the interests of working men and women, of Quebeckers and of society's poorest by supporting the Conservatives.

I believe that some Liberal members will vote against the bill, but there will not be enough of them to really register their dissatisfaction with Bill C-9. They tell the House that they are against this bill. They take part in the debates and ask questions, but when voting time comes, they do not show up. That is unfortunate because they know that this omnibus budget, Bill C-9, includes measures that will really affect the quality of life of Quebeckers and all Canadians.

The Conservatives know this. When I first came to the House, I noticed that, after a speech by an NDP member, they were laughing. This bill will privatize certain areas of Canada Post's activities and they are not taking seriously the harm that this will cause. We often say that the government is giving the profits to the private sector and the losses to the public sector. With this bill, that is what will happen to Canada Post, as well as to the unemployed, to our workers and to people who pay into employment insurance. Both workers and employers—who have been swindled, or robbed, of over $57 billion over the past few years—could see this practice continue if the bill passes.

Bill C-9 will permit letter exporters to collect letters in Canada and transport and deliver them abroad.

I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance tell us about Moya Greene, who, he says, supported the initiative proposed in Bill C-9.

However, when that Canada Post representative testified before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, she said that Canada Post has already lost $80 million so far because of that particular kind of privatization. If this bill passes, it is estimated that another $50 million in revenues will be lost if international remailing is allowed. That is a lot of money for Canada Post to lose.

What happens when Canada Post loses revenue? Inevitably, if Canada Post starts losing revenue, it will have to cut services.

So how will it cut services? My riding of Berthier—Maskinongé is mainly rural and when revenues decrease, Canada Post services are cut. It is usually rural areas where services are cut first.

And how are they cut? When the Liberals were in power, several post offices in my riding were closed. There is now a moratorium on post office closures, but several were closed then, including the offices in Saint-Édouard and Saint-Sévère. Those are some of the municipalities in my riding where post offices were closed.

At the time, people organized and demanded that their post offices be kept open, but the Liberals just said they could not afford to meet those needs and had to cut services. So Canada Post services were cut in these rural communities.

If Canada Post's revenue is reduced by $50 million, then postal service in rural communities will be cut again, unfortunately. Major urban centres receive far more mail and, according to a Canada Post study, urban postal service is often more profitable. This means that it often does not pay for Canada Post to deliver mail door to door in rural areas.

Yet rural residents pay tax and contribute to society, and they need services just like urban dwellers. The people of Quebec are very worried that this bill will mean the loss of rural mail delivery.

Maureen Green clearly stated that the corporation had already lost $80 million in revenue in recent years and would lose a further $50 million with this bill. That will mean the gradual privatization of Canada Post. It will be increasingly difficult for people to get their mail. They will have to make a considerable effort or go to another town, sometimes 15 or 20 kilometres away, to pick up a parcel. The government is going to do this to people who are 80, 85 and 90 years old.

I would like to come back to the issue of this bill and the employment insurance fund. The government took money from the unemployed and, with this bill, it is wiping out the $57 billion debt it owes them.

At the same time, even though it has a $57 billion surplus and is forecasting surpluses of $15 billion to $20 billion in the near future, this government has the nerve to vote against measures to improve employment insurance in general and eliminate the waiting period. It is continuing to build up a surplus in the employment insurance fund while reducing access to EI benefits.

It is shameful.

In closing, I would like to say a word about environmental assessment. How will the government be able to provide nuclear oversight if it further privatizes Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? The stakes are very high. If the companies the government creates become political party backers, how can they really provide more oversight and control over nuclear operations?

Those are my concerns. I would add that it is shameful, and to sit here and watch as this bill—

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with our colleague. It is a rather thick document.

I would like to ask him a question. This is the second time, since I arrived here in 2004, that the budget implementation bill is an omnibus bill.

In 2005, the Liberals had included a number of measures in their budget in an attempt to hide the bitter pill. The Conservatives are now doing the same thing in 2010. With Bill C-9, the Liberals and the Conservatives are attacking Canada Post. They want to privatize Canada Post, which turns a profit. They are privatizing it and leaving the deficits to the public sector.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question. Bill C-9 is what is known as an omnibus bill. They have included measures that were presented to the House of Commons in bills, but these bills were not passed.

They have plundered more than $57 billion from the employment insurance fund, and Bill C-9 would erase that debt. How can the minister tell Quebeckers that the employment insurance fund will accumulate billions more in surpluses over the coming years and still oppose measures—measures such as eliminating the waiting period and establishing the number of hours worked at 360—that would improve the employment insurance system? And in the meantime 50% of people who need employment insurance are not eligible?

How can the minister vote against these measures and, at the same time, plunder more than $57 billion from the employment insurance fund? They will erase the debt and continue to raid the employment insurance fund for years to come. I would like to hear the minister's comments on that.

[Forestry Industry, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Kruger announced that it was laying off 440 workers in Trois-Rivières. Even though the forestry industry has to deal with interest rates that can reach 25%, the Conservative government refuses to offer loan guarantees.

How can the government claim that its programs are working, when job losses are piling up in the forestry industry?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister again for his answer, but he just gave a shopping list of future military spending without having presented a real foreign and defence policy in the House.

In the absence of such a policy—and we have not seen one in the House—I feel it is irresponsible to proceed with such major purchases when the House has not had the opportunity to examine their repercussions. I feel it is not right for the government to keep on reinvesting such huge sums in the armed forces without setting clear parameters for military spending by targeting needs that reflect current geopolitical issues.

Does the minister not feel that any purchase over $100 million should be studied in the House to ensure that such purchases are thoroughly checked and examined and that they meet identified needs?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I will refrain from commenting on the minister's remarks, but I thank him for his response concerning people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, because that is an important phenomenon that must be given as much attention as recruiting new soldiers for combat.

The government is increasing military spending dramatically. In fact, Department of National Defence expenditures reached $21.3 billion in 2009-10, which puts Canada in 13th place globally. The government's $490 billion expenditure over 20 years is unique, since no other sector receives such guarantees for the future. Consider instead all the cuts we are seeing in other departments. They also show where the federal government's priorities are, since DND expenditures are 20 times higher than those of Environment Canada. We recognize the government's approach to the environment and its priorities in that regard.

We must also criticize the fact that the Conservative government continues to increase its defence budgets while it is limiting funding for international aid. Despite the fact that environmental needs are much greater and Canada is having a hard time fulfilling its international commitments regarding international aid, DND's budget is the only one that will continue to increase in coming years.

Are we to understand that the government sees armaments as far more important than international development?