Guy André

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I disagree with the minister. The fact that we oppose extending the mission in Afghanistan does not mean that we do not support our soldiers. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I would like to ask the minister another question. As a result of Canada's involvement in the conflict in Afghanistan, the number of operational stress injury victims is rising steadily, as the minister knows. Post-traumatic stress disorder, which is linked to psychological trauma resulting from military service, appears in a large number of deployed soldiers. According to some of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee on Veterans Affairs, about one in six soldiers is afflicted with post-traumatic stress. Some experts believe that percentage may be even much higher.

I think that we need to work harder at solving this problem. We need to do more for our soldiers because this issue can have a major impact on families, on husbands, wives and children if we do not do a better job of screening soldiers for post-traumatic stress. As the minister knows, people dealing with post-traumatic stress may be very difficult to identify because once they return from a mission, it can take months or even years for post-traumatic syndrome to develop.

What does the Department of National Defence plan to do about this? What does the minister plan to do to ensure better screening practices and better treatment for people afflicted with post-traumatic stress? We also heard witnesses talk about how the husbands and wives of soldiers struggling with post-traumatic stress received very little support or information about the situation, which led to a high rate of separation and divorce among soldiers.

I would like the minister to tell us whether the government really wants to work harder to reduce the number of soldiers afflicted with post-traumatic stress and whether he can implement measures to respond to this phenomenon that is, sadly, on the rise.

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois was opposed to extending the mission until 2009. So we are just as firmly opposed to the Government of Canada extending the current mission past 2011.

We believe that Canada has done its part, and that it is up to the other NATO countries to take over. Canada must inform the other NATO countries as quickly as possible that it will withdraw its military troops when the mission comes to an end in 2011, as the House has called for, so that they can take over.

I have three questions for the minister. The government confirmed that Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in July 2010.

What preparations are being made for the withdrawal of Canadian troops?

Has the minister made it clear to his NATO counterparts that Canada will withdraw after July 2010?

And when the military mission comes to an end in July 2010, does the minister plan on leaving a small contingent of officers and soldiers to help train the Afghan national army?

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I have a question. Over the course of the years, $57 billion has been taken from the employment insurance fund. But this omnibus bill would erase all of that. It will not be erased from our memory, though, because we know very well that this money was taken from unemployed workers.

The employment insurance fund is expected to have a surplus of $19 billion over the next few years. How does my colleague think the government could invest this $19 billion to better serve our workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

The government is actually privatizing part of Canada Post in a so-called budget implementation bill. This budget contains a measure regarding Canada Post that should not be there.

International mail is Canada Post's cash cow. The Canada Post Corporation is losing money, and the government is giving the profits to the private sector and the losses to the public sector. Cuts are often made in rural areas and not in major centres. In recent years, a number of post offices have been closed—

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer part of the questions raised by my colleague from the NDP. We know that the banks have amassed enormous surpluses. I mentioned that in my speech. We have even heard of banks that use tax havens. There are bankers who earn enormous salaries to the tune of $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, $6 million or even $7 million a year. There are people who leave those banks with a pension of between $500,000 and $600,000. And then there is the employment insurance fund.

People today no longer trust their institutions. That is serious. When we see a poor worker lose his job and see that the government is not supporting the company, or when an unemployed person opens the paper and sees that these bankers are pocketing huge profits, we understand where this lack of trust is coming from. The government is giving these bankers tax relief to boot. People end up no longer having any confidence in these institutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a particular interest in taking part in the debate today on Bill C-9 at report stage and the amendments that have been proposed. This bill would implement various initiatives the Conservative government included in its March 4 budget.

As many of my Bloc Québécois colleagues have already said, we are opposed to this bill for many reasons.

The measures in this budget do not meet Quebeckers' needs. None of the major priorities of our region and Quebec as a whole—improving employment insurance and the guaranteed income supplement, helping our manufacturing and forestry industries, harmonizing the QST with the GST and introducing a real plan to help the furniture industry, which is going through its share of problems—is addressed in this budget.

We also oppose Bill C-9 because it is blatantly undemocratic. It is an omnibus bill, as a number of speakers have pointed out. It includes the privatization of Canada Post, for example, and measures that have nothing to do with a budget. Our finance critic mentioned that in his speech. The bill contains a number of things that have never even been discussed by the Standing Committee on Finance.

The government is trying to put measures in the bill that the House would not approve otherwise. The Conservatives know that the Liberals, who are weak politically, will support them. The Conservatives will be able to implement these measures and ram them down Quebeckers' and Canadians' throats.

Among the many amendments we are discussing today, I would like to talk about part 24 of Bill C-9.

This part closes the separate Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board's account and opens a new account called the employment insurance operating account. It eliminates, once and for all, the surplus accumulated thanks to unemployed workers who kept contributing as the government tightened access to employment insurance. Employers and employees contributed over $57 billion to the employment insurance fund. This omnibus bill eliminates for all time the accumulated surplus and starts over at zero. That is a real shame.

Once again, we proposed numerous initiatives to support unemployed workers, from eliminating the waiting period to improving the system. At the height of the economic crisis, 50% of the population did not even have access to EI. During that time, huge surpluses were building up in the employment insurance fund. This theft from the people of Canada and Quebec is sanctioned in Bill C-9, an omnibus bill.

Unemployed workers do not have access to employment insurance, and the government got billions of dollars out of them to finance other measures. Those workers paid taxes. They contributed to the government's treasury. That same government found another way to attack the poorest members of society by stealing money from the employment insurance fund.

As I explained, the government wants the middle class and workers to foot the bill for the deficit, while banks, oil companies and the rich get off scot free. It gives tax breaks to banks that hide huge amounts of money in tax shelters. It gives tax breaks to oil companies and, as we know, it supported the auto industry while neglecting Quebec's unemployed workers and its forestry and manufacturing industries.

Unfortunately, the budget implementation act officially sanctions the federal government's embezzlement of money from the employment insurance fund, which started when the Liberal Party was in power in the 1990s. Embezzlement is exactly what it was. The government took money held in reserve for unemployed workers, money contributed by employers and employees, and put it in another fund to be spent elsewhere. That is what I call embezzlement. Over the course of 14 years, they stole $57 billion. That is shameful. I am appalled.

Since 2004, the Bloc Québécois has been fighting here in this House to improve the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. That is another example of how the government stealing money, from seniors in that case. They have taken money from the unemployed. They refused to improve the employment insurance program. They have refused to use the guaranteed income supplement to support the seniors who did not receive this supplement for a number of years. Those seniors are not being reimbursed. The government always manages to support the banks and the rich to the detriment of the poorest in our society. That is what is happening in this House and it is shameful.

It is as though the 14 years of misappropriation never happened, thanks to this omnibus legislation. The debt is erased. They took $57 billion from the unemployed and now they turn the page. They act as though nothing happened. It is shameful. It is like a magic trick. We know that the Liberals' weakness means that they will vote with the Conservatives and support this bill. But they will still have to live with their guilt because they also dipped into the fund. The Liberals and Conservatives will erase it all in the hope that people will have forgotten in a couple of years. But the Bloc Québécois will not forget. We will continue to denounce this Conservative government manoeuvre, which was supported by the Liberals, to misappropriate money from the employment insurance fund.

It is unbelievable if you think about it. They want to pretend the misappropriation of $57 billion never happened and on top of that, help themselves to more money in the future, because the EI fund is accumulating another surplus with employers' and employees' premiums. Additional surpluses of $19 billion are expected for the next three years. With that money alone, we could resolve the issue of the two-week waiting period for unemployed workers. In my riding, over 4,000 people have signed a petition on this issue, calling on the government to eliminate the two-week waiting period. We could improve the employment insurance system and make it more accessible for all workers.

But, no, what we see here instead is more of the same old story. The government stole $57 billion from unemployed workers. It is going to help itself to another $19 billion from them over the next few years and will do nothing to improve the employment insurance system to allow workers to live more comfortably in a difficult situation, because many workers are losing their jobs. The government is still misappropriating money from the fund.

The Bloc Québécois would like the government to present a plan to pay back the money it misappropriated from the EI fund.

We call on the government to improve the employment insurance system, help unemployed workers and stimulate the economy. If we help the unemployed, people who are temporarily out of work could continue buying goods, paying their rent or mortgage and making car payments. They could continue paying their bills and supporting their families. This is good for the economy, for families and for many other things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. He has been our finance critic since he joined us, and he is doing an excellent job.

Naturally, I find it shameful that the government has plundered the employment insurance fund, but at the same time, since 2004, when I became an MP, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have opposed bills that would improve the employment insurance system. They have opposed giving workers access to EI after 360 hours of work, and they have opposed eliminating the waiting period. While the government is stealing billions of dollars from the unemployed, it is denying them access to EI and refusing to improve the system. I think it is a real shame, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, when, in the midst of an economic recession, the Liberals started pillaging the employment insurance fund—if not stealing—they created a sort of precedent by reducing the number of benefits and access to employment insurance. Then, they just took the money that belonged to the unemployed and used it to pay down the deficit. The Conservatives picked up where the Liberals left off.

I would ask our hon. colleague what the Liberals will do if they take power. Will they give back the money they took from the unemployed, or will they turn a blind eye and keep on pillaging the EI fund just as they used to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague. In his speech, he talked about nuclear energy. The Conservative government currently wants to develop nuclear energy more fully to extract oil from the oil sands. Its argument is that this will reduce some of the pollution created from the oil sands operations. I do not think nuclear energy is the answer because it generates radioactive and nuclear waste that no one knows what to do with.

I would like the hon. member to say a few words about the Conservative government's desire to develop the oil sands.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

In Canada, we are going to bat for a matter of vital importance, that is, the development of green energy. Quebec has reached an important turning point, which has even been noted abroad. If Quebec were a sovereign nation, I believe that it would be admired for its green energy initiatives. We have invested extraordinary amounts in Hydro-Québec—which develops clean energy—and in wind energy. We are also looking at solar energy. The people want good air and water quality, a good quality of life overall. That is not presently the case with the Conservative government, which seems to want to exploit the oil sands, and perhaps even go with nuclear power because it believes it will reduce pollution. That is not true.

Therefore, the rest of Canada has a lot of work to do to develop green energy. The economic stimulus package with its infrastructure programs could have been a good opportunity to develop green energy initiatives, but it did not happen. The government said absolutely nothing about this.

The Conservative government will have to wake up and realize that it is 2010, that we are no longer in the 1950s, and that turning to renewable and green energy represents the future of our children.