Guy André

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has forecast a $56 billion deficit in the near future. The Bloc has suggested that the taxes of oil companies and banks be raised and that funding for the military sector be cut. Instead, the Conservative government, with the support of the NDP, is preparing to implement a bill that will not help the unemployed, seasonal workers or forestry workers. In addition, we have seen that the Conservatives, propped up by the NDP, will continue to pillage the EI fund, just as the Liberals did for a number of years.

I would like to hear my colleague explain how the Bloc Québécois intends to continue defending the interests of Quebeckers with the proposals it has made and helping workers with the proposed comprehensive reform of the EI system.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

I was also part of the international trade mission to Colombia and we did not necessarily hear the same things. She says that, in general, people were in favour of this agreement. My recollection is that all the groups we met with—the national indigenous organization of Colombia, all the social clubs, the social association, the popular women's organization, the national agrarian coordinator, the Christian movement for peace with justice and dignity—actually expressed their displeasure with the signing of this agreement.

I would like the member to explain why she perceives the people she met in Colombia to be in favour of the agreement.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on her excellent speech. I have a question for her.

We have just about reached the end of debate on Bill C-23. We have submitted a number of arguments to the effect that in Colombia human rights are not respected, companies do not meet environmental standards in mining and many people are displaced when the mining companies move in. While we have submitted a number of arguments, we have the feeling that the Conservatives and Liberals are insensitive to the points we have made.

How can we explain their feeling that signing a free trade agreement will result in economic development and the resolution of Colombia's social problems, crime and so on?

As my colleague put it so well in her remarks, the opposite is true.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I have a question for him.

We know that the Conservatives and the Liberals believe that unionized workers in Colombia will be better off if this agreement is signed. However, I have looked at some statistics. In 2007, 39 unionists were murdered in Colombia. In 2008, 49 were murdered. There has been a 25% increase in the number of murdered unionists since negotiations on the agreement between Canada and Colombia began. Colombia does not seem to be putting a stop to this reign of terror against unionists.

I would like the hon. member to give me his take on the situation.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Why is that the case? When it comes to free trade agreements—and we know that the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement does not address any real issues—both the Liberals and the Conservatives have basically said that if we do more business with a particular country and that country generates more income, there will automatically be better redistribution of the collective wealth to support society's poor.

But it is not automatic at all. Quite the contrary. For example, the Americans have a lot of money in circulation, but they are still fighting for a public health system.

So it is not true that, if a country amasses more dividends and income, things will be better for people with problems and high crime rates like Colombia's will come down. That is what we keep hearing in the House, but I disagree completely.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her question.

Of course we are opposed to this agreement for many reasons. First, we know very well that it is not a free trade agreement that targets trade. It focuses more on protecting investments. Therefore it is an investment-protection agreement.

Furthermore, I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which travelled to Colombia to meet with unions, management and all kinds of social groups. They all told us outright that Colombia is a corrupt country. Last week Ingrid Betancourt was in Quebec and she told us that there are major problems in Colombia at present.

A free trade agreement that protects investments—especially one that protects mining companies—will not solve the problems and improve the lot of thousands of Colombians who have been displaced by these large companies.

Supporting a free trade agreement will not improve protection for union workers who are the targets of paramilitary assassins. For these reasons, my colleague and I, as well as the entire Bloc Québécois, are opposed to the signing of this agreement with Colombia.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member boast about what an excellent bill this is. As members know, however, the Bloc Québécois, people of my riding and every riding in Quebec, as well as Mouvement Action Chômage and labour do not necessarily find it all that good.

First, it does not benefit all the unemployed. Second, it creates a new category of unemployed workers. Some have lost their jobs several times these past few years, be it in the forestry or the manufacturing industry. These workers have had to apply for EI repeatedly, and there is nothing in this bill to allow them to qualify for EI.

I cannot understand. With all the money it has, with more than $55 billion accumulated in the EI fund over the past few years, why does the government not implement something that would benefit all the workers who have lost their jobs and are going through really tough times?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member talking about EI and I would like some clarification from her.

For many years, we have been denouncing the pillaging of the employment insurance fund, which has continued under the Conservatives. There is currently a bill before the House, Bill C-50, which will allow a few unemployed to receive extended benefits, while none of the forestry workers and seasonal workers, who have experienced problems with EI in recent years, will be able to benefit from any of these measures. And the pillaging of the EI fund is continuing.

Should steps not be taken to stop the pillaging of the EI fund and to provide assistance not only to those workers who have done without EI these past few years, but all those who are losing their jobs because of the recession that is still ongoing, especially since the OECD predicts that it will last for another few years?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

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

Of course, we will vote against Bill C-50 on employment insurance. Why? In my riding, for example, the tourism industry is very important. As we know, there are a number of seasonal jobs in this industry. People who have these jobs have no stability and are unemployed for a period each year. Therefore, they are not able to benefit from the employment insurance program and the benefits provided for in Bill C-50.

Jobs in the manufacturing sector are also very important in my riding. We know that the manufacturing industry has been experiencing difficulties for several years. Since 2001, workers from this sector have regularly been laid off. These people have had to claim employment insurance several times and would not benefit from the measures of Bill C-50. And how about the forestry industry? In my riding, there are many forestry workers. We know that this industry is in crisis, and we know that the Liberals at the time refused to provide loan guarantees to businesses in this industry. Now, the Conservatives have decided to invest in Ontario to support the automotive industry.

These forestry workers have lost their jobs many times, and have been experiencing periods of unemployment for years. So they would not be able to benefit from Bill C-50.

This is why my colleague and I, along with the other Bloc Québécois members, will vote against Bill C-50.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for his excellent question.

We are asking the House to abolish the two-week waiting period. I believe that the NDP was willing to support this measure because, in principle, it represents poor workers and those who have lost their jobs.

Now we see that they support the Conservatives who have introduced a bill that does not at all help the unemployed. There is no mention in this bill of the eligibility threshold for employment insurance, or the 360 hours that the NDP also wanted and was recommended by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The Bloc Québécois stands up for Quebec, for Quebec's workers, for forestry workers, for seasonal workers and for all Quebec's workers.