Guy André

[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.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is with interest but also with concern that I am taking part in today's debate on Bill C-50 to provide additional weeks of benefits to certain categories of unemployed people.

The Bloc Québécois—and we have seen this many times here in the House—has always acted and will continue to act as a reasonable and responsible party. It will study every bill introduced, issue by issue. As always, we will act in the interests of Quebeckers.

As we said a number of times this morning, we cannot support this bill because it does not address the root of the problem, which is that the employment insurance system is unfair and not suited to the needs of Quebec's workers. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP and some other hon. members know that accessibility is the problem and we have been saying that in this House for a long time.

When it comes to qualifying for employment insurance, far too many workers, who have paid their premiums, are told they are not eligible because they do not have enough hours of work. According to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada's own numbers released in this House, more than half of unemployed workers—which is not insignificant—do not have access to a system to which they have contributed. This is truly disgraceful.

It will take more than piecemeal measures like Bill C-50 to fix a system that has been full of holes since the many Liberal cuts in the 1990s. It is all well and good to design the best programs around, but if people are not eligible for employment insurance benefits, then all is for naught. That is why we cannot support this bill.

The Bloc Québécois and committees of the unemployed, the Coalition des Sans-Chemise, who have been calling for change for years, and Quebec's unions, have been unanimously demanding a universal 360-hour eligibility threshold. That is what Quebeckers need to be eligible for employment insurance. Lowering the eligibility threshold to 360 hours for everyone would immediately help the most vulnerable in our society.

The bill not only does nothing to address the problem of access to the system, but it contains measures that will essentially benefit a certain category of workers in western Canada and in the auto sector in Ontario. In fact, according to Mr. Chevrette, the head of the Quebec Forestry Industry Council, as well as the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses and unions in Quebec, the measures announced will have little impact in Quebec, because they are not accessible to seasonal workers, forestry workers, young people or vulnerable workers.

In Berthier—Maskinongé, the riding I represent, there is one category of workers this bill does not cover. The government could give 100 weeks of benefits and these workers would not be affected. I am talking about seasonal workers, especially those who work in tourism in my riding. I also want to talk about the many forestry workers in my riding who have unfortunately lost their jobs. They will not be eligible for benefits under Bill C-50. Unemployed forestry workers will not have access to the additional measures being introduced in this bill, unlike auto workers in Ontario.

The president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council points out that nearly all forestry workers are unemployed at least 10 weeks a year. Did the government think about these workers when it drafted Bill C-50? No, even though the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities came up with a number of proposals and recommendations. The Conservatives turned a deaf ear.

Instead of proposing comprehensive, consistent reform, Bill C-50 proposes piecemeal reform of employment insurance that will create a new category of benefit recipients. The criteria in the Conservatives' bill mean that there are good and bad recipients. There are good and bad unemployed. People who have been unlucky enough to lose their jobs or to hold seasonal jobs for many years will not be any more eligible for EI and will not benefit from any other measure in this bill. The government is making the poor poorer.

We in the Bloc Québécois refuse to support these mean-spirited, demagogic measures that the Conservatives, with the NDP's support, are trying to impose.

Opportunistic political manoeuvring is not what we need. As we all very well know, a bill was unnecessary. These measures could have been introduced simply through special projects. Instead, we are seeing mass political manipulation. A thorough overhaul is needed so that this program can really meet the needs of all workers.

A few extra weeks of discriminatory benefits are not what we need. Instead, we need a real adjustment program for older workers, which is what we have been asking for for some years, as have workers in Quebec and across Canada—a program that the Liberals cancelled and the Conservatives refuse to bring back, in spite of an electoral promise to that effect.

What we need is a system that can fulfill its main mission, that is, to provide benefits to everyone in a fair manner, long enough to allow people to live with dignity.

The Bloc Québécois understood this, which is why we proposed a series of measures to restore the employment insurance system's main mission. In addition to improved access to the system, the Bloc Québécois is also calling for the elimination of the waiting period.

With that in mind, I presented to the House a petition signed by nearly 4,000 people from my riding, people who are losing their jobs and are asking this House to assist them in their time of need.

I would like to close by saying that if a government is not capable of adequately supporting its citizens when they find themselves out of work, those people inevitably wind up living in poverty.

I would like the members of the Liberal Party to pay close attention to what I am about to say. Speaking of poverty, I would point out that 19% of Canadians are currently living in poverty, while in Sweden for instance, only 11.4% are in the same situation. In France, that number is 14.1%, in Belgium 6.2%, in the United Kingdom 17% and in the United States 23.9%, dead last.

A policy like Bill C-50 will only make all our citizens poorer. We do not support this policy, and we will be voting against this bill.

[Petitions, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present today in this House a petition signed by about 4,000 people from the riding I have the honour of representing: Berthier—Maskinongé.

The petitioners are calling on the federal government to shoulder its responsibilities by acting quickly to eliminate the two-week waiting period that workers encounter after they lose their jobs and must turn to employment insurance.

That is why I urge all members in this House to vote in favour of the Bloc's Bill C-241, which would abolish the waiting period once and for all.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is with interest but also with great concern that I am rising today for the third time to address Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to mention again that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement, because a free trade agreement with Colombia raises very serious issues, particularly since that country has the worst performance in its hemisphere when it comes to human rights.

As with the agreement signed with Peru, the Conservative government presented Parliament with an agreement that had already been negotiated and reached with Colombia, before Parliament even had the opportunity to review it in depth. At the time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We visited Colombia and we met with a number of stakeholders from that country, including unions, social groups, businesspeople and government members. The committee was to submit a report to the government, along with recommendations on the situation in Colombia. However, the Conservative government signed an agreement before the report was even tabled. That is really a waste of public money. A delegation of committee members is sent to Colombia to review the situation and then the government signs an agreement without even taking into consideration the committee's recommendations. Once again, the Conservatives, who claim to know how to run this country's affairs, squandered the taxpayers' money.

It is important to remind hon. members that the free trade agreement with Colombia was announced on June 7, 2008, when the committee was carrying out its study, prior to submitting its report to the House.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade and I did make that trip to Colombia. We travelled through that country and we met with socio-economic stakeholders, union leaders, social groups and members of the government. We were shocked and appalled by the scope of the tragedy created by population displacements. Mining companies and agribusinesses have displaced some 250,000 persons and these people are currently parked on an area of about 50 square kilometres. The government does not care. These people are given bread and a bit of water, and some measures are quietly being taken to support them, so that they do not die.

I did not hear anything on that from government members. What is going to happen to the 250,000 people who were displaced? That issue is not raised in the House. We know that there is a trade agreement, supposedly to promote free trade with Colombia. It is not a trade agreement that we are talking about in this House, but an agreement that helps protect the investments of some Canadian businesses in that country. Indeed, the agreement as such talks a bit about the trading of grain from western Canada, but in the end it has a lot more to do with Canadian mining companies in Colombia.

We know very well that these companies have supported the displacement of communities and have no respect for environmental standards. In the previous session, I was distressed as well to see a Liberal member moving a motion to encourage companies to be socially responsible in the course of their activities.

I note in this House that while we are voting and the Liberals are moving this sort of motion on social responsibility for companies, they are voting in favour of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It is shameful to see that over 300,000 persons were relocated in 2007-08 and that over 380,000 persons have had to flee their homes or workplaces because of violence.

To close this debate, we reported today the number of assassinations of trade unionists in the past two years. We have here a long list, which includes the assassination of Rafael Antonio Sepúlveda Lara on August 20—just recently.

Since the agreement was signed, union members in Colombia, people who want to protect their rights and interests, continue to be assassinated. The human rights of these people are not respected. I am convinced that the signing of a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia will in no way reduce the number of union members assassinated. This is not what is needed. An agreement in this House will not ensure a better fate for the 300,000 people who have been displaced by mining companies and agrifood businesses. It will not.

It will simply benefit certain mining companies by offering better protection of their investments. Some people in this country may become rich as a result. Thirty members of the current government in the Congress are facing court proceedings for associating with Colombian paramilitaries. Increased revenues for the state does not mean the government will help the most disadvantaged or ensure better conditions and quality of life for the victims of violence in the society.

This government will not see to it that the 250,000 or 300,000 persons who have been displaced and are dying of hunger in shantytowns will have a better life. It will not. I am convinced this agreement will not resolve this situation.

How will we help Colombians? The government talks of humanitarian aid here, of support for this country to help it build a fairer democracy and a fairer and more just society.

It talks too about fairer trade. It is intervening to bring this debate to a close. It is intervening in various countries. It talks about Afghanistan. It says it is intervening in these countries in order to support and defend women's rights. We know that this hides other things, but the peacekeepers intervene. I wonder if this is not what is needed in Colombia given all the assassinations and the number of people displaced.

I reiterate that, for all these reasons and many others, this is not a trade agreement but an agreement to protect the investments of businesses. We in the Bloc will oppose this agreement, which in no way meets the needs of the people of Colombia and even less the needs of the people of Quebec and Canada.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech on the situation in Colombia. I have a question for him.

Look at the situation now in Colombia. My colleague mentioned the number of union members who have been assassinated over the last few years and the number of people who have been displaced by mining and agri-food companies. It is about 250,000 people.

We hear the Conservatives say that a free trade agreement will improve the lot of the disadvantaged and will stimulate business. People will work more and their situation will improve.

I do not agree because this all depends, of course, on the will of the government in power. If the government does not support disadvantaged people and populations and assassinates those who are union members, I am not so sure a trade agreement will do them a lot of good.

I would like to know what my colleague from Repentigny has to say about this.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened to our Conservative colleague say that when we trade with a country and that country's revenues increase, ultimately the lives of people who face hunger or other problems are improved. I disagree, because often it is not the wealthiest countries that take the best care of their people.

How can we trust a country that is assassinating union members and displacing whole populations?

I travelled to Colombia and found that many people are being displaced from their farms so that certain mining companies can take over the land.

How can the government think that with increased revenues, this country will better redistribute wealth to the poor? I do not believe it.

I was looking at the statistics recently, and they show that—

[Employment Insurance, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to you in the hope that the federal government will once and for all understand the true needs of workers who are losing their jobs. On behalf of all those who have already been penalized upon losing their jobs, I am asking that the two week waiting period be eliminated.

It is inconceivable that these people, who pay premiums, must wait two weeks before receiving benefits and that they never receive anything for these two weeks.

Rather than creating a Liberal-Conservative alliance to set up a panel that will only report back in the fall, it was vital for Liberal and Conservative members to take immediate action in the true interests of workers.

A petition calling for the elimination of the waiting period is being circulated in Quebec, including in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. Thousands of people have already signed it. Citizens want change now.

[Criminal Code, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable interest that I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).

This bill, introduced on April 21 by the Minister of Justice is almost identical to Bill C-53, which was introduced in the second session of the 39th Parliament, but which was not debated in the House. We know why. There has been an election since then. As with Bill C-53, the Bloc supports Bill C-26, which we are currently studying at third reading. As always, we carefully studied the bill in committee and now look forward to its passing.

In justice matters, as parliamentarians we are very concerned about public security. Clearly we want an effective justice system ensuring everyone's security. It is from this perspective that we worked with this bill.

Although their numbers have decreased since 1996, the number of auto thefts is still too high and their social and economic consequences remain too heavy a burden for both the individuals involved and society as a whole. The Bloc is certainly not opting for an ideological approach in justice matters, like some of our colleagues opposite. It recognizes that targeted measures aimed at improving the Criminal Code, if combined with measures linked to crime prevention, may be appropriate, indeed vital. Prevention remains the best tool, in our opinion, for fighting all forms of crime.

In addition, the Bloc notes that Quebec society, where wealth is the most evenly distributed, has lower rates of murder and violent crime. This is definitely something worth thinking about, since providing better protection for the public means attacking the root of the problem, the causes of delinquency and violence. Poverty, inequality and the feeling of exclusion provide fertile soil for the growth of crime. Better wealth distribution, better social integration and a focus on rehabilitation are proven ways to prevent crime.

When we in the House refuse to help people in a time of economic crisis by doing something about the waiting period for employment insurance, I believe we are encouraging crime and forms of delinquency. People sometimes get involved in crime in order to meet the needs of their family. This is why it is vital to provide support to individuals, families and children when we want to fight crime.

This bill also tackles a real problem affecting Quebec, but more so the western provinces, that is the theft of vehicles for joyriding. There are young people who, often just for the fun of it, steal a car to impress their friends or take their girl for a spin and return it later. They go off with a car, and the consequences for that are major too. It is in this perspective that the Bloc supports Bill C-26.

This Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime) was introduced by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and passed first reading on April 21, 2009. Although the bill focuses primarily on the theft of motor vehicles, it also has to do with the trafficking, export and import of any property obtained by crime.

It provides for four new offences and makes corresponding changes to the Criminal Code. In short, it creates a distinct offence of motor vehicle theft, punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years of imprisonment and, in case of a third or subsequent offence, a minimum sentence of six months. It creates the offence of tampering with a vehicle identification number, punishable by a maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment. It also creates the offences of trafficking in property obtained by crime and possession of such property for the purposes of trafficking, punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years of imprisonment. Finally, it allows the Canada Border Services Agency to prevent property obtained by crime, including stolen cars, from crossing the border.

Bill C-26 is basically a repeat of former Bill C-53, with the addition of the offence of motor vehicle theft and the ability to use electronic listening devices in investigations into the new offences created by Bill C-26. Former Bill C-343 would also have created a distinct offence of motor vehicle theft, but it died on the order paper before it could be passed by the Senate. Finally, former Bill C-64 would have created the offence of tampering with a vehicle identification number similar to the offence in Bill C-26, but it died on the order paper at the end of the 38th Parliament. It has been a long process, but this bill is still opportune.

Motor vehicle thefts have major repercussions for vehicle owners, consumers, police, insurance companies and governments. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates the financial losses resulting from this crime at more than $1 billion a year. This includes theft of uninsured vehicles and costs related to health care, the courts, police forces and lawyers, and personal expenses incurred by the vehicle owners who were victimized by these thefts.

In 2007, four stolen vehicles in 10 were not found by the police, which leads one to think that a considerable proportion of these thefts are linked to organized crime. In 2007, the province of Quebec, unfortunately, had the lowest rates of vehicles recovered, specifically in Montreal, the Saguenay, Sherbrooke and the region I represent, Trois-Rivières, or one part of Trois-Rivières. Winnipeg had one of the highest recovered vehicle rates in Canada.

I would like to take a few moments now to explain the situation a bit. As things currently stand, the Criminal Code does not specifically mention vehicle identification numbers. This bill will change that.

Although all vehicles in Canada must have a vehicle identification number to clearly distinguish one vehicle from another, there is no specific offence of tampering with it. However, changing this number is one of the easiest ways to disguise a stolen car and resell it.

At the present time, people caught altering or removing a vehicle identification number are charged under the Criminal Code with possession of goods obtained by crime or some other theft-related offence.

Tampering with a vehicle identification number will henceforth be considered evidence with respect to the offence of possession of goods obtained by crime.

The Criminal Code defines a vehicle identification number as any number or other mark placed on a motor vehicle for the purpose of distinguishing the motor vehicle from other similar motor vehicles.

Bill C-26 contains two major amendments. Clause 5 of the bill amends the section relating to possession of property obtained by crime. More specifically, it creates the offence of trafficking in property obtained by crime, which is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 14 years.

The clause defines trafficking:

...“traffic” means to sell, give, transfer, transport, export from Canada, import into Canada, send, deliver or deal with in any other way, or to offer to do any of those acts.

Another important point is that the new clause prohibits the importation into Canada or exportation from Canada of the proceeds of crime. The purpose of this is to allow the Canada Border Services Agency to prevent the cross-border movement of property obtained by crime.

Clause 3 adds, after section 353 of the Criminal Code, a specific section on vehicle identification numbers. It does, however, give one example of a legitimate excuse: it is not an offence to alter or remove a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle during regular maintenance or any repair or other work done on the vehicle for a legitimate purpose,

This new offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

As a Bloc Québécois member, I would like to take a moment to explain the situation in Quebec at present. Quebec is not distinct just because of its language and culture; its crime also presents a very different picture.

According to the insurer's organization, Groupement des assureurs automobiles, there were more than 38,800 vehicle thefts in Quebec in 2006. That is the equivalent of one every 14 minutes, and $300 million of insurance companies' money, which has a direct impact on our insurance premiums. Despite the size of those figures, Quebec is far from the worst. In fact, per capita, the figures are far lower than in the western provinces. Quebec's emphasis on prevention and creating public awareness gets results. Comparing the number of vehicle thefts per 100,000 inhabitants in 2006, Quebec had 507, Alberta had 725 and Manitoba had 1,376. The average across Canada was 487 per 100,000 people. In all of Canada, approximately 160,000 vehicles were stolen in 2006.

Behind the figures, however, the situations in Quebec and the western provinces are different. In Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, a majority of thefts are crimes of opportunity—they are committed by people who are not necessarily looking to derive a pecuniary benefit from their theft. Such thefts are known as joyriding. They are often committed by young people experimenting with driving a car. They are committed for fun or on a dare, or to use a vehicle to commit a crime. A majority of these thefts are committed by young people, as I said before.

In Quebec, and to a lesser but similar extent on the Ontario side, the picture is different. In fact, thefts are not committed for the same reasons as in the West. A larger proportion of thefts are committed for the purpose of trafficking in vehicles. This factor can be clearly seen when we read a statistic about the recovery rate for stolen vehicles. In 2002, for example, the stolen vehicle recovery rate in the greater Toronto region was 75%, as compared to only 56% in the Montreal region. Clearly, that means that the vehicles, whether intact or as parts, are leaving Quebec in large numbers. Of course, the regions most affected are mainly greater Montreal and Laval. The rates in those regions are 723 and 852 thefts per 100,000 population, respectively.

Apart from enacting more punitive measures in order to improve public safety, I think we must also tackle the root of the problem: the causes of crime and violence, as I said earlier.

We also have to understand that poverty, inequality and exclusion are very important factors in the emergence of this criminal behaviour, and so it is important to adopt social policies that do more to promote the sharing of wealth, social integration and rehabilitation. Filling our prisons and building new ones is not the way the federal government is going to bring the crime rate down.

Regardless of how harsh a bill may be, if we do not do something to prevent youths and other people from committing crimes, we will get nowhere. Investing in ways to combat poverty means investing in families, in preventing crime among young people and children who are often living in very vulnerable family situations. It also means investing in fighting crime; we must never forget that. And informing the public and promoting awareness are simple precautions we can take so people can avoid having their vehicles stolen. That is also important.

As I said earlier, however, we will be supporting this bill. When it comes to justice issues, I recognize that if targeted measures to improve the Criminal Code go hand in hand with crime prevention measures, they may be appropriate, and may even be necessary.

[Criminal Code, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He referred to an article in Le Devoir that talks about the impact of biker gangs on auto theft and other crimes committed in Montreal and throughout Quebec. I would like to hear him talk a little more about that.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member asks an important question. Bloc members are not here to make a career in politics. They are here to defend with conviction Quebec's interests and needs. There lie our values and our ethics. We do not expect to form a government or to obtain a position at the cabinet table. That is not our objective.

Quebec members are applauded by their colleagues from other provinces when they vote against some measures. That was the case on the official languages issue. Those members voted against the bill on the bilingualism of judges. That is unbelievable. Members vote for a budget that gives $2.7 billion to western oil companies but that contains nothing for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. That is shameful.

In the same vein, I think that if we defend Quebec's needs with conviction, we cannot vote for a proposal by the present Conservative government that the National Assembly said it was unanimously opposed to. The great majority of Quebeckers are also against the proposal. Members would thus be voting against the social and economic development of our communities. It is incomprehensible.