Suzanne Tremblay

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what to respond to since I have not heard any questions. The member took this opportunity to make a speech.

If people are paying employment insurance, it is so that if they lose their job, they can get benefits, thanks to their insurance. That is the purpose of employment insurance.

In some ways, it is good that we have this system and employment insurance. What is bad when we talk about employment insurance, is that the government has misappropriated it for other purposes. When the Bloc refused to support Bill C-44 in 1997, it was because the government was using this bill as a licence to steal. That was the issue.

In 2000, the government came up with Bill C-2, which made theft from the fund legal. That is what is unacceptable.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Yes, it is a little like Ali Baba's cave. My colleagues are in a festive mood and are recalling childhood tales. However, this is not fiction, this is a disturbing reality.

The money is pouring into a cavernous fund and the government no longer knows what to do with all of it.

The Auditor General says that if we had a little cushion of two or three billion dollars, it could help. The government should understand once and for all that it has to create an independent fund for employment insurance contributions. It must hand over the responsibility of managing this fund to those who contribute to it and delegate government representatives to ensure that the fund is well managed, if need be. We have all witnessed the Liberal government's extraordinary expertise in managing funds.

The $2 million budget for firearms grew to $1 billion. With such astounding expertise, the government could at least be allowed to delegate someone to the fund's board of directors to ensure that employers and the unemployed manage it properly.

It is vital that this be understood. If it was a real fund, those in charge of it could invest the money from it. They could set aside the two or three billion dollars they need for contingencies and, with the rest of the money, they could provide decent benefits to those who are insured against losing their job.

If you have replacement cost insurance on your car, you will pay the corresponding rates. But then you lose your car, it is stolen, and you are told “No, we have changed the policy. You are insured for the cost of replacement, but we are only going to give you 55% of the value of your car. Sorry, but that is all”. Would you be happy? No, you would not.

So, how can the government think that the workers I met in Saint-Fulgence and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are satisfied? We also met with workers in the Berthier—Montcalm riding, and I see them in my region. A spectacular assistance program has been announced, but it is just more party politics and propaganda and does not help anyone because it is ill suited to their needs.

If there were an independently managed fund, premiums could be increased by 55-60%. We could take a certain amount and say, for example, “There is a problem there, the cod are gone. So, a special program will need to be created to help the cod fishers”. It is true that those suffering from the cod problem are in Quebec. Fishers in the Maritimes received assistance, but it is not clear if there will be help for those in Quebec.

In any case, with an independent fund that had truly competent managers, money could be withdrawn from the fund—not stolen, not misappropriated for other purposes than those intended—but this money could be used to create special programs to assist cod fishers, because the cod are gone. These people could get help learning to do something else, getting retrained. They might become seal hunters, who knows? If they want to. But, at least, the fund managers would have some means at their disposal.

For the poor minister who has to manage the fund, there is nothing in it. When she wants to announce new programs, she has to consult with the ministers for Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, International Trade , and Industry. By the time they get together and agree on a program, it is so watered down and whittled away that it ends up helping no one.

The second report contains very interesting recommendations, which the government should follow in order to be able to do much more for the workers who contribute to a plan.

This is what the government must understand. Strangely enough, when they where in opposition, the Liberals realized that what the Mulroney government was about to do made no sense. They said, “Elect us. We will not do that. They are really going too far. What the Conservatives want to do makes absolutely no sense”.

Once in office, the Liberals figured, “How great it would be if we were Conservatives instead of Liberals. It would be much better. Let us do what the Conservatives did; let us go ever further. Let us be even more right-wing than the Conservatives we have just defeated”. There were no Conservatives to speak of at the time anyway, which allowed the Liberals to be arrogant, even with just 38% of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up; I find it very sad because I would have much more to say. I hope that the government will not ignore the second report that was just tabled today.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, as you likely know, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable.

The motion before us is one that is very interesting. We have a report that we will be concurring in, but which makes reference to a major problem. Since coming to the House in 1993, I have heard about one issue almost every day: employment insurance. The second thing we hear about, is that the premiums are disgustingly high. The third problem that we hear about, when it comes to employment insurance, is the negligence of the government, which decided to drastically cut benefits for the unemployed.

Another problem, since the premiums are too high and the benefits too low, is that the surplus has reached inordinately high levels. The surplus has grown so much that one wonders if helium was used. We have seen the numbers in the House. There really is a surplus. This requires no leap of the imagination.

And what happens when there is too much of a surplus? The government says it is going to pay down the debt. The surplus becomes a hidden tax. The government does not even have the courage to call it a real tax on workers and employers. They are the ones who have to pay for it. At the end of the year, the government tells us, “We are going to pay down the debt; we have ended up with an enormous surplus”.

The former Minister of Finance could not count, except when it came to his companies in the Bahamas. Then he had no problem counting. However, when it came to the government's budget, he was never able to tell us beforehand how big the surplus would be. What he was most interested in was how much of a surplus he could squeeze out of the EI fund.

Three times now we have been told by the Auditor General—first the former Auditor General, and now the current Auditor General—that the surplus in the EI fund was too big, that the fund had too much money. That is one way of describing it. I want to make this clear, because people are listening to us. In fact, there is no fund. It is a fund with no money, because money in the fund goes directly into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.

[Rimouski Weather and Environmental Services Office, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the problem arises from this minister's inability to make a decision.

While the debate on ratification of Kyoto rages on, does the minister realize that closing offices, and the Rimouski office in particular, would be sending a very poor message, as well as seriously jeopardizing the future of the fledgling wind energy industry in eastern Quebec?

[Rimouski Weather and Environmental Services Office, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, rumours of the closure of the Rimouski Weather and Environmental Services Office are still rampant, yet this office is essential to the growing shipping industry of eastern Quebec.

Does the Minister of the Environment intend to ensure personal and economic security and encourage the development of non-polluting energies in eastern Quebec by pledging to keep the Rimouski weather office open?

[Human Resources Development, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am starting to get exasperated with the minister's responses, with her six-plan points, or her six-point plans. I suggest she put in a new tape.

Does the minister realize that she has helped only one person, and that is the former Minister of Finance, by helping him siphon off money from the EI fund at the expense of workers?

[Human Resources Development, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the town of Asbestos shut down in support of the 320 workers who lost their jobs following the closing of the Jeffrey asbestos mine. We know that 62% of them are 55 years old or older. Under these circumstances, retraining is not realistic. Only something like the Program for Older Worker Adjustment can help these laid-off workers.

Prior to 1993, when in opposition, the Liberals protested to save the POWA program. Once in power, they eliminated it.

Will the minister be compassionate enough to revive the Program for Older Worker Adjustment?

[Softwood Lumber, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to find out the details of the program she announced. There are two things: retraining workers, and what she has given the workers, which is a premium for moving away.

In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean 500 jobs have been lost as a result of the softwood lumber crisis. The sawmill workers at Saint-Fulgence have written the minister and she has turned a deaf ear to their requests.

To repeat my question, does she plan to extend EI benefits for these workers, as they are asking her to do?

[Softwood Lumber, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to having to deal with the crisis in their industry, softwood lumber workers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are having to cope with the inflexibility of the employment insurance program. In March 2002, the Bloc Quebecois called for a special targeted program that would include greater flexibility in the EI rules for these workers.

The workers of Saint-Fulgence are reaching the end of their benefits. Does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to extend the benefit period, as these workers have been asking her to do for the past three months?

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable.

I am really quite happy to be able to take part in this take note debate to allow all members who are so inclined, if time permits, to express their views on changes being considered to our procedural rules. Given that my colleague who spoke before me only made it to the end of his opening comments, we likely did not get the opportunity to hear any good ideas or suggestions.

We could spend a great deal of time debating all of the changes to the Standing Orders that we would like to see, especially after all the frustrations that we have experienced in the past ten years. During this time, we have found ourselves in a Parliament where, day after day, we have watched democracy being eroded, because of the system we have, where holding a majority of seats makes a party incredibly arrogant. We must come up with rules that will really allow members to feel as though democracy is lived out every day in Parliament.

We are all elected in our ridings to represent the people. Obviously, we run under one banner rather than another, with a certain ideology, rather than another. Our constituents may choose to vote for us or not, but once we are elected, we represent everyone in our riding. We try to keep this in mind every day.

Therefore, we need to feel as though the institution of Parliament has a profound respect for each and every member, and this starts with getting the respect of the executive. When ministers make statements, it should not be at press conferences or in speeches in their ridings in an attempt to earn political capital at every possible opportunity. The people who should be informed first when it comes to the government's intentions are parliamentarians. Therefore, members' statements should be made in the House so that we are indeed the first ones informed of what the government is proposing for debate as draft legislation or as a bill.

Another way to respect parliamentarians is to ask them to act with a purpose. To that end, every item debated in the House would have to be votable; take note debates, emergency debates, debates on bills, debates on motions. There should be a vote on all debates.

I received an e-mail from one of my constituents who says “Mrs. Tremblay, you must use every possible means to oppose the war against Iraq”.

I sat down at home and I wondered what means I had available to me to oppose such a measure. Legally, I can rise and say that I am opposed to any war in Iraq. I am saying it: I am not favourable to going to war against Iraq, not at all, and not for any consideration.

Having said that, what means do I have to prevent, for example, the government from going to war against Iraq? Unfortunately, I do not have any. Even though I was elected with 60% of the votes in my riding, the only means that I have is to rise and vote against such a measure, and if I were to find out that my party supports the idea, I would have no choice but to stay in my office.

Other than that, I do not have any means to prevent the government from doing it. None of the opposition members have the means to prevent the government. It will not listen to the public, to members of Parliament, to our arguments. It will do as always, it will not ask us to vote. Moreover, it is totally dependent on another state, another country. At times, one wonders if Canada is really a sovereign country.

We should take a serious look—because I suppose that the issues discussed during these take note debates will be referred to a special committee—at how Parliament helps improve the reputation of parliamentarians, or at how it adversely affects that reputation. Because of Parliament's lack of democracy and transparency, the public ends up saying “It is always the same thing, nothing changes; they are always the same. It is useless. We no longer care about politics, we will not bother to vote anymore”.

Interestingly, since the debates of the House were first televised, voter participation has been going down, even though this should have helped cast parliamentarians in a better light. Perhaps the government should look at this issue and see what can really be done to improve the fate of members. Let us not wait for a new leader. The government has all the tools that it needs.

The member for LaSalle—Émard made a proposal at a meeting held at Osgoode Hall. This proposal means nothing to people where I come from. It does little to improve democracy. It has already been discussed elsewhere on many occasions.

As far as the voting question goes, I think there would have to be different ones depending on circumstances. Not all votes ought to have an impact on the government's survival. In certain cases we should be able to feel far freer to vote according to our conscience, while in others we would vote according to the mandate given to us by our constituents. They want us to be for or against a given thing, and to vote accordingly.

I think we should be obliged to vote for something if the subject directly concerned by the debate is addressed by a specific point of our election platform. The people who elected us did so on that basis, so we would have a moral obligation in that case.

For example, the Liberal government ought to have felt morally obligated to scrap the GST. That was a fairly major promise. It also ought to have felt obligated to put an end to EI reform, instead of getting carried away with it, as it has, because the Liberals had promised not to follow the path the Conservatives had taken.

There ought to be more respect. If promises are not kept, there should be sanctions against a government that gets elected under false pretences. It seems to me that misrepresentation is in the Criminal Code.

It seems to me that I have spoken for ten minutes so I will yield the floor to my colleague, hoping that this take note debate will really bring about some changes and improvements to the democracy of this Parliament.