France Bonsant

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

I must confess that it is with a certain sadness that I begin my speech on the textile industry in Quebec and Canada. For a very long time, textiles and apparel were by far the largest manufacturing sector in Quebec. Insofar as employment is concerned, these sectors fostered and gave structure to an industrial base throughout the regions as well as in the big cities. Thousands of textile mills were built in all our regions, and the jobs numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

This heritage industrial empire is now collapsing through the good care of the Liberal government, which has known for at least 10 years that the import quotas would decline and in fact disappear completely by January 2005. For a good 15 or 20 years now, we have been sounding the alarm, and the labour unions, and especially women—and for that matter the employers too—have been denouncing the Canadian government's inaction in the face of this great “unwinding”.

During the session last fall, I witnessed dozens of interventions by colleagues pleading with the government to do something to protect our industry. On many occasions, they suggested ways of slowing the decline and stopping the spiralling loss of jobs. There are still about 15,000 to 20,000 jobs in this sector in Quebec, and it is worth fighting relentlessly to protect those that remain.

How did textiles and apparel become so important to Quebec? There was the proximity of the American market, of course, but in the final analysis, looking back, historical and political factors were much more influential.

We need to go back to the economic development model that was adopted at the time of Canada's founding. It was decided from the outset that Upper Canada would have the heavy industries, the more technological ones, while Lower Canada would have the light industries, which required a less skilled work force and had less growth potential, for example hosiery, apparel and shoes. As we can see, even Upper Canada did what it could to make us a distinct society.

I would like to draw your attention to the effects of the choices that were imposed. You know as well as I that the jobs in textile and apparel plants are often held by female personnel. We consider this an aggravating factor, because it is easy to imagine the impact on the social fabric of a city or region of several hundred women being laid off—women who very often had been working in the same plant for 25 or 30 years. Consequently, at 50, 55 or even 60 years of age, they have no other training. Tragic situations are created, and many of these women are condemned to lives of poverty and misery. It is easy to see that dropping support for the textile industry penalizes women above all.

In addition, textile mills are often the main if not the only companies of any size in many communities in the eastern townships, Beauce and Montérégie. They have often been there for 50, 75 or even 100 years, and every time, their closing has a considerable impact on the entire local economy.

When I walk around my riding of Compton—Stanstead, I see industrial cadavers on all sides. My district has 44 municipalities, and very few of them have not had to mourn the closure of textile plant closings in recent years or are not worried about seeing the last vestiges of their industrial heritage disappear in the next few years.

Over the last few months, I have had an opportunity to go with a former foreman and visit some of these plants that are now closed. They are amazingly big, and in the cold darkness, you see millions and millions of dollars worth of equipment standing rigid in death like ghosts that want to tell us about a bygone era.

In an expressionless voice, the foreman told us that the three machines in front of us had been sold to India and would be loaded on the boat the next week, while the rest would be sold for scrap. When everything has been taken out, maybe you can bring in some loads of muck soil and grow mushrooms, which like dark, cold, dead places. If you come out our way any time soon, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you this experience. I invite you to come to Sherbrooke, Coaticook, Cookshire, Weedon or Ascot; there is no shortage of places.

It was a good ten years ago that we signed agreements at the World Trade Organization in which this government announced to the whole world that Canada would abolish all forms of tariff barriers and quotas on foreign products and its market would be turned over to them lock, stock and barrel.

I would like to say that what has not been abandoned is not just a few beaneries found here and there. Despite the closing of hundreds of plants and the loss of thousands of jobs, the annual sales of the Canadian textile and apparel sectors were still about $7 billion a year for both, or more combined than the aerospace, steel or pharmaceutical industries?

It is therefore a major event, still today, and this is why there is no way that we will give up. Someone has to defend Quebec's interests in this regard, as in many others. It is surprising to find the Bloc Québécois alone in the arena. Where are the Liberal ministers who come to Quebec to get elected, while in fact it is just Ottawa's interests that they defend in Quebec.

But we, in the Bloc, we will not quit. With some 15,000 employees, the textile sector accounts for nearly 5% of all the manufacturing jobs in Quebec. It is this industrial heritage and the tremendous expertise that goes along with it that the Liberal government of Canada is busy destroying without even blinking.

Let me include a quote at this point to show that the Bloc Québécois is not alone in feeling sad. I quote:

Governments have known for ten years that the quotas would end, that the special tariffs protecting our industry against the Asian threat or other cheap labour markets would end. So, they had ten years to promote business transformation, support the buying of new equipment, consider drafting a new agreement or, otherwise, to prepare for the retraining of workers. Instead, they let everyone to fend for themselves.

That is not all. Here is more:

Tens of mills are preparing to shut down in the short or medium term, for reasons that anyone who has some basic notions in social economy knew about. Except, it seems, the governments. Today, we have no choice but to recognize that their apathy and lack of foresight are responsible for the textile scandal. This is a scandal that is not settled and that could be around for quite some time.

This text was written by the editor of our local daily La Tribune , in December 2004.

Quebeckers know that the world is changing, that the global economy is undergoing major mutations. We accept the globalization game and we are pleased to see the emergence of those countries that are gradually moving toward the market economy. We agree to do our share so that low-wage countries can sell their products on our markets. However, adequate solutions must be found so that our mills can remain competitive and keep a major share of our markets.

There are 30,000 textile mills currently operating in China, with hundreds of others under construction, and nearly 20 million workers working there for 55¢ per hour. The hourly rate for workers in India is even lower, around 23¢ per hour. Obviously, we cannot compete with these production costs because there is too big a gap between our respective investments. This in no way means that we should give up, as the current government is doing by completely opening up our borders without restrictions.

On January 9, Henry Massé, the president of the FTQ, said he feared 30,000 to 40,000 jobs in the textile and apparel industry would be cut. Right away, he asked Ottawa to renew for another three years, as per WTO rules, certain quotas that have just been abolished but that would have set limitations on Chinese imports, long enough for us to find a long-term solution. The Americans take advantage of such clauses, as do the British and the Germans. But here, when the Liberals crash, they crash and burn.

These past few months, I have seen the member for Brome—Missisquoi go around the region saying that international treaties should be respected and that we had no choice but to completely open up our borders.

If this government had any respect for this industry and for the tens of thousands of workers who could lose their jobs in the near future, it would have the humility and the courage to do its homework again so as to better save some specific areas of this industry in order to protect our expertise and our jobs.

[Oxfam-Québec in the Eastern Townships, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since the terrible disasters that occurred in Asia in December, we see just how much people can pull together.

So, I want to draw attention to and encourage the excellent work of Oxfam-Québec in the Eastern Townships. Thanks to the hard work of staff and volunteers, the organization has had a strong presence in the Eastern Townships since its arrival in 2001. The recent Estrie solidaire project is proof; its aim is to stop the exodus of young people from Stanstead by getting them involved in their community.

Oxfam-Estrie is providing international aid by holding hunger banquets, promoting fair trade products and has collected $70,000 for Haiti.

In order to help tsunami victims in Asia, it is holding fund-raisers. Thanks to donors, the association was able to send drinking water and food items to the stricken areas. The funds raised were used to pay the salaries of people cleaning up the debris and rebuilding infrastructure.

Congratulations to the people at Oxfam-Québec in the Eastern Townships and, above all, may their good work continue.

[Parental Leave, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the question of parental leave has dragged on for a long time and young parents in Quebec are the ones who are suffering.

How can he explain that seven months after a pre-election agreement in principle, we are still waiting? Will it take another election campaign to reach a resolution?

[Parental Leave, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the government announced that the parental leave issue had been resolved.

What is the explanation for the fact that what should have been a few formalities have not been finalized seven months later? This is not the best example of efficiency we have seen.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for his colourful speech, which was a great motivation to me.

The purpose of Bill C-278, before us today, is to make a number of efficient and necessary amendments to the Employment Insurance Act.

As the hon. members know, employment insurance is a reality for thousands of people on the labour market in Quebec. With any luck, you will never have to collect benefits in your life. But that is not true for all workers.

This bill, introduced by my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières, is geared toward those workers who currently need or will need employment insurance. These workers contribute to the plan and, as such, should be able to use it when necessary. This bill contributes to that, by making it easier to have access to employment insurance for those who really need it. I will explain in a moment why this bill is good for all workers.

First, this bill reduces the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment. At present, the qualifying period for employment insurance benefits varies between 420 and 910 hours of work, depending on the place of residence and whether the claimant is a new entrant or re-entrant.

We are asking that this period be reduced to 360 hours, regardless of where the claimant lives. This rules, unanimously approved by the central labour bodies in Quebec, would provide more appropriate coverage for workers in seasonal businesses, and also for all workers in unstable jobs.

Currently, the benefit period is determined based on the regional rate of unemployment. To qualify for employment insurance, a worker must have worked 420 hours in regions with an unemployment rate over 13%, and 700 hours in regions where the unemployment rate is 6% or less.

We can understand that such measures may not be appropriate for seasonal workers in a region where the unemployment rate is low. They are also not appropriate for workers in marginal areas. The same is true for workers in cities where the rate of employment is different from the regional rate.

I want to point out that, while this bill sets the eligibility threshold at 360 hours, regardless of where the workers live, the benefit period will continue to vary from region to region.

Speaking of the benefit period, the cut-off point is now set at 45 weeks. In 2000, a study by Human Resources Development Canada showed that 35% of EI recipients use up their entire benefit period. Many of them were victims of the infamous seasonal gap. In other words, for a period of several weeks, sometimes up to 10 weeks, unemployed people had no income. This gap would be compensated for by the proposal in this bill to raise the benefit period from 45 weeks to 50. Adding those five weeks would, depending on the number of hours worked and the regional unemployment rate, entitle a contributor to receive between 30 and 50 weeks of benefits.

Another change contained in this bill is the increase in the weekly contribution rate, from its present 55% to 60% of insurable income.

In Quebec, the minimum wage is $7.45. So a person working a 35-hour week has a net weekly income of $260.75. This entitles an unemployed worker to an EI cheque of $287 every two weeks, before taxes, or $574 a month.

This is about what it would cost to rent a small apartment in many cities in Quebec, what we call a “four-and-a-half” —oh, but I forget that EI recipients also have to eat and clothe themselves. Where will they get the money for that, if most of their cheque goes to keep a roof over their head?

Statistics show that in Quebec low wage earners are the ones who make use of EI most often. They are earning the minimum wage, as I have already mentioned. In 2002, 66.6% of the 192,000 workers earning minimum wage in Quebec were women, and women also made up two-thirds of low wage earners.

Instead of lowering premiums in a ridiculous way—such as the government's announcement this week that it would save every worker 3¢ a week—the Liberal government should instead look closely at what is in this bill. Increasing the rate of weekly EI benefits from 55% to 60% is a practical measure that would make it possible to give better support to people who really need it.

I would like to go back now to the minimum qualifying period in hours making workers eligible for employment insurance benefits. This time, I would like to point out the ridiculous distinction between people who enter the labour force and those who re-enter it. Fortunately, the bill before us proposes to put an end to this distinction.

At present, a person who enters the work force, or comes back after two years of absence from the work force, must accumulate 910 hours of work to be eligible for EI benefits. For other workers, as I mentioned earlier, the number of hours ranges from 420 to 700. The primary victims of this discrimination are, once again, women and younger workers.

With regard to women, the distinction can be clearly seen when they leave the labour market to start a family. If they prefer to look after their own children, the EI system penalizes them when they return to work.

As for young people, we are aware that first jobs are often seasonal, short-term or part-time. But when that job is over, if the young worker does not have 910 hours, there is no income. This discrimination toward those who enter or re-enter the labour force must be eliminated.

I would like to address another point. This bill will—at last—require the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to pay out, as workforce support measures, at least 0.8% of the insurable earnings—as estimated by the Commission—of all insured persons. In concrete terms, that amount would be used to help the unemployed upgrade their skills, learn new ones, or become self-employed.

I hope that the hon. members from all parties will support this bill and, finally, improve the employment insurance system for the people who are its real stakeholders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 6th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned something about dividing the department in two. I would like to know if, from a budget point of view, having two departments will mean more money, or if that will not change anything.

[Gala des Lauréats du Haut-Saint-François, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the dynamism of all the entrepreneurs attending the ninth annual Gala des Lauréats du Haut-Saint-François, which took place on November 20. This evening celebrated the vibrant entrepreneurial spirit in the Compton—Stanstead riding.

I want to congratulate all the big winners of that night. The Carrefour Jeunesse-emploi won an award for its human resources management, and Val-image was recognized as independent worker of the year.

Fleuriste Ducharme, Transport Y.B., Créations Jade and Entrepôt L.Y.B. were recognized as businesses of the year in their categories. Finally, Jaqueline Maher and Yves Bibeau, named personality of the year and entrepreneur of the year, respectively, distinguished themselves through the excellence of their work.

The determination of these entrepreneurs to make their dreams come true is helping the Haut-Saint-François RCM to succeed and enjoy economic prosperity.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the hon. Conservative member's arguments concerning equalization. As a former municipal councillor, I can say that equalization operates the same way when it comes from the federal government. The federal government sends money to the provincial government—when it does—and equalization is calculated the same way by the provincial government when it sends it on to the municipalities. So, if the provincial government does not receive any money from the federal government, the municipalities do not get any either.

I also listened to the hon. member talking about health. In 1970 the federal government funded about 50% of health care. It has been declining ever since. The federal government boasts that it is giving the fine sum of $41 billion. But 16% is rather far from the 25% that was received prior to the Liberal Party's taking office.

The hon. member also said that what they paid on the debt was truly frightening. They stole $45 billion from the unemployed, but that was not a problem, because they paid off the deficit.

He also said that if things were going all that badly in the municipalities, one solution would be to raise taxes. Whether municipal taxes are paid out of the right pocket, the provincial taxes out of the left and the federal from the wallet, there is still only one taxpayer. When there are crises like that of the mad cow, when people are losing their farms and everything, it is a bit hard to raise tax rates.

The Liberal member asked what mark I would give him on his report card. I would give him an F and if there were an F -minus, that is what I would give him.

That is why, if I were in the Liberals' shoes, I would not be boasting about my wonderful performance—that is just too tough to take.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

This bill gives a definition of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. Early in the bill, we read the following:

The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters...over which Parliament has jurisdiction and which are not by law assigned to another Minister, department, board or agency of the Government of Canada.

Unfortunately, it is not specified that all these jurisdictions are provincial. In other words, this bill further entrenches the federal invasion of the areas of manpower development and education.

In the next few minutes, I will not come back to the employment insurance aspect, even though it is an important part of the new department. I believe that my colleague for Chambly—Borduas has very clearly explained the position of the Bloc Québecois in this respect.

Let me just recall a few facts. The employment insurance program became a federal jurisdiction when it was handed over by the provinces in the hard times of the second world war. Since then, the federal government, here as in a number of jurisdictions, has done as it pleased, completely ignoring Quebec and the provinces.

The current government can now demonstrate its good will by supporting Bills C-278 and C-280 as tabled by the Bloc Québécois. These two bills would implement necessary and efficient amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, the first in terms of procedure and benefits, the second concerning the EI Commission and its related fund.

Unfortunately, in my riding, EI is taking on growing importance, while the government does nothing to keep businesses in business. EI is and will continue to be very important for a great number of citizens in my riding. However, the current criteria are inadequate on both counts. Workers need a decent income to meet their needs. With all the federal programs that have been slashed for all age groups and for all workers, my riding is looking at a annual shortfall of $23 million, which is an unbelievably large amount.

That being said, let me return to the current bill which, as I was saying, highlights the federal government's interference in provincial jurisdictions.

The mandate of the future Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development will be, among other duties, to strengthen the social foundations of Canada. However—I repeat—these social foundations, as it is clearly said, come under provincial jurisdiction.

The skills development portion of the new department is nothing less than an education department in disguise. The learning bonds are a case in point. The federal government must transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces, rather than establish programs in jurisdictions that do not belong to it. With the transfer to the provinces, the Government of Quebec could help students by limiting debts incurred due to their studies and by providing achievable dreams to our young people.

Bill C-23 stipulates that the new “Minister may enter into agreements with a province or a provincial public body...or bodies that the Minister considers appropriate”. I should hope so; this is obvious. The sectors of labour development and education come under provincial jurisdiction. Provinces and provincial bodies should be consulted, unless, again, the Liberal government acts in bad faith.

In the area of labour development, I will again refer to the bill. It says that the Minister contributes to the achievement of these objectives by supporting the development of human capital, by improving access to post-secondary education, by supporting skills improvement in the workplace and by encouraging Canadians to embark on a path of lifelong learning.

I will provide examples from my riding to demonstrate that the Liberal government has difficulty in managing programs and that it would be well-advised to leave them, with their funds, to Quebec and the provinces.

In the Compton—Stanstead riding, after the closure of the CookshireTex and Cordelli plants, which fell victim to Asian competition, several employees took steps to retrain themselves. They sought to find their way back onto the labour market by becoming specialists.

Instead of encouraging them, the staff at the local employment insurance office thoroughly demoralized them. The federal employees there were saying that the newly unemployed people had more than enough qualifications to get retrained. Those who did not have all the qualifications were told that employment insurance would not pay for seasonal or long-term training.

Is that a show of goodwill? Is that what we call support for the development of human capital, for professional training and for continuous learning? I think the liberal government is laughing in the face of our fellow citizens. Instead of giving such absurd answers, the federal government should address the fiscal imbalance so that Quebec would have the necessary resources to take care of workforce development by itself, without having to go to Ottawa cap in hand.

I am asking my colleagues in this House to stand against Bill C-23, but to be in favour of Bill C-278 and Bill C-280, which, as I said, modify the Employment Insurance Act in an efficient manner. The Bloc Québécois also thinks that the Minister of Labour's mandate, as described in Part II of Bill C-23, is consistent with Bill C-263 on replacement workers. The federal government should support the initiative put forward by the Bloc Québécois by voting in favour of said bill, and thus modify the Labour Code without shaking up the entire Human Resources Department.

[Aline Létourneau, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to acknowledge the extraordinary volunteer efforts of one of my constituents. Aline Létourneau has returned to North Hatley following an assignment abroad for the Canadian Executive Service Organization, or CESO.

Ms. Létourneau travelled to Balti, Moldova, at the request of a non-profit organization providing services to unemployed women, to promote private enterprise development in accordance with international standards. She assisted with staff training, helped develop a project for adolescents and participated in the final stages of a project to reduce the gap for women entrepreneurs.

According to CESO, Aline Létourneau is a dedicated and highly qualified cooperant who works without pay. Her contribution abroad shows what people from here can do for the development of disadvantaged economies. Once again, congratulations to Aline Létourneau.