Robert Vincent

[Government of Canada, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been a member of the House for one year yet and, now more than ever, I am ashamed of the federal government, ashamed of the image it is projecting abroad.

I am ashamed of this government, which signed the Kyoto protocol in 1998 without having, even now, an effective plan for its implementation.

I am ashamed of this government, which is abandoning our textile companies, to the point where they are deserting Quebec and Canada.

I am ashamed of this government, which is trying to reinvest in the armed forces and security by purchasing old and dangerous submarines.

I am ashamed of this government, which is unable to ensure the unconditional transfer of funds to the day care program in Quebec.

This afternoon, the Minister of Finance will table his budget. Will it contain anything for the traditional demands of Quebec?

More than ever, I want Quebec to have its own voice at the table of nations.

More than ever, I am proud to be a Quebecker and proud to be a sovereignist.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said that members on this side have a tendency to forget the past. I can tell you that the past is an indication of what the future holds in store and that we have not forgotten the past. We used to hear a lot about the POWA, but today we do not hear about it anymore.

In the member's speech, which looked back on the past, I did not hear of any assistance for workers who lost their job or who are about to lose their job due to this problem in the textile industry. My question is clear and simple. In view of these jobs being lost, what measures will the government put in place to help these workers, especially those who are 55 and older?

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Bloc brought forward a motion. I think that it is an important motion for textile workers.

This morning, the speakers all come from the same side of the House. We have not heard from the Liberals. I hear less and less of them. We just heard from one on their members, because the Liberals had to responding to what we were saying. However, they remained silent after that. The debate should not be on one side only, but on both sides.

Protectionist measures have been alluded to. I understand why we have those measures. I heard that the government put $50 million then added another $30 million. That is a smoke screen.

The agreements the Liberals signed and the protectionist measures they introduced put jobs in jeopardy but we do not hear about that. The only thing we hear is that textile companies will have to innovate to survive. What is being forgotten here is the human dimension. We never hear about that.

POWA, which is an important program, was mentioned. The Liberals should talk more about what they are going to tell or do for those who lose their jobs. What will they tell those who will end up on social welfare tomorrow morning? They have nothing to offer them. They have protectionist measures for the textile industry, but nothing for the workers.

I would like the Liberals to tell us--

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his very relevant question. My answer will continue along the same lines.

What happens when unemployed workers over 55 years old who have trouble finding a new job do not have access to POWA? What is the perverse effect of a situation where one is unable to find a new job at 55 because one is less employable?

These people have to spend the money they had saved throughout their lives because they find themselves jobless. They must sell their house because they lost their job and need to make ends meet. Those who own a cottage must get rid of it. They have to sell their car, rent an apartment and be welfare recipients for the rest of their lives. People who worked for 30 years in this industry will live on welfare, without any revenue, for the rest of their lives.

That is the perverse effect we will see if these people cannot get help from POWA, which the Liberal government is unwilling to restore.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that program already existed, but this government has abolished it. Since then, the Bloc Québécois has been firmly asking that it be reinstated. Why? Because we believe in it.

At the time, only textile workers who were 55 years and older were eligible for POWA. Today, we are simply asking the government to reinstate it.

We know that the Liberals were the cause of the problem, and not the solution. The only way older workers can make a compensation claim is through POWA. This is why we are asking that it be reinstated.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the member for Brome—Missisquoi said that we had just woken up. Today, we heard about the situation in Huntingdon, and I will take part in this debate. I do so because the textile industry is very near and dear to my heart, and not because I just woke up and realized that this industry is in trouble.

As you know, when one spits into the wind, it blows back into one's face. The textile industry is nothing new to me. I want to say to the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi that I was in his riding, from 1996 to 1998, as a union representative in the clothing and textile industry and in other areas. Does he know what I am talking about? I do. If he has just understood, he has a problem. Since 1996, I have been familiar with the textile union and the problems of that industry.

When he says that I just woke up, he is way out in left field. Before talking, he should get some information and some feedback to know what is going on. When he talks about Consoltex in Cowansville, I can tell him that I was serving them well. I will not allow him to tell me that I know nothing about the issue and that we just realized what is going on.

It is important that the debate continue and that we find a tangible solution. We should not be here today trying to think up solutions; today, the solutions should already be in place, the programs should already be implemented and the meetings should already be set. That way, we are ready when we reach the deadline.

Today, nothing has been done. There is a shutdown in Huntingdon. Eight hundred jobs are being lost and the Liberal drawing boards are blank. We are not even ready. We are having this emergency debate tonight because they have not lifted a finger for the last 10 years. Today they try to blame everyone and his dog—the employers, the unions, the opposition parties.

That is not where the problem lies. The ball was in the Liberal court. They are now trying to pass the ball around, but we are here to tell them that the ball was in their court and that it is going to stay there. We will tell them what to do and how to do it if they do not understand.

Let them hold consultations with the opposition. I think that would help them realize how to improve the situation for the people in the textile industry.

[Textile Industry, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I will review the issues raised by the member for Brome—Missisquoi. I get a little annoyed listening to him talk about his proposals, consultations and meetings. He has been aware of this issue for 10 years, but consultation only took place yesterday. Today, the member will explain why, two weeks before the quota send, the government wakes up. This is not normal.

The government has had 10 year to get ready, to face the situation, to develop a plan to remedy the problem and, they decided, yesterday, to hold a consultation. Well, we have a major problem. Afterwards, they come to the House saying that, yesterday, they consulted and met with 30 stakeholders to have their opinions. Indeed, they have offered us a real deal today.

At the time of the consultation, they talked about the POWA program. For years, we heard that it is supposed to get back on track, that is since it was cancelled by this government. Today, because other people talk about this program during a consultation, they find it interesting. They want to have a POWA program for elders. We have been asking for this type of program since it was dropped many years ago.

I hope that they will put that program in place and that they will not be content to only talk about it today to try and reassure people. It must at least be put in place so there is some specific measure to give these older people protection if they lose their jobs due to this government's inertia. There is always talk about inertia in the textile sector.

And then, they talk of liaison. I feel that the liaison has been broken, because there is no communication at that level. On the other side of the House, they talk to each other when a really serious problem comes up. Then, they think there should be discussions and consultations. I use this word, “consultations“, because in the committee, we hear it. But it no longer exists. There is no consultation. When facing a fait accompli, yes, the government consults to assuage its conscience.

The parliamentary secretary was saying a while ago that the employer was not talking to them, that he was not doing anything. He tried to lay that at the employers' door. It is their fault.

I ask the member for Brome—Missisquoi whether he is willing to take part in the development of a POWA program and spend the energy to support it and be there-

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we finished yesterday at 6.30 p.m. with the Liberal member for West Nova. I would like to go over a few things he mentioned during his speech.

Yesterday, you could have knocked me over with a feather. This is not saying much about the risk of industrial accidents pervading the House. The member for West Nova was bragging about his government's sound management of public finances, as it had shown a $45 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, and I quote:

Now, we cannot talk about a fund, say that this is workers' money and that it is not being given back to them. If we now have a surplus in that program, which has more revenues than expenses, it is because we had a good government.

Incidentally, I would point out that he should use this line with his government. The way he puts it, with more being taken than given back, it is fiscal imbalance. The government will then understand that you have fiscal imbalance when you take more than you give.

The Liberal government is proud to produce a surplus to the detriment of the poorest in our society, even as new entrants into the labour force must complete more hours than others before having access to benefits, which penalizes the poorest and the youngest. Not only that, but seasonal workers are without benefits for about five weeks before going back to work. Also, self-employed people, who account for 16% of the workforce, are uninsurable under this legislation.

If this is not being dishonest toward the public, I wonder what it is. Yet, the Bloc Québécois is proposing concrete solutions to solve these problems. On one hand, we demand that the government reimburse the content of the employment insurance fund over 10 years in order to improve the plan and to ensure a reasonable reserve should there be an economic crisis. On the other hand, the government must establish a separate employment insurance fund to ensure the unemployed have access to benefits and to be more transparent in this accessibility process. We also demand that the maximum benefit period go from 45 to 50 weeks.

Here is my question. How can the member for York South—Weston be proud of his government, which appropriates the $45 billion to the detriment of workers and employers? How can the Liberals sleep when they are so insensitive toward the victims of this outrageous pillage?

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians elected people to make decisions. They expect MPs to make enlightened decisions.

That is way I am trying to convince my colleagues on the other side of the House that anti-scab legislation is needed. It would address the unfairness in the current balance of powers between two groups, namely the employers and the workers.

For their constituents' sake, members on that side of the House would be well advised to support a fair balance of powers. When the time comes to put the question to the House, they should all rise and vote in favour of the legislation.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question this way. I really do not care whether the department is divided in two, three or four. If the government chooses to make two small departments out of one big one, so be it.

What I am saying is that we put forward anti-scab legislation and we would like it to be supported be every party in the House to ensure fairness for all workers across Canada, and not only for those lucky ones living in a province where there is anti-scab legislation. Every worker in Canada should be afforded that protection, whether in Quebec or elsewhere.

It could have been done under the bigger department. I believe people across the way have the necessary resources and competent staff to move on that legislation. By the way, it was put to a vote in the House of Commons and defeated. We are pushing the issue because we believe it is very important to have a fair balance of powers between workers and employers. The situation today is unfair: one person, the employer, decides for all the others, and the workers have no say.