Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I stated at the outset that we didn't claim to be introducing a perfect motion that could be supported by the three opposition parties. I also recalled that establishing an additional contribution level was, if you'll permit the anglicism, a must, an obligation. As you will no doubt understand, I'm taking my precautions before the amendment is introduced, since we'll then have to debate it as drafted.
It seems to me that the amendment will at least have to retain this mandatory character in a very targeted and defined way, as regards improving or enhancing the Conservatives' plan. So the idea is to state the level and to increase it. That's the essence of our motion.
I also don't want our Liberal Party friends to get the impression they are adopting the Bloc québécois platform. If that were the case, this would be quite a bit more elaborate. Whatever the case may be, that's not how we view the matter. This is very fragmentary. The motion seems to be gathering the support of the opposition parties. The announcement made by the Liberal Party, in particular, on improved assistance to the two industries brings us to a total of $2.5 billion.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I recall that, during the election campaign—and I have documents confirming what I'm saying—the Conservatives condemned the measures taken by the Liberal Party, saying that they impoverished families. They promised at the time to remedy the situation. Last November 10, barely three months ago, the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Dion, gave a press conference in Toronto at which he promised to attack poverty. However, saying you want to attack poverty does nothing to change the situation. You gain credibility by announcing measures and defending them. Those measures must be clarified. It's not theoretical; it's concrete. When people are poor, that tells us that programs are no longer suited to today's needs.
According to the Employment Insurance Commission, only 46% of individuals who contribute to employment insurance and who lose their jobs can hope to receive employment insurance benefits. A study by the Canadian Labour Congress put the figure at 38% to 40%. If the figure is 46%, that's appalling. That means that 54% of those people are excluded from employment insurance. When you lose your job, you no longer have any income. That's inevitably a major factor in aggravating poverty.
It can now be said, without exaggeration, that the situation is dramatic for forestry and manufacturing sector workers. In each of the ridings that our committee colleagues, including our Conservative colleagues, represent, people are experiencing a dramatic situation because their plants have shut down. In Quebec, its clothing and shoe factories, and even businesses belonging to a high-tech industry. Approximately 123 communities live from forestry. When the sawmill closes, woodcutters leave the job sites, and people want to find work. In this situation, the Conservatives recommend that they go and work in Manitoba, where they need labour.
When you're 55 years old and you live in Baie-Comeau, Roberval, Val-d'Or, La Sarre or La Tuque, do you pack your bags and uproot yourself from your community without knowing what you'll be doing in Alberta or for how long you can be guaranteed a job? In Alberta, the cost of living is so high that, even if you earn more money than in Ontario, the Maritimes or Quebec, it will be starvation wages.
Twelve percent of people who work use food banks. To my great surprise, 18% of Alberta workers use food banks. So that means that more people use food banks in the province where the economy is operating at full capacity, thanks to oil, than elsewhere. These people are working, but their incomes are inadequate. The kind of housing that would cost $750 a month in the Maritimes, for example, costs $1,500 a month in Alberta, twice as much.
When these matters are overlooked, I also appeal to our people from western Canada. Sometimes when you have money in your pockets, you forget the poor. When you see the money in circulation in western Canada, you get the impression they're acting as though there were no poverty. We went to western Canada on our tour, and we saw a fair amount of poverty.
When we were in Regina and Winnipeg, our colleague Mr. Martin went out at night to see the situation of the homeless. He told me about that the next morning. These people had jobs. Some of them also testified before our committee.
We're talking about our situation in Quebec—I see our colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière—but we're surrounded by people who claim that everything's going well because the economy is doing well in Canada and only two sectors aren't doing well. You have to see where those sectors are located and what damage has been caused, including the ridings where that's happening.
For example, let's take Mr. Dion's commitment—but it could be that of Mr. Harper—during the election campaign. He promised to attack poverty. How can you go about that? Do you just say that when you're on a podium in order to get elected? My goal isn't to be here as long as possible.
I've gotten to a certain point in my life, and I have other things to do than come here. I'm here because I have convictions. My two objectives are Quebec sovereignty and to ensure that, in the meantime, we defend those who elect us and who are disadvantaged. One way to defend them is to adopt concrete measures such as those on the table today. Otherwise, it's all talk and empty words; that makes no sense.
Mr. Chairman, I'm a bit emotional this morning because I find this unfortunate. Our colleagues here aren't bad people. They have good intentions, they work hard, and they have their convictions. Unfortunately, at times, when you find yourself in a particular situation, especially when you want to get into or stay in power, you try to adopt more visible measures for the do-gooders.
Would it be possible, at some point, to compromise a little? One way to compromise and to support those in need is the way we favour. There could be accommodations, but not on substance, the amount or the recommendation to the House.
If we're saying this is what should be right, if this is an honest wish, if we're also setting a quota and this isn't going to the House, then we're not telling the “real story”. It seems to me we know each other well enough to tell each other the truth.