Debates of May 8th, 2008

Opposition Motion--The Economy

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to ask the hon. member a question that concerns me a great deal. I think it would concern her a great deal as well. There is the very dire absence of adequate child care opportunities available to children to get the best possible start in life from such early learning experiences and for parents who are desperate to work in jobs with decent incomes and to raise their families and provide their children with the best possible start in life.

This never comes from the province of Quebec. To its credit, the province of Quebec has done very well. It does not have universal child care available to every family that needs it, but it has a universal program available that can be accessed and that provides the best child care in the country.

As a woman, as a parliamentarian, as someone whom I know to be concerned about family, does the member not recognize the complete failure of the Conservative government, the government in which she sits, to provide the kind of child care that working families, low income families and modest income families need? This is a serious contribution to the crisis being experienced by so many parents and working families in our country. Why has the federal government abandoned those families because they do not happen to live in the province of Quebec?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a woman and a single mother, I believe that this government has accomplished many things over the past two years. We have made significant investments to help families and individuals: $13 billion in benefits for families with children, including the universal child care benefit and the new child tax credit.

We have invested in the most important thing for children: education. On this side of the House we have taken action to establish structures for families and those with low incomes. And all the while, the NDP has voted against these measures. They have done nothing to help the families in this country.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the member's speech. She said that the current unemployment rate in Canada and Quebec is at its lowest. That is true. Seasonal workers in the fishing, forestry and tourism industries, along with all forestry workers, are now in the spring gap. What I mean by that is that they have not been receiving employment insurance benefits since about the start of April, yet they will not begin work until the start of June or, for most of them, the start of July.

People do not have any more employment insurance benefits because they have exhausted the number of weeks covered by this government for employment insurance. They had been receiving employment insurance since September, the end of the season, and now they are not receiving anything. That is what is called the spring gap. Quite often these people find themselves on welfare.

The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), but the Conservatives voted against it. We also introduced a bill that would create an independent fund, but the Conservatives were also opposed to that.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has done a lot for these people, in this House. We invested $9 billion in programs for Canadians with disabilities. The Bloc Québécois has done nothing. We have invested $30 million in income support for seniors. The Bloc Québécois has done nothing and never will. We have invested $550 million through the working income tax benefit. Once again, the Bloc Québécois has done nothing.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Homelessness; the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, The Economy.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion presented by the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I know other members have talked about it, but I want to talk specifically about what this motion says. It states:

That the House recognize the harmful effects on working and middle-income Canadians of the growing income gap fostered by this government's unbalanced economic agenda, including it's failure to reform employment insurance to ensure that people who lose their jobs during economic downturns are protected and trained, and therefore the House has lost confidence in this government.

I simply do not have time to talk about the number of impacts, whether it is the fact that between 1980 and 2005, according to Statistics Canada, median earnings of individuals working full time on a full year basis fell 11.3% in British Columbia, or that First Call has said that British Columbia holds the dubious record of having the worst child poverty rate in the country for five consecutive years, from 2002 to 2006, and that record translates into over 100,000 children living in poverty.

Victoria is the capital of British Columbia and everybody talks about the beauty of the city, which is all true, but it also has one of the highest rates of children living in poverty, at 26.6%. In addition, at least 1,500 people are homeless and on the streets of Victoria, and that is a shame in the capital city of British Columbia.

We also have the sad legacy that has been left by the current government and the previous Liberal government on the forestry sector in British Columbia. In a recent news article, in one of the local papers from Friday, April 4, it says:

Valley forest industry workers, already shell-shocked by the bankruptcy of Munns Lumber, and waiting for news on hard-pressed Ted LeRoy Trucking, woke Wednesday to discover that Vancouver Island industry stalwart, Madill Equipment of Nanaimo is also shutting its doors.

Then, related stories talk about a cascading effect on Vancouver Island, whether it is Campbell River, where Elk Falls and TimberWest has closed down a couple of its operations, or these following headlines: “Workers prepare for the worst at Harmac”, Nanaimo News Bulletin; “Crofton pulp mill faces summer of uncertainty”, Ladysmith Chronicle; “Ladysmith mill closes indefinitely”, Ladysmith Chronicle; “Black Tuesday for mill workers”, Cowichan News Leader and Pictorial; or the latest, on May 5, “Nanaimo mill on 48-hour life support”.

For a government that argues our country is just doing fine, tell that to the forestry workers on Vancouver Island. Tell that to the forestry workers, many of whom had filed for their employment insurance claims a number of months ago and are now running out of employment insurance.

I have spoken about this in the House before. We have forestry workers who, after a very few short weeks, are out of employment insurance. Our market is tied to the Vancouver Lower Mainland unemployment rate, and that unemployment rate simply does not reflect what is happening on Vancouver Island. Therefore, we have workers who have paid into the employment insurance fund year after year and they will be unable to collect their full entitlement because of this anomaly.

I encourage the government to take a look at what it can truly do for forestry workers on Vancouver Island, whether it is in Campbell River, Nanaimo or Duncan, and talk to those working families about what it is going to mean to them as their income runs out.

I also want to talk about aboriginals, because I am also the aboriginal critic for the NDP. I want to turn just for one moment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 21(1) states:

Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including...in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

What we have seen consistently from the government, with its unbalanced economic agenda and its neglect of the working and middle class families, is a continuing neglect of first nations, Métis and Inuit in our country.

In the last budget we saw no commitment to defining the federal responsibility for post-secondary education, which leaves institutions such as the First Nations Technical Institute lurching from crisis to crisis.

We have seen no end to the 2% cap on social spending. I will address that a little further on when I talk about the recent Auditor General's report.

We have seen no dollars to implement Jordan's principle, which was passed unanimously in the House in December. It would mean that we would put children first and stop the quibbling that says children go without while provincial and federal governments argue about who should pay.

There was an opportunity in the budget to put some real meat on aboriginal policy in this country, but once again the government failed to do that.

If we want to talk about statistics, sadly, we are not talking just about numbers but about people's lives. In the 2007 report card on child and family poverty in Canada, we saw that 41% of aboriginal children under 14 were living in poverty nationally in 2001. That rose to 51% in Manitoba and 52% in Saskatchewan.

These are children under the age of 14. This means that these children do not have access to adequate housing. They do not have access to clean water. They do not have access to schools. The member for Timmins—James Bay has been leading the fight on trying to get a school in Attawapiskat. A generation of children is going through substandard schools in that community and many other communities in this country.

We are also talking about the fact that one in four first nations children live in poverty in this country. We live in a country that prides itself on human rights, compassion, dignity and integrity, and yet we say it is okay in this country for children to go hungry at night.

More than one-third of first nations households with children are in houses that are overcrowded. The high school completion rate among first nations youth is half the Canadian rate. We know that poverty plays a significant factor in children completing high school.

Let us talk about income. Again, this is from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which did a detailed analysis in its alternative federal budget. In the year 2000 the median income of aboriginal women was $12,300 and the median income for aboriginal men was $15,500. I want someone to tell me how to support a family on those kinds of numbers. It simply cannot be done.

On May 6 the Auditor General presented a report: “First Nations Child and Family Services Program”. It was a scathing indictment of both the current government's record and the previous government's record.

Whether we are talking about the fact that aboriginal children are eight times more likely in Canada to end up in care, or the fact that provincial governments fund foster children in care at one rate and the federal government at a substantially different rate, that difference has led to the Assembly of First Nations filing a human rights complaint because of the 22% differential in the funding provided for first nations children who are in care.

I want to quote from section 4.72 of this report. This is an important factor. What we often hear from first nations on reserve is that they simply do not have enough money for housing. They do not have enough money to deal with clean drinking water. They do not have enough money to pay their teachers a decent salary. They do not have enough money to take a look at medical care. This report says that money is diverted “from programs such as community infrastructure and housing to other programs such as child welfare”, because they simply do not have enough money to look after their children in their communities.

We know the answers are there. Whether it is putting money into the employment insurance fund so all workers have adequate access, whether it is removing the 2% cap that the Liberals have put in place and the Conservatives have continued for funding for aboriginals, or whether it is just looking at what is reasonable in terms of housing and access to education, we have the answers, but we simply do not have the political will from the government to move forward on some of these critical issues.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying something that I often say in the human resources committee when we are talking about these important issues. We all want the same end result. I think all of us in the House want to see decreased levels of poverty in Canada. It is just that from one party to another we differ in our views on how to get there, quite significantly sometimes.

We have taken some measures, as I said earlier, to cut the GST, to introduce the working income tax benefit and to introduce the universal child care benefit. We have increased the basic exemption and lowered the lowest tax bracket. These are all measures that the NDP has voted against. I would like to ask NDP members why they voted against them, but I am not going to do that. Actually, I am just happy that they voted.

I have a question for the member. She has been in the House for much of today and has heard members of the Liberal Party in debate. I would like to ask her, based on what she has heard today, whether she feels her Liberal colleagues are going to vote on this confidence motion and, if so, which way they might go.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to presume what the Liberal Party is going to do. Whether those members are going to stand and vote or sit in their seats, I think that is up to them and their conscience.

When we are dealing with the kinds of issues that I have talked about today, such as unemployed forestry workers, aboriginal children living in poverty, the lack of education for aboriginal children on reserve and the lack of adequate housing, if people choose to vote for a government that is not addressing those problems, that is between it and its electorate.

However, in terms of this member talking about the fact that we voted against the budget, if we could cherry-pick from the budget and just vote on the parts of the budget that we thought were of benefit to Canadians, that would be one matter. Unfortunately, we were presented with a whole package.

What that did not allow us to do was talk about the fact that we are not addressing some of those very serious economic issues facing Canadians and, in particular, British Columbia and Vancouver Island. We were not allowed to say that we do not support measures which do not address this economic disparity that is happening. So unfortunately we had to vote against the budget because it did not deal with some of those other critical issues.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to set the record straight. Earlier this afternoon, the member for Acadie—Bathurst commented that I had referred to the Saskatchewan Party as the Conservative Party. What I was talking about was philosophies. In Saskatchewan, there are two philosophies. There is the philosophy of a Conservative-like-minded government like ours that is doing a lot for an economy, which means we like to create wealth, unlike the NDP members and their philosophy. They like to divide wealth.

I just wanted to make it clear that I was not suggesting we are ruled by a Conservative Party, just by a like-minded, conservative-thinking party that does indeed believe in creating wealth. Therefore, we are now having population growth because all of those people who left Saskatchewan because of the poor economic environment and the declining population are coming home because of strong economics and some of our economic platform. I just wanted to make that comment.

I did want to also mention that I do not think the NDP recognizes this. In his remarks this afternoon, I think the member talked about how nothing was done for students. I think we did a lot for students with our--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I hate to cut off the hon. member, but I do have to allow the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan a chance to respond.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not clear what the question was in regard to my particular speech, but I do want to point out to the member that when she talks about the growth in the population of Saskatchewan, part of that growth can be attributed to first nations and, of course, the children living in poverty in Saskatchewan. Fifty-two per cent of first nations children under the age of 14 in Saskatchewan live in poverty.

We talked about education, for example, and that is a really valuable tool to raise people out of poverty and to provide them with the training and education they need to meet the skills shortages in our current labour market. I think most people would welcome an opportunity to have that happen.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak briefly on the non-confidence motion introduced by the New Democratic Party on our opposition day.

Let me make very clear, referring to our motion, the basis for our lost confidence in this government, which we are concentrating on today. There are many different reasons for our lack of confidence, but today our debate is focused on “the harmful effects on working and middle-income Canadians of the growing income gap fostered by this government's unbalanced economic agenda”, which is very punishing for a great many families in this country today.

I want to take a moment to refer to some statistics that apply to Canada as a nation before I focus a little more on my own riding of Halifax and the province of Nova Scotia, from which I am privileged to come.

We have heard that the facts and figures we are sharing with people are some kind of high-blown socialist rhetoric, but I want to try to ground those hysterical Conservative members by referring to the most recent report from Statistics Canada, based on the 2006 census, which is hardly high-blown social democratic rhetoric. I want to refer to three particular facts. There are many others. They all add up to the same picture, which is the damage that has been done by a succession of Liberal and Conservative governments over, I am inclined to say, the last 50 years.

However, what the 2006 census report makes clear in the detailed analysis is that it is actually over 30 years of flawed, unbalanced economic policies that have created what is a growing prosperity gap in this country. It is not only punishing for a great many people, but it is dangerous for a society to have that much division and that much marginalization.

Let me refer to three brief facts.

First, the earnings of average Canadians have stagnated over the last 25 years.

Second, in 2005 a person with a full time job earned a median pre-tax salary of $41,000 and a bit. When adjusted for inflation, that is only about a buck a week more than what the average worker took home in 1980. We are talking about what they took home 28 years ago.

Third, while middle class workers experienced no real growth in earnings, those at the top end got a lot richer, with a 16.4% increase in the 25 year period between 1980 and 2005, and those at the bottom got much poorer, with a 20.6% decline.

I do not know how there can be such denial, both of the statistics themselves and of what the impact of those statistics is on the real lives of real people in the real communities that all of us collectively represent in this country.

I am very proud of the fact that my party has consistently put forward the alternative policies and the alternative solutions. I was very pleased when the member for Toronto—Danforth, who succeeded me as leader, put forward to our membership in this country and to the Canadian people the fact that the role of opposition is an important one in democracy, but an important part of opposition is proposition, that is, to put forward the solutions.

That is why, led by the anti-poverty critic in our caucus, we have worked consistently on a detailed, comprehensive anti-poverty strategy. We are proposing what kinds of policies are needed to reverse the damage that has been done as a result of unbalanced economic policies for over 30 years now in this country, most often under the Liberals but also under the Conservatives. Certainly under today's Conservatives, the damage is deepening every day.

I want to turn to my riding of Halifax for a moment. People will say that Halifax is thriving and that Halifax is a very prosperous place today, and that is absolutely true. I am very privileged to represent that riding. It is not true that my community has gone to hell in a hand-basket because it is represented by a New Democrat. I have been proud to represent this riding now in the House of Commons for 13 and a half years.

The prosperity in Halifax is astounding. In case anyone thinks that is because of Conservative or Liberal provincial members who come along and mop up behind whatever influence I might have on my own community in representing it, let me say that there are five provincial seats within my federal boundary and all five of them are represented by New Democrats. It does not seem to follow directly that as a result of social democratic thinking, things fall apart.

Let me also say that in opposition federally and provincially, we have consistently beseeched both levels of government--and I can only speak for the 29 years I have been in public life, so that is what I will do--the Conservatives and Liberals in office to understand that many of the economic policies they pursue create a growing gap. They create greater disparities all of the time between the wealthiest among us and the rest of Canadians. In particular, they are very punishing to the poor.

In Nova Scotia today, 34,000 children are living in poverty. Nearly four out of every ten Nova Scotians have difficulty reading, understanding and using printed materials, and have difficulty with numeracy. What does that have to do with poverty, some people may ask. It has a lot to do with poverty, and that in itself is a whole separate subject.

There are 7,200 children per month who are forced to rely on food banks in Nova Scotia. Some will say that it is good that charity is there to mop up the damage from flawed economic policies. However, not only is the charitable model not the appropriate one in a modern prosperous community or a modern prosperous country, but it is time for us to recognize that the whole community, the whole country benefits when we operate on the justice model and operate on the basis that we have the means, we have the know-how, we have the resources, we have the knowledge that we need to make sure that we do not have more and more people being left behind in our society. It is shameful that this is happening in the midst of the plenty that exists in this country today.

I am very pleased that in seven days' time, on May 15, I will be hosting a public forum, a public dialogue in my own riding to bring various people in the community together to talk about this growing gap and what the solutions are that can be brought to bear.

We know that the labour movement has a contribution. It is making a big contribution in trying to address this problem, having launched on International Women's Day a comprehensive strategy to end poverty once and for all, to advance equality once and for all.

The president of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, who is participating in that forum, has been giving tremendous leadership around issues of equality and diversity. Others in the community will contribute their ideas.

Despite the prosperity in my city of Halifax, there have been enormous job losses in Nova Scotia. We do not hear as much about them because we do not have as many jobs to begin with, so when the jobs are lost, they are not as numerous. However, we have the same concerns that have been raised again and again by members of my caucus from Ontario, from the west, from British Columbia. In comparable terms based on our population, the number of job losses is very serious: 120 jobs lost in one community, 280 in another, 50 in another, 300 in another, 150 in another and 580 in another. Those are very large numbers of job losses. It is time that we began to address those problems with serious solutions.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in part what the member for Halifax has talked about is that we often hear the rhetoric that thousands of jobs have been created. The reality is that in many of our communities we simply are not seeing those jobs.

What we are seeing is that many times when jobs are created, they are often low wage, part time, seasonal jobs. Many people are actually having to work two and three jobs simply to keep food on the table for their family.

Then we take a look at the Employment Insurance Act and the changes to that act that unfolded in 1995-96. Over the last many years there is a decreasing number of people who are actually eligible. Women in particular have been very hard hit. Fewer and fewer women now qualify for EI, because many of the women who pay into the employment insurance fund are in part time, seasonal and contract employment.

I wonder if the member could comment on the kinds of changes she thinks are important to make to the employment insurance fund so that workers from coast to coast to coast actually are entitled to the benefits when they have paid into that fund.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery about how much damage was done by the massive changes that were introduced by the Employment Insurance Act in 1995-96. There is no mystery about whether the damage was real because the province of Nova Scotia went from never having elected a New Democrat in the history of that province on the Nova Scotia mainland, to actually electing four New Democrats in the metro area in Halifax alone and two more in Cape Breton. Why? It is not because we all suddenly appeared with all the answers. More than any other single thing it was because of the damage that was done to the lives of people because of the massive changes to employment insurance. They were hitting people, affecting people and people were demanding that there be repairs done.

The Liberals never brought about the improvements that were needed after getting that loud message in 1997. Now 11 years later the changes still have not been made. The numbers of hours required to qualify are still excessively high for people in various seasonal industries, for example.

As if it is not an indignity enough to pay and pay into the employment insurance fund, the effect of that on the lives of people, the effect for parents of young children is that they are forced into living in dire poverty.

The other effect which is very real for Atlantic Canadians and for people from the north, is that it is a forced outmigration program when we do not have an adequate stabilizing unemployment insurance system. We are losing a lot of our workers to other parts of Canada because that is the only way they can feed their families. Of course that causes a further erosion of the economic base of our community.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member on her speech this afternoon and her understanding of this issue, particularly as it affects those whom she represents and speaks for here in the House.

On my travels over the last two years I was in Halifax and met with people and listened to them about income security. One of the faces of poverty that I heard about very clearly and directly was women and poverty, the number of women affected by poverty and living in poverty. Perhaps the member would like to elaborate on that in terms of the agenda of the government and the massive tax cuts that we are seeing mostly accruing to big corporations.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. It allows me the opportunity to say what tremendous leadership he has provided persistently, consistently and stubbornly on the issue of a serious comprehensive anti-poverty strategy in this country. The member has criss-crossed this country from one end to the other, north, south, east, west, to invite people to come together and talk about solutions. We now are going to finally have an all-party committee that begins to go to work on this--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Compton--Stanstead.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the NDP opposition motion. As members certainly know, the subjects mentioned in this motion have always been very important to the Bloc Québécois. I am referring to the problems related to employment insurance, poverty and training. We cannot sit by and say nothing about the Conservative government's obvious incompetence in these areas.

I would like to start with the issue of employment insurance, and more specifically, the people who depend on this plan. As its name suggests, employment insurance is supposed to be an insurance than enables contributors to receive an income when they lose their job. That sounds good. The problem is that the plan has been completely distorted and diverted from its original goal.

For example, the claimant-contributor ratio went from nearly 80% in 1990 to 46.1% today. This means that less than half of those who contribute to employment insurance qualify to receive benefits. Did this Conservative government do anything for the unemployed or for these people who are losing their jobs? Absolutely not.

At the weekly meetings of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, on which I sit, I have even heard Conservatives say that people who lose their jobs in Quebec or elsewhere can simply move to Alberta. I understand the principle of labour mobility, but it is not as simple as that. People cannot be uprooted that easily.

I would like to remind the members opposite that with Bills C-269 and C-357, we in the Bloc Québécois came up with real solutions to help people who lose their jobs. The first bill proposed to improve the employment insurance system, while the second called for the creation of the independent employment insurance fund. The government chose to reject these bills out of hand. What did it do instead? It proposed in the most recent budget to create a crown corporation, the employment insurance financing board.

We have asked questions about this board, and our understanding is that the board's only role will be to adjust the employment insurance contribution rate. The minister himself has confirmed the board's minimal role. This morning, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, one witness mentioned that a 15¢ decrease in contributions would mean approximately $30 more for workers at the end of the year. What a nice gift. This is not exactly what you would call a big help.

The crux of the problem remains. The government has made no provision to improve the employment insurance system and ensure that people who lose their jobs have some income while they are going through a rough time. The Conservative government should have acted. If they do not want to help the unemployed, the Conservatives deserve to be unemployed themselves.

Industries are still in crisis in Quebec. Lumber producers and manufacturers have been affected, even in the ridings represented by Conservative members. Yet the government has not lifted a finger, preferring to help Alberta and cozy up to its friends to the south, the Americans, Mr. Bush's friends.

The manufacturing crisis has had a devastating effect on the Eastern Townships, and it is not over yet. This week, we found out that one of our region's finest, Shermag, has placed itself under the protection of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. Shermag was hit hard by Asian competition and the rising dollar. Between 2005 and 2007, the company closed three plants in my riding, one in Scotstown, one in Cookshire-Eaton and one in Dudswell, which cost our small communities hundreds of jobs.

I mentioned Shermag, but I could just as easily have talked about other Quebec plants and factories that have closed. I do not want to go on and on about the manufacturing crisis, because that is not the purpose of today's motion. I want to get to the point, which is the human side of things.

In 2003, there were about 42,000 industrial jobs in the Eastern Townships. Now there are only about 25,000 left. The manufacturing crisis cost us 17,000 good jobs in a region with a population of 300,000. Those jobs paid at least $20 or $22 per hour. Quebec workers—should they even qualify—are too proud to sit at home, happily taking advantage of the employment insurance program. Workers in the Eastern Townships rolled up their sleeves and found other jobs—jobs that most often paid less than half of what they had been earning before.

This has been a huge loss for these people and for the economy of the Eastern Townships. In four years, we lost 35% of our industrial jobs. This is a real catastrophe. Workers who lose their jobs have to deal with an employment insurance program that does not insure them. Whether they want to or not, they have to take whatever job they can get, even if it is a part-time job for low pay.

It is easy to see what I am getting at. When people's wages drop by $5, $10 or $15 per hour, buying power goes down and poverty goes up. Yet, with its laissez-faire ideology, this government has made it clear that it is not really interested in helping people who really need help.

To refresh our memories, I could mention that the Conservatives cut the women’s program. They also slashed programs for minorities and they are still refusing to refund money owed to seniors for the guaranteed income supplement. On the other hand, however, they did not hesitate to give tax credits of almost $1 billion a year to the oil companies and corporations, which, as we all know in this House, are “living in the most appalling misery and destitution.”

This week, we learned that the individual purchasing power of Quebeckers has increased by $53 in 25 years. That is another proof of the inaction of governments, both Conservative and Liberal, we must insist. Fifty-three dollars amounts to one dollar a week this year, but in this case it was spread over 25 years.

From the same set of statistics, we learned that the salaries of low income workers decreased by 20% during the same period. Meanwhile, the incomes of the richest people increased by 16%, and the number of rich people also grew. Moreover, despite the efforts made over 25 years, it appears that poverty has not been reduced.

Here are some examples of the sad state of affairs. Nearly 900,000 Canadian children still live in low income families. We always say that the reason children are poor is because their parents are poor. The number of mothers in single-parent families who are trying to make ends meet is just as high as ever. Indeed, there is no shortage of examples and all communities are affected.

Before concluding, I would like to sum up the situation. It is very clear to me that the government has done nothing to save jobs in Quebec, to help our workers who are in trouble, to improve the employment insurance plan or to combat poverty. The results are negative. The gap between rich and poor is growing wider. Disposable income is stagnating. In other words, we are going nowhere and this government has no vision to offer; it has no plans or ideas to submit. It has only an outdated, backward, regressive and rigid ideology.

The Bloc has given the government an opportunity to act: to reform employment insurance, to help the most needy, to ensure that our industries remain open, and that our workers maintain their dignity and their income. The Conservatives have chosen to fold their arms and do nothing. They had the chance to govern on behalf of workers but they did not act on it.

I must say that I have never had a great deal of confidence in this government, but today it has really lost the confidence of this House. I am convinced it will also lose the confidence of the voters.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Peterborough should know that there are less than two minutes that will include both the question and the answer.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's statement. It is funny because one would never know from listening to her that Quebec is actually doing quite well. While there is some sectoral weakness, the fastest group of new employees in Quebec are the older workers that the government has sought to help, and the year over year employment income increases are 4.5%. People are doing better. They are finding more jobs. There is a global decline, but we are outperforming every international economy with which we compete. I wonder why the member would possibly support this motion. It is clearly unfounded.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member across the floor should emerge from his bubble and take off his rose coloured glasses.

When I drive around my riding, I see farmers losing revenue, businesses in single industry communities closing their doors and people losing their houses. Some of my constituents call me at home to tell me they do not have the money to pay for their heating. They are wondering what to do, whether or not to heat their houses. They are even forced to choose between eating or dying, since they cannot pay for both food and medicine.

The member can say all he wants that he created 300,000 jobs. He can create a million jobs if he wants. But if he worked one day a week for $8.50 an hour, he would soon realize that such a wage does not amount to much at the end of the week.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.