Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who, as you know, is a proud Quebecker and a worthy defender of the rights and interests of her constituents.
What happens here in the House of Commons is not always funny, given that in an economic crisis, often it is the poorest members of our society who are affected. When I say “the poorest members”, that covers a lot. I am talking about people who have lost their jobs and who, when they were working, had decent salaries and were not in need. A case in point would be forestry and manufacturing workers, who earned a very good living and paid their taxes. It is always difficult to see people fall on hard times. It saddens me that the Conservatives are oblivious to this and that the Liberals are once again supporting the Conservatives because they are too afraid of what might happen if they voted against the Conservatives. That is the reality, and in an economic crisis, with the salaries we are earning, how can we not stand up every day in this House to defend people who have lost their jobs?
I will always be proud to be a member of a party that has always stood up for Quebeckers, especially those who have lost their jobs. I will not stop, because I come from a small community in the Outaouais. My riding is in the Outaouais-Laurentides region, which has a similar economy to the ridings of many other members of this House, from other political parties. That economy is based on forestry, farming and tourism. People say that it is not the workers who are seasonal, but the work. These sectors are particularly hard hit during times of economic crisis.
I see what there is in the budget for the forest industry, despite all the members from Quebec in this House, be they Liberals, Conservatives, NDP—there are still a few from those parties—or Bloc Québécois. I tell myself that it would be unthinkable to ignore the resolution passed unanimously by the National Assembly of Quebec. Only a Liberal or a Conservative would put party ideology ahead of people's interests.
The National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous resolution. The Parti Québécois is a sovereignist party, while the others, except for Québec Solidaire, are federalist parties, yet the resolution passed unanimously. I will read part of it:
That it insist that the federal government provide financial support to sectors experiencing problems, particularly the manufacturing and forest sectors, as it is doing for the automobile industry;
That is what the National Assembly was calling for, a demand that should be fought for tooth and nail by every member of this House who is from Quebec.
This budget gives the forestry sector $170 million, although the auto industry was given over $2.7 billion. I have absolutely nothing against the auto industry. It made its claim, and all the better that it obtained results. However the fact remains that the National Assembly asked for assistance for the forestry and manufacturing sectors similar to what was given to the auto sector. That was the unanimous request of the National Assembly, yet, as we all know, only $170 million was given. I will break down how that $170 million was divided within the forestry sector: $80 million over two years for a transformative technologies program; $40 million to develop pilot-scale demonstration projects of new products; $40 million, also over two years, for the Canada wood, value to wood, and North America wood first programs; and $10 million to support large-scale demonstrations of Canadian-style use of wood.
There is nothing in this budget to help businesses, absolutely nothing.
I see some members from the Outaouais region in the House, particularly, the hon. member for Pontiac. In his riding, the Smurfit-Stone paper mill closed just before Christmas. The sawmill just next to it, the Pontiac sawmill, closed. In my riding, there is a paper mill in Thurso, Papiers Fraser. I hope it does not close, and I will do everything I can; I will fight to keep it open. I simply cannot stand by and watch that happen.
I do not understand why the member for Pontiac cannot stand up in this House against his own government, which is investing only $170 million, when the economy in his own riding has been hard hit.
What good is having a salary when one cannot even defend the interests of one's constituents? Is it because one is a minister? Is it because one is looking out for oneself and worried about keeping the limousine?
It is simply disrespectful of constituents' interests. I could point to every Quebec member in this House who is not from the Bloc Québécois, any Conservative or Liberal, because once again, these members are putting their personal interests before the interests of their constituents. It was ever thus. And this is why politicians always come last in the popularity ratings because they often put their own interests ahead of those of their constituents. It is sad, because we are in the midst of a very serious economic crisis. Things are tough, especially when we see the help this government is giving.
I cannot ignore the repeated demands from both the Quebec government and workers in Quebec, and it is the same in the rest of Canada. When it comes to employment insurance, only 45% of those who pay into it are eligible. These measures were brought in in 1992 because we were coming out of an economic crisis. The federal government was facing an enormous deficit created by the Conservatives at that time. Employment insurance rules were tightened up. Today we have the same rules as those brought in in 1992 during a mini economic crisis. Imagine. Today we are talking about an economic crisis similar to that of the Great Depression. What about our workers, those who will lose their jobs? Only 45% will receive employment insurance.
In November, the Bloc Québécois reached out and presented proposals in this House. We were thanked by the Minister of Finance and congratulated by the Prime Minister because we were the only party to submit proposals. Our requests were simple: we wanted the two-week waiting period to be eliminated and the number of hours required to qualify for employment insurance to be reduced to 360. This would be covered by the $2 billion program surplus. Instead, the Conservatives decided to freeze contributions and arranged for the surplus to disappear. This was mainly to avoid making improvements to the employment insurance program and ensuring that workers who might qualify in a crisis such as the one we are experiencing—one as significant as the Great Depression—would be entitled to benefits. The Conservatives said no to that.
There is no help for older workers. The program for older worker adjustment was abolished by the Liberals in 1996. Those 55 and older, who lost their jobs during massive layoffs, could benefit from such assistance until they retired at the age of 65. But no, they want to try to send people 55 and over to a retraining program even though we are already in the midst of a recession.
People will lose their jobs and there will be fewer jobs. They will try to retrain older workers to do something else. That does not make sense. Instead, we should try to give them a decent income until they reach retirement age. After all, they contributed to creating wealth while they worked in the manufacturing, forestry or other type of industry. And yet, today, they are the ones being penalized and their right to claim some of the wealth they created is being taken away.
Once again, I find it hard to understand. As for the members from the rest of Canada, that is their problem. However, I have a great deal of difficulty with the fact that Quebec members, given their salary, do not rise in this House to defend, on a daily basis, Quebeckers who lose their jobs and that they do not rise when the time comes to vote on something as important as a budget and say, “I am against it because the heartless Conservatives do not want to help the most disadvantaged”. I have a great deal of difficulty with that.
Once again, I am proud to be a member of the Bloc Québécois. Year after year, we are the only ones able to stand up in this house on behalf of our constituents.
