Pauline Picard

[Health, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of waiting lists has continued because of Liberal cuts and the fiscal imbalance, and patients in Quebec will, unfortunately, be paying the price.

Will the Minister of Health recognize, finally, that prime responsibility for the problems of the health care system rest with the federal government itself, which cut $24.5 billion in funds to Quebec and the provinces prior to 2002, just as health care costs were soaring?

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating here concerns older workers. I will reread it so my colleague will understand:

That, in the opinion of the House, due to the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization, the government should establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures.

In the recommendations made by the committee the hon. member sits on, there was one to support older workers facing permanent plant closures. In the government's proposal, there is no significant measure to provide income support to help these older workers maintain a decent living between the time they lose their permanent job—after getting EI benefits—and the time they begin getting a government pension, which allows them to continue to enjoy a better quality of life.

That is what the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, the former POWA, did. It provided a monthly income to everyone who had lost their job. It saved them from having to beg for social assistance after they received EI benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you would feel if you were faced with a tragedy such as losing your job after 40 years and being forced to beg for social assistance after having paid for many years an insurance called employment insurance. It has stopped being an insurance in case of unemployment; it is now a windfall for the government which, year after year, steals billions of dollars from the EI fund. This money could be used to create real programs to ensure that people who lose their jobs still receive an income to help them get back on the labour market or look for a new job. Such programs would help our older workers to have a decent quality of life and a respectable income after having worked so hard for so long. While working, one pays taxes that contribute to society as a whole.

I would like the hon. member to take this into account while she rereads the motion before her.

I know the minister supports the passing of this motion. As parliamentary secretary, she could do more to raise the minister's awareness. What we want are real income support measures, similar to the Régie des rentes du Québec, because workers who lose their jobs are in a precarious situation. We must help them to hold on until they start receiving their RRQ benefits. That would assure them of a decent quality of life, after a lifetime of contribution to society as a whole.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion. This motion is asking that the government establish a special strategy which could include income support measures for older workers who lose their jobs following tragic events like plant closures.

This is not the first time that I rise in this House to call for the reinstatement of a program suited to the needs of older workers who lose their jobs.

Such a program existed between 1988 and 1997, and it gave meaningful results. My colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and I believe it could be successful again, provided the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development approves this funding formula, one that has proven effective in the past.

We are asking that the minister consider the situation of those men and women who lose their jobs just a few years, often less than five years, from retirement, collect EI benefits for a few weeks and end up on welfare.

The program for older worker adjustment, or POWA, that was created in 1988, provided for the payment of benefits to eligible workers between the ages of 55 and 64 who had lost their jobs following massive permanent lay-offs. This program allowed workers to collect benefits over a longer period and bridge the gap until they qualified for their old age pension.

In the past, a number of massive lay-offs, including at Celanese, Denim Swift, Tripap, Fruit of the Loom, Norton, Fonderie Gaspé in Murdochville, etc., have demonstrated that a permanent support program such as POWA is essential for older workers who cannot retrain.

Since the program was abolished, in 1997, no other permanent initiative was implemented to replace it and help workers who have contributed to the employment insurance program all their lives, and who often no longer have the mobility and ability to adjust, in order to quickly find another job.

In my riding, there were many textile plants. I am using the past tense because almost all of them have disappeared. What was a vital part of the industry and of the economy has faded and disappeared.

When an industry is primarily located in Quebec, the federal government drags its feet and the Quebec federal Liberals remain silent. The textile and clothing industry is a case in point. About half of the industry is located in Quebec, where it provides close to 100,000 direct jobs. We are talking about the loss of almost 12,000 jobs over the past 12 years, just for the riding of Drummond, and particularly for the city of Drummondville. This attrition is still going on, yet no measures have been taken to counter these plant closures.

As we know, the textile and clothing industries are going through a crisis. They must adjust to a business environment that has changed drastically in recent times. On December 31, 2004, the agreement on textiles and clothing, which had been in effect since 1995, expired. This means that the borders of Canada and Quebec will now be more open to imports, including those from China, which are experiencing a strong growth. Needless to say, it is the federal government that is responsible for this reopening of our borders.

Celanese Canada had always been one of the largest employers in Drummondville. When it shut down permanently, in March 2000, a total of 5,000 workers had been laid off, over a period of 10 years.

Seven months later, Cavalier Textile stopped production and 97 people lost their jobs.

In December 2003, Denim Swift management announced that it was ceasing its denim production activities in April 2004, putting 600 people out of work.

In the case of Denim Swift, at the time of the shutdown, the average hourly rate of pay was $15.30. The employees had spent most of their working life there, specializing to meet the needs of the company. It is all very well to set up adjustment committees, but the fact is that these older workers are often unable to find employment at a comparable salary. This leads to a lowered quality of life, reduced financial capacity, weaker purchasing power and a deterioration of their personal situation. These are a few examples where an aid program, adapted to the situation of workers aged 55 and over, would have been useful.

Without a doubt, age constitutes a unique problem following a job loss because employers are more reluctant to hire older workers. Older workers remain unemployed for much longer periods. In its 2004 monitoring and assessment report, tabled in March 2005, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission indicated that, “Although older workers enjoyed considerable employment growth in 2003-04, it is widely acknowledged that once unemployed, older workers may face challenges becoming re-employed. Older workers are overrepresented among the long-term unemployed, representing 21.3% of this group and only 12.5% of the labour force”.

According the four main labour bodies, “studies have also shown that the older they are, the harder it is for workers to access information. So, a job loss is much more painful experience for older workers than for younger workers, because the skills of older workers, who have not had access to training, are increasingly out of sync with the skills required by the current labour market”.

Despite this finding, the Liberal government has continued to turn a deaf ear to our demands, even if the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and member for Papineau had told me that this cancellation was temporary and that his government would respond with a new and improved POWA. This promise was made in 1997, during the election campaign.

Must I remind the House that the Liberal Party has already made this promise when the current Prime Minister, during the last election campaign, promised to re-establish POWA, a commitment he has yet to honour.

All this government has done is set up pilot projects wherever it wants, the number of which are far from meeting the need. There will never be enough: it is unacceptable for the federal government not to help older workers, when they are in such dire straits. It is even worse since we know that the EI fund has accumulated a surplus of over $47 billion, thanks to premiums paid.

I have to smile when the other side calls it a virtual fund. But, for people paying EI premiums, that money comes out of their pay cheques. It is not virtual.

Stakeholders in Quebec are in favour of a new POWA: the workers, the unions, the members of the National Assembly. Let us keep in mind that here in this very House of Commons, last December, the majority of members supported a Bloc Québécois motion calling for a new POWA for older workers affected by the textile crisis. Those groups even came here to demand an assistance program.

What is the government waiting for before taking action and creating a real program like the one it abolished in 1997?

It is essential to have a bridge between EI and pension for those older workers who have trouble finding something new. A retraining program and assistance with retraining does not work. When someone aged 58 has been working for 40 years in a factory, he does not have much of an academic background.

They want these workers to go back to school and learn a new trade. Let us be logical: that is impossible at 58. What is more, employers are hesitant to hire older workers, and the only way they can manage is to go on welfare. That is indecent.

This morning, the minister indicated that she would be voting in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion. I would like, however, to be sure that what she has in mind, the program she will be putting in place, will be a source of income for these people. It must not be a pilot project, nor a training or retraining program. It must be a source of income to fill the gap between the time they lose their jobs and the time they can start receiving pension payments.

[Drummond Designs, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to note that Drummond Designs, in Drummondville, placed among the top five residential architecture firms in North America.

Drummond Designs, the largest developer of house plans in Quebec, is on a roll. Since 1998, its sales have increased, on average, by 30% per year, thanks to its resounding success in the United States.

As proof, Hanley Wood, the single largest publisher of house plan magazines in the U.S., has just awarded this Drummondville company the top prize for the quality of its drawings. It was selected from over one hundred North American companies.

In 32 years, Drummond Designs has sold about 100,000 house plans. Today, this company has 40 employees and 55 associates who work in 20 regional offices.

Congratulations to Marie-France Roger, her husband, Yves Carignan, and their entire team on another amazing Quebec success story.

[Office of the Prime Minister, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the government has nothing to hide, as it claims, then why is it handling the situation with the health minister and the Prime Minister's chief of staff any differently than the situation in the past when the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the chief of staff of the Minister of Canadian Heritage stepped down while investigations were ongoing?

What is the government waiting for to take action?

[Office of the Prime Minister, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, another Liberal MP, who was reporting comments made by his constituents, said, “What people are telling me is that as long as the matter is not cleared up, everyone should step down”.

In light of such clear demands, not only from members, but also from the public, what is the Prime Minister waiting for to order the suspension of his chief of staff and his health minister?

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, who worked really hard to come up with Bill C-360, which is now before us. I also invite hon. members to read the report that she produced. It is very interesting. It explains what psychological harassment is about, and what its consequences are on the health of the victim and on his or her environment.

My colleague is very determined to defend this bill, and I support her initiative. I also congratulate her, because it is very important to pass this kind of legislation to help victims of psychological harassment. Psychological harassment is bad, insidious, and it often leads to physical harassment when women are victims of spousal abuse. This cycle often begins with psychological harassment. Consequently, there is no place for this type of harassment, particularly in those institutions that are governed by the Canada Labour Code.

I have a question for my colleague. Earlier, she told us about the federal policy that currently exists and that should deal with psychological harassment. She said that this policy is like Swiss cheese, in that it is full of holes.

I wonder if she could elaborate on that policy. How is it flawed and why are we not able to prevent psychological harassment in federal institutions?

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Repentigny.

Just like my colleague, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord and Bloc Québécois whip, I want to reiterate the Bloc Québécois' opposition to the motion presented today by the Conservative Party.

We all want to know who was responsible for the sponsorship scandal, for their actions to be denounced, and for the systematic abuse of public money to benefit a political party to be punished. We want the money that was obtained illegally by the Liberal Party, the money that came directly out of the government's coffers through the federal sponsorship program, to be returned to the public purse. That is what the Bloc Québécois wanted when it presented its motion to create the dirty money trust fund. The hon. member for Outremont likes the expression “dirty money”.

The Bloc got what it asked for. The Liberal government, worried about an impending election, decided to follow through on the decision of the House by announcing a $750,000 trust on the eve of the confidence vote. The amount in trust is not sufficient. Testimony by Jean Brault, president of Groupaction, alone, led to identification of no less than $2.2 million that apparently was paid to the Liberal Party of Canada through the sponsorship scandal.

All the questions that the Bloc Québécois asked in the House, the smell of wrongdoing and mismanagement evident in the sponsorship program forced the government to set up a commission of inquiry in accordance with the rules of the federal Inquiries Act.

The government asked Justice Gomery to do his job without formulating any conclusions or recommendations regarding the civil or criminal liability of any persons or organizations and to ensure that the inquiry with which he was charged did not compromise any other inquiry or criminal proceedings under way.

That is why some witnesses were heard at first in private before the judge agreed to make some or all of their testimony public.

We hope that the judge's report, which should be handed down by the end of the year, will give us an idea of what misconduct there was and who was responsible so that the government can then institute civil or criminal proceedings, as the case may be.

Our Conservative friends, for their part, would like to change Justice Gomery's mandate. It is as if a referee decided to change the rules in the last minute of a game and thereby change the final result. It is unthinkable.

If Justice Gomery's mandate were changed, the witnesses—all of them—would have to be allowed to return before the commission, well informed about the possible consequences of their testimony, allegations and admissions.

Justice Gomery has not conducted his interrogations with a view to laying charges because that was not his mandate. The testimony that has been heard is therefore certainly not complete enough to enable the commissioner to name the people responsible.

It should be said as well that the Gomery commission's work is based on a promise: the witnesses are encouraged to reveal all in exchange for a promise that the judge will not make any recommendations regarding the civil or criminal liability of individuals. This promise cannot be broken along the way. That is why we oppose the motion now before us.

The Gomery commission's mandate is to cast a wide net so that we learn all there is to know. Individuals like Marc-Yvan Côté, a well-known Liberal and former Liberal minister in Quebec, admitted before the commission that he received $120,000 in cash to help the orphan ridings in eastern Quebec during the 1997 elections with the avowed purpose of beating the Bloc Québécois.

In its edition of May 6, the newspaper Le Devoir said the following and I quote: “This money was poured into solidly Bloc ridings—so-called orphan ridings, in Liberal parlance—during the 1997 election.” Le Devoir also mentioned, “This dirty money is not recorded in the party's financial statements, in violation of the Election Act. 'There is an irregularity, and I admit it. ...Mr. Commissioner, there was no receipt. ...No one knew about it,' said Mr. Béliveau, the first honourable man in the Liberal Party to take the blame for that party's secret funding”.

This admission shook the Liberal organization in my riding. The Liberal executive and the 1997 candidate feel they have to justify themselves by telling the local press that their riding was not one of the ones that received a brown envelope. The fact is that, in 1997, the local Liberal candidate kept a very low profile; instead the Liberal Party hierarchy campaigned against me, headed by Alfonso Gagliano, who travelled through Drummondville on a regular basis.

In 1997, 2000 and last year in 2004, the Liberals bit the dust in Drummond, a sovereignist stronghold. The CJDM radio station conducted a poll recently and asked the following question, “In light of the sponsorship scandal, do you want Quebec to become sovereign?” Survey results showed 69% of respondents saying yes, which is in keeping with the results of the referendums held in Quebec.

That said, Commissioner Gomery must be able to table his report as soon as possible and have all the latitude he needs to get to the bottom of things.

Once the report has been read by us and by the public, the RCMP, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Department of National Revenue will be responsible for laying charges.

Since the Prime Minister, in his official address, made a commitment to voters to call an election within 30 days of the tabling of the report, I believe that it will the ultimately be the public's decision to punish the political operators behind this scandal, as it did in the 2004 election.

We cannot stress often enough that the sponsorship scandal is not a Quebec scandal. It is a Liberal scandal, concocted by individuals working for the Liberal Party. The Gomery commission and even the courts are hearing evidence of this.

This morning, the former head of Coffin Communication, Paul Coffin, pleaded guilty to 15 counts of fraud. Mr. Coffin's advertising agency received approximately $8 million in Public Works sponsorship contracts, from which his income was $2.7 million. When he testified before the Gomery Commission, Mr. Coffin admitted that the bulk of that $2.7 million had been obtained with fake invoices as requested by the senior public servant in charge of the sponsorship program, Charles Guité.

Coffin Communication served as a conduit for a multi-million dollar advertising campaign on health care. In 2002, the Privy Council Office wanted to retain the services of an agency called Gingko, but that Toronto company did not have accreditation. In order to get around the rules for awarding contracts, the Department of Public Works used Coffin Communication as the middleman, which netted the agency close to $160,000 for doing absolutely nothing.

Mr. Coffin's admission of guilt clearly proves the Liberal government's negligence in the way it managed the sponsorship program. It confirms the Auditor General's concerns. She clearly expressed reservations about the way that program was being managed in her 2003 report.

The revelations that moved the Prime Minister to terminate the sponsorship program, to set up the Gomery Commission, to institute legal proceedings in order to recover the money and to dismiss Gagliano and the heads of the crown agencies involved in the scandal ought to be sufficient proof to enable him to pay back all the dirty money, that is the $5.3 million, not just the current $750,000.

As for the Conservative Party's motion, out of respect for those who testified before the commission and in order to avoid causing them harm, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion.

[The Liberal Government, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the Liberal government went down for the count. Poor sports that they are, the Liberal team stops at nothing, refuses to admit defeat and is clinging desperately to power. Yet, the Liberal team suffered a knockout after 153 opposition members indicated their lack of confidence in this government.

The referee will have to make the call. He will decide the ultimate fate of this government branded by corruption.

The Liberal government no longer has the authority and the confidence it needs to carry out its duties, and its stubborn refusal to step down is a slap in the face of democracy.

The Liberal government should have the humility to admit its defeat and accept the decision of the final referee: the voters. That will be the real vote of confidence.

[Dominique Chevalier, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge the commitment of a great citizen of Drummond to the cause of women.

Since 1986, Dominique Chevalier has been running Partance, an agency serving women in the regional municipality of Drummond who are seeking employment.

In addition to her involvement in women's groups, she participates in the Conférence régionale des élus de la région 17, the Conseil régional des partenaires du marché du travail, and the Corporation de développement communautaire in Drummond, and she chairs the board of the Femmes et production industrielle regions 4 and 17.

In its recent women of merit competition, the YMCA gave her an award for her social commitment. At the Réseau industriel Drummond awards gala, she won the 2005 award for best business coach.

On behalf of the people of Drummond and my colleagues, I congratulate Dominique Chevalier, a woman of distinction.