Lost her last election, in 2004, with 6% of the vote.
Employment Insurance Act October 19th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Progressive Conservative Party member, as I find his question very appropriate.
This is indeed a cynical government. Does anyone know what cynicism means? To be cynical is to do things to get people to believe things, as if to say “I think it is perfect, but you deserve nothing”. That is the Chrétien government. They wanted—
Employment Insurance Act October 19th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to know that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.
I rise to speak today with great regrets and much animosity toward this government. After four years of harsh cuts to the employment insurance program, which I still call unemployment insurance, the government has finally decided to soften its policy and hand out some goodies. Yesterday, with its mini-budget, it has handed out some goodies: caviar to those with more than $250,000, peanuts to the middle class. To the least advantaged it has said “Come back another time, we're all out”.
The government is about to call an election, it seems, because everybody is saying “So long, see you later”. I presume the people across the way are in the know. With Bill C-44, the Liberals have proposed some timid measures that are not in line with what workers need.
In my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, thousands of people have protested against the cruel policies of this government's system of wealth distribution.
I am, moreover, convinced that the Minister of National Revenue could testify to that. When he came to our area last week, he did not stay two minutes in the Saguenay. He had to pack up his bags and head back.
Hon. members can see what this government is up to at the present time with funds that do not belong to it, since it is not the one making the contributions.
It does nothing, but takes the kitty and then creates laws that say “You there will have some; but you will not have any under certain conditions”. The people at home are too proud. They have said this to the Minister of National Revenue, who will be coming back tomorrow.
I warn the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region that he will be with us tomorrow. Do not forget to repeat to him what you told him last week. What they are doing with your money is unacceptable.
The money in the employment insurance fund—I still call it unemployment insurance—belongs to the workers of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, of Quebec, of all the provinces of Canada. I think it is theirs. Why does this government ignore that? Contrary to what the Bloc wants it to do, it does not acknowledge that there should be an independent fund administered by workers and employers. These people know what is needed.
Mr. Speaker, let us imagine that you have taken out fire insurance and car insurance. Imagine what would happen if your insurer said to you after an accident “It is too bad, I am changing the conditions. You have signed this, but today conditions have changed”. You would not accept that. This is exactly what the government is doing.
It says everyone agreed to pay into a plan in the event they lost their job, but it says “No, you may well have paid, but I am going to do what I like with it”. I say they are stealing it, I am sorry, that may be a bad word, but it is the fact of the matter. It is helping itself to this huge fund. Even for the next fiscal year, there will be a $7 billion surplus in the fund. And the government will again take that surplus.
In Bill C-44, the government had the nerve to make a minor amendment, which I want to tell you about. In one clause, the government wants to divert and use for its own benefit the surpluses in the employment insurance fund, even though they do not belong to it.
In the past, it was the employment insurance commission that set the conditions. The act used to state that, for each year, the commission sets, with the approval of the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister and the Minister of Finance, the rate which, in its opinion, is best suited to ensure an adequate income during an economic cycle.
It will no longer be the case. Now, the government will set all the selection criteria. It will decide which rate to apply and it will not be accountable to anyone. When Cabinet is involved, everything is always confidential. This is what the government wants to do with the employment insurance fund. No, we will not let them do that. People will never agree to that.
In my region, there are seasonal workers. What we are asking for, and what I would have appreciated, is for a clear definition to be included in the Employment Insurance Act of what a seasonal worker is, with a degree of flexibility. But this does not bother them at all. They do not pay employment insurance with their big salaries.
I do not understand. Surely they must have seasonal workers in their ridings, just as you do, Mr. Speaker. You do not have problems with seasonal workers? Perhaps the climate is different from what we have in eastern and central Canada. You may have better weather than we do.
There will always be seasonal workers who have to contend with what nature sends them. I would like a definition of seasonal worker. That would help.
I personally have never known anyone receiving EI who wanted to. People want to work, but when they have no job and there is no training to help them find other work, they have no choice. That is what is wrong with this system.
For three and a half years now, I have been listening to lofty speeches about Canadian principles and values, about great Liberal values. Strangely enough, these speeches never bear any connection with the everyday reality of ordinary people.
A few months from now, 250 older workers in my riding are going to lose their jobs. How many years have we been asking this government to restore passive measures to help these workers? And what does the government say? It says that they will have to be retrained.
When people have worked hard in a factory for 35 or 40 years, at the expense of their health, and are reaching 55 or 60, they do not have enough money to retire. These people would like to leave and make way for young people but they cannot. Their health is gone.
We are asking this government to have some compassion. But what does it say? It tells us to retrain these workers and stick them somewhere else. Where, I do not know. Or it says that they should be mobile and go elsewhere in Canada. That is easy to say.
I have heard senior officials who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I think they have a direct line to the values that drive the Liberals. They have no compassion. They do not know what ordinary people are really going through.
I come from a region where people are proud, and we have had enough of this nonsense. It will no longer wash with us. Let the Liberal and Canadian Alliance candidates in the ridings in our area take note: they will never again pull the wool over the eyes of people who have taken steps to improve their lives.
It is painful to see what is happening in Canada at this time. We saw it in yesterday's mini-budget; we see it in this bill. We must put a stop to it; we must think about the people. The real people are the people who vote for us, not big businesses, not lobbyists. The real people are the workers, the ones who have family responsibilities, the ones with hearts.
We must remember that women are the ones with precarious jobs. This government has the nerve to pass a motion in support of women's demands. Then yesterday there was nothing in the Minister of Finance's mini-budget for them.
They do not recognize the value of women. We know that 52% of voters are female. Being a woman, I am proud to say that the demands the women made were very much a reflection of today's reality and that we must move forward.
But government members did not get it, just as they did not get this matter of employment insurance. These goodies they want to give us have no relationship to reality.
I say to them to go back to their books. When they have done their homework, and when they have let people tell them what they really want, then we will talk.
Genetically Modified Organisms October 19th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. 230 presented by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert which asks the government to make the labelling of genetically modified foods compulsory and to carry out exhaustive studies on the long term effects of these foods on health and the environment.
A lot of progress has been made since the month of May. A similar motion was presented by an NDP member and, less than a week ago, the member for Davenport introduced Bill C-500, which also seeks to make the labelling of genetically modified foods compulsory.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for her determination. All the members of this House are now aware of this issue and some are even following her example by proposing similar measures. This is all to the credit of my colleagues.
The issue of GMOs involves many aspects, particularly as regards health. But today, I want to emphasize the environmental aspects. The environment must be a central concern, if only because it is related to health.
It all began in 1996 with the Convention on Biodiversity, which sought to deal with the issues relating to ecosystems and species by providing a framework of principles on which signatory states agreed.
Article 19 indicates that the signatories must be encouraged to put into place tools which will regularize, manage or control the risks related to the use or presence of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology.
After the Rio conference, and within the framework of meetings of the parties to the Convention on Biodiversity, negotiations for the creation of a protocol on biosecurity were soon to follow, with a view to providing a more solid and detailed framework as far as prevention of biotechnological risks are concerned.
The meetings between countries on biodiversity that have taken place since Rio are: Nassau, in November and December 1994; Jakarta, in 1995; Buenos Aires, in 1996; Bratislava, in 1998: and Nairobi, in 2000.
At the Jakarta meeting, the parties to the convention decided to put into place a special group charged with preparing a protocol specifically on biosecurity, an issue related to the transfer and handling of genetically modified organisms.
In 1999, at a multilateral meeting in Cartagena, negotiations focused on a project aimed at creating a risk evaluation procedure for GMOs and rules for their labelling.
Most regrettably, Canada unfortunately blocked ratification of this protocol, joining forces with the five country Miami group led by the United States.
As for the European countries, they felt that the principle of precaution ought to take precedence, believing that in the absence of scientific certainty on the hazards of GMOs it was necessary to take all of the steps needed to avoid harmful effects on human health. A responsible attitude, in my opinion.
Unfortunately Canada opposed this example of responsible management of a product with potential danger to human health. Clearly Canada has always defended commercial interests. Moreover, this was pointed out by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in his last report in May.
I would like to quote a new study that was released last July which tends to confirm that the pollen from genetically modified corn is fatal to the larvae of certain butterfly. This adds fuel to the GMO controversy.
A number of countries manage GMOs rationally. They make labelling of food containing such products mandatory. In truth, they make the precautionary principle a priority.
It is paradoxical to note that this week the Minister of Health favourably received the recommendation of the Standing Committee on the Environment that the precautionary principle be applied in the registration of pesticides.
The minister of agriculture could care less about the precautionary principle in the case of the GMOs. When will this government be consistent in its positions? I do not suppose it will happen overnight.
GMOs can have considerable impact on the environment through the transmission of genes in nature, in other words, the gene flow. This is no theoretical eventuality but a certainty which has been shown in many countries, including in Africa.
It is distressing to see certain multinationals, certain Canadian companies, testing genetically modified crops in the open. The government must be aware that this approach releases into nature the characteristic of resistance to herbicides of certain GMOs, which could find their way into natural species.
This is therefore not rare, and we learned this fact in a report by Radio-Canada on the weekend in which huge fields in Africa had become sterile because of genetically modified seed. Given that the development strategy of many African nations relies heavily on the export of raw materials, particularly agricultural ones, it is clear that the issue of genetically modified organisms is of great concern.
All this is to say that urgent action is required and that the federal government should make labelling of genetically modified foods compulsory. With all these problems, it is easy to understand the public's fears. People want to know what they are eating. We know that at the present time between 30% and 50% of canola plants in Canada are GMOs.
I am not trying to upset members of the public by telling them to stop eating products containing canola or to stop eating altogether. That is not my purpose today. Given the risks associated with GMOs, I think the government has a moral obligation insofar as it is required to ensure public safety. How can the government allow the public to go on being afraid that what they are eating is a time bomb.
As with the issue of pesticides, caution must prevail and I urge the member for Davenport to wake up and get this across to his Liberal colleagues. The member for Davenport, who tells all and sundry that protection of the environment is his priority, must support the motion by the member for Louis-Hébert. When we vote, I want him to know that I will be watching him.
Consumers, people just like us, all those listening today, must know exactly what they are eating. That is why all parliamentarians in the House should support the motion by the member for Louis-Hébert and get it passed today so that we can resume consideration of it after the election.
Petitions October 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my second petition bears the signatures of 460 people calling upon parliament to take all necessary steps to recommend, as soon as possible, concrete means for dealing with the exorbitant increase in petroleum products and to develop affordable alternative energies.
Petitions October 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two petitions in the House.
The first is from a number of constituents in the city of Laterrière in my riding who call upon parliament to take all necessary steps to ensure that the public and its representatives are consulted on the principle of importing MOX plutonium.
Employment Insurance Act October 5th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.
In a few days, we will have the march of women. Women have a lot of demands with regard to poverty. The majority of self-employed and part time workers are women. These jobs pay less for women.
We would have thought that, on the eve of the march of women, the government would have been more open to the demands of women in Bill C-44. Unfortunately, it chose to turn a deaf ear. The Prime Minister also refused to meet with them.
Can the member from the Progressive Conservative Party tell us what the government should have done in this bill to counter rising poverty for women in modern society?
Employment Insurance Act October 5th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
The government is taking money out of the EI fund. This money belongs to the workers and the employers. Does my colleague not find it outrageous that the government is using money that belongs to the workers?
The Prime Minister says that we must be compassionate and that this is the difference between his government and the Alliance. Does my colleague not think that the government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth? There is a hidden tax in the EI fund, which does nothing to help workers.
Only about 40% of all workers currently have access to EI. I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about the government helping itself to the workers' money.
Employment Insurance Act October 5th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, like my New Democratic colleague, I have a hard time supporting Bill C-44.
In my region, hundreds of thousands of workers have taken to the streets in recent weeks to oppose this bill, which does not go far enough as far as seasonal workers are concerned.
They also oppose the fact that Bill C-44 offers nothing to older workers. In the riding of Jonquière, in a few weeks, 250 older workers will lose their job. They have been unable to put enough into the pension plan to enjoy an honourable retirement. They hoped that the government would include passive measures in Bill C-44 to help older workers.
I do not know whether my colleague in the New Democratic Party has this problem in his riding, but I think that everywhere in Canada at the moment, beyond what the government is saying about the employment insurance fund, it could have established passive measures enabling workers who have contributed for years, who have worked hard to earn decent salaries, to have a decent retirement so they could step aside to make room for younger people to take their place.
I would like to hear my colleague from the New Democratic Party speak on this problem, which the government is ignoring.
Employment Insurance Act October 5th, 2000
To tightening our belts.
Employment Insurance Act October 5th, 2000
Is there a question?