Anne-Marie Day

[Employment Insurance, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it may not be the government's intention to create problems for the regions, but that is what is happening, and we are starting to see major consequences.

It is fair to say that this reform was not created in the interest of unemployed workers or the regions, and the proof is that people are upset about it.

The Conservatives have failed to carry out their duty and should listen to what Canadians have to say. This reform is not working. It is a blow to our economy and our job seekers.

Last Friday, a number of people came to my riding office because their employment insurance benefits were unfairly and arbitrarily cut off. We had to take steps to set things right. This reform is an outright attack on Canadians.

[Employment Insurance, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the municipalities of Quebec are united in their opposition to the government's employment insurance reform.

The UMQ sees the changes as, quite simply, an attack on regional economies that harms both workers and employers. Instead of tackling the problem of unemployment and recognizing the diversity of the Canadian economy, the Conservatives would rather attack unemployed workers and small businesses.

Here I am, once again, talking about something that is making a lot of people in the country unhappy, and that is employment insurance reform.

Over the past few months and weeks, the major unions in Quebec, groups that advocate on behalf of workers and citizens, and municipal and rural organizations have come together to protest the changes that have been made to employment insurance. This is a testament to broad consensus in Quebec against this reform, a consensus that is also found outside the province.

On February 15, the executive committee of the Union des municipalités du Québec, the UMQ, adopted a resolution calling on the federal government to suspend EI reforms until economic impact studies have been completed. We know full well, such studies were not conducted before the reform was implemented.

In short, we might as well say that the government is putting policies in place without having any idea about where it is going or about the potential consequences on the daily lives of Canadians.

All these Canadian organizations, which condemn the reform and now form a true coalition, are already trying to reason with the federal government so that it will suspend the implementation of this reform's ridiculous and arbitrary measures.

The government must immediately conduct impact studies on the changes it wants to bring about, it must release the results of those studies, and it must hold public consultations on the subject. These measures target workers and the most vulnerable sectors, and will most certainly have a negative impact on future generations.

According to Éric Forest, president of the UMQ and mayor of Rimouski, a beautiful region in the Gaspé Peninsula, this reform will affect the social and economic fabric of the regions. Seasonal workers and their families will have to move away from the regions to work. These regions will therefore lose skilled workers, and entire families will have to leave. Years of effort to boost the regions' vitality through policies and programs will be wasted.

The UMQ also pointed out that seasonal employment is part of the economic reality of many regions and contributes to the development of a number of sectors that are essential to the economy of Quebec, including agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism and even film.

By impoverishing and emptying the regions of their skilled workers, employment insurance reform will lead to labour shortages for many businesses, which will have a devastating impact on all regions of Quebec.

The regions feel that these changes are a direct attack—pure and simple—on regional economies. It is bad for workers and employees. In what way is this reform positive? It is bad for the unemployed and their families. The government should address job creation issues and recognize the diversity of our country's economy instead of going after the unemployed and small businesses.

I will repeat my question. Why is the minister not listening to Canadians? Why is it not cancelling the devastating employment insurance reform?

[Petitions, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am presenting a petition calling for the repeal of all of the definitions associated with employment insurance.

[Employment Insurance, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as if it were not enough that the Conservatives are making the lives of unemployed workers very difficult, now they have started a witch hunt against public servants who criticize government policies.

Instead of trying to get their critics out of the way, they should listen to the message and change their bad policies. Why are they still treating Canadians like criminals when they themselves are the ones who contravened the Canada Elections Act?

[Employment Insurance, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder who this will benefit. It certainly will not benefit unemployed workers, who used to have the right to be heard. With the new social security tribunal, they can make their case in writing. If the tribunal decides to uphold the decision, it can do so without providing any new information to the person making the appeal. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour talked about impartiality. Let me talk about partiality. She mentioned 70 members. How many of these $120,000-a-year members will be appointed by this government?

Furthermore, we know very well that there are proposed cuts in this area, quotas of $485,000. The unemployed workers will suffer the consequences.

I will repeat my question for the parliamentary secretary. Why is this government so bent on punishing unemployed workers, treating them like criminals and putting their fate in the hands of failed Conservative candidates?

[Employment Insurance, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in early December last year, I was trying to get the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to understand that the changes made to employment insurance and the appeal mechanisms she wants to introduce beginning this April violate the rights of unemployed workers. I was not satisfied with the answer I received, so I would like to revisit the issue here this evening.

The structure of the new the social security tribunal, commonly known as the SST, is unacceptable. The Conservatives have systematically reduced access to programs, and they are now doing the same thing with appeal mechanisms. Furthermore, instead of creating a more efficient system, they are only adding to processing times.

I am here to repeat my question: why discourage unemployed workers from appealing, if not to deter them from applying for the benefits to which they are entitled, or to force them to move and accept a lower wage?

There are many negative aspects to the changes made to the appeal mechanism. At present, when someone's EI claim is denied, they can appeal the decision directly before a tribunal—known as the board of referees—that is made up of three people. It normally consists of a chair and two assessors.

Beginning in April, with the elimination of the board of referees and the tripartite system, hearings are not guaranteed and a single member of the new social security tribunal will make the decision.

We also now know that the Conservatives save well-paying jobs for their cronies or even former candidates who were defeated. In Quebec, of all the appointments made so far, none of the new members of the social security tribunal is a former labour representative.

The appeal system has also been consolidated and centralized, reducing the number of members from 700 to 850 part-time and 39 full-time members to review some 27,000 cases annually across the country. How can there not be new wait times? The numbers speak for themselves, and it is absolutely disgusting.

Also, in the new first-level appeal system, claimants will have the right to appeal within 30 days of the decision, in writing please. They may also face a summary rejection on a paper review or at a hearing in x number of days. It may also be possible to extend the appeal period for special reasons, but within a maximum of one year. A review of the decision will be possible in the event of new information but, once again, within a maximum of one year.

At the second level, the system will go from 32 judges hearing about 2,300 cases a year, to 13 judges for all of Canada. It will be possible to appeal with permission only within 30 days. We believe that this new system will abandon the unemployed and cut them off from the employment insurance system. They will have less access to it, and our families will suffer more and more.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about nuclear terrorism, which is not a trifling matter. The member for Drummond raised a point earlier that got a reaction from the member opposite.

It really is a question of negligence because the bill originated in the Senate. The government is negligent for not introducing the bill and for not implementing serious measures. If we were talking about the transportation of gold, I believe that much more effective measures would be implemented to prevent the gold from being stolen. There is also negligence because we are not yet members of these international organizations that are leading the way.

Who is manufacturing nuclear weapons? It is not ordinary citizens sitting around their kitchen tables. We should go straight to the source to find out who is transporting nuclear materials and who is manufacturing them. It would be much easier to protect national security that way.

Does the member not believe that we should go straight to the source to prevent the theft and illegal sale of nuclear materials?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know this member, who gave an excellent speech, very well. She is a doctor and she is from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I would like to focus on nuclear waste, and on medical waste in particular. We know that isotopes are used to treat various diseases and in various equipment, including scanners.

I wonder if she could confirm the importance of signing this treaty quickly, to ensure that people will be completely protected. We need to propose measures regarding nuclear waste, and medical waste in particular.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, according to Sabine Nolke, between 1993 and 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency identified close to 2,000 incidents related to the use, transportation and unauthorized possession of nuclear and radioactive material.

Does the member not think that we need to move forward on this and that it is more important that Canada ratify this treaty, since it has been dragging its feet on this file?

[Petitions, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition to oppose some provisions of the budget that are against employment insurance. I am referring to the definition of suitable employment and reasonable efforts, and the creation of a social security tribunal. We believe that these measures will be detrimental to regional development and Canada's economy.