House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 20% of the vote.
Employment Insurance December 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the current system is too slow because the board of referees is short-staffed. Service Canada is having the same problem, which is causing unreasonable delays in processing times.
The minister is mocking workers who are paying for a service that they simply are not receiving. This is not her money; it is workers' money.
Why not invest in human resources instead of coming up with complicated solutions that simply do not work?
Employment Insurance December 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources' numbers simply do not hold water.
Currently, only one-third of those who appeal an employment insurance decision get a hearing within the 30-day time period. The minister's solution is to reduce the number of people holding the hearings from 700 to 39 and to introduce a process that will include twice as many steps. Then she claims that this will speed things up. Does she take people for fools?
Why is the minister making the process more complex?
Employment Insurance December 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, no matter what the Conservatives respond—and this is a fact—Canada is facing an unprecedented situation in which its own government is directly targeting workers who have the misfortune of losing their job.
Whether we are talking about seasonal industries in the Maritimes, remote regions in Quebec or regions affected by problems in the manufacturing industry in Ontario, families are having a hard time making ends meet. This government is gradually dismantling the diversified economy and the entire social safety net that we have spent years building and that we are very proud of as a country.
Will the minister drop the pretense and admit that the EI reforms will hurt workers and our economy? Does she have something better to offer these workers who pay taxes, contribute to the EI fund along with employers, and need support when they are struggling because of the global economic downturn or because it is wintertime? People who pay into the employment insurance fund should be entitled to employment insurance.
Employment Insurance December 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, once again, I have no choice but to rise before the House to ask for more of an explanation regarding some issues that Canadians are deeply concerned about. Why must I raise this again?
The answer is simple. In question period, the Conservatives continue to spew the same old rhetoric, which involves trying to convince Canadians of their good intentions by using arguments that are far from accurate. Canadians are fed up with ready-made talking points. They want real answers. Can the government carry out this simple task? That is what we will find out here today.
In September, I rose in the House to ask two questions. First I asked the government why it had not bothered to consult the people who would be affected by the employment insurance reforms, in other words, workers, employers and the unemployed. After all, they are the ones who pay for the program, so it only makes sense to consult them if decisions are being made about managing their money differently, which is what should happen in any proper consultation process.
Now we know that the government never bothered to consult workers before cramming this counter-reform down their throats. Moreover, the Conservatives never deigned to meet and consult with the provinces on this issue, one that will have a significant impact on their respective budgets and their residents. Quebec even passed unanimous motions, twice in fact, to denounce this unilateral and very cowardly act against Canadian workers. I need not remind the government that it is the workers who pay their premiums in good faith and expect that insurance will be available for them when they need it.
To the first question, the government simply repeated the answer, the one it has given again and again to all legitimate questions that we have asked them about jobs and economic growth, that they have created so many new jobs and that the NDP wants to impose a carbon tax that will cost $21 billion. I wonder about the pertinence of this answer. Why do the Conservatives raise false allegations and hide behind disputable job creation numbers? The question is simple: where is the government's accountability toward the public? Is there a single member on the other side of the House who can give an appropriate and pertinent answer to a simple and totally legitimate question?
I am not talking about creating 770,000 jobs and I am not talking about the carbon tax. I am asking once again why no workers, no employers, no unemployed people, no advocacy groups, why no provinces were consulted when changes were being made to the employment insurance system.
To my second question, once again I asked for clear and simple information: why are the Conservatives punishing the people who are eligible for the working while on claim pilot project?
These people, who have already had the misfortune of losing their jobs—and we know this is not their fault—are desperately trying to stay connected to the labour market while continuing their job search. With the recalculation, they are being penalized still further, so that the vast majority of part-time workers earning a small salary are losing out.
What answer were Canadians given? That the unemployed workers who work harder will keep even more of their income. Then, the government went so far as to accuse the NDP of voting against job creation initiatives. All of Canada now knows that it is not true that those who work harder during their claim period will earn more than under the former system. We know this because the opposition stuck to the facts: calculations have shown that most workers eligible for this pilot project will lose out, so much so that the minister has had to do somewhat of an about face to allow some future unemployed workers to use the old system.
Employment Insurance December 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a $100 donation to Élaine Hémond, who encouraged women to become involved in politics.
We will always vote against the dismantling of social programs—unlike the members opposite—and against unfair budgets that target unemployed workers and deprive people of their rights. The question is not only whether the system is more complicated, but also whether it takes rights away from the unemployed. An in-person hearing is essential to ensure that the ruling is fair. However, the new tribunal will be able to reject an appeal without having to provide an explanation.
Why is this government violating the rights of unemployed workers?
Employment Insurance December 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' track record is one of dumping the environmental deficit on future generations and dismantling social programs.
The new social security tribunal will double the wait times for appeals, and there will be no guarantee that an appeal will be heard. The Conservatives have systematically reduced access to programs, and they are now doing the same thing with appeal mechanisms. Why discourage unemployed workers from appealing, if not to force them to move and accept a lower wage?
Employment Insurance November 21st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no concern for the unemployed. Service Canada is now forcing seasonal workers to prove that they are looking for work by asking potential employers to sign a declaration stating that they are not hiring. Because of the administration involved, some employers are charging fees as high as $30. When you have no job, you have no money to pay for a job search form.
How does the minister justify making unemployed Canadians pay to get access to their benefits?
Helping Families in Need Act November 19th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are enough positive things for me to support the entire bill.
This is what I want. I will give the member a specific example, and I will be brief. A woman with a seriously ill 18-month-old daughter lives in my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. Because of the illness, her daughter's rib cage must be expanded about every eight months. Time and again, the mother must take her daughter to hospital and remain there with her for seven or eight weeks while the daughter undergoes this procedure.You cannot leave an 18-month-old alone.
I would like the bill to go further for such special circumstances. However, I repeat that the NDP supports families and will support this bill.
Helping Families in Need Act November 19th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.
This bill has two parts. I believe that the part on missing or murdered children is covered by general revenues and the part on sick children is covered by the parents.
Let us not forget that employment insurance is paid for by employees and employers. It must not become a fund that the government dips into for social matters. We cannot end up having employees and employers pay for every social concern. If the government promised this would come from general revenues, then it should come from general revenues.
It would be better to raise corporate taxes to pay for certain social programs than to constantly take money that belongs to employees and employers.
Helping Families in Need Act November 19th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I think the key to success for such a bill is flexibility. This bill is a step forward. However, we cannot respond to every situation. For instance, when people have to go to court, they can be called back six months or a year later, and people cannot always make themselves available.
Similarly, when a child dies, parents need more than just three days. Three days is only enough time to meet with the church officials, if the parents are religious, and to plan the funeral. That is about it. But that is not how grief works. I am not saying that people should be allowed two years, but we need to think about giving more than just three days.