House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 43% of the vote.
Business of Supply December 10th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I was working in the aluminum sector in 2007 when Rio Tinto bought Alcan, a true gem. There were six dams, a deep water port, a railway and the plants, not to mention our natural resources.
If we could do it over again today, does my colleague believe that we could pass legislation to ensure that these assets worth $38 billion would belong to Canadians and not to foreign companies and that decisions would not be made outside our borders, considering Canada's needs?
Veterans' Week November 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, this Veterans Week, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Jean-Paul Dufour, service number E100677, a resident of the Kénogami district of the City of Saguenay. Mr. Dufour is a World War II veteran and one of the few members of the Fusiliers Mont-Royal regiment to have survived the Normandy landing.
This infantry soldier and prisoner of war deserves our recognition, as do all soldiers who fought to liberate France.
For the sacrifices you made, your courage and bravery, Mr. Dufour, I thank you on behalf of myself, my colleagues, and all Canadians who, to this day, enjoy the freedoms and the democracy that you defended.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to you, all veterans and the Canadian Forces.
Canada Post October 19th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continuing to use strong-arm tactics at Canada Post. Once again, rural areas are losing out. If hours of operation are not reduced, the post office is closed, as is the case with the Jonquière post office on Saint-François Boulevard.
The minister does not seem to understand that people depend on Canada Post services, especially in rural areas.
Why do the Conservatives continue to attack rural post offices?
Employment Insurance October 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, 130 Rio Tinto Alcan workers in Alma have endured a long fight, a long lockout, without a penny since July 10, 2012. The vague employment insurance rules that apply to labour disputes mean that these workers are not considered unemployed.
Will the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development intervene in this situation immediately to resolve the problem faced by these workers, who can no longer afford their rent, food or bills and who are filing claims for social assistance?
Petitions October 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of my constituents in Jonquière—Alma regarding the organization Development and Peace.
Parliament has terminated certain projects recently. The petitioners are calling on the government to restore funding in order to help people in communities around the world.
Employment Insurance September 27th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the NDP supports the employment insurance program, but not the Conservatives' bad management. If the minister had taken the time to visit Jonquière—Alma before planning these changes, she would have witnessed the direct consequences of her decisions. Had she met with seasonal workers who are supposed to make ends meet on just 10 hours of minimum wage work a week in the winter, she would have realized that taking $40 or $50 away from them means that they cannot provide the essentials for their families.
The minister is taking food from the mouths of these people, so why does she always refuse to meet them personally?
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 18th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I will give a short answer.
I would like to mention that there are large multinationals in my riding, but it is the small and medium-sized businesses that create employment. When a big multinational catches a cold, the SMEs cough. We want to create something, keep our people working and have good, well-paid jobs so that people can live decently. We are not asking for MPs' wages. We are asking for decent wages that people can live on.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 18th, 2012
Madam Speaker, that is a concern I have seen among employers. Often, when things start up again, when the organization resumes its activities and the tourists come back, people come to the ticket office and board the boats to go fishing. It is almost always the same people who come back to work for the same employer. The employers fear that they are going to lose some employees with expertise who might go work elsewhere. If the difference in pay is $1 or $2 an hour and they are given a regular schedule instead of having to work seasonally, there is no problem. The thing that concerns the employers is that their employees are not going to come back when the fishing or tourism season opens.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 18th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
My concern is that when we think of employment insurance, it is supposed to be a safety net. Now the government is going to force people to accept 70% of the wages they were previously earning. If people are truly unfortunate and are let go after three months, they are gong to be offered 70% less in wages. Where will this ultimately lead? Are we headed for cheap labour? That is our concern. That is what many workers are worried about. People do not make a decision to be seasonal workers. People who live on the North Shore live off the fishery. There is no fishing in the winter. Everyone could transfer to La Romaine, I guess. This makes no sense. It is completely absurd.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 18th, 2012
Madam Speaker, what are we about to sacrifice in the name of this so-called economic prosperity?
It is important to point out that this omnibus bill is more than a budget implementation bill. The Conservatives are trying to impose measures that were never previously announced, without allowing Canadians and their MPs an opportunity to study them carefully.
First of all, let me just say that, after one year, we are beginning to see the Conservatives' true colours. Bill C-38 clearly demonstrates the arrogance and irresponsibility of this government, which seems to think anything goes.
The Conservatives pass themselves off as experts at good governance, but in fact, they are going to make workers, families and seniors pay the price.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for Canadians to believe the Conservatives when they talk about economic prosperity, because so far, only the Conservatives' friends and cronies seem to be benefiting from their measures.
When the Parliamentary Budget Officer worries about the lack of transparency and the culture of secrecy, I worry about the interests of ordinary Canadians. This omnibus bill needs to be studied carefully and presented to Canadians for what it is: a partisan bill that defies common sense.
I was always under the impression that the government should build and improve society for the common good and for the general public, but with Bill C-38, the exact opposite is happening. The Conservatives are destroying, degrading and vandalizing what Canadian parliamentarians have spent years building. The rights of workers, environmental protection and Canadians' health are simply not enough for them.
Why is one third of Bill C-38 devoted to environmental deregulation?
Is it so hard to add ecology to a Conservative budget? It is simply irresponsible and undemocratic.
Is this really what Canadians voted for? I do not think so.
Unfortunately, to the Conservatives, a majority mandate means they can do whatever they want, even if it is illogical or harmful. This is a very clear attempt to quickly pass new legislation without having a parliamentary debate.
This budget will cause some very tangible harm. For example, as far as old age security is concerned, increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 is unacceptable and does not make any sense. Just because life expectancy is increasing significantly does not mean that working conditions will get easier. Even though a number of experts, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, have confirmed that the old age security program is viable, the Conservatives insist on balancing their budget at the expense of our seniors. It is shameful.
Bill C-38 also changes the Employment Equity Act so that it no longer applies to federal contracts. That is a direct attack on women, aboriginal people and visible minorities. In fact, it was recommended 10 years ago that the employment equity provisions for the federal contractors program be strengthened. This government is weakening those provisions and, as usual, it makes no sense.
In the Conservatives' world, logic no longer applies. They are in an ideological world, where they are becoming increasingly out of touch with Canadians.
When he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on April 26, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Conservatives' austerity budget would lead to the loss of 43,000 jobs and slow down Canada's economic recovery. He confirmed that the combination of this budget and the previous cuts would result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's figures show that this budget will cause the Canadian economy to backslide.
It is important to speak out against the changes made to unemployment insurance. We must remember that the federal government has not contributed a single penny to the fund since 1990.
Its reforms are based on prejudice against the unemployed, and those mainly affected, the workers, were not consulted even though employees and employers fund the program.
One of the most fundamental changes will hit workers with precarious employment very hard. The government is again targeting “frequent” claimants, people who have made three claims and collected more than 60 weeks of benefits in the past five years. It will require these people to accept any job starting in the seventh week of unemployment, with a salary equal to 70% of the salary of their previous job. This measure targets seasonal workers who rely on EI year after year.
The Conservatives are also planning to make other changes that will penalize claimants in remote areas in particular, while making legal procedures for challenging an unfavourable decision more cumbersome. Unions believe that abolishing boards of referees, umpires and appeal mechanisms restricts access to justice.
The changes proposed by the Conservatives threaten regional economies, especially where there is a lot of seasonal work and people make their living from the fishery, forestry, tourism and agriculture.
Moreover, there is no question that these changes will put downward pressure on salaries. What a nice way to bring prosperity to our economy and our country!
The Conservatives' approach is counterproductive. Instead of focusing on creating wealth by providing better support for quality jobs, including in the manufacturing sector, the Conservatives are going after the unemployed and society as a whole by forcing them to accept jobs where their skills will not be put to contribution.
Bill C-38 even repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which was created in the 1930s to set minimum standards for wages and hours of labour for construction workers engaged in projects funded by the federal government. In practice, removing these minimum standards will allow employers to undercut wage rates set by unions. This shows the scope of the legislation.
Last fall, we brought forward a motion calling on the government to take immediate action to create economic growth and jobs. The Conservatives supported our motion, but the budget does just the opposite. It cuts essential services and it weakens environmental regulations.
As regards old age security, the government has once again surpassed itself, although not in the positive sense of the word. The Conservatives never mentioned that they were going to cut old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, and certainly not during the election campaign. We have known for a long time that costs would increase. Therefore, the Conservatives cannot claim that this was not expected during the 2011 election campaign.
In 2010, the Standing Committee on Finance examined the Canadian retirement security system. None of the recommendations—not even those of the Conservatives—suggested that old age security and the guaranteed income supplement were not sustainable, or that the age of eligibility should be increased.
During the 2011 election campaign, the Conservatives even said they would not reduce transfer payments to individuals or provinces for basic needs such as health, education and pensions. This is some lack of respect for democracy! Not only did the Conservatives hide their agenda, they also misled Canadians by saying repeatedly that they would not cut pensions.
Then they came along with irresponsible and ideological choices that do not reflect the values of most Canadians: major cuts to environmental protection, food safety, old age security and employment insurance, among other things.
The Conservatives have no problem with their ministers spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to take limousine and helicopter rides, but they have no scruples about cutting measures that keep Canadians safe and protect our most vulnerable citizens.
There is so much secrecy in Bill C-38 that it is unacceptable for it to be passed as is in the House. The government should come clean and redo its homework to protect the best interests of Canadians.
I would like to come back to old age pensions. I used to work in a factory where we were familiar with occupational illnesses. It is true that great strides have been made in factories, but the work is still extremely hard. People back home are known for suffering from bladder cancer, lung cancer, industrial deafness and all kinds of things. So how can the government force factory or mine workers to return to work at the age of 60, 62 or 63? What will the Conservatives do with these people?
I would like to talk more about seasonal workers. Here is a solution for the Conservatives. In Tadoussac, when the whale-watching season is over and tourism is done, they could shut down the town and transfer workers to La Romaine to work on the hydro dams. That makes no sense. These are seasonal workers. They make their living off of fishing, tourism and whale-watching. There is no work for them in the winter. The Conservative government did not take that into account.
The employment insurance situation is even worse. The government is creating three classes of unemployed workers, three kinds of people to justify that approach. There will be short-term recipients who collect employment insurance occasionally; others, less fortunate, who find themselves out of a job more often; and yet others who collect employment insurance regularly and will have no choice but to accept lower-paying jobs. Moreover, these people will not be working in their chosen field. It will not be fulfilling for them.
People can accuse the NDP of anything they want, of wrecking one thing or standing up for another, but there are some things we do not understand. Yes, the Conservatives have to make changes; yes, there will have to be cuts. Cuts must be made, but the Conservative government is not cutting in the right places. Cutting health care and seniors' benefits and forcing people to take lower-paying jobs will not contribute to the nation's progress.
Anyway, I have been here for a year now. I have always believed that we should be working for the good of communities, workers and Canadians. But that is not the sense I get here. I get the sense that the government holds workers in contempt. As I have said here in the House, workers pay taxes, and they are the reason that we are here to participate in these debates and get to the bottom of things.