Diane Bourgeois

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not grumpy; I am extremely angry about this bill.

The hon. member is hearing complaints from artists and citizens in his riding. He wants to offer benefits to self-employed workers because he seems to have a social conscience and to have social justice in mind.

How can he decide between Paul and Peter? How can he explain that?

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of granting benefits to self-employed workers. However, it needs to be done fairly, and not by making Quebec pay for the other provinces.

If my hon. colleague has a social conscience regarding artists and other citizens in his riding, will he have a social conscience when it comes to Quebec and will he listen to what Bloc Québécois members are saying, because this could involve an injustice? That is what I would like to ask the member.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to discuss Bill C-56, to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

The Bloc Québécois simply cannot support this bill because, once again, Quebeckers will be paying for the rest of Canada.

We are used to paying for the rest of Canada. We have always paid. We have paid for Alberta's tar sands development because the federal government, with our taxes, has injected money into this sector. We have also paid for various Canadian structures. Now we will be paying once again to improve the employment insurance fund, which soon will be in the red.

The Bloc Québécois really cannot support this bill because it will penalize Quebec's self-employed workers. My colleagues in this House really have to think about that. Once again, the self-employed workers of Quebec will pay for measures that they can already access practically free of charge and will pay for those workers who do not have access to them. That is insulting.

This bill amends the Employment Insurance Act to establish a scheme that will pay special benefits to self-employed persons. The bill will amend certain sections on special benefits. We do not agree with this.

These special benefits are maternity benefits for a maximum of 15 weeks. As for parental or adoptive benefits, Quebec already offers these two types of benefits. We want to be clear about this: in Quebec we already pay for these benefits. Therefore, we do not need the benefits that will be included under employment insurance. Sickness and compassionate care benefits are acceptable.

The bill will give the self-employed voluntary access to special employment insurance benefits. Their premiums will be based on their tax returns. They will need to have earned a minimum of $6,000 over the preceding calendar year to be entitled to benefits equal to 55% of their income. They will have to opt into the program one year prior to claiming benefits. For example, they will have to sign up in 2009 to receive benefits in 2010, and contribute for one year before having access to these benefits.

We have been told that this measure could be in place in 2010 with benefits based on the previous year's income, which would allow self-employed workers to sign up now.

However, once self-employed workers receive special benefits they must continue to pay premiums and cannot opt out. Of course, they will not be paying regular employee premiums.

Self-employed workers in Canada will pay $1.73 per $100 in insurable earnings to have access to the four measures. Self-employed workers in Quebec will pay $1.36 per $100 in insurable earnings to have access to two measures, which are the least expensive ones for the government.

It is as though I had four candies: one for $1, one for $2, one for 50¢ and another for 50¢. I make a deal and sell them for $2. But I keep the first two candies in my pocket. So you end up paying $2 for two candies worth 50¢. It is exactly the same thing.

What is shocking and insulting is that the government did not take into account that Quebec is proactive and already has measures to protect our self-employed workers. If they want to be fair and equitable, they should take that into account.

I hear my colleagues asking questions in the House and saying that this is a historic bill we could amend. But there is nothing historic about this bill, since Quebec has always paid for the rest of Canada.

My colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tried to amend the bill, but no amendments ever passed. An actuary came to explain to the committee how it worked in Quebec, but they were not interested in listening. That is insulting and shocking.

Then, they try to say that the Bloc Québécois is against the bill simply because it is always against everything. Come on. My colleagues need to open their eyes. We have to fix this bill and come back to it, because it is unfair to Quebeckers.

Quebec is unique because the CSST provides some protection for our self-employed workers. It does not make sense that Quebec should always be forced to foot the bill for services provided and measures implemented elsewhere. Self-employed Quebec workers need to know that they are being taken for a ride. Let me be the one to say that this is a dirty trick. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will unmask this bill. Why should we have to pay more than anyone else for our penny candy?

In committee, the Bloc Québécois was not very keen on this bill. When the federal government offers what it calls social measures to the rest of Canada, there is always a catch when it comes to Quebec. This is further proof of that. The Bloc Québécois tried to amend the bill, but did not succeed.

Moreover, Liberal and NDP members from Quebec are going to vote for this bill. When will it end? They are going to steal the shirts right off of Quebeckers' backs. That is why this bill is so bad for Quebec. I am quite sure that Quebeckers will not forget this.

This is not unlike what happened with the gun registry. Once again, Quebeckers are falling through the cracks. So many of these bills seem to suggest that the rest of Canada expects Quebec to just suck it up and do as it is told.

I do not want Quebec to be a region. My region—my country—is Quebec, and Quebec is proactive when it comes to implementing social measures well before all of the other provinces.

I have no problem with anyone wanting to copy Quebec's social measures, but it is not right to make Quebec pay the price for the government's failure to come up with its own good ideas.They should have brought in measures to protect self-employed workers a long time ago, like Quebec did. I do not want to pay for the rest of Canada.

I have nothing against them bringing in social measures elsewhere, but I do not want them to tell Quebeckers to foot the bill when the rest of Canada never pays for measures in Quebec. On the contrary, we fight for those measures.

[Linda Cyr Demers, November 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to the remarkable volunteer work done by Linda Cyr Demers in her community of Terrebonne.

Ms. Cyr Demers has dedicated the better part of her life to volunteer work, including 20 years with the Amicale des vétérans, the veterans' association in Terrebonne. Furthermore, she was the first woman to chair that association, a position she held for 14 years thanks to her hard work, dedication and enthusiasm. In connection with her commitment there, she was also named an honorary member of the Royal 22nd Regiment.

She was awarded the Quebec National Assembly medal for her accomplishments, a distinction given to exceptional people for their extraordinary achievements or commitment, which is certainly true of Ms. Cyr Demers. It is now time for Ms. Cyr Demers to spend more time with her loved ones, who are the lucky ones, for they can now enjoy her unparalleled altruism even more.

Ms. Cyr Demers, I join with my constituents in extending our sincere thanks to you.

[Business of the House, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 scheduled for tonight be deemed to have taken place and the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, be concurred in.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague. He gave an excellent speech that was also very interesting. He broached the topic that I presented this afternoon from another angle, one that was not necessarily taken at committee. I find that rather strange. It is a more down to earth angle, the angle of consequences. I would like to congratulate him and say that I feel very privileged to work in committee with someone who has so much experience and who brings these kinds of ideas to the table.

Given that the committee members had asked for studies, a business case, before going any further in terms of a megaproject or megacontracts, I would like to ask him if he is at all concerned about the solicitation of interest and qualification that appeared this summer? What does he think of that? What does he think of the fact that even the terminology has changed, when the minister had just told us that we would never see professional services disappear from these huge contracts, as well as the fact that the term “professional services” has been changed to “managed services”, which means one might presume that they are simply avoiding the question? How does the member feel about all of that?

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am realizing today that we did not give this topic enough attention in committee. The committee must continue its examination. I asked that we bring in industry representatives to give us more information.

Is my colleague worried about that famous draft that was issued this summer by Public Works and Government Services Canada? I am talking about the solicitation of interest that Public Works issued this summer, in which the terms were changed, perhaps to confuse the members sitting around the committee table. Now, we talk about managed services instead of professional services.

Nevertheless, a solicitation of interest was issued even though the committee had asked the department to wait before going ahead with its plan to bundle contracts, and even though small and medium enterprises had said they were concerned about the way government contracts would be awarded from now on, especially in the information technology field.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that the speech by my colleague opposite is exactly the response given by the government to the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

Second, he talked about the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises and said that people know about this office and are pleased with it. I stated the mandate of the OSME, which is to promote and protect SMEs. The government is saying that, since it was established, the OSME has helped more than 53,000 individuals and suppliers by means of—hang on to your hats—information seminars, trade fairs and meetings. That is not at all its mandate.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite something. If he is so surprised that I am bringing up this matter today it is because something is happening. That is obvious. When the Minister of Public Works and Government Services testified before the committee, he stated that professional services would never disappear from Public Works. How is it that the terminology and the definition have changed? Now, they speak of managed services. How is it that, this summer, Public works issued a solicitation of interest when the committee had asked it to not move forward?

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, what the member just said is completely false. That is the government's response. We were told that the total value of contracts awarded to SMEs increased from 34% to 49%, when contracts to major foreign multinationals were excluded. We worked four hours on these figures. Clearly the member is wrong.

The number of SMEs that do business with the government dropped by 1,763 and the number of SME transactions by 3,203. Since 2005-06, the total value of contracts completed by SMEs also declined.

I am not in the habit of speaking without knowing my facts—

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I did not get to talk about that in my speech because I ran out of time.

We have learned that the government, under the former minister who is no longer in the House now, established the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises. The purpose of this office is to promote SMEs with respect to federal government procurement. Its mandate is as follows:

OSME improves SMEs access to government contract opportunities by reducing procurement barriers, simplifying the contracting process, providing advice to SMEs wishing to do business with the government, collaborating to improve procurement policies and best practices and working with SMEs to ensure their concerns are brought forward and heard.

This office was established in 2005. When SMEs appeared as witnesses before the committee, members of the committee were surprised to hear that they were unaware of the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises.

This office has a $7 million budget and employs 25 people in six regions in the country. We might have expected that OSME, an agency that takes into account the interests of small and medium enterprises, would question Public Works and Government Services Canada on the megaprojects it is moving ahead with, since they are going to affect small and medium enterprises. That was not the case.

In the United States there is an office where small and medium enterprises can have access to almost every government contract. A percentage was set and it is not be lowered. If it was decided that 50% of small and medium enterprises in the U.S. should get government contracts, then they make sure that happens. That is not the case here.

I am not saying we have to follow the U.S. model, but the mechanisms we have in place do not seem to be working. If that is the case, then we have to protect our SMEs another way.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague I would say that the committee members do not necessarily want more going out to small and medium-sized businesses. What the committee wants is for the interests of small and medium-sized businesses to be taken into account when megacontracts are being awarded.

Before a megacontract is awarded, perhaps government officials could look at this issue and consider how many small and medium-sized businesses receive government contracts and rely on them for their survival. How many small and medium-sized businesses will go under if megacontracts are awarded? Will that be viable? This is what we are wondering.

Regarding contracts under $25,000, I must admit we did not examine this aspect, since that was not our role. Such contracts can indeed be awarded by the Department of Public Works. I believe the committee put its trust in the fact that there are other parties that can assess the value of the contracts awarded.

What is important about this is knowing, when an IT contract is awarded to Bell Canada or Telus, for example, how many employees of small and medium-sized businesses will lose their jobs? That is what is important.