France Bonsant

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, of course, there is still time to help these people.

People who lose their jobs are not lazy or afraid of work; they are victims of their jobs in the textile sector. These people have worked all their lives, they have worked 40 years and it is unacceptable to ask them to lose everything they worked for all their lives, be it their assets or their house. They only need temporary relief until they find a second or third job, but we absolutely must help them. They are very important socially and from an environmental and economic stand point. If we do not help them, they could slip into utter poverty and that is unacceptable for any human being in Quebec or in Canada.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I almost sensed a bit of emotion in that question, but perhaps the translator got it wrong.

They want to organize a Canada-wide activity in some of the oil-producing areas. There is no oil in my riding. However there are people losing their jobs because the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government were inactive vis-à-vis protectionism. There was talk about bicycles, about furniture, about agriculture, about everything.

I do not think it is a good idea to send families in motorhomes to other provinces so they can survive the shortage. I think it would be better to develop their village, have them stay there and basically develop what is there. People choose to settle in a location and it is not by ignoring them and sending them elsewhere that we are going to solve the lack of training problem.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.

First, I would like to acknowledge the worthwhile initiative of my party, the Bloc Québécois, in renewing the debate about the program for assistance to older workers who are victims of massive layoffs.

It was imperative that the Bloc Québécois ask for this debate because the Conservative government seems to want to put us to sleep with its nice promises and very limited action.

In the throne speech and even the last budget, the Conservative government announced that it would deal with this issue. However, it merely ordered a feasibility study of a possible program to support older workers about which we have yet to hear a thing.

And yet, all the requisite studies have been carried out, not once but twice. They are available. All the government has to do is read them and set up the program.

I would even say to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to open her ears. She would hear the repeated cries for help from groups, unions and laid-off workers.

Unfortunately, as we see every day, the Conservative government has no interest in social groups or the unemployed.

Conservatives believe that people who are unemployed are lazy or do not want to work. Thus, they believe that it is no use helping those who lose their jobs because, for the Conservatives, the dollar sign is more important than the dignity of an employer and an employee, especially given the huge surpluses they have posted year after year.

However, workers who are victims of mass layoffs, just like others who are unemployed, are entitled to their dignity. They also have the right to keep the fruits of their life-long labour and to preserve their hard-earned assets.

The Bloc Québécois feels it is unacceptable for the Conservative government to delay establishing an income support program for older workers given their unique situation. We are asking that appropriate action be taken to meet their specific needs.

The Bloc Québécois reiterates that such a program should be available to all older workers who are victims of massive layoffs and who cannot return to the workforce, without differentiation or discrimination

According to rumours, the Conservatives will set up a program, but it will be a pale shadow of POWA. They would like to implement the program only in certain regions and for specific sectors.

I do not see which objective criteria or which principles one could use to justify such discrimination. In my beautiful Eastern Townships of Quebec, 10,000 industrial jobs were lost in the last three years.

By prioritizing some sectors over others, the government would be saying to textile workers in Sherbrooke, Magog or Coaticook that their job was worth more to the Conservatives than the jobs at TPI Plastiques in Coaticook, the jobs in the furniture industry at Shermag in Scotstown or the jobs in the food industry at Olymel in Magog. That does not cut it.

We can't create artificial categories based on subjective factors, when workers in the furniture or the food industry have the same needs as those in the textile or the forest industry.

People really need an income support program for older workers. Older workers affected by massive layoffs urgently need such a program, because more and more plants are closing.

I have been to many of these plants since I was elected. Some have shut down, some are still open and make a profit, while others are in dire straits. It is for the workers in these plants that we must act now.

When I meet older workers in vulnerable industries, I can feel their uneasiness. They are worried, because workers age 55 to 65 are the main victims of massive layoffs.

Older workers often have little education. Many started working when they were 14 or 15 years old to help provide for the family at a time where life was much harder than it is today.

Some people even have serious difficulties with reading and writing. In the era of the Internet, the BlackBerry and the iPod, you will understand that this does not make things easy. My mother tore her hair out if she had to program a VCR. They are not all in the best situation for learning, either. It is not always realistic to ask them just to go back to the classroom.

Older workers also often have long experience in the company that is closing down. The possibility of finding a job after 25, 30, 35 or even 40 years at the same plant is slim, particularly when the job they worked at was very specialized and simply no longer exists in a labour market that is in a perpetual state of flux. Older workers are also victims of their age when it comes time for hiring.

Relocating is not always a solution. Relocating people means that money becomes short in the community; Rona closes down, the grocery store closes and the schools close. People start to wonder why their village is becoming a ghost town.

Employer-paid group insurance policies are often a barrier to hiring older workers, because costs are higher than for a young worker. I can even offer the example of my neighbour, who applied for a job. He was not selected, not because he was 57 years old, but because he was overqualified. This is another point.

What is the current situation for older workers? What signal are we sending them? We are telling them that we will offer them no assistance, no program that meets their needs. That is most unfortunate, and it is why the Bloc Québécois is urging the government to act. At this time, an older worker who has been unable to find a new job during his employment insurance benefit period is compelled to apply for social assistance. To quality for that, the worker must run through all his assets and is forced to draw on savings. He will get limited assistance if the value of his home or car or material possessions is over a certain figure, as if owning a home at the age of 60 were some sort of crime. You will all acknowledge, as I do, that this is ridiculous.

Older workers are asking for no more than a little assistance that is appropriate for their situation. They are asking for a program that will help them make the transition between when they stop working and when they retire.

I can still remember an older worker who had lost his job. He took 73 resumes around over a three-month period. He was called for only two interviews, and both times the answer was no. How discouraging! I remember this man; he was destroyed, economically and mentally. He felt useless and abandoned. Today, people like him are the people for whom the Bloc Québécois is fighting to reinstate POWA.

During the 38th Parliament, the Bloc Québécois had a motion unanimously passed that called on the government to implement a strategy for helping older workers who lose their employment. Despite this motion being passed unanimously, the Liberals did not do anything either. The party in power has changed, but the results are a long time coming. In spite of its nice promises and fine speeches, the Conservative government wants to ease its conscience by talking about studies—studies that were done years ago.

The government keeps putting off implementing an effective and inexpensive program that would help these men and women who have given so much, who have paid taxes for decades, who have raised their children and who are asking for so little in return.

[Petitions, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 25 people in my riding. These petitioners are asking the House to take the necessary measures to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 as soon as possible.

[Employment Insurance, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development refused to comment on extending the transitional provisions in place for protecting seasonal workers in eastern Quebec, Montmagny-L'Islet and the North Shore, which will expire on October 7, claiming that these provisions are under review. The provisions have been in place for six years.

Will the minister stop hiding behind these excuses because on October 7 seasonal workers will lose eight weeks of benefits if the provisions are not extended? October 7 is in two weeks.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to amend the Employment Insurance Act, for this legislation has been hijacked from its primary purpose. Employment insurance is no longer the insurance it was originally supposed to be: it has instead become a disguised tax by successive governments. The Bloc Québécois bill is therefore designed to amend the Employment Insurance Act and make it true insurance, insurance for people who really need it.

In my riding of Compton—Stanstead as elsewhere in Quebec, working-class groups, unions, employers, citizens, and all stakeholders want to improve access to employment insurance and improve the system.

Here is an example. The passage of this bill would remove the two-week waiting period between the loss of a job and the start of employment insurance benefits. This waiting period is unnecessary and above all unfair to employees who are not responsible for losing their job.

In December 2004, in my riding, many employees had a nasty surprise when they saw their jobs go up in smoke—literally—because the Cabico plant in Way's Mills burned down. Those employees, victims of a disaster, were forced to wait two weeks with no income, sometimes for both of a family’s providers, because that is what the waiting period required. Those workers from Coaticook, Magog, Barnston, Way's Mills, Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley and the other neighbouring villages never saw it coming, but they had to pay the price. They could not foretell that fire would take away their jobs, but they had to face this waiting period which nothing can justify.

Those Cabico employees are not the only victims of the system who wait two weeks before receiving employment insurance. For all EI claimants have to wait, and those two weeks are often too long.

Think for a moment of the young single mother who has to figure out her budget to the dollar when she has no income for two weeks. Think also of those seasonal employees who in addition to having a few months’ income during the year also have to wait two weeks without pay. Think of the workers on minimum wage who live under the poverty line and on top of that go through the waiting period after losing their job. This sort of job, which depends on the low wages it pays, is the most uncertain and the quickest to disappear when the economic situation gets tougher. These are the people for whom the Bloc Québécois is working; it is for them that we want to abolish the waiting period.

Eliminating this waiting period is not the only change proposed in the bill. To ensure an appropriate redistribution and a more suitable income for the unemployed, the Bloc Québécois wants to raise the weekly benefit rate from 55% to 60%.

In the Eastern Townships, no fewer than 10,000 industrial jobs have been lost in the last three years.

The employees of CS Brooks, now CSBS, in Magog, must fervently hope to keep their jobs during these difficult times for their venerable company because a drop of 45% in purchasing power is a very hard blow. These men and women know that the cost of their mortgage or of their groceries will not drop in the same way. That is the case for the employees of CSBS, but it is also the case for many other workers in my riding.

I want to return to those workers who are earning the minimum wage. Imagine trying to live on 55% of eight dollars an hour, Mr. Speaker. In Quebec that amounts to about $600 a month for an unemployed person. After paying the rent, there is not much left for food, for survival, for paying the hydro bill.

The weekly employment insurance benefit rate for these people should be increased by five per cent. At 60%, they would not necessarily live in luxury. At least, in the opinion of many employment experts it is a step towards finding a balance between responding to the needs of eligible unemployed workers and providing an incentive to work.

Providing an incentive to work also means giving an incentive to return to the labour market.

To do that, we must stop putting obstacles in people’s path. Bill C-269 seeks to eliminate the distinction between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force.

At present a new entrant or a re-entrant to the labour force must accumulate 910 hours of employment to have access to employment insurance. It takes a long time to accumulate 910 hours for people who have often contributed to the welfare of our society in ways other than employment.

Let me take the example of a self-employed person. I have a sister who is the owner of a business. If she sells the business, she will certainly return to the labour force but she will have to accumulate 910 hours of work before having any kind of access to employment insurance. Even if she is in her late 40s, all the years she worked before acquiring her business will count for nothing. Yet, she has been a member of the labour force for more than 35 years. It is for people like her that we must eliminate the distinction between new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force.

The problem is the same for mothers. When a woman who left her employment to raise her children returns to the workforce, she must again work 910 hours before she is eligible for employment insurance. Under current legislation, it is a bad idea for a young mother to accept seasonal or part-time work only to return home to look after her child, when she knows that, in the end, she will not be eligible for employment insurance. The $100 a month offered by the Conservative program is certainly not nearly enough for a young mother to meet all of her own and her children's needs.

The members of another age group are also adversely affected by this discriminatory legislation and that is young workers. Statistics clearly show that the majority of people returning to the workforce are young people and women, and they must accumulate 910 hours of work before they are eligible for employment insurance, although EI requirements vary between 420 and 700 hours for other workers, depending on the area.

Lastly, the Bloc Québécois is proposing Bill C-269 so that employment insurance might no longer be a hidden tax, but rather a bona fide source of insurance once again.

As we all know, the previous government dipped freely into the EI fund to accumulate a considerable surplus. The current government is continuing in the same vein. It is using money that belongs to the unemployed to invest in priorities that have nothing to do with employment, particularly weapons and defence.

The surplus in this fund has been increasing constantly since the legislation was reformed in 1996. Since then, fewer contributors are now eligible for the program if they lose their jobs. Under current legislation, just under 40% of contributors today are eligible to receive this so-called insurance if they lose their jobs.

I would invite everyone who has some heart, who thinks of unemployed individuals in remote areas, to look into their hearts and their ridings, and to vote in favour of Bill C-269, introduced by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

[Employment Insurance, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, transitory provisions in place to protect seasonal workers in eastern Quebec, Montmagny, Islet and the North Shore, will expire. These workers could lose up to eight weeks of employment insurance benefits.

Will the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development extend the transitory provisions, which prevent seasonal workers from suffering the spring gap?

[Literacy, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, literacy groups are furious. The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development is asking them to carry out the third study in three years on literacy.

The minister has stated that she is not very familiar with the previous studies and the solutions proposed. On February 21, 2006, the minister was questioned about this. Seven months later, she has not even deigned to look at these reports. Yet the solution is quite simple: fix the fiscal imbalance.

The minister must now go beyond the speech she gave on September 8 on the occasion of National Literacy Day. Literacy groups are fed up with having consultation after consultation and preparing report after report. Concrete action is needed.

Since Quebec has jurisdiction over education, the only concrete action that the minister can take is to immediately transfer the necessary amounts of money to Quebec so that the province can improve its programs.

[L'Info Saint-Élie-d'Orford, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 20th year of operation for the community newspaper, L'Info Saint-Élie-d'Orford, and I am honoured to be a partner of this monthly paper which reflects the vitality of the people of Saint-Élie-d'Orford.

This newspaper was born in 1986, out of the will of citizens who were looking for more local information.

Despite its difficult beginnings, its valiant founders rolled up their shirt sleeves, and the once-small newspaper grew into one with a circulation of nearly 3,500 copies today.

As evidenced by the variety of columns, covering the environment, cooking, history, finance, language, outdoor recreation, municipal life and many more topics, L'Info Saint-Élie-d'Orford magnificently fulfills its information and communication mandate.

I thank the organizations, the partners, and especially the volunteers who operate the paper for such a captivating and informative newspaper. Long live this commendable initiative.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to everyone talk about seniors. It is true that they are our best asset. They help out a great deal, especially with children, and are involved in literacy initiatives.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a surplus of over $4.3 billion. I would like my hon. colleague to tell us what tangible measures this government could propose to help house seniors.