Gérard Asselin

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Minister of Labour and Housing explained the principle of Bill C-55. It seems as though they are merely paying lip service to this bill. They say that it will be passed and that it is a step forward. Obviously, any effort to improve working conditions, job security and the state of affairs after a bankruptcy is a step forward.

When such a bill is before the House, the Bloc Québécois can assure the government of its full cooperation so that all the necessary changes can be made in committee in order to make this a viable, useful and effective bill.

There is talk of this being a step forward, but it may be the smallest of steps. What is needed is a big step or even a leap forward. Already, Parliament is decades behind when it comes to working conditions in the event of a bankruptcy. We are talking about protecting wages, pension plans and students declaring bankruptcy.

Like the NDP, the Bloc Québécois has already assured the government of its full cooperation and willingness to improve Bill C-55 in committee.

I want to ask the Conservative member the following question. Does the Conservative Party believe that this bill is satisfactory? Does it intend to introduce improvements and amendments in committee in order to ensure that this is a viable and useful bill?

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to fully understand Bill C-55. I want to be sure that the workers in a company are well protected.

There are workers who have been employed by a company and have contributed to it for years. They made a choice during collective agreement negotiations to earn a bit less in wages in order to put a bit more money into their retirement fund. These people made a choice in the present but for the future. I would like to be sure that Bill C-55 does a good job of protecting these workers.

If someone invests in a pension fund for years, it should be exclusive to that person. It is obvious that if the employees' and employer's retirement fund is in the form of a consolidated fund within the company, if the company should ever go bankrupt, everything goes down.

It should be said that the government itself is hardly setting an example with employment insurance. It appropriates the insurance paid by employees and employers and puts the surpluses into a consolidated fund that it uses for its own purposes and to make itself look like a good manager. It is not setting a good example for companies.

Companies should establish a separate fund, reserved and untouchable, into which the employees' contributions to their pension fund would be paid as well as the employer's.

We never hope that a company goes bankrupt, but unfortunately this happens sometimes when assets and liabilities get out of line and the company finds itself with its back to the wall. It has no other choice than to declare bankruptcy. When this happens, the retirement fund that employees have negotiated should be untouchable. The employer's and employees' contributions should be fully reimbursed immediately when a company goes bankrupt. Employees can then reinvest this money in a particular fund of their choosing, for example an RRSP.

The current situation is unacceptable, in my view, for employees who made a choice when their collective agreements were being negotiated to sacrifice some of their wages in order to put the money into their retirement fund. It is unfortunate that when a company goes bankrupt, people can lose everything and find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy, just like the company.

Does the member agree with me that Bill C-55 should force companies to refrain from meddling with retirement funds and ensure that these funds are reserved exclusively for the people who contributed to them?

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who is the Bloc Québécois labour critic. She gave an excellent speech. She has also done a great deal of research and hard work.

I think that her speech was a good reflection of the representations made to her by various labour organizations. The representatives of these labour organizations have been meeting with the Bloc Québécois members and parliamentarians so that bills such as this one can be debated in the House. Consequently, parliamentarians can work for and on behalf of not only Quebeckers, but all workers who pay EI premiums, earn wages and often have invested a great deal of money in pension funds.

When a company or business goes bankrupt, numerous challenges must be faced. Often, many workers not only lose their money and their pensions funds, but sometimes they are not eligible for EI. When new entrants to the labour market work for a company that declares bankruptcy, and they do not have the required number of weeks or hours of insurable employment, they fail to qualify for EI.

Another problem, when a company goes bankrupt and not enough notice is given, is that it is difficult to return certain workers to the labour force. Older workers are a case in point.

That is why, together with Human Resources Canada, the Bloc Québécois is trying to improve the employment insurance program through the POWA, the program for older worker adjustment. It is not easy to place individuals who worked for 25 or 30 years for a company that goes bankrupt.

It is tough for those people who find themselves without a job overnight, or those who had invested large amounts to secure their retirement. Unfortunately, many have all their eggs in the same basket and, when the company goes bankrupt, they lose everything. Very often, this causes insecurity in the family, due to their age and their chances of re-entering the labour market.

The financial institutions are often the first to get their money. They pay themselves first in the event of a bankruptcy. Then, the governments claim what they are owed and, finally, the suppliers. Often all the money set aside for the employee retirement fund is used up.

I have a question for my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. Can we give workers the assurance that, with this bill, they can be sure to be among the first, even before governments and financial institutions, to get their money? Will they also be able to rely on a program, which could be developed with Human Resources Canada, to help them re-enter the labour force? Either training could be provided or older workers could have access to a program providing them with financial assistance until they return to work.

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I call a point of order. Given the interesting nature and substance of the speech by my colleague from Hochelaga, with all due respect, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to grant the member for Hochelaga an additional 15 minutes.

[Extended Sitting Period, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to understand more clearly. In his presentation, the House leader is asking the House, in a motion, to extend the sittings past June 23. In other words, the House will resume on June 27.

When the House leader was reading his motion, I thought I understood that at any time during the extended sittings, on or after June 27, a minister can rise in the House and propose a motion to call an end to this prolongation by proposing adjournment for a maximum of 95 days.

I would like to know whether, on or after June 27, it is possible for a minister to propose a motion to adjourn for up to 95 days?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we must speak the truth. Bill C-48 is before us today because the NDP introduced an amendment to the budget, Bill C-43. The Bloc Québécois voted against Bill C-43 and will be voting against Bill C-48, too, because the Liberal Party and the NDP failed, during their negotiations, to address the fiscal imbalance or make improvements to the EI fund.

The fiscal imbalance is affecting all the other provinces in Canada, and not just Quebec. In order to achieve zero deficit, the former finance minister—the current Prime Minister—slashed federal transfers to the provinces. This led to problems in health care, education and municipal infrastructure programs. These are areas under provincial jurisdiction.

At no time did the NDP consider in Bill C-48 the demands of Quebec. Yet their candidates in every riding in Quebec, even Pierre Ducasse in the riding of Manicouagan, are wondering why the Bloc Québécois voted against it.

I agree with the member when he says that the Liberal Party and the NDP were complicit. First, we have to face facts; the Liberals agreed to the NDP's amendment for fear of having to face an election. But we have to remember that the vote on the budget is also a confidence vote. We were unable to have confidence in this government after the whole sponsorship scandal and the revelations at the Gomery commission. Furthermore, in my opinion, EI should have been a priority in the budget. The unions have condemned this failure.

I want to ask my Conservative colleague the following question. If the Liberals had had a majority, does he believe they would have considered the NDP's amendment and injected an additional $4.5 billion into the budget, that they would have suddenly taken an interest in social housing and allocated additional funds for the environment? If this had been a majority government, does he think that they would have listened to the NDP and allocated additional funds in the budget?

[Petitions, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, according to Standing Order 36, I table a petition signed by many residents of my riding of Manicouagan. The petitioners call on Parliament to adopt Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act to clarify the present definitions used for the words “food” and “drugs”.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Manicouagan, it was a pleasure for me to be able to defend the interests of the unemployed by introducing Bill C-280. During the election campaign, the Bloc Québécois made a commitment to defend the interests of Quebec. To do that, however, one must first focus on defending the interests of the regions, the seasonal workers, the casual workers and those who work on call.

The Bloc Québécois made that commitment during its campaign, which was specifically that its members, once elected to the House of Commons, would introduce a bill on an independent EI fund. They also promised to speak on behalf of the workers.

This is diametrically opposite to the objective of the Liberal Party, which is to get $6 billion yearly out of the employment insurance fund in order to reduce its deficit. This has been the situation since 1993, first with Jean Chrétien and now with the former Minister of Finance, as well as at the time of the Axworthy reform in 1994.

As my colleague for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord pointed out, four people in ten who pay premiums think they are insured against the loss or termination of work, but they are not. New arrivals on the labour market are told they need 910 hours to qualify for EI. In the Bloc, we know that, with $4.8 billion annually and an accumulated surplus of $46.8 billion, the EI fund can be improved.

The Bloc Québécois proposes eliminating the two week waiting period, lowering the eligibility requirement to 360 hours for all contributors, and abolishing the gap, in other words, increasing the number of insurable weeks. The government has the money it needs to do so.

At this time of year, when people do their tax returns, seasonal workers on the north shore, in Charlevoix and throughout Quebec have to return money to the federal Liberal government coffers, even if they work only five or six months a year.

With the sponsorship scandal and the waste of public money, it is shameful to think that the Liberals will find a candidate in the next election campaign to defend the Liberal government's positions on the management of public funds and the EI fund.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that a person from that party would dare run in your riding or mine. It is a corrupt party without soul or conscience, capable of appropriating money from seasonal and casual and those who work on call to manage what I call a disguised tax.

As I was saying, four in ten who contribute to employment insurance benefit from it. That is 40%. All of them contribute, and only four people draw benefits. According to the statistics, the six who do not qualify for benefits are primarily young people and women. It is a disguised tax. Workers pay for insurance in the event of a loss or termination of employment.

A unanimous report by a House committee, composed of Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Bloc Québécois members, proposes eight recommendations with regard to the creation of an independent fund.

We shall see their true nature during the vote. We really hope that the Liberal members, if they do not intend to continue to “govern” using the contributions of seasonal workers and at the expense of the Sans-Chemise and unemployment action committees, will be able to support this bill. If so, they will be saying that is ridiculous to continue appropriating such funds and that the money should, in fact, be placed in an independent fund.

We want the support of Conservative Party members too, who seem to agree in principle with the creation of an independent fund and perhaps on the number of commissioners.

I have a question for the Conservatives. Has anyone calculated how many thousands of people across Canada are currently administering the employment insurance program in the public service?

I will conclude here, and I hope that, when it comes time to vote, the members will support the seasonal workers and the unemployed.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for his honesty and candour in openly admitting during a debate in this House that he is gay. I would like to ask him a question on family values. I am convinced that if the hon. member can rise in this House today, it is because he was born of a family, of a father and a mother.

Will society evolve? Earlier, we talked about centuries. In 100 years, will we have to vote in this House to allow a mother to marry her son, a father to marry his daughter, a daughter to marry her brother?

I would like the hon. member to reflect on this and to tell us how, in the case of a married gay couple, he thinks family values can develop.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that two Liberal members have stood up to ask questions. First of all, members across do not seem against the establishment of an independent fund, nor against giving the commission the power to set the premium rate. They do not seem to be against giving the commission the ability to make recommendations in order to improve the employment insurance system. They are much more concerned about the administration cost of this commission composed of 17 members.

I am thinking about the surpluses accumulated to date and the administration cost for the program. The government is not into volunteerism. It has much more civil servants than we think. We could multiply the number 17 by a rather large number and the result would be the number of people currently managing the Employment Insurance Commission and the department, namely the deputy minister, the minister, all the civil servants, all those who are responsible for issuing cheques. In other words, the whole administration.

We might even save money. However, with regard to the number of commissioners, this is only a proposal. There could be amendments, changes and even discussions. I suppose the bill will be referred to a committee where members of other parties will be able to make proposals and reach unanimous consent.

I remind the Liberal government that at the Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, all the members, whether they were from the Liberal Party or any other party, voted in favour of the creation of an independent fund. The employee, the employer and all the witnesses heard it.

The Prime Minister, who once was finance minister, carried out consultations just before the elections. Everywhere he went, be it in the Maritimes, in Quebec or in Nova Scotia, he was told that the current plan did not make sense. He was told to stop taking money out of the employment insurance fund to pay down the deficit and to give this money to those who had contributed to the plan. One senator even dissented from the report of the bogus committee set up by the Prime Minister, which was written before the consultations were even completed.

I think that the Liberals are now through making electoral promises because this has now been going on for the last three elections. It is time for the Prime Minister and the new elected and appointed minister to take a position and to look at the unanimous recommendations made by the House of Commons committee. They should examine the recommendations the Prime Minister got from his small committee.

They will see that our position is easily supported throughout Canada and that the employees and the employers are calling for an independent fund. This money should not be used for anything else. It is a disgrace. It is worst than the sponsorship scandal.