Jean-Claude D'Amours

[Economic Zones, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after excluding seasonal workers from additional weeks of EI benefits, the Conservatives are about to eliminate a pilot project on economic zones introduced by the Liberal government.

In 2000, changes to the economic zones would have penalized the Madawaska and Lower St. Lawrence regions. In order to ensure that the workers of those areas would not suffer, the Liberals introduced two pilot projects.

The Conservatives plan to eliminate those pilot projects in the next few days. The solution proposed by the new Conservative member for the Lower St. Lawrence area is that those workers find more than one job. Clearly, that member understands nothing about what workers need.

Why are the Conservatives forcing workers and their families into the unacceptable position of not knowing what their future holds?

At this time, the only thing the Conservatives should be doing is reversing their decision and renewing those pilot projects. They must stop taking the families of Madawaska and the Lower St. Lawrence hostage.

[The Budget, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide my colleague across the way with a few facts.

The Conservatives announced a $19 billion recovery plan. Let us be clear about this, they are also announcing a $49 billion deficit. They are the worst managers Canada has had in its entire history. Thirty billion dollars as a result of bad management will be added to the debt, incurring interest as well that will have to be paid.

Because of this government, there are citizens who will not get services in the future. The Conservatives cannot make us believe they are good managers when it is clearly not the case.

The Conservatives say they want to eliminate taxes but they do the opposite. Income tax was 15%. The Conservatives raised it to 15.5%. That is an increase, not a reduction.

Now they are proposing a tax on air transportation. They are increasing the employment insurance contributions for workers and employers, as well as the penalty for people who want to retire at age 60 instead of 65.

The reality is that this government has always increased taxes. All they want to do is be bad managers and cut people’s services.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to a few points made by the hon. member concerning the transitional measures and particularly the employment insurance program measures for the economic zones of Madawaska, in New Brunswick, which I represent, and the Lower St. Lawrence, in Quebec, presently represented by a Conservative member, that must be said.

Transitional measures were adopted to ensure that workers from the affected areas are not put at a disadvantage and that their family can have a decent living. The transitional measures were introduced in 2000 and, after 2005, we had to fight to convince the Conservatives to reintroduce this pilot project.

However, in April, the Conservatives will put an end to the transitional measures in the two areas I mentioned. That will be a devastating blow for Madawaska and I believe that it will have the same effect in the Lower St. Lawrence region. The present Conservative member for the Lower St. Lawrence may be inclined to strike while the iron is hot to make sure that the government makes the right decision and reintroduces the pilot projects in these economic zones.

I would like the member to tell me if the effect of not reintroducing the pilot project would be as devastating in the Lower St. Lawrence region as it would be in mine, Madawaska.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am addressing the Conservative member opposite. Why has his government again discriminated against seasonal workers by excluding them from 20 additional weeks of employment insurance benefits because it does not recognize them as long-tenured workers?

Why is the government discriminating against seasonal workers and their families?

[225th Anniversary of the Soucy Farm in Saint-Basile, December 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, this year the Soucy farm in Saint-Basile will be celebrating its 225th anniversary.

This farm was established in Saint-Basile in 1784 before the parish was officially founded. The Soucy farm is the only ancestral farm in northern New Brunswick. In other words, it is the only farm that has stayed in the same family since it was founded.

Paul-Émile Soucy, the current owner, is the seventh of his line to run the family farm. Before him, the farm was run by his father Conrad and his grandfather Léonide. Today, Paul-Émile Soucy raises sheep and rotates crops between potatoes and grains, in addition to owning wood lots and thus being involved in the forestry and maple syrup industries.

I want to congratulate Paul-Émile Soucy on his fine operation of the farm, which is an integral part of the historic and cultural heritage of Saint-Basile. The Soucy family, and the Madawaska community have reason to be proud.

Congratulations to the Soucy family on its 225 years of dedication and success.

[Postal Service, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if there were an agreement between the people of Canada and Canada Post, people would not be after federal MPs to change things.

Arlene Parks and other seniors of Lunenberg, Nova Scotia, are losing their rural mail service and will now have to walk long distances or drive to get their mail. There are examples of this all across this country.

Regardless of where Canadians live, they have a right to an equal quality of service. The Liberal Party does not support a Canada in which rural Canada has a lower level of service than urban Canada.

Why has the government done nothing to ensure that rural Canadians have the same rights to have the same service? Tell us why.

[Postal Service, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, since 2006, more than 55,000 Canadians living in rural areas have lost the right to home mail delivery. More than 40 post offices have been closed.

Many Canadian seniors, like 86-year-old Elsie Bédard, now have to travel long distances to pick up their mail.

All Canadians should have the right to the same service, no matter where they live. The Liberal Party does not want a Canada where rural regions are penalized for the benefit of urban centres.

Why has the government done nothing to stop 55,000 Canadians from being deprived of home mail delivery?

[December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the parliamentary secretary was that the Conservative government is excluding many workers. It does not make any sense.

I am anxious to hear what the government will have to say to the workers at the J.D. Irving sawmill, who have again been laid off indefinitely.

I am anxious to see what it will tell the employees of Maple Lodge, the slaughterhouse in Saint-François-de-Madawaska, who have lost their jobs. With the current economic situation, these workers have already used too many benefits weeks over the past five years. Consequently, they will not even qualify for the additional 20 weeks under the criteria set out in the bill, even though some of them have been working, often at the same place, the same plant, for 20, 25 or 30 years. That is the reality. If these are not long tenured workers, I wonder who that refers to.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary should come and see for himself. He would realize that people do need help. Casting some workers aside, pitting workers against one another, will not do people any good and help those in greatest need right now.

[December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising this evening to speak about employment insurance. I had asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a question about a bill introduced and voted on in the House. Under the bill, seasonal workers are not eligible for the additional 20 weeks of employment insurance benefits.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism had mentioned, some time before, that six additional weeks would be paid to those who deserved it. I had included these remarks in my question.

People need employment insurance. People are not working because of the Conservative government's inaction on economic recovery and infrastructure. They continue to lose their jobs.

The unemployment rate has continually risen throughout the country. Our seasonal workers live in resource-rich areas and work in the forestry, agriculture, construction or tourism industries. All these sectors have experienced serious difficulties for years and things are not like they used to be.

According to the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, these people do not deserve employment insurance. Such comments are unacceptable. She seems to think that they have not worked all their lives. In many cases, they have worked for the same company for 5, 10, 15, 20, or even 30 years. They only thing keeping them from working 12 months a year is the fact that we live in a country where these companies are more active in some seasons and less so in others.

Seasonal workers are people working in forestry, tourism, fisheries, agriculture and construction, as well as students who start working after completing their studies and mothers who go back to work after raising their children. Some women go back to work when their children start school. However, if a mother unfortunately loses her job after having worked for just a few years—say one, two or three years—she would not be eligible for the 20 extra weeks of employment insurance.

If workers in the forestry, fishing, tourism, construction and agriculture sectors lose their jobs because they cannot work 12 months of the year because of the weather, the Conservative members and ministers believe that they do not deserve employment insurance benefits.

This is a clear demonstration that the Conservatives have no knowledge of or sensitivity towards the needs of Canadian workers. They will say they have invested a lot of money and added more weeks. However, those additional weeks have not been granted to those who need them most. All workers deserve those weeks, not just an exclusive group, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism seemed to say. We should be helping everyone in times of crisis. This is about the well-being of families and their survival.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

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

That the House of Commons urge the Minister of Finance to take every measure necessary for an immediate amendment to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, in an effort to help those facing financial difficulties with respect to their company pension plan by providing them with the appropriate protection in the event an employer becomes insolvent, and to take every measure necessary to introduce a comprehensive piece of legislation that would create a pension protection agency.