Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet

[Employment Insurance, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when the government decides to fundamentally change a program, talking to those who will be affected by those changes is the least it can do. However, the Conservatives are too scared to talk to seasonal and contract workers and the millions of other Canadians being denied EI through this irresponsible, careless and ill-conceived change.

Can the minister show a bit of decency and consult with Canadians before imposing changes that are going to turn their lives upside down?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, 74% of Canadians do not contribute to RRSPs, mainly because they cannot afford to.

In my hon. colleague's opinion, why do the Conservatives believe that people could afford this program more than an RRSP?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my former employer set up a pooled registered pension plan, to which the employer contributed, but only a fraction of the employees took advantage of it, probably because most employees worked part-time and did not have the money to invest. It is a similar situation in my riding, because many people have a very tight budget and do not have even $5 or $10 to set aside every week.

We know that 74% of Canadians do not invest in RRSPs because they do not have the means to do so. Despite that, the Conservatives' plan today is to pass the bill quickly through a time allocation motion, claiming that there is a huge demand for these plans.

I would like to hear what my Liberal colleague has to say, as he perhaps touched on this issue earlier in his speech.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, of course I agree. I said that earlier in my 10-minute speech.

Why are the Conservatives doing this? I also mentioned that they said nothing about this during the election campaign. They were probably worried that it would not be a particularly popular subject. I understand that they were worried about this because if I had been in their place I would have been worried too.

The other thing, as the member mentioned, is that because this bill is not broken down, debate on each issue is cut short. There is no discussion among experts. The people on the finance committee are very nice, they are smart, but they are not experts on employment insurance or the environment, for example.

The Conservatives are trying to push everything through quickly. This is an excuse to bring in a bunch of things that they wanted to bring in before. Because they now have a majority, they are using this excuse to bring everything in at once.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously completely agree with that. Unfortunately, cuts have been made to service centres. According to employers and the people who testify before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where we are examining the shortage in certain areas, the changes that are being made now will do the complete opposite of what the Conservatives claim to want to do.

For example, people will be required to take jobs that are not in their field or that are further from where they live. They will not be happy. They will not stay long. They will once again end up on employment insurance. Some regions will empty and, as I was saying earlier, in seasonal sectors, many employers will not be able to find enough staff.

I always support a positive approach over a negative one. Why punish people when we could take positive actions and do good things?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, which reads:

That this House call on the Conservative government to abandon plans to further restrict access to Employment Insurance for Canadian workers who have followed the rules and who will now be forced to choose between taking a pay cut of up to 30% or losing their Employment Insurance benefits.

I support this motion. It is necessary to do so because we have before us Bill C-38, a budget implementation bill that we call the Trojan Horse bill because there are so many things hidden in it. It is extremely controversial for this reason as well as others. It contains far too much. We have said many times that this bill should be split into at least five parts. It cannot be examined in the proper committee because the Standing Committee on Finance is discussing the environment. This bill should be examined by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities or the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It needs to be examined in the proper place.

Moreover, the Conservatives are limiting debate. They are not only reducing the time the committees have to debate this bill, but they are also passing time allocation motions in the House. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to distract Canadians while they impose major, negative changes on them. By way of evidence, did the Conservatives talk about changes to environmental law, old age security and employment insurance during the election campaign? No. They did not say a word about those issues. They hid their intentions throughout the election campaign.

Let us now discuss the section of Bill C-38 that deals with employment insurance, which is also very controversial. Members of Parliament have to vote without having received much information. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said that she has not yet announced the details as she wants to make sure that the bill passes first.

What details are we talking about? Just trifles; for example, the definition of suitable employment or the acceptable distance to be travelled. The bill abolishes the existing definitions, but when we ask for clarification and new definitions, the information is very vague. For example, a reasonable commuting time is said to be one hour. Is that one hour by car? If I drive for one hour, I will be halfway to Montreal.

What about the people in remote areas who do not own cars? Will they also have to travel one hour by car? In some parts of my riding, there are far fewer north-south public transit routes. Will these people have to spend one hour on the bus? How will it work? We do not know. In short, major changes to employment insurance are hidden inside a mammoth bill. Once again, the Conservatives are controlling the debate on the bill. That is not all.

When we listen to what some of the Conservatives are saying we can hear the contempt they have for employment insurance recipients. During her appearance yesterday at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said that the government was working on removing disincentives to work. She added that it is question of improving the federal system in order to ensure that Canadians better understand what is expected of them when they receive employment insurance benefits.

Such comments suggest that EI recipients are abusing the system. There are indeed people who abuse the system, but they are the exception. Not everyone abuses the system, but they are being treated as though they do. I invite the Conservatives to come to Hochelaga and see what life is really like, what people really need. Employment insurance is a social safety net that was established decades ago to respond to a real need. This tool that Canadians created to be used when they need help is getting a bad rap from the Conservatives. I wonder sometimes whether they really know anyone who is poor.

Let us now talk in greater detail about the changes proposed by the Conservatives and the ensuing problems. Take job search, for example. The government says that it is going to send out emails about available jobs twice a day.

I knocked on a lot of doors during the election campaign. When I told people to consult our website to learn more about the NDP platform, they would often tell me that they did not have Internet access, that they could not afford it or that they did not have a computer. They could have gone to the library, but the Conservative government has cut the community access program, so there are a lot fewer computers available in libraries.

The hon. members might recall that, a few months ago, the Service Canada job search website did not work for a number of weeks. So what happens in those types of situations? Are the people going to be penalized? But one of the biggest problems—and we are going to hear about it a lot—is the impact on the regions and on seasonal work. Let us talk about seasonal work. Seasonal workers are often highly skilled workers. You cannot just drag people around from job to job.

Under the proposed measures, these people could be forced to leave their skilled occupations or their regions or both. As an example, a witness who raises silver foxes recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. That industry has a six-month season and he has one employee who has very specific expertise and who returns every year.

This employer told us that if his employee did not come back, he would not know what to do or where to find another employee with that kind of expertise. The witness also told us that the same is true in horticulture and livestock farming.

In-school child care services are another example. Do we really want to have to look for new child care providers every year? Do we want people with a lot less experience looking after our children every year?

Every January and February, only a few groups came to visit the museum where I used to work. As a result, at least 10 of the 20 guides would not get any hours. Zero. So they needed employment insurance every year. Since those guides have been there for three or four years, they would automatically fall into the new category of frequent claimants. This means that if they have not found another job after six weeks, they would have to accept work at 70% of their previous hourly wage or they would no longer be entitled to employment insurance.

By the way, in Quebec, 15% of employment insurance claimants are seasonal workers. Instead of a short-term and repressive view for reducing the unemployment rate, perhaps there might be other options. For example, we could invest in training. But no, the Conservatives are making cuts to training.

I have two examples from the recent budget. First, we see cuts of $44 million—so, 64.7%—to contributions that help older unemployed workers in communities with a high unemployment rate or those affected by downsizing. Then, transfer payments to apprenticeship incentive grants and apprenticeship completion grants, worth $155 million, are being cancelled completely. It makes no sense.

Furthermore, when the government gives grants to large companies, perhaps it could ensure that jobs are created quickly—in Canada, not in Mexico or the United States—and that the companies do not take the money before relocating elsewhere, which is what Caterpillar and Electrolux did.

I have three more comments to make before I wrap up. First, employment insurance is fully funded by employees and employers. It belongs to employees and employers. What is the point of paying into it if you are not allowed to use it? It would be like buying a car and not being allowed to drive it.

The new definition of suitable employment suggested by the minister is at odds with the International Labour Organization's, which says that a government seeking to promote employment and guard against unemployment should take into account the claimant's training, experience and qualifications.

The third and final point I would like to make is that by forcing workers to take lower-paying, less fulfilling jobs that they are likely to quit more rapidly, the government will increase rather than decrease poverty.

I would like to reiterate what I said at the beginning of my remarks: this motion is important and must be adopted.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the signatures keep flooding in. Once again today, I am very pleased to table in the House two stacks of petitions from FRAPRU. One is from Winnipeg and the other from places all over Quebec. These are to be added to the 27,000 other petitions that have already been submitted.

It is therefore becoming ever clearer that Canadians are calling on the federal government to provide sufficient funding to renovate, upgrade and modernize all social housing units and to continue to fund the subsidies that mean that low-income tenants do not have to choose between paying the rent and paying to put food on the table.

[Petitions, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, today I am very pleased to table a petition in the House from the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, better known as FRAPRU, a national coalition fighting for the right to housing.

The few pages that I have in my hands are just a small sample of this petition. I have a full box before me, and that is only part of the petition that was signed by over 27,000 people, including 24,000 from Quebec. You may wonder what has driven so many people to sign a petition like that. It is very simple.

They want the federal government to provide the necessary funding to renovate, improve and modernize all social housing, low-income housing, housing co-ops and non-profit housing. Most of those buildings are more than 20 years old. Understandably, renovation is a necessity, not a luxury.

They are also asking the federal government to maintain subsidies that allow low-income tenants to pay rent based on their income. Otherwise, thousands of low-income tenants will either have to pay two or three times as much rent or they will have to move to apartments that are likely to be significantly less hygienic.

The government has a choice. It can either insist on investing in the Cadillac of fighter jets and in mega-prisons, or it can create true wealth by combatting poverty and making sure that Canadians have access to decent and affordable housing.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said earlier that the NDP wanted to vote against the bill because, as usual, it votes against jobs. I would really have liked to respond, but since I cannot, I will direct my remarks to my colleague.

I would like him to elaborate on the good explanation he already gave about the need to strike a balance between the rights of the public, the rights of authors and the rights of distributors so that the member opposite will understand why we will not vote for this bill in its present form.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, earlier my colleague mentioned the contribution that artists make to the economy. However, we know that most artists are not Céline Dion or Bryan Adams. They do not make millions of dollars. They earn only a few thousand dollars a year.

How will the bill, as it currently stands, affect the careers of most artists?