Monique Guay

[Health, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health said yesterday, “We continue to talk to the provinces where there might be contraventions”.

Are we to understand from this remarks that, in light of the Supreme Court decision imposed on Quebec, a decision that, I repeat, is not welcome, the minister has not ruled out the possibility of applying penalties that will have a negative impact on funding for Quebec's health care system?

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I talked about globalization, as did members from all parties.

With globalization and sectoral markets, changes and problems are a given. We must be in a position to find solutions. In Quebec, as everybody knows, when industry changed, we tried to find solutions. We suspected that the textile industry would collapse and we tried to devise transition programs to retrain workers. But that is not enough. We need more help.

There is a lot of room for improvement in Human Resources Canada and EI. I sympathize with my colleague. I wish the government had a real desire to make serious changes to all aspects of EI so as to really help workers—instead of what it has been doing since 1993. Workers pay taxes and EI premiums but do not get the services they need. I sympathize and have said what I would like to see. I only hope I will be heard.

(Bill C-2. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 6, 2005--the Minister of Justice--Report stage and second reading of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

When criticisms are made in this House, the word “separatist” often comes up. My colleague will have to get used to criticisms, because it is a fact that they have a $47 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund.

The measures in the budget are trifling, put there to shut people up. It will not work. It is not enough. They cannot even look at the 28 recommendations and try to find solutions. They operate on a case by case basis and they do so because we prod them so much that they have no choice but to act. They wait till they have their backs to the wall and then they react.

Do not tell me that this is how to run things. We do not need any lessons from them. We will stay on their case, because the $47 billion they stole from the unemployed must be returned. This program is important, it is necessary. It is urgent that it be reinstated and it is their responsibility to put the necessary funds into it.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

It is a pleasure for me to participate today in the debate on this very important issue. For the benefit of people who are following our debate, I would like to read the Bloc's motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, due to the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization, the government should establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures.

Since POWA was shut down in 1997, there has been no income support program specifically developed for older workers who are victims of a mass layoff or business closure.

The numbers are revealing in this regard. Workers aged 55 and over represent only 3.5% of cases in regular skills development programs, that is to say, in training programs.

We all know that the POWA has saved families. To get a good idea of what can happen to a 55 year old or older worker who loses his job, we only have to look at many Quebec companies and at any of the Quebec ridings. Lately, because of globalization and all the changes happening in the markets, plants and companies have closed and will never reopen again. They were, for the most part, specialized in sectors that have now been taken over by other countries, like China and others.

The workers who were specialized in these areas did not necessarily have a high level of education. These people learned a trade and specialized in certain areas. They learned on the job. They worked for 30 or 35 years for the same company and now, at age 55, they have lost their jobs and have nothing in front of them. They never finished grade 12 and we all know that today in Quebec, if you do not have a grade 12 diploma, it is too bad, but you cannot find a job anywhere.

These people who had a good salary had managed to acquire assets that they deserved, a house, a car, etc. They found themselves out of a job and lost almost everything they owned. When they stopped drawing EI benefits, they were not automatically allowed to collect social assistance.

These are not people who can easily retrain. They can not necessarily go back to school. Most of them did not even have any high school education. Just imagine those 55 year olds going back to first year high school. It is hard to imagine.

The POWA program that existed before allowed these people to reach retirement without having to give up their assets or their pride. We spend our lives accumulating and collecting things, trying to live better and suddenly, a misfortune like this occurs and we lose everything. It is difficult to go through. Often, these are people who live in the regions. It is even more difficult to find a new job in the regions. This program would allow people to make the transition.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tabled a unanimous report in this House that included 28 recommendations. Among these recommendations, the committee called for an improved POWA. None of the 28 recommendations was implemented. They were completely ignored. Today, there is a $47 billion surplus in the EI fund.

We calculated the cost of this program and it is not exorbitant. This program could cost roughly $500 million. What is $500 million when there is a $47 billion surplus? We would be helping people who lost their job through no fault of their own, and who are in a difficult situation, make the transition until their retirement. We are not asking for the moon or for charity. We are asking that the money paid into EI be reinvested or returned to the workers, as we have always said. Currently, that is not the case.

We are, however, trying to make progress. I find this motion quite interesting. I hope that my colleagues opposite will have a good word to say about our older workers.

You have probably heard of the company in my riding that used to make the skates for all the hockey players on the Montreal Canadiens team—it is true they need specialized skates. This company closed its doors, but it used to be able to make a pair of specialized skates in 24 hours. A hockey player could order and receive a pair of skates within 24 hours. This company had more than 2,000 employees barely seven years ago. Over the years, because of globalization, these jobs were lost to China.

Some people who worked in this company learned their jobs there. They eventually earned wages that were quite attractive and advantageous. The layoffs occurred 500 at a time. Those are quite large layoffs.

It is less a problem for younger people because they can take advantage of programs or training to find another job, even if it is hard. But it is much more difficult for people of a certain age to get in somewhere.

With an improved POWA, it would be nice to see these people continuing to live well. They contributed to the economic growth of Quebec and paid taxes for years. In view of the surplus that the government has, it would be shameful not to help them get over this transition period. I think, though, that there is a desire here to change things. I sincerely hope so.

The company that I was talking about closed its doors. It was still possible to help the youngest people, but some of the older people suffered terribly, even so far as losing their houses. That is not what we want. After working all our lives, we do not want to lose everything and start receiving social assistance, simply because we lost our job and cannot find another. I hope that the government will again adopt a measure like this to enable people to get through this difficult situation.

I have another example. There were two companies in my riding that specialized in bathing suits. The labour force consisted mostly of women who were specialized seamstresses. Here too, production was transferred abroad and these jobs were lost. Many of them were single women, who had raised their children on their own and have now fallen on hard times. Solutions have to be found to help them. I hope that the government will be receptive and that this motion will pass, in order to create a program.

We must not forget all the other measures. This is important because all areas of Quebec are now affected by the massive closure of industries that used to support entire regions. One need only think of what is happening in Huntingdon. That is not what we want. They must be given a chance to find a way out.

I sincerely hope that we will have an improved POWA. I hope that all the hon. members here in this House agree and vote in favour of this motion. That would be a fine gesture, but one that is owed to them because they have paid taxes for so many years—a gesture for older people who are going through difficult times.

[Delegated Legislation, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as a member of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

I want to say at the outset that we will be supporting the government motion. Obviously, we would not want to create a legal gap that Ontario is not prepared to deal with.

We are extremely concerned about the concerns expressed by the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I would like to read a short excerpt from the letter, because I believe it is important to know what it says. It reads, “As you know, subsection 36(2) is the offence section under which Ontario enforces terms and conditions on approximately 500 commercial food and 1,400 commercial bait fishing licences. Terms and conditions are currently the only mechanisms by which Ontario can establish allowable quota, areas where fishing can occur, designates who can take fish under a licence, reporting for commercial fishing licences. Without this provision, Ontario would literally have its hands tied with respect to enforcement of the commercial fishery. It is entirely likely that the revocation of subsection 36(2) would result in chaos in this sector and threaten the sustainability of our fisheries resources”.

Being very concerned about the Ontario minister's reaction, as a responsible political party, we have decided to support the motion calling on the joint committee to review this whole interpretation.

This does not change our position on Bill C-52. We are opposed to it for legal reasons. We do not believe that public servants should have the legal authority to send people to prison. We find it is not reasonable to act that way. Thus, we are still opposed to Bill C-52.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to have the witnesses appearing before the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations explain to us exactly what is happening. I would like Ontario's minister to meet with us, as well as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans here in this House today, to give us a full account. That way, all the parties could sit down together and look directly at what is happening.

We have to be responsible. Knowing that the parliamentary session will end shortly and that the fishing season has already begun, we have to make sure that Ontario can apply the regulations this summer. That is why we will vote in favour of the motion.

We must also ensure that the committee's decision is applicable in practice. We need to have enough time. Let us make sure that all the players will be able to act under the circumstances.

We must shed light on this. This exceptional motion has been presented to the House today because this is not clear to everyone. We must take another stab at it. The minister must appear before the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. I would it appreciate it very much if an invitation were also sent to Ontario's minister so that we can clarify this highly important matter. It is a significant resource for Ontario and for all the provinces, including Quebec. It seems, however, that revoking subsection 36(2) would cause chaos. We will support the government's motion.

[Office of the Prime Minister, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton finds the references to Senate and ambassadorial appointments, which we can hear on the tapes, to be “totally odious”.

Will the Prime Minister face the facts and does he intend to make his chief of staff and his health minister step down immediately, as the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton asks?

[Office of the Prime Minister, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in this secret taping affair, we hear rumblings, even from within the Liberal caucus, suggesting that the government needs to put its own house in order and suspend the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister's chief of staff while this case is being reviewed by the RCMP.

Will the Prime Minister listen to his own members and do the only honourable thing in this situation, which is to suspend his Minister of Health and his chief of staff while this case is being reviewed?

[Member for Newton—North Delta, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health went on to say, “The Minister of Public Works was made parliamentary secretary, that thing cannot be ruled out. That, the Prime Minister can say to you or not. If that cannot happen right now, that will be done in two or four weeks. You do understand that, right?”

How can the Prime Minister continue to claim that this was not an attempt to buy a member's vote on the eve of a crucial vote here in the House?

[Member for Newton—North Delta, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when the government tried to influence the vote of the member for Newton—North Delta, the Minister of Health said:

In fact, cabinet can be arranged right away. For the other, you don’t want to lose the advantage.

How can the Prime Minister continue to deny everything, when not only did his chief of staff make promises, but his Minister of Health, on the eve of a confidence vote, said such a thing to a Conservative member in an attempt to persuade him to vote with the government? Is that not precisely what we call influencing the vote of an MP in exchange for consideration?

[Employment Insurance, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why half of the jobless still do not have access to EI benefits.

The government is refusing to act in the interests of Quebec. After breaking election promises, after having its hand forced into amending the throne speech, after voting in committee in favour of the creation of an independent EI fund, it is now shoving aside the recommendations in the committee report. As well, it rejected this question during the negotiations with the NDP.

What is keeping the government from proceeding with this fundamental reform which is in Quebec's interest?