Monique Guay

[Employment Insurance, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, young people are often the last to be hired and the first to be let go when companies lay off employees.

In addition, they have to accumulate more hours to get employment insurance.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development not see the current situation as a golden opportunity to eliminate the discriminatory clauses that hit young people hard?

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, the auditor general tabled a report with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It reveals that the surpluses of over $36 billion in the employment insurance fund as at May 31 are far in excess of the $15 billion considered necessary. Once again, we have proof that the minister is incapable of managing employment insurance. Worse yet, the auditor general indicates that the spirit of the law has not been followed.

Will the minister finally implement the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources tabled in this House on May 31?

[Employment Insurance, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what we are asking is that the government follow up on the report we tabled in May, for which we still have not received a reply here in the House.

Again, will the minister take steps to make employment insurance more accessible, in order to help the thousands of people who just lost their jobs?

[Employment Insurance, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance said in the House and I quote “The government will do everything to help those who have lost their job”.

Considering that surpluses in the employment insurance fund now stand at $38.4 billion, will the minister seize this opportunity to give back to the unemployed what he has taken from them, by following up on the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which have been available since May and which propose more flexible rules regarding the employment insurance program?

[Employment Insurance, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the aviation and the automobile industries that are affected. Other sectors that rely on these industries and that employ thousands of people will also be hurt, and not everyone will qualify for employment insurance.

Again I ask the minister: Does she not agree that it is high time to adopt the committee's recommendations?

[Employment Insurance, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in May the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development tabled a unanimous report in which it recommended concrete measures to reform the Employment Insurance Act.

The government, however, prefers to continue to examine the report's recommendations, while the Minister of Finance admits that our lives will change, that companies are engaged in massive layoffs and that a large number of conventions are being cancelled.

Will the minister agree that the time has come to adopt the committee's recommendations? The situation requires her to do so now.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Québec for her speech. Naturally, women are often quicker to develop an awareness.

In the coming weeks and months, every one of us, each parliamentarian will be personally approached by peace groups or concerned individuals who do not necessarily long for a war and who wish we would respond in a different manner.

In fact, President Bush already started, through economic measures, by freezing the money of some terrorist groups in order to prevent them from proliferating , and our Prime Minister said he would do the same.

Is my colleague not worried to see the very democracy of parliament, indeed our rights as elected members of this place once again compromised because the government will not let us debate in the House the possibility of sending out troops to war?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, but I am not very proud of what I have heard.

Sending troops on peacekeeping missions throughout the world and sending troops to war are two different things. We realize that the decision process and the needs are not the same.

What the government House leader is telling us is that the government will decide as it has always done, without consulting the House.

I think it is important to point that out. In his own riding, he will have to answer to members of the armed forces, their families and concerned citizens who will be telling him: “Look, you cannot make such a decision without consulting us”.

So, does he intend to listen to what the people of his own riding have to say and to go along with their requests?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is essential that the military personnel know where they are going and it is also essential to make some provision for this. One cannot come out of a meeting with the president of the United States and say “He did not ask me anything”, and not prepare for anything. Come on, this is not the way this works.

The government must do some prevention, be prepared to face the situation and also carry out consultations. The government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence will have to see what our capabilities are and not make commitments with both eyes closed and both hands tied behind their backs. That is out of the question. We must protect our people and our military forces. We cannot send them to the front without knowing exactly what role they will be playing.

At present, we know very well how things are going in Afghanistan. They have an army; they have a different mentality. They are prepared to commit suicide for their cause. This means we must pay attention and be careful.

I believe we must also rely on the role of international courts, of NATO and the UN. We must work together with all these organizations in order to ultimately achieve positive results, instead of rushing in without any consultations and without knowing where we are going. We simply ask that democracy be applied here in parliament.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Châteauguay for his question. It is clear that people are going to react anyway. That have already started to do so.

I receive phone calls. I receive letters at my office. I receive representations from peace groups. It is obvious that actions will be taken to ensure that all members of this House are well aware of these concerns.

People want to know exactly what role the army is going to be called upon to play. They do not want to send our young people to the front without knowing where they are going. People have a lot of concerns with regard to this whole situation because they fear that, when the Americans finally say they need us, the government will send our troops without saying a word, without even asking questions about our army's role in terms of the number of soldiers that should be sent over there or without asking if we agree to send our young people to the front.

We talked about democracy earlier. I would like to say this. There are countries with parliaments similar to ours. I am thinking of Argentina. The government of that country has offered to co-operate with the United States, but on the condition that its participation to any military action be put to a vote in parliament. The same goes for France. There will be a vote by the executive, but the national assembly and the Senate will have to be consulted. The same goes for Germany also.

A country such as Canada that claims to be a great democracy is unable to consult. Let us lead by example and let us be a true democracy. Let us make sure that members have the right to make their own decision and vote on this issue.