Paule Brunelle

[Sponsorship Program, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has defended the creation of the sponsorship program as Canada's war effort against the so-called “evil Quebec separatists” and described those who took advantage of that battle to benefit personally or financially as wartime profiteers.

Does the Minister of Public Works and Government Services realize he is using the same line of defence Jean Chrétien used to justify the sponsorship scandal?

[Invisible Work Day, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the first Tuesday of April in 2001, the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale (AFEAS) created La Journée de travail invisible. I am pleased today to draw attention to the fifth anniversary of that courageous initiative.

The purpose of the day is to draw attention to the unpaid, “invisible”, work done in mostly by women the home.

The AFEAS did not settle for merely focussing on the fact that some people spend their whole lives, or a large part of it, working without pay. It also has struck a committee to ensure that this important issue is discussed in a public forum. Its efforts have contributed to a better understanding of invisible work, but there is still a lot to be done.

The Bloc Québécois congratulates the AFEAS on this initiative and encourages it to continue to campaign for financial recognition of the work done by these people, who deserve our admiration.

[Pope John Paul II, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Pope John Paul II, this great messenger and apostle of peace, is no more.

He entered the clandestine seminary of Krakow in 1942. He witnessed the Nazi and communist dictatorships. From the day he was elected Pope in 1978 until his death on Saturday, Karol Wojtyla was a man of prayer and action, a man of word and thought.

True to the teachings of Jesus Christ, John Paul II was a staunch protector of peace and human rights. He expressed his dignified acceptance of suffering in these terms, in 1994:

Dear brothers and sisters who suffer in body and in spirit, it is my wish that all of you will be able to recognize and accept God's call for you to be workers of peace through the offering of your pain. It is not easy to respond to such a demanding call.

John Paul II was the embodiment of this extraordinary hope.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in introducing Bill C-278, I have simply borne witness to the problems suffered by the working men and women in my riding and many other ridings all over Quebec and Canada, and to the present need for a discussion of social justice and equity.

As we know, there is no justice in the employment insurance system at this time. There are many workers who, having paid EI premiums all their lives, cannot draw EI benefits. That is unacceptable. We are seeing that the social fabric is wearing thin and poverty is everywhere. We have problems with health and there are costs associated with that. We are laying the foundation for a very difficult future. It is a very short-sighted policy not to provide even such minimal protection to the working people. The people, therefore, have asked for help in getting the government to recognize their rights.

All our lives, we work hard to pay for life insurance so that our families will not have money worries when we die. I do not see why, then, when we die, anyone would refuse them the right to collect those benefits. How can it be that only 38% of workers are able to collect benefits?

From another point of view, the government has handled its transfers from big business to small and medium businesses so badly that, in my riding among others, we have seen a dramatic rise in unemployment rates, because of the closing of the textile mills and the problems in the paper mills due to the still unsettled softwood lumber dispute.

As a consequence, on one hand, the economy is being allowed to wither away, and on the other, no support is being provided to the working population.

We have also seen, in the Canadian Labour Congress's economic analysis, that under existing rules, women and new entrants to the labour force are the ones affected. We know that women heading single-parent families are the poorest in our society. Thus, Canadian children are poor and malnourished, and that is a very difficult problem.

Coverage for young people is also truly discouraging. We know that from 1990 to 2001, it dropped from 52% to 16%. Therefore, it is really necessary to help our young people. That is why this bill has five major principles.

The first principle, obviously, is to protect the workers, so that all can benefit from coverage.

The second principle consists in making eligibility criteria more flexible, so that people can qualify for employment insurance after 360 hours. That is really reasonable. It would solve the problem women workers have when they return to work after a pregnancy. It would also solve the problem of young people starting out in the work force. What kind of a society are we preparing for them? They need to be integrated as part of our work force.

The third principle is extension of benefits so that workers in seasonal industries—suffering from what my colleagues have referred to as the seasonal gap—and workers with precarious employment can have proper coverage. It is a matter of adding five weeks on to the period to which people are entitled to benefits.

The fourth principle is more generous benefits. This is relatively minor. Going from 55% to 60% is not any great generosity, when these people are the ones who paid into it. Why then can they not get benefits back? This is a real injustice.

The fifth principle is helping new entrants. It is a matter of helping make it possible for everyone to live in a society where there is inequality between the rich, the big businesses, which will also be saving on contributions, and the poor. Equality between them is needed.

I therefore call upon all of my colleagues in this House to vote in favour of improved employment insurance. This bill is nothing more than a reflection of reality, of what the people in our ridings are asking for. It will be a change for the better from all points of view. Particularly where politics are involved, people very much need to see that the administrators here share their concerns and are at last helping the least advantaged members of our society.

[Canada Post, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has announced that the Cap-de-la-Madeleine sector postal station in Trois-Rivières will close on April 15. This decision by Canada Post was taken without consulting the public. They were presented with a fait accompli and they felt this was an affront to them and their right to quality service.

It is all the more difficult to understand this decision when Canada Post uses administrative reasons to explain the closure, yet in 2003 it declared record earnings. Furthermore, the postal station being closed has above average profitability.

I want to acknowledge the courage of all the individuals who joined me in braving the icy cold on February 25 to take part in a public demonstration to indicate loud and clear our disagreement with this Canada Post decision.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question.

We know that 54% of single mothers, 42% of women over the age of 65, and 38% of women under the age of 65 are still living below the poverty line in Canada, according to the statistics for 2002.

I am a member of the new committee in my capacity as critic for the status of women. Since we started sitting, we have had more than 40 women's groups come asking for basic funding for these groups, which work with the society's most disadvantaged women.

How can this government, with all the surplus funds it has, be so indifferent to the erosion of the middle class and the impoverishment of women in Canada? How can it not come up with some supplementary measure in this budget to help those in our society who are the least well off?

[Status of Women, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, which is the last calendar year for which we have statistics, 51.6% of single mothers lived below the poverty line. It is a disgrace.

In that context, how could the government, which has at hand all that is required to alleviate the plight of a number of these women living below the poverty line, decide against a comprehensive overhaul of the EI system, which would have improved their situation?

[Status of Women, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Fédération des femmes du Québec has expressed deep disappointment in the Canadian government for once again bringing down a budget that ignores the government's commitments to women.

On this International Women's Day, how can this Liberal government justify to millions of women living in poverty not including anything in its budget to deliver on its promises?

[Pay Equity, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, women who work full time still earn 71% of what men do. This gap is even wider if the woman is aboriginal, from an ethnocultural community or disabled. In June 2001, the government set up a pay equity working group co-chaired by the Ministers of Justice and Labour.

When does the government intend to implement the recommendations of the working group, which submitted its report in May 2004?

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see my NDP colleague's commitment to Quebec. The loss of 10,000 jobs in Quebec is certainly a catastrophe.

In my riding of Trois-Rivières, the Fruit of the Loom company lost 600 jobs in 2001. Among the victims of these cuts are men, but also many women who are suffering as a result of the government's lack of vision and compassion.

This Bloc Québécois opposition day also gives us a chance to discuss solutions to overcome these job losses. In my riding, we relied on a program for promoting the purchase of locally made products called Un emploi pour ma région, or a job for my region. Why could the large machinery of government not make purchases that would allow us to use and operate our textile plants?

A great deal of effort is needed in terms of modernization and conversion support. In wanting to enter new markets, one has to remember that mid- to high-end clothing already exists. Are these solutions that could work? When we talk about reconfiguring the industry, we have to talk about government subsidies for help.

What does my colleague think of these suggestions?