Paule Brunelle

[Taxation, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn that there will be an analysis that promotes gender equity. Still, can the Minister of Finance assure the House that the commitments made by the Ottawa government at the Beijing Conference in 1995 will be respected in the coming budget?

[Taxation, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, economist Armine Yalnizyan has examined the federal budgets for the past 10 years. The study shows, with figures to prove it, that women were unduly penalized during the years Ottawa posted deficits and that they have been generally ignored since the federal government started showing a surplus.

What explanation can be offered to women for the fact that the Liberal government's budgetary decisions have always been made at the expense of women and social programs? Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of this situation?

[Sûreté du Québec, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, in the Mauricie and Centre-du-Québec district, the Sûreté du Québec is now led by a woman. Lieutenant Caroline Guay was recently appointed director for the regional county municipality of L'Érable.

Ms. Guay, who has been a police officer for 15 years, has assumed various responsibilities. She joined the Sûreté du Québec in 1991, as a patrol officer at the Témiscamingue police station, in the Abitibi. She fulfilled the duties of public affairs officer and investigator with the organized crime unit, where she also worked as the acting assistant to the director.

In 2001, she was seconded to the École nationale de police du Québec, where she worked as an instructor, and, in 2002, she was placed in charge of the initial training program for patrol officers.

Lieutenant Caroline Guay is the second woman in Quebec to hold such a position within the Sûreté du Québec. We congratulate her.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that increasing the benefit period by five weeks would help the regional economy and workers. For many of them, employment insurance is not a choice but a last resort. In this type of economy, most workers cannot wait for something else to come along. There is nothing else.

It is important to know that the government does not put one cent into the employment insurance fund. It is insurance, plain and simple. People expect, when making a claim, to receive their fair share from what employees and employers have paid. This is only normal.

If I insure my home, and something bad happens, or there is a fire or what have you, I expect to be paid for the damages incurred. I would think that the same principle should apply to employment insurance.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is all the more interesting because yesterday we were able to obtain more information at the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds. Mr. Malcom Brown, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, stated that reducing the qualifying period for the employment insurance program to 360 hours for everyone would cost only $390 million, the same cost as a reduction of 3¢ in premiums. It is a choice that should have been made.

With all the workers in our constituencies coping with the gap, with the growing poverty that we see, we all know that this money would have been well used to meet essential needs if it had been put back into our regional economies.

That would have made it possible to reduce the required number of hours to 360. It would have opened access to employment insurance for another 90,000 people. It would have been wonderful for workers and it would have given a big boost to our economy.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, I learned about the difficulties experienced by the unemployed in my riding and throughout Quebec. Employment insurance is particularly inequitable for young people and women; for young people who must accumulate 910 hours before being eligible for their initial application, as well as for women returning to the labour force after more than two years' absence.

When we see that, in the early 1990s, no less than 52% of the unemployed aged 25 or under were receiving EI benefits and that now, only 16% are, we cannot help but want to change EI. That is why, today, I want to debate the bill I am introducing, the aim of which is to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

Employment insurance is no longer an assistance program, but a hidden tax. The current Prime Minister, as finance minister, raided the EI fund to balance the budget. The Auditor General's latest report, tabled November 23, 2004, states that the government continues to raid the EI fund, despite the efforts of parliamentarians.

Furthermore, the powers of the Employment Insurance Commission, which consists of individuals who are contributors, will apparently be suspended for yet another year. Even now, the Prime Minister is interfering in social affairs, by misappropriating the EI fund.

In May 2001, the Bloc Québécois adopted a unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development andthe Status of Persons with Disabilities on employment insurance reform and we continue to call for its implementation. The Bloc Québécois is against the fund being wasted and proposes the creation of an independent employment insurance commission and fund, the reimbursement by the government over a 10-year period of misused money, the setting of premium rates by the Employment Insurance Commission and the improvement of the system for the most vulnerable workers.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed special employment insurance measures for workers affected by the softwood lumber crisis. Consider this: the current employment insurance fund surplus of $46 billion is roughly triple what the Chief Actuary at Human Resources Development Canada thought would be enough in 2001—some $15 billion.

In 2000, an HRDC study showed that 35% of claimants reached their maximum weeks of benefit. The 2004 employee premium rate is $1.98 for every $100 of insurable employment. The equilibrium premium rate for 2004 is estimated by HRDC to be $1.81. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in January 2004 was 7.4% across Canada and 9.1% in Quebec. The average regular benefits in dollars a week is $289.54.

Accordingly, in the summary of this bill to correct a few of the problems, we find several amendments made to the Employment Insurance Act.

First, it reduces the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours of work regardless of the regional rate of unemployment. It also increases the benefit period by five weeks. It increases the rate of weekly benefits from 55% to 60%, and It repeals the waiting period. It eliminates the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force. It also eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length. In addition, It increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings from $39,000 to $41,500 and introduces an indexing formula. It requires the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to pay out, as workforce support measures, at least 0.8% of the insurable earnings—as estimated by the Commission—of all insured persons. Finally, it provides that, if a person has insurable earnings of not more than $3,000 a year the Minister of Human Resources Development must refund all deductions made from those earnings.

Taking it point by point, first we have the reduction of the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours. We know that on May 3, 2004, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development held public hearings in connection with the updating of its 2001 report. The major unions presented a unanimous proposal to modify the EI eligibility rules.

The current system provides that eligibility for EI benefits begins in a range of 420 to 910 hours of work, depending on the place of residence and whether the person is a new entrant or a re-entrant to the labour force.

Unanimously, these same unions asked that eligibility for employment insurance begin at 360 hours of work, regardless of residence. This rule would provide more satisfactory coverage for workers in seasonal businesses and also for all workers in insecure jobs.

As things stand now, the threshold for eligibility for benefits varies between 420 and 700 hours. It is 420 hours in regions with an unemployment rate over 13% and 700 hours in regions where the unemployment rate is 6% or less. The bill before us today would reduce the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours of work for everyone, but the benefit period would vary with the region and the regional rate of unemployment.

In comparison to the current figures, the new system would represent an average increase of five weeks in the benefit period and an increase in the maximum benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks.

In regions with high unemployment—13% or more—it would provide between 30 and 50 weeks of benefits depending on the hours worked and the unemployment rate. For Quebec's high unemployment regions, it would substantially reduce what we call the spring gap or black hole.

For example, in Gaspé, where the unemployment rate as of December 4, 2004, was 20%, a person who worked 360 hours would be eligible for 36 weeks of benefits. If that person worked 420 hours, he or she would be eligible for 37 weeks, which is 5 more than at present. On the North Shore, where the unemployment rate is 12%, the maximum benefit after 360 hours of work would be 26 weeks and after 420 hours, 27 weeks.

The CSN appeared before the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds on November 15, and stated that their main demands still concern the same things: to improve the eligibility rules by requiring only a minimum of 360 hours so that 70 to 80 percent of those who lose their jobs can receive employment insurance benefits. The main reason for this is that 39% of the work force only works 35 hours a week.

The Canadian Labour Congress, through its representative, Hassan Yussef, said the following:

We've submitted a full brief, and more recommendations for training and of course 360 hours for qualifying for unemployment insurance. The CLC recommends scrapping the current patchwork of qualifying hours in favour of 360 hours for all EI entitlements, unemployment benefits, as well as pregnancy, parental leave, sickness, and compassionate leave benefits

Quebec is increasingly interested in the principle of reconciling work and family life, and therefore views this 35 hours yardstick as a significant obstacle to developing such a policy. It needs to be revised without delay.

Let us look now at extending the duration of benefits. In this bill we are suggesting an increase of 5 weeks, from 45 to 50. As you are aware, there are many workers in industries with seasonal fluctuations, including the fishery, agri-food, tourism, the hotel industry and so on.

Seasonal employment is common in the regions, but it also affects the major centres, particularly as far as tourism is concerned. Every year, many people are confronted with the seasonal gap, which can be as much as a dozen weeks long, between the time their EI benefits run out and their work starts back up. According to federal statistics, close to 35% of EI recipients use up all their benefit period.

The Bloc Québécois is calling upon the government to put an end to this seasonal gap by adding five weeks to the maximum benefit period, raising it from 45 weeks to 50.

I will now read an excerpt from the 2001 report of the Standing Committee on Human Resource Development.

The Committee recommends that the government consider readjusting Schedule I of the Employment Insurance Act so as to provide a maximum benefit entitlement of 50 weeks like that afforded combined maternity/parental benefits.

Compared to the existing schedule 1, consideration should be given to augmenting benefit entitlement beyond the minimum hourly qualification requirement, so as to provide an additional incentive to work for a longer period of time than the minimum number of hours required to qualify for benefits. The new schedule 1 should provide no more than a maximum increase of five additional weeks of benefits for any given combination of hours of insurable employment and regional unemployment rates. In addition, schedule 1 should be reconfigured, to the greatest extent possible, to ameliorate the “gapper” problem.

This is how, every year, seasonal workers go through the gap. Resource regions are particularly hard hit by that problem. It seems to us that action is urgently required.

With respect to the third element, increasing the rate of weekly benefits to 60%, we are asking that benefits be increased from 55% to 60%. This can be illustrated by saying that, in Quebec, minimum wage is $7.45. For an employee working 35 hours a week, this means $260.75 gross, which would entitle this person to employment benefits of less than $287, before tax, every two weeks, or $574 per month.

In 2002, 192,000 Quebeckers were earning minimum wage, of which 66.6% were women. The 55% benefits rate affects in particular low-income workers, two-thirds of whom are women. Hon. members will understand that, as critic for the status of women, I am very sensitive to this problem facing poor women in Canada, who are raising children in poverty, in addition.

On May 4, François Vaudreuil, the president of the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, told the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, “We also believe it is urgently necessary to increase to 60% the replacement rate of the benefits”.

At that same committee, many witnesses called for an increase in the rate of benefits. Some were suggesting it be set between 60% and 66%. It is nonetheless important, they reminded the committee, to find a balance between meeting the needs of eligible unemployed workers and reinforcing the incentive to work.

The committee heard the testimony of the the acting director general, labour market policy directorate, at Human Resources Development Canada. Her name is Wilma Vreejwijk, and she told us:

These are important questions in terms of ensuring that there is the income adequacy. Certainly, when looking at the issue of the benefit rate, we need to strike a balance between ensuring that there is sufficient support provided to those people that need it. At the same time as ensuring that we have the work incentives right. So that is why we have the family supplement, and the family supplement has, as you pointed out, gone up each and every year quite recently. This supplement has gone up because the families need it.

Another change is to repeal the waiting period, which penalizes workers who have lost their jobs. There is also another change. There is the elimination of the distinction between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force.

There is also the elimination of the link between persons related to each other. This is a question of members of the same family being entitled to employment insurance.

Accordingly, the Bloc Québécois bill wants to make a change and shift the burden to the commission to prove that there is a link of dependence between the employer and employee.

Note that the Employment Insurance Commission would be required to pay out, as workforce support measures, 0.8% of the insurable earnings—as estimated by the Commission—of all insured persons.

Since my time is running out I will just say that this is an important measure to ensure that it is no longer unemployment insurance we are talking about, but employment insurance and that we understand the need for training for all workers.

In conclusion, this bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act proposes eliminating some of the irritants and inequities in the employment insurance program. I hope that all the hon. members in this House will support it for the good of our society, which needs more of our attention.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 8th, 2004]

moved that Bill C-278, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we remember the painful helplessness we experienced 15 years ago when 14 female students were murdered at the École polytechnique de Montréal. We shared the pain felt by their mothers, fathers and loved ones.

To restore hope, much work has been done to promote non-violence. Yesterday evening in Montreal, the Fondation des victimes du 6 décembre held a concert of peace and hope entitled “Symphony for my daughter”.

I want to also mention the international “Stop Violence Against Women” campaign, launched in March 2004 by Amnesty International, to demand public condemnation of violence against women and compensation for victims.

The Bloc Québécois sees hope for egalitarian and respectful relationships between men and women.

[International Volunteer Day, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, December 5 is International Volunteer Day. I am taking this opportunity to acknowledge the exceptional work of a person in the riding of Trois-Rivières, Laurent Pontbriand.

On what began as just another ordinary day, Mr. Pontbriand was the victim of a very serious traffic accident, for which he was not responsible. While in hospital, he received a blood transfusion and contracted the hep C virus.

Mr. Pontbriand refused to let this bring him down and decided to help people who, like him, have to live with the consequences of that disease.

He toured schools and prisons to talk about prevention, and he also provided information to victims. In 1998, he created the Laurent-Pontbriand foundation to provide support, information, supportive care, and a hotline service.

To all those who know him, he is a model of courage and remarkable humility.

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the program to facilitate the entry of exotic dancers, does the immigration minister justify her eagerness by a shortage of so-called skilled labour in Canada's nude dancer bars?

How could the minister, who is herself a woman, show such lack of judgment and critical sense by issuing permits to women, so that they could work in an environment where women are all too often dominated and exploited, an environment where organized crime is thriving?