Robert Vincent

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, Bill C-55 is a good bill that the unions and the workers have been awaiting impatiently for years. However, there is a problem with this bill. There is something missing and it needs to be pointed out. The minister said that the workers had vehicles and mortgages and that they needed these funds to pay for all that. So allowing them restitution of $3,000 in the event their employer declares bankruptcy would be a good thing.

There is another important aspect, and the member mentioned it earlier. He said that business owners were being treated unfairly. But so are the workers. Let me explain.

Collective agreements always contain a clause on severance pay in the event a business closes. Workers pay for this directly through payroll deductions. A collective agreement is the result of bargaining. A percentage of the envelope that the employer could give the workers as wages and wage increases is transferred into a severance pay fund. As a result, workers receive one week's salary per year of service.

This is not fair to workers. My question is for the member. Why are workers not able to recover all their money if a company declares bankruptcy? Why should workers have to pay the price for the bankruptcy by losing the money set aside in the event the company closed?

A worker with 20 years' seniority is entitled to 20 weeks' salary from the employer. This 20-week period allows workers to pay their bills until they find another job. Under this bill, yes, workers can recover part of their salary. However, there is a two-week waiting period for EI and, quite often, older workers are the ones affected. I will come back to this point.

With this bill, we should consider unionized workers who are entitled to this severance pay. They paid for it with their own money, directly from the increases they would have earned if they had not agreed to wage deferrals.

Should we put something directly in Bill C-55 so that these workers can recover their investment?

[The Environment, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, protecting the environment is a real priority for Quebeckers. The same cannot be said of ministers in Ottawa.

How can the Minister of the Environment preach about fighting pollution, when departmental chauffeurs needlessly leave the motor running in front of the Parliament buildings? How can he ask people to do more than what he demands of the biggest industrial polluters and federal ministers?

Leaving cars idling is a waste of fuel, and it creates more pollution, all because the Liberal ministers want to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

The ministers should lead by example. There should be strict rules about idling, including for departmental cars.

[Petitions, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of Canadian corrections officers. It has been signed by over 2,000 individuals.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague when she speaks about education, housing and everything in the bill. However, this is just wishful thinking on her part.

The alliance between the NDP and the Liberals in order to obtain something is still stuck at zero. Our colleague told us earlier that there are only “mays” in the bill. The government “may” do something and “may” make payments. Well, may and actually do are two very different things.

Today they are trying to sell this idea. But I am not so sure. I am not the NDP members. In order to sell something, you need something to sell. But there is nothing here today.

There is nothing in this bill that we are discussing today and on which we will be asked to vote. I would like to know whether the NDP is proud today of its alliance with the Liberals.

[Semaine québécoise des personnes handicapées, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, June 1 to 7 is the week Quebec sets aside for persons with a disability. This year, the ninth edition, under the banner of “Together, everyone is a winner”, the goal is to help persons with a disability integrate into society.

Quebec's Office des personnes handicapées is working hard to eliminate obstacles for persons with a disability. However, the organization and the government cannot do the job alone. We, all of us, must change our attitude and become more aware of this considerable problem.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank the people in the health community, Quebec's Office des personnes handicapées and everyone involved directly or indirectly in improving the welfare of these people. I am thinking in particular of the families and caregivers who live with a physically or intellectually disabled person.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will find that I am rising a little too often, but I really care about this issue.

The member for Gatineau is obviously very pleased when she says that $320 million will be given to the unemployed. However, this is just a drop in the ocean, compared to $47 billion. Also, considering that premiums total in excess of $1 billion annually, this $320 million is just money that will be redistributed.

Will that money still go into the consolidated fund, or should it be given back to workers who need it to make ends meet and pay their rent?

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

I am sorry. I am referring to the speech made by the NDP member.

I would like to ask him a few questions. Being a union representative is interesting. If we applied the union process to the House, the demands of the union would relate to the 28 recommendations made by union members. We already know that the employer had $47 billion. Therefore, we were in a position to negotiate.

Why did the NDP choose to negotiate one recommendation out of 28? I do not understand that. The NDP should know what this process is about, when it comes down to negotiating and begging the employer. When a union negotiator knows the employer has money, he does not go down on his knees at the first meeting and say he will lower his expectations and settle for a single demand. Personally, I would feel uncomfortable telling union members that, after negotiating, I kept only one recommendation out of the 28, and, moreover, that I diluted it. I would have a problem with that. In my opinion, these union leaders would be fired at the first meeting with their members.

We are also told that the Bloc Québécois is only interested in going into an election, and does not want to protect anyone's interests. I cannot understand how these people think. They already know that the government is struggling with the sponsorship scandal. But they want to keep it in office, even though there is corruption everywhere.

We have had at least 20 majority votes in the House. For example, 187 members voted in favour of the motion on the RCMP, while 103 opposed it. Did the government respect the decision made by the members of this House? Not at all. How can we trust a minority government that does not respect the will of the members of this House, a government that is corrupted by the sponsorship scandal? Will we support it? No way. The Bloc Québécois will not support people who do not respect the word and the will of the members of this House.

Why did the NDP choose that recommendation for its motion, instead of a recommendation relating to POWA? Yet, that is one of the 28 recommendations. Does the NDP not care about seniors? Did it think about them? Perhaps it has already negotiated this. Perhaps the NDP will be seen as a saviour—

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by the Conservative member, who said he was once a trade union leader.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I find it unbelievable that the new minister comes strutting into this House to tell us how pleased she is with the new EI reforms. These new reforms represent $300 million, whereas $46 billion has been snatched from the EI fund. I do not see where this is any improvement. I do not understand how anyone can be boasting about reforms that will begin in October. I do not find it pertinent.

There were 28 recommendations. Why are we only discussing a single one today? Why the reduction in numbers?

I cannot understand, either, the attempt by my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst to get the minimum, in keeping with what the Liberals want. We do not want to give them what they want; we want to see the people get what they want, because this is all about their own money. It is not the Liberals' money, but the money of the workers and their employers. The Liberals are helping themselves to the fund in order to reduce the deficit they themselves created. I am not in favour of that.

On the other hand, it must not be a matter of scattering money left and right and trying to improve the system, while boasting of making improvements when these are made with other people's money. That is perfectly obvious.

Can the hon. member opposite tell me who contributes to the EI fund? Is it the government, or is it the workers and their employers? When someone gives me money, I handle it how I please. But when it is other people's money, I handle it with care and think things through before I use it.

The measures the Liberals plan to put in place are not specific, so I will ask the new minister the following question. Are they going to address all 28 recommendations and not just three? Will the minister settle for scattering a bit of money around in order to show Canadians how nice, how bright, how lovely she is, in hopes that they will behave if they get a little money given to them? A total of $46 billion has disappeared. Will it be used to create an independent fund?

[Petitions, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of some of my constituents, I am tabling a petition regarding Bill C-38.