House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Employment Insurance June 20th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, last weekend, a group of people from the coalition des Sans-chemise demonstrated in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region for justice in EI.
How can the Prime Minister, who has on many occasions made formal promises to the Sans-chemise, now continue to reject the proposals by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities that the unemployed be treated fairly and equitably?
Employment Insurance June 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the pilot projects do not meet the needs of older workers, who cannot be retrained and are the victims of massive lay-offs.
Can the government understand that what is needed is a permanent program to provide income support for older workers between the time they lose their jobs and the time they start receiving their pensions?
Employment Insurance June 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary ought to check his sources, because what he has just said is incorrect.
On June 14, members were unanimous in expressing their support for a motion on an older worker income support program. That motion was not about the pilot projects the minister boasts about endlessly, but about the creation of a permanent program to help older workers when they lose their jobs.
Does the minister intend to respect the wishes of the members of this House and create an income support program for older workers?
Older Workers June 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the minister must distinguish between an adjustment program and an assistance program.
The government has raided the EI fund to the tune of $47 billion. But coming to the assistance of workers who are victims of a plant closure would only be fair and compassionate.
Why is the government, which itself cut the former POWA, refusing to put in place a new income support program for older workers unable to find work, so they could survive once their EI runs out until their pension begins?
Older Workers June 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, what is important is that the existing measures to help older workers have been seriously lacking since this government cut the former assistance program, POWA. The needs of some categories of workers are urgent.
How can the government refuse to re-establish a benefits program that would allow workers aged 57 or 58, for example, who have worked their entire lives for a company that is closing, to get by from the time they are laid off until they get their pension? In my opinion, this is a matter of social justice.
Supply June 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the member for Ahuntsic for her presentation. It sheds light on the current federal government policies in terms of continuity. What concerns us a great deal is that certain facts are not recognized.
Actually, one of the facts that is not recognized is that 28 recommendations were made by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, on which I sit with my colleague.
My colleague argues, if I have understood correctly the statement she made a while ago, that the government has taken into account eight of these recommendations. In fact, we received the reply to this committee's report two weeks ago and none of the recommendations were accepted by the government. So I have trouble accepting this argument today.
Some partial solutions may have been announced in February. However, that has nothing to do with the recommendations. That is why, in that regard, I would like the member to explain the statement she made.
Second, regarding the measures that were introduced—I believe it was in February—she mentioned an amount of $600 million, whereas the government has always maintained it was around $300 million. We believe the actual amount is less. However, today, we are being told that it is $600 million, which has nothing to do with what was announced.
Third, my question has to do with Quebec's policies. Can the parliamentary secretary explain something to me? In other circumstances, I could easily have called her Madam Minister. I have trouble understand her remarks, namely why the Quebec government has not implemented a similar program. Are we to understand that she is willing to do what is needed to transfer to Quebec the amounts of money the federal government has already received and for which it has not assumed its responsibilities.
Supply June 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his remarks. I should mention that my colleague from the Bloc who just spoke was our party critic for human resources and skills development before I took over. He did an outstanding job which laid the foundation of our positions. Of the 32 suggestions the standing committee on human resources made last fall, 28 dealt with improvements in the EI program.
One of these recommendations was that POWA should be reinstated. Since my colleague has both some experience and knowledge of this issue, I would like him to tell me how the experience of POWA went, especially in the latter stages. In the light of practical experience, how could we implement this program we want to reinstate?
Second, it is worth mentioning that this program is not costly, compared to the amount of money available to fund it.
Supply June 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his speech and for all the work he has been doing on this issue, which we generally associate with the city of Huntingdon. The hon. member did indicate, however, that the situation is far from being limited to that city.
As the Bloc critic for human resources and skills development, I recently had the opportunity to meet with more than 130 workers. My colleague and I inquired about the situation. At this time, the priority is to ensure income when the regular EI benefits period is over.
Here is my question for my colleague. Could he describe for the House the income situation of people from his riding who have been laid off? In fact, they were not all laid off at the same time. Some have been without job for one year while others lost their job just recently. I would like him to give us a portrait of those workers' situation.
Supply June 9th, 2005
Madam Speaker, first I want to thank and congratulate my NDP friend for the quality of his speech and for his determination. It was indeed a passionate speech, but not too passionate. As a matter of fact, it is even more moderate than the aggression against workers and it is therefore to his credit.
His comments about the Liberal Party are so true. If the Liberals were driving on the road, they would be very dangerous for the other drivers, putting on their left signal, but turning to the right. This can cause accidents and damages, particularly to workers in this case.
The minister talked earlier about training for workers. Everybody agrees with that, even the NDP. However, I would have liked to hear the minister talk about income support measures. She did not say anything about that. I would like the member to tell us if he has thought about it, and if so, what he thinks of her silence. I would like to understand a little better the concern he was expressing a little earlier.
Supply June 9th, 2005
Madam Speaker, before asking my question, I would like to add a clarification to the text, since I am the mover.
One must understand that the French text, the way it is written, talks about globalization in a general sense. I wish to reassure our Conservative colleagues, as well as my colleague from the NDP, who made speeches that were quite relevant to this issue. I do not know the English language very well, but it seems to me that the English translation suggests a more restrictive measure that would apply only if people were laid off because of globalization.
The reference to globalization only indicates that the closures are happening faster because of globalization. However, it is only a context, not a cause. Consequently, the measures mentioned in the motion should be taken in all cases where there are massive layoffs of older workers.
I wish to add, for my colleague from the NDP, that we are not limiting these measures only to areas where the unemployment rate is 10% or more, but to all older workers.
I have a question for the hon. member. Earlier, the subject of the recovery of the $46 billion--soon to be $47 billion--misappropriated from the employment insurance fund, was raised. I fully understand that, in this debate, their constant concern is the return of the $47 billion and up to the employment insurance fund.