House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 70% of the vote.
Employment Insurance October 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development kept telling those who were criticizing the employment insurance reform to wait for the report.
Well, the minister can no longer hide behind the report because 58% of unemployed Canadians are not eligible for benefits. Entire families are suffering today because of the Liberals' reform.
With a $20 billion surplus in the EI fund, what is the minister waiting for to make employment insurance more accessible?
Employment Insurance October 7th, 1998
Ours was a fairy tale Robin Hood. He is not here today.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he establish a separate employment insurance fund, so that the rich do not get richer at the expense of the poor?
Employment Insurance October 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as a child I used to watch Robin Hood, and Robin robbed the rich to give to the poor.
But the Robin Hood I grew up with has changed. Today's Robin Hood robs the poor to give to the rich.
Criminal Records Act September 29th, 1998
Madam Speaker, last April, I asked a question about employment insurance eligibility.
There is a problem in the maritime regions with all the cuts in cod and crab fishing quotas and even a moratorium on cod fishing. We have talked several times, here in the House of Commons, about the hardship experienced by fish plant workers. For the past three years, the federal government has had to send money to the provinces for what is called the black hole, which stretches from February to May.
People wonder if they will have to live like that for the rest of their lives. Will fishers and fish plant workers have to experience that kind of hardship for the rest of their lives? Will all seasonal workers have to experience that kind of hardship for the rest of their lives?
Who can live on $165 a week? Not the Minister of Finance, I can guarantee that. Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Prime Minister can live on $165 a week less taxes.
Today, in fact, I asked the Prime Minister a question. In February 1993, when he was in opposition, he had taken the time to send a letter to a Canadian. In it, he said that when—he did not say if—he was elected in the fall, he would make sure that something was done about EI, as well as the GST and pay equity. But what kind of Prime Minister do we have? What are the Liberals now doing for Canadians? They are making find-sounding promises that they cannot keep.
The EI fund belongs to workers. It is not there to reduce taxes. It belongs to workers and businesses. Is it not their fund? Morally, the government has no right to touch the money.
It is disgraceful what is happening in our country, how the government wants to grab the money in the EI fund so that it can proudly tell us how it has balanced the budget. It has balanced the budget and reduced the deficit to zero. How has it done this? On the backs of workers.
It is not true that workers will put up with this. It is no different from an insurance company. Suppose that today you purchase an insurance policy for your car and that, ten years from now, you have an accident. You have paid insurance for ten years, and when you go to collect, you are told: Sorry, the insurance company has used the money for something else.
This is an insurance policy that belongs to workers. It is time the Minister of Human Resources Development stopped letting the Minister of Finance push him around. He should stand up to him, do the job he is supposed to do, and assume his responsibilities.
It is unacceptable. Today the Prime Minister told me I did not know what I was talking about. I would encourage the Prime Minister to pay a visit to my riding. We would love to see him.
Let the Minister of Human Resources Development come to my region, where winter finds 46% of workers on EI because there is no work.
The government should assume its responsibilities and quick.
Employment Insurance September 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as with the GST and pay equity, the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten the promise he made to unemployed Canadians.
To use the Prime Minister's own words, the government should quit targeting the employed and get at the root of the problem. The problem is that over 60% of unemployed workers in this country do not qualify for benefits.
Will the government use the fund surplus to increase access to EI, instead of forcing people to go on welfare?
Employment Insurance September 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, 60% of unemployed workers do not qualify for EI because you have forced them to go on welfare.
Employment Insurance September 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, when he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister wrote “By lowering premiums and increasing the penalties for those who voluntarily leave their job, it is obvious that the government is not very concerned about the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of getting at the root of the problem, it targets the unemployed”.
Now the Minister of Finance has his eye on the surplus in the EI fund. Will the Prime Minister keep the promise he made in the spring of 1993 and come to the assistance of Canada's unemployed workers?
Employment Insurance September 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, only 38% of people qualify for EI even though it belongs to the workers of this country.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development going to allow the Minister of Finance to tell him what to do, or does he have the strength of character to create an independent EI fund and make decisions that benefit Canada's workers and the companies that employ them?
The short weeks pilot project ends on November 15. While we are waiting for the real changes to EI, will the government do the right thing and make this project permanent?
Employment Insurance September 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance tells us he wants to make it legal to divert money from the EI fund.
Let us hope the Minister of Human Resources Development does not go along with the Minister of Finance.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development have the authority to make the desired changes to facilitate access, or is the Minister of Finance calling the shots?
Competition Act September 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on March 27, 1998, I rose in my place to ask the government to review its practices concerning disability benefits. In Bill C-2 introduced at the beginning of this Parliament, the Liberals turned their backs on those living with a disability.
In their program-slashing frenzy, this government attacked our society's most vulnerable members, those living with a disability. The government expects to cut $1 billion in disability benefits between now and 2005.
I would like to address the appeal process. It takes three to four months for the first-level appeal to be heard. The second stage, the appeal to the review tribunal, takes six months. The third level of appeal, to the appeal board, takes one year.
Let us take the example of one of my constituents, Jean-Marie Doiron. An accident when he was 21 left him in a wheelchair. That was 40 years ago. Jean-Marie worked throughout this period. He did what he could. During the last 14 years, he repaired school textbooks. On turning 60, Jean-Marie decided to apply for the Canada Pension Plan. His doctor decided he should leave the work force because of his handicap eight months after his 60th birthday.
But, because more than six months had elapsed since he had applied to the CPP for disability benefits, he was turned down. Jean-Marie took his appeal to the first level and won. But the government told him it would go to the appeal board.
Jean-Marie has already been waiting one year, and will have to wait one more before his case is heard. There are already several cases like his in the works. It is unbelievable that people are treated this way by the Government of Canada. It is unbelievable that the government goes after the most vulnerable citizens, those who have worked for our country, people like Jean-Marie Doiron, who has been in a wheelchair for the last 40 years and who cannot get CPP benefits, despite all the legislation governing the plan.
I call on the Government of Canada to amend the disability benefit eligibility criteria. In addition, this government should do something about the appeal process so that it does not take Canadians three years to get disability benefits. It is high time that this government demonstrated its commitment to those living with a handicap.
Not content with robbing workers of over $20 billion, now the federal government is going after the disabled. I would like the government to amend the Canada Pension Plan.