Yvon Lévesque

[50th Anniversary of Chapais, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, June 26 will mark the 50th anniversary of the municipality of Chapais in my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

With a sense of both pleasure and pride, I take the occasion of this celebration to pay tribute to the courage and tenacity of all the residents of Chapais, who, together, have created a vibrant and welcoming community.

Between 1955 and 2005, Chapais had its share of blows, including the federal government's indifference to its economic development, but it has also embraced exciting initiatives, which have given fresh energy to people looking to the future. Through their determination and spirit of initiative, the people of Chapais together can look to the future enthusiastically.

I am very proud to represent such a warm and valiant group of people. May this celebration bring back wonderful memories and provide an opportunity for some happy reunions.

Long live Chapais.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is very much aware of the problems experienced in our region because he has experienced them as well, at certain times. When things start looking up in his riding, they are on the downturn in mine.

There is a major problem in all this. Indeed, when highly experienced and competent workers, in the mining industry for example, are laid off, potential employers considered them high-risk employees, particularly for disease and accidents, and therefore are very hesitant to hire them. Since mining is a declining industry, these workers will be unable to find work in their region. They will be replaced with younger ones, even in companies servicing the businesses that will continue to operate.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, in regions outside the major urban centres, those who are no longer working or finding work in their fields are bound to migrate to these centres. This will have the effect of causing a population explosion in major urban centres and a workforce drain in the regions. The most competent leave the regions to get into fields that are familiar to them. As for older workers, who have always been employed in one business, they will try to find a cheaper place to live. That is disappointing for them.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a new program to help older workers who have lost their job and cannot find a new one in their field or that matches their knowledge and skills.

The proposed program would be based on an old program called Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA, but would be a version adapted to the new reality and in line with the vision and recommendations of qualified individuals in the labour sector who are members of a coalition of the four major labour federations in Quebec. But do not worry, they all or almost all have links with other labour federations in Canada, the United States and even Europe.

The new program would be called the income security program for older workers. Its terms and conditions were developed after extensive consultations held by my distinguished colleague from Chambly—Borduas. It would be a program aimed at workers 50 and older —but that could change according to agreements reached— who have been victim of mass layoffs or plant closures, regardless of industry or community. But I will let my distinguished colleague describe the program in greater detail.

This program is as vital today as it was in the late 1980s, in large part because of this government's lack of vision and, perhaps worse still, its lack of concern for the workers, whom it considered nothing more than a source of funds for this country. Its main concern was reserved for the big banks and corporations rather than for those who are the source of this government's great wealth.

It has neglected to consider the impact of technological change and changes in the market economy. The economy has been completely turned upside down by what they call globalization, but I call internationalization. In the process recognized by our governments, with their predilection for the financial establishment, not one environmental, social, commercial or ethical regulation, either tacit or explicit, has been included in the various agreements on free trade and international exchange.

As a result, we find the least scrupulous businesses closing down here in order to move their operations to these havens of lack of concern for humans or the environment, be it local or global. The ones that do not do so are exhausting most of their resources in a struggle to survive despite the government's thinly disguised pressures to commit hara-kiri.

In fact, by refusing these companies the financial assistance they need to fight the unfair competition from certain other countries advantaged by their financial and environmental complacency, this government is forcing them to close down in the end.

Unfortunately, our own government is actively involved in the disappearance of our businesses. One need look no further for an example than the transfer of the printing of our bank notes from a Montreal firm to a German one. What could be more intimately linked to a country's very being than its money? I find that shocking.

Then there is the softwood lumber sector. It would have been simple to provide these businesses with help, particularly when the government could have got its loans back readily because of the rulings in all the courts. But instead it let the situation deteriorate and paved the way for the American establishment to get its hands on our resources more readily. This same government, considered today by everyone to be the best possible example of corruption, with a leader whose legitimacy is questionable, has added to the already very substantial revenues of the oil and gas companies at the expense of the public purse and, worse yet, at the expense of the mining companies which were already begging for help.

Speaking of the leader of this government, is he not the perfect example of a saboteur in our country? He is the one who legalized capital evasion to tax havens for himself and his magnificent friends. Is he not the one who flies flags of convenience on his ships so as not to have to contribute to the economy of the very country he is leading, thereby allowing himself to violate basic environmental rules? Is he not also the one who fired his Canadian staff and replaced them with foreign workers, who he pays less than the minimum wage in this country?

Because he wanted to fight the fundamental right to form a union in this country, it is not surprising to see him disappear during votes on improving labour laws. We also know that he even orders his ministerial servants to vote against any labour improvement initiatives. It is unbelievable the appeal a limousine can have to some people and the price they are willing to pay. The price of government limousines, in terms of moral compromise, is quite high.

My riding and the entire region it is located in are beleaguered by the inaction of and delay tactics used by this government over the past decade or so, but especially since the current Prime Minister took his post as finance minister. He stifled the mining and forestry industries. He created astronomical unemployment rates that affect the entire regional economy and prompt the exodus of young people and specialized workers, denying the local industry and commerce of over $66 million a year since 1996. Let us not forget, that is when he replaced the Unemployment Insurance Act with the Employment Insurance Act, a stupid idea if ever there was one.

Yes, before 1996, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, a worker who lost his job knew that his benefits would be based on maximum insurable earnings of $47,900, and a benefit rate between 55% and 60%.

Nothing is too good for the working class. In the case of the Prime Minister, the trust legislation was retroactive. The difference is that it was meant to help friends of the Minister of Finance save money.

The maximum insurable earnings were lowered from $47,900 to $39,700, and, on top of that, the benefit rate dropped from 60% to 55%, and there was a penalty for each successive benefit period.

Today, we are talking to a young former Conservative who has certainly never experienced unemployment. She has no other political quality or merit except breaking ranks with her former party, and her only obligation now is that she should not think or decide for herself, even if her position was the complete opposite when she was a Conservative. She even trashes what she used to cherish. Talk about renewing trust in politicians.

Even if this government took $47 billion from the fund, it keeps taking more money illegally and without permission, and gives no thought at all to indexing benefits. They were already too low back in 1995, when we still had the Unemployment Insurance Act.

The current Prime Minister, then Minister of Finance, reduced by 82.88% the baseline used to calculate the benefit rate, and then reduced to 10% the benefit calculated according to this rate. This is serious. The Prime Minister has stifled the unemployed since 1996 by reducing a 1996 benefit by close to 20%. A similar benefit was used to help older workers until March 31, 1997. Since then, there is no more support program and many workers have had to rely on social assistance to make ends meet until they get their pension.

Most of those workers have been working since they were 13, 14, 15 or even 16 years old. When one of them is unlucky enough to lose his or her job, he or she has generally been working for some 40 years, with very few periods of unemployment, for the luckiest of them.

Many of those workers have worked for the same company all their life and they only know the type of work they have been doing all their life. The statistics are very revealing. These people only constitute 12.5% of the labour force, but they represent 21.3% of the long-term unemployed.

How bitter are these workers when they see their leaders blow all this money on sponsorship programs? This tragicomedy is disgusting.

I could go on like that for a long while, but I will now let the others have the floor.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the NDP member on his motion. What I find unfortunate is that, in the negotiations to sell NDP support to the Liberals, he did not think of this aspect of Canadians' needs he is so valiantly defending at the moment. When he asks for Liberal support I am not sure whether he really thinks he will get it. Indeed, with the Liberals' record for honouring their commitments, I am not sure it is worth the effort to make deals with such a party.

My question is in this vein. Does he really think the Liberals will agree to these changes, when they even reject the changes proposed by the committee?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this a little earlier and I will elaborate on it.

I was saying that, during the last year of its mandate, Canada Economic Development only used two-thirds of its budget. Despite all, regional directors had to somehow put their necks on the line to provide projects that were not included in the programs. It was left to the goodwill of regional directors to create programs because they did not exist.

These programs could really respond to the needs of the regions. Adding these programs would have been much easier and much less controversial than this bill we have been debating for almost a month now. It is a huge waste of time. We could have solved this with the everyone's agreement and to everyone's satisfaction, except perhaps the people who are seeking a minister's job. Automobile salespeople would have one less limousine to sell, but this might have still satisfied the people of Quebec and of all the regions of Canada. Canada would still have continued to follow the example of Quebec.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just referred to something the member for Gatineau said earlier. The increase in the federal public service is also related to the transfer of other federal employees to the regions, which is slowly destroying them. As a result, unemployment has increased, more young people are leaving the regions, and there are fewer job prospects in these regions.

I want to give another example of waste. Even before the Parliament considered the bill, two departments were created from one, without anyone even asking for Parliament's approval. Although Parliament did not sanction the appointment of the minister, he is still there, along with all the public servants under him. This is wasteful and evidence of duplication within the federal government itself. In addition, there is an attempt to duplicate provincial initiatives. It is unbelievable.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the behaviour of this government, which continues to seek confrontation with all sorts of degrading acts and measures, such as the sponsorships and the Clarity Act, in an attempt to control Quebeckers. Such proposals are unacceptable and the Quebec National Assembly is unanimous on this.

We also asked that Quebec's regional development priorities be respected. To do otherwise would be perceived as today's equivalent of the sponsorships, that is, an attempt to legalize the future wasting of taxpayers' money in futile investments that neither Quebec nor Quebeckers want.

Another demand had to do with the implementation of Quebec's regional development objectives, in order to promote those objectives. We also asked that the minister fulfill his duties so as to reach agreements providing for the transfer of federal funds to Quebec, in the context of regional development. This would have resulted in Quebec and Ottawa cooperating in economic areas, as wished by Jean Lesage back in 1965, that is 40 years ago.

We also asked that regional priorities for development be taken into consideration. Since there are such differences between the regions of Quebec, it is necessary to have a very good knowledge of these regions before making decisions. There was an immediate outcry on the part of all the other parties in this Parliament, because these amendments would have reduced too significantly the federal government's power to interfere in this typical and true provincial jurisdiction, particularly in the case of Quebec.

It is easy to understand why these same parties were also opposed to signing agreements with Quebec to transfer the funds required for regional development, and to decentralize the powers relating to regions and their needs.

Again, we maintain that establishing a federal department in this area would only perpetuate the counterproductive duplication that already exists. The regions need help, they need it urgently, and they are not interested in watching Quebec and Ottawa fight.

We are repeating that this bill is offering nothing new to the regions. EDC's allocations remain unchanged; its programs and budgets have not changed at all. The department itself said there was no foreseeable impact on the agency's programs and current client base. The only real change will be that there will a minister, a limousine and another unjustifiable increase in personnel in Ottawa, where people from outside Quebec will be deciding what Quebec and its regions need.

The government can do a lot for all the regions of Quebec within its own jurisdictions, in terms of employment insurance, support for older workers and skills upgrading, by restoring federal capital spending to an acceptable level. There are so many other areas, such as support for the mining industry, similar to that provided to the oil and automotive industries. Support could even be provided for clean energy like wind and solar power.

Because this bill does not offer anything to the regions, because it further politicizes federal intrusions in the regions of Quebec, because it interferes with the implementation of a real integrated policy that can only be adopted by Quebec, because it ignores regional authorities, because, in considering bills, this government has shown no willingness to respect Quebec's priorities, which will result in many more years of conflict and inconsistency, the Bloc Québécois will not support this bill.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say there were traitors. I said that in any other country, people who behave that way would be considered traitors. I did not say there were traitors here. The law and the outlook of the people of this country are much more open than in some other countries.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my hon. colleague opposite just now. I wonder if the Liberal Party of Canada is listening to the same radio stations as the other members of the House. She should have listened to the mayor who looked for Canada Economic Development programs and who was unable to find any. He would have liked some aid after a report on substandard housing was released. He was unable to obtain any because no such program was available.

I also want to say that, according to Canada Economic Development's 2003-04 report, the agency managed to spend only two-thirds of its budget because it did not have the programs it needed to invest in other areas despite the needs identified by its offices.

Once again, the member opposite could have left her own office and visited the agencies. No doubt, she would have discovered this.

All things considered, it is quite simply—I am repeating after my colleagues—a new department that will serve to guide, promote and coordinate the policies and programs of the Government of Canada in relation to the development and diversification of the economy of the regions of Quebec.

It obtained a few more powers than the board of Canada Economic Development, for example, whose funding and mission is provided by the Department of Industry.

Its additional powers seek to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and, consequently, the minister shall, in cooperation with other concerned ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, formulate and implement policies, plans and integrated federal approaches. This is very important.

However, the government has been careful not to ensure the approval of the different provincial departments or agencies in areas under their jurisdiction.

So the minister will be responsible for the impact, not the needs of federal programs on the regions. Quebec does not want an integrated federal strategy, but rather improved programming able to meet the needs of Quebec, while respecting its areas of jurisdiction.

I repeat: the Constitution makes Quebec responsible for most matters related to regional development, and an integrated strategy must touch on a wide range of issues such as natural resources, education and training, municipal affairs, land use and infrastructure. Ottawa does not have jurisdiction over such matters, and it is no expert in them either.

In this government, ministers are appointed first, and then portfolios are created for them. It is certainly the case for the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, as it was for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, a department that was recently split by Parliament. The same government—with the pleading eyes and trembling hand of its leader who, even if he has no credibility, is trying to have the public believe that he is seeking the cooperation of the opposition parties—will not respect the decisions, motions or recommendations made by this Parliament. As a result, it is maintaining a department that was voted down by a majority vote and that has not yet been recognized by this Parliament. If that is what the Prime Minister meant when he promised to correct the democratic deficit, the opposition parties should take the government's measure and defeat once and for all a measure that only serves the interest of the governing party.

As far back as I can remember without going all the way back to Duplessis, Quebec has always demanded to be in charge of its regional development. Just think back to 1965, when Jean Lesage stated the following at a federal-provincial conference:

—Quebec will consider it normal, from now on, that any federal action with respect to the regions of Quebec be taken through Quebec's administrative structures, once Quebec has agreed with the objectives and the means to achieve them. Otherwise, there is a risk that policies based on divergent premises cancel each other out.

After 43 years of debate and continuous improvement in Quebec's ability to manage its own development, the question remains unresolved.

Members will recall that, between 1973 and 1994, there was a framework agreement in place between Quebec and Ottawa. The two governments were obliged to agree, otherwise Ottawa could not have intervened, and most of the federal money went to Quebec structures.

In its dictatorial approach, this government, more centralizing than that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, circumvented the established agreements, and confrontations could only become more nasty—all for federal Liberal visibility and an outstanding battle with an immigrant to Quebec prepared to betray his adopted fellow citizens, who, for his own purposes and desire for power, got himself elected leader of this government.

Make no mistake: this federation will not be destroyed by a vote for or against the budget, or a vote of confidence, or a vote for or against Bill C-9, or Quebec's sovereignty. The Conservatives, drawn from the Conservative Party or the Alliance, and the NDP all know that. What will kill this federation are the piecemeal negotiations and the unfair competition this government has created among the provinces, to their detriment.

With the insistence by all parties in the House that this bill be rammed down the throats of Quebeckers, we in the Bloc have tried to have certain changes introduced, which would have permitted minimal respect for the areas of Quebec's jurisdiction and the needs and aspirations of Quebeckers in terms of their development and territorial integrity.

We called for the removal of all references to “integrated federal approaches”. It was never recognized in the past in any form whatsoever. It is not recognized today and will not be in the future either. Any elected representative in a country agreeing to such a formulation would be considered a traitor to his country, and all Quebec members doing so here should be considered so as well.

They need only refer to the words of Jean Lesage in 1965 or recall the agreements in existence between 1973 and 1994 to realize that the government has never done a thing for Quebec and continues to seek out confrontation through offensive legislation and action, like the sponsorships and the law—