Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that, no matter what the unemployment rate is, the transitional measures that apply to the regions in eastern Quebec will be gradually eliminated and will disappear altogether in April 2012, no matter what.

How can the government recognize that the current situation is problematic and that transitional measures need to be renewed, and on the other hand, announce the end of these measures, no matter what the state of the labour market in April 2012?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill because it widens the gap between the rich and the middle class and the poor. This bill does not meet the Bloc Québécois' expectations or those of the people.

The Bloc Québécois is the only party that really did its homework. We consulted people in all regions of Quebec. My colleague from Hochelaga made it his mission to travel to every single region to meet representatives, opinion leaders and organizations.

The Minister of Finance ignored the economic statement we presented even though it laid out options for additional resources for the government without compromising the social safety net. In our statement, we suggested that the wealthy should contribute more via a 2% tax increase for those earning $150,000 or more per year and a 3% tax increase for those earning $250,000 or more. Higher taxes on high-income earners would bring in $4.8 billion in additional revenue for the government.

The same applies to tax havens. There are still too many companies, organizations and individuals who use tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. That is additional money the government could have collected.

Instead, the government chose to adopt measures that affect the middle class and low-income earners and to chip away at the social safety net and existing social measures, including a very precious means of communication, Canada's postal system. The subject barely came up here today, but the government began the process to privatize the Canada Post Corporation. That is unacceptable because the Canadian postal system plays an important role in society in general.

In this budget, the government is also seeking to subject credit unions like the Desjardins Group to federal authority. Initially, that would be voluntary. The government always introduces voluntary measures to soften up those concerned about the status of these institutions, but it wants to gradually bring such institutions under a Canadian entity exclusively. That is totally unacceptable.

Another serious issue is that the government wants to make plundering the employment insurance fund official. This diversion of funds over the past 14 years, first by the Liberal Party and then by the Conservative Party, represents more than $57 billion.

When the Supreme Court ruled on how the employment insurance fund is used, it recognized the fact that this money belongs to the contributors. The government can use it for other purposes, but it still has to understand that the money belongs to the contributors.

They are preparing to make this theft official by changing how the fund is administered, and the Liberals will be their accomplices. The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board will become the employment insurance operating account, and the fund will start all over again at zero. It is as though this diversion of funds never happened. Doing this would allow the current government to make use of the employment insurance fund surplus from 2012 to 2015, to the tune of $19 billion. The $57 billion will be erased with a single vote in the House and the Liberals will be the accomplices. I hope that my Liberal colleagues realize that they will also be accomplices in the future diversion of $19 billion.

Those who support the unemployed—the major unions, unemployment organizations and, of course, the unemployed themselves—have always been unanimous. They all agree that the system no longer corresponds to their reality. It is no longer helpful or inclusive, it is exclusive. More than 54% of the people unemployed today cannot receive benefits.

Yet these people contributed to an employment insurance fund, which is basically insurance should they have the misfortune of losing their jobs. They put money into this fund specifically to be able to receive benefits to continue supporting their families and meeting their obligations if they lose their jobs.

People need to know that voting for Bill C-9 constitutes, in my mind, a serious economic crime against people who have lost their jobs. Not only would this deprive workers of an income, but it would also mean depriving their families. This also puts an economic burden on a certain region, or even on the provinces. Quebec will be left to take care of these people through a last resort measure: social assistance. There is something wrong with this picture.

In closing, women are those most affected: over 67% of women are excluded. This morning in the House, the Liberal Party leader introduced a bill on pay equity, which we will support, because we simply cannot oppose such a measure. However, it is a hypocritical bill, because they will say here today that they oppose Bill C-9, but they will not show up to vote against it. Yet that bill will make it impossible for women to ask the courts to recognize their right to pay equity.

That is why we will vote against the bill. We invite all our colleagues to do the same.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

During her speech, the member for Laval said that the budget that is about to be implemented completely ignored half of the population, since it does not do anything for women.

Not only does it have nothing for women, but the budget also ensures that women will no longer be able to achieve pay equity through the courts. My colleague's party is once again prepared to vote against implementing the budget, but not to actually defeat it. The Liberals will abstain from voting, as they did for the budget itself.

How does my colleague explain such deceitful behaviour to his constituents? How does he explain that today, his leader introduced Bill C-471, which aims to provide pay equity for women, but will then see to it that this equity is not enforced?

[Employment Insurance, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not have the courage to answer the question.

The reality is that the employment insurance fund is controlled by the government. Like the Liberals before them, the government will continue to set overly high premiums and try to pay out the least amount of benefits possible in order to generate huge surpluses for paying down the deficit.

Why does the government not acknowledge that, just like the Liberals, it will continue to gouge the unemployed?

[Employment Insurance, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government maintains that employment insurance premiums are set by an independent body. However, in the budget, it clearly announces that it will rake in a $19.2 billion surplus between 2011 and 2015.

How can the government claim that it does not have control over the employment insurance fund when it is already announcing that the fund will generate inordinate surpluses?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for that very fundamental question.

In the past, when it came to signing agreements with other countries, we took into account their human rights track record, with respect to both labour and the rights of men, women and children. Those are things we considered in the past.

This time, we are going about it differently. We are trivializing the human rights situation. In the comments I made earlier, before oral question period, I said that Colombia could be classified as a rogue state on the human rights front. The proximity between the government and paramilitaries who engage in violence and commit murders is so obvious that it is shocking and despicable to want to conclude an agreement with a state that behaves in such a manner.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his question. He does magnificent work.

On a city block in Bogota, Colombia, there is a huge house with armed guards. Inside there are extraordinary works of art that the conquistadors collected, that is, stole from the Mayan people. When you enter this site, you are searched in every room to make sure you do not take anything.

While works of art are being so carefully protected, in the streets outside there are children and elderly people dying from disease. You see them. They are there. Children who are only three or four years old are often looking after smaller ones.

That is the regime seeking our support. It is a regime that worships the golden calf and does not respect human rights.

To support Bill C-2, as the Liberals and Conservatives do, is to protect the golden calf at the expense of human existence.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise today in the debate on BillC-2. In all my political career, I did not believe that I would one day have to speak about this kind of agreement.

I feel the strong emotion because, in 1974 and 1976, 36 and 34 years ago, the World Confederation of Labour and the Latin-American Confederation of Workers, or the Central Latinoamericana de Trabajadores (CLAT), asked me to spend several months in Colombia to help to establish agricultural and food cooperatives.

At that time, we were closely watched for our own protection because we were trade unionists. In a way, we were protected by world opinion. If a foreign trade unionist was harassed, it made international headlines. But local unionists could suffer almost any kind of unimaginable atrocity. To keep us safe, the unions in Colombia at the time provided us with double protection. If one person lost sight of us, there always had to be a second person who could see us, so that, if we disappeared, it could be immediately made public.

People my age will remember Marcel Pépin, who was kidnapped in Argentina in 1976. I was in Colombia at the same time. What saved Marcel Pépin, who was president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, was precisely international opinion. I say that because, as soon as I became aware of this proposed agreement for the first time, and having watched how things have evolved in Latin America, and especially in Colombia, I said to myself that not much progress has been made on human rights or the basic rights of the people there.

I have watched the current situation very closely, and, in fact, very little has changed. Back then, paramilitaries committed murder with the complicity of the state. Paramilitaries still commit murder with the complicity of the state. International organizations are well aware that 30 people who are very close to the president of Colombia, members of the Congress of Colombia, are also very close to the paramilitaries. In the Congress, 60 people have close ties to the paramilitaries, and the crimes that they commit are well known.

In the past 20 years, 4,800 trade unionists have been killed and thousands have disappeared. In this country, killing unionists and those in charge of agricultural cooperatives and agrarian organizations has become a trivial matter. I know that for some people here in the House it is trivial, simply because it is happening elsewhere.

Turning a blind eye to these types of things, even from afar, also means that you are endangering your own values. The two major parties that are contending for power and government status here are not only suggesting that this is acceptable elsewhere, but also that we will sign a trade agreement with them. But today's assessment, recognized by international experts, is that this is a rogue state when it comes to human rights. Let me say that again: this is a rogue state when it comes to human rights. I am at a loss when I see how quickly they can get on board to support such a bill.

There are still child labourers in this country. There are still workers who have no rights in this country. They definitely do not have the right to unionize. It is no coincidence that only 5% of workers in this country are unionized. Those who choose to unionize risk their lives in doing so. The only recognized labour organizations are the ones that support the Colombian government's claim that there is a right to unionize, when, in reality, that does not exist.

I think that it is important to consider the following proverb: A man is known by the company he keeps.

I encourage our Conservative and Liberal colleagues to think about this proverb as well as what they are about to do. It is not just about a relationship. It is about an agreement, about associating ourselves with something, thereby approving it, even though it is at odds with our values regarding the development of natural resources.

When companies have the right to invest, when their investments are protected and when there are no measures to protect human rights, that creates a situation that is not worthy of what we claim to stand for. We claim to stand for a society that is not only democratic, but willing to fight for democracy to uphold human rights. This is what our Liberal and Conservative colleagues are giving up on.

It is easy to sit out the debate. Personally, I find it disconcerting that our Liberal and Conservative friends have been missing from the debate for a few hours. It is embarrassing. They support a bill that would implement a free trade deal with a country that tramples on human rights, yet they do not have the backbone to stand up, say why they support this agreement and argue against what we are saying in this House.

We are abdicating our responsibility when we claim that what we are proposing is good not only for our own people, but for the people we are going to trade with. Even our own people disagree. Even Canadians and particularly Quebeckers do not support the idea that this bill promotes investment and protects only investments by companies that often behave badly abroad. We are talking about mining companies, for one.

We know what happened to two writers who wrote about what mining companies were doing in African countries. They were sued for millions of dollars because they dared to describe what was happening.

I call on our colleagues to reconsider and think about what Mr. Fowler said on the weekend at the event organized by the Liberals. He said that they should not make so many compromises in order to achieve power. They are not trying to achieve power with compromises anymore, but with cowardice, and we will not stand for it. That is why we are going to vote against Bill C-2.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, this free trade agreement of course sets out investment rights and investment protection, but there is nothing on the face of it that ensures the protection of human rights as such. I would like to hear some of the hon. member's thoughts on that. Is there not something altogether disturbing in all this when we see what the mining industry is doing in other countries, especially in South Africa, which also wants to exploit deposits in Colombia? I would like to hear some of his thoughts on this.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the hon. member does not want to make comparisons. However, will he not admit that supporting such a free trade agreement sets a dangerous precedent for a democracy like ours, which respects human rights—or certainly makes every effort to do so?

Does this not pose a strong threat to Canada and Quebec's tradition of respecting human rights?