Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when giving his update, the Prime Minister himself admitted that changes needed to be made to the employment insurance system and that he would announce them in the fall. The Prime Minister does not understand that unemployed workers need help now.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that it is irresponsible to wait until the fall to improve accessibility to employment insurance and increase benefits and enhancements, which a number of stakeholders have long been calling for?

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on a very important point. We sometimes place too much faith in the institutions or money managers we ask to manage pension funds. The mechanisms in place to prevent missteps are not enforced or are poorly enforced. Consider the small stock market crash of the early 2000s, when pension funds and registered pension plans dropped considerably, but they regained their value in four to six years. This was normal, because the funds were appropriately invested in relation to the businesses or markets that could regain their value.

The problem, and we saw this with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, is that the so-called experts invested in securities that could collapse without having any basic value. Commercial paper comes to mind. Commercial paper is an obvious example. That is why it is important to secure pension plans above all. RRSPs might need to be treated differently. We need legislation to ensure that workers are the first creditors in line in the event of bankruptcy.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there is insurance for all kinds of things. Pension funds should usually be self-insured. These funds must be secured given that employers and employees contribute to them and they are often managed by both or by one or the other, depending on their mandate. Sometimes they take the easy road, like when the government dips into the pension fund or fiddles with the employment insurance fund to pay for other things.

Considerable amounts of money that will serve as income security in the future are used for other purposes. People often take the easiest road. If the company experiences a temporary difficulty, it is given a contribution moratorium to deal with the problem. Or the employer's contribution is made over 10 years rather than 5. That is currently happening at Air Canada. The union agreed that contributions for some employees would be spread over 10 years. This makes the pension fund insecure. That is not the right thing to do.

Some things should remain sacred and pension funds are among them. Individual human beings— workers—keep the economy going and give value and meaning to our society. Yet they are the first to lose their assets when corporations and banks get into trouble. Often, it is not the workers who are at fault. It is a question of poor management.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I think that the problem, where things went wrong over the years, is that people managing pension and investment funds to ensure the financial security of retirees should have been more concerned about those retirees than about profit for profit's sake, with all of the risks that entails.

Someone told me a story. I do not know if it is true, but I will share it with you anyway. A man went to see his banker. He was not rich and wanted to take a loan for something basic and very useful. The banker refused to give him the loan. The man would not give up, so eventually, the banker made a proposal. The banker said that before deciding whether to grant the loan, he would ask the man a question. The banker had a glass eye, and he told the man that if he could tell which of the two eyes was the glass one, he would get the loan. The man immediately answered that it was the left eye. The banker asked the man how he had guessed that it was the left eye. The man said that he had noticed a little more kindness in the left eye than in the right one.

When people are responsible for managing funds that are supposed to guarantee the financial security of others, they must do so responsibly. The system falls apart when managers who do a terrible job are rewarded with excessive bonuses, while companies pressure workers to give up their pension funds.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this House on the motion introduced by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. This motion is consistent with measures we have called for and proposed here in this House for a number of years to improve income security for seniors and retirees.

The motion is aimed at expanding and increasing the Canada pension plan (CPP) and the Quebec pension plan (QPP). We can discuss this a bit later, but I believe that our NDP friends and the Conservatives agree that this part of the motion should be withdrawn, because Quebec has jurisdiction over the Quebec pension plan and has done its job well to date.

This motion is also aimed at expanding and increasing the guaranteed income supplement and old age security to ensure all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement.

The motion also has the following objectives:

(b) establishing a self-financing pension insurance program to ensure the viability of workplace sponsored plans in tough economic times;

(c) ensuring that workers’ pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings;

(d) in the interest of appropriate management of the CPP that the Government of Canada immediately protect the CPP from imprudent investment practices by ceasing the practice of awarding managers performance-based bonuses;

(e) take all necessary steps to recover those bonuses for 2009, ensuring managers in the future are paid appropriate industry-competitive salaries.

This motion is quite appropriate in two respects, given the current situation regarding pension funds. First, pension funds are no longer secured because they are being used to help deal with the crisis. Second, because of the double standard, managers will give themselves excessive bonuses that are often inappropriate and unwarranted, dipping into pension funds and forcing workers to give up their own security.

It is, I would point out at the start, totally appropriate to recall Motion M-300 by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot which addressed four issues: With respect to the guaranteed income supplement, there should be automatic registration in future; there should be a $110 monthly increase in benefits; there should be full retroactivity for seniors who have been shortchanged by the fact that the government never bothered to ensure that those who were entitled in the supplement in the past received it; and payments should be continued for six months to supplement recipients after the death of a spouse. It is therefore appropriate to revisit the measures set out in that motion, M-300, from my Bloc Québécois colleague, which will soon be discussed and debated here in the House.

With respect to this motion, the Bloc Québécois is extremely concerned about the situation of our seniors. We believe that, before giving any thought to changing private pension plans, the government should improve the guaranteed income supplement, in order to allow all seniors in Quebec and in Canada to benefit from an income that is at least equivalent to the poverty level. The government ought to also take advantage of this opportunity to remedy the injustices caused to seniors who have been shortchanged by the guaranteed income supplement. Another measure that could readily be put into place is ensuring that workers' retirement funds take priority over other creditors in the event of bankruptcy.

There has already been a bill passed by the House that includes two essential clauses to protect retirement plans. All that is required for them to become law is an order in council. Workers whose employer falls under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act are just waiting for that order in council so that their pension plans will have some degree of protection. The measures have been passed in this House and are not yet enacted because of governmental neglect, with its laissez-faire attitude.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government, true to form, is plunging many workers into great insecurity with its laissez-faire attitude.

As for other discussions that might take place with the provinces, Quebec and the federal government in order to have improve private pension plans, including creation of retirement insurance, the Bloc Québécois is in favour if, and only if, such discussions do not encroach on their respective areas of jurisdiction.

Finally, with respect to the CPP's principles of internal management, we are of the opinion that the Bloc Québécois has no right to interfere, just as we believe that the federal government has no right to be interfering in the Quebec pension plan.

We believe that the government should immediately increase the guaranteed income supplement and reimburse the seniors who were shortchanged. During the summer and autumn of 2007, Bloc Québécois members travelled around Quebec to talk to seniors about their current and future needs and concerns. People in my own riding, Chambly—Borduas, took part in the consultation.

We consulted over 300 seniors and drew the following interesting conclusions. Over the past decade, seniors have been getting poorer. Even though pension funds and guaranteed income supplements have increased significantly in accordance with the consumer price index, except for a few errors over the years, the index has not been an accurate reflection of pensioners' and beneficiaries' situations.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to generalize when it comes to seniors across Quebec. Some are more active than others. Some live alone, some with their families, and some with others in independent or assisted living residences or in care homes. Some live in big cities, others in small towns. All of these factors make it difficult to paint an accurate picture.

There are other factors, too, such as education, past employment, place of origin or current residence, proximity of family members and help from those nearby. Our consultations enabled us to learn more about Quebec's seniors, their standard of living, their needs and their concerns in terms of their everyday lives and the future. We also had opportunities to talk about why some people are getting poorer, to propose solutions to various levels of government, and to find out what seniors think about Quebec society.

As a result of the consultations, the Bloc Québécois made the following proposals: automatic enrollment for the guaranteed income supplement; a $110 monthly increase in the guaranteed income supplement; full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement for those who have been shortchanged; and a six-month compensatory extension for any guaranteed income supplement recipient whose spouse has died.

In the 10 minutes remaining, I will try to set the context and describe the appropriate measures to be taken as of now.

In general, aging is accompanied by a decline in health and limitations on activities. The real situation of seniors changed during the 20th century. In 1901, life expectancy was 50 years for men and 47 years for women. In the span of one century, life expectancy has increased by 30 years, which is very significant. We have gone from a very small minority of people who lived to the age of 65 years to a majority of people who plan for and enjoy retirement.

A number of factors affect the well-being of seniors including finances, independence, isolation, community support and, of course, safety. Furthermore, income is one of the most important determinants of health and of a senior's ability to obtain the housing and transportation necessary to maintain independence. Housing, transportation and food together represent more than two-thirds of the expenses of seniors-only households. I personally know couples who spend their entire income on these items. That tells you how poor they are. Senior women living alone run a greater risk of financial insecurity than other groups in society.

In spite of enhancements to the guaranteed income supplement in recent years, more than 7% of Quebec seniors continued to live below the after-tax poverty line in 2006. Although the financial situation of seniors has improved over the past 30 years, 13.7% of seniors lived below the poverty line for at least one year between 1996 and 2003. That is serious.

With regard to seniors' sources of income, retirement income—for those with pension funds or RESPs—represents 29%, Old Age Security accounts for 27%, and the Canada Pension Plan or the QPP, the Quebec pension plan, represents 20%.

Since I am running out of time, I will move on to the solutions. Old age security is only one, albeit fundamental, part of the whole retirement income system and is funded through the government's general tax revenues. It provides a monthly pension to most people aged 65 and older who have been living in Canada for some time. The guaranteed income supplement provides additional income to low income seniors. Thus, it gives a little extra to those who need it. The big problem with all of this is that many of those people have not been able to benefit from the guaranteed income supplement because of this government's negligence or ill will.

The problem is as follows. In the past, in order to receive the guaranteed income supplement, the individual had to apply for it every year. Automatic renewal has only been in place for the past year or year and a half. However, people must first register in order to benefit from the automatic renewal.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities examined the issue following a survey conducted in Toronto in early 2001 by Mr. Shillington, a social statistician and policy analyst.

The study found that only 15% of seniors who were using food banks were getting the guaranteed income supplement, though nearly all were eligible for it. This is a catastrophe. That means that 85% of the people going to food banks should have been receiving the guaranteed income supplement, but were not.

The problem is this: many people often do not even know they are eligible for the GIS, in particular, people who have never worked outside the home, people who do not file income tax returns, aboriginal people, residents of remote communities, people with few literacy skills, people who do not read or speak either official language, people with disabilities or who are ill, and finally, the homeless. Yet the government knows who most of these people are; it is aware of their situation and knows that they are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. The government's failure to act on this is appalling. It cannot be explained or excused.

What struck our committee most was that the human resources department had known about the under-registration for the guaranteed income supplement since 1993 and that the problem still persists today. This is a serious economic crime that is being committed against people who are among the most vulnerable members of our society, and the two major parties that have governed since 1993 have not only done nothing to correct the situation, but have deliberately ignored it. This is unforgiveable and must be dealt with immediately.

The only justification given by the two successive governments, Liberal and Conservative, is that departments do not have the right to disclose sensitive information to each other about a person's income or tax return. From the outset, the Privacy Commissioner has allayed that fear, saying that such information could be disclosed because people's security was at stake and because it was being transmitted between two departments and two services that were required to keep it confidential. This has added to the considerable damage they have done to seniors and the crime committed by the two parties that have formed successive governments since 1993.

We know the consequences of their actions: people who are living in poverty, people who are often forced to sacrifice their quality of life by cutting back on what they eat or living in unsanitary housing conditions. What is being proposed is automatic registration. We believe that this measure is not only urgent, but needs to be implemented now.

We in this House have sometimes recognized that decisions needed to be fast-tracked. The government could use the fast-track approach so that the House could authorize improvements to the guaranteed income supplement and full retroactivity in order to address this serious crime against seniors.

I would have liked to conclude by talking about retirees, but as the Chair is indicating that my time is almost up, I will come back to that.

In conclusion, I invite hon. members to vote in favour of the motion that is before us, and I also invite them to vote later for Motion M-300, which corrects all the flaws I have just described.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin on his excellent speech. I think the House of Commons is very privileged to hear a speech of such high quality. Not only did he explain in legal terms the abuses that can be committed through such a bill, but he also gave us the facts, and facts are facts. They do not deviate. He gave concrete examples. I myself had a taste of the War Measures Act when I was a trade unionist in 1970.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the path this bill leads us down, ideologically speaking.

When we move outside the strict framework of the law, and when a certain ideology has been used to enact laws, is there not a danger that we could see other abuses besides the examples he gave?

[Employment Insurance Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this bill, a very important bill, even though we see some flaws in it. I will follow up on the comments of my hon. colleague and address the accessibility of EI.

Seeing that my hon. colleagues from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and Saint-Lambert, with whom I work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities are both here, I will take this opportunity to remind the House that the committee is currently carrying out a study on poverty in the country. One point that everyone appearing as witnesses on behalf of their various groups is making is that the restrictions to the EI program put a terrible burden on individuals, make them poorer and make things worse for them. They are unable to have access to benefits despite the fact that, in many cases, they have contributed to the program for weeks and months.

We know that many steps were taken over the years to exclude as many people as possible from the program and that, as a result, a minority of those contributing to EI actually receive benefits. Previous speakers, except for those from the Conservative Party of course, recognized that this is a major problem that has to be addressed.

We are delighted that the Liberal Party now agrees with us and recognizes the need to implement measures as soon as possible. Such measures will help those who are losing their jobs, of course, but they will also contribute to the economic recovery.

Bill C-280, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from the NDP, calls for a minimum of 360 hours of work to qualify for benefits. Adding five weeks of benefits is another measure. Some might say that those five weeks have already been granted in the last budget, but I should point out that this is a temporary measure designed to get out of the current crisis.

Missing are a number of measures we would have liked to see come about. We would have liked benefits to rise from rise from 55% of insurable earnings to 60%. The same for the two week waiting period. I will come back to that later, when the bill put forward by the Bloc Québécois, a more comprehensive bill in my opinion, comes up for consideration.

We will also have some questions for our NDP friends about how the rules will be relaxed during the economic crisis, including new criteria for people who received employment insurance overpayments previously or who have received a penalty. The rules are not quite clear. I think that when we study this bill in committee, we will have an opportunity to go into detail in this area, which is still a bit vague.

All the same, we have to be realistic about the work that needs to be done. Earlier, I mentioned that our Liberal friends had expressed their intent to vote for this bill. However, we need to know their precise intentions. The only measure the Liberal Party has proposed so far—a proposal it has made over and over—is the 360-hour rule. The Liberals think that it is a way to help us get out of the crisis. But this bill includes a permanent rule that will last as long as the House believes it to be appropriate given the state of the economy.

That is the only measure the Liberals have discussed and debated up to now. For Bill C-280 specifically, we have to urge the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister to have a vote on this bill at third reading. Will they vote at third reading? Voting at second reading is a much smaller commitment when the Speaker announces that he does not intend to authorize third reading unless the bill receives a royal recommendation.

There is another important issue with respect to the credibility of the proposal. We have to remember that the system is what it is right now because of the previous government. The current government is making a mistake by keeping these bad measures in place. But it was the previous government that passed Bill C-17 in 1994, Bill C-12 in 1996, Bills C-32 and C-2 in 2000, Bill C-49 in 2002 and Bill C-23 in 2005.

That does not mean much, because they are just numbers. But each of those bills, which were passed and became laws, represent measures to limit access to EI as much as possible. According to the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, about 44.6% of all people who claim EI can expect to receive benefits. That is quite serious, because it affects not only those losing their jobs, but also their families, the local economy, the regional economy and the economy of the provinces concerned.

We know that someone who does not receive EI benefits will eventually find themselves on welfare, which is administered exclusively by the provinces, even though this person made contributions to the EI system and the EI fund. But the Canadian government does not contribute one cent to this fund. I would call that a serious economic crime, because access to EI is being compromised. We know now that there was a surplus of about $57 billion that the government spent on other things over the past 12 years. That means that there are hundreds of thousands of families who have suffered because of these measures, some of whom have been plunged into poverty.

The Bloc Québécois has consistently brought forward bills that, every time, have been fought by the two big federal majority parties.

In conclusion, if the Liberal Party wants to be credible—because the Conservatives are hopeless, and this is clear from their right-wing measures that take away all the means to support the economy and especially the poor—it must first vote in favour of Bill C-280. It must in particular, as of June 19, join us in studying and debating in favour of Bill C-308, which I introduced on behalf of my party. This bill of course brings back the 360 hours and the 60% of income earned, eliminates the distinctions, eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length, and bases the calculation of benefits on the 12 best weeks.

This is my invitation to my colleagues here in the House. The time has come to fix the employment insurance system.

[Employment Insurance, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development continues surprise us. She said that it was not necessary to change the employment insurance criteria, because the recession means that more people have access to it. Like the conservative economists who rely on the invisible hand to regulate the market, the minister thinks that the recession, all by itself, will settle the problem of accessibility to employment insurance.

What is the minister waiting for to do what everyone is calling for: to make comprehensive changes to the employment insurance system to meet the challenges of the current crisis, and, most importantly, to meet the needs of the unemployed?

[Children in Developing Countries, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as part of their social awareness course last year, some students of Ozias Leduc secondary school in Mont-Saint-Hilaire in my riding decided to raise the awareness of their fellow students about the exploitation of children in developing countries, especially children in forced labour.

To do so, they collected hundreds of clothing labels to check country of origin. Most items turned out to have been made in developing countries.

I accompanied two of those students, David Legrand and Nicolas Boily-Sauvé, to the Hill today to hand these labels over to the Prime Minister and to share with him their objections to imported clothing made by children.

This is one of the reasons the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, since they contain no measures to make businesses accountable.

It is regrettable as well that the Liberals are backing the Conservatives on this and plan to support the two agreements.

[The Economy, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue mislead the House again yesterday by saying that, this week, the government had announced a $500 million injection into training for the unemployed. The minister knows full well that that is the same $500 million announced in January's budget. According to the minister's twisted logic, announcing the same $500 million twice probably adds up to $1 billion.

Instead of trying to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes, will the minister finally put pressure on his government to introduce new measures to help unemployed workers?