Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to mention that the system excludes 55% of unemployed workers. She needs to acknowledge that the forestry crisis resulted in 40,000 job losses in Quebec alone. The minister is refusing to recognize that many of those older workers cannot be retrained.

The need is urgent. When will the minister announce a program that really supports older workers?

[Employment Insurance, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to make piecemeal improvements to the employment insurance system, a system that has become too complex and unfair over the years and needs a complete overhaul. The Bloc Québécois' proposed bills would improve the system by establishing uniform minimum eligibility criteria—360 hours—and eliminating the two week waiting period.

If the minister really cares about what happens to the unemployed, she should vote for these two bills. What is she waiting for?

[Employment Insurance, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the time it takes to process an application continues to increase, and in some cases has reached about 55 days. After a certain period, and until the problem is solved, should the government perhaps pay interest to the unemployed who experience such delays?

If this measure is appropriate for income tax, should it not apply to the unemployed as well?

[Employment Insurance, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of liquidity is pervasive and does not apply just to businesses. Workers, and especially unemployed workers, are also affected. The employment insurance plan must be improved, as demonstrators in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area called for last week.

What is this government waiting for to improve employment insurance so that the unemployed can weather the storm and stimulate the Quebec economy?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche. Knowing him, I consider his remarks very sincere. We must question the position of his party, though. I would remind him that it was not the opposition that unseated them, but the public. The public did not vote for them and brought in the Conservatives. That phase will not last long, given the way they operate.

My question is as follows. The Bloc Québécois has tabled two bills, namely Bill C-241, to remove the waiting period, and Bill C-308, to improve the system. Will the Liberals follow the same logic, support these bills and ensure that the Prime Minister does not call for a royal recommendation?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate our NDP colleague on her speech. She put her finger on a number of injustices, especially toward women. I would like her to comment on certain provisions of the budget implementation bill that the Liberals supported yesterday. Under one provision of the bill, women will no longer be able to file pay equity complaints in court. Even worse, unions will no longer be able to defend them, because they would face a $50,000 fine.

Would the member agree with me that this measure also has an impact in terms of inequity in employment insurance benefits? Because women earn less than men, their benefits will be lower, because they are calculated as a percentage of earnings.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. He is doing excellent work. He is a young member and he is already making his mark in his riding, where he is certainly appreciated.

His question is very relevant. First of all, there are two parts to his question. I want to confirm that no one from any of the groups I meet with—the unemployed, unions or others—has been consulted. I have personally met all these people over the past months and they were not consulted. There were a privileged few, but never an organization as such.

As for the other point, he is completely right. The program for older worker adjustment, which was in place from 1988 to 1997, cost only $17 million at the time and would cost the Canadian government $45 million. It would help all workers over the age of 55 who lose their jobs and cannot find another one. People are not lazy. Those who can find a job will work, but some of them cannot find jobs. Both employers and workers are asking that this program be reinstated because employers are concerned about their workers' futures. When someone has given years, dozens of years, of service to a company, that company does not want to see the worker go to live in poverty.

The work sharing program must be adapted so that it is easier to access. I have had to intervene so that more businesses could access it. It is a program that needs to be perfected, but it is very useful. On that note, I would like to point out that we are available to help make it more accessible, as long as the government is also willing to do its part.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question, but we have to look at the big picture. We have to realize that the crisis is not just affecting workers; it is affecting merchants and business people and so on. That is why any measures to help these people have to take their reality into account.

For example, tax credits do not help businesses that are barely surviving and not making a profit. Even so, that is what the government chose to do. With this budget, the government will be helping big corporations that are making a profit. That is the real issue here.

I happen to know about the restaurant sector because I worked in it for a while and I know how unstable it can be.

The question my colleague should be asking is this: Has the Conservative Party failed to understand that cutting taxes for big companies will not help small restaurant operators like the people she just talked about?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, please excuse me. I lose my voice sometimes. I was having difficulty speaking earlier. I apologize. It is a minor problem with my vocal cords, nothing more.

I thank my colleague, who is doing a remarkable job, as well, and I recognize that he has consistently defended the unemployed and, in fact all workers. He is quite right, because what happened is irregular and abnormal. However, the government wanted to normalize its action, and no one is bothered by it anymore.

This morning I was happy and somewhat relieved to hear my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst go on the offensive and get angry at the situation. Few people are bothered by it, because what was totally abnormal and unfair is now normal. What the Liberals and Conservatives did is not right and they are continuing to do it. It is not right, not fair and causes families to suffer.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain on proposing this motion this morning.

The debate we are holding today could be called “the dignity or deceit debate”. Allow me to explain. When I refer to dignity, I am talking about the dignity we need to give the unemployed, who did not choose to lose their jobs. When I refer to deceit, I am talking about how, since the early 1990s, the unemployed have been robbed of the tool the government created to support people who lose their jobs: the employment insurance fund.

The employment insurance fund used to be called the unemployment fund. The unemployment insurance program paid benefits to people who lost their jobs. That program was changed and given a new look. We did not want that change. Two successive federal governments changed that concept, in order to use the program in a different way.

As I said, the employment insurance fund is the only tool the unemployed have. Workers and their employers are the only contributors to this fund, which will help workers if they are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. That is why the EI fund is also known as an insurance policy. I will not go on too long about this. I just wanted to remind this House about the nature of this tool.

This tool is structured to cover unforeseen circumstances. The unemployment rate is sometimes very high. Depending on the region, it has sometimes fluctuated between 8% and 9%, and it has reached 18% in some areas. There are even places where it has climbed to over 20%. Every time, the fund has fulfilled its commitments to the unemployed. Today, contributions are $1.73 per $100, but they have been as high as $3.20 per $100. When unemployment was higher, contributions automatically increased. Sometimes, the government came to the rescue for brief periods when contributions were not enough to cover benefits. But each time, the fund paid the government back.

In the mid 1980s, the Auditor General said that it might be a good idea to move the fund to the national budget, so it could be administered along with it. The accounting of it has, however, always been separate in order to meet obligations. The recommendation was made in 1985-86. In 1988 or 1989, the government accepted the recommendation.

Things became complicated when Canada found itself with an exponentially growing debt. When the Conservatives arrived on the scene, I think the Canadian government debt amounted to $93 billion. While the Conservatives were in office, they drove the debt to a little over $500 billion. Shortly before, Mr. Trudeau and his government had also contributed significantly to increasing the country's debt. This lack of concern over controlling the debt gave rise to public pressure, and the government had to do something.

Instead of looking for new sources of funding, however, the government dipped into a source not intended for the purpose. Beginning in the 1990s, the Conservatives began dipping into the fund. Subsequently, the Liberals made substantial use of it to the point that, by 1997, the fund had generated a surplus of $7 billion. Incredible.

And how did the fund generate a surplus of over $7 billion? The Liberals limited the conditions of eligibility so that accessibility to the plan, which was capable of providing benefits to 88% of people who had lost their job, was limited to 40% of the unemployed. According to the human resources department, the figure now is 46%.

This spells disaster for people who lose their job, their family, the regions and the provinces concerned, such as Quebec. The approach is totally disgraceful. The government paid off the debt little by little by appallingly taxing people who lost their job. They were denied a source of income that would provide a living for them, to the tune, today, of $57 billion. This is money taken from the employment insurance fund.

That is unacceptable. I find it hard to understand how the two major national parties are so comfortable with this situation. Not only are they comfortable with it, but they created it, are perpetuating it and continue to defend it. It is a huge swindle.

In legal terms, the Supreme Court ruled on it and said that, technically, the government was entitled to do what it was doing, because it had the power to collect taxes in different ways. This is one approach. Technically, the Supreme Court said it could. Ethically and in terms of its justice, however, should we tolerate this situation and allow it to continue—justice being our first concern—or should we not change tack today and correct the situation?

The deceit continues. Yesterday's vote on Bill C-10 will not correct the situation. With this budget, the two major parties have given the government the green light to keep contributions to employment insurance at their lowest level since 1982. What does that mean. It means that the government is putting a lock on any possibility of improving the employment insurance plan. Things are now twice as difficult.

We listened to our Liberal friends this morning. I am pleased with what they said but I am not pleased about what they did yesterday. It makes us skeptical about their discourse. Are they aware that what they are saying today cannot be taken to its logical conclusion without turning around and authorizing increases in contributions to keep step with needs, especially in an economic downturn such as the one we are experiencing now.

That would be quite in step with the recommendations made by groups concerned. These groups are the employers who also contribute to the fund, and the unemployed or the unions. We have to improve the employment insurance system and improve its accessibility.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in a December 2004 report completed in February 2005, made 28 recommendations, including the measures proposed in this morning's motion. Thus, both governments, the previous Liberal government and then the Conservative government, did not follow through. They found all manner of subterfuges to not follow through. That is also a form of deceit. There is no getting around it. It is a serious economic crime.

Every riding is out an average of $30 million annually. Not only does this impoverish the unemployed, it impoverishes their families, the regions, the provinces and, as I was saying earlier, Quebec. In the end, people contributed to an employment insurance fund in order to have an income if they had the misfortune of losing their job. But they do not get their money because Ottawa is holding it back. Thus, the province has to step in and support these people who do not have an income. At that point, welfare kicks in. The same people pay twice for a service provided by their province even though the latter should not have that responsibility. But it is forced to assume it because the federal government has sloughed it off. And the fiscal imbalance increases even further.

Thus, responsibility rests with the two major parties, as I mentioned earlier.

I will begin the second part of my speech by referring to something which most of our mothers have probably told us. In any case, it is something that my mother often said to me: “My boy, if you are not able to keep your word, if you are not able to honour your signature, if you dishonour your family, then of course you dishonour yourself”. In this Parliament, there are parties that have not honoured their commitments, not kept their word, and not honoured their signature.

I will give two examples. Let us take the Liberal Party. During the election campaign, it made a formal commitment, hand on heart, to help to ensure that this Parliament adopts measures to make employment insurance more accessible and to eliminate the waiting period—a formal commitment. In a joint platform signed by the three opposition parties on December 1, 2008—three months ago—the Liberal Party undertook to ensure that the program for older worker adjustment, POWA, was restored, that the waiting period was eliminated, and that the employment insurance fund would henceforth be used only to assist unemployed persons. This was barely three months ago. The Liberal Party’s vote yesterday on Bill C-10 is flatly contrary to that—three months later. Therefore that party has not kept its word, not honoured its signature.

As a result, the other opposition parties are very much afraid that they will be unable to depend on the word and the signature of the Liberal Party. Under the circumstances, given that this motion expresses an opinion to the government, that it is not binding on the government and does not create any constraints, we are very skeptical that the Liberal Party will again honour to the end its signature and its commitment.

It is very important to continue this debate and to continue to focus on the behaviour of the Liberal Party, to make sure that it understands that the three opposition parties form the majority and that they have a mandate from the population to see to it that the Conservatives do not act as if they were the majority and do not continue to implement their ideological decisions and programs. That should be the framework of the Liberals at this time. We have a responsibility. The mandate the people have given the majority opposition is to keep an eye on the government and ensure that the programs proposed are actually carried out. That is why we were elected.

In December, the coalition’s platform was created on the basis of these programs. The opposition parties looked in their programs for points in common, constituting a platform which would gradually take us out of the economic crisis. The objective was to kick-start the economy, so that in four years we might again have a balanced budget with a deficit of $23 to $27 billion during this period, with a very specific program.

There is something here that does not respect electors' wishes. The Liberals’ behaviour denies us the mandate we have been given. This I stress very strongly—more so than the content of the employment insurance program. For it will determine the way things turn out. If the Liberals are not going to honour their commitment to the end, we will never be able to rectify the employment insurance program. This injustice must be corrected.

This injustice can be corrected, formally, by voting for two bills, among others, which the Bloc Québécois has already introduced. That is why we are pleased that the NDP is joining us on this platform. I refer to Bill C-241 introduced by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, which concerns the elimination of the waiting period and which, incidentally, does not create enormous costs since these are only administrative expenses and there is no addition to the number of weeks.

We must therefore carry this through to the end and vote in favour of Bill C-241, which is presently in second reading. We must also vote in favour of Bill C-308 which it has been my honour to introduce myself, and which covers all the other elements of today’s motion so as to make the employment insurance system more accessible and improve it in a manner that respects the dignity of unemployed Canadians.