Yves Lessard

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we are repeating the mistakes that federal governments made in the past when dealing with economic crises. I am talking about the crisis of the early 1980s and the one of the late 1990s. Each time, the federal government tried to get through the crisis by making the provinces and Quebec shoulder part of the federal responsibility for various programs, particularly social programs.

After the crisis of the late 1990s, two successive governments, the Conservative government in the early 1990s and the Liberal government beginning in 1993, adopted the same policy to withdraw their contributions to funding programs in areas like municipal infrastructure, social housing, health, education and employment insurance.

In health, for example, they introduced a rule that the government's contribution had to be proportional to the population. In Quebec, that federal government policy resulted in an imbalance that reduced funding for health by 8% compared to the early 1990s. The same thing happened with education.

Municipal infrastructure was especially devastated. From 1992-93 to 2001, the federal government stopped contributing to upgrades for municipal infrastructure. Funding did not resume until 2001. That led to a deficit in infrastructure upgrades for water systems and roads, with the result that municipalities today no longer have the means to modernize their infrastructure. A large number of municipalities have infrastructure more than 40, 50 or 60 years old, when normally it would be considered outdated after 35 or 40 years. Maintenance is required, but now the money is just not there.

According to a study on this topic, there is a real deficit of $144 billion. That is a huge figure. If all we had to do was upgrade infrastructure, it would cost approximately $144 billion. That is an enormous amount for municipalities.

These terrible policies are being repeated today. One of the policies adopted in the past saw the Canadian government offload its responsibilities onto the municipalities, the provinces and individuals and start paying down the debt and avoiding deficits, much to the detriment of those who were struggling.

Take, for example, employment insurance. As others before me have said, employment insurance leaves some 55% of the unemployed out in the cold. They cannot receive benefits. It makes no sense. Over the past 12 years, $57 billion has been siphoned off. If that is not offloading a national responsibility onto the backs of the most vulnerable, I do not know what is.

I have come back to this because not only have things not changed, but the budget that was passed and that they want to implement shows that nothing will change either.

This budget freezes premiums at the 1982 level, and there has never been a lower level since then. In other words, the employment insurance program will not be improved. This is in total contradiction to what has been said, particularly by the Liberals. The Conservatives have said so too, but we do not believe them any more.

We tended to believe the Liberals when they said an effort had to be made to improve access to EI and that they were committed to doing so. That is what they said when they were campaigning. They said that the burden had been borne by the unemployed for too long. They therefore made a commitment to ensure that EI was made more accessible. Then, at the first possible opportunity, they jumped into bed with the Conservatives and said they were going to pass this budget, regardless of its negative impacts on the least well off, the people the Liberal Party leader calls the most vulnerable members of our society.

It is absolutely shocking that they can say such things and then vote for the opposite.

What are they seeking to do today? They say they are investing, and they are spreading money around more or less everywhere, including for infrastructure—I acknowledge that—but they are doing nothing for the most vulnerable, as the Liberal leader calls them, nothing for them. As far as infrastructure is concerned, I too was once a municipal council member, and even when I was just an ordinary citizen, I have always been concerned about the money available to our municipalities.

Look at the situation our municipalities are being placed in now, with the money being allocated to them. Hundreds of millions of dollars in past budgets were not used. Why not? Because the municipalities do not even have the means to pay their share. Normally, that share should be 15% but it is often 25% or even 30%. For the announced programs, particularly community recreation infrastructure, the federal contribution is 50%. If the provinces—or in our case, if Quebec—cannot contribute because of prior commitments to other programs, it is obvious that the municipalities will not be able to shoulder 50% of these projects. Thus the Canadian government is sure that it will be able to keep that money in its coffers. Even if the contribution rate were 30%, most municipalities cannot manage it. Why not? Because of the phenomenon I referred to a while ago, the famous policy in the past, when the government had the idea of offloading its responsibilities onto the provinces, including Quebec, and the municipalities. The burden was so heavy that now they no longer have the means to take on implementing new projects, or even just to renovate what needs renovating.

As I have only one minute left, I will try to conclude my remarks. I would also like to talk about social housing. For nearly 12 years, previous governments cut funding for social housing, with the result that we have a serious shortage of social housing now. The government says it is reinvesting $2 billion, but most of that money is going to renovations. That does not leave much for new units for people who have no choice but to go into social housing.

In conclusion, to the people wondering why the Bloc Québécois is voting against this budget, I say that it is clear. My colleagues spoke about other aspects of the budget. We will stand firm and not accept something that is unacceptable. To us, this budget is unacceptable.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my NDP colleague for the clarity and pertinence of his speech. I would like to ask him the following question.

Does he not find that an important segment of society is negatively affected by this budget? I am referring to women. One of the budget measures deprives women of the right to go before the courts to obtain employment equity. Another is related to the issue he raised with regard to employment insurance. We know that a large majority of women do not qualify for employment insurance benefits. However, contribution rates are frozen making it impossible to improve the system.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 10th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Lambert for seconding this bill.

This bill is without a doubt extremely important for unemployed workers, since it improves the employment insurance system. The priority remains improving access to the system, since over 55% of unemployed workers are excluded from it at this time. We would therefore like to reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work.

We would also like to increase the benefit period, which is currently 45 weeks. The budget increases that period by five weeks, but we would like that increase to 50 weeks to become permanent. The bill also increases the rate of weekly benefits to 60% of a claimant's revenue.

In addition, we hope to eliminate the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force. Those distinctions are completely discriminatory. We must also eliminate the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length, and increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $42,500.

The bill also adds a new part to the act relating to self-employed persons, including them in the employment insurance system.

As I said, it is an extremely important bill. All parties in this House have agreed that access to the employment insurance system and the benefits themselves must be improved. Our bill aims to do just that. I encourage all members to support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Outremont for the relevance of his remarks. We should think about and share his analysis, even more so because most of his points were also put forward by our Liberal colleagues. They often used harsher words to describe the Conservative budget than we did. I remember the comments from the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. She said that it was a shameful budget. She said that, yet the Liberals voted for this budget.

Our colleague said that it was a very conservative budget. He touched on three fundamental subjects that would lead us to think that the Liberals are now in agreement with the Conservative philosophy. There is the issue of accessibility to employment insurance, when contributions are being frozen at their lowest rate; the issue of the environment, when they campaigned on a green plan; and the issue of women, with women being denied the opportunity to obtain pay equity. Today, a woman receives only 76% of a man's income.

Does the member agree that the Liberal attitude discredits parliamentarians with respect to the political action that is taking place here?

[Human Resources and Skills Development, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, the minister continues to show her contempt by wrongfully opposing retraining measures and an income support program for older workers. The reality is that there are also workers aged 55 and older who cannot be retrained.

I challenge the minister here today to travel through Quebec with me and to go to Lebel-sur-Quévillon in particular to explain her twisted logic to the older workers. Will she accept my challenge? I repeat; will she accept this challenge, yes or no?

[Human Resources and Skills Development, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development made some extremely disparaging comments regarding unemployed workers when she said that the government did not want to make it lucrative for them to stay at home and get paid for it.

Does the minister understand that she insulted thousands of workers who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs or will lose them in the coming months? And does she intend to apologize?

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke for his speech, which clearly states our position.

A distinction must be made concerning the entire issue of supply management in reference to agricultural production. My colleague touched on this, but I would like him to go over it again briefly, in order to clearly explain why a distinction must be made between such open markets and the protection of supply management as we now know it.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my NDP colleague for his question.

In fact this is causing just as many problems in Quebec. In some areas, there have been delays of up to 50 days. That is unacceptable. This waiting period of 28 days is long enough. It is significant. When you lose your job, you often have new expenses and you already have to wait 28 days. It is unacceptable that the waiting period is so long, especially today, given that we have the resources to organize our services more efficiently.

In summary, in this budget, employment insurance measures include a five-week extension of benefits, but only for recipients. 60% of applicants do not receive benefits. Nothing has been solved. We need eligibility rules that will allow these people—60% of applicants—to qualify.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for his very pertinent question. He raised a number of points. I will address two of them, since we do not have much time. Indeed, we have a serious problem involving older people who are losing their jobs and who have no options, since they cannot find another job. This is a serious problem because they have no income potential. Once there was a program called POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, which needs to be brought back. Both the Liberal Party, when it was in power, and the Conservative Party have promised to bring it back. No one has kept that promise.

I also share my hon. colleague's opinion regarding the importance of eliminating the two week waiting period before employment insurance benefits kick in. This would give people an income very quickly, especially in an economic crisis such as this one. As we all know, whenever someone loses their job, they suffer quit a jolt, which is costly enough. No one has money to burn when they lose their job.

I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I must again congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières. In my opinion, she has explained my party's position very well, so I shall try to avoid going back over what she has addressed. I will, moreover, try to demonstrate in my speech that something rather intriguing has been going on here. I will take my cue from the reaction other parliamentarians, coming from parliaments in other countries, would have if they came here and tried to understand what is happening just now.

There is a party in power, a party that in November presented an ideological and highly partisan economic statement, which provoked a reaction in the majority opposition, which then created a coalition, and that in turn created the situation we have experienced: the highly arbitrary prorogation of the House. In other words, the Queen was asked to keep the elected representatives out until the government could redo its homework.

We ended up with a coalition of Liberals and New Democrats, supported by the Bloc Québécois. I mention this because it enabled us to understand the position of each party in opposition with respect to its commitments to their constituents.

The platform on which that coalition was based is still to this day the platform embraced by the Liberals. I would say that it has also generated consultations by the Conservatives themselves. I have a summary here that gives an overview of that, and there are more available. The newspaper that covers the riding of Lévis-Bellechasse is called La Voix du Sud and the member for that riding reports that he consulted the public. We believe this because it was reported in the media. This consultation reveals that the people in his riding told him just about the same thing that we have been saying here: improvements need to be made to employment insurance and accessibility to it.

He was even told that the number of hours to qualify for benefits should be 360. And he was told that the waiting period needed to be done away with. That is what he heard from them and that is what has been said by the Liberals, the NDP and ourselves. The Conservatives have said it, too. They heard it from us here. We even told them that the guaranteed income supplement needed to be indexed and that the seniors who had been cheated out of it needed retroactivity.

None of this is reflected in the budget. Yet we are told that the budget was based on the consultations that had been held. I have heard our Liberal colleagues say the same thing in this House. They also confirmed their intentions in the coalition platform. What is more, the Liberals have criticized the government for tabling such a budget, yet they are saying that they are going to vote in favour of the budget.

If I were a parliamentarian from another country, sitting here listening to this and watching this, I would wonder what was going on. Do these people represent their constituents or not? What are they playing at? In light of the mandate given to them by their constituents, do they have a responsibility to come into this House and do what they say they are going to do?

In November, the Conservatives delivered an ideological throne speech and an ideological economic statement. They wanted to come up with a slightly more progressive budget. Today, the Liberals are talking like progressives, but they are going to vote with the Conservatives.

People are understandably confused and no longer know who to trust, because the Liberals and the Conservatives are all the same. It is true that they are all the same. They all vote the same way when it comes to attacking fundamental rights. It is a fact. The government has eroded women's rights and workers' rights. Workers in Quebec do not have the same rights as workers in other provinces. For example, the government is injecting money into the auto industry in Ontario. It is right to invest in this sector. We are not saying that these people do not deserve support. But if they deserve support, then logically, the government should make the same commitment to Quebec and take the same steps to help such important sectors as manufacturing and forestry. There can be no double standard. The same logic should apply to parliamentarians here. They, too, should walk the talk, especially our Liberal friends.

The same is true of culture, which my colleague talked about. The government has made cuts that have affected our artists' ability to perform on other stages, in other countries. The government is going to provide funding so that foreign artists can come here to share their culture with us, but our artists do not have access to funding for the same purpose.

Concerning the national securities commission, what reason is there to abolish something or make it more fragile when it is working well, other than the desire to centralize and create an economic power concentrated in Toronto?

As for low-income families, the Liberal Party has made them one of their pet issues. It said that we should help the weakest, the poorest, in our society. We see that this budget contains measures that will support the wealthiest in our society.

I will finish by speaking about employment insurance. My colleague spoke about it. Something quite dramatic is happening. Not only do our federal friends here not want to introduce measures that would allow workers who have lost their jobs to have access to employment insurance benefits, but the budget would lock things up so tightly that we would not be able to implement any improvements. For one thing, rates are being frozen at the lowest level we have seen since 1982. That is rather odd. However, it is one of the messages heard in every riding, even those represented by Conservatives. Earlier, I read the summaries of their consultations. Our Liberal friends have made it one of their pet issues and, today, they will vote in favour of the budget, a budget that will block any possibility of improving employment insurance benefits and, above all, accessibility. In fact, 60% of people who lose their jobs cannot access employment insurance benefits. It is a major problem and it is one of the measures that is impoverishing our society and the people who are already struggling without jobs.

I am speaking particularly to my colleagues from Quebec. I am inviting them to vote in favour of the Bloc's subamendment in a few minutes. It will give them the opportunity to respect the will of their constituents.

This is the opportunity the Liberal member was alluding to when he asked the member from Kelowna—Lake Country why they did not take the opportunity to improve the employment insurance system. How could it be that he and his party missed that opportunity? Now we are giving them that chance. They simply have to vote for the subamendment.