Yves Lessard

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke, who has been, in my opinion, an exemplary member since arriving here in the House. His work with our team and other members of the House has been inspiring. His question is more than relevant.

Chambly—Borduas is all about culture. People from outside the region, who may know just a little about it, can enjoy all manner of artistic expression there. As I said earlier, culture accounts for some 16,000 jobs. For example, we have a theatre company called l'Arrière Scène that specializes in children's theatre. In addition to performing in my riding, throughout Quebec and across Canada, the company even travels around the world, disseminating our culture wherever it goes.

This theatre company has visited every continent, but the Conservative government's cuts will make it impossible for it to perform in other countries. It was scheduled to make appearances in eastern Europe next winter, but now its members will not be able to go because of these cuts.

If every member took the time to look at how these cuts affect their ridings and to talk to their constituents about them, they might be surprised at the impact of the cuts on cultural promotion and how their people tell the world about themselves.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, the government has, in fact, over $27 billion in leeway, and $23 billion of that could be allocated to the economic crisis, and the other $4 billion—plus several hundred million—to set up a secure reserve fund.

Where would this money come from? First of all, there is the whole business of tax havens. Then there is the business of the oil companies and the privileged treatment they get, as well as savings in the costs of operating the governmental machinery—but with no layoffs.

I will remind hon. members that Ottawa's financial assets, from March 31, 2008 to this point in time, are $176 billion.

In a nutshell, our plan calls for immediate measures with no cost to the budget, measures for business but also for individuals, as I have said a little earlier.

Now, for the surplus. There is a $3.8 billion surplus in 2008-09. A $1 billion deficit is forecast for 2009-10, and a $4.4 billion surplus for 2010-11. This is worth pointing out so that people know just where we stand at the moment.

The surpluses are spread over three years, and the breathing room which once was $16.9 billion—essentially, $17 billion—has decreased to $7 billion, a reduction of $9.7 billion. That is basically $10 billion over the past three years, in part because that the government reduced the GST. The government voluntarily reduced its revenues. We have to start from there.

Bureaucratic expenses could be reduced by almost $7 billion. These expenses reached $74 billion given the increases over the past nine years. The additional rules would also have to be applied more stringently over two years.

When it comes to tax havens, we must again look at the tax situation of the oil companies. There is $6 billion for the next two years. And, as I said earlier, government assets provide significant breathing room in this, as well.

I will stop there, although we could delve even further into the details. If the government had done its homework as it should have, it would have also invested in what I would call the social safety net for the people who are the hardest hit by this crisis, particularly the unemployed—both those currently unemployed and those who will be in the future. And so, we are asking the government to seriously evaluate and analyze the proposal that we have put forward.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask you to intervene again if this continues, because it is hard to concentrate when others are talking like that.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, what you have just done sets a good example to follow, and I appreciate it.

So, resuming where I left off, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a realistic plan. It would be a recovery plan over two years, into which $23 billion could be invested, and this sum can be spent without increasing the interest-bearing debt and also without creating a recurring deficit. These will therefore be temporary measures to get us through the crisis itself.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke.

I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to speak now. Naturally, I would like to take a moment to thank the people of Chambly—Borduas, who elected me for the third time by a margin of over 21,000 votes. I wanted to point that out because they did not just vote for me; they expressed their confidence in the Bloc Québécois, its work here, and the priorities we champion every time we rise in the House of Commons. I would like to reassure my constituents, who placed their confidence in me, that I will work hard on their behalf, just as I promised.

Recent comments made by two of our Conservative colleagues suggest that the throne speech is out of touch with what is going on in most ridings, including their own. My Conservative colleague's most recent remarks reveal that their ridings have the same problems as ours. Yet the throne speech did not acknowledge those needs.

Two-thirds of the members from Quebec belong to the Bloc. Clearly, Quebec voters wanted nothing to do with the Conservatives' proposals. Yet the Conservatives resuscitated those very proposals in the throne speech even though 78% of Quebeckers rejected them. In addition to the 49 Bloc members I mentioned, there are also 14 Liberal members and one New Democrat. The Conservative Party has lost a member. If this were a football game—these being the playoffs—the score is now 65 to 10. That is what I call a thrashing.

Quebeckers gave the Conservatives such a thrashing because they wanted nothing to do with the Conservatives' proposals. Yet those very proposals are in the throne speech. The Conservatives continue to make cuts to culture. For Quebec, this represents 314,000 jobs, 16,000 in my own riding. They continue to want to impose a repressive young offenders law. Quebec already has a specific law to prevent crime. They continue to want to create a single federal securities commission. They do not even mention the word “Kyoto”. They continue to want to reduce Quebec's weight within the Canadian federation. They promise to interfere further in Quebec's jurisdictions, such as health and education. There is nothing about the fiscal imbalance. Part of the fiscal imbalance was corrected thanks to the Bloc's efforts in this House, but there is still a long way to go. They continue to want to support nuclear energy and unbridled military spending.

All that is in the throne speech, even though Quebec roundly rejected the Conservatives' proposals. What the Conservatives propose for the rest of Canada is their own business. They have a majority elsewhere. But they did not understand Quebeckers' message at all.

We want to be positive. We are going to tell them that if they did not understand, we will come back again with realistic measures designed to work for the regions represented by all the members here. The Conservatives have even strongly encouraged us to give them suggestions. The Bloc has therefore proposed ways of addressing this economic crisis.

We believe it is time to act, and we have the means to act—

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, could my colleague explain something to me. After the speeches of the last two Conservative members, I believe that they live in ridings that I will say are made of Teflon: nothing sticks in these ridings. Unless I am mistaken, they have been sheltered from the decline in the manufacturing industry and they are also immune to the forestry crisis. Seniors' issues are not a problem for them; they may have seniors but they all have income security and, I imagine, the GIS as well.

I am trying to understand why they delivered such a Speech from the Throne. There is no mention of food banks, to which more and more full-time workers are turning. They seem to be exempt from all this. There is no mention of poverty in general and the poverty of women and children in particular.

Have I understood correctly that they live in a microcosm protected from the poverty and troubles that affect the rest of us?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question. I am continuing along the lines of the previous questions, because I think this is very important. The previous government, like the current one, did not give seniors who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement the money they were entitled to, simply because the seniors were not informed of their rights. But these people have the lowest incomes and are the poorest in our society.

Does the member not find it shocking that this government, which in the past voted to hand over this money, still did not announce the correction of this injustice in the throne speech?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate you. That chair is rarely occupied by a woman. In my opinion, it is in the best interests of this chamber for a woman to take the chair. Perhaps this change will induce better behaviour in our debates.

I would like to ask my colleague for Ottawa—Vanier the following question. We just wrapped up an election campaign during which his party and mine were very critical of and analyzed in detail the Conservative position on the fates of seniors and young offenders, the decision to make cuts to culture, and others. We felt the same way about many issues, but the Conservatives just dug in their heels. I believe that a certain number of Liberal members were elected under the same banner—their position was similar to ours.

Can he explain why today he is being so conciliatory with respect to this throne speech, why he is so sympathetic to this speech and why he is even preparing to vote for an policy contrary to their arguments during the campaign?

[Employment Insurance, November 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development closed the door to the possibility of eliminating the waiting period for employment insurance.

She said that “with any insurance, there is always a wait period”. Yet employment insurance is a kind of social insurance, and comparing the employment insurance waiting period to that for private insurance is unacceptable.

As a result of their ultra-conservative ideology, the Conservatives are consigning families to a life of poverty. Workers are being punished for losing their jobs. Workers have to be able to count on receiving employment insurance the moment they lose their source of income.

In this period of economic instability, the government has once again shown utter disregard for people who are in danger of losing their jobs. That is why the Bloc Québécois will soon be introducing a bill to eliminate the waiting period. I urge all members of the House to support this bill.

[Employment Insurance, November 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when the OECD predicts a significant increase in unemployment in Canada—because of the economic crisis brought on by bad decisions made by senior financial executives who received enormous bonuses—the victims of the crisis do not understand why they have to wait two weeks before they receive a single penny of employment insurance.

Eliminating the wait period would not cost the government very much. Will the Minister of Finance commit to eliminating it in his economic statement?