Yves Lessard

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Our discussions with the minister have pointed to that happening. Why take this matter out of the hands of commissioners, as I was saying earlier, and give the responsibility to a board?

The board will have no power other than making sure that contributions are sufficient to comply with the requirements set by the minister. In other words, the real work will done by the chief actuary, who will advise the commissioners.

This is the problem our colleague raised: once they have a purely technical role and no performance obligations with respect to the decisions they make, they will lose control over decision-making; their only purpose will be to rubber-stamp other people's decisions.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi on his excellent work concerning homelessness and the whole issue of housing.

He is quite right about how the fund has been used over the years. As everyone will recall, when there was a high unemployment rate, the fund could not fulfill its obligations through contributions. Here is how it worked: when there was not enough in the fund through contributions, the national treasury loaned money to the fund and contributions were later adjusted to pay back the treasury, and this always worked out.

When the EI fund was rolled into the consolidated revenue fund, the government at the time, a Conservative government, began dipping into that fund. First, it tried to lower contributions as much as possible in order to limit benefits as much as it could. This government is trying to adopt the same system.

When the Liberals came to power, they re-established a certain level for contributions to meet their obligations, but they began restricting access to benefits, gradually excluding over 50% of people who normally would have received benefits if they became unemployed.

My colleague is quite right to say that this strategy was used to create surpluses, at the expense of people who lost their jobs, in order to use those surpluses to pay off the debt or pay for other budget items.

This is appalling, especially since it has been inflicted by the government on the people who are hurting the most.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we are now talking about Group No. 2, the amendments concerning employment insurance. At the outset, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I must say that we will support the NDP's amendment to remove the part that deals with the employment insurance board.

Let me provide some context for the people listening today. At the Bloc Québécois' request, the House dropped two successive bills, one of which died on the order paper just before the last election.

That was about the creation of an independent fund with full, exclusive authority over the administration of employment insurance benefits by commissioners selected, for the most part, from among employers and employees. Why? Because they are the ones who pay into the fund.

The board proposed in Bill C-50 does not meet those criteria. Not only that, but it entrenches an injustice perpetrated on both workers and employers: the diversion of $54 billion from the employment insurance fund.

There are some people in this House who would like us to forget about that money. They are doing their level best to make us forget, but we will not forget. They would have us believe that the money is virtual. It is not. Workers and employers who contributed put real money into the fund. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have used that money for other purposes. Today, they are trying to convince us that because it was spent on other things, it no longer exists and is therefore virtual money.

I would also note that representatives of all parties on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities unanimously recommended that the money be returned to the employment insurance fund at a rate of at least $1.5 billion per year for 32 years. At the time, about $46 billion had been diverted; now that figure has risen to $54 billion, as I said earlier.

My NDP colleague said earlier that this would be a serious economic crime against the unemployed, their families and the communities and the provinces affected. Each time money does not return to the provinces through employment insurance benefits, the provinces—notably, Quebec—have to make up for this lost revenue with welfare.

Once again, this further worsens the fiscal imbalance. And none of this will be improved by the board. Even worse, within the fund there will be a reserve of $2 billion that will come from the consolidated revenue fund, but as a loan. At least admit that this reserve is money owed to the people.

The reserve is absolutely insufficient as well. The chief actuary of the Employment Insurance Commission has been saying for many years that the reserve should be at least $10 billion to $15 billion. Why? So that year after year, whatever the rate of unemployment, we can provide at least one year's worth of EI benefits according to the fund's obligations.

We are not the only ones who are saying this. Everyone who came to testify in recent days at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, including the major unions, employers and interest groups such as those representing the unemployed, came to say that this reserve is insufficient and that the $54 billion should not be forgotten.

Those are the first two points I wanted to bring up.

The third point is that the government is creating a new board separate from the commission, but is keeping the commission in place. The board is an addition. There will therefore be one decision-making body and two management bodies. The main management body is the Employment Insurance Commission. It will continue to ensure that benefits are paid in accordance with the minister's decisions. It will have no decision-making authority. The minister will make decisions based on the previous year's experience and will recommend a premium rate to the board. When he testified on April 29 and May 27, the minister essentially said two things. According to him, the employment insurance system is already generous enough. He said that. However, we find that the system currently excludes 60% of workers who pay into the fund. If they are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, they are excluded under existing conditions and cannot receive benefits.

In a written statement that was tabled in committee, the minister also said that, from now on, any surplus can be used only to reduce premiums. That reflects a dangerous and unacceptable ideology that is based on the same principle as the one behind reducing the GST. Of course, every time it reduces the GST, the Conservative government subsequently finds a reason to cut social spending. Now the government wants to do the same thing with employment insurance, as if it had not done enough damage already.

Initially, we were in favour of the board because the government said its sole function would be to manage contributions in the interests of the unemployed. In fact, this is not true, as we have seen. Not only is this not true, but the board will work against the interests of unemployed workers. As I said earlier, the government is legalizing the theft of $54 billion and saying that in future, this money will not be used to help rebuild the fund, much less improve benefits. Instead, from now on, it will be used to reduce premiums. That is the government's philosophy, and it is unacceptable. I said earlier that we were in favour of the board because the clear intention was that, from now on, this fund would be used only for employment insurance.

The minister's statements, the facts revealed to us in committee, as well as the concerns expressed by the stakeholders, showed us that this board would not assume the responsibility I just described.

There is another thing. By separating the roles, by not allowing the Employment Insurance Commission to set the rates, the government is trying to have it both ways. We think it would be wise to create an Employment Insurance Commission worthy of that name. Commissioners are appointed by the minister, of course, but recommended by whom? We need to have commissioners who serve the interests of contributors, which would mean people who, for the most part, are recommended or delegated by the employer and employee organizations. Also, as was the case for large management companies in Quebec, these people need to be able to work alongside consultants who can give them information about decisions to be made. The chief commissioner is one of them. A representative from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries also came to speak about this. He said that the fund needed to be managed by taking into account a five-year period, that it should have a reserve fund that is worthy of the name, and that it should be used exclusively for employment insurance.

I thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I truly hope that our colleagues here will vote in favour of the amendment before us in order to remove the employment insurance financing board from this bill.

[Old Age Security Act, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate. I would like to begin by saying that I think this bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, specifically the guaranteed income supplement, deserves not only to be debated here in supreme good faith, but also to be adopted unanimously.

Before diving into the debate, I want to thank two members of the House for their work. First, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, the sponsor of the bill, which he has spoken for with great enthusiasm and conviction. I would also like to highlight the extraordinary work of our colleague from Repentigny, who is right here with me this morning.

This bill started out with broad consultations conducted by my colleague from Repentigny. As such, this bill is a response to the real difficulties facing seniors and to their desire to escape the situation in which the Canadian government has placed them. The Canadian government is indeed responsible because it is in charge of redistributing revenue to share the wealth and ensuring that social programs help society's most vulnerable.

I also want to thank organizations in my riding that are dedicated to the wellbeing of seniors, such as the seniors' clubs in Richelieu, Otterburn Park, Saint-Jean-Baptiste-de-Rouville—which has two—Marieville, Maria-Goretti, McMasterville, Saint-Mathias and Beloeil, of course, as well as the Saint-Basile-le-Grand club, La Gerbe Dorée, the Amis de la Vallée-du-Richelieu and the Bassin de Chambly seniors' foundation.

Organizations in my riding all agree. I am using my riding as an example because this applies to all other ridings. Seniors' organizations and the community groups that exist to help them all agree that this injustice cannot go on.

Just this morning, the Trois-Rivières Le Nouvelliste reported that the Trois-Rivières branch of FADOQ, the Quebec seniors' association, is asking all parliamentarians to con, excuse me, consent—though seniors have been, quite literally, conned—to give their unanimous consent to this bill.

This morning, my two colleagues and I went to the Prime Minister's office. I had to leave a little early to rush over here to give this speech—my colleagues have just returned. We went to his office to present 1,000 more postcards from seniors who are calling for the guaranteed income supplement, under the changes made by Bill C-490. These 1,000 postcards are in addition to the 10,000 others sent to the Prime Minister's office by the Bloc in February, by the member for Repentigny, the member for Alfred-Pellan and myself. In total, that makes 11,000 postcards that have been delivered directly to the Prime Minister's office, in addition to all the others sent through the mail.

Furthermore, this morning we gave the Prime Minister a few hundred resolutions from organizations that represent tens of thousands of seniors in Quebec, concerning positions, recommendations and motions adopted by these organizations. Why has this become such a movement? Because there is a serious injustice.

Rarely does a bill mobilize so many and affect so many. This goes beyond just seniors, since when seniors experience difficulties, others around them often suffer as well.

As I was saying, I could not stay the whole time, but my two colleagues were welcomed in English. French, the second official language, is being ignored, just as the rights of seniors are being ignored. My colleagues opposite voted against a Bloc motion to ensure official languages are respected in Quebec for workers under federal jurisdiction. It is not surprising that these workers' rights are being ignored; our rights are being ignored right here in Parliament.

I shared that little aside because it shows the contempt that exists towards rights that have been recognized by laws or regulations. These rights are not respected by this government, and were not by the previous one either.

I will briefly go over the content of the bill, because I would like to have time to talk about the positions of the two main federal parties.

First, this bill seeks to correct a huge injustice: the poorest seniors in our society have been deprived of their basic right to receive an income supplement when they do not have sufficient income to live decently. I am talking about a bare minimum.

Many seniors live in isolation. Sometimes, they have no choice, because they cannot read or they live in remote areas or they lack the means to communicate or they have not been informed of their rights.

In 2002, there were 83,000 such seniors in Quebec and some 200,000 in Canada. In 2003-04, the Bloc was able to reach quite a number of people, but today, 42,000 people in Quebec and 123,000 in Canada are still not receiving the guaranteed income supplement. These are not insignificant numbers. However, the supplement could at least be paid to people who file income tax returns. All the government would have to do is use the returns to have the guaranteed income supplement paid automatically to these people.

By not doing so, the government has been able to liberate—not to use a more forceful and accurate word—$3.3 billion from these people's pockets to date. This is extremely serious. We are talking about the poorest members of our society.

Bill C-490 corrects this injustice, but also adds $110 a month to the guaranteed income supplement. This is not much, but it can at least bring a person's income up to a decent level that allows him or her to live.

The bill also provides that when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse can receive the deceased person's benefit for six months, while the surviving spouse puts his or her affairs in order.

The bill also provides that the guaranteed income supplement be paid automatically, as I said earlier. I believe this is essential.

One of our main roles here is to ensure the well-being of the most vulnerable people in our society. We are seeing members letting party politics get in the way and opposing seniors' rights. When we steal from seniors—this is their money—we are committing a serious crime that affects their pocketbooks. Yet, there seems to be no problem investing in military equipment, oil companies or nuclear power.

I see that I have only one minute left. I would like to conclude with this. In 2005, Bill C-301 was unanimously passed at second reading. We asked that Bill C-301 be fast-tracked in the same way that the bill about veterans' income had been. It was the Liberal Party that stood in the way.

Given that the Liberals are singing the same tune today as they were in 2005, I would ask them to be consistent until the end and vote as we will. I also ask the Conservative party, which is saying that the country will be driven to bankruptcy with—

[Income Tax Act, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, let us get things straight. First, I would like to remind hon. members that the bill my NDP colleague was referring to interferes in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. That is why we opposed the bill she was referring to.

Nonetheless, we are pleased that the NDP and the Liberals are voting in favour of studying the bill at second reading stage. The problem is when we get to third reading. I will come back to that later.

First I think we should congratulate and thank the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, for taking this initiative, as well as the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. They both have done remarkable work. They worked with me on the research that led to this bill.

This was all initiated by the workers themselves, the representatives of former workers who have been and still are affected by this situation and with whom we sympathize, of course. I am talking about those from Atlas Steel in Sorel and the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos. These people have had the misfortune of seeing their pensions cut significantly. The cuts range from 28%, at Atlas Steel, up to 58%. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, being told on the day you retire that your pension is being cut by 58%. That is what has happened to those workers.

The bill before us amends the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income). We have got this far thanks to the leaders of the groups affected. I am referring to Pierre St-Michel from Atlas Steel, Gaston Fréchette from Jeffrey Mine, and their colleagues from their pension fund executive committee. These people have not only thought about their own situation but also about measures that could be introduced that do not compromise the other workers, that do not compromise the state as such and do not compromise the treasury. We will see this later.

The purpose of this bill is to compensate retirees who suffer pension losses because of their former employer's bankruptcy. The compensation would take the form of a tax credit equivalent to 22% of the loss. Why 22%? Because that is the federal marginal tax rate that applies to middle class people with income between $36,000 and $72,000 per year. That is the taxable base.

This compensation for retirees will also be available to surviving spouses. I am pointing this out for the benefit of those just joining us so that we all know what is at issue in this debate.

Contrary to the utterly false claims of the Conservatives, this bill does not apply to very many people. We found two very specific cases involving those who initiated this measure and possibly one case in New Brunswick mentioned by my NDP colleague earlier.

The people I am referring to—I mentioned them earlier—live in Asbestos and Sorel. What happened to them? There are two types of pension plans: defined benefit pension plans, where the retirement fund goes into deficit when the employer ceases operations, and defined contribution plans, where a business in trouble may give itself a contribution holiday, resulting in the same outcome.

Today, this would no longer be possible, at least in Quebec, because pension funds are now governed by a law requiring that contributions and cash flow always be sufficient to meet the obligations of the fund.

Let us look at an example of how the bill would apply. If a retiree were entitled to a pension of $20,000—which is not very much, but a typical pension for most retirees—but received only $12,000, he would lose $8,000 because the pension fund could not longer pay benefits. If he took advantage of the 22% tax credit on the $8,000 loss, he would receive $1,700 a year. That is not much. A surviving spouse would receive a tax credit of $880 for the year.

This tax credit is refundable so that it applies to all those who suffer because the fund did not have enough money to pay benefits, including people who do not pay tax because their income is too low.

This is a very generous formula that benefits everyone who contributed to the plan. Most of the people who contributed would have benefited from a 22% non-refundable tax credit, but it would have done nothing for people who do not pay tax. This is therefore a generous approach that reflects well on the people who proposed it.

Earlier, I said that this was an inexpensive measure. In fact, it would cost $3 million to $5 million a year, including $1.7 million for Quebec. In the worst-case scenario, if there were measures that applied in certain places, it would cost $5 million. That is the actual cost.

The Conservatives put forward two arguments that I wish to refute right away. First, they argued that Canada may not have a role to play in pension funds. In fact, Canada formulated a request in 1951, which it reiterated in 1964, and that request resulted in a constitutional change giving the Canadian government the right to legislate all forms of seniors' pensions, as long as it did not encroach on provincial laws that took precedence. That obligation was created.

The Canadian government is also responsible for determining the interest rate that applies with respect to financial policy under Ottawa's jurisdiction. As such, a low interest rate puts pressure on funds.

Their second argument had to do with the cost of this measure. The $10 billion figure is utter nonsense. This morning, a Liberal member apologized for mistakenly misleading the House. Now, the Conservatives are deliberately misleading the House. That is very serious. It is wrong to suggest that this measure would cost $10 billion. These people are not credible. If they did their jobs, like they are supposed to, they would see that it will cost between $3 million and $6 million.

We invite our Conservative colleagues from Quebec to vote with us, though they have systematically voted against the program for older worker adjustment, against the guaranteed income supplement, against help for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, and against the application of the Charter of the French Language for federal workers.

In all of those cases, they voted against workers. Now that they have an opportunity to help the—

[Employment Insurance, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Michel Bédard, former chief actuary for the employment insurance fund, warned that the $2 billion reserve fund was not enough and could cause problems for the system should a recession occur. He recommended a business-cycle-based plan to reimburse the fund to ensure the system's longevity.

Is that not enough proof that we need a plan to reimburse the fund?

[Employment Insurance, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Supreme Court is hearing from unions arguing that the federal government diverted the $54 billion surplus from the employment insurance fund, money that was contributed exclusively by employees and employers.

The Conservatives have admitted to taking that money out of the fund, so will the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development submit a plan to reimburse the fund as quickly as possible instead of hiding behind the judges?

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, and I am glad that my colleague has asked it because the New Democrats often come back to that question.

It is a question of democracy, and it is based on an understanding of how things work in Quebec. The NDP unfortunately finds it difficult to understand this. The NDP’s name contains the word “democratic”. The New Democratic Party, while it is less new than before, is the democratic party.

In Quebec, everyone was aware of what was happening because a lot of communities—we are talking about 760 or 763 communities—depend on the lumber industry. Everywhere in Quebec, people were watching what was happening. They were very aware of the softwood lumber situation. It was debated. Everyone affected—employees, unions, the industry itself, employer organizations, the whole forum of the industry—unanimously agreed that this settlement had to be made. It was not a good settlement for them, but in the circumstances, it was a settlement that would let them keep their heads just above water, while they waited. It was a strategic choice; they had no choice.

We voted for the agreement because Quebec said unanimously that it had to be done. Is our colleague telling us that we should have gone against the wishes of Quebec? And he persists in saying this. No, Mr. Speaker, we work—

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for his question. The Conservatives and the Liberals want us simply to forget the $54 billion. They often use the expression “it is theoretically $54 billion”. But the money that working people and employers put into the account was not theoretical. It was the real thing and it was used for other ends. To the contrary, we must never forget these $54 billion.

They want to push their siphoning further. They say not only that they siphoned this money off but they want to justify it by saying the money was put to good use and should be forgotten now. No, to forget it would be to betray the workers and their employers, and we are not in the habit of doing that.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, while waiting for sovereignty to dawn, we will continue to debate and defend the interests of the people we represent. Most of the time, when we defend the interests of the people of Quebec, we are defending the interests of all Canadians. We want to do things in such a way that what is good for Quebec is good for the rest of the country as well. When it is bad, we say so, and that is the case here.

Our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, sits on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and knows very well what I mean when she asks her question. The minister himself acknowledged it: the $54 billion were siphoned off. That should not have been done. These $54 billion do not belong to the treasury but to working people and their employers. It will not pose any great problem for the treasury if these $54 billion are paid back over the years, as the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities suggested, at a rate of $1.5 billion a year. It also suggested that the new account—as well as the board—should be constituted first from some of these funds.

When the government takes out a loan from someone, it pays the loan back. It does not tell the creditor that it used the funds for some other purpose and now they are gone and the creditor should understand it was money well spent. The creditor would tell the government that it still owes him the money. Why would the government not do the same for employers and working people? It owes them the money. That is how it is entered in the national accounts, that $54 billion from the EI account were used for other purposes. This money should be considered, therefore, as a loan.

The reverse approach, as advocated by our colleague, the parliamentary secretary, is to say that it is okay to cheat. Because it is cheating. If that cannot be done for one particular person, why can it be for someone else? The government says that if it has to help out the EI account, the account will have to pay the treasury back.

Why should the reverse not apply as well when the national treasury dips into the EI account and uses it for other ends?

That is my answer. It seems to me it is as easy as pie. Trying to reason in some other way is contrary to all common sense.