Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives will not honour their commitment. In his presentation to the committee, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development revealed that all the funds managed by that office would be “held and invested until they are used to reduce premium rates in subsequent years”.

Are we to understand from the minister's statement that, despite the obvious flaws in the system, he has given up on any future improvements to the EI program?

[Employment Insurance, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the minister responsible admitted that $54 billion was diverted from the employment insurance fund and used for other purposes. When he was in opposition, his party joined the Bloc Québécois in calling for that money to be put back into the fund.

What is the minister waiting for to propose a repayment plan to the House, to start paying back the $54 billion to the fund, as the Conservatives had promised?

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her speech, which was quite timely under the circumstances. Above all, she reminds us that we must be vigilant and concerned about our democracy.

We often teach other countries about democracy. We even send our soldiers to other countries to defend or establish democracy, when in our own country there is sometimes some quite questionable or reprehensible behaviour.

I would like to know what her party thinks about the fact that the Conservatives, who are being investigated by Elections Canada and whose offices were searched by the RCMP, won in some ridings by a few hundred votes. Now the legitimacy of the voting results is being called into question.

Also, I would like to know what she thinks about the Conservative strategy to place the blame on the other parties, which have not been singled out by Elections Canada. What does her party think about this, and how should we react to such a situation?

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

It is very kind of you, Mr. Speaker to provide this information. Thank you for that.

First, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the clarity of his remarks. We know that the opposition parties that form the majority in this House are not being investigated by Elections Canada.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities asked a number of questions in this House that had nothing to do with today's motion. I will ask my colleague some questions about this motion.

Can he tell us who is presently being investigated by Elections Canada? Who is being accused of using the in and out scheme? Who is being accused of submitting false invoices? Who was and is still being investigated by the RCMP? Who did not receive Elections Canada approval for the reimbursement of their campaign expenses?

Does my colleague believe that, in ridings such as Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Louis-Hébert and Beauport—Limoilou, where the Conservatives won by a few hundred votes, money was spent improperly on the election and that this may have influenced the result of the vote such that, today, these members are in this House?

[Quebec Social Workers' Week, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, March 23 to 29 was social workers' week in Quebec, with the theme “a humanizing presence". This week aims to promote public awareness of this profession, of all it has to offer, and of the many areas in which it makes a contribution.

There are over 7,100 social workers in Quebec in the health and social services sectors, in education, in community organizations and within the legal system. Their work is based on universal and humanitarian values, and their motto is “people first”. The primary objective of these professionals is to treat each person with dignity and respect, so that they can achieve their full potential.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I would like to honour the dedication, compassion and humanizing presence of all social workers in Quebec.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to congratulate my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. But I just want to remind members that the virtues he is attributing to his party are perhaps unwarranted. He said that we supported the Conservatives when it came time to vote.

When we supported the Conservatives during the vote, it was in the interests of Quebec. The NDP voted, with the Conservatives and the Liberals, in favour of a bill that was very offensive to Quebec, the clarity bill, which was sponsored by the current Leader of the Opposition.

Quebec remembers that. Furthermore, last year, my colleague from Trois-Rivières introduced a motion in this House calling on the House of Commons to recognize that Quebec should receive a fair share of economic spinoffs representative of the significance of its aeronautics industry. But once again, the NDP voted with the Conservatives against Quebec.

Quebec has made its feelings known about the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, because 70% of Quebeckers are opposed to our being there. The NDP voted against the motion to end our mission in Afghanistan in 2009, which extended our mission to 2011. If they had voted with us, the mission would not have been extended to 2011.

We are happy that they have finally had a moment of clarity when it comes to Quebec, but will our NDP friends realize that they have also spoken out of both sides of their mouths and actions for Quebec have been contradictory? It is time for them to join forces with the Bloc Québécois to defend the values and interests of Quebeckers.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain on his speech.

The argument used by the Conservative members from Quebec involves, first, recognizing that the majority of financial transactions are now under the responsibility of Ontario, and, second, deciding that through centralizing these transactions under a single Canadian authority, the position of Ontario would be strengthened since more than 80% of securities transactions in Canada would be managed in Ontario.

For my colleague, is there any coherence to the position advocated by the Conservative members representing Quebec in Ottawa? Is this not just part of an ideology that promotes the interests of Canada in Quebec, rather than the opposite?

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is partly right. When he says that this is not in the best interest of the other provinces, he must be speaking of only one province, namely Ontario, because the others all agree with us. It would be in the best interest of Ontario, though, because business will be carried out there.

The hon. member has worked in the field of financial markets. I have been an entrepreneur myself and I liked it better to have my business activities supervised by Quebec than by Canada. Why? Because Quebec uses proximity management and, if and when it has to step in, it does so through a direct guarantor. No need to go through Ottawa or Toronto only to have them tell Quebec what to do.

That is precisely what Ms. Jérôme-Forget emphasized in her letter to the Minister of Finance, when she wrote:

Accordingly, I will continue to oppose the implementation of any model leading to the concentration of market oversight responsibilities in the hands of a common or single regulator, regardless of how you call it.

That is what Ms. Jérôme-Forget wrote in her reply on behalf of Quebec and Premier Charest, who is a former Conservative leader. He has realized that the best interest of the provinces and Quebec is not served, and especially not that of financiers, by a centralized body.

She added:

—the federal government could apply its energies much more productively if, in its fields of jurisdiction, it worked to more effectively crack down on economic crime rather than trying—

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what I find unpleasant is that this member cannot ask a question without making innuendoes.

Here is my answer—and he better not try to prevent me from speaking like he did the other day. We are sending troops to Afghanistan to bring democracy to that country. If the member is unable to respect democracy in this House, Mr. Speaker, this time you should ask him to let me speak.

So here is my answer to his question. As always, he confuses things because he does not understand them. The Montreal Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange, that is one thing. There is a particular reasoning that applies when dealing with interests that are peculiar to the mandate of each one of these entities. We are talking here about the Autorité des marchés financiers, which deals with investments and shares, among other things. It is totally different.

There is a consensus now on the current analysis, even though the former leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Charest, now Premier of Quebec, did not share that view back then. He used to have the same questions as the Conservatives. Now that he sits at the provincial level, he has come to the realization that true effectiveness can only be achieved through a financial authority managed by each of the provinces, with shared expertise, as I was saying earlier.

The member should know that. If he does not, then he should ask someone who is knowledgeable in this field to explain it to him.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the House about the Bloc Québécois motion. I would like to indicate right away that I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

To ensure that those listening to our debate fully understand every viewpoint expressed here, we should remind them of the nature of the motion. They should realize that there is a major difference between what the Conservatives and the Liberals are arguing for today and what citizens really want, especially those knowledgeable about and directly involved in this debate. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately abandon the idea of creating a common securities regulator, since securities regulations fall under the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and because this initiative is unanimously condemned in Quebec.

When Conservative members rise in this House claiming to defend the interests of Quebec, they are working against the interests of Quebec as expressed by Quebec leaders and advocates in this regard. I will come back to that a little later.

This debate has gone on for over 40 years, and the Government of Canada makes attempts. The jurisdiction is Quebec's and the provinces' according to the Canadian Constitution of 1867. As I was saying earlier, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously opposes the creation of a single securities regulator. The creation of such a body would threaten the survival of Montreal's trading activities and would promote the centralization of financial markets in Toronto. This is why opinion leaders in Quebec unanimously oppose the federal government's project. To oppose that is to oppose the interests expressed by Quebec and its leaders.

The World Bank and the OECD also note that the current system works well and is efficient. It is the one provided for by the current Canadian Constitution. It is under the authority of the provinces and Quebec. The passport mechanism makes it possible for one province to benefit from what is done in another and from the expertise and commitments of another province in securities transactions.

A number of speakers have said that the arguments of the Conservatives and Liberals, primarily to ensure we are competitive on international markets, were perhaps myth. As my colleagues pointed out earlier, the system works at the moment. The opposite would throw a wrench in the works. In this regard, centralization, the paternalistic approach of the federal government, would weigh the system down and take away the flexibility by which provincial expertise in different areas is available. We will see this later on.

Quebec's expertise is not just remedial in the matter of securities embezzlement, for example. It is not just a matter of getting the securities system to work, it is also a matter of intervening in the event of embezzlement, as occurred in Quebec. Preventive measures must be in place as well. This expertise belongs to Quebec alone. Other provinces draw on it. It proved effective just recently, as we saw, in the Norbourg affair.

There, as elsewhere, people sometimes manage to get round the system and abuse the power given them through the position they occupy. We saw this with Mr. Lacroix. We saw too that the system, when it operates as intended, is effective. The man is serving a 12 year sentence. I do not want to get into the ins and outs of this business, but members can see that the system works well.

People are trying to find similar examples in Canada, and despite big scandals, there is no sign that the proposed mechanism would address misconduct. The example has been given of centralized authorities, such as in the United States or France. My colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup spoke of the United States. There was Enron, and other cases. Fraud still occurred. In France, a single person, a financial trader managed to misappropriate billions of dollars. The individual will no doubt stand trial. No system is infallible. The centralized system being presented to us as infallible and competitive on the international market is rubbish and will not stand up.

Let us look at what is working. What does work, and has been recognized by major international organizations like the OECD and the World Bank, is an efficient mechanism that performs well. Why change it? That is the whole entire point. Why indeed, if not to centralize in order to dominate in that area as well, limit the freedom to act, innovate and create in the field of financial products, and make sure that a financial centre outside Quebec is responsible for the overall management? The pussyfooting never ends.

When I hear our Conservative colleagues from Quebec make remarks like the one the member for Lévis—Bellechasse made earlier, I think it is shameful. I find it embarrassing. Eleven Conservative members of this House claim to hold the truth and know the way ahead based on the public opinion in Quebec. I remind the House that the Government of Quebec, the National Assembly, the major stakeholders and analysts in Quebec all say that it is not a good thing. Are they looking after the best interest of Quebec? No. I would like to repeat something the member for Jonquière—Alma and Minister of Labour said. He said that, in 1991, he voted a certain way as a member representing Quebec in Ottawa and that, now, he was representing Ottawa in Quebec. That is almost word for word what he said. That is a whole different ball game. It means making different choices and having different values. In addition, it is far from certain that the other provinces would appreciate Toronto controlling the entire management of securities across the country.

I want to recall briefly the AMF's mandate. Quebec's Autorité des marchés financiers favours preventive management.

It has to assist financial institutions, look after them, supervise financial activities and ensure that protection and compensation programs are in place. These are all components that ought to be retained and that can only be managed by an organization of proximity whose expertise can be shared. In fact, that is already the case with the passport system, which is working well and allows this power over anything to do with securities and financial commitments to be exercised within each province while being shared.