Yves Lessard

[Victims of Crime, November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's National Assembly considered a bill to give salaried individuals the right to take unpaid leave for up to two years if they, their spouse or their child become victims of crime.

Given that a salaried person who exercises this right would have no income for two years, will the federal government make it possible for that person to be eligible for employment insurance?

[Older Workers, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is all fine and well to empathize with workers but that does not put food on the table.

It is obvious that this minister from Alberta has a great deal more empathy for his province's oil companies, which have benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts, than he does for workers who lose their jobs. That is the truth.

When will the government make available its surpluses and billions of dollars to workers who lose their jobs rather than to fat oil companies that make indecent profits? When will it do that?

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by congratulating my colleague from Québec for her speech, which provides us with clarification on one important element, concerning management of the information media as a political responsibility. She has raised the issue of content and their vital importance as far as culture is concerned.

This morning, Conservative and Liberal members made the point that governments had invested in culture, including in Quebec. It was as if they were putting a price tag on culture. If we have managed to invest in culture, then we can feel we have a clear conscience, have done our duty. The real duty when it comes to culture, which I would describe as a nation's identity or political personality, is to ensure that we can determine its content. This means that the nation next door must not do that for us. We must be able to do this ourselves, and that is what our colleague from Québec has pointed out.

Our colleague is drowning in a sea of Conservative members, elected to power by claiming they were going to defend Quebec's interests. Since she is best placed to tell us, since she is in the front line and at the heart of Quebec, while surrounded by Conservative Quebec MPs, can she tell us what they have done for culture in the past year and a half ?

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, for presenting the Bloc's position on the motion so well. That motion is unusual in that it allows us, in this debate, to show what differentiates the Bloc Québécois from those who believe in this federalist option.

To illustrate my point, I am going to go back to the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, who pitted the Conservative government's repressive justice policies against our concern for culture, as if these two issues could be pitted one against the other. Everything relates to culture. For example, given their culture, the Conservatives have a profile showing that they care little about prevention and are primarily interested in repression. They care little about education, but a lot about prisons.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned it earlier. There are aspects of that culture that we do not share, such as, for example, a speech on repression that does not reflect the Conservatives' ethical practices when it comes to the government. We saw that under the Mulroney government. The Conservatives were ousted from office in 1993 and were left with only one member in Quebec, because their ethics were despicable, including for Quebeckers.

The same thing is happening now, following what occurred during the last election. The Conservatives are going after the Chief Electoral Officer, because of his decision to enforce the law in a way that affects them. This is absurd to say the least, and they have made a mistake once again. The issue raised by the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes is what distinguishes us as regards cultural practices, among others.

As for English Canadians, they too have their own cultural profile. It is no worse or better than that of Quebec. However, the culture that distinguishes Quebec and that shapes its personality is different. So, I would like to hear my colleague again on this issue. Is it not, indeed, a cause for concern when the government, based on the comments that we heard this morning, downplays the cultural issue in relation to its own preoccupation with justice?

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and I am very surprised by his speech. According to him, it would seem that Canada has no personality. Culture is a reflection of a people's personality. His speech suggests that we can be unduly influenced by the personality of anyone and everyone who comes to join us.

Furthermore, I would point out that it is Canada's responsibility to invite and give information to immigrants regarding its structures and accommodation intentions. Canada's communications to other countries indicate that Canada does not really have a culture per se, since everyone can bring along their culture. Although done with the best of intentions, this creates some very serious problems. Indeed, once they arrive in Canada—and this is particularly true in Quebec—people realize that this has created significant delusions. It is not true that everyone can bring every element of their culture. Cultural elements must blend with the existing elements. We have our laws, our rules and other traditions.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is urging us, as members of the Bloc Québécois, to have a look at our conscience. I would say we need to look more at past experience, since it shows that our reality is not as he describes it.

Will he admit that we need to inform immigrants that we do indeed have our own culture here and that, when they come with their own culture, we are happy to welcome them, but that their culture must also blend with ours?

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to start by congratulating the member for Ahuntsic for her excellent speech, and also for how she conveyed to this House the very essence of the motion.

Some speeches in this House are very illuminating about the role we play here as parliamentarians, and the member for Ahuntsic delivered such a speech today.

There are some fundamental issues and recognizing Quebec as a nation is one of them. Quebec must be recognized as a nation in the full sense of the word, and the only way that can be achieved is if a firm position is taken, such as the one my colleague took this morning.

I would like her to elaborate on what this adds to how the recognition of Quebec as a nation is viewed, and the power over culture this recognition entails, particularly when it comes to communications.

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today, Quebec seniors, including the FADOQ and the FADEQ, are reminding the government of its obligations to them, and are asking for a decent income. They are urging parliamentarians to take action, particularly as regards low income seniors, and are asking them, among other measures, to improve the guaranteed income supplement.

Now that the minister is being called upon by all seniors, will he take this opportunity to announce that he will grant them full retroactivity and indexation, as the Bloc Québécois has been demanding?

[Employment Insurance Act, November 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island North for the quality of her speech and the soundness of her remarks. Bill C-357 aims to amend the Employment Insurance Act regarding the employment insurance account and premium rate setting. The bill's provisions aim to correct not merely a mistake, but what is practically a serious misappropriation.

People who should be protected by the government regarding the management of their employment insurance fund are not being protected. Not only are they not being protected, but they are the victims of what I would call reprehensible management of their own assets. Indeed, it is workers and employers who pay into the employment insurance fund. This should not be considered a hidden tax. The employment insurance fund should be used exclusively for its intended purpose, that is, to ensure benefits, and therefore an income, for people who have the misfortune of losing their jobs.

There are four parts to this bill. As for the employment insurance account itself, it should no longer form part of the accounts of the Canadian government. It should be withdrawn and should become a specific account to be used for that purpose, managed and administered by those who pay into it, that is, employers and workers.

Most members of the commission should come from these two groups that pay into it, along with the participation of the Canadian government, of course. The bill recommends the following ratio: seven representatives of employees, seven representatives of employers and three representatives of the federal government. These administrators would be appointed based on recommendations from the groups involved, and the recommendations would be submitted to the minister.

It also deals with premium rate setting. At present, under the auspices of the government, three administrators who are advised by a chief actuary set the contribution rate, which has been steadily reduced. Nevertheless, surpluses continue to be recorded. Why? For the reasons indicated earlier by my colleague from Vancouver Island North: because access to employment insurance is limited to the utmost and as many unemployed as possible are excluded from coverage. In fact, more than 60% of the unemployed are excluded. That is very serious. They pay premiums to ensure they will have some income if they are unfortunate and lose their jobs. As my colleague pointed out, women and youth are even worse off. Only 32% of women and 17% of youth have any hope of receiving employment insurance benefits. This is quite tragic and things must change.

I am surprised to see that very few parliamentarians, other than Bloc and NDP members, are concerned enough to oppose this situation. If this is how any other program in support of individuals were managed—whether a home insurance policy or any other group program—the administrators would be quickly condemned, because it is literally tantamount to a misappropriation of funds.

My colleague touched on the misappropriation of funds. In the last 12 years, $54 million has been withdrawn from the employment insurance fund, resulting in significant cuts to the EI program.

This deprives families, workers and communities. For the provinces concerned, such as Quebec, it is a huge loss for the regional economy, families and so on.

The fourth measure in this bill is therefore to gradually restore all the amounts that have been misappropriated, at the rate of $1.5 billion a year. Who set this amount? It was set on the advice of an assistant deputy minister. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Disabled Persons asked to see all the studies. It determined that, without compromising Canada's budget, the misappropriated amounts could be restored to the fund at the rate of $1.5 billion a year, as a loan that had been made to the Canadian government over 32 years.

Not only am I calling for this, but the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Disabled Persons unanimously recommended it on December 5, 2004. On February 15, 2005, the committee again called for the money to be restored. The first eight of the 28 recommendations in the committee's report focused on the need to create an independent fund. This was a unanimous decision by the committee members, including Conservatives and Liberals, who had also literally stuck their hands in the fund for money they could use for other purposes. The members unanimously acknowledged that a grave injustice had been done to the unemployed and their families. The money must therefore be restored at this rate.

When the committee made this recommendation in 2004, $46 billion had been taken out of the fund. Today, the total has risen to $54 billion. The government is continuing to pump money from the fund while it deprives people of income in the form of benefits if they are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs.

Poverty does not come out of nowhere. It is often the result of bad economic policies and bad social safety nets. We have a secure social safety net but it may be the result of the government's misleading practices. It is bad to have to say that here, but I am saying it. It is a misleading practice because the purpose of this fund is not to reduce the deficits of the Canadian government or anything other than to meet the needs of employment insurance.

There is a problem now. The Speaker has ruled on the matter of a royal recommendation for this bill. It is a technical matter, but a highly important one. Legislation provides that when the bill has an impact on the Canadian budget, approval by cabinet, called the royal recommendation, must be given. Naturally, cabinet refuses to provide this recommendation.

With all due respect Mr. Speaker, we differ in opinion as far as the ruling is concerned. This fund should not be recognized as a source of revenue for the Canadian government. It must be set aside to be used to manage an employment insurance fund. The Speaker made his ruling and we will comply because we have no choice.

Nonetheless, I invite all our parliamentary colleagues to strongly encourage the Conservative government to provide this royal recommendation. It is the least we can do for the people we represent in every one of our ridings who are suffering because they are not receiving the income they are entitled to when they lose their employment. It is bad enough for them to lose their employment without being denied their own benefits, to which they have contributed their entire lives through their employment insurance contributions.

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we can learn a number of things from this bill. First of all, it shows that sometimes, jurisdiction over natural resources can overlap.

For example, there is a mine in northwestern Quebec, the Siscoe mine, that had to shut down a few years ago because of plans to dig under Lac Siscoe. Apparently, there was water getting in and so on. A practical difficulty arose, and the mine operators had to deal with it alone. We have some important lessons to learn from that.

I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. Now I would like her to comment further on similarities between the exceptions that could apply to this mine, and the French language situation she mentioned.

Earlier, it was made clear that the purpose of the bill the Bloc introduced this morning was to make the federal government comply with Bill 101. To illustrate the proposal, our colleague mentioned the Larose commission, which issued very clear recommendations for Quebec in that respect.

Can my colleague expand on the recommendations that the Government of Quebec is hesitating to act on, but that deserve to be acted on?

[Climate Change Summit, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on September 24, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, welcomed Catherine Gauthier, an 18 year old woman from my riding, at the climate change summit.

Ms. Gauthier addressed the 80 heads of state and told them, “The citizens of the world... will no longer tolerate elected leaders who do not act accordingly. ...I am now among the many who will vote for the climate.”

Her speech earned her congratulations from many people, including Ban Ki-moon.

Ms. Gauthier said that the absence of the Prime Minister disappointed her. “It is absurd, she said. He boasts about providing a bridge between Kyoto proponents and opponents, but he cannot be two-faced.”

Finally, she deplored the lack of action of the government, which is solely ruled by economic imperatives. “One must not forget that the economy is built on natural resources. There is a way to strike a balance between the two... and it is called sustainable development, she said.”

Congratulations to Ms. Gauthier for her wonderful sense of responsibility to humanity.