Yves Lessard

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly speak to Bill C-13, the 2006 budget implementation act.

I am pleased to speak immediately after the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I think she did a good job highlighting the entire issue we must consider in order to pass judgment on this budget.

In no way do I doubt the convictions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, having heard her speak about the less fortunate a number of times now. I think she does this well with conviction and fairness.

However, as far as the budget is concerned, we do not share the same conclusions. At the end of her speech she mentioned a certain number of reasons why we do not share her conclusions in terms of the Canadian government's policies of withdrawal from the social safety net for the people she was referring to, namely the poorest in society.

Hon. members will recall the Canadian government's withdrawal from social housing, which is called affordable housing in Canada, when the Liberals were formed the government. This withdrawal occurred almost throughout their entire time in power. Nothing was invested in social housing. It was only in 2001 that the Liberal government gradually started putting money back into social housing. However, it was too late, the damage had been done. The current serious shortage in social housing is putting even greater pressure on the poor.

The same phenomenon occurred in employment insurance with the Canadian government's withdrawal and cuts to the programs. This puts a great deal of pressure on the poorest families, especially people who have the misfortune of losing their employment.

I will come back to that, but I wanted first to put this in perspective to show that in the current context I believe there is no guarantee the Liberals would do better than the Conservatives right now if they were in power. On the contrary, they showed us they were capable of the worst.

Now it is time to see whether the Conservatives are also capable of the worst. In that perspective, we have looked at whether the budget we want to implement with Bill C-13 provides us with anything positive.

We must consider it in terms of the mandate given to us by the Quebec electorate. This mandate is to defend, to the best of our ability, the interests of Quebeckers. All the better if the interests of all Canadians are defended at the same time.

The issue of fiscal imbalance is decidedly a major issue for Quebec. I believe it is a major issue for the rest of Canada, but we will speak for Quebec. Why? Because it is an issue that the Liberals refused to recognize in order to maintain their policy of disengagement with respect to the provinces and to Quebec. It was a case of maintaining this quite deplorable situation whereby the Canadian government recorded the surpluses and the provinces assumed the responsibilities.

We have before us a government that says it is prepared to examine the fiscal imbalance within ten months, or by February 2007. It says it is prepared to do whatever is necessary with the provinces to solve the problem. That is an interesting commitment.

Now let us look at the difficulties faced by farmers. How farmers have struggled these last few years, first to obtain recognition for the fact that they experience tremendous difficulties just to be able to survive, and then to feed their families and to keep their farms afloat. We know how quickly the rate of farm failures is rising.

Many farmers did not even have enough money to plant their crops this spring.

Now, a breath of fresh air is blowing across the land. It is not an ideal solution, granted, but it is welcome relief for farmers. The Bloc Québécois had a large hand this initiative, especially my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, who worked hard to convince the Conservative government that it had to do something. As a result, the budget contains $1.5 billion in new money to support farm producers who are going through hard times.

As I mentioned earlier, $800 million will go to social housing. In 2001, the Liberals allocated $260 million. Today, $800 million in new funding is being invested in social housing. This is a positive step.

The additional infrastructure funding, the tax exemption for bursaries, the reduction in the excise tax for microbreweries and the $1 billion for post-secondary education are some other positive aspects of the budget. The Bloc Québécois feels that, in the current context, the budget does enough for the people we represent so that we can support it. Does it address every issue? No.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you take a special interest in the plight of the unemployed and the poor. Our colleague referred to this earlier. We must recognize that a number of huge commitments are missing from the budget. In the coming months, that is what we must focus on in order to correct this situation.

Let us talk about the unemployed. The Conservative Party made a promise to set up an independent fund so that the Canadian government would stop playing around with the fund to divert money—which the Liberals did. Over the past 12 years, $48 billion was misappropriated from the employment insurance fund.

Elsewhere, this behaviour would be described as theft. I will not say that, as it is not parliamentary. However, it is dramatic. On whose backs was this done? It was done on the backs of people whose employment insurance benefits were cut. This is one of the measures that made families poorer, as our colleague mentioned earlier. Who does this money belong to? It belongs to the workers and employers.

I say it often in this House and I will continue to say it until this injustice is corrected. It is scandalous. It is misappropriation of funds, in no uncertain terms. This money belongs to two groups, the workers and the employers. In addition, this money could have gone to help families.

This was the first measure the Conservative government made a commitment on. It has done nothing yet. We will have to hound it. It will have to deliver the goods to provide an independent fund.

The situation is the same with the income support program for older workers. At the moment, the collapse of our industries' infrastructure because of the entry of foreign goods has led to layoffs. Most importantly, the people hit by the layoffs are 55 and older. In the past, the Conservatives made a commitment in this regard. It must deliver the goods.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-269 to improve the entire employment insurance program. When the time comes, I invite my colleagues in the House to support this bill. Why? Because it is the minimum in terms of responsibility and recognition we owe workers in order to come to their assistance. It is also a matter of justice for them.

My time is up, so I will stop here. I am prepared to respond in the time for questions.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Liberal colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, who just spoke.

I am pleasantly surprised to hear that he advocates employment insurance reform with a focus on seasonal workers and income support for older workers who have unfortunately lost their jobs.

I will not dwell on the fact that, until recently, he was a member of the government, and that while in power, his party turned a deaf ear to the opposition's representations. If I understand correctly, he is now personally advocating employment insurance reform.

This week, the Bloc tabled an employment insurance reform bill. Am I right in thinking, given his statements, that he will ensure that his Liberal colleagues vote for a complete overhaul of employment insurance?

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

An independent fund so that money does not keep being taken from it.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on her excellent speech.

If I understood correctly, she intends to support the budget. I would like to hear more about why she supports it.

Why does she support this year's budget—I understand she intends to support it—when she voted against the previous budget?

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the negotiations as carried out set no example for us.

I do not know whether my colleague was here earlier, but I will recall the situation last year. The NDP supported a budget that cut $2.5 billion from employment insurance. It is recorded on pages 278, 279 and 280 of last year's budget.

What remains of the NDP's negotiations last year? Nothing. Quite the opposite. The unemployed have taken a loss. What is the Bloc negotiating? The defence, as we are today, of the public's positions, file by file. Yesterday, I listed six or seven files on which progress has been made.

Let us take the fiscal imbalance, for example. No major national party recognized the fiscal imbalance three years ago. Today it is in the budget. Who got it?

The same is true with social housing. They say they got things, but nothing was got. Today it is in the budget.

The same can be said for post-secondary education. A contribution was clearly made to municipal infrastructure, clearly. It could be ignored. However, the people in Quebec recognize it when they vote for us.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. He is quite right, these are provincial jurisdictions. But the provinces are not able to fully meet their obligations because the government took away their money in order to take over those obligations.That is what happens.

A portion of the tax money collected from Canadians should return to Quebec and the provinces. This portion must be returned, as a portion of the 10¢ gas tax was, which will gradually go to municipalities. It is the same thing with transportation and municipal infrastructure. The federal government has jurisdiction over some aspects of transportation, including marine, rail and air transportation.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia on his presentation.

It is very important for me to be able to speak to the budget. I am doing so with particular concern for the citizens of my riding of Chambly—Borduas.

Every time I speak in this House I always ask myself how I can best serve the citizens of my riding. Under the circumstances, I have to assess whether this budget has positive elements that will serve the interests of the citizens we represent or whether, on the contrary, what we refer to as irritants outweigh the benefits.

In this case are there any real advantages? I see one advantage. The desire to address the problem of the fiscal imbalance head on is very important for Quebec and the other provinces. This is the first time in recent years that a government has agreed to tackle this. I think this is significant. We must acknowledge the positive aspects. There may not be any immediate revenues or measures, but at least there is a very concrete deadline, and it is within the first year.

The second aspect affects the difficulties the farmers are currently facing. This is another major problem that has been raised in the past few years and about which the previous government did very little. We must recognize that there are new elements in the support measures for farmers, to the tune of $1.5 billion. We see this as positive. It is not perfect, there is still work to be done, but it is a step forward compared to the past few years.

Another important aspect is poverty. The Conservative government has not, in our opinion, introduced measures or made commitments that address the entire problem. Nonetheless, when we talk about social housing we can see there is a new commitment compared to the lack of commitment by the former Liberal government. From 1993 to 2001, it completely withdrew from this issue.

That resulted in a major shortfall in social housing in every province, Quebec in particular. The vacancy rate dropped below 3%, which is the standard for determining when the quality of social housing is threatened.

My own riding includes 12 cities, all of which have vacancy rates lower than 3%. This is a serious problem. It did not come about by itself. It came about because of poorly designed measures and legislation that resulted from the previous federal government's disengagement. We believe that only Quebec could contribute to developing social housing.

There is also the issue of additional funding for municipal infrastructure. Investments of over $50 billion in the short term would be needed to modernize municipal infrastructure in Canada

It is not that much. This commitment to municipal infrastructure and public transit is new, as is exempting scholarships from taxation.

On that note, I will end my list of reasons why we should pass this budget. I would add that it is a transitional budget. It is not a long-term plan. We must also recognize that it is the new government's first budget.

That said, let us now look at some of the little irritating problems. Are these problems enough to make us vote against the budget? In the short term, are they worth sending Canadians to the polls over? We have to consider that.

The other two opposition parties have been throwing their weight around for a week, saying that the Bloc has been servile with the Conservatives. Really! No one here is a fool. If the Bloc voted against the budget, I can tell you that the Liberals would be looking for any means they could find to get enough members to vote in favour of the budget. Just among ourselves, no one in the country believes that the Liberals are organized enough to trigger an election. And if that were to happen, would we be further ahead with a budget that contains irritants and a majority Conservative government? They too are busy with these calculations.

The New Democrats are lecturing us like greenhorns. What did they get from the negotiation of Bill C-43 last year? What was the net benefit to taxpayers? Nothing. We are also being lectured on employment insurance. The employment insurance issue is a tragedy. What the Liberals have done is indecent. And what the Conservatives are preparing to do is indecent. It has to be said. I will not vote in favour of the budget because of what they are doing for employment insurance, because what they are about to do is indecent. However we should remember that last year the NDP voted in favour of $2.5 billion in cuts to employment insurance. That is what they did. And today we are being lectured. These are things which must be said.

So they have had a hand in making people poorer, even though they put forward progressive measures. And they say we are not as “left” as they are. I say to you that they signal left and then turn right. It has to be said. As for me, I think that this is misleading the people. One must speak the truth as it really is.

Will an election be called over the budget? That poses no problem for us. It could happen. However it will be necessary to explain why to the people, and speak the truth as I am now doing. That is why an election will not be called. It would just be a trip to nowhere. The people do not want it. Anyway, we are realistic. One has to be realistic and responsible enough to speak the truth as it is.

Back to employment insurance. On that subject, the Conservatives will be obliged to keep their word. There is nothing in this budget to indicate that they will keep their commitment on the independent fund. Yet that is indispensable. The lack of an independent fund is what allowed the Liberals to fiddle nearly $50 billion out of the employment insurance fund. That money belongs to workers and employers. That prevented nearly 60% of the workers who lost their jobs from receiving their employment insurance, even though they had contributed all their life. There is something indecent and revolting about that.

It is the same for what is being reserved for older workers. They have paid their premiums all their lives. The Liberals dismantled that program in 1997. Now they want to study this on the other side. Where were the Conservatives when it was studied by the opposition? Now they are on the other side of the House and it is as if they had developed amnesia. They don’t remember. Really! I invite them to bring along what they learned in opposition. It should not stay on this side. They are going to need a little information to make some decisions this year, preferably this spring, because there are some very hungry people waiting.

They have a responsibility because they were elected.

It is the same thing when it comes to improvements to employment insurance. Today my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle introduced a bill to reform the employment insurance system. I hope that all the hon. members will vote in favour of this bill. Otherwise, the people will be cheated.

They give fine speeches and make faces at us here, because they want to come off as though they are better than us, and they throw their weight around, but they do not tell the truth.

That was the truth. I am anxious for the Conservatives to honour their commitment.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert gave his views on the budget and praised a number of measures in it that come to the assistance of families.

Yesterday, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights met in Geneva. Canada appeared before it. The committee seemed annoyed in particular by Canada’s performance in the fight against homelessness, by Canada’s position and behaviour in regard to employment insurance, and by housing, just to mention these subjects.

The member gave his views on the budget and praised it. So he can hardly claim today that his knowledge is limited to his own area of interest since he just told us what a good budget it is.

I know that this is a new government, that the previous government diverted more than $48 billion from employment insurance while it was in power, and that the new government has obligations in this regard.

The member who gave us his views on the budget must be able to tell us today whether the government he represents intends to return the $48 billion to the fund from which they were diverted.

[Older Workers, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to have better luck with my next question.

Another group plunged into uncertainty are seasonal workers. Pilot project No. 6 to help these workers concludes on June 4, and the minister says she is studying the question.

I ask her this: could she not extend this pilot project for a while until she has made a final decision in the matter?

[Older Workers, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government's answers are evasive. In the context of globalization, thousands of jobs are lost or at risk of disappearing. Older workers who have worked all their lives in certain businesses that close their doors are hit hard.

Beyond the intentions set out in the budget, can the government tell us in specific terms whether it plans to help these older workers by the end of the current session in June?