Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, from one end of highway 138 to the other, people were out on May 7 and 8 to express their displeasure with the federal government's handling of the employment insurance program.

In Montérégie, the people of Huntingdon blocked highway 138, to make their demands clear, one of which was reinstatement of POWA, the program for older worker adjustment.

More than 800 workers there have recently lost their jobs, and a quarter of these are 55 years of age or older.

In La Malbaie, another 150 demonstrators blocked their section of the highway to protest the status quo in EI. They were angered by the lies told by the Liberals during the last election campaign.

The unemployed have had enough of false promises. The Bloc Québécois supports them and calls upon the government to reinstate POWA and to remedy the shortcomings in the EI program so that it provides the unemployed with proper assistance.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief.

We have to realize that, as parliamentarians, we have to run a country, not part of a country. In other words, we have to take care of everyone affected by the issue of unemployment, not just some. We cannot look at just one thing that is wrong. We have to look at the cause of the many things that are wrong. That is what needs to be fixed.

The cause of the many things that are wrong is a policy that harms almost everyone right now and it needs to be addressed. My colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine is totally right about this. Seniors, women and young people are being discriminated against in employment and unemployment. There is also the issue of immigrants who are brought here to work, and who are paid employment insurance benefits when they are not even entitled to them.

All of this needs to be resolved in one fell swoop with a consistent and coherent policy.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Well, yes. So there has to be some consistency, some cohesiveness in what the parties are doing in regard to the objectives we are trying to achieve. Someone must not claim, however, to have a temporary solution that will make it better and give people a half smile. Maybe in this way some of our group will be among the chosen. It does not work like that. That is not what people expect of us. They expect us to have policies, which are supported and defended by the party, and to do so in a sufficiently intelligent way to convince other colleagues of the nature of the problem.

This is a problem of our society as a whole and not just of a riding. The question is whether we are going to stand up for the most disadvantaged in our society or continue to work against them, with their money, the very money that they have put aside their whole lives by working to pay for insurance in case they ever have the misfortune of losing their job. This is really a social concept that we should share. If one does not share it, one will always end up with people like some of those in the Liberal party.

I encourage our colleagues who have already stood with the Conservatives to share this with us and vote this way.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am not claiming for starters that the NDP is not up to it. The motion or solution is not up to it. The NDP could be up to it if it took an approach for a policy that is not piecemeal, a policy that solves only part of the problem while continuing to discriminate elsewhere.

Our colleague asked us to debate employment insurance for a day. If we were to do this, it would be in regard to all the recommendations. So far, we have not proposed bills with only partial solutions. We have proposed two bills: Bill C-280 on an independent employment insurance fund—for the same very well known reasons—in order to shelter this fund from pickpockets, and Bill C-278 on all the measures. That is what we need to emphasize. The member did the same thing, but we should leave it at that. A measure like the one that the NDP is proposing today suits the Liberal government. We try for a whole day to debate something that is so limited in comparison with the extent of the problem, knowing in advance that the Liberals will vote against it. They are against it. My friend acknowledges this himself. So why waste time on something that does not solve the problem?

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out to the hon. members who just left that we were very respectful when they spoke. We did not hold parallel forums.

I am going to conclude the second part of my speech. I simply want to draw the attention of my distinguished NDP colleagues, who are about to vote on the budget. Did they read it? I imagine they did. Did they read carefully?

I refer them to pages 243, 244 and 245. The measure proposed by the NDP will generate new costs totalling between $100 million and $125 million for the government. Part of the amount of $320 million would already be committed, if the 14 week period is reduced. So, this is very little, considering the $16.3 billion budget for the year that just ended.

Let us take a look at the budget. What strikes me is the measure that the NDP is about to endorse. The government says it must spend more efficiently. This is why it launched, on December 16, 2003, an extensive exercise to review government to shift expenditures from low-priority areas—that is in the government's view—to high-priority areas. It has given the cabinet committee on expenditure review a number of responsibilities relating to cost reduction. The government says, “Savings identified in the course of expenditure review can provide the government with further funds to invest in today's priorities and tomorrow's opportunities”.

As regards these cuts, for which the expenditure review committee will be responsible, the budget includes the following, on page 245, “About $2.3 billion of the total savings will be achieved through improved efficiency in the employment insurance program, and a further $155 million in the Canada Pension Plan”. What does this mean? It means cuts in the employment insurance program. Some members might argue that these cuts will not necessarily be made to benefits, that they may target the staff, etc. That does not change anything, because these are still cuts to the system.

At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst introduced a motion to appoint a counsellor in every employment insurance office to help the unemployed find their way through the system. It was defeated. Not only will no money be added, but $2.3 billion will be cut.

Our friends in the NDP thump their chests and say they got $4.3 billion in the negotiations over the budget. However, the Prime Minister said that only $1 billion of this is new money. When we do the math, it becomes clear that it was the unemployed who were sacrificed.

Today I am asking the NDP members who are going to vote to take a close look at that. Tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or the day after the vote, I would ask them to explain their decision to the unemployed, when they used to campaign alongside us to have the entire employment insurance system restored and to ensure that the money which was misappropriated—as my colleague explained earlier—is used to benefit the unemployed. Not only are our friends not moving in this direction any more, but by supporting this budget, they are going to find themselves authorizing cuts of $2.3 billion.

That is what they need to look at.

There are other aspects. I am sorry, I do not want to drown us in figures, but since we are dealing with this, let us take major corrective action. The government has done $46 billion of damage to the unemployed. This is how much it misappropriated when it managed to produce surpluses by reducing accessibility. I repeat for people who have not yet understood that of all those who contribute to employment insurance and are laid off some day, only 38% can hope to receive benefits because the constraints are so great that people are not eligible.

If all 28 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities were taken and implemented in full, and if the measure on increasing benefits from 55% to 60% of salary were included, the additional expenditure would be $1.9 billion.

Some will ask me if that would lead to an increase in premiums. Last year, the EI fund showed a $3.3 billion surplus. Year after year, the surplus has varied from $3 billion to $7 billion. All we hear from the Liberal government is that premiums could be reduced. People who contribute to the program say that the amount of the premiums is not the problem, they can pay that. The problem is the amount of the benefits received or the ineligibility to receive benefits.

There has been a surplus each and every year, and this year will be no exception. The surplus will be $2.2 billion. That is money left after all benefits have been paid, even though premiums were reduced by 3¢ in December. There is still the issue of the $46 billion that was stolen, and I think that is the right word. That money has to be put back into the EI fund.

In short, what we are saying is that we will support the motion even though it does not address the whole issue. This motion does not solve the problems resulting from the restrictive measures imposed by the Liberal government, and we deplore that fact.

We invite members of the House not only to vote in favour of this motion, but to decide right now that they will vote in favour of Bill C-280, which is now in committee, and that they will start thinking seriously about ways of getting the EI program back on the right track. In that respect, we invite our colleagues from the Conservative Party, and also our Liberal colleagues, if they still have some common sense left and, more importantly, some sensitivity to the plight of the less fortunate in our society, to join us in voting in favour of the measures I just mentioned.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

I do not know whether it is House practice to have people speak as if they are at a meeting. It seems to me there is only one forum here, that of the House of Commons.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we could fully endorse what was said by the last two speakers, especially by the leader of the NDP. He is completely right to say that the need is great. The difficulties endured by the unemployed, and consequently by their families, are the result of unacceptable policies. This is how one of my neo-liberal friends described these policies just a little while ago. They are based, actually, on a total refusal to improve the lives of these people, in order to give other things priority.

Where our views diverge—I might add, in passing, that my colleagues and I are going to vote in favour of this motion—because we perceive things differently, is in our approach. They say that the need is great. So why not do what is necessary to meet the need?

Something does not make sense in their approach. It seems rooted in some kind of embarrassment about being considered—I am not exactly sure—demanding or unreasonable. However, the 28 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development give us an idea of the extent of the measures that should be taken to deal with this problem.

The need is too great, under the circumstances, to feel embarrassed about maybe being considered unreasonable. We have a lot of difficulty understanding the NDP's approach in this regard.

In politics, you will agree, it is often a question of perception. It is hard to avoid considering them in a similar situation. With all due respect for my colleagues in the NDP, I must say that our perception is that the Liberal government did not want to offend its friends of convenience so that the budget would pass.

At the same time, the Liberal government did not want to give the impression that it was abandoning the unemployed, because it had abandoned them during the negotiations over the budget. It therefore had to find some half measure, which was not close to meeting the need of course, in order to give the impression that the NDP had obtained something.

We are going to vote in favour of this motion and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same. Nevertheless, it does not go far enough. The perception that the people and we ourselves are left with is the one I just described.

We do not share the NDP's piecemeal approach. However, the approach that we take is one that my friend in the NDP supported until just recently, that is to say, until the debate and vote at second reading of the budget. We feel—and I say this with all due respect for our colleagues—that the NDP turned its back on the unemployed in all these dealings.

Was it intentional? I am not ascribing motives to them. I think that they are sincere, as we all are, in wanting to address the unemployment situation. They are going about it the wrong way, however, in light of the strategic considerations I raised earlier.

On December 13, Senator Pierrette Ringuette, who was sitting on the Prime Minister's task force, raised a dissenting voice, advocating for 12 weeks. Like the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, she did not make the assistance conditional on a 10% unemployment rate. This means that the recommendation is now being watered down.

On December 16, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tabled part one of its report, which contained the first eight recommendations, unanimous recommendations that is. This report included the recommendation for an independent employment insurance fund—to keep the government from dipping into it—to be managed by commissioners representing both groups of contributors: employers and employees. It provided for a mechanism to ensure that the fund is managed safely at arm's length and, more importantly, in the interest of the workers and employers who pay into it, especially the unemployed, of course.

On February 15, the second part of this report was tabled. It contained a total of 28 recommendations. Recommendation 14 contains the 12 week measure, but without the condition of 10% or more unemployment in each region. This explains why we cannot support the NDP's reasoning in this regard.

On February 23, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, at the time, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, put forward three measures and tabled them. Her riding is not the poorest in the country. In Quebec this is where the highest rate of income and lowest rate of unemployment are to be found. So, one of these measures is the best 14 weeks with the rate of unemployment indicator of 10% and over.

The NDP's motion unfortunately is influenced by the measure of the minister of the time.

Finally, Bill C-280 tabled by my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord institutionalizes the creation of the independent EI fund. The EI file is brought to attention of the whole House. Our NDP colleagues were present when all these measures were put forward, when parliamentarians and the House took these steps. They joined in. I really think they agree with us that all these measures must be adopted.

I am going to repeat what I have said. I do not want to tell them off, but I think that we have to speak the truth to one another. We have a lot of difficulty understanding today why the measure before us falls short. In terms of perception, it does not fit with the concerns expressed by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 1st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie. First, I am glad the NDP has changed its mind on the first reading of the bill. They are currently against Bill C-23, if I have understood correctly.

The reasons they say they are against it are quite questionable. There is a tendency toward greater centralization of national programs. In that sense, my colleague from Québec made our position very clear.

My colleague from Sault Ste. Marie raises the fact that they have reservations about this bill because a legal commitment and framework is needed to improve the services. I tried to follow his reasoning, but I did not really hear anything to that effect.

I understand why he finds it hard to come up with ways to improve it because it is hard to improve something that is not relevant. This bill is not relevant. The only thing it sets out to do is to institutionalize a structure called Social Development Canada in order to justify interfering in programs that do not come under federal jurisdiction.

My question is this. Should the bill pass, does my colleague realize that this is a way of creating a single window, which makes access to services even more difficult and facilitates making cuts to one department or the other?

I refer my colleague to page 280 of the budget to help him see that by passing the budget he would be authorizing the government to cut $2.4 billion from EI programs alone. We know how much the NDP cares about this issue.

How will they be able to justify authorizing $2.4 billion in cuts to employment insurance, as outlined on page 280 of the budget?

It is the same thing in other provisions in the budget, where cuts are already planned for the new Department of Social Development.

I would like to know what my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has to say about this.

[Employment Insurance, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister recall her reasons for voting in favour of an independent fund barely two months ago? If she does not, that is somewhat cause for concern for the department she heads.

Since a Bloc Québécois bill aimed at creating an independent EI fund is currently being studied in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, does the minister not realize that now is when she needs to speak up and clearly support Bill C-280?

[Employment Insurance, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has had the time to familiarize herself with the file on the creation of an independent employment insurance fund, she ought to be in a position to inform us of her intentions.

Having already come out in favour of an independent EI fund as a Conservative MP, can she tell us whether, as minister, she intends to maintain that position and take steps to create such a fund, as has been unanimously recommended by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities?