Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party ignores the unemployed since there is nothing on employment insurance. In so doing, the Prime Minister is continuing down the same path that led him to vote against the Bloc Québécois amendment to the budget on overhauling the system.

How can the Prime Minister brush off improvements to the employment insurance system when he has proven beyond a doubt that he has the necessary financial means to make those changes?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked two questions.

The first concerns the advisability of waiting for the Gomery report. We would be prepared to wait for it if its contents were challenged by the Canadian public. Seventy-six per cent of Canadians say they do not believe the Prime Minister knew nothing, as he claims. Yesterday he said he was sorry and that he ought to have known. What he ought to have acknowledged, instead, is that he did know. Canadians know that he did. It is important to acknowledge this.

The second aspect relates to my raising the point of injustice to Quebec. This arises out of two things: first, the burden placed on the people of Quebec as far as the sponsorship scandal is concerned. The scandal is primarily linked to people from Quebec, people with whom we are not associated in any way, but from whom the Liberal Party is having a hard time dissociating itself. That is the first thing.

There are many injustices, but the most flagrant one of these is perhaps the economic injustice of fiscal imbalance. This involves a shortfall of a clear $2.4 billion annually. That money does not get back into the coffers of Quebec. The federal government has a broader tax base than Quebec, so Quebec, as we saw in Mr. Audet's budget yesterday, has all manner of problems in making ends meet. The situation will be the same whether the government is PQ, Liberal or anything else. Why is that? Because the obligations are in Quebec while the money is in Ottawa.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. I am especially pleased to be able to speak the day after the Prime Minister's address to the nation.

This budget is consistent with the Prime Minister's address to the nation. In other words, this budget ignores the public interest, and it is based on the purely political interest of saving his own party. In fact, this budget is strategically designed as a campaign tool.

First, this budget totally ignores the priorities of Quebec. Implementing this budget would clearly contradict our own purpose, which is, first and foremost, to defend the interests of Quebeckers, who have given us the mandate to come here as a strong majority, in terms of members from Quebec.

Bill C-43 should have been an opportunity to make significant improvements to the budget. However, it includes initiatives we find unacceptable. It supports the agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and, with regard to Kyoto, it sets out measures based on the polluter-paid principle, instead of the polluter-pay principle.

The minority Liberal government should have seized the opportunity presented by Bill C-43 to make real compromises and reflect on the political situation and the message it is getting from all across Canada about the changes that need to be made to government policies.

This morning, my remarks are intended, naturally, for the Liberal members. In particular, I want to warn them that they will take the fall, and even if the majority of the country does not want an election, one will be necessary given the position in which the government is putting the Canadian public.

I was saying earlier that Bill C-43, to implement the budget, is consistent with the Prime Minister's speech yesterday. Last night, the Prime Minister appealed to the nation. It was quite pathetic, because usually a national appeal is in the interests of the entire nation. This means that the head of state, in his official capacity, must speak from on high in the best interests of all Canadians and particularly, in this case, Quebeckers, given the serious damage inflicted on them by the Liberal Party as a result of the sponsorship scandal.

Yesterday, we would have expected the Prime Minister, rather than addressing the nation to ask it to save his party, to apologize for not doing something about the current situation in Canada. We would have also expected him to acknowledge that he was responsible in large part for that situation because, when the Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance and, thus, the custodian of public funds, cheating occurred on the other side of this House for many years. He should have acknowledged that he made a mistake not only by failing to watch more closely over those who were dipping into the fund, but also by withdrawing support from municipal infrastructure.

I am also referring to the Guaranteed Income Supplement and how the government simply decided to deny seniors information about their rights. Today, as a result, seniors are still owed $3.3 billion and the government is preventing that money from getting to them. Yet, these people are among those who need it the most. He should have apologized and said that the situation would be corrected.

In terms of infrastructure, he should have arranged to have measures in place to prevent municipalities from fighting over who wins the jackpot. He should have also acknowledged what we owe to seniors and give them back the money they are entitled to and put money back into the fund for social housing.

The government made these promises in the mid-1990s, and did not start financing these sectors again until 2001. He should have told the public last night that he was sorry, that he made a mistake and that he mismanaged things. He should have added that, effective immediately, since the money is available, he will make amends.

Families are owed a major apology, all of the families of Quebec and Canada, because of the Unemployment Insurance cheat, the $46 billion taken from it. The Prime Minister pulled off a David Copperfield style magic trick to make $46 billion disappear, and now he says this was virtual money and no longer exists. Yet that $46 billion had been accumulated by reducing benefits to the unemployed, even though they and their former employers had contributed to it.

Today, a mere 38% of them can hope to receive EI benefits if they end up unemployed. There ought to have been an apology and a commitment to put that money to its proper use. Instead we are being told today that the money does not exist and that it is all virtual.

Are these employee contributions to the EI fund, and the contributions by employers, who pay $1.40 for every $1 the employees contribute, virtual? Do they exist or do they not? That deduction on people's pay stubs, are we to understand that the government did not keep it? That it was returned? If that was the case, then it has gone somewhere. Into the party's fund? I hope not. So it must be somewhere.

This talk of virtual and non-existent money is tantamount to deceiving the public. The Prime Minister ought to have told us that last night, ought to have admitted that he had deceived us. Only then would he have gained any credibility. He ought to have made a commitment to put the money back into the fund. Then he would have been credible.

So where is that money? It is being used as a hidden tax in order to decrease the debt, although that burden must be assumed by the entire community and not just one part of it. It is even worse when the money diverted has a specific purpose at a time when people are losing jobs and in difficult situations. If they are impoverishing families in this way, is it surprising that there are so many poor people, so many children living in poverty in this country?

If there are children living in poverty, it is because there are parents living in poverty. If there are parents living in poverty, it is because certain people are passing measures to prevent them from receiving benefits after losing their jobs, despite having contributed their entire lives. It is an outrage and the Prime Minister should be ashamed. Why did he not mention this yesterday evening? He would have had credibility, had he done so. He would have been speaking in the interest of the country and of Quebeckers, too, who have taken the fall for him for the underhanded dealings and fishy business connected to the sponsorship scandal.

Tying the election to the Gomery commission means making Justice Gomery shoulder a burden that is not his to carry. It is the same as saying that, when he renders his decision and tables his report on all the testimony he has heard, he will be telling the public which way to vote. That is not the judge's responsibility.

The judiciary has nothing to do with politics. The issues raised by the sponsorship scandal are directly related to public interest. This is political. The Canadian public, and not Justice Gomery, has to make that decision as soon as possible, to stop these people from getting their sticky fingers on the cash.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is quite difficult to follow him. On one hand, he admits that there is a little group—or clique, for he also used that word—and, on the other hand, he pretends that this can happen in other parties as well. We agree that it could happen.

Unless I am mistaken, however, it was not the Conservative Party or the NDP or the Bloc Québécois that controlled the national unity fund. It was his party that managed that fund. I think that he will admit that.

Given that and given the existence of a small group, would the minister not agree that in a party that is at all informed and transparent, people usually know what is going on? It was not the Holy Spirit who inspired the Prime Minister to create the Gomery commission. In three and a half years, the Bloc Québécois asked 444 questions before the Prime Minister decided to create the Gomery commission. We must not forget that.

I would like to hear the Minister of Transport on that. How can he explain that nobody at any location or level in his party saw or heard anything? Everybody knows that the Prime Minister was number two in the party at that time. I was not in the House when all that happened, I am a new member here. However, among the general public, everybody knew and saw what was going on. The Liberal Party was the only one seeing nothing.

Today, I have an opportunity to ask the question in the hope of getting a credible answer. I would like to have an answer to this: if there is a clique, a small group, it cannot be in the other parties, but only where people had control of the fund and could help themselves to it. A transparent and perceptive party must know where the clique is and should identify it. That is the reason why the misappropriated money should be put into a trust fund.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question of my colleague who spoke last about the claim of the Liberal member who is linking political options to the issue at hand.

Despite deep disagreements between the Bloc members and the Conservative members concerning our sovereignist political option and their federalist one, when the time comes to consider public interest, common interest and the fact that the government is using public funds for other purposes—whether with employment insurance or the sponsorship issue that we are talking about today—opposition parties must ensure that the fiscal house is in order and that the money that was misappropriated is put into a trust fund. Could my colleague state what his thinking is concerning this duty?

[Employment Insurance Act, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to be able to speak on this bill. First, I would like to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague from Manicouagan for introducing this bill and defending it both vigorously and rigorously, as he always does when it comes to standing up for the people of his riding. He does so aptly, as he does here, in the House of Commons.

This bill is necessary under the circumstances. It has every reason to be passed, except with respect to what my colleague opposite just mentioned.

I find rather tragic, however, that anyone would argue today that it is mainly about premiums, when those contributing never asked that the premiums be lowered.

It is not about how much money there is in the fund either, since surpluses have been and continue to be accumulated. My Conservative colleague alluded to that earlier: as of March 31, 2004, there was an accumulated surplus in excess of $46 billion, which was used for purposes other than what the fund was designed for, namely employment insurance.

These surpluses were built on the backs of workers who had the misfortune of losing their jobs and for whom this Liberal government has restricted accessibility and eligibility.

Why are things that way? Because the Liberal government can draw as it likes on this fund and do what it wants with it. This fund is administered by a small group chosen by the government, as my colleague opposite pointed out. She was wondering whether having 17 administrators instead of four was not something that could compromise the fund. If I have ever heard anything nonsensical in this House, that is it.

How can one claim that 17 people are going to administer a $17 billion a year fund and represent some 17 or 18 million working people who contribute to the fund at one time or another and for whom rules must be established to enable them to access employment insurance? It was just claimed today that it is unthinkable to have 17 people administering this fund. Actually, the opposite is true because having four people to administer this fund eliminates a lot of transparency from its administration and excludes the two groups that contribute, namely employers and employees, from its administration. This is nonsense and gives rise to the abuses that we see in other government sectors. We have seen the abuses when there is a lack of transparency. It is the same for the employment insurance fund.

It is entirely appropriate that this fund should be independent again. Does this mean that the government would not have supervisory powers? The Auditor General has told us how this should work: by being accountable, of course, with a government presence in the persons of its deputy ministers and a representative, the chair, appointed by the governor in council. This means that of the 17 people involved in the administration of this fund, there would be seven employee representatives and seven employer representatives. Why this number? A number had to be chosen at a given time in comparison with the administration of a similar fund, to name just one, that of injured workers in Quebec. There is a roughly similar number and the fund is very well managed.

Workers and employers are not irresponsible people but actually take primary responsibility for the money they administer on behalf of the people they represent. Before it is insinuated that such a fund would be better administered by four people appointed by the government, even if employer and employee representatives are present, recent experience shows that this is not the case. It is used for other purposes.

The bill introduced by my colleague from Manicouagan remedies that situation so that the rate set for contributions will be determined yearly in keeping with a recommendation by the commission itself and with a view to improving or maintaining the program depending on the needs of contributors. The EI account would also be established on the basis of each year's requirements. It would be part of the funds on Canada's books, but would not be part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, so that it could not be used for other purposes. One thing is totally unacceptable: the money being treated as a supplementary tax on workers and employers and used for other purposes.

The commission would be administered as I have already said, that is, by a majority representing employers and employees, who would report to Parliament. As is the case everywhere else, there would be arbitration if there were any problem in deciding what level the fund should be kept at. Representatives selected by both groups concerned and appointed by the governor in council would be capable of administering the fund because they would be chosen in keeping with the criteria of each group.

The Bloc Québécois has always disagreed with the way the government has handled the EI fund. I will remind you that during the 36th Parliament in 1999, seven of the 137 bills tabled in the House were introduced by the Bloc and concerned employment insurance.

The EI situation leads us to reflect on the duties of government. A government's first duty is to respect the laws it has itself enacted. The second is not to appropriate things that do not belong to it. In the matter of concern here, the government of the current Prime Minister has violated those two fundamental rules by helping itself to the surplus in the EI fund.

This program was designed as a type of insurance. When people need to make use of that insurance, after paying into it all their working lives, they find that their contributions have been used for something else. Two things would happen to any insurance company in a situation like this. First, it would be seen as crooked. and second, of course, it would soon be out of business.

This is what we should be considering and what we must decide as a group, with respect to the bill we have before us.

Earlier, my colleague opposite also cited the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. On December 13, 2004, this committee prepared a unanimous report recommending precisely what we are putting on the table, that is, an independent fund administered by a majority of people who contribute to it—equal representation of employers and employees—with its own management.

The time has come for the government to implement this recommendation. I am pleased to see that our Conservative colleagues agree that the situation needs to be remedied.

Unfortunately, the examples they are giving are not suitable in this case. The bill addressed the issue of compassionate leave, and the Conservatives voted against it. In this case, I invite them, and all my other colleagues in this House, to vote in favour of Bill C-280, in order finally to correct this injustice toward workers, so that they can administer their own fund in their best interest.

[Employment Insurance, April 4th, 2005]

That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. The minister does not know the true purpose of the employment insurance system.

Today we concluded the second hour of debate on Bill C-278 for improving the employment insurance system. This bill reflects the demands made by advocates for the unemployed. This morning the government voted against it.

How could the government oppose this bill to make the necessary improvements to the EI system that all the stakeholders have been asking for?

[Employment Insurance, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, groups concerned with defending the unemployed launched an “En marche” campaign to pressure the federal government to make significant improvements to the employment insurance system.

Considering the repeated demands of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Mouvement d'action-chômage, the sans-chemise, and the labour unions, including the Canadian Labour Congress, what is the Minister waiting for to make the real improvements to the employment insurance system called for by all key stakeholders?

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House today in order to debate Bill C-278. This bill is the initiative of my colleague from Trois-Rivières, who has made a timely presentation illustrating the need to pass this bill quickly.

What is the urgency? People are deeply hurt, on a personal level, by the fact that they are being denied the employment insurance benefits to which they have contributed for their entire lives and to which they are entitled.

It is also a welcome initiative because we know that the federal government definitely intends to maintain the status quo and continue to dip into the EI fund, which is totally unacceptable.

There is the occasional serendipity or somewhat disturbing coincidences. Today, April 4, is the 70th anniversary of the relief camp workers' strike in British Columbia. These workers went on strike to demand a number of working conditions and measures that would provide them with income if they lost their jobs. This happened on April 4, 1935, and the strike began at 11 a.m., just as my speech this morning was scheduled for 11 a.m.

In a fortuitous and also very unusual coincidence, at 11 this morning, an initiative by the Mouvement des sans-emploi called “En marche” was launched in Montreal and other places throughout the province. It calls upon the government to substantially improve employment insurance. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it is certainly a nice reminder to this government that the Bennett government was defeated in the 1935 election, after adopting a position and measures quite similar to those adopted by the current government on the unemployed and people facing employment difficulties.

This government could very well meet the same fate. Currently, the problem for people in Canada—but which does not exist in Quebec—is that there is no viable political alternative with which to replace this government. That is the only thing missing. Otherwise, this government would have been defeated in the last election on June 28.

There must be a viable political alternative even with regard to employment insurance. I invite the Conservatives, today, if they want to improve their image, to vote in favour of Bill C-278; otherwise they will be tarnished with the same brush as the Liberals.

Obviously, the unemployed are the ones affected, but so are their families and their children. We know that, in Canada, the quality of life of children has deteriorated, because children have gotten poorer. And children are getting poorer because parents are poor. One factor contributing to family and child poverty is denying the unemployed what they are owed, despite the fact that they have an insurance fund guaranteeing them benefits should they have the misfortune of losing their job. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has used this insurance fund for other purposes.

This is the same Liberal government that tightened up EI eligibility criteria in order to finance or to balance its budget on the backs of the workers. The Bloc's position is to start by creating an independent fund and an independent commission so that the government can no longer get its hands on it.

In ten days or so, we will be looking at Bill C-280. The government needs to pay back, over ten years, the money it has got its hands on, and that is what is in our Bill C-278, along with having the commission set the contribution rates. The commission must have a balanced representation of employers and workers because they are the ones who contribute to it. As well, the entire employment insurance system needs to be improved.

The position of the present government, the public needs to be reminded, is devious and dishonest. Why so? Because, having pillaged the fund, the Liberal Party made the commitment in the 2000 election campaign to fix what it had destroyed. It did not do so. In 2001, Liberal Party representatives on the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development, which was addressing the situation with EI, voted unanimously in favour of correcting the situation. Not only was that not done, but as well the Liberals have continued to betray the public by dipping into the fund for other purposes.

Speaking of devious and dishonest, in the last election, barely a year ago, the Liberal government again made a commitment to remedy the situation. Not only did it not do so, but this House, on the initiative of the Bloc Québécois last November, recognized unanimously that the employment insurance fund must not be used in future for any other purpose than unemployment, because it is contributed to by workers and employers and no one else. One might then have expected the fund to be left untouched. But no, the government continues to help itself to money for other purposes. Even the Auditor General pointed this out in her report last November. Liberals on the Human Resources and Skills Development Committee voted unanimously to remedy the situation, based on the set of measures set out in Bill C-278. Since then, the Liberal government has again been doing everything it can to get around these recommendations and enact measures that are contrary to that recommendation.

I want to go back very briefly to the measures proposed in Bill C-278. We have to ask ourselves if we have the money to implement these measures. We do and that money is in the fund. As I said earlier, what needs to be done to restore sustainability, not for the fund but for families, is first to give special status to seasonal workers by setting a single minimum qualifying period of 360 hours for all those who contribute to the fund. We must remove the existing discrimination caused by the disparity in the number of hours required, eliminate the gap by extending by five weeks, from 45 weeks to 50 weeks, the maximum benefit period, and provide special benefits for older workers under POWA, which is a program to help older workers who lose their jobs.

We should also amend the Employment Insurance Act so that persons related to each other are no longer treated as if they had cheated—if somebody cheated, it is definitely not workers. We should also increase the training fund to 0.8% of all insurable earnings; abolish the 910 hour rule for those who become part of the labour force or who rejoin it; increase from $2,000 to $3,000 the threshold of insurable earnings to qualify for benefits; increase the rate of benefits from 55% to 60%; and increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $41,500.

In conclusion, all these measures could easily be implemented with the surpluses that the fund will generate again this year, which are in excess of $3 billion, while the proposed measures would only cost $1.8 billion.

[Older Workers, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997, the current Prime Minister abolished the program for older worker adjustment or POWA, which gave workers aged 55 and up access to benefits until the age of retirement.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development voted on February 8 against a Bloc motion to help textile workers. Quebec, however, has unanimously recognized the need for a POWA. If the minister does not intend to help these workers, what is she waiting for to transfer the necessary funds so that Quebec can implement its own POWA?