Yves Lessard

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, March 23rd, 2005]

Yes, benefits can be reduced. As for the hon. member's benefits, perhaps he should explain that to the unemployed. His colleagues are not even able to meet the unemployed. Their Quebec lieutenant is incapable of meeting with the unemployed; he refuses to meet with them. Here, they say that the unemployed are happy. If they were happy, they would go to talk with them.

The people of Acadie—Bathurst, in the editorial in L'Acadie nouvelle , are giving the minister a rough ride over her position. In almost all municipalities where there are seasonal workers, editorials are saying that it is unacceptable and lacking in common sense. One journalist even suggested that we find a way to spend half an hour with the minister to try to get her to listen to reason. That is what is in the newspapers. The minister has not talked about that. She has said that everyone was happy with it. The Minister of Transport, the Quebec lieutenant, and the minister are not representative of what people are going through in rural ridings, especially with respect to seasonal employment in businesses, whether it is textiles, shoes, softwood lumber and our forest workers, seniors or the POWA. Recommendation 13 in the committee report, which I have here, was passed unanimously. There is nothing here, except insensitivity to these situations. It is inconceivable.

They could say there is no money. That is not true. Not only is there money, but that money belongs to the contributors. As a result, people are in need. Families have been impoverished this way, and here the government struts about, concerned about our salary increase and so on, when there are people in need who have paid their contributions. Really!

I would be embarrassed. I think they lack courage. Here, all is well. Passing measures like this that impoverish people, and then refusing—

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is even better since I can make the correction myself. I think that my hon. colleague is seriously mistaken when he says that the other opposition parties also agree to divide the department into two.

I want to remind my colleague that the work done previously was conducted within a framework totally different from the one to which this bill refers. The bill makes reference to concepts with which the Bloc Québécois completely disagrees, in particular the Employment Insurance Commission and infringements in areas of jurisdiction relating to on-the-job training and so forth. I have already talked about this, as has my colleague for Québec.

Contrary to what the member opposite said, we disagree for very specific reasons. This bill ignores the consensus reached during the previous session of Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois will vote against the bill for many reasons. The first of which, as I mentioned, is that it infringes in areas under provincial jurisdiction. For Quebec, this is serious, particularly with regard to labour management.

And there is the EI fund also. The Prime Minister used the proposed division of the former Department of Human Resources Development into two departments to establish the Department of Social Development and maintain the EI fund in its present form, in spite of the opposition from all stakeholders in the Canadian society, and the Quebec society in particular. I will come back to that. This does not reflect the consensuses at all. In this regard, the Prime Minister is on the wrong track, as I will show.

The Prime Minister split the department the very day he was sworn in. He did so in a hurry,because of the recent election. It was obvious that the matter had been thought over for quite some time. I will come back later to the intention behind this decision, because it is clearly different from the one set out by our distinguished colleague from Peterborough.

This bill adds to existing bureaucracy. It does not introduce anything new or additional in terms of the services to be delivered through this Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, which will be duplicated, naturally, with the Department of Social Development.

One objective pursued by the government with this Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is to mobilize the private sector, non-governmental organizations and communities on community development, the social economy and social development. There are also plans for an adequate income security system for seniors, persons with disabilities, families and children and for integrated policy development and program delivery.

This adds nothing to the services currently provided. It only adds a second head, grafted on to the existing body, namely the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and chops off arms. Nothing is added to the existing structure, but the unstated purpose is the one in the latest budget.

I remind the House that because this is about splitting a department in two, we cannot limit our discussion to Bill C-23, which concerns the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. We must also, logically, discuss Bill C-22, which proposes the creation of the Department of Social Development.

I remind the House that there are currently 14,000 public servants in this department, which has a budget of $20 billion. The Department of Social Development will absorb 12,000 of these public servants, and have a budget of $53 billion. Up to that point, all is well. The same employees will be assigned to the same places, but spread out in service points across the country. These service points will include management of 105 employment insurance processing centres and 11 income security programs processing centres .

It is said that the Department of Social Development will use exactly the same channels to provide exactly the same services as before. What has changed, then? A minister has been added to a institution providing services under the social safety net, namely employment insurance, income security for the aged, job-related training, for a category of sectors, and more than I can mention.

Let us move on and look closer at what they want to do with that. The answer is found in the budget.

All stakeholders in our society are crying out for the creation of an independent employment insurance fund, with improvements. That fund would be managed by the two groups that contribute to it, namely employees and employers. We want contributions to cover employment insurance program requirement, on the order of $12 billion to $15 billion annually.

The surpluses accumulated in the employment insurance fund over the past eight years total close to $47 billion. What happened to these surpluses? They were used for other purposes. How were they generated? They were generated with the employment insurance benefits that were not paid to individuals who were entitled to these benefits and who had paid for them.

A claim is being made in this regard. I will get back to it later on, in the context of the bill and the standing committee.

My distinguished colleague often makes reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. On February 15, the committee tabled in this House a unanimous report recommending the establishment of an employment insurance fund administered by those who contribute to it, namely employers and employees. This committee, to which my distinguished colleague is referring, unanimously asked the government to put back in the employment insurance fund the $46 billion or $47 billion that have been diverted over the past several years.

Not only is this measure not provided in the budget or in this bill, the contrary that is confirmed. This bill provides for an employment insurance commission consisting of four commissioners. Just think: there will be one representative for employers, one for the some 18 or 19 million workers across the country who contribute to employment insurance, and two government representatives. This does not change anything in the current situation.

Needless to say the government will continue to divert the funds intended for employment insurance.

There are two stances. First we are told in this House that the issue of EI is a priority and the government will take care of it. Timid measures were presented suggesting that the best was yet to come. Nothing specific happens. When we look at the bill before us we realize they want to keep something that is unacceptable.

Let us move along. I come now to the budget. That is why I say we need to know exactly what this government is trying to achieve. Not only does it not want to put back into the EI fund what it took out, and not only does it not want to improve EI benefits, even though it has the means to do so, but it is giving the expenditure review committee the mandate to use various cuts to save $2 billion or $3 billion in the EI program. Where will this money be taken? It will be taken from the EI contributions.

In other words, the government is doing indirectly what the House will not allow it to do directly. Before the holidays, this House voted on a resolution as follows:

From now on, the employment insurance fund is to be used only for employment insurance purposes and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, is given the mandate to recommend to the House the measures to take to ensure that this fund is indeed used only for employment insurance.

Instead of complying with the wishes of the House, the government is in the process of doing indirectly what the House told it not to do directly. This is totally unacceptable.

Where will this money be taken from? They say it will come from programs or structures. They say contributions might be reduced. Yet, that is not what those who are contributing to EI are saying. Maintain the contributions at the current rate and improve the program. What is happening now is totally unacceptable.

When we look at the unstated intention of this bill, to truly understand its meaning, we have to look at other documents. I have here a highly important document in which most of the recommendations were made unanimously. It is quite recent and concerns current factual data bases, not different data form the last Parliament. It is the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The first eight recommendations are unanimous. They recommend an independent fund so the government will no longer be able to dip into it for other purposes. It will be administered by the contributors and used to improve the benefits of those who pay into it. This has to mean something more solid than what the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Peterborough, is referring to.

In recent weeks in this House, we have also heard the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development delighting in the measures she had presented here relating to Employment Insurance. The Quebec lieutenant, the transport minister, added that any reasonable unemployed person would find the budget and the government's position excellent. They were about the only two to say so.

In connection with this, the minister referred to a New Brunswick worker who claimed to be delighted with it. If anyone wants to consult them, I have some letters here that are addressed to the minister.

They come from the Canadian Labour Congress. The president sent me a copy, along with a letter. The CLC represents 3 million workers. The Quebec component alone represents over 1 million. Many are going short everywhere in the country, in Quebec in particular: the jobless, youth centres, women's shelters, municipalities. Just about every group of society is represented among those millions of workers and people working with those who are suffering because of the government's inadequate, restrictive and inhumane measures.

It is unacceptable, and at the same time ironic. It is a clear illustration of what goes on in this place and the mess things are in. As we have seen, while the government has the ability to make people poor, it is, in a muddled sort of manner, proposing measures to the members of this House that will make them rich.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Peterborough to make the following correction. The work of the Standing Committee—

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for my hon. colleague. What does she make of the position of the Liberal Party, which is agreeing today with our whole approach to the reversal of the burden of proof, while at the same time giving up resources as important as RCMP detachments? There is something that does not make sense, which our colleagues opposite have not done a very good job explaining to us. The facts, however, are completely contradictory. From her experience, was she able to gain any understanding?

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre on his speech, which proved to be very informative. I was pleased to learn that Manitoba has a law similar to the one that is proposed here. Some provisions may be different, but the legislation obviously leads to the same results as the ones we wish to obtain through the bill proposed by my colleague from the Bloc.

The member for Winnipeg Centre made an analogy—very similar to the one we heard from the member for Joliette—regarding the whole issue of poverty, crime and safety. If I understood correctly, he made a connection between the issue before us today and poverty. I take that as an invitation for us to keep in mind, when we take measures such as the ones we are contemplating, namely reversing the burden of proof with regard to the proceeds of crime, that it should not detract us from dealing with the situations that lead to crime.

In this regard, the people who are the most vulnerable to crime are the poor. For example, youth, who are reached in school yards or elsewhere and who are tempted to become the conduit for organized crime, particularly in drug trade, are people who, to a large extent, are not only interested in making money as such, but are also motivated by the fact that they are poor.

One of the measures that increase poverty—I know that my NDP colleague is very sensitive to this issue, because his party has spoken many times about it—is the employment insurance issue and the restrictive measures brought in by Liberal governments over the years. These measures have made families poorer and have ensured that we saw an increase in poverty among youth before Christmas.

I would like the member's comments on this. If I have understood his concern well, yes, we must vote in favour of the bill before us today, but the government must go further. It must correct the distortions created by the employment insurance measures to allow families that contributed to the employment insurance fund to get their fair share of EI benefits.

I would like to hear him on this.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleagues who spoke before me, particularly my colleague from Joliette, for his most relevant presentation that has us thinking about what we should have done much earlier. Fortunately, members opposite have come to see things the way we do. Out of necessity, a bill has been introduced and, in the current circumstances, it is a quite courageous one. Indeed, it involves a lot of fear—certainly not on the part of the members who are here and who make statements, but in the population—and we understand that.

Here is what I am getting at, my question for my colleague. I know his experience with administrative tribunals is quite considerable; they are not in the same category as criminal tribunals, but still. I am referring to the whole concept of the burden of proof.

It is common knowledge that, concerning an individual who owns property that has been acquired through crime, the facts must be proven. This is the step where the difficulty comes up, especially when one must bring in witnesses. There is a whole climate of fear that exists.

I would like him to come back to the concept of the burden of proof and what that entails for the Crown, to facilitate its work.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side of the House for his question.

First, I would like to remind his colleague that perhaps it would be appropriate to implement other recommendations by the Auditor General, which would probably help put some order in the situations that are embarrassing his party, with respect to the inquiries now going on.

Now, as for the employment insurance fund—his question is in two parts, I believe—it must be remembered that, since 1990, only workers and employers have contributed to the employment insurance fund. That means that what the hon. member is saying here about deficits in the past being paid off from general revenues, will not happen again, following acceptance of the standing committee's recommendation for a fund administered by the people who pay into it, that is, employees and employers, with participation by the government and a chief actuary, of course.

This fund must be self-sufficient because the premiums collected must meet the obligations of the fund itself.

What the Auditor General indicated, in 1983, was that it was taking some time to reimburse the government for the deficit in the fund. Still, it was reimbursed, because the forecasts were not made as a function of premium rates. That cannot happen again. So, that may reassure my colleague on the other side.

The third element in his question is the number of hours. In fact, the number of hours needed to qualify was once a standard 300 hours. The House unanimously agrees, and so do social intervenors in this field, that from now on, the number should be 360 hours, so that there will be no more rule of disparity based on the unemployment rate in each region, or the status of individuals.

For example, at present, a new entrant needs 910 hours to qualify. The minister now proposes 860 hours. That will affect almost no one. His own Liberal party members from New Brunswick and Quebec have proposed a uniform rate and even recommend—I read his party's resolution aloud earlier—a uniform rate. Why? So as to end this discrimination between different classes of people, which limits access by women and young people to employment insurance.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I will speak to the debate about the budget. First, I would point out that, for anyone concerned about improving the lives of the poorest people in society or interested in bringing about progress not just in social programs but also in saving and protecting the social safety net so that those who are worst off in our society can be better protected, for these people the budget is a disappointment. In addition, the Conservatives did not help to improve the budget. In fact, several days in advance, before they even knew what would be in the budget, they let it be known that they would support the budget, that they would find a way to support it. That is pretty disappointing.

As the opposition, of course, the Conservatives have a responsibility. It was their task to apply pressure, together with us, so that the Liberal government would deliver a better budget. I will stop there concerning the Conservatives' behaviour in regard to the budget itself.

Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I should say that I am going to share my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Just about all the stakeholders in society are disappointed because this is a “nothing for” and “everything for” budget. There is nothing for people waiting for some action on Kyoto and waiting for better assistance for social housing. There is also nothing for the cull-cattle question. There is nothing as well for the fiscal imbalance, transfer payments, and so on.

Consequently, there is nothing for these needs, for which the public had expectations, but then there is “everything for”. For what? There is everything for budget surpluses, for more of a cushion for the government and for the army. I remember that during the election campaign the Liberals lectured the Conservatives, who had promised to invest $5 billion in the Canadian Armed Forces, saying that for the Liberal Party health was more important than the army. So now we see the Liberals providing no less than twice as much as or more than what the Conservatives had promised for the army if they had been elected.

This is therefore a source of great disappointment, as is the EI issue, which I will develop further. All stakeholders in society who are concerned about the plight of the unemployed came forward to say that the budget failed to meet their expectations and was an insult. All stakeholders without exception said so.

I find it somewhat unfortunate that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development misled the House by saying, on the basis of a statement by someone in New Brunswick, that “the unemployed are happy with this budget” and that the Minister of Transport contended that any reasonable unemployed person should consider this to be a fantastic budget. I assume that, among all the unemployed represented by dozens of associations across the country and by their various labour organizations, there must be a few who are reasonable.

How can one be reasonable while being robbed?

A total of $46 billion was diverted from the EI fund. People expected the government to stop using EI funds for other purposes.

The minister, and her colleague the transport minister have misled this House by saying that people are happy with this budget as far as employment insurance is concerned. That is not what the CLC, which represents three million workers across the country, the five labour organizations in Quebec, which represent more than one million workers, the associations representing hundreds of unemployed workers and even some Liberals, including Liberal associations in New Brunswick, are saying.

The minister neglected to tell us that yesterday. During the Liberal convention, over the weekend, the New Brunswick Liberal Association had its delegation vote on a motion, presented jointly with Quebec's delegates, calling for an indepth reform of the EI system. The minister said nothing about that yesterday.

This motion, which was adopted last weekend in Ottawa at the biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, proposes to go further than what is proposed in the last budget. These Liberals want to calculate the number of hours of work, rather than the number of weeks. They also want to eliminate the two-week waiting period. This is what the House of Commons committee recommended. It is also what is proposed in the two bills of the Bloc Québécois that will be debated in April.

If the party in office were respectful of the decisions made at its own convention, it would not have told us some of things that we heard. I cannot say that these people are liars, but they showed little respect for truth. This is what happened.

Their requests are a combination of what is proposed in the report of the House of Commons committee and in the dissenting report of Senator Pierrette Ringuette. This is precisely what we are asking for. Why did the minister not say so yesterday, instead of misleading this House into thinking it was a position adopted by her own party? That is not the case.

According to the president of the Liberal Party for the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, Marc Duguay, his region needs much more significant changes than those proposed in the budget.

Moreover, yesterday, the member for Beauséjour made a speech in this House, extolling the virtues of this budget which, in his opinion, meets the expectations of the unemployed in his part of the country. However, during last weekend's convention, held after the budget was tabled, this same member of Parliament told us, “It is very difficult to get our ideas and the changes that we would like to make to the employment insurance program adopted”. He is not satisfied. He also said, “So, I think it is up to us to roll up our sleeves and go to Ottawa”.

I am wondering where he is. Does he know that he is in Ottawa? Does he know that yesterday he made a speech in the House of Commons, here in Ottawa, and that he could have said the same thing?

So, one can go to Ottawa and knock on the door, which is not always open. The hon. member is finding that out, just like us. Not only is the door not open, but we encounter arguments against logic, against the logic expressed by the standing committee of this House, which recommended that the employment insurance fund become an independent fund, that the $46 billion that were diverted be put back in the fund, and that this fund be managed by representatives of the employees and employers, so that the government will stop using it for other purposes. Moreover, the program should include measures to give the unemployed access to better benefits, so that they can have a decent income.

I point out that they have already paid for this insurance. There is a surplus this year in that fund, and the government is using the money for other purposes. It is depriving people of the insurance they need, at a time when they have the misfortune of losing their jobs. It is as if your house burned down and your insurer said, “You have been paying for years, but I have used the money on something else”. What would you say? Here we cannot use a certain word, but it could be described this way, “He took the money that belonged to me without my permission, with the express intention of not giving it back to me”.

[Employment Insurance, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister really believed what she said, she would not refuse to meet with unemployed workers.

In the case of older workers, the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which had the support of the Liberals, recommended the implementation of the new assistance program for older workers. Even Liberal members from the Quebec caucus have been pushing for this. However, the last budget is silent on POWA.

Once again, should we not say, “Promise made, older workers betrayed”?

[Employment Insurance, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members who sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities voted in favour of setting up an independent employment insurance fund. However, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development merely said that, from now on, contributions to the program would no longer exceed needs.

Considering that he dismissed out of hand the creation of an independent fund, should the Prime Minister not have once again told his party faithful, this past weekend, “Promise made, workers betrayed”?