Yves Lessard

[Department of Social Development Act, December 6th, 2004]

My hon. colleague here may be saying, “bravo”, but the purpose is not first and foremost to contribute to Canada's success; it is to ensure that there are programs in place so that the people for whom they were designed can benefit from them.

The chair of the Subcommitteeon Children and Youth at Risk in Canada, the hon. member for Don Valley West, said:

The objective of the Department of Social Development now is to have the public and history remember the Liberal government.

I do not hear my colleague shouting bravo this time. He is a little embarrassed. It is embarrassing too. I can understand him. I too would be embarrassed in his place.

These programs are created to try to relieve hardship. That is why we call it social development. In the provinces, it is the department of social affairs or health and social services to cover all this. It is clear from the name what is involved.

The stated purposes of these two departments are worrying. One purpose is to consolidate the public's vision of Canada and the other is to ensure that the Liberal government is remembered in a positive light. How nice.

I will now move on to the agreement on early childhood development. The government has announced a program that will be similar to and even modelled after the program in Quebec. In setting up a structure that will duplicate and complicate access to these services, the money the government is announcing for the child care program it plans to set up is clearly inadequate for meeting the needs of all the provinces. It is talking about $1.3 billion, but in our experience in Quebec it costs much more than that.

The government is announcing that it will set up child care in the other provinces—something we agree with—and although we are happy for them, it must also announce how it plans to right the wrong that stems from the fact that Quebec already has a $5 or $7 a day child care system in place. In fact, parents who were entitled to receive a tax credit did not receive it.

While they say that is a separate issue, it does have an impact on people's incomes. They have paid taxes and if we had an equitable system with the other provinces these parents would receive a tax credit. At least the $230 million the federal government saves every year should be returned to Quebec. In turn, Quebec could reinject the money into measures to help parents, such as parental programs.

Over the past few years, the government has saved several billion dollars because the provinces have managed to develop their own social programs despite the tight budgets imposed on them by the federal government . The hon. member would not be heckling like that unless he had forgotten that his own party, along with all the parliamentarians here, had to acknowledge the fiscal imbalance—which they have another name for—as a fact. A fact is a fact.

One of the facts that will not go away is the fact that the government deprived the provinces of money to which they were entitled. This means that the provinces, including Quebec, have had to make considerable efforts to be able to provide adequate social programs.

Incidentally, from 1998 to this day, the federal government has recovered $1 billion, thanks to Quebec's child care system. This is a significant amount.

I will conclude very quickly by saying that the money invested by the federal government in provincial jurisdictions has increased more rapidly than the money invested in the programs that come under its own jurisdiction. Based on the growth rate that we have observed, since 1997-98, non intrusive spending has increased by 1.9%, while intrusive spending has increased by 5.2%.

I will stop here, but I hope to have the opportunity to complete my presentation during questions and comments.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 6th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I remind the House that the purpose of this bill is to split in two the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and to create the Department of Social Development. Indeed, such is the objective of Bill C-22 now before us.

I want to make my presentation in three parts. First, it is rather unusual to see that even though the House has not yet voted on this measure, the Prime Minister has already split the department. He created the Department of Social Development a year ago. However, this House has yet to vote on this.

We have before us a government that claims to be transparent and to submit such important issues to a vote in the House, but it now does so after the fact. One wonders if the government did not make things unnecessarily complicated for itself, in case the House voted against splitting that department.

Second, this is in total contradiction with a commitment made by the government. Indeed, hon. members will remember that an amendment was made to the throne speech to ensure that this House unanimously recognized—this is what was done—the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec, as they relate to their respective responsibilities. However, we now find ourselves dealing with a bill creating a department whose primary mandate is to infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces, of Quebec and of the territories.

Moreover, this department will take charge of or will monitor programs and systems that the provinces, particularly Quebec, established to support community organizations. Parapublic support organizations were created and developed over the years precisely because of a lack of federal funding. We are all aware of the cuts made by the federal governments in transfers to the provinces, including Quebec. This compelled each province, including Quebec, which is my province, to reduce its own budget and social programs in such a way that now some groups in the community are forced to assume responsibilities that should be assumed by the whole community. Today, it is rather paradoxical to see that the government, through its Department of Social Development, wants to monitor these organizations.

Third, I wish to make it clear that what is immediately apparent is a desire to add a second head through the social development component, already a part of Human Resources and Skills Development. The government's argument in connection with costs is that there will be no additional costs, only a second component, because there will be just one entry point. It therefore becomes quite difficult to follow the government's argument about the efficiency meant to result from this second department, as concerns the delivery of the services these two departments are responsible for.

Our position on this bill will not come as a surprise to anyone, I am sure. We will be voting against it. As we have already said, we cannot support the creation of a department that is mandated to interfere in areas under provincial and Quebec jurisdiction.

The Department of Social Development assumes part of the responsibilities for health, education and even municipal affairs. Agreeing to the creation of this department is tantamount to agreeing that the federal government has a role to play in social development. That makes it the equivalent of the provincial departments of social affairs.

The argument that this represents a desire on the government's part to support the provincial programs is a bit disquieting. What it does do is add to the costs. I will address the mechanisms of all this a little later on.

Now 97% of that department's budget will go to incomes for seniors, that is the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. This leaves 3% for other programs. What then is the real purpose of having that 97% of the budget already administered by Human Resources stay with Human Resources as far as the delivery itself and related services are concerned? We are in fact told that there will be a single entry point.

So, it is possible to be surprised by this government's true intentions with regard to this department. When we say that this infringes on the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec, it is not a fear, but a reality.

I want to remind the House that, when the Confederation was created in 1867, none of the existing programs was a federal responsibility. They all belonged to the provinces, and it was not until 1940, to resolve labour problems caused by the war, that the provinces and the federal government reached an agreement giving the latter temporary responsibility for unemployment insurance only.

So, it is clear what has happened since then. All these infringements just from having allowed that first step. There were infringements in other areas under provincial jurisdiction, such as manpower training, health, the municipalities, parental leave, day care, the environment and community affairs and volunteerism, social housing and affordable housing. These are only examples.

It is quite surprising to see, despite the wishes of the territories, provinces and Quebec, just how much the federal government has gradually taken from the provinces, in addition to a share of the relevant funding and a large share of the funding normally allocated to these responsibilities.

I want to also draw the attention of the House to the following fact, which corroborates what I just said. Two departments are being created, a single window. So, out of a $73 billion budget, the Department of Social Development gets the bigger share, a $53-billion budget and 12,000 public servants. The main department gets $12 billion and 14,000 employees and responsibility for a single window.

It is clear that more complexity has been added to the already adequate and even excessive administration. In fact, in employment insurance alone, even public servants recognize that they can be confused. Sometimes they are completely lost. That is another problem for EI claimants.

Since time is passing quickly, I will now move to taxation with respect to children. We know how the federal government has set things up so that parents are gradually removed from a share of income with respect to taxes, as responsible parents, relative to the federal law. I will return to this later with respect to the subject of child care.

There is one other aspect I must mention. The government is once again getting us enmeshed in a duplicate structure, while we were, instead, expecting practical services relating to the commitments that it had made. Let us take the guaranteed income supplement for example. At one time or another, 270,000 Canadians have been denied the GIS, even though they were entitled to it. These people have had $3.2 billion taken away from them.

The Bloc Québécois was legitimately expecting that, instead of trying to create more structures, the government would have listened to the voice of the electorate during the recent campaign. The people told the government that it had to intervene in some issues to correct the situation.

I was speaking of employment insurance. Now I will address the guaranteed income supplement. It is intended for the most vulnerable people in our society, older persons with a yearly income less than $12,000. Since these people were not informed of their rights, they could not get the GIS, although they should have had it automatically as a consequence of filing a tax return.

The Bloc Québécois has worked on raising awareness and was able to find 25,000 of these people, who are now receiving a total of $100 million. We have enabled them to get back $100 million, split among these 25,000 people. That is one accomplishment.

But tens of thousands of others are not part of the system yet, because they do not know about it. These are often persons who are isolated. That is not their fault. They are among the least well-off in society. Instead of taking positive steps to alleviate their plight and help them put food on the table—often they have to chose between paying rent and buying groceries—once again, we are presented with a structure that does nothing to improve the plight of these person, yet makes administering programs per se more cumbersome.

Now, let us look at the stated purpose of the government in dividing this department into two. With respect to the Department of Human Resources, the purpose of the act is as follows:

HRSDC's vision is to build a country where everyone has the opportunity to learn and to contribute to Canada's success—

[Employment Insurance, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see why we are being asked to wait for the committee's report, since the minister himself is already talking about lowering contributions.

If the government really wants to fight child poverty, does it not agree that one of the most effective ways to do so is by improving the employment insurance program, which would allow the government to intervene directly, in support of children? After all, if there are children living in poverty, it is because there are parents living in poverty.

[Employment Insurance, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance announced that he would lower employment insurance contributions and raise benefits for the unemployed. The EI program is so deficient that merely 40% of the jobless can qualify for it.

If the government really cares about the fate of the unemployed, would it not be better to conduct an in-depth review of the whole employment insurance program and make it more fair, before lowering contributions?

[Employment Insurance, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the situation certainly has not been corrected. This is the fifth time the Auditor General has said that the government is not respecting the spirit of the law. To help the government respect the spirit of the law, the Bloc Québécois has tabled two bills: one to improve the employment insurance system and another to set up an independent fund.

Since these two bills correspond directly with what the Auditor General is saying, does the government intend to support these two Bloc bills, since it was the Prime Minister himself who promised these things?

[Employment Insurance, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister makes a promise it is serious. The Prime Minister made two promises. He promised to reduce the 910 hour requirement and he promised, in Rimouski, to find a way to improve the situation and do more for seasonal workers.

In light of repeated criticism by the Auditor General and of the promises by the Prime Minister, how can the government continue to ignore workers' complaints by stubbornly refusing to correct the situation?

[Department of Social Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the member who made the presentation for the government.

We have the same concern as the colleague of the Conservative Party when it comes to understanding why a second department is needed and justified.

We are trying to understand the real objective that has been announced in connection with the potential effectiveness of the mandate the government wants to give the department.

The government takes one department and divides in into two. When it talks about the objective in connection with the Department of Human Resources, it says that the main concern is contributing to Canada's success. This is in one of the first parts outlined in the beginning.

As for the new Department of Social Development, it is difficult to understand the real objective, but the chair of the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk said that the objective is to have the public and history remember the Liberal government. This is a quote. I am trying to reconcile this with the member's announced intention to improve services provided to the public.

I will conclude by reminding the House that, as it creates two departments, the government is announcing that it will maintain a single window. Services will be provided through a single door. It does not change anything in this regard. However, it is adding a second head.

I would like to know how she thinks that it will be able to ensure that this body functions with two heads.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague, the member for Gatineau, is able to put things into perspective by identifying two different entities as far as political culture is concerned when she speaks about Quebec or Canada. She has a clear understanding of things by doing so.

However, she does not have a clear grasp of things, because she found out only last week that people of various ethnocultural backgrounds could end up in the same room and discuss.

I worked for 30 years in labour relations. I have been dealing for 30 years with different ethnic communities, cultural diversity, labour relations and all work-related issues, including of course the employment insurance fund and everything that derives from it. This is the first finding. I am surprised by it. I am glad that it came out last week. It is one phase. Nonetheless, cultural diversity has existed in Quebec for a long time.

The second thing she must also realize, before I ask her my question, is that this situation also exists in Quebec when we compare the assessment of the qualifications necessary for members of ethnic groups to be able to get a job or pursue a vocation with the credentials they gained in their home country. The difference is that there is legislation in place to make sure that not just anyone can practice. That is also something she ought to realize.

However, the hon. member and I agree on the concerns regarding professional training. We all agree on that. Fighting will not solve anything, but neither will saying offensive things such as I just heard.

Third, and this brings me to my question, I wonder if the hon. member is aware that, beyond professional training—since she sang her government's praises in connection with the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development—no one thinks that the employment insurance fund is working. Is she aware that everybody is criticizing the Employment Insurance Commission and saying that the people in charge have complete power over its management, especially considering that the people paying money into it are not even there to manage it?

I will stop here, because I want to hear my colleague from Gatineau react to the second part of my intervention. As for the first part, she need not worry; we all understood quite well her thought process regarding ethnic groups. I would like to hear her thoughts on the part regarding the understanding of the bill that is before us today.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Brant, further to the comments by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

Once again, concerning the employment insurance fund, the member says that it is adjusted according to the employment situation. Would it not be more accurate to say that the rules concerning the fund were adjusted based on the needs of the fund rather than on the needs of the unemployed?

I want to ask the member if he realizes that the rules have been changed and that now only 38% of the people who were entitled to employment insurance in 1995 are now eligible. There is a reduction. Presently, according to the rules that existed in 1995, less than 40% of the unemployed are now entitled to employment insurance benefits.

Does the member realize that? How can he explain that the bill disregards that and establishes a separate fund which will be managed by both parties?

[Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his speech, which offers me an opportunity to add to what I have said.

For example, where the provinces cover tuition, students—and we see this even in Quebec—do everything they can to avoid having to pay new fees.

The hon. member must understand that the problem related to funding, whether health or education, lies in the fact that the bulk of the money collected from the taxpayer according to the responsibilities allocated to the federal and provincial levels, goes to the federal level rather than the provincial. Thus the fiscal imbalance. Everyone acknowledges this except the Prime Minister. It is also obvious from the facts being mentioned in today's speeches.

The Secretary of State is telling us that the provinces and the federal level are forces and resources that complement each other, and this cannot help but be beneficial to both. That might be the case if the funds came back to the provinces in a proper proportion to their responsibilities.

When only one of the parties benefits, only one out of eleven, while the others all get it in the neck, unless they have strong economies like some of the resource-rich western provinces—and we are happy for them—there is only one conclusion: this is not the case for everyone, Quebec included.

I would therefore like the hon. member to explain how he reached the conclusion he has just presented to us. Earlier, I referred to stubborn facts. Fiscal imbalance is one of those, and is acknowledged by everybody. It is not a stubborn fact just because I say so, but because this has been recognized for some years, even by this House. So what is his reaction to that? And how does he plan to deal with it? He cannot just pass it off as a matter of continuing education, as he has. Everything has be to examined thoroughly, the EI fund included.