Yves Lessard

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 31st, 2010]

I do not know whether it is as distracting to you, Mr. Speaker, but I am bothered by people talking in the House.

I will use the example of employment insurance. Since I arrived in the House six years ago, the name of the employment insurance fund has changed four times. When the name is changed so many times, it is because, like anyone who wants to misuse and take funds that do not belong to them, the government is trying to use subterfuge to justify taking this money. Over the last 14 years, a surplus of more than $57 billion has accumulated and been misappropriated from the employment insurance fund. Only employees and employers contribute to this fund, and the surplus that accumulated was misappropriated through cuts to employment insurance benefits. The precise amount taken was $57,170,000,356.

When the Conservative budget was passed in 2008, just two years ago, the name of the employment insurance fund was changed and the Employment Insurance Financing Board was created. That was the third time the name has been changed in order to give this power to the administrators and to be able to continue quietly dipping into the EI fund, to create a separate fund, we were told. A separate fund was not created and it continued accumulating surpluses to be used for other purposes. In this year's budget—and as Bill C-9 is now proposing—this separate fund will henceforth be called the employment insurance account and it will be a separate management account, we are told.

This is when we, as parliamentarians, must intervene. We cannot condone such a thing because, for one thing, that money is not the government's to use for anything other than EI benefits.

For another thing, this constitutes an economic crime that affects the people who need this money, which belongs to them, that is, workers and their employers.

This time, we would have expected the government to present measures to restore the employment insurance system. Not only did it fail to do that, but it is creating the new EI fund. It is thus making sure that it will continue accumulating surpluses so that between 2012 and 2015, another $19 billion will be plundered and used for other purposes.

How could this money be used? Obviously, it could be used to make sure that people who lose their jobs can receive benefits. Some 56% of people who lose their jobs cannot receive employment insurance benefits. The government has made the eligibility requirements so strict that most unemployed workers do not qualify.

We have introduced Bill C-308, standing in my name, which if passed would mean that people applying for employment insurance are presumed to be acting in good faith. Right now the government requires those applying for EI to prove their good faith, which is absolutely reprehensible. When a person loses their job it is an undeniable fact. We also know whether the person has accumulated enough hours. Nevertheless, all sorts of measures are used to prevent people from getting employment insurance.

We want the qualifying period to be 360 hours for everyone and the rate of weekly benefits to be increased to 60% from the current 55%, for an improvement of 5%. It is not a lot, but for people who are receiving very little, it is something.

The measure raising the number of weeks of benefits to 50 should be made permanent. Just a little over a year ago, the government set the number of weeks of benefits at 50 weeks instead of 45, but that measure comes to an end in the fall. It will have to become permanent.

The most appropriate measure would be to have a comprehensive plan to return the money removed. The $57 billion that was taken from the employment insurance fund should be put back. With that money and almost no increase in contributions we could improve employment insurance benefits for workers who have the misfortune of losing their job.

Not only is the government not planning to return the money it removed, but it is planning to continue misappropriating money from the fund. I am calling on my colleagues, whom I believe to be sincere when they make the same arguments we do, the opposition colleagues in particular, to be in the House, when the time comes to vote on Bill C-9, and put their money where their mouth is by voting against the bill.

Of course, there is one party that says we need not go to an election over this. But when should we go to an election? When measures do not help people then we should go to an election in order to have a debate over what is good for the people. They should quit hiding their heads in the sand.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

This bill is not palatable because it seeks to introduce in an extraordinary way a number of measures that the government wishes to avoid submitting for debate in the House of Commons. Look at the number of measures included in Bill C-9. It touches on 42 different budget items. These measures truly seek to make significant changes in a large number of areas and should be debated.

The bill touches on relations with other countries, tax issues, relations with various organizations, seniors' issues, and so forth. It touches on everything, and in a way that I would say is undemocratic. This is probably the most undemocratic bill I have ever seen in the House, because it seeks to introduce measures that are unacceptable to the public and the groups targeted. I will focus on one of those groups: people who have the misfortune of losing their jobs.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech on the Bloc Québécois motion. It brings into focus how relevant our presence in this place is, and in particular how relevant sovereignty is.

The time allotted to the member was too short to address the use that Conservative MPs and other federal MPs make of their presence here in terms of standing up for Quebec. I would like him to tell us what his perception is of the role played by Conservative members from Quebec who vote against measures promoting the French language—he did touch on that—and reducing Quebec's political weight in the Canadian Confederation. They also vote against other measures reducing Quebec's economic efficiency by establishing a national securities regulator. I would like to hear him on that.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague has spoken a key sentence. I want to repeat it because it encapsulates his remarks. He said that Quebec is a precious part of Canada's heritage.

Does the member not realize he talks like an antique dealer? Antique dealers have taken from Quebec every last one of its heritage pieces and given them to the rest of Canada—or at least taken them out of Quebec—and put their personal interests ahead of those of the community.

Is the same thing not happening when we see members from Quebec, like the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, sell out our Bill 101 and our securities commission? Worse still, Quebec's political weight is being traded away for personal gain, just like all antique dealers have done in the past.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, you can let me know whether my comments are out of order. My colleague probably forgot that I went with her yesterday to Lac-Simon. But what she is saying here does not accurately reflect what came out in Lac-Simon.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when our colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean began his speech and said it was important, I thought he was going to apologize because, since he has been here, he has done nothing for the forest industry in Quebec even though it is his responsibility. I do not know whether he is aware of the image he was projecting when he was on his feet earlier and we could see behind him a large number of Ontario MPs who did their job and delivered $20 billion to the automobile industry. He could not even manage to deliver $200 million to the forest industry. All the while, he was making a speech to discredit Quebec, to the great satisfaction of the members behind him. They have the right to make choices, to defend the interests of their economic regions, but he did not have enough backbone to defend the interests of his own economic region.

I would like to hear what he has to say on one point. He said that we are not stepping on the ice. Since he has stepped on the ice, what has he done for the French language? He voted against it. What has he done for the forest industry? He has done nothing. What has he done to maintain Quebec's political and economic weight? Not only has he not done anything, but he is constantly voting against Quebec's economic and political interests.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette for his presentation on the motion we are debating today. My question for the hon. member is the following.

He was just speaking about the reduction in political weight. This is to say that the governing party, the Conservative party, wants to make sure it has full control over Quebec by reducing its political weight. I would also like to hear his opinion on the reduction of the power Quebec has over economic levers, specifically in regard to the securities commission. We know that the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, a fawning minion for this government, yesterday argued that the financial authority of the rest of Canada should have priority over that of Quebec. I would like to hear the hon. member's opinion on that.

[Petitions, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition was signed by 2,222 people who were disappointed with the government's decision not to allow the third reading of the bill to eliminate the employment insurance waiting period. Tens of thousands of people have already signed petitions, which were tabled in the House. This petition is another in that series of petitions to impress upon the government the need to take steps to eliminate the waiting period so that people no longer have to wait for two weeks after they have the misfortune of losing their jobs.

[Petitions, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning.

The first one was signed by several hundreds of citizens calling upon the House of Commons to adopt a universal declaration on animal welfare. This petition stresses the contribution of animals to our ecosystem. Animals are essential to the food chain in many countries. There are also pets. I need not make a long speech about how important animals are in human life. Therefore, this petition calls for a universal declaration on animal welfare.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I announced one of the amendments we will be proposing, to provide, among other things, for it to be retroactive for 52 weeks. We will have to think about two other amendments, but that one would mean not leaving out in the cold the troops who were already on the scene of military activities after having their parental leave deferred, and who were directed to return to their missions. So it would make the bill retroactive for 52 weeks. So far, I have spoken with members from the other three parties and they were in relative agreement on that.