Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for two weeks now the government has been unable to justify its figures on the number of workers affected by Bill C-50. Again yesterday, senior officials were unable to explain the government's calculation, which confirms the fears of the Bloc Québécois and several agencies in Quebec that the Conservatives' figures are grossly exaggerated. We see to what extent Bill C-50 is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious problem.

Will the government finally accept that it will take a complete overhaul of the employment insurance system to satisfy the needs of the unemployed and the needs of Quebec?

[Employment Insurance, October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services never denied that his government wanted to dip into the employment insurance fund to wipe out the deficit. The Conservatives even wrote in their latest economic update that they planned to take nearly $19 billion from the EI fund between 2012 and 2015.

Will the minister admit that, like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives are getting ready to eliminate the deficit at the expense of the unemployed?

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to reassure our colleague that the Bloc will vote with them on this confidence motion, which is quite justified. Our colleague spoke about some of the reasons why this motion is warranted.

His strongest argument is the extent to which the employment insurance plan has deteriorated. He knows all about it because it was his party that destroyed it.

I will ask my colleague a question. I know that he has worked hard on the issue of 360 hours, even though we do not know if he still stands by it. I would like to hear what he has to say about older workers who lose their jobs. We know that they are most at risk. Does he agree that an income support program should be reintroduced for older workers who lose their jobs?

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Minister of Health, who is of aboriginal descent. Perhaps we will finally get a response to our questions on two rather troubling decisions made by the government, decisions that I believe go against the interests of aboriginal peoples.

The minister listed some less than significant measures taken by the government. Could she tell us why the first action taken by the government—the Conservatives—when it took power was to cancel the Kelowna accord, which would have allocated $5 billion over five years to help aboriginal people build infrastructure and develop means to manage their own affairs?

I have another similar question. Could the Minister of Health, who is of aboriginal descent, and who I am sure sincerely wants to help her people, tell us why her government refused—it is now the only one—to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, later today, something very unusual and unexpected is going to happen: the NDP will give the Conservatives a vote of confidence. It is especially worrisome that the reason for this vote of confidence in the Conservatives is the vote on Bill C-50, an employment insurance measure.

I think we are missing some information here. The government systematically refuses to explain to us its method of calculation, how it came up with the results described earlier. We asked government officials, but were refused. They were unable to tell us how they calculated the numbers that appear in Bill C-50. We asked the ministers for answers. Again this morning, we asked the minister from Quebec City, and again we were refused. The NDP claims that Bill C-50 will give $1 billion to employment insurance.

I would like to hear the comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette and Bloc Québécois House leader, whom I also congratulate on his speech. Could he explain to us how that result could have been reached, considering the number of people who are coming to the end of their employment insurance benefit period? I would like to hear his comments on this. It would be very informative for those watching us today.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if she knows—which she surely does—why the government refuses to disclose how it determined that 190,000 unemployed workers are affected by Bill C-50. Furthermore, what calculation method was used to arrive at the figure of $935 million? To obtain these results, 85% of the unemployed would have to exhaust their benefits whereas we know that only 25% do so.

Could the minister tell us what calculation method was used given that the government still refuses to disclose that information? could she please answer?

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about what he said earlier, regarding the fact that the Conservative government has managed to pay down part of the debt. He boasts a great deal about some of the government's accomplishments, but what he does not mention is who carried the cost.

Why does the minster not mention the cuts made, for example, to literacy programs, the cuts to programs for women's organizations or, of course, the cuts to employment insurance, just to name a few?

Regarding employment insurance, I would remind the minister that when he was in opposition, he was saying the same thing as we are saying now, specifically, that it was wrong to divert funds from employment insurance. Yet the Conservatives continue to divert funds from employment insurance, and Bill C-50 is no different, since it excludes unemployed workers from the program.

[Employment Insurance, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of unemployed workers in Quebec do not qualify for employment insurance, yet the government and the NDP are insensitive to their plight. The government's bill, designed for Ontario, does not meet the needs of older workers in Quebec who are laid off intermittently or seasonal workers who do not work enough hours to qualify for EI.

Does the minister realize that she is not meeting the needs of workers in Quebec and that she must propose comprehensive reform of the employment insurance system?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, but I want him to keep something in mind. When he promotes Bill C-50, he says that the bill will help 190,000 unemployed workers with a $935 million budget. To get that number, 85% of unemployed workers would have to collect benefits for the full period to which they are entitled. But only 25% of them do, which, instead of the numbers he has given us, adds up to a budget of, at most, $300 million for 60,000 unemployed workers. We asked senior officials and the parliamentary secretary for the numbers and how they calculated them.

Can the chair of the Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities tell us how he came up with these numbers?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first congratulate the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on his speech and for making it clear that we will be voting against this bill.

This bill is full of measures to prevent even more people from getting employment insurance. I would like my colleague to describe once more the situations in his riding where people who lose their job would no longer be eligible for benefits under Bill C-50, despite what the government claims. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.