Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give her a second chance to answer the question.

Does the minister realize that many so-called long-tenured workers will not have access under this bill? Does she realize that women will not have access under this bill, nor will young people and seasonal workers?

How can the minister be satisfied with a bill that, far from helping unemployed workers, on the contrary, actually excludes them?

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, although a recovery seems to be on the way, analysts and unions are predicting that unemployment will continue. Yet the employment insurance bill introduced by the government ignores that reality, particularly for thousands of workers in the forestry industry who have been laid off intermittently over the past few years.

Can the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development tell us if those forestry workers will be eligible under her bill?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Having consulted the major unions in Quebec, we know that they are unanimously opposed to this bill. Acadie Nouvelle reports that unemployed groups, especially on the Acadian peninsula, are against the bill. I believe that my colleague also seriously questions the claim that 190,000 people would benefit from this bill and the $935 million, while our NDP friends are going one better and saying that the figure is now $1 billion.

Do they understand how they come up with these figures? To get 190,000 people, 85% of unemployed workers would have to receive their maximum benefit entitlement, whereas only 25% actually do.

Can my colleague tell us whether he has looked at these figures?

[Point of Order, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to something my honourable colleague said. I did notify the Speaker that we intended to respond to the government's claims in due course.

[Point of Order, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order.

On September 14, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a point of order claiming that Bill C-308 required royal recommendation because, and I quote, “it would require new spending”.

According to Marleau and Montpetit, the rule about royal recommendation is this: Bills that involve the expenditure of public funds must have a royal recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, allow us to bring to your attention the fact that Bill C-308 would enable people who have lost their jobs to benefit from an insurance fund to which they contributed, an insurance regime whose funds, need I remind the House, come from contributions made by workers and their employers.

So how can they claim that a royal recommendation is needed to spend money that workers contributed to the employment insurance fund so that they could collect benefits if they lost their jobs, when the whole purpose of the bill is to use that money to improve access to benefits and the benefits themselves? That money does not belong to the government; it belongs to workers.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservative member. All of the Conservatives' arguments are based on a claim that does not hold up, namely that Bill C-50 will create 190,000 new claimants, who will receive extended employment insurance benefits. This represents $935 million.

To get these figures, 85% of claimants would have to complete all of the weeks to which they are entitled to benefits. But we know that 25% of claimants do so. At best, 60,000 people in the country could benefit from Bill C-50, for a total of $300 million. Labour organizations and advocacy groups for the unemployed have realized this, as has the CAW.

Our colleague claims that the automobile industry is happy with this. What does he say about the fact that the CAW thinks it is a terrible bill and is calling on us to vote against it?

[Employment Insurance, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, according to the OECD and the Royal Bank, Canada's unemployment rate will continue to rise for several months, reaching 10% at the end of next year. Eligibility for employment insurance will therefore continue to be a problem for workers who lose their jobs. According to the 2008 EI monitoring and assessment report, more than 50% of unemployed workers will not have access to the system.

With one in two unemployed workers excluded, how can the minister keep on denying that there is a problem with eligibility for the system?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the argument made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is very clear and fits in with what he has always maintained here in the House. The Bloc completely agrees with him regarding Liberal politics.

The Bloc is a little surprised by the conclusions on which he is basing his decision to vote in favour of the bill. This morning the Liberals and the NDP agreed with us that this bill should be referred to committee immediately so we can amend it. With things going the way they are right now, amending the bill will be rather difficult. Our colleague summarized his speech by saying that this bill was an insult to workers. Major unions—like the CAW, the CSN and the FTQ, with whom we have been in discussions since yesterday—agree. They think the same thing, namely, that this is an insult to workers. Those major unions do not want us to vote in favour of this bill.

I would like to hear his opinion of that. Like me, he comes from a labour background and I would like to know what he thinks of the unions' position.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska. He also does an excellent job on agriculture.

What is happening is that the government is trying to make older workers believe that this measure will provide them with income. Older workers are those over 55 who were previously covered by the POWA. Most of these people have already used up their benefit time and will not be eligible. The program for older worker adjustment is completely different. It is misleading to compare the two programs. It is a red herring, and that is unacceptable.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how much I appreciate the work my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has done on this issue. He is very concerned about poverty and takes every opportunity to improve people's understanding of its impact and how it should be addressed.

Earlier on, I demonstrated tremendous courtesy toward my Liberal colleague. It is absolutely true that these measures were implemented by the Liberal Party. We must remember that. It is great that the Liberals are now choosing to cooperate and change some of these measures. However, the measures they have proposed are temporary. They believe that the 360-hour eligibility threshold should be in place only until the end of the crisis. All they would have to say is that we are recovering from the crisis, and then they would not have to implement the measure. We have to be very careful here. The Bloc has a lot of reservations about the way the Liberal Party is framing things when it comes to employment insurance.

Once again, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.