Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada—

[Employment Insurance, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, not only does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development refuse to lift a finger to help the unemployed, but she is also distorting the proposals made by the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties. She knows very well that a 360-hour eligibility threshold would result in a maximum of 36 weeks of benefits and not 52 weeks as she falsely stated.

Instead of spreading misinformation, should the minister not lower the eligibility threshold to facilitate access to employment insurance?

[Employment Insurance, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives are making it harder and harder for people to benefit from employment insurance.

What is stopping the government from adopting a good-faith approach, as it does with income taxes? Why the arrogant attitude? Why consider all unemployed workers to be potential fraudsters?

[Employment Insurance, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, reducing the eligibility threshold to 360 hours is not enough. The government must also eliminate the two-week waiting period. Five extra weeks of benefits is all well and good, but what workers who have just been laid off are really worried about is getting their benefits as soon as possible. One does not preclude the other, after all.

Does the government agree that it is just as important to eliminate the two-week waiting period in order to provide benefits as soon as workers become unemployed?

[Employment Insurance, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister were the least bit honest, she would acknowledge her error and apologize to the unemployed.

Instead of ranting on about the opposition proposals for improving the system, the minister ought to acknowledge that the present system does not meet the needs of workers who lose their jobs.

Will she at last carry out a thorough reform of this program by setting eligibility at 360 hours, abolishing the waiting period, and improving benefits, as the Bloc Québécois is proposing?

[Employment Insurance, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, under the Quebec bill, an eligibility threshold of 360 hours and a 16% unemployment rate would entitle people to a maximum of 36 weeks. That is far from the 52 weeks referred to by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Will the minister acknowledge her mistake and apologize to the unemployed?

[Employment Insurance, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first the Liberals killed employment insurance, and now they are passing themselves off as its saviours and calling for a program review. It is not just a review that is required, however, but a total reform tailored to the crisis we are in at present.

The government is content with a program that no longer meets the needs of the unemployed. Why is it refusing to improve the program as the Bloc proposes, by doing away with the waiting period, reducing the eligibility level to 360 hours for everyone, and raising benefit levels from 55% to 66%?

[Employment Insurance, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister said is not correct. The present economic crisis is showing us, without a shadow of a doubt, that the current employment insurance program is not meeting the needs of either unemployed people or the economy. Abolishing the waiting period, for example, would improve employment insurance and would get household expenses moving again.

Will the Conservative government immediately undertake a massive reform so that the employment insurance program once more becomes accessible and generous?

[Employment Insurance, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with the changes imposed by the Liberals in the 1990s and the Conservative government's complicity today, the employment insurance system is ineffective and unfair, in part because it treats unemployed workers like potential cheaters.

Will the government take a page from the Bloc Québécois assistance plan and reform employment insurance by taking an approach that assumes that claimants are acting in good faith?

[Employment Insurance, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, an American economist has said that “The virtue of extending UI benefits goes beyond simply providing financial aid for the jobless to more broadly shoring up household confidence”.

Given the situation, how can the government not provide a tool such as the income support program for older workers, which is another way to stimulate consumption and mitigate the cash shortage caused by the crisis?