Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development says that 80% of unemployed workers receive benefits, but that is not true. The following figures are from the department's own website. In 2006, only 46% of all unemployed people received benefits, and only 68% of all those who paid into the plan received employment insurance. The 80% of claimants the minister is referring to are the only unemployed people who meet the very strict criteria set by the Liberals.

How can the minister continue to deny these figures?

[Employment Insurance, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to mention that the system excludes 55% of unemployed workers. She needs to acknowledge that the forestry crisis resulted in 40,000 job losses in Quebec alone. The minister is refusing to recognize that many of those older workers cannot be retrained.

The need is urgent. When will the minister announce a program that really supports older workers?

[Employment Insurance, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to make piecemeal improvements to the employment insurance system, a system that has become too complex and unfair over the years and needs a complete overhaul. The Bloc Québécois' proposed bills would improve the system by establishing uniform minimum eligibility criteria—360 hours—and eliminating the two week waiting period.

If the minister really cares about what happens to the unemployed, she should vote for these two bills. What is she waiting for?

[Employment Insurance, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the time it takes to process an application continues to increase, and in some cases has reached about 55 days. After a certain period, and until the problem is solved, should the government perhaps pay interest to the unemployed who experience such delays?

If this measure is appropriate for income tax, should it not apply to the unemployed as well?

[Employment Insurance, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of liquidity is pervasive and does not apply just to businesses. Workers, and especially unemployed workers, are also affected. The employment insurance plan must be improved, as demonstrators in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area called for last week.

What is this government waiting for to improve employment insurance so that the unemployed can weather the storm and stimulate the Quebec economy?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche. Knowing him, I consider his remarks very sincere. We must question the position of his party, though. I would remind him that it was not the opposition that unseated them, but the public. The public did not vote for them and brought in the Conservatives. That phase will not last long, given the way they operate.

My question is as follows. The Bloc Québécois has tabled two bills, namely Bill C-241, to remove the waiting period, and Bill C-308, to improve the system. Will the Liberals follow the same logic, support these bills and ensure that the Prime Minister does not call for a royal recommendation?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate our NDP colleague on her speech. She put her finger on a number of injustices, especially toward women. I would like her to comment on certain provisions of the budget implementation bill that the Liberals supported yesterday. Under one provision of the bill, women will no longer be able to file pay equity complaints in court. Even worse, unions will no longer be able to defend them, because they would face a $50,000 fine.

Would the member agree with me that this measure also has an impact in terms of inequity in employment insurance benefits? Because women earn less than men, their benefits will be lower, because they are calculated as a percentage of earnings.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. He is doing excellent work. He is a young member and he is already making his mark in his riding, where he is certainly appreciated.

His question is very relevant. First of all, there are two parts to his question. I want to confirm that no one from any of the groups I meet with—the unemployed, unions or others—has been consulted. I have personally met all these people over the past months and they were not consulted. There were a privileged few, but never an organization as such.

As for the other point, he is completely right. The program for older worker adjustment, which was in place from 1988 to 1997, cost only $17 million at the time and would cost the Canadian government $45 million. It would help all workers over the age of 55 who lose their jobs and cannot find another one. People are not lazy. Those who can find a job will work, but some of them cannot find jobs. Both employers and workers are asking that this program be reinstated because employers are concerned about their workers' futures. When someone has given years, dozens of years, of service to a company, that company does not want to see the worker go to live in poverty.

The work sharing program must be adapted so that it is easier to access. I have had to intervene so that more businesses could access it. It is a program that needs to be perfected, but it is very useful. On that note, I would like to point out that we are available to help make it more accessible, as long as the government is also willing to do its part.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question, but we have to look at the big picture. We have to realize that the crisis is not just affecting workers; it is affecting merchants and business people and so on. That is why any measures to help these people have to take their reality into account.

For example, tax credits do not help businesses that are barely surviving and not making a profit. Even so, that is what the government chose to do. With this budget, the government will be helping big corporations that are making a profit. That is the real issue here.

I happen to know about the restaurant sector because I worked in it for a while and I know how unstable it can be.

The question my colleague should be asking is this: Has the Conservative Party failed to understand that cutting taxes for big companies will not help small restaurant operators like the people she just talked about?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, please excuse me. I lose my voice sometimes. I was having difficulty speaking earlier. I apologize. It is a minor problem with my vocal cords, nothing more.

I thank my colleague, who is doing a remarkable job, as well, and I recognize that he has consistently defended the unemployed and, in fact all workers. He is quite right, because what happened is irregular and abnormal. However, the government wanted to normalize its action, and no one is bothered by it anymore.

This morning I was happy and somewhat relieved to hear my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst go on the offensive and get angry at the situation. Few people are bothered by it, because what was totally abnormal and unfair is now normal. What the Liberals and Conservatives did is not right and they are continuing to do it. It is not right, not fair and causes families to suffer.