Yves Lessard

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Trois-Rivières for having communicated our party's position so clearly. I know that because of our time limit, she did not have time to discuss one point in her remarks: what happens to people who lose their jobs.

There have been job losses in her region too. Does the fact that about 60% of unemployed workers are excluded from the system have repercussions in her riding? Would people have welcomed measures to improve access to the system right now?

[The Budget, January 28th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party's position is rather disconcerting and difficult to follow. According to what he just said, we need to make changes to employment insurance to make it easier to qualify for benefits. However, the Liberal Party is about to vote for a budget that would freeze contributions at 1982 rates. For all intents and purposes, it will no longer be possible to improve the program. And yet it wants a delay of a few months to improve it even though his party is helping to put a lock on the program.

I wish I could understand the logic in that decision.

[The Budget, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speeches given by the leader of the NDP and by the deputy leader and member for Outremont, and I have to say that they are almost perfectly in line with what the NDP has always advocated with respect to comprehensive social justice programs. I should note, respectfully, that they are repeating in these speeches what was set out in the platform of the coalition that we supported. I would also remind this House and the hon. member that a large part of Quebec premier's agenda for the last first ministers meeting can also be found in a unanimous motion by Quebec's National Assembly.

Now that he is familiar with the Bloc's amendment to the amendment, I would like the hon. member to tell me, on behalf of his party, whether they intend to support the Bloc's amendment to the amendment, given that it is almost a carbon copy of what he himself said earlier about the rights that should be recovered—

[Employment Insurance, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what is the minister doing about the 53% of unemployed workers? If this government had had even a modicum of vision, it would have used the budget to create a real income support program for workers aged 55 and over who cannot be retrained and who are also victims of mass layoffs.

With the tough times these workers are going through, why did the government deliberately choose to ignore them?

[Employment Insurance, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this government just missed an opportunity to improve the employment insurance system by relaxing the eligibility criteria and eliminating the waiting period. Even with an extra five weeks of benefits, the fact is that 53% of people who lose their jobs do not have access to benefits. Freezing contributions is certainly not the way to improve the system.

Does the Minister of Finance realize that by refusing to improve employment insurance, he is penalizing thousands of unemployed workers and their regions as well, at a time of crisis?

[Older Workers, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's statements show why the government no longer has the confidence of the House.

The tripartite agreement provides for an income support program for laid-off older workers that will bridge them to retirement. This Conservative government has always demonstrated a total lack of sensitivity towards workers who cannot be retrained, preferring to let them fend for themselves.

Does the Prime Minister realize that he has only himself to blame for the lack of confidence because today these workers have more to gain from this tripartite agreement than from the economic statement?

[Older Workers, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, factories are closing and workers are losing their jobs, and not everyone can be retrained. Only the government refuses to see this reality. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing the creation of an income support program for older workers who have been the victims of layoffs, to allow them to bridge the gap until their retirement.

Since the government refuses to bring in such a measure, is this not proof of its insensitivity toward the victims of this economic crisis? We are talking about $45 million a year for all of Quebec and Canada.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate my colleague from Joliette on his speech. As we know, he is also the House leader of the Bloc and I would describe the work he does as magisterial, since he also contributed significantly to the stimulus plan proposed by the Bloc, which has also been described as a positive plan by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

We must note, however, that in spite of our suggestions in response to the Conservatives' request, they have exhibited no interest to date in implementing any measure from our plan whatsoever.

My question to my colleague is this. I think he correctly pointed out that the economic stimulus plan proposed by the Conservatives is not really an economic stimulus plan. In fact, it has little to do with the current economic crisis, and the measures on which it is based are reactive rather than proactive.

In particular, I would like to hear my colleague on the aspect that concerns the people directly affected by the crisis. He touched briefly on that. He might perhaps come back to that in terms of the measures proposed by the Bloc for people who have lost their jobs. There are even people working full-time who have had to go to food banks so they can eat. I would like to hear my colleague on that point.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I thought the member understood that we have a very clear mandate to not approve measures that are contrary to public interest or the common good. The measures here do not provide concrete support for regional development based on the realities of each region, unlike what the member is saying. He should think about his own riding and analyze the throne speech. Then he can tell us what concrete measures will promote the economic development of his region in order to save jobs and at the same time, protect those who are most in need in our society. Then he can come back to talk to us.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke, who has been, in my opinion, an exemplary member since arriving here in the House. His work with our team and other members of the House has been inspiring. His question is more than relevant.

Chambly—Borduas is all about culture. People from outside the region, who may know just a little about it, can enjoy all manner of artistic expression there. As I said earlier, culture accounts for some 16,000 jobs. For example, we have a theatre company called l'Arrière Scène that specializes in children's theatre. In addition to performing in my riding, throughout Quebec and across Canada, the company even travels around the world, disseminating our culture wherever it goes.

This theatre company has visited every continent, but the Conservative government's cuts will make it impossible for it to perform in other countries. It was scheduled to make appearances in eastern Europe next winter, but now its members will not be able to go because of these cuts.

If every member took the time to look at how these cuts affect their ridings and to talk to their constituents about them, they might be surprised at the impact of the cuts on cultural promotion and how their people tell the world about themselves.