Yves Lessard

[Older Workers, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Industry boasted about an agreement with the Government of Quebec regarding the income support program for older workers. That is not the case, because no fewer than three ministers of the Quebec government—and not the least of them the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade and the Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity—said that they were disappointed with the federal program.

What answer can the Minister of Industry give the Government of Quebec, today, when it is asking for an income support program for older workers and not just re-employment measures?

[Employment Insurance, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that this money belongs to workers and employers?

The government's attitude is incomprehensible. It lowered employment insurance contributions to help workers. It did nothing for the people who really need help, the people for whom the fund exists: the unemployed.

If the government is that short of ideas, will it at the very least support the two bills introduced by the Bloc Québécois, one to improve the EI system and the other to create an independent employment insurance fund?

[Employment Insurance, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, instead of using the $13 billion surplus—which includes $2 billion from the employment insurance fund—to initiate real reforms, the government chose to put it all toward the debt.

How can the government justify this to the unemployed people who ended their long march to Parliament Hill today? How can it explain that it would rather use its billions of dollars to give generous gifts to its oil company friends than to bring about real change to the employment insurance system?

[Older Workers, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is the art of sowing confusion in a debate that is as specific as can be. Older workers who have been victimized by mass layoffs need an income support program to make the transition to their retirement.

Does the government not understand that the pseudo-POWA it announced today means that thousands of working people will be left in the lurch?

Why did the government decide to turn its back on these people even though it has the means to help them?

[Older Workers, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government let slip yesterday that $30 million would be allocated over two years—we have learned today that it would be more than that—to establishing an older worker assistance program that would provide training to workers from certain target sectors.

How can the government turn its back in this way on thousands of older workers in all the other sectors of the economy who will be left to their sad fates by this government, which nevertheless made promises to older workers that it now, apparently, will not keep.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague for her speech.

I will use the question of my Conservative colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to ask another question. She asks what would define an older worker eligible for income support.

Of course, it is someone of at least 55 years of age who has worked for the same company over 10 of the last 30 years. This is in order to allow a greater number of women to be eligible for this program, since we all know that women entering the labour market leave it on occasion. At last, this person will remain available for work. So, this is the profile of older workers eligible for this program.

I will add that I had the opportunity to travel to my colleague's riding, where we visited plants, and even plants in neighbouring ridings, including textile plants in Magog — to name only those. Based on the characteristics or criteria I just listed, could my colleague tell me if there is still time to help people in her riding and in the neighbouring riding, who often ask for her opinion?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of my colleague to the fragility of his argument. Is he aware that his remarks have no credibility for the following reason? His whole argument is based on the need to do a study in order to implement POWA.

No program has been more reviewed by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. In fact, there was a report on it in 2001. Last year, another report full of recommendations was released. The issue has been studied extensively.

How is it that, for a program that will cost approximately $50 million to $75 million per year, we ask for studies while they have been done and that, when it comes to armament, for instance, which costs $17 billion, we move forward without any study and wait until after the House adjourns? Furthermore, as my colleague pointed out earlier, there are cuts worth $1 billion to social programs.

Is my colleague aware of the vulnerability and lack of credibility of his argument?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my two colleagues from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Joliette for their speeches. I think they shed some light on facts that illustrate both the problem and the solutions very well. My colleague from Joliette talked about the parameters that must guide us as we implement the income support program for older workers.

I would also like to emphasize another point and ask my colleague from Joliette about it. I would like to highlight the work done by my two aforementioned colleagues on the problem of foreign market invasion, lack of control, and lack of Canadian government measures to protect our industry. I know how hard they have worked over the past few years to avoid this catastrophe.

It seems that because the Canadian government failed to implement these measures, the catastrophe is now upon us. Of course, the main thing now is to protect the people who have lost their jobs.

I know that my colleague has seen the big picture in the ridings, particularly in Quebec ridings. My question is about his riding. What are the positive short-term effects that can already be seen in his riding with respect to economic renewal, for example? Earlier, he mentioned the shock caused by the closure of Louisiana-Pacific and the other business. What effect would reinstating POWA have on regional economic vitality?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am pleased that the hon. member for Halifax West will support the motion. Indeed, this situation is nothing new. When the Liberal Party was in office, the program was abolished and the problems increased over the years. However, today, we can rejoice in the fact that the Liberals are now sitting with us, on the opposition benches. I think this is a positive thing.

The cuts have a number of consequences. At some point, when their EI benefits run out, older workers find themselves without an income. This means that they inevitably end up on welfare.

Here is my question. I would like to know if, in the hon. member's province, these workers find themselves in the same situation and are forced to use up their savings before relying on social assistance, or to sell their assets in order to then be eligible for help.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Laval—Les Îles almost spoke to me directly in her questions on the strategic framework of the motion. I would say to her the following.

The motion as presented is of the same order as that prepared by the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development, which my colleague chaired. It was passed unanimously. Why? Because the parameters remained to be defined. It is not up to the House to define them, but the House must nonetheless be made aware—she is right—of what an income support benefit should consist in for older workers for example. In this case, our guide is the equivalent of an employment insurance benefit, which is currently half an employee's income, but we are asking that it be 60% of the employee's income.

I would also like my colleague to indicate whether she agrees with what I am saying and whether she will support my motion in its current form.