Yves Lessard

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville, for his speech. I would like to ask him about one point he made, which was that the Speech from the Throne sets the foundation for the policy announced by the Conservative government. The hon. member will recognize, as I do, that something very important is missing in the Speech from the Throne. It does not address employment insurance, which affects workers.

The Conservatives promised to create an independent employment insurance fund. They did so when they were in opposition, voting with us on this matter. During the election campaign and after their election, the Prime Minister and his party promised to create this fund. Why is there no mention of this in the Speech from the Throne? This is my first question.

My second question also concerns the employment insurance fund. Like us, the Conservatives recognized that the money diverted from the employment insurance fund over the last 10 years by the previous government--an amount totaling $48 billion--must be returned to that fund. There is nothing on this in the throne speech. Nor is there any indication in the speeches given by members of the current government to suggest that they still intend to return this money.

I would like my colleague to address these concerns. How can he explain this significant omission in the Speech from the Throne?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup on the quality of his speech and on highlighting the major shortcomings of this throne speech, namely as concerns the social safety net for the public in general and workers in particular. I am grateful to him as well for stressing the employment insurance program.

I would like to hear what he has to say about the fate of the employment insurance fund over the years. How is it that, today, nearly 60% of workers contributing to EI cannot expect to receive benefits when they are laid off? How did the misappropriation of the fund occur over the past 10 years? We will likely see the impact that has had on the employment insurance program, of course, and on the use made of the funds.

In short, should the money misappropriated from the EI fund be returned to it and how must that be done?

[Older Workers, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we will help the minister. The entire manufacturing sector is concerned about the problem facing workers aged 55 and older who are the victims of mass layoffs. On June 14, 2005, the current government supported the Bloc Québécois motion for measures to assist older workers. Last week, in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, it also supported the Bloc Québécois subamendment concerning this same issue.

Why does the government not act quickly? This is an urgent problem that must be resolved immediately.

[Older Workers, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, among the urgent problems that require solutions, the massive layoffs of workers aged 55 and older take top priority. There is a solution and the government knows what it is.

The government has supported the Bloc Québécois subamendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne concerning the need to establish measures to help older workers. Can the government now restore hope among workers aged 55 and older, including those in Lebel-sur-Quévillon, and announce the implementation of such a program in the next few weeks?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou on her maiden speech in this House. The question that I am going to ask her applies as well to her colleagues. This was the first time she addressed the House and she cannot know everything, I realize that. It was the same with all of us. In short, what I have to say applies to her colleagues as well. When they got themselves elected, especially in Quebec, basically it meant they would be in a position to make decisions.

Now that these people are in a decision-making position, what will they decide about employment insurance? First, if I may, I would like to add a few wrinkles to what I have to say since the answer will be the one that the hon. member gave earlier. At least, I suppose so. I mean to say that we will expect a fuller answer, which may even come at another time from other speakers for the Conservative Party.

To finish my question and getting into the subject, I would just like to remind the Liberal member who asked her a question earlier and was still in power very recently that we had these debates and demands in the House and that he opposed them. Can we say today that it is the beaten carpet phenomenon that we are witnessing? It is only when a government is beaten that it comes clean.

I wanted to have him benefit from this occasion at the same time. Here is another question.

First, during the election campaign, the Conservative Party promised an independent fund, but there was no mention of it in the throne speech.

Second, when we held the debate on repatriating the $48 billion that the Liberals diverted from the employment insurance fund, the Conservatives were with us in the debate while in the opposition.

Third, when we demanded that the employment insurance account be restored in order to help the two-thirds of unemployed people who do not receive any employment insurance benefits—as the NDP leader mentioned earlier—the member’s party participated in that debate as well.

It is important for us to know, now that the Conservative Party is in power, what it will do in this regard.

[Older Workers, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the rise of economic powers such as China and India continues to have a serious impact on traditional manufacturing sectors, and older workers are especially hard hit. They urgently need help.

Does the government plan to re-introduce an income support program for older workers, many of whom are unfortunately losing their jobs as a result of globalization?

[Transportation Amendment Act, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her speech on transportation Bill C-44. I know how keen she was on getting this bill before the House so that we could dispose of it before the end of the business of this House.

My question is on the safety of people living close to rail lines. This was touched on briefly already. There are 12 cities or towns in my riding and 10 of these have rail lines running through them. There is, of course, the noise problem my colleague has referred to, but there is also the matter of vibrations and obstruction of roads into town. The municipal bylaws allow only two access roads to cross the tracks, but often, because of the length of the train, both of these are blocked by the same train, and it may sit there for many minutes, sometimes hours. This is totally inconceivable. The municipalities must take action.

Does my colleague believe there is anything in this bill to reassure the people of my riding that the agency could, in future, intervene to settle problems such as this?

[Employment Insurance, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, evidence of that is rare. If there is one group of people who have to be supported, it is workers over 55 who lose their jobs due to plant closures. The government has provided nothing for these people.

How can the government abandon older workers, when they should be among our priorities and have access to a new income support program like the one that used to be in place?

[Employment Insurance, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in its last budgetary statement, the government gave the unemployed nothing, not a single thing.

How can the government ignore those who are losing their jobs while it continues to raid the EI fund day in and day out?

[Employment Insurance, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement of an 8¢ cut in EI premiums is very bad news for the unemployed. Instead of improving the system by implementing the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities—such as creating a 360-hour qualification requirement or calculating the best 12 weeks—the government has chosen to ignore the demands of contributors.

Is the minister aware that because of her action almost 500,000 unemployed individuals will be forced to continue to panhandle?