Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, over the last eight years, $47 billion have been diverted from that fund. It is high time it became independent again.

The time for studies has come and gone. The time has now come for implementation, for putting in place the measures on which the minister has already voted. The seasonal gap is hurting seasonal workers now. The minister has both the power to act and a duty to do so.

I am therefore asking what she is waiting for before showing some consistency and putting measures in place on which she has already indicated her agreement.

[Employment Insurance, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the amendments do not meet the needs of the unemployed.

I would, moreover, remind the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that she has already voted in favour of the amendments to the throne speech and also supported the creation of an independent EI fund. I imagine the minister did not do so lightly, but was aware of the impact of her vote.

I would call upon the minister to show some consistency. Does she intend to proceed with these reforms without delay, in the best interests of the unemployed?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the minister answered the question of our colleague from Jonquière—Alma. We clearly understood that he has been in touch with each of the regions. But what the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma asked was whether he had consulted the bone and sinew of each of these regions? Indeed, there is a difference between announcing one's plans to the public through the media and conducting consultations and actually asking the public what they think about these plans.

In that respect, I can testify that, in my riding and in neighbouring ridings, the minister's address was in fact made by the media. There has been no true consultation of the bone and sinew of the populations concerned.

[Employment Insurance, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that her credibility is at stake here?

I remind the minister that she voted in favour of an independent fund, and of the amendment to the throne speech calling for an in-depth review of the employment insurance program.

When she discussed her joining the government with the Prime Minister, did the minister only negotiate her own personal hiring conditions, or did she also take that opportunity to negotiate the needs of the unemployed, whom she claims to support?

[Employment Insurance, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on April 13, the new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development voted in favour of an independent employment insurance fund to end, once and for all, the government's plundering of that fund, which now totals in excess of $47 billion.

Now that she is in a position to establish such an independent fund, since she is now the minister in charge, will she be consistent with herself and establish that independent fund?

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the negotiations with the NDP, the Prime Minister once again wanted nothing to do with improving employment insurance.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his human resources recruit negotiated only her own conditions of employment or whether she used the opportunity to negotiate the needs of the unemployed which she says she agrees with?

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, $300 million is peanuts compared with $47 billion in damages.

Three months ago, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made 28 recommendations aimed at substantially improving the employment insurance program. According to advocacy groups for the unemployed, the current budget contains nothing of note for the unemployed. The government has turned its back on the committee's report.

Now that the Prime Minister has treated himself to a new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, could he assure us he will give her free rein to correct the situation?

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the responses given by the hon. Liberal members, especially the last one. However, I would like more details from the hon. member. In recent months, Parliament has made decisions, which the government has not implemented, because it is in a minority position. The gap between what Liberal members say and what the government decides is often very wide.

Given that the hon. member said work was being done by the Liberals, and with respect to the government's practice, may we expect a change and may we expect the government to finally implement Parliament's decisions?

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak after my NDP colleague. I know him to be a proud man who is devoted to the workers and full of good intentions. I can understand why he is wounded to the quick today, because he and his party have been forced to humiliate themselves for something that does not exist.

I appeal to my colleague to clearly understand the situation when he draws an analogy to the throne speech. Let us recall that we did manage to amend it on two very important aspects. The first of these was the fiscal imbalance, which the government just had to acknowledge, and the second was about obtaining a mandate for the Standing Committee of Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to carry out a specific study on employment insurance in connection with an independent fund that would, in future, be used only for the needs of workers.

Those are real gains. On the other hand, today we are dealing with something that Parliament has no control over. Had the NDP really wanted to achieve the objective raised by my illustrious colleague, it would not have made a little back room agreement with the Liberals. It would have reached an agreement with the other parties in the House to say that there were certain points that could not be set aside. One of these is employment insurance, as he has said. They have abandoned EI, as they have the fiscal imbalance, which would solve the health problems the hon. member raises.

How can we be faulted today for standing fast, for sticking to our guns, and saying that the government's priorities put their friends before their country? I invite my colleague to ponder that.

In conclusion, this is my question. Does my colleague realize that most Liberal supporters are now seeking another name, because they are ashamed of the present one? Is he not forced to acknowledge today that the Liberal Party is going through an identity crisis? It is trying to identify with the NDP in order to have a label. That is not particularly honourable. Would he acknowledge that? People definitively—

[Employment Insurance, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should get her facts straight. The Prime Minister has been cutting employment insurance since 1994 when he was Minister of Finance. He was at the heart of this operation and continues to be now that he is Prime Minister.

How could the Prime Minister make promises directly to the unemployed during the past election campaigns when in reality, he never had any intention of keeping his promises?