44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2022 02:00PM
- Jun/8/22 2:09:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure and privilege of paying tribute to an exceptional man.
Roger Barrette, a community worker at the CISSS des Laurentides, is loved by all and known for his outstanding sense of dedication to his community. That dedication is not new. By the time he was 14, he knew he was destined for a career in community service.
He started getting involved at a young age. He opened the first youth centre in his home town of Lac‑Saint‑Jean. He became a community worker at the age of 21, and his first assignment was to support the community of Chapais in the wake of a deadly fire.
During his more than 40-year career, Mr. Barrette has taken on numerous professional challenges. Most importantly, he has played a vital role in developing a unique community approach that has made a huge difference in the lives of residents and strengthened the social fabric of our community.
I want to thank Mr. Barrette.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my dear Green Party colleague for his speech. I want to acknowledge his hard and heartfelt work on matters of social justice, the environment and persons with disabilities. He shows such compassion for people in vulnerable situations and I commend him for that.
I heard him say that he was disappointed that there was nothing in the budget about standards for long-term care.
Long-term care falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. Would my colleague not agree that the best way to support long-term care is for the federal government to transfer the money that the provinces and Quebec need?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-19, which seeks to implement certain provisions of the budget.
Today I want to talk not so much about the measures that have been set out in this bill, but rather about those that have been left out. Believe it or not, despite the size of this bill, there is still a lot missing. Trying to understand this omnibus bill is quite the undertaking. Bill C-19 is 466 pages long and it has 32 divisions and 502 sections.
At the very least, we would have liked to see the government devote a substantial part of this massive piece of legislation to employment insurance reform. Here is a spoiler alert for those who have not had the time to read these 466 pages of pure joy: This bill contains virtually nothing about EI reform, and what little there is does not live up to expectations.
I want to share my disappointment and concerns. However, before I begin, I would like to say that I have tremendous respect for the Standing Committee on Finance, which had the monumental task of studying this bill. I want to mention that and commend the members of the committee. They were sent on an expedition, a journey, an adventure that they had to complete in record time. I do not know how many witnesses they heard or how many briefs they received, but I want to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette for his work on the Standing Committee on Finance, as well as his fellow committee members.
I am not in a position to lecture anyone about procedure. I am not an expert on House procedure. However, when I look at this bill that we have to debate in a hurry under closure, and I realize that we are going to be here until midnight talking about what is good about it, what we wish were in it, and our expectations, I just end up wondering what the point of this is. In these circumstances, would it not be better to give parliamentary committees time to study the issues thoroughly and come up with a bill that would do a much better job of meeting expectations? It is a suggestion.
I will now talk about workers. I want to talk about gaps in the bill and the lack of EI reform. It is not because I am a former union leader and still a union supporter. With all due respect and in all honesty, it is mostly because out of all the people who have called my office, not one has asked for a universal dental care program. I doubt I am the only MP in that position. No one has called me about that. Now, I am not saying it is not important.
My office has received calls about the labour shortage, the temporary foreign worker program, wait times for our businesses, immigration and payroll services. We are getting calls from our federal public servants, who are exhausted after two years of the pandemic. They are in negotiations and worried about what lies ahead for them. They have done their part, and continue to do so, but they are a little worried. All this to say that the federal government has a major issue to address: the employment insurance system.
That system is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. It has not been updated in 15 years; rather, it has been the subject of counter-reforms. Workers and employers alike have been demanding for years that this system be updated to ensure that it meets the needs of those who pay into it.
Nevertheless, successive Liberal governments have spent the last seven years promising to reform the system, but there is no sign of any intention to keep that promise in this budget. This is actually more like a step back for workers.
Let us review those broken promises. In 2015, the mandate letter for the minister at the time gave instructions to undertake “a broad review of the EI system with the goal of modernizing our system of income support for unemployed workers that leaves too many workers with no unemployment insurance safety net”. The fact that the system does not work properly is not news. That was from 2015, but the review never happened.
In 2019, the current minister was tasked with strengthening employment insurance through measures such as new special benefits models. That included improving the current pilot project for seasonal workers, which was supposed to become a permanent program that provided consistent and reliable benefits. She was even tasked with creating a new EI disaster assistance benefit. Well, that disaster happened. The COVID‑19 pandemic stressed the system like never before. There is a reason why the government had to make up benefits from scratch.
There are some serious flaws in the system. We have known that for many years. In 2020, the President of the Treasury Board told Le Soleil the following, and I quote: “We knew that the EI safety net had a few too many holes in it and did not provide sufficient coverage, but we did not move forward quickly enough with our reform.” I could not have said it better myself. It is really too bad that the government waited until it was backed into a corner before taking action. However, as the saying goes, it is never too late.
The reason I am so disappointed today is that, once again, the government has been making all sorts of other nice promises since the beginning of the pandemic. The minister's 2021 mandate letter states that it is up to the minister to, “by Summer 2022, bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system for the 21st century, building a stronger and more inclusive system that covers all workers, including workers in seasonal employment and persons employed by digital platforms, ensuring the system is simpler and more responsive for workers”. However, summer 2022 is in 13 days.
On January 1, the day of new year's resolutions, the minister stated in the Canadian Press that she was confident she would meet the timelines set out by the Prime Minister. She also indicated that in addition to instituting new rules and new benefits, the government was going to have to update its technology because the system is still running on code from the 1960s. In that regard, some Service Canada officials told us that they are still working with DOS. That is from another era, the era of the dinosaur.
If the minister was confident that she could meet the summer 2022 deadline, we can say without hesitation that she has failed. Where is the minister's plan? It is not in Bill C‑19 or in the budget. I am very disappointed to see that nothing is being presented before we adjourn for the summer.
I am also concerned. As the minister knows full well, at this time certain requirements have been temporarily relaxed. These adjustments are not perfect, but they have made it possible for several thousands of workers to access their benefits. Many have seen these flexibilities as a potential basis for reform. However, they will come to an end on September 25.
What will happen then? There is no plan. The most important thing is to avoid losing ground, because the status quo is not an option.
When we say that reform is needed now, that is not just some political slogan. As I said earlier, the pandemic has exposed the failings of the system and has demonstrated how urgently reform is needed for workers. There are many failings, but I will just talk about a few.
First, EI coverage must be expanded to as many workers as possible. It is a matter of fairness. As members know, just 40% of workers who contribute to EI qualify for benefits. Non-standard and part-time workers, the majority of whom are women and young people, are not eligible for the program even though they contribute.
Another problem is how EI fails sick workers. Organizations that specialize in this area are calling for a significant increase in the number of weeks of sickness benefits. A worker who has cancer, for example, needs at least 40 weeks of benefits to receive proper care and recover in dignity. This is what all studies have shown. These workers should be able to focus all their energy on healing, not on trying to make ends meet.
The government plans to extend the benefit period to 26 weeks. That was supposed to happen in July, but because of the computer system, it may only happen in the fall. Now we can say it is too little, too late. It is not enough. What sick workers need is 50 weeks. After 10 years of fighting and seven bills, this still has not happened yet.
When I was a union official, I defined my unionism in two ways: It was proposal-based and action-based. The Bloc Québécois continues to make proposals. We are asking the government to act, because the government is showing a real lack of ambition and keeps bringing in half-measures.
The Social Security Tribunal recently ruled that the current system consistently discriminates against women on maternity leave. A woman who loses her job during or after her maternity leave is no longer entitled to regular EI benefits. Once again, one would expect this self-professed feminist government to rectify the situation, but instead it has decided to appeal the ruling. That is outrageous.
The employment insurance spring gap is another major concern. We like to eat crab and lobster in eastern Quebec and in the Maritimes, but the plant workers in those regions are seasonal. It is not okay that in 2022, when the season is over, they end up without a job or enough income until the next season. We have to do something about that. We have to end the spring gap. We are talking about the vitality of our regions and seasonal industries such as tourism, forestry, the fishery and others. We cannot abandon these people.
The government has been regularly questioned on this issue over the past few years. However, all it did was simply renew the pilot project that provides for a maximum of five weeks of benefits, which is not enough. It is shameful to not go further than that. Honestly, this lack of political courage is disappointing.
Madam Speaker, I could keep listing the flaws in the system for the rest of the sitting until you stopped me. The thing to keep in mind is that these are major flaws that have direct consequences for the thousands of workers who contribute to employment insurance and are entitled to it. These workers are calling for an immediate reform of employment insurance.
I have been touring all the regions of Quebec for three months now. I have not visited them all yet, but I will. What I am hearing from people on the ground speaks for itself.
I have met with municipal officials, advocacy groups representing unemployed workers, local unions, national unions, consumer rights groups, women's rights groups, regional development corporations, youth employment centres, government officials, seasonal workers, and more. I have attended some incredibly enlightening meetings. I have seen the various regional and local realities. All the people I spoke to agreed that the EI program needs to be overhauled immediately.
They urged reforms that would strengthen the rights of workers, but I also heard countless stories about wait times. We have all heard such horror stories in our constituency offices. Workers who have paid into the program and are entitled to EI have been waiting months for their benefits because they are victims of fraud. They cannot pay rent or child support, and they still do not have their EI cheque.
At the last meeting we had with the ministerto discuss this at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, she said yet again that Service Canada answers calls. It seems to me that Service Canada should be answering calls more and that the minister should stop going on about how the department is meeting service standards. Workers waiting for their EI cheques could not care less about service standards. They want their rights to be recognized, and they want to collect all the benefits they are entitled to.
The last thing I want to touch on is division 32 of Bill C‑19. Actually, I would like to thank all members of the committee who accepted the Standing Committee on Finance's invitation to dig into the four or five clauses covering EI in Bill C‑19. Division 32, which is about the Social Security Tribunal, was the main issue that was discussed. There was nothing in the budget about reforming this significant aspect of the program, so news of this government legislative measure came as quite a surprise.
In a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, there is a section that deals with the board of appeal, which is tripartite in name only. It does not in any way meet the objectives and commitments the government announced in 2019. Both the finance committee and the human resources committee heard from representatives of the major unions and representatives of unemployed workers' groups.
I would like to quote a representative of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, or MASSE:
Let's first point out that MASSE is disappointed that the government chose to reveal its intentions regarding the new board of appeal for the first time when it introduced Bill C-19, that is, nearly three years after it announced reforms. By breaking its silence in this way after so many years, not only is the government now presenting stakeholders with a fait accompli, but it's also admitting that it deprived itself of a wealth of expertise, and this will undoubtedly influence the people's confidence in the quality of administrative justice.
Union representatives, so labour, and employer representatives were unanimous in telling us that we needed to get rid of this division of the bill. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Standing Committee on Finance were unanimous in their recommendation: We must remove division 32 from the bill. We worked hard, we listened to people, we listened to employers, we listened to workers and we succeeded, because the minister announced that she would withdraw division 32 from Bill C‑19 and make it a separate bill.
I hope that the new bill that will be introduced will respond to the consultation that was unanimous three years ago and to the needs expressed by the community. This does not bode well for the comprehensive employment insurance reform if the intention is to introduce it in the same way—
2543 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what worries me is that we are in the midst of a crisis, during which the government took action quickly. During this crisis, we saw the flaws in the EI system. However, the government is telling us that unemployment is down so it can wait a little longer to reform the system. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Clearly, training is necessary. It might be a good idea to increase training budgets so that workers can update, recertify and develop their skills. However, that work must be entrusted to the provinces, because it falls under their jurisdiction.
In Quebec, this responsibility should be given to the labour market partners commission, a unique commission that engages in social dialogue.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to add that it was a pleasure to work with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA. I miss him. I congratulate him on his French and hope he will return to the committee, even if his colleague from Joliette wants to keep him on the Standing Committee on Finance.
He asked a very good question, but I am not sure whether I can answer him properly. The Standing Committee on Finance decided to assign some sections of this omnibus bill to other committees to make use of their expertise. EI reform falls under the purview of the HUMA committee, and therefore the Minister of Employment.
In spite of that, I had a hard time convincing the HUMA committee to study these issues. I was originally told that the Standing Committee on Finance would study them, but HUMA wanted to contribute.
The minister will present a reform because she committed to doing so in a bill she is to introduce in the fall regarding the board of appeal. In my view, these issues should be examined at the HUMA committee.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a number of measures can affect equal opportunity: strong public services, key social programs and, most importantly, a fair redistribution of wealth.
What is glaringly absent from the most recent budget are efforts to crack down on tax avoidance and tax havens. This is a battle that my colleague from Joliette has been fighting for years, a battle that must one day be settled here. Given that we have the capacity to fight, it comes down to political will. Things cannot go on like this.
I do not subscribe to the dogma that the rich must be made to pay for the poor. I believe that we need to have fair taxation to make sure that people cannot legally run off with bags of money while others are left behind. We need to address this issue. It should be a priority.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. There have been no reforms, just the opposite of reforms really and the gutting of employment insurance.
The government has hollowed out a social safety net program, reducing it to a mere insurance program that is essentially funded by workers and employers. The government even pillaged the fund to erase deficits and make cuts.
Reforming employment insurance means fixing what was done and making sure it will never be done again. Most importantly, it means guaranteeing stronger, more equitable rights for everyone.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with respect to training, I did not see anything in the budget about climate change, the environment or the just transition we need for workers. That is a gaping hole.
With respect to employment insurance and existing training programs, I completely agree. However, I would ask the federal government to transfer money to the provinces because this falls under provincial jurisdiction, as I said earlier. I applaud the work being done right now to have employers contribute a portion of their payroll to cover—
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
