44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 18, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I thank and congratulate my colleague for his speech.
In the fall economic statement, the Minister of Finance reneges on a commitment she made in last spring's budget, which was to limit credit card fees for merchants. In the spring budget, she told us that she would introduce legislation and the issue would be dealt with this fall. However, now it has turned into a commitment to talk to the credit card companies, and if they do not self-regulate, she will introduce legislation later to force them to act.
In my hon. colleague's opinion, is that enough?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
In his speech and during questions and comments, the student loan measure was mentioned. The Bloc Québécois supports this measure because we see that it will help students in the rest of Canada.
However, I would like to remind my colleague that Quebec is not part of that program because it already has its own loans and bursaries program that works well. An agreement with Ottawa gives Quebec the right to automatically withdraw with full compensation, which we are pleased about.
With regard to the dental insurance set out in Bill C-31, however, it is important to note that Quebec already has its own dental insurance program for children aged 10 and under. We thought that the programs would be harmonized with, for example, funding to extend coverage to children up to the age of 12, especially since Quebec's program is a real program that works well.
However, there is absolutely nothing about that or about a right to withdraw with compensation. To make matters worse, the government has imposed a super gag order to prevent the bill from being examined in committee. That means no amendments can be proposed.
What does my colleague think about that?
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. He just went over the whole inflation problem.
The word “inflation” appears in the fall economic update 108 times. We know that in contrast to the previous budget, there are no new measures. It is just a rehash. It uses different rhetoric to justify the same measures.
The government is rightly concerned that a recession could hit this winter. As far as the recession is concerned, the Bloc Québécois is asking for employment insurance to be reformed as soon as possible so it is ready to go. The government was supposed to have it in place for last summer, but the system still has not been reformed. We would not want to have to create a CERB 2.0 to limit the damage and make up for a failing EI system.
Why was this reform not included in Bill C‑32?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/18/22 11:25:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the federal government is threatening to steal $2.7 billion in infrastructure money meant for our municipalities. It is moving up Quebec's deadline to submit proposals from 2025 to next March. Miss the deadline, miss out on the cash.
The Liberals changed the date unilaterally. Then they had the nerve to accuse Quebec of dragging their feet and leaving federal money on the table.
For starters, it is not their money. It is Quebeckers' money. Also, Quebeckers are not dragging their feet. The Liberals are the ones changing deadlines and acting like bullies.
Why not honour the deadline and work together instead of jeopardizing projects that are important to our cities?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/18/22 11:26:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the minister is so very aware of the situation, he should cancel his decision.
The federal government does not understand the implications of moving up the deadline by two years. Its job is to announce funding and show up at the ribbon-cutting when the work is done.
The fact is, there is a labour shortage in the construction industry, contractors are fully booked, and most municipalities do not have people to write specs. That all has an impact on planning infrastructure projects for the people who build them, and that is why the Union des municipalités du Québec is asking the government to honour the agreed-upon 2025 deadline.
Will the government tune in and listen to our cities? Hello?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would like to talk to him about the rhetoric coming from the party in power.
In the spring budget, the government said that the supply chain issue needed to be addressed, but no measure was proposed. In the fall economic statement, it is the same thing. It talks about supply chains, but no concrete measure is proposed to deal with the issue.
The government is doing the same thing again with the issue of inflation. The word “inflation” comes up 108 times in the economic statement, but there is no new measure other than the ones that we already voted on in the House this fall or that were announced in the spring budget.
Would the hon. member agree that there is a disparity between the rhetoric and the actions that are actually taken?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I am shocked and outraged. As soon as the member finished her speech, the President of the Privy Council and Minister of Emergency Preparedness rose to announce that he was going to limit debate on Bill C-32. That is really shameful and offensive.
Why does the government always want to limit debate in the House, particularly when we know that this bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, when we are beginning a pre-study on it right now with a sunset clause, and when we are going to do the clause-by-clause study in a few days—
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to sincerely commend all the work that the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has done on her private member's bill, Bill C‑228. As she so clearly explained again, it is a very important bill to better protect retirees who are entitled to a defined benefit package.
I want to commend her cross-party approach. We were able to work with members from each party and set aside partisan differences for the common good of workers and retirees. I tip my hat to the member.
Since this is a period for questions or comments, I will take the opportunity to make a comment. I tip my hat to the member. As she said, this issue has been raised so often in the House, and she is the one who finally managed, through her approach, to bring all the members of the House together to truly change people's lives.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by informing the House that Quebec is currently in mourning. We just learned of the death of Jean Lapointe, a great writer, composer, performer, actor and comedian who was very involved in society.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to extend my sincere condolences to his son, Jean-Marie, to his family, friends and loved ones, and to all Quebeckers. We will remember him for his comedy shows and his songs. He used to say that we learn to live through song. Many of his acting roles had a profound effect on me. Take, for example, his role in the series Duplessis, where he did an extraordinary job of playing “Le Chef”, his roles in various films by my favourite filmmaker Marc-André Forcier, and the role he played in Les ordres. We pay tribute to his memory, his political commitment and the rehabilitation centre that bears his name.
Farewell Jean Lapointe, and thank you.
Let us now talk about the important Bill C-228
We are at third reading of this bill in the House of Commons. That is amazing. I want to sincerely congratulate the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for her masterful sponsorship of this bill and for managing to build consensus around a common goal. In committee, members of all parties contributed to the bill, including people like the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, who participated in the work and helped improve the bill.
In the House this afternoon, we are beginning third reading of a bill that will make a difference in people's lives, in the lives of workers and especially of the retirees who are entitled to these pensions.
As everyone has acknowledged, there have been several instances in recent decades when companies declared bankruptcy and their defined benefit pension funds were underfunded. That had a devastating impact on the company's retirees. They could no longer collect their full pension because the pension fund they were entitled to was underfunded.
In life, in a market economy based on supply and demand and capitalism, there are risks and bankruptcies occur. If a worker sees his company close and declare bankruptcy, it is a difficult situation, but that person will try to find another job and get on with their life.
What happens to pensioners? As the member for Sarnia—Lambton was saying, what happens to people who are 70 or 75 years old and depend on their pension when they suddenly learn that the company is bankrupt? The company has failed to meet its obligations and pensioners will no longer receive their pension, which is often the minimum amount required to live well or to survive. Those pensioners will no longer receive the full amount. They might lose half of their pension, for example, but they are too old and do not have the energy or the strength to return to work. These are terrible situations, unspeakable human tragedies. That is what Bill C‑228 would fix.
It truly is an extremely important bill. I am very pleased that it has reached third reading stage. I look forward to it receiving royal assent and making a real difference in people's lives.
I also want to acknowledge all the hard work done by my colleague from Manicouagan who was especially invested in this bill. She had introduced a similar bill in a previous Parliament that did not make it through the House. She continued trying, working with the member for Sarnia—Lambton, to see Bill C-228 through the legislative process.
My colleague from Manicouagan has been working closely with union members representing the workers who have gone through this kind of human problem. It was really a good faith, goodwill approach. What can we do to better protect workers? We know that a pension plan is a form of deferred wages.
During the negotiation, the union and management decide on salary and the terms and conditions. A lower salary is accepted in exchange for entitlement to group insurance or more generous pension funds, for example. The pension is therefore a type of deferred salary, and workers are entitled to it. However, we know that under the law, a company can underfund their pension fund for several years and allow shareholders to make more money on the backs of workers because it is failing in its duty.
This bill would make pension funds a greater priority for creditor payment in the event of a bankruptcy. This would take some of the pressure off the shoulders of workers and retired workers and would improve things. As the member for Sudbury said, if this bill is passed, it will not solve every problem. There is no ironclad guarantee and not everything will be resolved. The risk will remain, but it will not be as high. What this bill does is give particular consideration to underfunded pension funds and give them higher priority for creditor payment in the event of a bankruptcy.
One thing we observed in committee and in studies of similar bills was that none of the experts who came to talk to us, including unions, said they should be the top priority. Both pensioners and union members told us they want to give the company a chance to restructure, refinance and come up with a plan to save itself from bankruptcy.
This bill gives mortgage holders priority over pension funds. Everyone recognizes that that is important, although the Liberal Party still seems unsure. Some of our Standing Committee on Finance colleagues are, anyway. I have had personal conversations with a few ministers. Judging from the Liberal member's speech on this bill, there still seems to be some confusion about this.
This is about giving pension funds higher priority while still enabling the company to restructure to avoid bankruptcy. That is what everyone here wants, obviously. That is a very important element.
Several cases have been mentioned, including Sears, Stelco, Nortel, Cliff Natural Resources and White Birch. In all of those cases, the pension plan was not fully funded when the company went bankrupt and the workers are the ones who got shortchanged.
As the Liberal member for Sudbury was saying, pension fund managers, large corporations, or the employer, came to see us to say that they did not really like this. Obviously, they do not like this because they will have to fully fund the pension plans and recognize that the amount owed to workers must be included in the financial statements and paid within a few years, with the necessary flexibility. In my opinion, we found a good balance, but it means less money for shareholders and less money for executives simply because they are being forced to pay what they owe.
The Liberal member who spoke before me did not mention that. Every time the employer or pension fund managers raised an argument, the seniors' advocacy organizations and unions responded clearly and simply by proving that the argument did not hold water.
Employers tried to scare people. The Liberal Party still brings that up, but every argument raised in committee was immediately refuted by parties representing pensioners' interests. Fear tactics are often employed when economic issues and other somewhat complex issues come up. In this case, I think the committee did a good job of rebutting fear-based arguments.
I feel absolutely confident about this bill, but it does not fix every problem pensioners face. There is still a degree of risk, but it is lower. Employers do not like this because they know they will make less money. That is true, but they have to pay what they owe, plain and simple.
In closing, I want to once again acknowledge the incredible work of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. As I said, I am the member for Joliette, and the Quebec MNA for Joliette was Véronique Hivon, a person who was all about cross-party collaboration and always tried to prioritize the common good over partisanship. She accomplished a lot in that respect, and the member for Sarnia—Lambton has accomplished just as much here. I thank her and congratulate her.
1378 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
