SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 131

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 21, 2022 11:00AM
  • Nov/21/22 2:03:31 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec celebrates the social economy every November. When people purchase goods or services from the social economy, the whole community benefits. The social economy is about supporting businesses that care about community and local services. The social economy is about businesswomen and businessmen who value quality of life and citizen engagement. These are business leaders who prioritize quality of life over profit no matter what. Quebec's social economy is a big deal. We are talking $47.8 billion. We are talking 220,000 Quebeckers working for 11,200 companies all striving to change the economic landscape. I salute the Chantier de l'économie sociale for its dynamic involvement, the 22 regional hubs and every consumer across Quebec who chooses the social economy. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish everyone a happy social economy month.
145 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/21/22 3:26:14 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-32 
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today as we debate the—what is it now?—18th or 19th time allocation motion so far. It is hard to keep track because this habit has become so ingrained in how we operate. It is time allocation after time allocation. Maybe people will start using that expression. Time allocation used to be the exception, but now, since the pandemic, since the advent of the hybrid Parliament, it seems to have become common practice, and I think that is a shame. I think it is a shame to shut down democratic debate and take away what really matters in a Parliament: time and space to debate and air contrasting views. That is why I am pleased to share some of my thoughts on Bill C‑32. Before the economic statement, the Bloc Québécois had great expectations. We really wanted a conversation about health transfers. We were hoping for a sign that the government wanted to give Quebec and the provinces the health transfers they have been asking for so they can fulfill their responsibilities. In Quebec, that means addressing the aging population and the significant issues with mental health services, which are lacking in number and scope to meet the demand. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the economic update about that. My colleague from Shefford has said this, and the Bloc Québécois has said it, and it is one of our priorities. We do not understand how the government does not consider those between the ages of 65 and 74 to be people who need to regain a certain amount of purchasing power, especially with the inflation crisis. If there was ever a segment of the population that needed a helping hand, it is them. Increasing old age security would have really been good news, a sign that the government is listening to seniors, those who built the Quebec of today. In the economic update, we really wanted to see the government's desire and firm resolve to overhaul employment insurance. Today, I will use the minutes at my disposal to speak in greater detail about the EI program and the need to reform it. Today, as we speak, barely 40% of workers have access to EI. That is sad because, as we know, the EI fund is an insurance program. That means that workers pay premiums on their paycheque and employers pay premiums, and the money goes to build the EI fund, an important reservoir for workers who need it. Unfortunately, although the fund is quite healthy at the moment, it does not actually serve the people who really need it. Access is restricted. I am very committed to this cause. The Bloc Québécois has been asking for EI reform for years, and we do not understand the government's resistance. As I like to remind everyone, I decided to run again in 2015, the year the Liberals campaigned on a promise of comprehensive EI reform. In 2019, they promised it again, and then again in 2021. It is promise after promise, but nothing ever happens. The government had included $5 million in its budget to conduct extensive consultations across the provinces and Canada to understand and gauge the needs of workers, employers and civil society, and yet, 18 months later, we still have nothing. There has been no proposal and no plan to reform EI, even though my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville made it a subject to be studied by her committee. The committee heard from many witnesses who expressed the needs and shortcomings of the current system, which, as we all know, really needs to be modernized and updated to be tailored to today's labour market. Of course, we have a number of demands. Workers who have paid premiums all their lives but find themselves in a difficult situation, like if their business is forced to shut down and they have to rely on EI, receive benefits equivalent to 55% of their income. The Bloc Québécois believes that, in the overall reform, that percentage really needs to increase to 60%. I think this is reasonable, and the rate was 60% prior to 1993. I remember very clearly when it was reduced to 55% of income. This demand remains permanent and is also being made by all the stakeholders who support the unemployed and others. In its overhaul of EI, we would also like the government to eliminate the one-week waiting period. I do not know the reason behind the one-week period, but it is in addition to the system's bureaucratic delays for those who lose their jobs. People do not choose to go on EI. They do so because they lose their jobs as a result of the closure of a business, layoffs or any number of other reasons. Because of this long waiting period, which really should not happen, claimants only receive their first payment after six weeks. At least, that was the waiting period before the government system was paralyzed, back when it was working well and the performance and service standards were met. That was in the old days. Now, someone who loses their job in early or mid-June will not receive a cheque until late September or early October, because the system is completely paralyzed. Our demands for the reform are important, and we were hoping to see them reflected in the economic update. We wanted people with a serious illness to be able to get 50 to 52 weeks of special EI sickness benefits in the event they are unable to return to work. As members know, in the last Parliament, I introduced a bill that proposed that. What is more, as we speak, Bill C‑215 has been studied in committee, and the majority of the members who sit on that committee voted in favour of ensuring that people who have a serious illness can take the time they need to fight the illness and recover their health without having to worry about their financial circumstances. As things stand now, it pains me to see people get to the end of their 15th week of special benefits when they have not finished their cancer treatments, their chemotherapy or their radiation. By the next week, they will have nothing left to pay their bills. The minister seems to be sympathetic to the situation, but I think it is unacceptable when she promises this will arrive in the summer, then in fall, then at Christmas. She keeps pushing the date back further and further. Although she has the budget to do this, she refuses to give a specific date that would give hope to those who are starting chemotherapy or radiation today or who are taking long-term sick leave to take care of themselves, so they can regain their strength and go back to work. We have talked a lot about Marie-Hélène Dubé, a woman who had cancer a few years ago and who decided to fight to have EI sickness benefits increased to 52 weeks, because she had to re-mortgage her house to meet her responsibilities and take care of herself. Unfortunately, in committee two weeks ago, she said that her cancer is back and she will not have time to heal before the end of her 15 weeks. She is reliving the nightmare she went through a few years ago. To my mind, that is unacceptable. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑32, because it does contain some good measures, but I implore the government to take a step in the right direction by quickly agreeing to reform EI and to implement the special benefits program for sick workers as soon as possible.
1331 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/21/22 3:37:28 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-32 
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. During the pandemic, the government reacted quickly and implemented special benefits through EI. These benefits ended recently, leaving a lot of workers and people in need in a tight spot. The EI program already needed to be changed and reformed before the pandemic. People have been calling for that for many years because it is an old program that needs to be modernized. I know that the Minister of Employment has shown a real interest in this and that she is running up against an outdated computer system, which is preventing her from being able to listen to workers and employers and come up with a modern EI program that is better at meeting people's needs. She also said that she is really limited by the people she works with in her department, because they need training and supervision. Quite honestly, I do not think those are good reasons for delaying or not—
164 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/21/22 3:39:31 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-32 
Madam Speaker, I think we all know the solution. It is what the premiers of every province and territory have been asking for. The solution is enough money in health transfers so that each province can make appropriate, high-quality services available to its citizens based on their priorities, their circumstances and their needs. The solution is health transfers with no strings attached because every province is different and has different social issues to deal with. I agree with my colleague that the solution is health transfers, and I hope the government will listen to Quebec and the provinces.
99 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/21/22 3:40:54 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-32 
Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns. The measures announced in this economic statement are thin, flimsy and unambitious when it comes to preventing so much money from going to tax havens. We urge the government to be a true world leader and do everything it can to prevent tax avoidance.
52 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border