44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 21, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, my colleague did an astute job of outlining the problems affecting the people in her riding.
In addition to all the problems she referred to, there is the fact that some of my constituents are sick and in hospital. We know that Quebec and the provinces are unanimous in calling for health transfers to be increased immediately and unconditionally to cover 35% of system costs. Since the arrival of the new Conservative leader and the bump their party has gotten in the polls, it seems like the Conservatives' support for boosting health transfers to 35% has eroded.
Can my colleague confirm today that the Conservatives support the call of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/22 2:39:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the topic of health, the Prime Minister came out of his meeting with François Legault at the Sommet de la Francophonie a changed man, I would say.
He said that Quebec is doing, and I quote, “a very good job” with data collection. It is amazing how things progress when we communicate. Imagine how much progress would be made if the Prime Minister brought all the premiers together to address the issue of transfers.
My question is simple. When will the Prime Minister invite his counterparts to a public summit on health care funding?
We have been asking for over a year.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/22 2:41:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a fine grocery list, but that is not what we are talking about.
Incredibly, this is the first time in over a year that the Prime Minister has had anything good to say about Quebec or the provinces in terms of transfers. All it took was a face-to-face meeting. In my mind, that would suggest that organizing meetings could lead to an agreement on increased funding for health care.
I have a very simple question for my colleague. Why is the federal government stubbornly refusing our request for a public summit on health funding? What is so scary about that?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/22 2:43:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec had an excellent meeting. It is easier for parties to agree when they act in good faith and want to collaborate. That is the case for both levels of government.
I will say it: The Bloc Québécois is trying to pick a fight, whereas we are trying to collaborate. While the Bloc Québécois is being difficult, we are looking for solutions.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do believe I agree with the Bloc.
We have major problems coming here. To my point about the government needing to have a bit more action and look at the basics, we do have an inflationary problem, and our solution is very simply to create more of the stuff money buys. We create more of the stuff money buys by having workers who can work in businesses.
A report that came out last week said the lack of workers in Quebec is costing the Quebec economy $9 billion, and this was just last year. The reason was that manufacturers, and they are short about 16,000 manufacturers in Quebec, could not fulfill contracts or sign new contracts, and those contracts were worth $5 billion and $2 billion. Obviously, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada is mentioning this, the lack of workers is contributing greatly and mostly to inflation. We need to fix immigration, train more people and get more workers.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I talked about the health transfers that all the provinces have requested. Quebec and all the provinces are calling for a new cost-sharing arrangement with an additional $28 billion going to the provinces.
The federal government may say that this is not immediately feasible, but it could at least promise to do it in increments. It could make a two-, three- or four-year agreement to reach that 35% target. I would remind the House that health transfers to the provinces were 50% in 1993.
This is critically important. It is what the provinces are calling for, and it is becoming increasingly pressing right now. I read a document about Ontario, where the situation is critical. In Quebec, the situation is critical in all hospitals. We need the money that is owed to us.
The Constitution very clearly states that the transfers must be unconditional.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when it comes to mental health, what is happening is terrible. Mental health problems have increased dramatically, so the amount of money that needs to be invested also needs to increase considerably.
Once again, this is a health-related issue, and health is a provincial responsibility. That is very clearly stated in the Constitution, in section 92. If the government wants to be generous, understanding and responsive to the provinces, it should simply transfer the money. Quebec has the knowledge to help people suffering from mental health problems.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my Conservative colleague for his comments and his speech.
The Bloc Québécois expected three things from this economic statement. First, we wanted health transfers with no strings attached, as Quebec and the provinces have been unanimously calling for for quite some time. There is still a consensus on that.
Second, we asked for an increase in seniors' pensions that is not based on age, because the increase is presently only for those 75 years of age and older. Those aged 65 to 74 are wondering why they are being left behind. The third item is the much-anticipated reform of employment insurance.
These are the Bloc Québécois's very simple demands. However, there is nothing in the Liberal Party's proposal on that.
If my Conservative colleague would like to share his thoughts on that, I would be very pleased to listen.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
In passing, I would like to point out that we have had the pleasure of serving together on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage since the beginning of this Parliament. I heard her talk about coal, oil and those types of resources, but I would like her to talk about another issue in connection with what my colleague from Shefford said about how we need to look for money where it can be found.
Apparently, the digital giants are not paying their fair share of Canadian taxes and are taking advantage of the public largesse. As my colleague is well aware, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is examining various bills. I would like to know whether she, too, thinks it is time that the digital giants paid their fair share and contributed to the finances of the country, Quebec and the provinces so that we can make improvements in important sectors. I am thinking particularly of health, where we have been waiting for transfers for a long time, of help for seniors and of many other issues. I am sure the member can give me some examples.
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
