- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
- May/29/23 7:46:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, during the pandemic, we saw significant gaps in the social safety net, especially Canada's social safety net, which led to the use of a set of temporary measures. Naturally, all parties quickly agreed to them. One temporary measure after another was implemented. Ultimately, these measures were poorly targeted and very costly.
Although it does not want to do so for China, does the government plan to launch a public inquiry into the reasons for these gaps in our social safety net so that, in the event of another crisis, we need not reintroduce the temporary measures one by one, since we know how costly they will be for taxpayers and future generations?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, this is the first government budget that we could describe as a postpandemic budget. Obviously no one here in Parliament is to blame for the virus. However, the programs that might have helped us to get through the pandemic at the time are the responsibility of this Parliament. We need to learn important lessons and make corrections. We also need to prepare for the next crisis that could arise.
The government boasts about having signed agreements with the provinces on health. These agreements were imposed. Out of the demands that were made by the provinces and Quebec, only $1 out of $6 was granted. Before the Liberals came along, the transfers covered 24% of provincial health costs. Now they cover just 22%. With these new agreements, which are not real agreements, we are back to 24%. They are perpetuating the chronic underfunding of health.
Does the minister recognize that the federal government's chronic underfunding has left us short on hospital beds and that the measures to counter the pandemic, which hurt our economy, had to be excessively extended?
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe you have the wrong riding and you meant to recognize the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.
22 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when we suggested some improvements to the short Bill C‑12, I heard some Liberal Party members talk about how making improvements is partisan. That explains a lot. I am starting to understand them more.
I can be slow to catch on, so I would appreciate it if my colleague could explain why, after seniors have endured 21 months of reduced benefits, it is partisan to ask for the payment to be adjusted as of March.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the merits of Bill C‑12. We know that it is an error that will be corrected.
Nevertheless, we also would have liked to propose amendments to this bill. I know that the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the bill is only five lines long.
I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary is aware that the word “March” is only five letters long and could easily be slotted into this bill.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly what the minister said, the payment will be made only in July because the calculation is updated in July.
If I were to accept this explanation, I would have to ask the minister why the correction was not made last July given that the Bloc Québécois finance critic pointed out the problem to the government in April 2020.
Why did the government decide to trigger an election instead of correcting the problem last July and looking after seniors?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, we met with the minister about 21 months ago to fix the guaranteed income supplement problem.
Then the Liberal government decided to call an election. After the election, it decided not to recall Parliament, not to sit, essentially. Can my colleague explain that problem?
Why would the government have done that?
I am having a hard time understanding.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are talking about people with limited access to the Internet, but in general, I would say that it is important to take care of all seniors. As I said before, these people gave their all. They built our communities. They are active members of society. They are still involved. They deserve all the help they can get.
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely. Another member made that point earlier. It is always hard to get money from Ottawa, except for the banks. Certain government offices need to be more available to seniors and vulnerable people, rather than to Bay Street.
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, generally speaking, the policy is problematic in terms of transparency and understanding. It is very difficult for seniors and many other people to understand certain rules. We need to recognize that. As I said in my speech, when many intelligent people have a hard time understanding a rule, it could mean that the policy is not properly designed and needs more work. I think we should always keep that in mind.
That is an excellent question. I thank the hon. member.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if the member was a sovereignist like me, he would know that I commented extensively on the Quebec pension plan at the Caisse de dépôt et placement. I think he is getting mixed up. If he would like to cross over to this side of the House and support sovereignty, I invite him to do so.
In 2015, the members opposite boasted about reducing the retirement age from 67 to 65 years of age. Once the Liberals were elected and the time came to help seniors, they decided that people only become seniors once they turn 75. I think they should sell mirrors here, in the boutique.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a society is judged by the way it treats those who built it.
If the motion as moved is adopted, low-income seniors will have gone an entire year without their most significant source of income. The Liberal government deserves to be harshly judged for that.
To receive the guaranteed income supplement, a person needs to have worked and to be retired. The people whose GIS payments have been cut since July 1, 2021, are vulnerable seniors who lost a spouse, who were unlucky in their career or who continue to work after age 65, 67 or 69. It is unacceptable.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé, Beauport—Limoilou, Manicouagan, La Prairie, Jonquière, Terrebonne, Joliette and Montcalm. They are all members of the Bloc Québécois caucus who have teaching experience. We cannot have enough teachers in the House because the Liberals are slow to learn.
The chair is neutral, and she knows that repetition is a teaching tool. We will therefore repeat that the wording must be changed. In the motion, the date needs to go back to March so that our seniors can get their payments immediately in March. Some progress has been made, but the payments need to arrive as soon as possible, and that is not what we have before us.
We will likely be told that it is not possible to do this immediately, because there are obstacles. The Bloc Québécois sent two letters to the minister and asked countless questions in the House. Our finance critic met with the minister on April 19, 2020, not 2021, but 2020. Nothing has been done to this day.
Trying to work with the government feels a bit like a waltz. The music starts, you take the first few steps and then, after three or four turns, you realize you have just moved around in a circle. Here we are today, still trying to get the payment moved up to March. That is the problem.
I know that the Liberals will say that they want to fast-track the motion, that we need to move quickly because this is urgent. However, the date set out in the motion is this summer. I do not understand why the Liberals are in such a rush to take their time, or why they want to hurry up and wait. Why pass this motion right now if they do not want to change the date? I need someone to explain it to me in simple terms, because none of this makes sense.
The date is critical. When someone is deprived of their income, that is critical. Things can be done quickly. I know that the government can move quickly when it wants to. For example, just before the last election they got $500 cheques sent out very quickly, without any problem. I therefore do not see why there would be a problem here.
I spoke in the House this week and asked for funding for health with no strings attached, funding for mental health and transfers. One of my colleagues across the way told me that I was out of touch with reality for asking the federal government for funding with no strings attached for programs that fall under provincial jurisdiction, Quebec jurisdiction.
I am given to introspection, so I thought about it. I wondered why he told me that and whether I was off-base. After thinking about it, I realized this week that the members on the other side of the House are living in the Liberal fantasy world.
It seems like a great place to live. It is a world where inflation does not exist for seniors and grocery and housing prices have not gone up. It is a world where the people who receive the GIS do not need it. Basically, it is a world where there is no gravity, because gravity is what makes us keep both feet on the ground and makes us think about the real people who need that help right now.
For instance, a woman who is over 70 came to see me at my riding office in Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac. This woman closed her business last year. She earned very little and was unable to continue working, so she applied for the CERB. She was not given a choice as to the amount; it was a one-size-fits-all payment. Not long ago, she realized that her GIS would be slashed.
There is another woman, a 67-year-old from Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, whose GIS was cut off because she had earned a little money. She was not the only one to be cut off; her spouse was as well after he applied for the CERB.
We could talk about others, such as a 65-year-old woman from Mirabel who had earned a few dollars the previous years, was unable to continue working to make ends meet, applied for the CERB and now no longer receives the GIS. Those are the types of cases and people we are talking about.
Members on both sides of the House are getting to know me, and some must be thinking that the member for Mirabel has a flair for drama. However, I am simply repeating comments from officials with the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, a Quebec seniors' advocacy group, who are describing this as a “tragedy” for the most vulnerable seniors. “Tragedy” is a direct quote, for that is the exact word they used.
People from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, a Quebec association that advocates for the rights of retirees and pre-retirees, are saying the same thing. At a meeting I had with them, they identified this administrative error as a major problem. I want to take this opportunity to recognize Pierre Lynch and Lorraine Brunelle, who sat down with me to explain how this absurd error is having a daily impact on the budgets of those seniors who need it the most.
When people who have their GIS taken away call our constituency office, we help them. We call the CRA. The answer we get is that they knew it was going to be calculated this way when they applied for the CERB and they should have planned ahead.
I spend time with seniors. They are intelligent people. They are the ones who built Quebec, who built our society, who paid taxes their whole lives, who built the houses we live in. They are also the people who taught me and made me the person I am today. They did the same for my colleagues, and I have to admit that, in many cases, they produced good results.
These people are capable of figuring things out. However, when the program was introduced, nobody was able to figure out that it would be calculated the way the government calculated CERB income to determine the GIS.
In teaching, there are rules. I am going to add this one. When we explain something to a whole lot of people but nobody understands, that is our fault.
When we create a program nobody understands, the fault lies with the government that created the program. It is a mistake, and the mistake needs to be fixed.
Our seniors are important. That cannot be overstated. Our seniors have suffered as much as anyone else. They are part of our society. They are active members of our society and our communities.
Recognizing that a mistake has been made is a sign of intelligence. In this case, one half of the mistake has been corrected. The government recognized that there was a miscalculation and that action had to be taken. However, time is of the essence. It is winter, seniors have bills to pay, and prices are going up. We must look after them and ensure that they start getting these payments in March.
1374 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
