- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech, which I listened to carefully.
He mentioned certain government expenditures, of course. During the pandemic, the government spent a lot of money, but one expenditure had the support of all the parties except the Bloc Québécois. That was the wage subsidy for businesses.
The Conservative Party, which raised millions in contributions from its members, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party all benefited from the wage subsidy. The Conservative Party received $1 million, the Liberal Party $1 million, and the New Democrats $260,000. They got this money directly from a program aimed at supporting businesses so they could avoid going bankrupt and having to shut their doors.
The former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, said during his election campaign that he would pay back the money taken from the wage subsidy program. I have just one question for my colleague. Has his party begun to reimburse the million dollars it took directly out the pockets of honest taxpayers?
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent's speech, and we disagree on some things.
First, I think he is generalizing when he says that only young people benefited from the CERB. That is not true. I want to see his data. I do not agree with him.
Second, my colleague talked about government spending. We agree on that, but I think he has forgotten about one expenditure, namely the wage subsidy for businesses. The Conservative Party received nearly $1 million through that taxpayer-funded subsidy, which was intended to help businesses stave off bankruptcy and keep the lights on. The former leader of the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Durham, talked about that before the election campaign.
The Bloc Québécois demanded that the parties pay back that money, which came from honest taxpayers and was not intended to fill the coffers of political parties. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the Conservative Party has begun paying back the wage subsidy that was intended for businesses.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech.
Some important people were overlooked in the government's economic statement. I am referring mainly to seniors. The worst inflation crisis in 40 years has left them vulnerable.
According to a study released last week by the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, an organization that advocates for the rights of retired and pre-retired people, in collaboration with the Observatoire québécois des inégalités, an organization that monitors inequality in Quebec, one in two seniors in Quebec do not have a livable income. These people do not have enough financial support to age with dignity.
I would like my colleague to talk about this matter, because the federal government is neglecting people aged 65 to 74. It increased old age security for people aged 75 and over, but inflation does not discriminate among seniors based on age. Groceries cost the same whether the customer is 63 or 76.
I would like to hear my colleague present the Conservative Party's vision and tell us whether he is in favour of increasing old age security for people aged 65 and over.
214 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we understand the member for Winnipeg North's point. Health transfers are not a gift that we are asking Ottawa for. We want our fair share of our money. This money comes from Quebeckers and the provinces. The federal government does not invent this money—
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the few seconds I have will not be enough to list the many problems my constituents are having with federal services.
Take immigration. It is unbelievable how much time my team and I spend dealing with immigration issues every week. People are having to take days off so they can attempt to reach Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada staff for updates on their applications. That is why they turn to their MPs for help.
Then there is the passport crisis. People have had to camp out in front of passport offices to get their documents. The government realized how bad this looked, so it sent EI officers to work at passport offices. Now people are waiting even longer for their EI benefits. The government fixed one problem by causing another. What we need is for the government to focus on its own responsibilities, which it is currently failing to carry out.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the comments from the member for Winnipeg North are giving me a feeling of déjà vu.
Giving Quebeckers the health care system they expect requires adequate financial support, but this government is not offering that. The Prime Minister made a commitment in 2020 to address the situation after the pandemic and to sit down with Quebec and the provinces to negotiate health transfers. This commitment is not new; it is nearly two years old. However, the Prime Minister did not even bother to show up when the federal Minister of Health called a meeting with all the first ministers of Canada and Quebec.
It is just not a priority for the federal government right now. The only thing Ottawa wants to do is continue trampling on provincial jurisdictions. I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell me what real expertise the federal government has in health care when—
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am excited to speak to Bill C-32 today, the bill to implement the economic statement introduced by the Liberal government.
The bill contains 25 tax measures and about 10 other non-tax measures. This may seem like a lot, but a closer look at these measures reveals that they are twofold: minor legislative amendments, and measures that were announced in the spring 2022 budget that were not included in the first budget implementation bill passed last June. Clearly, like the November 3 economic statement, Bill C-32 contains no measures to address the new economic reality of high living costs and a possible recession.
The Bloc Québécois bemoans the fact that this economic update mentions the issue of inflation 108 times without offering any additional support to vulnerable people even though there is a fear that a recession will hit as early as 2023. Quebeckers who are worried about the rising cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with the follow-up to last spring's budget. We must denounce a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers face the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are feared for the months to come.
This bill will not exactly go down in history, and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise. However, it does not contain anything harmful enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be voting in favour of Bill C-32, albeit half-heartedly, and I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about what is missing from this economic statement.
The first big thing missing from Bill C-32 is support for seniors. Still, to this day, Ottawa continues to deprive people aged 65 to 74 of the old age pension increase they need more than ever now. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so it is harder for them to deal with a cost of living increase as drastic as the one we are currently experiencing. These folks are the most likely to face tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy. Last week, a study by the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées in partnership with the Observatoire québécois des inégalités revealed that nearly half of Quebec seniors do not have a livable income. Specifically, 49% of seniors aged 60 and over do not have a decent income to live in dignity. Members will agree that helping seniors is about more than just ageism, isolation and abuse. It is about ensuring that they have adequate financial support to live and age with dignity. This is not currently the case in terms of the Liberal government's priorities.
What is more, the government keeps penalizing seniors who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Inflation, unlike the federal government, does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. It is not by starving seniors 65 to 75 that we are going to encourage them to stay in their jobs. We do that by no longer penalizing them for working.
The second thing that has been largely forgotten in this economic update is employment insurance reform, a significant measure that the forgotten are counting on. Employment insurance is the ultimate economic stabilizer during a recession. While a growing number of analysts continue to be concerned about the possibility of a recession as early as next year, the Canadian government seems to be going back on the comprehensive EI reform it promised in the summer. The system has essentially been dismantled over the years and currently six in 10 workers who lose their jobs are not entitled to employment insurance. This is because they fail to qualify and, of course, they do not meet the current eligibility criteria. That is unacceptable in a developed country like ours.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of increasing the replacement rate to at least 60%, as was the case prior to 1993.
The Bloc Québécois also believes that we need to better redistribute the EI regions to reflect the reality of workers in the seasonal industry and unemployment in the regions. In my riding in the Lower St. Lawrence area, seasonal work is a reality for many people who work hard in industries such as forestry, tourism and agriculture. These industries are important for economic vitality, but they also help build our region's unique character. They are part of our culture and heritage.
By stubbornly refusing to move forward with the necessary EI reform, Ottawa is putting our workers, our seasonal industries and our regions in a precarious situation. It is ignoring and abandoning our needs, and yet the Liberals promised EI reform in both the 2015 and 2019 elections. How many times will the federal government let Quebec's regions down?
The third thing missing here is inflation, a word we have been hearing over and over. As I said earlier, the government has identified the problem, the rising cost of living, but is not actually doing anything about it. It tells us to expect very tough times this winter, but says nothing about how to get through them. It makes dire observations about the economic situation, but dismisses any and every opposition suggestion for dealing with it. Consider supply chains, whose fragility was exposed during the pandemic. Last spring's budget named the problem 71 times, and the economic update did so another 45 times. However, neither document offers any solutions whatsoever to the problem.
In Bill C-32, the government repeats measures it took in the past and acts on announcements from last April's budget, but there is nothing to suggest it knows where it is headed. This is all déjà vu. It is a celebration of Liberal lip service, but one cannot feed one's children with fine speeches.
Another major file that Ottawa continues to ignore is health transfers. The meeting of health ministers from Quebec, the provinces and the federal government from November 7 to 9, 2022, went nowhere. The federal government showed up empty-handed and did not offer any increase in health transfers. Even worse, it lectured and insulted the provinces, accusing them of mismanaging health care. That came from a government that is incapable of managing its own responsibilities such as passports, employment insurance and immigration. That is really rich coming from the federal Liberals.
The Bloc Québécois is defending the provinces and Quebec, which are united in asking for an increase in federal health transfers from 22% to 35%, or an increase from $42 billion to $60 billion. That is a $28 billion increase per year, as unanimously requested by Quebec and all the provinces. This permanent and unconditional increase would make it possible for Quebec to rebuild its health system, which was undermined by years of austerity caused by the reduction in transfers in the 1990s. It would also help address issues related to the aging population and the additional pressure this will put on the health care network.
Those three Bloc Québécois priorities are not included in the economic update. I would like to take the time to remind my fellow members, and all Quebeckers, of what the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to do in conjunction with this economic statement. Our request was both simple and meaningful in an uncertain and difficult economic context: We asked the government to refocus on its fundamental responsibilities towards vulnerable people.
The measure of a society is how much care and support it provides to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. To do this, three key measures are more crucial than ever: increasing health transfers; providing adequate support to people aged 65 and over, since they are on a fixed income with low indexation that fails to offset our rampant inflation; and, of course, undertaking a comprehensive reform of employment insurance. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not think any of these measures were worth considering.
1398 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech, which I listened to carefully.
We understand that the Conservative Party's strategy is to not raise taxes and to reduce investments. I have another solution to suggest to my colleague. The government could make cuts in unnecessary areas. I would start with subsidies to oil and gas companies. As everyone knows, Canada is a world champion in this field, providing financial support totalling $8 billion a year. That is significant.
Second, what does my colleague think of the monarchy, which costs about $60 million a year? That would be another good place to make cuts.
What does he think about abolishing the Senate? In recent years, the cost to operate the Senate has not increased by 5%, 10%, 15% or 20%; it has increased by nearly 40%. People are not elected to the upper chamber. That is archaic. What does my colleague think of that?
It is all well and good to go after taxes, but why not cut spending on completely useless organizations and companies that make billions in profits every quarter, like oil and gas companies?
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He spoke about many things, but he forgot some important things. He forgot to mention seniors, the most vulnerable in our society.
Once again, we do not understand why the Liberal government continues to discriminate against seniors. It did so in August 2021 when it magically came up with $500 cheques to send to people aged 75 and over.
As we know, those great magicians are unable to deliver passports, but they can deliver cheques in mailboxes the day before an election, or even the day or the week before calling an election.
Let us continue. They have increased old age security for those aged 75 and over. They have created two classes of seniors. People are eligible for a pension at age 65, but the increase to which people would usually be entitled is only for those aged 75 and over. How can this government continue to discriminate against seniors?
We see that again with this economic update, despite the raging inflation. We are dealing with the worst inflationary crisis in 40 years, yet the government is doing absolutely nothing for the most vulnerable, who are having to turn to food banks. In my riding, demand is growing. People have to make agonizing choices between food and medication.
When will this government do something for seniors?
227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. We disagree on so many things, but there is one thing we do agree on. In Canada, Quebec and the provinces are of one mind when it comes to increasing health transfers. This sanctimonious government, which professes to be doing good things in certain areas, such as health, but is not capable of doing anything good in areas that are actually within its purview, is trying to tie conditions to a health transfer increase. Let me reiterate that this is a unanimous request to increase transfers from 22% to 35%.
Would my colleague please state, for the record, whether the Conservative Party supports increasing health transfers from 22% to 35% as soon as possible with no strings attached?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
