- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Bloc Québécois
- Thérèse-De Blainville
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $122,743.44
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I believe the member is sincere when she talks about environmental values and protecting the environment. However, I still see a contradiction. I would not wish to praise the current government's policies on climate change, far from it, because they fall short. Protecting the environment means investing substantially to counter the effects of climate change. I believe this value is completely contrary to what her party is advocating, which is to continue to contribute to the growth of the oil and gas sector.
Could the member explain how it is possible to protect the environment while at the same time continuing to build on an energy source that is no longer—
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the government does not address the important issues in this budget. It is unbelievable. We need to support these people. They are already contributing to society. They are prepared to lend a hand, but the government is penalizing them. Basically, not only is the government not supporting them, but it is telling them to stay home. I find that unacceptable. I am sure that my colleague hears a lot about that in his riding.
The Government of Quebec made changes to the Quebec pension plan to address these issues. We would have expected the federal government to do the same. The Bloc Québécois very clearly requested tax measures to support this contribution in the current demographic context.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, although some people had their meagre CERB supplements cut, I think some compassion is in order.
Concerning people with disabilities, I am proud to say that support is still available in Quebec. People with disabilities are not different, they are unique and should be treated as such. In other words, they are fully entitled to social inclusion. Every effort must be made by and for them.
We have one major concern in this regard. I think that CERB clawbacks, such as those that have affected some of our seniors, should involve at least some degree of amnesty.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with regard to the member's second question, the government has restored the age of eligibility for the old age security pension to 65, and that was the right thing to do.
However, even though they restored the age of eligibility for the pension to 65, they are abandoning seniors. The elderly are no longer taken into consideration.
The D'Amours report is from another era; it is 10 years old. Yes, I am aware of it, as I was working with the unions at the time. Now it is 2023, and we are in an inflationary economic climate in which seniors have two concerns: housing and their safety. Overall, 60% of seniors live on a fixed pension as their sole source of income.
In my view, it is a disgrace that the Liberal government has decided to abandon seniors and discriminate against them in this way.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madame Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to exchange and share my views as an elected member on Bill C‑47.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to offer my warmest thoughts to all residents who are currently facing unprecedented fires in Quebec, but also elsewhere in Canada. I do not know if there are still climate deniers, but I think we must all resolve once and for all to take action to counter and prevent these phenomena.
I would also like to acknowledge everyone on the front lines who is supporting Quebec and ensuring that our natural resources and our citizens are protected, now and in the future.
As a member who is called upon to play the important role of legislator in the House, I find it difficult to have to once again debate a 430-page omnibus bill that amends 59 acts, in addition to the income tax regulations. I find it difficult to have to take a position on such a bill.
The government had promised not to do that anymore, and yet here we are faced with an omnibus bill once again. I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette, who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance and who has done an amazing job at trying to find the best and ensure the best. However, we know that this situation becomes almost impossible. I do not think it is worthy of the work we do here.
I will touch on another point. As elected members, we have a duty to properly represent the people in our ridings, particularly during budget periods. I am certain that I am not the only one to do so. We know that the budget tabled in Parliament will affect many aspects of their daily lives. It is sad to see that the main issues are not being addressed. In my riding, I did a prebudget tour to understand the priorities and realities, to hear ideas from our fellow residents about priorities to be considered to improve their daily lives.
Recently, I even went on a tour of seniors' residences. Health is always the first issue people raise. We hear about everything that is happening, at least in Quebec. We hear about the burnout and the conditions for workers who have been on the front lines for a long time. Unfortunately, this budget does not in any way address the reality of health and social services in Quebec.
As we know, Quebec and the other provinces were calling for a substantial increase in the Canada health transfers they receive. They did that for a reason. This increase would enable them to fulfill one of their main responsibilities. Once again, however, the government decided to use its spending power to slash these health transfers. In addition, it decided to put money into a dental care program that will be difficult to implement because dental care does not fall under federal jurisdiction at all. The federal government is interfering in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces instead of investing its fair share to strengthen our universal public health care systems. That is one of the priorities, but there is nothing in the budget about that.
The same goes for seniors. There are no measures for them. I already know what the government will say in response. It will say that it is here for seniors and that it increased old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over.
At the federal level, however, OAS is almost universal as of age 65. The government has decided to leave seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 out in the cold. When I meet with seniors in that age range, they say that they are concerned about their financial well-being. They are also concerned about housing.
In Quebec, a number of seniors' residences are closing down for budgetary reasons. There are seniors who say that if they had to move out by tomorrow, they would be unable to find safe, adequate housing they could afford. These are concerns that affect the entire population. In Canada, OAS is not a gold mine. Among OECD countries, we have one of the weakest systems.
However, the government has decided that seniors aged 65 to 74 must wait. We will see. Once they have emptied out their savings, the government may change its mind. That is so ridiculous.
A real vision to support the most vulnerable would require that this budget include robust measures for seniors and for affordable and social housing, not for housing at market prices. The government is investing over $80 billion in programs under the national housing strategy. That is public money, yet we are struggling to get answers about the role it will play in affordable and social housing.
Fortunately, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently conducting a study of the financialization of housing. I believe there are things that will need to be resolved once and for all. Investing in off-market properties is the best way we can help seniors and young people, to ensure that affordable housing becomes a priority. It is a shared responsibility. The federal government has a role to play in this respect. In this budget, it is doing nothing. That is astounding to me.
There is another issue that affects both businesses and workers, and that is the labour shortage. It is not imaginary, it is a reality. I do not know about my colleagues' ridings, but the labour shortage is apparent everywhere we look. For instance, I have seen employers offering to hire seniors.
I have met with retirees and self-employed workers who might actually be interested in returning to the labour market, putting their expertise to use and being part of the workforce. However, in the current context, they are totally penalized. They already have low retirement incomes. If, in addition, the tax rules are not revised to ensure that their retirement income is not reduced, why would they go back to work?
These are people who are very involved as volunteers. They are prepared to help out in the workforce but, again, they must not be penalized for that. There is nothing in the budget in this respect.
Workers are making almost historic demands. They are asking the government to reform the only social program that exists in Canada, the employment insurance system, once and for all. In 2015, the Liberals made a solemn promise to reform the system. In 2019, the Liberals made another solemn promise to reform the system. In 2021, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and the Prime Minister committed to implementing reform. In the wake of the crisis that we have experienced, they said the system needed to be reformed and adapted to the current labour market.
Workplaces have changed. There are non-standard workers and seasonal workers. The government is turning its back on all of these people.
All that to say, this budget does not target—
1191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague truly believes what he is saying. I would not be able to sleep at night if my beliefs held that we cannot support workers.
I would remind the House that there is a universal program in Quebec, the program for early childhood education services, that has been around for more than 25 years. The Liberals have decided to feel good about themselves by introducing a similar program across Canada when that does not fall under their jurisdiction. They spent $30 billion when the people for whom the government—
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, several measures in our policies discriminate against women. Employment insurance is a prime example. When the employment insurance program was initially designed, it reflected the fact that workers work full time and that male-dominated jobs were the most important. That may have been appropriate at the time.
Now women are being discriminated against in two ways. The eligibility rules work against them because the rules are designed for those who work 40 hours a week. If a person works only 20 hours, they are necessarily discriminated against.
Then there are pregnant workers, women who carry a child and then lose their job. The rules currently discriminate against them because they will not be entitled to employment insurance if, when they return, they no longer have employment. They are no longer entitled to their benefits. They won in court and the ruling was appealed. I hope that decision will be upheld. The EI program needs to be reformed. It is essential and a matter of fairness.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this issue is extremely important.
This was another wasted opportunity. However, it may still be possible. It took 50 years to address this problem and raise the number of weeks from 15 to 26. As every study shows, this is not enough. People who are gravely ill are being left without enough protection to recover in dignity.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we hear these kinds of comments in the 10-minute speeches by my colleagues opposite.
I am not saying that these are not good things. However, the government is not addressing the basic issues, the fundamental issues, the most dire issues. The government is basically not there for workers. I can say, for example, that the appeal board is a good measure. The Liberals finally saw sense, made this change and included it in this omnibus bill. However, all the other issues—
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-47.
First, I would like to salute my constituents in Thérèse‑De Blainville. I have not done that in a while. I salute them because when I am not here in the House, it is always a pleasure to meet up with them back home to talk about the challenges they face and see all the work they are doing every day for the community. It is wonderful.
Among other things, these days, I make a point of visiting seniors in their homes to talk about their concerns in the current economic context. This relates to the budget, of course. Seniors are as worried as everyone else about inflation.
They are also worried about being able to afford housing, which is very important. Seniors may have gained a nest egg by selling their home, but now that they are living in a residence, they are exhausting the little bit of money they have left. Some of them are worried, while others are even thinking of moving and are anxious about finding affordable housing.
Seniors are also concerned about their health. They asked me what is going on with the Canada health transfers. All that is to say that their concerns are real.
I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget. We explained to seniors why we voted against it. Bill C‑47 is a translation of the budget. As my colleague was saying, this omnibus bill is more than 400 pages long and fixes 59 pieces of legislation. It is so complex, it makes my head spin. The government promised it would no longer introduce huge bills like this one that make us lose focus.
What is more, Bill C‑47 paves the way to recognizing King Charles III, which is rather mind-boggling. What a circus. I did not need to tell everyone I meet about this, because it is significant. This is what the government is focusing on when there are bigger fish to fry.
The Bloc Québécois has always said that it is here to stand up for and promote the interests of Quebeckers. We will vote in favour of what is good for them, and we will vote against what is not good for them. If that happens to be good for all Canadians, then that is good as well.
My approach to analyzing the budget is based on the definition of social safety net. A government that has a vision, that claims to be democratic, progressive and supportive of workers, should have made sure to correct certain inequities in its budget.
What is the social safety net? I am not going to give an introductory course on the subject. I am sure that people know that the social safety net is a set of social programs and public services that offer support to citizens. Two of those social programs fall exclusively under the federal government's jurisdiction. They are old age security for seniors and the employment insurance system for workers.
There is nothing in this budget about old age security. It simply maintains the discrimination that was created in the previous budget by increasing old age security only for those over the age of 75. What is the difference between a 73-year-old senior and a 75-year-old senior? There is no justification for it.
Rather than investing in jurisdictions that are in no way its responsibility, the federal government should spend money to strengthen its social programs.
With regard to seniors, Canada ranks near the bottom of all OECD countries in terms of income protection for seniors. This social safety net needs to be strengthened, and yet no mercy is being shown.
This is all to say nothing of the broken promises regarding the EI system. We have lost count of them. There is no excuse for the government's failure to state its intention in the budget to reform employment insurance once and for all. It needs to be modernized in line with the current labour market. It needs to be brought up to date and out of the last century. An employment insurance system acts as an economic stabilizer. It needs to guarantee workers who lose their jobs a minimum income that allows them to weather the storm.
The government claimed many times during the pandemic that it would take too long to reform employment insurance, saying that the EI system had too many flaws, that it was full of holes. There are a number of players involved. The government promised, virtually hand on heart, to reform EI. We are not asking for this just for the fun of it. We are asking for it because it is necessary. What does the government not understand about that?
I have said it before and I will say it again. Will the government have the courage to reform the employment insurance program, given that it knows exactly what needs to be done, or will it shamefully abandon all of the workers who pay into the EI fund?
Only 40% of workers manage to qualify for EI because the eligibility criteria are discriminatory, particularly against women and young people, most of whom hold non-standard jobs.
The EI system does not cover self-employed workers. We saw that during the pandemic in the arts, entertainment and cultural sectors, which depends heavily on those workers. The government promised to correct those shortcomings. The Prime Minister even promised to do so last summer. What is stopping the government from taking action? Is it going to use the economic situation as an excuse?
On the one hand, the government is saying that all is well, that the unemployment rate is at a record low, that there is a labour shortage and that it will not reform the system. On the other hand, the government is saying that there is a risk of a recession and that now is not the time to reform the program. That does not make any sense. The government is twisting and dodging to avoid the issue. The time to reform the EI program is now, when we are not in a period of crisis.
I think the minister has free rein to do that. She needs to have that free rein. Members of her caucus are affected; they are dealing with the fallout from flaws in the system as well. She has all the solutions in hand. We invite her, we urge her, to introduce a bill that proposes new criteria to guarantee that workers, people in the regions and workers in seasonal industries can access this social safety net. That is what needs to happen. It would have been nice to hear the government stand up and strongly advocate for what we believe to be most fundamental, and that is ensuring equity and fairness.
In closing, public services are fundamental to ensuring equity in a strong state. Robust, high-quality public services rely on decent working conditions for employees. On that note, I would like to emphasize that we support and stand with the federal employees who are currently fighting for decent working conditions in the public service.
1222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I, too, believe that social equity must be factored into a budget. What bothers me a little is that they are introducing programs that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. That was also the case in the last budget.
Dental health is very important. It is part of a holistic approach to health. Consequently, in Quebec, children have preventative care because that is where it has the most impact.
Now, the government has decided to invest $13 billion in a program that the federal government is incapable of managing. It is not investing in federal social programs, such a those for seniors and the unemployed.
What does my colleague think of the issue of weakening social programs that—
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, even though I do not entirely agree with my colleague's analysis, there is something I will agree with. I agree that workers are struggling at work and I also agree that in other regions of Canada and Quebec there are workers in situations where they lose their job and the EI program does not cover them or just leaves them behind. EI is being referred to as a payroll tax.
Does she not think that, as part of government spending, it would have been important to increase the minimum wage, enhance the employment insurance program and come up with good anti-scab legislation, which does not exist in Canada and denies workers' rights? Is that part of the programs your party is in favour of?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 11:48:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect. However, I have serious concerns.
The NDP is proud of the dental care program. Whether it is their program or the Liberals' program, I have no idea, but one thing is certain: Dental care does not fall under federal jurisdiction. If a province or Quebec decides to bring in a plan to satisfy a public need, then that is up to them.
In its Sherbrooke declaration, the NDP always said that nothing that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction should be done without negotiation, without consultation, and that the principle of opting out with full compensation should be respected.
That is already a contradiction. This is not a federal program. Meanwhile, there is no NDP support in its agreement for a federal program that workers have been pushing for, namely employment insurance. Why did the NDP leave EI reform out of its confidence agreement?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 11:00:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. His riding is is quite close to mine. I have a question for him about his government's willingness to be there for Canadians.
As we know, there are some social programs that fall under federal jurisdiction, such as old age security and employment insurance. Can my colleague explain why there is nothing for seniors in the last budget, nor anything relating to EI, despite the promises his government made in 2015, 2019 and 2021 about looking after workers?
On the other hand, why is there more than $13 billion in the budget for dental care, which is definitely not a federal jurisdiction?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
