- 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 thank my colleagues for their comments, which illustrate that the money provided by the federal government, by way of our taxes, I would point out, is not being invested in the right place.
Speaking of urgent needs, there are two files we have been working for years, even though they both concern federal programs and involve no interference. The federal government spends more time interfering than looking after its own affairs.
Old age security for our seniors is urgent, and so is employment insurance reform for workers in struggling socio-economic regions. These are two key measures for supporting Quebeckers. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:16:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, October 30 to November 3 is national unemployed workers week, organized by the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi.
I commend this initiative, which rallies unemployed workers' rights groups from several regions of Quebec to remind the Liberal government of its many broken promises to reform the employment insurance system.
The new Minister of Employment recently said that he wants a resilient program. If so, there is only option: a complete overhaul of the unfair employment insurance system as it currently exists.
The Bloc Québécois has been calling for such a reform, and its tireless efforts in this direction will continue. In these uncertain economic times, the need for reform is clearer than ever. Reform is not just necessary, it is urgent.
In a spirit of solidarity, I wish everyone a good national unemployed workers week.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 1:07:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in today's debate on a plan to balance the budget, I keep hearing the government, its representatives and its members say that they are investing in Canadians, that they will always be there for Canadians and that they are here for them.
Under the current circumstances, I wonder if someone can explain to me why the government is not investing in a robust EI program when there are workers who are struggling. That is a federal program. It is a federal jurisdiction. It could take action. I also do not understand why the government is so reluctant to significantly increase old age security for seniors starting at age 65. That is also a federal program.
Are you willing to invest in this area and make a significant contribution, Madam Speaker—
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 3:01:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the forestry producers are worried, as are the workers. The seasonal workers in the forestry sectors are all at a standstill with no prospect of returning to work. They are worried because all the hours they are losing today will not count toward the EI threshold at the end of the season. The government is being flexible in the short term, and we applaud that. Will the government extend the qualifying period to 104 weeks to prevent these missing hours from putting our workers in a precarious position in the fall?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize to you and to my Conservative Party colleague. I really want to commend her for this initiative.
I would even remind her that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a study in 2021 on a comprehensive EI reform. I think everyone remembers that.
At the time, the government committed to building a stronger, more inclusive and modern EI system that covers all workers, including adoptive parents. I will read recommendation 12 from the committee's report on modernizing the employment insurance program. It states: “That Employment and Social Development Canada explore the option of creating 'attachment benefits' modeled after Employment Insurance maternity benefits, to ensure equitable treatment of adoptive, kinship, customary and biological parents in the amount of time and benefits provided to bond with their children.”
In December 2021, the mandate letter of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion asked her to create a new 15-week benefit for adoptive parents.
My critique about this debate is that, once again, we have to rely on private members' bills. That was what we had to do when we wanted to increase EI sickness benefits to 52 weeks. Now we have to do it again if we want biological and adoptive parents to be treated equally. Despite the government's pretty words, and despite its repeated commitment to EI reform and all its other commitments, nothing is happening. Absolutely nothing is happening because the government seems to have reneged on its 2021, 2019, and even 2015 promise to strengthen the EI system and provide the rights that should be provided. That is not what is happening.
For example, pregnant women who lose their jobs during pregnancy are not entitled to regular EI benefits because the program's eligibility criteria currently discriminate against them. The government committed to correcting this inequity for women and committed to revising the program to ensure that the eligibility criteria do not penalize them if they lose their jobs. The tribunal ruled in favour of the women, finding that the eligibility criteria were discriminatory. The government decided to appeal the ruling rather than fix the situation. Reforming EI is the way to fix it.
Right now, seasonal workers in many parts of Canada, including western Canada, eastern Canada and Quebec, are sounding the alarm and demanding EI eligibility requirements that do not penalize their socio-economic regions. While waiting for their work to start up again, these people have to get by with no income during the EI seasonal gap, even though seasonal industries are what keep these regions alive.
The minister was asked to respond to this again recently. Regions represented by my colleagues from the north shore, Gaspé and Charlevoix depend on seasonal industries to survive. None of this will get any better without political will.
Today the Liberals will say this needs a royal recommendation, or they will claim they do not know what to do about it.
There is only one way to go about it: All the injustices, all the EI eligibility requirements need to be changed. The government needs to stop asking questions about how it should be done and just do it. It needs to seize this opportunity and correct these inequities, just as the measures proposed in this bill would do by providing adoptive parents and biological parents with equal treatment when it comes to fundamental bonding time. I invite the minister to present a royal recommendation, but I urge her for once and for all to introduce a bill to reform EI. Workers, women and parents deserve it.
615 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-318, which basically gives adoptive parents the same rights as biological parents by providing adoptive parents with the same 15 weeks of benefits that biological parents get. The Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of this bill, which will ensure fairness for all parents.
I can think of many arguments to support this cause. One is the importance of having time to bond with the child. This bond is important from the beginning. Adoptive parents also need time to prepare for the child's arrival. Children from newborn to six months old bond as strongly with adoptive parents as with biological parents. After the age of six months, it is more complex.
The average age of children waiting to be adopted is now six years. How effectively that bond develops will depend very much on the past experiences and traumas that adopted children may have had. If the bond does not develop properly, it can lead to many behavioural problems. On average, adopted children have more problems in this area. In many cases, adoption can also be seen as a healing and recovery process for the child.
We also know that children may need professional services, and adoptive parents must have time to arrange that. There are legal standards and international standards. I believe that all levels of government must fight discrimination against adoptive parents.
The important thing is that children's rights be at the centre of this debate. We know that in many other countries, adoptive parents get the same rights, services and benefits as biological parents. The government side has already announced that this private member's bill will need a royal recommendation. I will come back to that.
With respect to the right to equal and equitable treatment of both biological and adoptive parents in relation to bonding time, the Government of Quebec announced in December 2019 that the amount of parental leave granted to adoptive parents would be brought in line with the amount granted to biological parents, and that measure came into force in 2020.
I sincerely want to commend those responsible for the Time to Attach campaign, as well as Ms. Despaties, founder and executive director of Adopt4Life, for their determination. I also salute Mrs. Falk of the Conservative Party for introducing this bill. Finally, a petition sponsored by Ms. Gazan that collected more than 3,000 signatures was tabled on January 30, 2023.
As stated earlier, this is an issue that goes beyond partisanship. I would like to recall for members, and Mrs. Falk will remember—
447 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
- Feb/3/23 11:38:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what people are going through with EI right now is a fiasco. It is just like the passport crisis, only this time, the federal government's victims are not waiting to travel, they are waiting to buy groceries. Service Canada is more like “no-service Canada”.
This government is just lurching from one crisis to the next. It is over here putting out one fire while two more are breaking out over there.
When will the minister make sure Service Canada can actually provide services to people?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 11:37:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, employment insurance delays are longer than ever. Currently, one-quarter of EI applications take extra time to process, and more than half of those take over 50 days. That means people with no income are waiting 50 days.
Officials even advised people without jobs to use food banks or get their partner to support them. The kicker is that, while all this is going on, the minister has been cutting her employees' hours of work.
When will she do something about this fiasco?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for her question, and I would like to acknowledge her very moving speech.
The employment insurance system discriminates against women in several ways.
First, it is often women who work in non-standard jobs. Because of the current EI rules surrounding eligibility criteria, it is very difficult to qualify for employment insurance when you work in a non-standard job.
Second, pregnant women who lose their jobs while on maternity leave or upon return from maternity leave are no longer eligible for EI. That is another way that EI rules discriminate against women.
Women won a court battle, yet the government has not even corrected this. What a disgrace.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, seriously, with respect to EI reform, apart from nice words and good intentions, nothing is happening. The government had promised it seven years ago. Now, we are hearing nice words about how EI needs to be reformed and adapted, but nothing has been done. The government has had to cobble together some measures from scratch because there are gaps in the system.
It eliminated measures that existed in September and that could have made a big difference for workers in the seasonal industry. This for me is the winter gap. The government will leave workers in limbo for periods of 15 to 17 weeks with no income and no work because it changed the eligibility criteria.
Is that what the Liberal government wants?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to join in today's commemoration of the 14 women killed at École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989. The first shots were fired at exactly 5:10 p.m. We must remember, but above all, we must say, “Not one more woman”. We can truly make a difference by taking action together. I want to acknowledge all the shelter workers who are helping women flee violence. They can count on our support.
I will be speaking about the economic statement, Bill C-32, even though closure was once again invoked on the economic statement just a few hours ago. That is one time too many, because closure should be the exception in the House. It should only be used in genuine emergencies that require us to stop debate, for democratic reasons, for instance. That is not the case here, and it was not the case for many other bills. With the NDP's complicity, the government has once again missed an opportunity to take the time to make the debate fully relevant. That is what I hope to do with my speech.
The Bloc has already announced that it will be supporting the economic statement. The NDP is going to support it, and the Liberal Party wants to speed up debate. However, I hope the government will listen to our concerns about the economic statement. I hope it will listen and realize that it is never too late to act.
The Bloc Québécois asked for three things in the economic statement and Bill C‑32.
First, we asked the government to support health workers and sick patients by increasing health transfers. The government said no.
Second, we asked the government to provide proper support to our seniors aged 65 and older, most of whom are women. Seniors are being hit hard by the current economic conditions. They need appropriate support, which means ensuring that the increase to old age security starts at age 65. Seniors must not be discriminated against. That request was also denied.
Third, we asked for an urgent reform of EI, which is a federal program, a support program, a social safety net. At least, that was what it was supposed to be when it was created. It is the best economic stabilizer in difficult economic times. Again, we got no response, just radio silence.
The government rejected those proposals. We can only see this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers and Canadians cope with the difficult times they are already experiencing or may face in the coming months.
As the Minister of Finance said many times in her speech on the economic statement, a crisis is coming and we need to be vigilant. I would say that we need to be bold. As I was saying, EI is the ultimate economic stabilizer during a recession, and a recession may be just around the corner. Times like these may offer the best opportunity to reform the program. Perhaps we should avoid waiting until we are in the midst of a crisis. EI is also a tool for social justice that protects workers from the ups and downs of the market economy.
While a growing number of analysts are concerned about the possibility of a recession as early as 2023, the Canadian government seems to be going back on the comprehensive EI reform it promised in the summer.
On June 6, we asked the Minister of Employment a question here in the House about when we could expect the EI reform to happen. The minister responded as follows, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard to modernize employment insurance. Quickly, when we got into the pandemic, we recognized that the EI system had not kept up with the way Canadians work. That is exactly why we are working to improve the system in terms of adequacy, in terms of access and in terms of the individuals who pay in and who do not yet have access.
What we do know, however, is that the system, which has not been reformed in 15 years, is so broken that six out of 10 workers who lose their job are not entitled to EI. It is shameful.
The government has been promising to reform the EI system for seven years. It made that promise in its 2015, 2019 and 2021 campaign platforms, but nothing has been done and time is short. We definitely need to avoid a scenario where we are forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits. During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost more and are less effective. However, the government's financial forecasts prove that it does not anticipate accepting more workers' claims.
With respect to the 26 weeks of sick leave announced recently, this was a measure included in Bill C-30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago. The minister finally announced the measure, which will take effect on December 18 and only for new claimants. That is too little too late. We again decry the government’s lack of ambition. It is happy with a half-measure, and one that should have been in place last July.
According to the Canadian Cancer Society, 1 in 24 people have been diagnosed with cancer in Canada over the last 25 years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that claimants with a serious illness need an average of at least 41 weeks of benefits to recover. Therefore, even with an increase to 26 weeks, the government is leaving claimants with a deficit of 15 weeks without income. They will not be able to recover with dignity.
It is insulting, quite frankly, especially since a motion was adopted and two bills have been introduced here in the House in that regard. The Bloc Québécois introduced the Émilie Sansfaçon bill to increase EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks, and the official opposition party introduced a bill to increase sickness benefits to 52 weeks. Although a motion was adopted in the House, some parliamentarians still refuse to listen. The government has deliberately chosen to ignore the very well researched and careful advice of parliamentarians, experts and witnesses we have heard from.
As for EI reform, we are still waiting for the minister to come forward with a proposal for comprehensive reform. The temporary measures that were in place but were abolished in September would have been a good basis for reform. We still do not understand why the government eliminated them, only to go back to the status quo and the outdated system we have now.
This is despite the fact that the minister's mandate letter is quite clear. It says, and I quote:
...by Summer 2022, bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system for the 21st century, building a stronger and more inclusive system that covers all workers, including workers in seasonal employment and persons employed by digital platforms, ensuring the system is simpler and more responsive for workers and employers.
Let us just say we are a long way off. Ever heard of the winter gap?
I see that my time is up.
1223 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, many expressive words come to mind as I rise to speak to Bill C‑228 today in the House, a few hours before voting at third reading. My words are “privilege”, “honour” and “pride”.
Why? As parliamentarians we play a part in history. We have the opportunity to do something historic, namely to correct an injustice that has existed for far too many years by protecting retirement funds, the nest eggs of workers and retirees, in the event of a bankruptcy.
I do not think there should be any hesitation tomorrow when it comes time to vote. We should all stand up unanimously in the House to tell all workers and the unions that have been lobbying for years to convince parliamentarians to remedy this situation that we will finally do them justice. That is my plea today.
I would also like to commend the Conservative member for Sarnia—Lambton and thank her for her bill and for the work that was done on it across party lines with the NDP and my colleague from Manicouagan. It is really something when we are able to work together to advance the rights of workers. I really encourage the Liberals to join us. I heard the parliamentary secretary say in his speech earlier that he was still undecided about tomorrow's vote. What is there to be undecided about? There should be no hesitation on this issue.
If even just one company were to go bankrupt today, the human suffering would be terrible. A company going bankrupt results in job losses, relocations, unemployment and complete reorganization. When, on top of that, a company puts itself under creditor protection and pension plans are insolvent or have not been properly funded, retirees are faced with enormous losses to their pensions.
Consider the Cliffs mine on the north shore, or Nortel, or Aveos. There are situations like these—and this is a long list—where workers and retirees have seen all the savings they socked away during their working years melt away like snow on a sunny day.
We must remember one fundamental thing. Retirement is a deferred salary, compensation that is deferred until retirement. When a company goes bankrupt and that fund is unprotected, thousands of workers are put at risk. This concerns many workers in Canada.
I also really want to commend all the work done by my colleague, the member for Manicouagan. When Cliffs' mine on the north shore went bankrupt, she went to bat, took a stand and worked hard to introduce a bill that would protect pensioners and to ensure that this never happens again. There was one hour of debate, but at least there was debate, because, at the time, the government was against this idea. It made people aware of the fact that this should never happen again. Since then, there have been many such bills, but not one of them has passed and actually fixed the problem.
The latest bill on this subject was introduced by my colleague from Manicouagan in 2021. It was Bill C‑372, which passed at second reading and received the committee's unanimous approval. Unfortunately, it died on the Order Paper because a pointless election was called.
I said the passage of this bill would be a historic event. Fortunately, battles for pension funds are already being waged in the context of collective bargaining for unionized workers. This often causes conflict, because employers would like to make cuts to pension funds.
How many battles, strikes and disputes have hinged not only on pay, but also on pension funds? This is a difficult struggle for workers. Some workers have been left to fend for themselves after giving a company 30 or 40 years of their lives and contributing to a retirement fund. This kind of thing happens because we have never been aware of their reality or done enough to take a stand and fix the problem.
We have an important role to play as parliamentarians, because it is up to elected officials and the government to change things and bring in a safety net for our workers. The purpose of this bill is not to make pension plans priority creditors, but rather preferred creditors. The status of preferred creditor for wages is currently maintained in the event of bankruptcy.
I really must emphasize that there is no reason to hesitate. I often hear the Liberals say here in the House that they are there for the workers, that they will never let them down and that they want to protect their pension funds. Well, now is the time to walk the talk. Beyond the rhetoric, if they really want to protect workers, it is important to strengthen labour rights and protect pension funds in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy. That is what needs to be done. This should not even be a question.
It is also important to pass anti-scab legislation. Workers have been calling for this for years. It should have been brought in years ago. Labour disputes persist because, once again, employers under federal jurisdiction take advantage of the current situation to hire scabs, and this keeps the disputes going. One day, we are going to have to stand up for workers on this issue as well. It is time to stop consulting and start taking action.
Employment Insurance also needs to be reformed. The Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers and major labour organizations regularly come to the Hill to lobby to talk to parliamentarians about the reality of the working world today and to convince them to fix the situation. I do not even understand why the government is still dragging its feet on this.
The bill to protect retirement funds seeks to provide a guarantee in the event of misfortune such as an economic crisis, a recession or even a pandemic. In such situations, there are losses. In the case of Cliffs Natural Resources, even though the United Steelworkers managed to get a bit of money to the North Shore through legal means, pensions were still slashed by 9%.
A worker or retiree who is currently 80 is not going to go back to work. They end up using all of their savings just to survive. We cannot leave a single person in such a situation.
Canada is known for protecting basic rights and workers rights in the event of a bankruptcy. We have to protect their nest egg. I think it will be to our credit to adopt this bill unanimously. I want to acknowledge all the unions and every parliamentarian who decided to stand up and make this possible.
1120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 2:55:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if there were to be a recession with the same employment insurance program we have today, six out of 10 workers would be left behind.
We saw a similar scenario play out during the pandemic. The government had to create CERB because it realized that it could not abandon the 60% of people who lost their jobs.
If there is a recession, there is a risk of repeating the same scenario. That would be embarrassing, given that we saw it coming this time.
Will EI reform be added to the economic update?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 2:54:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, three days before the government's economic update, there is every indication that a recession is imminent. The government must remember that in the event of a recession, the best economic stabilizer is employment insurance, provided, of course, that workers who lose their jobs are covered. If nothing changes, six out of 10 workers will not be eligible. Comprehensive reform of EI is urgent, especially if there is a recession.
Will the economic update finally include this reform?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 2:58:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this kind of answer is no longer acceptable.
The government promised EI reform last summer. We are still waiting for it. In fact, it is a commitment that goes back to 2015. The government has been making promises for seven years all the while telling us that the reform is coming. The workers are fed up. They no longer have time to be patient only to end up being abandoned.
They are here today on Parliament Hill because they do not even qualify for EI anymore. They are in a vacuum. Will the minister's office at least meet with them?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 2:57:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a tough winter for seasonal workers in the regions. They have been abandoned by EI since the recent increase in the eligibility threshold to 700 hours. They are not facing a black hole anymore, they are facing a total vacuum.
That is why the interprovincial alliance of the unemployed is in Ottawa today. We're talking about 20 unions and worker advocacy groups from eastern Quebec and the Maritimes. They have come to tell the government that the comprehensive EI reform it promised cannot wait.
When will the government finally introduce its reform? What is the date? We want a date.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/22 2:55:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the reason the unemployment rate rose during the pandemic was because governments asked companies to close their doors and, consequently, to put their employees out of work. That happened to thousands of workers. It was the right decision, obviously, but it is the government's responsibility to deal with the consequences of that decision.
In terms of CERB, the government is paying off the debt in the consolidated fund. Why is it refusing to take on the EI debt when those benefits were paid out for the same reasons and because of the same pandemic?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/22 2:54:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, because of the pandemic, the EI fund is short $26 billion, but it is not the contributors' responsibility to pay off that debt by themselves. Neither workers nor businesses are responsible for the pandemic and its fallout. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission itself is concerned about the burden the government is putting on contributors.
Will the government take on the EI debt that has accrued since March 2020 instead of passing on the full cost of the pandemic to workers and businesses?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/22 2:41:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the pilot projects do nothing to fix the eligibility criteria. By reverting to the old EI rules without any reform, the minister is putting both workers and employers at risk.
This is a recipe for decline in the regions. The first step is to deprive workers of employment insurance, forcing them to change jobs or move. The next step is to deprive business owners of labour, forcing them to close. This is why Quebec's regions are failing to thrive.
Does the minister realize what she is becoming a party to?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
