- 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
- May/6/24 12:45:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to my Conservative colleague's speech, and I would like him to set the record straight regarding the housing crisis we are experiencing. I heard him say something that I thought was simplistic, about letting builders build and letting buyers buy.
Does he think that it is fair to rely solely on market forces in a housing crisis of this magnitude? Does he think that the market will respond to the urgent need for social and affordable housing? What measures does my colleague's political party intend to adopt that will truly prioritize social and affordable housing?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 12:00:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member’s presentation.
No one here will deny that there is a housing crisis, to be sure. We have been talking about it for a long time, and we have been providing examples to highlight the issues for a long time. The government had a national housing strategy. Is the fact that we are talking about it now an admission of failure about its own strategy? In fact, it is the provinces, cities and municipalities that are in charge of housing.
The main thing I want to say about the budget is that you can list all the measures you want, but it will not do well in the polls. You did not wow anyone. There is no wow factor.
There is a lot of interference in provincial and Quebec jurisdictions. However, when it comes to your own areas of jurisdiction, such as pensions, old age security and employment insurance, there is nothing. There is no commitment from the government to finally eliminate discrimination against seniors aged 65 to 74. There is no commitment from the government to reform the EI system, which leaves behind thousands of unemployed people.
What does the government have to say about not investing in its own programs?
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 12:32:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, one step forward, two steps back. That is the impression I am getting from this debate. We are concerned about people who are struggling with the cost of living, and we are concerned about the housing crisis that is affecting our constituents. However, the Conservatives' proposal would do nothing to correct these situations, just like the government's climate change policies.
There is one thing that could be done. Canada is a petro-state, and climate change affects everything we are talking about: the price of groceries, agriculture, housing and food. In that context, how do the Conservatives aim to present a serious plan to address climate change?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 4:53:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with most of what my colleague just said. Housing really should be seen as a right, just like food. Food and shelter are basic needs and every individual's right.
We have a collective responsibility as a society to ensure that everyone has a roof over their head, that everyone has safe, decent, quality housing. That is our collective responsibility. However, as long as housing is seen through a monetary lens, a market lens, we will not reach that goal because the market is there to make a profit.
We must not vilify the private sector. We need construction. However, we need to build housing that is actually affordable. We are falling far short on that front because a completely different approach is needed.
If there is a direction that should be taken, it is the one we have been calling for, the one that I think my colleague and I agreed on: If we want to address the current housing crisis, we need to be able to recover private markets and provide housing through non-profit organizations and housing co-operatives. We need to acquire these markets to ensure affordability.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 4:50:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know what not to do: Tell the municipalities what to do and how to do it and decide to penalize them because they are not using the conditions that everyone would like. That is absolutely the last thing to do. I listened to the Conservatives and the Liberals point the finger at the municipalities, but for the municipalities, the issue of infrastructure and the development of this type of housing is important.
I will give an example. In its new housing policy, the City of Montreal has a firm rule: 20% social housing and 20% affordable housing. Do members know what the private market does, even when there are incentives to build such housing? It chooses not to build affordable housing or social housing, opting to pay the fines instead. Instead of lecturing the municipalities, let us give them the means to do something about this so that the money granted under the national housing strategy can truly make a difference.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try my hand at interpretation at this time of the day. All I understood was that there was some question as to whether the national housing strategy was the right measure, and whether it had accomplished its mission after five years.
Personally, I would rather ask the government the following question. There are five years left in this strategy. When we returned to the House of Commons in September, the housing crisis was already bad. The government wanted to respond by introducing Bill C-56, which aims to abolish the GST on the construction of rental housing.
The government is spending $82 billion on the national housing strategy, which includes several programs. That said, a strategy is meant to be adjusted when it is not working. I would have expected the government to ask itself how it intends to resolve this situation or help resolve it over the next five years by supporting Quebec and its municipalities when it comes to social and affordable housing. That is how it is. I do not expect them to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I do expect them to make major adjustments to the strategy so it can achieve its objectives.
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:59:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who also sits on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
I am trying to understand the motion. This is a committee report on the national housing strategy. We got information directly from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, and the strategy. The report contains some 15 recommendations. Certainly, some observations can be made. Has the national housing strategy worked? If not, why?
Instead of recommitting it to the committee, the motion should say that the recommendations have not gone where they needed to go, namely to the government, so that it can take note of them and deliver results.
We already have another report on financialization. We heard from CMHC again today. I want to try to understand why this report that the committee produced has to be recommitted, through this motion, to committee instead of being approved by the government.
As it stands, I disagree.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to further explain how exempting rental housing developers from paying GST will address the crying need for affordability. How is this going to lower housing prices to help the middle class and the poorest get by?
Given that this was an NDP idea, from what I understand, can my colleague explain how this will address those needs?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do share my colleague's concern.
That is why I was wondering if getting rid of the GST on rental housing construction was the only proposed solution. We do not know how many housing units will be built. We are not getting these answers.
As far as affordability is concerned, we understand that the government cannot guarantee that, because the builder is the one who will get the GST exemption. Is the builder going to reduce the cost of the housing because it got a GST exemption out of the gate? I think that—
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is talking about big labour organizations.
At the beginning of my speech, I talked about social solidarity. Our communities are better off because of the social and public programs we choose for ourselves. Unions are major contributors to that. I was on the board of the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs for seven years, so I know that those are the kinds of actions such funds take to support the construction of affordable rental housing.
I do want to clarify something, though. Let us consider what is happening right now. Sometimes incentives are made available, but private sector builders are not interested. They would rather miss out on those potential benefits because they do not want to be obligated to provide affordable housing. They want to keep building housing for profit.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since this my first opportunity to give a speech since Parliament resumed, I would like to take the opportunity to say hello to all the people in my riding of Thérèse-De Blainville and to once again tell them that they can count on me. I reiterate my commitment to be a strong voice for them in Ottawa.
When Parliament resumed, I told my constituents that we still do not know what the Liberal government's agenda is, but, for us, it is clear that the very top priority must be the housing crisis and the financial situation of seniors. In the current socio-economic context, our choices and actions must be guided by social solidarity.
The bill before us basically deals with two things: the excise tax, as it pertains to housing, and the Competition Act. This is the government's response to a crisis that has been going on for months and, in some cases, even years. It is nothing new. I am talking about a public finance crisis, a cost of living that is far too high for our constituents and an ongoing housing crisis that is only getting worse.
I am still a little naive, and glad of it. When the government announced its big cabinet shuffle last summer, I figured it would gain some momentum and change course. A big cabinet shakeup was announced to send a message, but instead the news was full of examples of how expensive and difficult life was getting for people. Nothing came out of it. After three days we heard the word “housing”, but that was it.
I can say right now that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑56. The bill is a rushed response to show that the government is doing something about housing and the cost of living.
I am a little less naive than before, but not by much. Let me say that this bill does not go far enough and is not ambitious enough. It does not address the situation and falls far short of addressing the current situation.
As far as housing is concerned, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, reported in its January 2023 rental market report that renter households are dealing with a significant increase in costs. In 2022, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment increased by 5.6%, or double the average recorded increase from 1999 to 2022. For new renters it is even worse. The increase is nearly 20%.
If we continue to view housing as an asset then we will never get out of this mess. Housing is a right. Food and housing are basic needs. These are rights. Our response to the housing crisis, for our constituents, needs to be bold.
I think there is a sense of urgency because we are facing a housing crisis that cannot be ignored. The current government has acknowledged this crisis, but the proposed measures, especially this bill that abolishes the GST on new rental housing construction, is a drop in an ocean of needs.
It has been estimated that Quebec will need 1.1 million additional units by 2030. That is six years from now. That is tomorrow. It is an alarming situation that calls for bold, ambitious and powerful measures.
According to CMHC, costs will rise faster in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. There are several reasons for that, including interprovincial migration and immigration. Quebec will be hit much harder by the housing shortage than other regions. CMHC estimates that housing prices in Quebec will double by 2030 compared to 2019. Who is going to tell Quebeckers that their rent will be nearly double in six years? That 102% increase will be the highest in Canada by 2030, even topping Ontario. Granting a reprieve from the GST may seem like a positive measure at first glance but, in reality, it is inadequate. It is high time we adopted far more structural and ambitious solutions.
The government appointed a federal housing advocate in 2022. She wrote a report that I encourage everyone to read. She herself has repeatedly emphasized that the private sector alone cannot solve the housing crisis. Large-scale construction of social and affordable housing is the only real solution. Unfortunately, this bill offers nothing at all for social housing and does nothing to make housing more affordable. Eliminating the GST on rental housing raises questions. How many rental units will it create? How many affordable units will it create? We do not have answers to those questions. Maybe regulations will provide answers.
The answer from an economic perspective is usually supply and demand. If supply increases, demand will be met and prices will go down. There is no guarantee that prices will go down, though. There is no guarantee that this will make more truly sustainable affordable housing available. Everyone in the sector, including non-profits, co-ops and municipalities, has solutions to these problems. They understand the situation. They are on the ground. They know what is needed.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am a member, has conducted several studies on housing, the national housing strategy and the CMHC, among others. Some strong recommendations have been made, none of which are about demonizing the private sector. Instead, they suggest that it is time to look at building housing and renovating existing units. It is important to invest in what we already have, which is entirely possible.
The new Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities appeared before our committee. There are currently 4,000 housing units just waiting to be renovated pursuant to the old agreements with the federal government. However, the federal government is not letting any money flow. As my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert said, we could have housing for these people by July, but the government is dragging its feet.
Approximately $82 billion in taxpayers' money was allocated to the national housing strategy, which is now five years old. Because of bureaucracy and red tape, no energetic action has been taken to meet the public's urgent needs. Nothing has been accomplished.
Five years have passed since the national housing strategy was launched, and there are still five more years to go. The government needs to do a 180° turn.
When a strategy is not meeting the needs, then it can be changed. That is particularly true when the government is creating programs and funds in which it is prepared to invest $900 million, but then it is waiting and failing to take action.
Given the current crisis, citizens deserve answers from their elected officials. It is time to act. This bill deserves—
1142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 12:33:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the recommendations set out in that report, which was actually produced in 2022. One of the recommendations indicates that the housing accelerator fund should be largely devoted to the acquisition, renovation, and construction of off-market affordable rental housing units.
Could my colleague give us an idea of where the government is at in terms of that recommendation? How many units has that been done for to date?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 12:20:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary. We know that she is sincere in her intent to do whatever it takes to meet needs.
My colleague cited examples of organizations or groups in her community that are taking action and making a real difference for people experiencing homelessness, low-income individuals and people in the greatest housing need. There is a committee in my own riding that is working to implement this type of co-op housing to serve residents. However, we know that it can be slow going sometimes.
This fund was promoted to our towns and municipalities, but we know that it is really for municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was concerned about that. In our opinion, the fund should be for both rural areas and big cities. Should the scope of the fund not have been expanded in terms of support for municipalities?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:24:09 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. However, I do not agree with his analysis.
Let me be clear: I believe that investments need to be made, even in the most difficult economic times. Investments must be made in the most critical sectors, including health. The current government is not doing enough. It is not meeting needs. It needs to invest in housing and support social and affordable housing. Housing is a fundamental right. Again, money is being spent, but is it delivering the right results? Not necessarily.
We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I do not think it is a matter of investment. I believe that it is more a matter of determining whether the investments being made deliver value for money.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:22:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and someone who has participated in a lot of studies, I can confirm that we are not at all opposed to the idea of a strategy to support and assist the provinces. To start, we need a collective effort at all levels of government to build and deploy affordable and social housing. While this is our priority, we also need the programs to be effective.
We are entitled to ask the question when a major $80-billion investment is made in a policy that fails to produce concrete results. Instead of complicating things, we would even go so far as to say that we may have reached the point where the next step is to directly transfer a percentage of federal revenues to Quebec and the provinces, to let them handle these issues.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:11:20 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out that I will share my time with my charming colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
I thank my Conservative colleague for presenting this report to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which proposes accelerating the construction of housing.
Presenting this report to the House enables us to talk about a situation that is of great concern to us. This will not be the first or the last report to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on the subject of the dire need for housing in Quebec and Canada.
This report dates from October 2022 and is about the housing accelerator fund and the $4 billion that has been invested. Since then, we have tabled another report, which focused more specifically on the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. A motion was moved in committee because we wanted to get ideas to determine what the fund would be used to finance. We received around 40 witnesses, several briefs and 17 recommendations.
The point of getting concurrence in this report is to take stock of the 17 recommendations that were made. In our view, the government is well behind in implementing some of these recommendations.
The interesting thing is that, at the very start, the report provides context and cites the Scotiabank analysis that was published in May 2021. It reads as follows:
Canada has the lowest number of housing units per 1,000 residents of any G7 country. The number of housing units per 1,000 Canadians has been falling since 2016 owing to the sharp rise in population growth. An extra 100 thousand dwellings would have been required to keep the ratio of housing units to population stable since 2016.
Even if Canada managed to build them, we would not reach that ratio. That is troubling. The responsibility for building housing, including the affordable and social housing that we consider to be the most important, lies with Quebec and the provinces. The government brought in the national housing strategy, which has become an $80‑billion plan with several programs. It is incomprehensible. How can we make every effort to ensure that the right choices are being made in these housing creation programs administered by the CMHC? That was the question in this study, which included evidence from several witnesses.
However, one question remains, that of the housing crisis, which is very real. We are not talking about supply and demand, or housing built by private companies; the current market is doing that quite well. The concern is how the public funds allocated to the national housing strategy are being used. That is our public money. Does this funding meet the real needs of Canadians, that is, prioritizing social and affordable housing and ensuring that affordable housing remains affordable?
Sometimes, we hear that, thanks to the national housing strategy, some of the housing built by the real estate industry is affordable housing. However, the percentage of affordable housing they build is based on the average income of the population this housing is intended for.
We are way off the mark. If affordable housing is calculated based on the income of a population rather than household income, we are completely off-track. These are all issues that have been discussed and are still relevant to determine whether our strategy is effective in meeting these glaring needs.
This report contains several recommendations, including some that warrant being implemented very quickly. As there is a housing accelerator fund, the first recommendation asks that the government accelerate its implementation. That is self-evident. This first recommendation must have been a wise choice at the time. There are several measures aimed at ensuring that housing remains affordable.
The report includes evidence that is still relevant today. The Conservatives and the Liberals keep passing the buck, but I must tell the Liberals that they are the ones being questioned in the report. Where are the Liberals with regard to the 17 recommendations in the report? Have there been any results? What are the targets? Is it possible to properly monitor all the investments made? Is that improving peoples’ lives?
Several witnesses said that, if any administrative burden were added to construction projects on the market, they would not be completed. The government should prioritize solutions such as the construction and renovation of affordable rental housing. It should prioritize off-market housing and stimulate the supply of properties and housing for low- to modest-income households. There should be door-to-door incentives. The government should invest in partnerships with municipalities, the community housing sector and developers to increase the supply of off-market housing.
In our communities, whether rural or urban, there are many co-operatives and not-for-profit organizations that are very familiar with the local situation and local needs. They had good things to say about the rapid housing initiative, saying it was efficient and fast, even though they sometimes did not have time to apply, since the market just keeps heating up.
The government must speed up the process and consider each project individually. There are all sorts of recommendations, programs and funds, but are they getting the job done? How can they do better? The following are significant findings outlined both in this report and in an upcoming report about the CMHC that the government will receive. The Auditor General just said that we are spending funds, but we have no way of knowing who received them regarding homelessness. That is a serious problem. How do we house the homeless?
With its new immigration policies, the government wants to increase Canada's population even more. It does not even realize that we already have problems finding enough affordable housing and that housing must remain affordable so that the entire population can benefit. Its preferred immigration policy totally fails to consider social services and associated social programs such as health, education, community services and housing.
I asked the question myself: Now that the government has reached the mid-point of the national housing strategy, would CMHC and the government like to take stock and shift strategies to assess how, over the next five years, we can raise the bar and meet people's needs?
The housing crisis is a reality, not some intellectual conceit. Social housing and affordable housing must be the priority.
1084 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:22:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, for moving concurrence in this report.
At committee, we produced a few reports on housing. One is recent and could be submitted to the House. It deals with the financialization of housing. I would like to have my colleague’s opinion. I think there is a lot of emphasis in that report on the fact that it is important that the national housing strategy make every effort to support affordable housing. There is a housing crisis and it must be feasible to provide support.
Does my colleague agree that the measures and programs under the national housing strategy need to be strengthened in order to prioritize the idea of affordable housing?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 12:52:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my question is going to be simple.
With all of the solutions it is proposing, I think the Conservative Party motion is suggesting that we keep doing things that are not working. It is not a question of construction. Housing is being built, but the problem is access to social and affordable housing. That requires specific strategies, not a construction strategy. Construction is happening in both urban and rural areas. These units are offered up to market forces, but the market will never succeed in making housing affordable, because that is not its mission. Meeting long-term needs is not part of its mission either. If we want affordable housing, we need a paradigm shift. We need to redirect that money out of the market.
Does my colleague agree with this analysis?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 11:20:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has good reason to criticize the Conservatives' policies, but I think that she needs to remove her rose-coloured glasses when it comes to the Liberal government's national housing strategy, and particularly the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy.
Even though there is currently a policy in place, we know that the results have not been at all compelling. I would like to know what the government intends to do. This strategy was studied extensively by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, but it is not working.
What—
107 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
