- 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/24/24 12:42:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I hope he knows the answer.
Since it began, the labour movement has not only advanced workers' rights but it has also helped society as a whole to progress, with greater social justice, greater equality and greater fairness. The unions did this not just for workers' rights but for all citizens. History shows that.
In Quebec, these struggles were important. Progress was made during the Quiet Revolution, when the socio-political context was difficult and there were bitter disputes. The unions played a part in and contributed to the evolution of society and established—
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/24/24 12:36:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, every province has its own jurisdictions. Every province decides on the social progress it wants to make with respect to labour law. In Quebec, that is it.
After 46 years, the federal government is now saying it is pleased with what is happening. It would have been even better if the government had the courage to include federal public servants in the bill. It would have been even better if the bill had come into force as soon as it received royal assent to eliminate the possibility of any further use of replacement workers.
There is still some work to be done here.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in 1977, under René Lévesque's Parti Québécois government, the Quebec Labour Code banned the use of replacement workers.
The Quebec labour minister at the time, Pierre Marc Johnson, said the following when the legislation was introduced, and I quote: “The purpose of this measure is not to automatically close factories during a lockout or legal strike, but rather to restore a healthy balance between the parties and eliminate practices that cause tension and violence during labour disputes.... Workers, not companies, are the first to suffer as a result of a work stoppage, and letting the employer carry on as though nothing is wrong during a lockout or legal strike creates a fundamental imbalance between the parties.”
This was a major step forward for workers' rights in Quebec and a defining moment in the history of the labour movement and its struggle.
Today, 46 years later, Bill C-58 seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code to ban replacement workers. Bravo, or should I say, “it is about time”?
It is certainly a step forward for the rights of federally regulated workers, but above all, it is making up for lost time. The fate of thousands of workers and their right to bargain and to strike has been, continues to be and will continue to be undermined by this inexcusable delay, at least until the bill comes into force 12 months after receiving royal assent.
The effects of this injustice are still being felt. Quebec workers live under two systems. Federally regulated workers in Quebec who are currently in a dispute are paying the price for this injustice. Think of the port of Quebec workers who have been locked out for nearly two years. The employer is using replacement workers. No one is talking about it. No one is working on fixing this because it is business as usual. This is unacceptable.
Think of the Vidéotron employees in Gatineau, who are also locked out. In that telecommunications sector, thousands of jobs are being outsourced to call centres overseas. They too have been locked out for several months, and replacement workers are being used.
At the port of Sorel‑Tracy, the United Steelworkers went on strike for 12 months, and scabs were brought in.
I could continue to list all of the injustices and shameful practices that employers have engaged in with impunity because, to date, the Canada Labour Code has not been changed to remedy this injustice.
Unions have been calling for anti-scab legislation as part of the Canada Labour Code for a long time, and so has the Bloc Québécois. Over the past 33 years, there have been 11 bills, the very first of which was tabled in 1990 by the dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Time after time, the Liberals and the Conservatives have blocked the Bloc Québécois's bills. I myself introduced Bill C-276 in this Parliament in May 2022.
The fight was waged by unions and the Bloc Québécois, with constant prodding and the strength of our convictions. The NDP will take credit for that. It was certainly part of that struggle too and, indeed, we commend its work, just as we commend that of the Department of Labour and the leadership the minister has shown.
However, there is a “but”, and it is a big “but”. Unfortunately, we have to wonder, given the way the bill has been crafted, with the proposed implementation deadline, for one, whether there is any real intention for this bill to actually see the light of day or whether it is just window dressing, meant to look good.
Everyone knows as well as I do that there is a clear difference between fact and appearance, just as there is a difference between declared values and practised values.
From the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has condemned the fact that the initial bill provided for an 18-month coming-into-force period following royal assent. Given this time frame and the fact that we have a minority government, it is no wonder that we are questioning the intent. We proposed an amendment in committee to repeal this delay, proposing that the bill come into force as soon as it receives royal assent. This amendment was rejected by all parties, because the NDP and the Liberals had agreed in advance to propose a 12-month delay. However, the vast majority of the unions we heard from said that there was no explanation for the delay and they too wanted the bill to take effect right after royal assent. That is what it means to protect workers, and the Bloc Québécois stepped up.
When we began studying the bill, we announced that we also wanted to improve it in committee and move fast to close the loophole to ensure that the nonsense of using scabs is banned for good. We proposed carefully chosen amendments put forward by the unions. Among other things, these amendments aimed to include federal public service employees and thus correct a major omission. The government, as an employer, has excluded its own employees from the scope of the bill. We proposed a relevant amendment, but it was ruled out of order because it would amend another act. In principle, however, it is very unfortunate that the bill does not apply to federal government employees. This error needs to be corrected and I hope it will be corrected.
We also made amendments to amend or repeal sections that allow exceptions to the prohibition rule. It may seem complicated. Strikebreakers are prohibited, but there are exceptions. Among the exceptions, I would particularly mention employees covered prior to the bargaining notice. The employer is permitted to use these employees as replacements for striking employees in the event of a dispute, lockout or strike.
It would even be possible for an employee in a bargaining unit of the same employer—but in a different local—to be called upon to replace workers or colleagues during a strike or lockout. This makes no sense whatsoever. The unions have rightly denounced this. If the law is supposed to be consistent, how can certain categories of workers, such as subcontractors and independent contractors, be excluded from this restriction? That sort of thing is prohibited under Quebec's law.
We also proposed an amendment to provide for an investigation mechanism that exists under the Quebec code. If the government wants to impose sanctions, if it wants to be tougher, it has to give the Canada Industrial Relations Board the means to do its job and investigate if the employer breaks the law. Employees cannot do that. Employees who are on strike or locked out cannot enter the factory or their employer's premises. An investigator would have to be called in. This amendment was also rejected.
We had also proposed an amendment to reduce the time limits for the Canada Industrial Relations Board orders so as not to unduly interfere with the strike. All these amendments were rejected.
We are disappointed that these proposed improvements were rejected. They are essential for ensuring the consistency of the bill's objective of fully recognizing the fundamental right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike. However, we can be proud that we put them forward, stood by our convictions, and listened to and supported union demands in the fight for workers' rights.
If the past is any indication, an opportunity to reform the legislation is unlikely to come around again any time soon. This supposedly historic bill deserved more care and attention to achieve its objectives. I hope that history will vindicate the struggle of workers and finally rectify the injustice they have laboured under for so many years.
1339 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 11:40:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was a very passionate speech. I think the Conservatives have made their stance on the carbon tax abundantly clear. It sank in a few months ago that they do not want it. They want to abolish it. Fortunately, it does not apply in Quebec.
This tax is meant to fight climate change. If the carbon tax goes away, how exactly will the Conservatives fight climate change?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 9:39:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am somewhat troubled—actually I am extremely troubled—by this determination to completely disregard all the social programs that exist in Quebec and the provinces, suggesting that Canada is going to swoop in and save the poor provinces by implementing a dental care plan, when Quebec has one that is governed by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec and not by private insurance.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question. Instead of interfering, would her party be willing to substantially increase health transfers, if it forms the next government? This federal government is starving Quebec and the provinces when it comes to health care. Then it invents and proposes all sorts of programs from coast to coast to coast that do not meet the needs—
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 8:31:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what measures the budget contains that will strengthen federal programs, like EI and OAS, or reduce wait times for services like immigration or Service Canada. What measures has the government implemented to strengthen its own social safety net programs? That is my question.
For my comment, I would point out that it is easy to say that members who vote against the bill are voting against food programs in our schools, but food programs in our schools come under Quebec's jurisdiction. Housing comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. Health comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. The reason we are voting against it is because the federal government is not minding its own business.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 6:14:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is very important and you did the right thing. We have to protect our interpreters, who perform such essential work in the House.
There is one problem with my colleague's proposal: Social safety nets and social programs are not Ottawa's responsibility. They fall under provincial jurisdiction. One basic principle of a guaranteed minimum income is that it would replace other social programs, thereby preventing vulnerable people from falling through the cracks, which we do not want.
What social programs would basic income replace? Considering that all the social programs are in Quebec, and that our social programs are strong, I do not think that we are debating this issue in the right place. In Quebec, for example, we have other social safety net programs apart from EI. EI comes under federal jurisdiction because Quebec constitutionally agreed to give it up. I think that was a mistake. It should be repatriated, but how we repatriate programs under the Constitution is another matter.
Most of the programs are Quebec initiatives. I am talking about the social solidarity program, the occupational health and safety program, the Quebec pension plan, the child benefit and the disability benefit. Since 2023, in addition to the social solidarity program, Quebec has had a basic income program to help people who have severe employment restrictions. It may not be a livable income, but it is a very important social safety net program.
I am going to talk about our universal early childhood education services program in Quebec. It is a social safety net program for everyone. For families or parents who have social solidarity income, there is no contribution. From an equity perspective, we want to ensure that we have a significant social solidarity safety net and major social programs. In Quebec, we have shown that social programs help support the most vulnerable, those we need to help.
All this to say that these social programs belong to Quebec. It is constitutional. Adding a guaranteed livable minimum income at the federal level is like saying that Quebec's social programs are being transferred to Canada. That is a no. That would be against the Constitution and I do not think it would be beneficial. Let me explain.
One of the programs that is part of Canada's social safety net is employment insurance, although that is no longer a true social safety net. It has become an insurance plan that six out of 10 workers cannot access, despite having paid into it, and one that self-employed workers cannot access. In addition, people who work in atypical jobs, primarily young people and women, cannot access it because of its strict criteria. When it was first introduced, it was meant to be a social safety net against the worst thing that can happen, that is, losing a job. I think we need to strengthen the social safety net and its programs.
We talked about the guaranteed income supplement. The GIS is the social assistance component of old age security. The federal government ranks poorly among OECD countries when it comes to support for seniors, and to compensate for the low incomes of some OAS recipients, they receive the GIS. Ideally, the government should not need to provide the GIS. Instead, it should guarantee seniors a universal OAS benefit starting at age 65 that would bolster their incomes and raise their standard of living. However, these are not the choices the government has made, nor are they matters of federal jurisdiction.
Other social safety nets such as health and education are also the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Back in the day, the federal government, which has the spending power, signed a health pact with Saskatchewan, Quebec and all the provinces. The provinces had passed health legislation guaranteeing free universal medical and hospital care. Under the pact, the federal government was to fund 50% of the costs of the health care system. We are a long way away from that. We have gotten further away over time. These days, the government covers barely 25% of these costs.
Are we going to trust the federal government to manage the social safety net programs that Quebec has adopted? The answer is no. It is clear from the examples I gave that, on the contrary, the government is making people poorer. That is what is happening with the new disability benefit. When the budget was tabled, we were shocked to see that the intended objective would not be—
752 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill. I want to commend my NDP colleague for initiating this debate on a guaranteed livable basic income.
We need to know how to recognize the social issues in our society, such as guaranteeing everyone enough income to live. In Quebec, there are studies that talk about a livable income, which is more than a minimum income. This type of income is supported by Quebec's Institut de recherche et d'informations socioéconomiques. That, too, is an interesting concept. No matter what region a person lives in, they need more than just a basic income. That is where the concept of livable income comes from. We addressed this issue during the study of Bill C‑319, which pertains to seniors.
All that to say, I do not believe that prosperity alone will bring about equality or equity. It takes robust social measures to ensure income equality in our societies.
As many know, no matter what it is called, be it guaranteed minimum income or universal allowance, this idea is not just being championed by the left. The right has also has also used it in its own way, saying we should dismantle social programs and give everyone a basic income. That, too, is a vision.
In Quebec, similar discussions have taken place regularly, particularly since the 1960s, when labour activists promoted them. Then the pandemic hit and nine million jobs suddenly vanished, laying bare just how fragile the system is. EI used to be a social safety net, but sadly, it no longer plays that role. During that time, we saw just how many people fell through the cracks.
These debates are ongoing in Quebec, in the other Canadians provinces and internationally. In Quebec, as I said, we have been having this debate since the 1960s.
Sorry about the noisy papers.
315 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:32:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is no surprise to me that these major labour organizations are calling for this, because I used to work for them.
We fought for universal pharmacare for over 20 years. That struggle is what led to the system we currently have in Quebec. Our hybrid system is not perfect and could be improved. I believe that people want to continue with it.
I am very pleased to hear for the first time that the NDP agrees with us about the right to opt out with full compensation, because neither the bill we are studying nor the agreement to keep the government in power mentions this condition.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:30:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to lob that question back at the parliamentary secretary and ask him if the Liberals really intend to implement universal pharmacare across the country. It just does not make sense.
It is not that universal pharmacare does not make sense. It is that it does not fit into a context where Quebec already has a pharmacare program that covers thousands of drugs.
It makes no sense to impose such a program without the right to opt out with full compensation in an area that is under Quebec's jurisdiction. Quebec even questions why this program only covers diabetes and contraceptives. The government is not following through on its commitment.
I have a feeling these meddling federal policies will continue for a long time to come. They may suit the rest of Canada, but they in no way meet the needs and interests of Quebec, which already has its own system. Yes, it needs some improvements, but not with federal conditions.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:19:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. My colleagues are going to hear something similar, because the Bloc Québécois is here to defend Quebeckers' interests. This budget does not live up to the needs, interests or aspirations of Quebeckers or the people in my riding.
It abandons seniors, workers and the unemployed. It erodes their confidence and ours. We have made it clear: the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the budget. We have always said that if something is good for Quebec, we will vote for it, and if something is not good for Quebec, we will vote against it. This budget and its implementation bill clearly do not live up to Quebeckers' needs or aspirations at all.
It is a shameful attempt to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction on a number of levels. It interferes in health and education, as well as clean energy when it comes to Hydro-Québec, which we are proud to say is ours. It also interferes in housing and other areas.
The government could show a bit of sportsmanship. We asked for something in a motion presented to the House. We wanted Quebec to have the right to opt out with full compensation. However, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party voted against the motion, which respected Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
That is no small matter because, in the end, I get the impression and we get the impression that they could not care less and that they are not at all concerned. I think I have just used a parliamentary term. This is such an issue that motions have been passed in Quebec's National Assembly demanding this right and telling the three federal parties to mind their own business, stay out of our areas of jurisdiction and respect the robust health and social services and housing programs we have built in Quebec. These motions ask that they respect us and allow us to continue managing these programs that have improved Quebeckers' lives, with full compensation.
However, the reality is very different. On the one hand, the government is spending millions and billions of dollars on programs that should be under Quebec's jurisdiction and, on the other, it is not spending a dime to improve the services for which it is responsible.
When I was elected in 2019, I put one priority atop my list of three priorities: public service. In fact, I commend the people of my riding on their grasp of the issues relating to the support available to citizens, organizations and businesses. They are very concerned about these issues.
I would say that most of the files we deal with have to do with immigration. This comes under federal jurisdiction in many regards, particularly with respect to newcomers, asylum seekers, visa applications, sponsorship applications and family reunification applications. The processing delays are unacceptable.
Underprivileged, disadvantaged people come to see us regularly to inquire about the status of their file. These delays fly in the face of our humanitarian duty to these individuals. What is the government doing? Where in the budget does it say that these unacceptable processing delays will be reduced? Where in the budget does it say that action will be taken on immigration policy to respect Quebec's demand and integration capacity? In this case too, the stated requirements are completely ignored, which is to the great detriment of those we welcome here. Indeed, in Quebec, our integration policy is important, just as much as our policy on newcomers' French language training. In order for these policies to be respected, Quebec needs leverage, just as it needs a federal immigration policy that does not impose delays or conditions that ultimately erode our capacity. We stand against this.
The Phoenix pay system is the responsibility of the government, which employs thousands of people in the federal public service. When it was elected in 2015, the government made a firm commitment to changing the Phoenix pay system to make it fairer and more equitable. I heard the parliamentary secretary say in his speech this afternoon that the budget was fair and equitable. Is it fair and equitable to allow the situation to continue without investing in a pay system that does not help attract or retain employees who make a real difference in people's lives? The federal government is investing nothing in the organization of its own services. I even read recently that it may use artificial intelligence to help with the problem. It is embarrassing.
As for employment insurance, I no longer know what to say or what tone to take. The Conservatives often talk about these eight years under a Liberal government. I do not share the opinion that the Liberal government is responsible for every problem. However, when it comes to failing to fulfill a commitment to workers and, by extension, the unemployed, it is unmatched. The government undertook to present and implement an EI reform worthy of the 21st century. It did so in the minister's mandate letters in November 2015, September 2016, January 2021 and December 2021, as well as in its 2021 election platform. It went even further in 2021, saying it would reform the system by summer 2022, and yet here we are in summer 2024. The government has broken its promise and failed to fulfill its commitment.
It also said, in its first term, that it would enhance the pilot project for seasonal workers and make it permanent. What it did in the budget, however, was to renew the five additional weeks in the 2018 pilot project for another two years. The only thing the government will have done is to renew a temporary measure, nothing more.
Moreover, the computer system used to support the social safety net is obsolete, and the government knows it. Only recently did it say that it would invest in modernizing it, maybe in 2026 or 2028. What prospects do workers and the unemployed have? None at all. Is it fair and equitable for seniors? Canada is one of the worst OECD countries when it comes to the old age pension, not to mention that it discriminates against people between the ages of 65 and 74—
1057 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
- Apr/16/24 12:45:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out what the NDP member did, that is, highlight the exemplary work of Quebec's labour federations, which fought for years for Quebec to implement universal pharmacare. We succeeded. For 20 years, I took part in the fight that led to the implementation of the pharmacare plan Quebec has today. The plan is not perfect, but it is false to claim that Canada is going to create a pharmacare plan without taking the reality of Quebec and the provinces into account.
If my colleague were honest, he could also have said that the labour federations called for the right to opt out with full compensation. It says so in their statements. However, the NDP does not care about that because it wants social programs that extend from coast to coast to coast. We know that New Zealand has a population of five million. Canada has a population of 34 million, and this number will continue to grow.
If the federal government does not respect the provinces' jurisdictions, in particular when it comes to administering social programs and programs like health care, that goes totally against what Canada stands for.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:52:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. For a moment, let us pretend that he is in front of a jury and has to tell the whole truth.
If we were to abolish the carbon tax or oppose the increase, does that mean that tomorrow morning, no one would need to use food banks, rents would drop drastically, the world would be a better place, the cost of groceries would go down and we would be contributing to climate change?
Is this really what my colleague wants Quebeckers and Canadians to believe?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 6:20:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is also always a pleasure to work with my colleague on things that we have in common, such as gender equality for women, social justice and many other issues related to our social policies. She is welcome in Quebec any time.
I find it sad that other provinces have not made the same choices. Some provinces have gone further than others, but what I find sad is that we have to come to Ottawa to beg with respect to provincial jurisdictions. Quebec and each of the provinces must make their own choices about moving forward in a sensible way.
As I was saying, I hope that everyone can get to where Quebec is when it comes to gender equality for women and equal opportunities for children. Perhaps this is a start that will help the provinces follow Quebec's lead. I would tell them that they really have to stand behind their social policies to move forward.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 6:18:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there will be agreements with the provinces. Now, there is Bill C‑35. Some say that the provinces will not get there. It may not have been their choice. Child care services are $10 a day. In Quebec, they cost less than $10 a day.
When we brought in early childhood education services, the idea was to have a reduced contribution for parents. It was $5. Now, I have lost track, it may be around $9.
My colleague says it is $9, $10. It is the principle of indexing. It is the principle of a single rate, because no matter the parents' income, it is accessible for children. It is a public program. It is a public network of early childhood education services. Federal interference in provincial programs is not what will make this happen. It is going to take the will, at the provincial level, to push for and implement social policies.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to be able to speak to Bill C‑35. However, it would be hard for me to do it any more justice than my dear colleague, who did an excellent job of shepherding it through committee brilliantly, passionately and with commitment. I thank her.
Today is February 14. Some colleagues have decided to wish everyone they love a happy Valentine's Day. I have a lot of love for my country, Quebec.
The reason we have Bill C‑35 before us, as it is, is because Quebec was a pioneer 27 years ago, in 1997, when it implemented a unique model not of child care services, but of early childhood education services. The initiative was spearheaded by the Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, who became the first woman to serve as Quebec's premier. All of civil society rallied around this legislation to create a strong and robust family policy, with the dual objective of achieving balance between family life and work. We saw the tremendous benefits that it opened up for women in the labour market, and for our little ones. It gives them equal opportunities.
Today, as part of Hooked on School Days, we see what a difference it makes to have an early childhood education services policy with a focus on education. We can chart the entire educational path for children aged zero to five years. That is really wonderful.
I also want to point out the commitment, dedication and passion that the educators and staff in our early child care centres have for our little ones. I want to commend them for that.
I would say that, in Quebec, we do more than that. When we implemented early childhood education services, the department at the time certified all of the women who provide child care in their homes. They were certified under the policy. They are part of the same mission, the same policy. It was a labour, social and feminist movement because we contributed to the right to organize and to collective bargaining. The policies that Quebec has implemented are really social policies, like a family policy for early childhood education services. We also have the parental insurance plan, proactive pay equity legislation that also dates back 25 years. I could give plenty of examples that show the choices that Quebec has made. Quebec has made societal choices. The social policies that we implemented make a difference for our nation, because they contribute economically and help to reduce social inequality. We are very proud of that.
When it comes to Bill C‑35, I would say the government has drawn quite a lot, been quite inspired by what is being done in Quebec. I would hazard to say that it is wonderful for women and toddlers outside Quebec if the government can draw inspiration from our model. I have taken part in missions to the OECD where Quebec was represented. I have taken part in missions to United Nations Women, where I have long heard women from other provinces calling for child care policies in their provinces.
However, the success of this does not lie in the fact that the federal government has once again interfered in jurisdictions involving family policy and education. That takes a lot of nerve. Once again, the federal government is interfering in provincial jurisdictions. The success of this lies in the fact that Quebec has made a societal choice. Why should anyone count on Ottawa to ensure that other provinces make the same progress?
Eventually, the federal target is approximately 200,000 day care spots across Canada. In Quebec, we have about 250,000 day care spots. It depends on the choices being made. Ottawa cannot be expected to take the place of the provinces when they choose not to make certain choices. Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to set up its services.
That is why I am so disappointed. I am shocked, but considering that today is Valentine's Day, I will keep calm.
I could have mentioned other programs. I will get to that. In Quebec, we have a dental care plan. In Quebec, we have a government-funded pharmacare program. In Quebec, we have anti-scab legislation dating back to 1977. The federal government is going to keep using its spending power to introduce more policies that interfere in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.
After all my time here, I am fed up. People here seem to forget that Canada is a federation and that each province has its own responsibilities and jurisdictions. Ottawa keeps writing cheques so it can slap its flag on them and look good, while abdicating its real responsibilities, its real social safety net and social security policies for Canadians.
I will give three examples.
The government is starving the provinces when it comes to health transfers, even though health care is a priority and a provincial jurisdiction. The government is deliberately imposing conditions when it transfers any funding. That is pretty serious. In the meantime, we do not have any real tools.
The same goes for anti-scab legislation. Under this fine agreement, an anti-scab bill is supposed to be introduced, but there has been no mention of it for 14 sitting days in the House, and the bill has not come back.
We can also talk about seniors. Old age security is a federal government program, but the feds decided to discriminate against seniors on the basis of age by increasing old age security by 10% for people 75 and over while giving nothing to seniors aged 65 to 74. It is in its platform.
We have also been waiting for eight years for legislation to completely overhaul employment insurance, which also falls under federal jurisdiction. Instead of interfering in provincial programs and jurisdictions when we are making our own choices, the federal government should focus on improving its own social programs. With all of its programs, Quebec makes a contribution that is unlike anywhere else in North America in many respects, and that is widely recognized.
It is not perfect. We could do better, and the way to do better is to have our own power and be independent.
1042 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for his speech, but I do not understand what his actual position will be when we vote on Bill C‑58, which aims to protect striking and locked-out workers by preventing employers from using scabs during labour disputes. We have had anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. Federal governments of all stripes have dragged their feet when it comes to adopting such legislation.
Bill C‑58 will protect workers' strike and lockout rights and, during labour disputes, prevent employers from hiring scabs. Is my colleague's party for or against Bill C-58? That is what I want to know.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:46:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to point out to my colleague that Quebec's agriculture sector is not regulated by federal carbon pricing or the Quebec carbon market.
If the Conservatives are so concerned about farmers, what is their game plan for fighting climate change, which is having a major impact on our agriculture industry?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
