- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
- Apr/19/23 4:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to rise after my colleague from La Prairie. I listened intently to his speech.
As the critic for seniors, I could not turn down the opportunity to talk about their situation in the House and, more importantly, to respond to a budget that cares nothing about them. I could not turn down the opportunity to set the record straight. The Bloc Québécois proposed a number of measures and made clear requests to the Minister of Finance.
I will focus on three points here. First, the budget does not provide for an adequate increase in health transfers. Second, it says nothing about EI reform. Finally, while the government continues to claim it has been generous to seniors, there are no new specific and ongoing measures for seniors in this budget.
I would like to start by pointing out that the government is not increasing the health transfers to any significant degree. The jurisdictional interference also continues. This issue is important, and it is a major public concern, especially among seniors' groups. FADOQ representatives even turned out for a conference I recently organized on the financial situation of seniors. They came to call attention to the urgent need for the federal government to make its contribution and increase health transfers to 35%, with no strings attached. They clearly understood that this jurisdiction belongs to Quebec, not the federal government.
Moving on to the second part of my presentation, the budget makes no provision for any major EI reform before 2030, despite the government's promises. The government also refuses to write off the EI fund's pandemic-related debt. As a result, premiums will have to increase and benefits will have to decrease for the fund to achieve a $24‑billion surplus by 2030. How great it would have been to have a little money left over to reform federal services.
As the status of women critic, I consider this to be a major reform from a feminist perspective. We know that 60% of workers are not eligible for employment insurance, and that is concerning. It is primarily women who work in unstable jobs, who do not work full time because they have to do invisible work at home with their families and who have difficulty accumulating the hours required to be eligible for EI.
I would like to point out that on Tuesday, April 4, groups in Quebec, including AFEAS, campaigned for a national invisible work day that would be held every year on the first Tuesday in April. This kind of day is needed to encourage real reflection on this issue, which also affects family caregivers and volunteers. How can we do more to recognize what these people do? My thoughts go out to them and I thank them, especially those who are being honoured this week as part of National Volunteer Week. I salute them.
I am now coming to my third point, and I will devote the rest of my speech to the lack of measures for seniors and their precarious financial situation. I actually held a conference on that issue back home in Granby on February 21, with seniors' groups from all over Quebec. I want to talk about some of the issues that were raised during that day of reflection.
First, I want to point out that while wages are rising, old age security is not increasing as much or as quickly. Currently, if someone is 75 years old and receives nothing but old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, their annual income is $20,574.24. Given today's inflation, who can really live on that? That level of income puts them below the official federal poverty line, as determined by the market basket measure, or MBM. In response to this statistic, the symposium participants that day said that the federal government needs to increase old age security benefits.
Add inflation to that, and old age security is not enough to live on; it is not a replacement for working income. As for income replacement in retirement through public pension plans, right now, a person earning the average wage in Quebec will have an income replacement rate of only 41%. The Quebec pension plan replaces about 25% of the average wage.
As for old age security, it barely replaces 15% of the average wage. Sadly, since wages are rising faster than the consumer price index—by about one percentage point per year—this federal program will in future contribute less in terms of replacing working income in retirement. The federal government must do better.
Finally, we must also revise the indexation method for old age security. The Association québécoise de défense des droits des aînés, or AQDR, agrees, and does not believe that it is adequate. Furthermore, the AQDR also believes that old age security is not increasing fast enough to replace employment income, which is rising faster than public plan replacement rates. Everyone is talking about wage increases right now.
Seniors are finding it very difficult to save, especially older women who, over the course of their lives, have greater difficulty setting aside money and saving to retire in dignity.
The old age security pension, or OAS, and the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, are insufficient to meet the needs of seniors. Let us not forget that, in July 2022, the annual income of an individual under the age of 75 receiving only their pension and the GIS would fall below the official poverty line in Canada, based on the market basket measure, or MBM. That is significant in an inflationary context.
This index, which is calculated by Statistics Canada, seeks to establish the cost of a basket of goods for a modest basic standard of living. We are not talking about trips down south or luxury items; we are talking about basic needs.
In 2022, MBM thresholds were between $20,796 and $22,382 for singles, depending on the region in which they lived. The solution, therefore, is simple: Income levels for all seniors aged 65 and older need to be increased.
That day, we also talked about the implementation of a tax credit for experienced workers in the context of the labour shortage, a tax credit for working seniors who want to stay on the job or for seniors who decide to go back to work.
That day, we also talked about health transfer increases. I just wanted to point that out. The federal government needs to significantly increase health transfers so that the Quebec and provincial governments can make major investments in their health care systems.
Another item that was discussed that day and that should be noted is the fact that inflation is seriously eroding seniors' purchasing power. It would have been a good idea for the Liberal government to at least support those who cannot afford to be patient.
FADOQ expected Ottawa to walk the talk when it came to increasing the guaranteed income supplement. Let us not forget that those who receive the GIS are some of the most disadvantaged members of our society. FADOQ believes that the government could have taken these additional measures. Another example would be to make the Canada caregiver credit refundable.
Given the ongoing labour shortage, the FADOQ network also suggested that a tax credit to encourage seniors to keep working would be a great idea. The timing is perfect. Even though it was another thing the federal government had promised, this tax credit was not announced in the last budget.
To continue on the theme of the budget, the grocery rebate is actually a one-time payment through the GST tax credit. Although it is a decent measure, the Bloc Québécois hoped that low-income families and individuals would get better government support during this inflation crisis. For 2023, the amount remains a one-time payment. It does nothing to solve the longer-term problem.
My last point is that, despite everything, the long-term financial outlook remains the same. The ratio of the federal public debt relative to the GDP will continue its downward trend. Ottawa plans to completely pay off its debt within 30 to 40 years. The federal budget confirms the Parliamentary Budget Officer's long-term forecasts. Beyond the short term, the federal financial situation will keep improving. Over the long term, the financial situation of the provinces and Quebec will keep deteriorating. The money is in Ottawa, but the needs, in areas like health and education, are in Quebec.
In the short term, we must also deal with the global economic downturn, high interest rates worldwide and inflation that is still too high.
In conclusion, I could also have spoken about the lack of support for the next generation of farmers and the greenwashing that the budget also contains. It maintains the fossil fuel subsidies, subsidizing oil companies, as my colleague from La Prairie mentioned. The budget talks about hydrogen, meaning dirty hydrogen, about carbon capture and about small nuclear reactors, even though experts have condemned these measures. As I said, it is greenwashing. These are not measures that will help us seriously kick-start the shift we need to make to fight climate change.
In short, the spending in this budget is unwise and insufficient for those who are truly in need.
That is why, in closing, I will proudly say that I will soon be introducing a bill to abolish the injustice created by the 10% increase in old age security only for those 75 and over. We must ensure that all seniors, when they turn 65, can receive this little additional boost, but especially a boost in the long term and not a one-time cheque or, as the government has done all too often, a little pre-election cheque that looks good. With this bill, we want to increase the threshold to the point where seniors can work without their GIS being clawed back. This is about common sense and dignity for seniors. Even the economic sector is calling for this. Let us all work together.
There are also the demands from the National Assembly. We must meet people's needs. We must work together to improve the current situation, which, as we know, is not easy for everyone, especially the seniors who really need to be listened to and heard a little more.
1752 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I was elected, I worked in Quebec as a project manager responsible for raising awareness of elder abuse and bullying. I can confirm that Quebec already has a comprehensive action plan and is working very hard on the issue of abuse.
My colleague mentioned the armed forces. It is interesting to note that during the pandemic, a report from the armed forces indicated that Quebec already has standards for long-term care centres, but it does not have the means to implement those standards.
I wonder if my colleague would agree that the solution is to give Quebec and the provinces the necessary means, in other words, to give them more money by increasing health transfers to 35%.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.
I rise today to speak to Bill C‑32, on the 2022 fall economic statement. Unfortunately, this bill seems more impressive in form than in substance. Bill C‑32 contains maybe 25 various tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. It may seem like a lot at first glance, but these are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are just minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis, while others were already announced in the spring budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June, Bill C‑19. In cooking we call that leftovers.
Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, Bill C‑32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. This is a completely missed opportunity for the federal government. This bill will not exactly go down in history and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise either.
However, it does not contain anything “harmful” enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The government often tends to bury harmful measures in its omnibus budget implementation bills, hoping they will go unnoticed, but that is not the case here. The bill contains no surprises, either good or bad.
As my colleagues can see, I am trying very hard to show some good faith. Bill C‑32 contains some worthwhile measures, but they were already announced in the last budget. I will go over them briefly.
An anti-flipping tax has been implemented to limit real estate speculation. That is a good thing. A multi-generational home renovation tax credit has also been created for those who are renovating their home to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015, as have many seniors' groups that have contacted me many times about this issue. I commend the government for introducing it.
There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. It is hard to be against apple pie. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive an unconditional transfer equivalent to the amount Quebeckers would have received had they participated in the federal program.
In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. It is just one drop in the bucket of subsidies, but it is a start. A tax measure is being implemented to promote mining development in the area of the critical minerals that are needed for the energy transition. In addition, assistance can be provided to a particular government. That is interesting. A total of $7 billion to $14 billion will be available for all foreign countries, when previously, it was $2.5 billion to $5 billion. While we are still far from the United Nations goal of 0.07% of gross GDP, the government is enhancing Canada's international aid, something the Bloc has been calling for for some time. As the status of women critic, I am regularly reminded that Canada can and must do more and better to safeguard the health of women and girls internationally.
Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It puts forward a few measures and does some legislative housekeeping that was necessary under the circumstances.
As such, I will reiterate, half-heartedly, what other Bloc members have said: We will vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though the economic statement was disappointing. We take issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 115 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people and no new solutions despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. The government seems to think everything will work out with an “abracadabra” and a wave of its magic wand.
Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget, even though the Bloc Québécois did ask the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people.
For the rest of my speech, I will therefore focus on the lack of increased health transfers, the lack of adequate support for people aged 65 and over, and the lack of much-needed genuine reform to EI, which, I should note, is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. Sadly, the government dismissed our three requests, even though they made perfect sense. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.
First, the Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached breaking point, but the federal government is not acting. It clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front in order to convince them to water down their funding demand. It is the old tactic of divide and conquer.
I want to remind my colleagues that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which I sit, during our study on the mental health of women and girls, the ministers of Women and Gender Equality and of Mental Health acknowledged that the national action plan concept, which seeks to impose national standards, was slowing down the process. Meanwhile, the women and girls who are suffering are being held hostage. The government's feminist posturing must end.
Second, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, yet the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age.
Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD. We cannot say that the government is treating seniors with dignity.
There is also the increase to old age security, which should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.
Not a day goes by that I do not receive a message from citizens about this. This morning, I again received comments from important seniors' groups such as AQDR and FADOQ, and they can be summarized in one word: disappointment. I do not even want to talk about the brilliant decision-makers who want to delay the pension process for 10% of seniors.
Third, let us remind the government that employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. While more and more analysts fear the possibility of a recession in 2023, the Canadian government seems to be backtracking on the comprehensive employment insurance reform that they promised last summer.
Essentially, the system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. That is significant, it is a majority, it is 60%. Seven years after the government promised reform, time is running out. We must avoid being 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 a lot more and are much less effective. Above all, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims. In fact, the government is forecasting a surplus of $25 billion in the employment insurance fund by 2028, money that will go to the consolidated fund rather than improve the system's coverage. As for the 26 weeks of sick leave, the measure was in Bill C‑30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago, even before the last elections. All that is missing is the government decree to implement it, but those who are sick are still waiting.
One last important thing: Last weekend, I attended the Musicophonie benefit concert for a foundation in our area, the fondation Louis-Philippe Janvier, which helps young adults suffering from cancer. I was told that the organization does indeed have to make up for the government's lack of financial support. That adds to the unimaginable stress on those who are sick, who should instead be focusing on healing with dignity. Even 26 weeks is inhumane. A person cannot recover properly in that time frame.
In closing, the government is acknowledging the rising cost of living without doing anything about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves.
As a final point, I want to talk about supply chains. We learned how fragile they are during the pandemic. Last spring's budget document mentioned the problem 71 times. The budget update mentioned it another 45 times. Neither one includes any measures to tackle the problem, leaving business owners in limbo. The new Liberal-Conservative finance minister missed the opportunity to send a clear message of leadership and instead raised fears about potential austerity. The government is rehashing past measures, implementing what it already announced in the April budget, but there is no indication that it has a clear sense of direction, leaving the people who really need it out in the cold.
For those who lose their jobs, we need EI reform. For those who are sick, we need to increase health transfers. For our seniors, we need to give them more money so they can age with dignity.
1834 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also heard the question from my other colleague.
As I already said today, this bill was announced on the same day that seniors' groups were addressing Government of Quebec health care officials, demanding assistance with dental care. We know that children aged 10 and under are already covered in Quebec.
When the Government of Canada announced this bill, the seniors' groups said that it was not the right place. They wanted to speak to the Government of Quebec, which is responsible for dental care.
What seniors in my riding want is for the federal government to increase health transfers to cover 35% of costs so that Quebec's department of health can take care of them and make decisions about dental care.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for her speech. However, I have a few concerns. First, when it comes to Bill C‑31, there is nothing about taking care of seniors' oral health. We are nowhere near that point.
In Quebec, children under the age of 10 are already covered by a plan. In fact, there is an election campaign under way in Quebec right now. Unions and community groups have shared their demands in the context of this election campaign that will determine the next government in the National Assembly. The elephant in the room for them is the lack of health transfers, which would allow Quebec and the provinces to implement and improve their dental care plans. We are not talking about national dental insurance, but about health transfers of up to 35%.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 6:06:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with much exasperation that I rise today to talk about a motion on long-term care. The major problem is that we are in the wrong legislative assembly. This is a crucial jurisdictional issue, since the federal government does not have the necessary expertise in this area. I realize that, unfortunately, I have had to say this too often. We have had enough of the federal government's paternalistic attitude. The government needs to do its duty and its job. It should not be using the COVID-19 crisis to exploit seniors for its own ends.
We do not want to trivialize what happened in our long-term care facilities. On the contrary, we want nothing less than to give them the financial means they need. I will get back to this in my speech. I am going to give some background information and outline the reasons for which the Bloc Québécois is against the motion. I will close by reminding my colleagues of the support of certain civil society groups.
As we now know, COVID-19 mainly affected seniors. This fact, combined with the critical situation in our long-term care facilities, finally forced the Quebec government to ask for the military's help on April 22, 2020.
Barely one month later, in May 2020, negotiations between the CAQ and Liberal governments got especially tense because of the federal government's refusal to extend the military's involvement. The government then used Quebec's request for military assistance as a pretext to announce, in its throne speech, its intention to impose Canada-wide standards on long-term care facilities. That was a twisted way of imposing its requirements on the provinces, instead of agreeing to their unanimous demand for an increase in federal health transfers equal to 35% of health care system costs.
To add insult to injury, the Liberal government reiterated its intention in last fall's economic update and at the 20th telephone conference of Canada's premiers, with the NDP's blessing, of course.
The Liberals are still clinging to that idea. In the 2021 election campaign, they promised $6 billion for long-term care facilities in exchange for Canada-wide standards. However, for the past several weeks, the Quebec political media has been abuzz with the findings of various investigations into the matter. The debate is ongoing in civil society and in Quebec's National Assembly.
This is therefore not the problem. Allow me to share why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the motion. The motion states that “we need to make sure the conditions of work reflect the care standards our seniors deserve”, which is something we agree with. We are all, as individuals, collectively responsible for taking care of our seniors. However, working conditions in long-term care homes and in private seniors' residences are not a federal jurisdiction.
The motion also states that “while the management of long-term care facilities is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, we share the goal of ensuring safer, better care for seniors”. Our response to this is that health care is not under federal jurisdiction. If the federal government truly wants to help the provinces, it should hold a summit and permanently increase funding for health care, as we have proposed.
Furthermore, the motion states that “in the opinion of the House, the government should work with the provinces and territories to...improve the quality and availability of long-term care homes and beds”. Our response to this is that Quebec already has a plan to overhaul its system and what it needs is funding.
The motion also states that the government should work with the provinces and territories to “implement strict infection prevention and control measures, including through more provincial and territorial facility inspections for long-term care homes”. Anything else? Quebec has assessed, and continues to assess, its actions during the pandemic. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebec what to do or how to do it. This paternalism must stop.
Finally, the motion states that it should “develop a safe long-term care act collaboratively to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve, no matter where they live.” Enough is enough. The Quebec National Assembly already unanimously opposed such federal standards.
We already had this debate before the pointless election called by the Liberal Party, which still makes me mad. In March 2021, I remember rising to speak when the NDP moved a motion to nationalize and impose standards for long-term care institutions. Members will recall that the motion was rejected by everyone, except the NDP of course. Even the Liberals voted against the motion. Here we are in the 44th Parliament, and the Liberal Party suddenly has amnesia. It has come back with the same motion.
I have to say, since the advent of the NDP-Liberal government, their position has become muddled. The one thing that does remain clear, however, is their appetite for interfering in things that do not concern them. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, set out how jurisdictions are shared between the federal government and the provinces. Pursuant to those two sections, health is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.
The Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP are always trying to interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces, especially in the area of health care. However, the federalism they hold so dear requires that each level of government respect its exclusive jurisdictions.
Federalists sometimes argue that health transfers should have conditions attached. Otherwise, the provinces will take advantage of them to lower taxes rather than provide better services to their people. Our response to that argument is that it is not the federal government's job to lecture the provincial and Quebec governments. In a democracy, it is up to voters to sanction their government.
There is currently a debate raging about the issue of long-term care and the decisions that were made during the COVID-19 crisis. This debate continues, and it is up to the Quebec government to take action to remedy the situation. Then, in October, it will be up to voters, not the Liberal Party of Canada, to decide whether they are satisfied with their government's actions. In short, Quebec already has some potential solutions, including a detailed plan to increase the capacity of long-term care facilities as mentioned in a special report by the ombudsman.
The federal government will not be able to improve the situation because it does not know what is really happening on the ground. It does not understand these unique hospital settings. In response to the special report, the Quebec government has already presented a plan to overhaul the health care system.
I would like to remind the hon. members of an important date: December 2, 2020. As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I had the opportunity to speak with Quebec's minister for seniors and caregivers, Marguerite Blais. She tabled a motion to denounce the Liberals' desire to impose Canadian standards on Quebec's long-term care facilities, which I will read:
That the National Assembly reject the Government of Canada's desire to impose Canadian standards in Québec CHSLDs and long-term care facilities for the elderly, as this falls under exclusive Québec jurisdiction;
That it express its disappointment that the federal government did not include an increase in health transfer payments in its last economic update, while the provinces must cover significant health spending costs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic;
That it call on the federal government to commit to not imposing Canadian standards in Québec CHSLDs and long-term care facilities for the elderly and to increasing health transfer payments to an amount equal to 35% of healthcare network costs.
Let us not forget that the provinces and Quebec are the ones with the expertise and experience in long-term care homes, not the federal government. Every long-term care facility has to meet safety and care quality standards in order to be permitted to operate. Standards already exist.
Obviously, the federal government has no business setting those standards for long-term care facilities on behalf of the provinces and Quebec, since it has neither the experience nor the expertise, as I said. Instead, the government should focus on doing what is expected of it and taking responsibility.
The Canadian Armed Forces' report on their experience in Quebec's long-term care facilities made it clear that there were already many standards and rules in place regarding infection prevention and control and the use of PPE, but they were not enough to stop the virus. The real issue is the ability to comply with the existing standards and rules. The main reason it is so hard to follow these rules is also clear: the labour shortage.
If the federal government really wants to help Quebec and the provinces overcome the pandemic and improve care for seniors, it must drop the paternalistic attitude, scrap its plan to impose Canada-wide standards that are ill suited for all the different social and institutional contexts, and increase health transfers, which will allow the provinces to attract and retain more health care workers.
One of the Bloc Québécois's demands is that the federal government increase health transfers to an amount equal to 35% of health care system costs. However, the government continues to say no, even though Parliament adopted a motion in the spring asking all parties to recognize the increase in transfers, which all of the parties did, except the Liberals, who once again found themselves standing alone.
Even civil society groups, such as various unions, stepped up in March 2021 to ask for the increase and explain why it was important. A Leger poll showed that 85% of people want this. FADOQ wants it. When I went to the latest summit on seniors' quality of life, everyone said they wanted an increase, no strings attached.
In conclusion, we are not the ones spoiling for a fight. The NDP-Liberal coalition is. They are delaying many of Quebec's demands, but we are not the only ones making these demands. The provinces and territories are too. These NDP-Liberal threats need to stop. Seniors must not be held hostage. The federal government must hand over the financial means to take care of them, and that means health transfers.
1780 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 6:42:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
She mentioned examples of what is being done internationally. We know, for example, that the tough‑on‑crime approach did not work. It has not worked in Switzerland.
Portugal, however, has a model for decriminalizing drugs that has worked well. As my colleague surely knows, in the case of Portugal, what has worked is that the whole system has really recognized the opioid issue as a public health issue.
In Quebec, we share that vision. Community and social service workers are part of a system that shares this vision of restorative justice. I worked for a community organization that did this.
However, what we lack is the means. I am talking about the financial means. It is important that the federal government do its part by increasing federal health transfers to 35% to help these organizations and to enable Quebec to reinvest in its health care system. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 4:42:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on what my colleague just said about Bill C‑5 in terms of helping people who have addiction problems, among others. This is a public health problem, so it is important to increase health transfers.
It seems to be hard for the federal government to understand what its responsibility is and what it needs to do. The same thing is happening at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. For example, yesterday, even the Conservatives opposed the fact that health transfers and social services are needed to help women experiencing intimate partner violence. Something is not getting through. It is the federal government's role to make these transfers so that organizations in Quebec can then help women experiencing intimate partner violence, as well as people with addiction problems. Once again, I get the impression that the Bloc Québécois is the only party defending this idea.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women and the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I rise today to speak to Bill C-233 yet again.
The bill is now at report stage. It amends the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. The bill also amends the Judges Act to provide for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control.
I can confirm that the clause-by-clause study was conducted in a truly collaborative spirit at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Its members were focused on one thing only, because the lives of women and children, as well as men, let us not forget, are at stake.
At the risk of repeating myself, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-233. I will begin my speech by talking about the important role of this bill, with its inclusion of electronic monitoring devices, in addressing intimate partner violence. I will then talk about coercive control and will close by making a few more proposals on how to complete the continuum of assistance for women and children who are affected by intimate partner violence.
First, let us look at the role this bill can play in cases of intimate partner violence. Recently, Quebec called upon Ottawa to act. A few days ago, the Quebec public security minister explained that electronic monitoring devices could be issued only by authorities under Quebec jurisdiction and for provincial sentences. That means that only provincial sentences of two years less a day will be covered and that offenders who are given longer sentences in federal penitentiaries will be exempt. As a result, last week, Minister Geneviève Guilbault openly invited the federal government to follow Quebec's lead, while reminding the government that Quebec has control over what falls under our jurisdiction. Ms. Guilbault said that she spoke about this with the federal public safety minister.
With Bill C‑233, electronic monitoring devices would be used in cases involving serious sex offenders who have received a sentence of more than two years, to be served in a federal institution, because sentences under two years are served in institutions run by Quebec. The federal government had little choice but to follow suit, especially since electronic monitoring devices are already used in other countries, like Spain and France. We should be able to build on their experiences. I have also spoken with the Australian consulate about making coercive control a criminal offence. We will will come back to this.
The other problem has to do with the Internet and the technological gaps, since, realistically, broadcasting and transmitting services are not going to be implemented across Canada in the short term. A number of witnesses expressed concerns in committee about how this would affect the implementation of this measure. They told us that a woman's postal code should not determine whether they can feel safe. Nevertheless, this device must in no way be used as an excuse to reduce funding for other measures to combat domestic violence. These support measures are managed by the Government of Quebec, and Quebec must continue to receive the money required to run them.
For the other part of the bill, it is important to note that it addresses coercive control only with respect to the education of judges. The Criminal Code amendment proposed in this bill does not criminalize coercive control even though numerous experts, some of them internationally recognized, made that recommendation to the status of women and justice committees a number of times. The experts emphasized that the notion of coercive control is inextricably linked to the definition of intimate partner violence and that acknowledging this notion in Canada's Criminal Code would trigger the awareness and training mechanisms needed by the professionals and people on the ground who work directly with victims along with the funding to pay for it.
Let us not forget that family violence needs to be part of the conversation. In addition to the women who were murdered, 14 children were killed last year in intimate partner violence incidents.
Regarding the importance of the device, Ms. Lemeltier from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale cautioned that we must not think that intimate partner violence ends once the woman leaves the family home, because that is not true. The violence can morph into what is referred to as postseparation spousal abuse. It can manifest in many ways, including harassment on social media, maintaining financial control, withholding a woman's immigration documents or denying supervised right of access, which impacts children's safety.
This controlling behaviour continues and gets worse over time. The period after a separation is the most dangerous time for women and children. The amendments proposed in the bill to the Judges Act are therefore in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's positions in that they help enhance the protection of complainants. The issue of victims' safety is crucial.
This amendment would expand judges' education on sexual assault so they have a more in-depth understanding of intimate partner violence, by adding a component on coercive control.
It is reasonable to believe that a better understanding on the judges' part will improve the protection and safety of victims of intimate partner violence. That is something that I insisted on adding in our committee study.
My party welcomes any measure designed to increase the safety of victims of domestic violence. It also condemns any violence between intimate partners, the victims of which are most often women. We stand in solidarity against intimate partner violence and femicide, both of which have sadly and unacceptably increased during this pandemic.
We also want an inquiry into how to prevent, eliminate and create a legislative framework for the form of family violence known as honour crimes. These are our other hopes for the future.
Furthermore, we demand that the federal government contribute financially to the Quebec government's efforts in the area of violence prevention. During the 2021 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois argued that funds for the fight against intimate partner violence should come from the Canada health transfers, which should immediately increase by $28 billion, without conditions. Long-term investments will also enable the generational change that is crucial to fighting this fight.
Furthermore, court cases involving crimes of a sexual nature are heavily influenced by the training and abilities of judges. It goes without saying that continuing education for judges on sexual assault law needs some updating. The Bloc Québécois has unequivocally supported this type of initiative since the subject was first raised in the House in 2020.
This bill complies with a recent recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In its April 7, 2022, report entitled “The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships”, the committee recommends that the federal government engage with provincial and territorial governments and other relevant stakeholders to promote and fund a public awareness campaign on coercive and controlling behaviour, as well as training of judicial system actors, such as police, lawyers, and judges, about the dynamics of such behaviour. Training must be trauma-informed, integrate intersectional perspectives and be accompanied by tools and policies to support action on this issue.
At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Pamela Cross, the legal director at Luke's Place, a support and resource centre for women and children, reminded us that until every actor in both the criminal and family legal systems has a fulsome understanding of the reality of violence in families, the prevalence of it, the fact that it does not end at separation, the fact that there are many fathers who use the child, weaponize the child, to get back at their partner, we are going to continue to see shelters that are turning away 500 women and children a year and we are going to continue to see women and children being killed.
Experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women all stressed the importance of training. This was emphasized by Simon Lapierre, a full professor at the University of Ottawa's School of Social Work, who also appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He said:
Having the judicial system better aligned with psychosocial services seems to me to be very important. Above all, we have to understand that even if a lot of measures are put in place, many of them will unfortunately not achieve their full potential if they are not accompanied by adequate training for all actors in the system, including social workers, police, lawyers and judges.
Training is extremely important and should be expanded across the country. Simon Lapierre also noted that it is important to reinforce the very concept of coercive control. This concept was already in place before the Divorce Act came into force, but he says that we should also include it in the Criminal Code. What is more, it needs to be accompanied by training programs for all stakeholders in the various sectors, including judges, and there needs to be a coherent approach to intimate partner violence, including youth protection services, across the country.
In closing, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of the entire team at an organization in my riding, the Maison Alice-Desmarais, which helps victims of intimate partner violence and their children. Last week, the organization opened a new duplex. The good news is that an entire community rallied behind the cause, but the bad news is that the needs are still immense. One more victim is one too many.
Everyone agreed that community organizations that help victims of intimate partner violence need more help. It is great to have the best training possible for judges and electronic monitoring devices for greater safety, but we need organizations to help the victims, and we need to support them as a society.
Let us, here in the House, support the work they do on the ground every day and help the victims and their children.
1772 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the dean of the House, for his speech. It was interesting to hear him talk about the time when he first got into politics. Here we are in 2022 still having to demand that our areas of jurisdiction be respected.
This week I attended a summit on the dignity of seniors. I asked a question in the House yesterday about the importance of increasing their purchasing power, but beyond that, everyone at the summit was calling for health transfers. It is about time we took care of our health care system, our seniors and Quebeckers. Everyone agreed that we need to stop arguing and stop accepting transfers with conditions. They were clear that we need transfers without conditions.
Could my colleague comment on that?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women and the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I rise today to speak to Bill C-233, which amends the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.
The bill also amends the Judges Act to provide for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control.
Since we just completed a study of this matter in committee and keeping in mind the progress that has been made on this sensitive issue in Quebec, I would like to make my modest contribution to this debate.
I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-233. I am also very pleased to see that my committee will be able to examine this bill quickly.
I will start my speech by talking about what has already been voted on in Quebec, and then I will talk about the importance of educating all those who work with the victims. I will close by talking a bit more about coercive control.
First of all, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code regarding electronic monitoring devices are in line with the legislation passed in Quebec. The National Assembly's Bill 24, which makes changes to Quebec's correctional system, provides for the power to require that an offender be connected to a device that allows the offender's whereabouts to be known. This legislation came into force on March 18, 2022.
The use of anti-approach bracelets in this bill refers to cases involving serious sex offenders who have received a sentence of more than two years, to be served in a federal institution. That is what we are talking about today. Sentences under two years are served in institutions run by Quebec. The federal government had little choice but to follow suit, especially since electronic monitoring devices are already used in other countries, like Spain and France.
The Legault government announced the use of these devices as part of a package of 14 new measures intended to address intimate partner violence.
According to the findings of a study commissioned by Quebec's public safety department, anti-approach bracelets increase victims' sense of security and improve their quality of life. They reduce peace bond violations and increase offenders' compliance with treatment programs in the community.
On its own, an electronic monitoring device cannot reduce the incidence of intimate partner violence, although it is a promising tool. It must be used as part of a series of measures to help both the victims and the perpetrators of this violence. In no way must these devices be used as a justification to cut funding for other measures aimed at curbing intimate partner violence. These assistance and support measures are managed by the Government of Quebec, which must continue to receive the funding it needs to implement them.
This issue has also been raised by the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, an association representing women's shelters. It pointed out that the use of these devices also affects the victim, since she needs to wear one as well so that authorities can keep track of her whereabouts and intervene if her abuser gets too close.
Although this device generally makes victims feels safer, it can also contribute to their feelings of hypervigilance. That is why these women must also be given access to specialized resources to support them throughout the process. This is yet another reason it is so important to maintain, if not increase, funding to combat intimate partner violence.
Regarding the importance of the device, Ms. Lemeltier cautioned that we must not think that intimate partner violence ends once the woman leaves the family home, because that is not true. The violence can morph into what is referred to as postseparation spousal abuse. It can manifest in many ways, including harassment on social media, maintaining financial control, withholding a woman's immigration documents or denying supervised right of access, which impacts children's safety.
This controlling behaviour continues and gets worse over time. The period after a separation is the most dangerous time for women and children. I also want to point out that the electronic monitoring device is only as reliable as the cell network that it uses. Network reliability and the vast territory that police forces have to cover, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, can pose significant challenges for the implementation and use of such devices.
Second, the proposed amendments to the Judges Act are in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's positions in that they help enhance the protection of complainants. The issue of victims' safety is crucial. This amendment would expand judges' education on sexual assault by adding a component on coercive control so they have a more in-depth understanding of intimate partner violence. It is reasonable to believe that a better understanding on the judges' part will improve the protection and safety of victims of intimate partner violence. That is something that I insisted on adding in our committee study.
I would again like to thank Myrabelle Poulin, an activist who taught me about the concept of coercive control, because violence is not always about hitting, but it always hurts.
My party welcomes any measure designed to increase the safety of victims of domestic violence. It also condemns any violence between intimate partners, the victims of which are most often women. We stand in solidarity against intimate partner violence and femicide, both of which have sadly and unacceptably increased during this pandemic. I would like to reiterate my condolences to the families of the many victims.
We also want an inquiry into how to prevent, eliminate and create a legislative framework for the form of family violence known as honour crimes. Furthermore, we demand that the federal government contribute financially to the Quebec government's efforts in the area of violence prevention. During the 2021 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois argued that funds for the fight against intimate partner violence should come from the Canada health transfers, which should immediately increase by $28 billion.
This being National Volunteer Week, I want to acknowledge the work of organizations that use this funding, organizations like CALACS. Long-term investments will also enable the generational change that is crucial to fighting this fight. Sabrina Lemeltier, president of the Alliance des maisons d'hébergement de 2e étape pour femmes et enfants victimes de violence conjugale, also illustrated the importance of maintaining this funding when she spoke to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
In Quebec, just before the pandemic, the expert committee on support for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence released its report on rebuilding trust. The report is a heavyweight. It contains 190 bold recommendations that will finally result in the creation of the safety net. It talks about a continuum of services. It is extremely important to emphasize that victims need support every step of the way.
I want to take a moment to thank the MNA for Joliette, Véronique Hivon, who helped put together this all-party committee as well as the committee on the right to die with dignity, and who announced that she will not be running in Quebec's next election.
Court cases involving crimes of a sexual nature are heavily influenced by the training and abilities of judges. It goes without saying that continuing education for judges on matters related to sexual assault law could use some updating. The Bloc Québécois has unequivocally supported this type of initiative since the subject was first raised in the House in 2020.
The amendments to the Criminal Code and the Judges Act that have to do with continuing education for judges and that seek to increase public trust in the criminal justice system have the force of law. They came into force on May 6, 2021.
This bill also complies with a recent recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In its April 6, 2022, report entitled “The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships”, the committee recommends that “the federal government engage with provincial and territorial governments [as well as the Government of Quebec] and other relevant stakeholders to promote and fund a public awareness campaign on coercive and controlling behaviour, as well as training of judicial system actors, such as police, lawyers, and judges, about the dynamics of such behaviour. Training must be trauma-informed, integrate intersectional perspectives and be accompanied by tools and policies to support action on this issue.”
At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Pamela Cross, a representative from Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children, reminded us that, “Until every actor in both the criminal and family legal systems has a fulsome understanding of the reality of violence in families, the prevalence of it, the fact that it doesn't end at separation, the fact that there are many fathers...who use the child, weaponize the child, to get back at their partner, we are going to continue to see shelters that are turning away 500 women and children a year and we are going to continue to see women and children being killed”.
To wrap up, in light of Quebec's progressive step forward with the first pilot project establishing a court specializing in sexual violence and domestic violence, the Bloc Québécois can only be in favour of better and more comprehensive training for judges. We still have the impression that Quebec is one step ahead of Ottawa, but we welcome all new advancements that aim to provide better treatment and protection for victims of intimate partner violence, in order to help put an end to the terrible and all too numerous femicides. As a new mother to my little Naomie, I fully understand the rallying cry “not one more”.
1757 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 12:04:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. We share files pertaining to the status of women and seniors, and we often have the opportunity to talk.
Naturally, she spoke about seniors. We sometimes forget that old age security puts money back into seniors’ pockets and contributes to their purchasing power. Seniors have become significantly poorer, and were impoverished even before the pandemic.
The issue of health is just as crucial in our efforts to help seniors. My colleague accurately listed seniors’ needs and the importance of increasing health transfers to 35%, as Quebec and the provinces are calling for. That is essential; it is crucial. That is what seniors are asking for.
Health is not just a matter of jurisdiction. Quebec and the provinces have the expertise to care for their seniors, but they need the financial means. It is important to hammer this message home.
Does her party commit to supporting the request to increase health transfers to 35% in a recurrent and predictable manner?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/22 11:56:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are definitely continuing to create two classes of seniors.
Not only did the government leave seniors' priorities out of the budget, but it is also trying to show that seniors do not need more support, as if seniors were spoiled rotten, as if they were wrong to worry and to want more health transfers to support quality of care at home and in long-term care facilities, as if they were wrong to think it is unfair that some seniors are receiving a bigger old age security pension than others, when the cost of living is the same for everyone.
Why is the government denying the reality of seniors and ignoring their concerns?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/25/22 10:20:26 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has shown its true colours. It is about to come into conflict with Quebec and the provinces, since this means that it categorically refuses to increase federal funding for health care with no strings attached. Whether the Minister of Canadian Heritage likes it or not, this sets the stage for a real fight.
My speech will focus on three issues: the lack of health measures, the lack of measures for housing, and support for our businesses, especially those that will continue to be affected by the repercussions of COVID-19 for a long time to come, particularly the tourism and cultural industries.
First, on health, the federal government should mind its own business and look after what falls under its jurisdiction, such as procuring COVID-19 tests.
The government, however, is maintaining the Canada health transfer escalator at 3% until 2027. This is the legal minimum and below the annual increase in health care costs. We can never say this enough, but Quebec and the provinces are unanimously calling for an immediate payment of $28 billion to cover 35% of health care costs, followed by a 6% escalator.
The message from the Liberal government is crystal clear: It believes it spent enough money last year on the pandemic, so it is refusing to provide its share of health care funding. That reasoning is flawed. COVID‑19 spending is one-time and temporary spending, while the federal underfunding of health is a chronic problem that is choking the finances of Quebec and the provinces. Ottawa is therefore perpetuating the fiscal imbalance, but, most importantly, it is ignoring the lessons it could have learned from the pandemic.
As the critic for seniors, I have to say that we owe it to the victims to try to prevent these tragedies from ever happening again. As the critic for the status of women, I think it is sad that a government that calls itself feminist did not answer the call for help from caregivers and health care workers, most of whom are women who have been on the front lines since March 2020 because of this pandemic.
The Bloc Québécois will not give up its fight alongside Quebec and the provinces for a sustainable, unconditional increase in federal health care funding.
Second, we must tackle the supply of housing, as this is still another serious problem in Quebec. Today, to deal with this crisis, Quebec would need approximately 50,000 new social, community and truly affordable housing units, and that is a lot. I can speak to that because Granby has one of the lowest vacancy rates in Quebec. I am a member of a committee where the city and community organizations are working hard to try to find solutions. However, there is no magic wand, and the federal government must follow suit and take action.
Between 2011 and 2016, under the Conservatives, the number of affordable rental units in the private market for households with the greatest needs declined by 322,600, and this seems to be a continuing trend.
At this time, the Liberals are focusing on a suite of programs and initiatives that address all variables of the housing market except for the most important one, which is more available supply and more housing units. Putting more money in the hands of first-time home buyers, mainly by doubling the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, will do nothing to increase the supply of social or truly affordable housing.
Scotiabank estimates that 1.8 million additional units would have to be built in order for Canada to match the inventory of G7 countries. That shows how much of a gap we have to fill. It is no coincidence that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's most recent report of August 2021 estimates that in the absence of additional funding to address this problem, the number of Canadian households in need of affordable housing will also rise to 1.8 million in five years.
It is important to understand that, if housing supply is the crux of the problem, then social and community housing must be the priority, not the English-Canadian vision of so-called affordable housing, which is growing more and more outdated, particularly in an overheated market.
Despite the incredible rise in housing prices, the housing problem in Quebec and Canada is having a much greater impact on the rental market than on the real estate market. That is why the most important indicator to focus on is housing supply, particularly housing for the most vulnerable, who are growing in number. Social and community housing must be the priority.
Right now, the Liberals' strategy is all over the place. Many of their initiatives have failed. We are already halfway through the time frame set out for the national housing strategy, and yet, according to a recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the programs specifically dedicated to the construction of housing have spent less than 25% of their budget.
Now is the time to build. Housing will not materialize with a snap of the fingers. If we want to get out of this mess, then we need to exponentially increase our housing supply, particularly our supply of social and community housing.
The national housing strategy, which was launched in November 2017, shows that the government has a good understanding of the impact of housing outside Quebec but it does not take into account Quebec's way of doing things and the AccèsLogis Québec program.
Rather than relying on and promoting what works, the federal government wants to impose its vision, even though its programs do not meet our needs and realities, and focus on affordable housing to the detriment of social and community housing.
There is not enough funding, and that money is not being used effectively. Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over housing. Since housing needs vary quite a bit based on socio-demographic factors, and since provincial and municipal governments are more familiar with local issues, these governments are better able to assess and identify what people need.
Third, I want to talk about assistance for businesses. The Canada emergency business account, or CEBA, was designed to provide zero interest, partially forgivable loans to small and medium-sized businesses to help finance expenses that could not be avoided or deferred as they took steps to safely navigate the shutdowns resulting from public health measures to mitigate the spread of COVID‑19.
Since this program was first launched, the Bloc Québécois has called for amendments to the assistance programs to better meet the needs of businesses. For example, we called for more flexibility in the eligibility criteria. We brought up the issue of business debt early on. A survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, in December noted that more than one-quarter of businesses in Quebec might not make it through 2022. More than half of small businesses have not returned to normal sales, and the average debt of a small business in Quebec was almost $100,000, going even as high as $206,944 for a dine-in restaurant.
According to the CFIB, as of October 31, 1,454 insolvency cases had been filed in Quebec alone, which accounts for 60% of all cases filed in Canada. I should note that small businesses contribute 30% of Quebec's GDP. We are proud of our SME models.
Clearly, measures that only increase businesses' debt levels are inadequate. We therefore support this measure to extend the repayment deadline to qualify for loan forgiveness.
It would also be important for the programs to include businesses that opened after the beginning of the pandemic, like companies in the start-up phase. The Bloc Québécois has already shared other ideas for improving the situation for SMEs, including support for online commerce and for card payment processing fees. We are calling on the government to negotiate with the card issuers to secure lower fees for online transactions.
In closing, the Bloc Québécois will continue to be there for the businesses and people of Quebec, because the future holds many challenges, from inflation to labour shortages. The Bloc Québécois will be in problem-solving mode, laser-focused on the needs and demands of Quebec.
I have one final point to make about Quebec's demands. We had concerns about Ottawa respecting Quebec's jurisdictions, which appear to be infringed upon by several of the bill's measures. That is why we voted in favour of the bill in principle, in order to better understand the scope of certain parts of Bill C-8.
Based on the testimony we heard and the government's responses in committee, we came to the conclusion that Quebec's areas of jurisdiction were indeed being encroached upon. This is the first time the federal government has dared to interfere in the area of property taxes by seeking to penalize non-resident, non-Canadian second home owners.
The intrusion could not be any clearer. It was illustrated and explained very well by constitutional expert Patrick Taillon, who testified before the Standing Committee on Finance in February 2021.
We introduced a single amendment that would correct the problem. We tried to find a compromise by proposing measures for property taxes, to make this acceptable to provinces that did not want it. Unfortunately, the Liberal committee chair ruled the Bloc Québécois amendment inadmissible before it could even be debated.
Once again, this government is trying to stick its nose in where it does not belong. It needs to mind its own business.
1634 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/22 11:03:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you for the first time in 2022.
I thank my colleague for his speech. He spoke a lot about health, but does he realize that the problem is not about creating standards or federal interference in jurisdictions belonging to Quebec, the provinces and the territories?
What is crucial, as we emerge from this health crisis, is that the federal government increase health transfers up to 35%. Quebec, the provinces and the territories are responsible for health and need the funding to manage this area of jurisdiction.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:12:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, thank you for reiterating the importance of showing respect in the House.
I would like my colleague to quickly say a few words about two things.
The message this bill is sending by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related crimes is that the government will not intervene and form a joint task force to better control firearms at the borders, as per the key request of the mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec and the suggestion of the Bloc Québécois.
My colleague also addressed the issue of public health. How can she hope to help the organizations when her government is refusing to increase health transfers to 35% of total costs, as requested?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 4:35:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my brilliant economist colleague from Mirabel is a hard act to follow. I do not know if I will be able to reach the bar he set, but I will give it a shot.
As I rise today for my first speech in this 44th Parliament, I am filled with immense gratitude. I would like to begin by thanking all of my volunteers, the members of my office team, my family, and my partner. I will stop here with the acknowledgements, not only because I am afraid that I will forget someone, but also because I want to save some time for my speech. However, before I begin, I do want to thank the voters of Shefford for placing their trust in me for a second term in these unusual times. This election was held in the middle of a pandemic, and now we can finally see what it was all for.
Here we have a new throne speech. My first impression is that this speech is full of things that interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, such as housing, police reform, mental health, natural resource management, violence prevention, and women's services. As well, it fails to mention major issues like health transfers, the energy transition, green finance, EI reform, agriculture, and, most importantly, seniors.
My colleagues will understand that, as the critic for the status of women, gender equality and seniors, my speech will focus on the following areas: seniors, health, women, and the economic recovery.
First, I noticed that seniors are completely left out of the Speech from the Throne, even though we have seen that they continue to suffer the effects of the pandemic. Their financial situation, which was already precarious long before the pandemic, has been exacerbated by the crisis, yet there is nothing for seniors aged 65 to 74, the ones the government always leaves behind.
The government could have taken advantage of the Speech from the Throne to right another wrong. I am referring to something that simply does not sit well with the seniors' groups I consulted, this idea of creating two classes of seniors: those 75 and up and those 74 and under. They should all be eligible for an OAS increase of $110 per month starting at age 65, as the Bloc Québécois is proposing.
It gets worse. In its Speech from the Throne, the government said nothing at all about seniors. I may be repeating myself, but it could have also addressed the GIS clawback that seniors who received the CERB are facing.
As early as spring 2020, ACEF groups contacted the Minister of National Revenue to share their concerns on this issue, but they got no response.
In August 2021, I sent a letter to the former Minister of Seniors, and my colleague, the member for Joliette, sent a message to the Minister of Finance. The election campaign started, and nothing happened. We have since sent letters to the new Minister of Seniors and the Minister of Finance.
Let me stress that our solution is simple. Drastic times call for drastic measures. We want CERB, in this case, to be considered employment income, not an “other benefit”. That is actually what it is.
Seniors who had to leave their jobs because of the pandemic were entitled to CERB. They should not have an average of $400 clawed back from their cheques. They should all be entitled to a review of their file based on their actual income. The impact on their monthly income is huge. They have to decide which medications to buy, they cannot afford good food, and they could lose their housing. For some, this is taking a significant toll on their health.
If pandemic recovery is still a priority for this government, it should make massive investments in health care and help lift the most vulnerable seniors out of poverty. Instead of interfering in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, as it is attempting to do by setting standards for long-term care homes and mental health, it should focus on what it can and should do: respond to Quebec and the provinces' demand to raise federal health transfers from 22% to 35%. That means increasing transfers from $42 billion to $60 billion, a difference of $28 billion per year.
The government has not made its intentions with respect to health transfers clear, but this is an absolutely vital issue, especially in light of events that have exposed what goes wrong when the system is chronically underfunded. Since the 1990s, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have invested enough. They have even cut their health transfers.
Quebec and Canadian provinces all agree that health transfers should be increased. The only ones objecting to fixing the chronic underfunding of health care systems are the Liberals, who were the only party that voted against a motion on this subject in the House of Commons that had the support of FTQ, CSN, CSQ and CSD leaders.
The third point I want to make is about gender-based violence, a topic that is particularly important to me as my party's status of women critic.
The national action plan to end gender-based violence is already in place, but a 10-year plan is far too long. The government needs to stop conducting studies and take action by sending the necessary money to Quebec.
The federal government may not know what to do, but Quebec does. The Bloc Québécois has always said that funds allocated to combat domestic violence should come from Canada health transfers.
Quebec is once again in a class of its own when it comes to family and social policy and the structure of its support network. Quebec has a single, cohesive, integrated network to provide health care services and social programs. The federal government's one-size-fits-all policies often overlap with existing Quebec programs, and it is harder for the Government of Quebec to implement its programs when it does not have full control.
This reality cannot be ignored and must be taken into account to ensure that any federal involvement is designed to be effective and to respect the ways in which Quebec is different.
The recognition of Quebec's special status needs to be an integral part of the process. Any federal involvement must be positive for Quebec and must support Quebec women and girls.
I could have spoken about many other issues, but that is what I hope will be brought forward in the next Parliament, only with a lot more teeth than what we read in this very meagre throne speech. On climate change, the government must not just say that Canada needs to put words into action and that time is of the essence. It must make far more commitments. For example, it must put a cap on oil and gas production, not increase it by focusing on fossil fuels. There is no such thing as clean oil or coal. The Liberals must stop their greenwashing.
The government has yet to table a plan with concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach the 2030 target. It must admit that the Trans Mountain expansion is pointless and cancel this project. The money saved must be used to fund the green transition and a green recovery, as was already proposed by the Bloc Québécois in the post-COVID-19 recovery plan it released when Parliament resumed in September 2020. It proposed creating real green financing by encouraging the banks to invest heavily in the green recovery, clean energy, green technologies and energy efficiency, which will provide real protection for our environment in the long term.
We also need to ensure that the economy grows with targeted and prudent spending support, including the extension of support measures, as well as targeted support for affected industries, such as culture and tourism. Both of those economic sectors are so important to Shefford.
We will keep a close eye on how Bill C-2 is implemented and propose improvements. We also need to combat inflation and address the very important issue of the labour shortage, for which the Bloc Québécois made seven very worthwhile proposals during the last campaign.
We also need to work on family reunification and on a refugee resettlement program, and, really, the issue of immigration in general, since it remains so problematic and takes up so much of my office staff's time. We also need to work on the issue of social housing and homelessness.
In closing, I would point out that getting out of this crisis calls for a clear plan, and we saw no such thing in the throne speech.
To bring this full circle, let us look at seniors again. One way to protect people from the effects of inflation is to ensure decent purchasing power, especially for seniors. That is why people must be outraged.
As the great Quebec humorist Yvon Deschamps once said, one is always better off being rich and healthy than sick and poor. That was true in the 1960s and it is unfortunately still true in 2021 for far too many disadvantaged seniors.
We should be appalled by the disregard being shown to those who built Quebec and Canada. We must do something about it.
1581 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 6:10:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate you on your re-election. As a woman, I will say it is always nice to see women serving as Chair.
My colleague briefly touched on the issue of violence against women when he spoke about housing. Yes, having more housing is critical to breaking the cycle of violence against women, but I would like to come back to one aspect that he did not bring up.
In the throne speech, there is a 10-year plan to study violence against women. Ten years is far too long when there is already a national action plan. If the Liberals do not know what to do with the money to help women who are victims of violence, they should transfer it to Quebec, which knows what to do with it in its health care system. We already have a lot of expertise in Quebec. Furthermore, we have a multi-party committee that has proposed measures to help women and break the cycle of domestic violence.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about how important it is to transfer these funds to Quebec, which knows what to do with them and will not need to do more studies and wait another 10 years.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 4:23:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the critic for status of women, I would like to congratulate you. I am very happy to see a woman in the chair.
That being said, I would like to make a comment. Then, I will ask my colleague from Regina—Qu’Appelle a question.
He spoke about what the U.S. President did about the Keystone XL pipeline after he was elected. Perhaps the U.S. President understands something that even the Conservatives do not seem to understand, namely that it is important that we make a green shift toward using less oil, not more. It is important to invest in a green recovery, a recovery that will truly allow us to develop new green technologies. Perhaps that is it. That is my comment, but, at the same time, my colleague spoke about investments.
I would like us to invest in green technology. I would also like my colleague to reassure me; in times of fiscal restraint, if there is a sector that should not suffer cuts, it is the health care sector. Unfortunately, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have had a tendency to make cuts to health care in times of fiscal restraint, and that is why we are in this situation today.
Does my colleague not think that it is important to reinvest massively in health transfers, up to 35%, just as it is important to invest in green technologies? Regardless of the state of the economy at the end of the pandemic, these two sectors will need investments.
258 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
