- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome everyone back. I can sense everyone's excitement. Let us hope that our parliamentary work will be very productive. I hope you had a good summer, Mr. Speaker. You are looking very well indeed.
In speaking to Bill C‑318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents, which would introduce an attachment benefit, I recognize that this is a sensitive issue.
I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑318. The arrival of a child is a complex and challenging time for the whole family, all the more so when the child is adopted or conceived through surrogacy.
I will talk about that very briefly in my speech while emphasizing the need for attachment. Then I will talk about the need for employment insurance reform and, lastly, I will talk about how the governments of Canada and Quebec need to be on the same page.
First, I would like to remind the House that the bond created with the child is an important part of parenthood. Again, in the case of adoption or the arrival of a child from a surrogate, this process can be a delicate step since the link with the parents is not biological. We know that international adoptions are becoming less frequent and that children adopted by Canadian or Quebec families are often older than in the past, or have special needs. As a result, we can be sympathetic to the desire of these new parents to receive a special benefit to foster attachment.
We also know that the attachment process is complex and time-consuming, particularly for adopted children, and that it is part of an equation that also involves the so-called normal needs of a baby or toddler. That is why it is a good idea to create this new benefit.
The bill also provides for an extension when the child is hospitalized. The extension would be equivalent to the number of weeks the child receives care in a health care facility. We know that hospitalizing a child is an emotionally difficult ordeal. This extension therefore seems necessary, especially if we take into account the emotional factors that are added when adopting or welcoming a child from a surrogate.
We should also bear in mind that this legislation will require royal recommendation. Adding this new benefit to the existing EI program would involve approximately $88 million in spending between 2023 and 2028.
Second, there is also the government's lack of leadership on employment insurance in general. In 2021, the Liberals had campaigned on the promise to modernize employment insurance and had committed to expanding the program to cover self-employed workers and address the gaps highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. There is still nothing in the latest budget, however. The Liberals say they are committed to modernizing the system, but we can see that their communication is lacking; they do not walk the talk.
The only changes announced by this government in the budget are two small reforms. The first is to extend a temporary change to employment insurance introduced in 2018 that increases the number of weeks of coverage available to seasonal workers. The second is to strengthen the prohibitions for misclassification of federally regulated gig workers. That is a far cry from the major structural changes that we, my colleague from Thérèse-de-Blainville in particular, have been seeking for so long.
The Bloc Québécois is calling for greater leadership on this issue. The government must review the current formula, the structure of the program, its eligibility requirements, its funding and its administrative technology.
This bill proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act to add a new type of special benefit, namely a 15-week attachment benefit for adoptive parents and and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.
In Canada, the EI program provides 17 weeks of maternity leave for pregnant women, which can begin at any time during the period that starts in the week before the expected date of delivery and ends 17 weeks after the actual date of delivery. The Canadian program also provides parental leave of up to 63 weeks for natural and adoptive parents. Parents who both work for federally regulated employers can share the parental leave, which entitles them to eight additional weeks of leave.
Parents who share parental leave are entitled to 71 weeks of leave. They can take the leave at any time during the 78-week period that starts on the day of the child's birth or on the day the child is entrusted to them. There is no provision in the Code for paid parental leave. Longer parental leave under an employer's policy, a collective agreement or an employment contract may also apply.
Third, let us compare this with what is currently being done in Quebec. In the case of a birth, parental leave can begin the week of the child's birth. It is in addition to the 18-week maternity leave or five-week paternity leave. In the case of an adoption, each adoptive parent is also entitled to 65 weeks of parental leave. The leave may begin no earlier than the week when the child is entrusted to his or her adoptive parents or when the parents leave their work to travel outside Quebec to receive their child. Leave ends a maximum of 78 weeks afterwards. In a same-sex couple, both parents are entitled to parental leave if the child's relationship to his or her mothers or fathers has been established in the birth certificate or adoption judgment. At the parent's request, parental leave is suspended, divided or extended if the parent's or child's health requires it. In other situations, at the parent's request and if the employer agrees to it, leave may be divided into weeks.
Up until December 2020, Quebec's parental insurance plan, the QPIP, did not offer the same benefits to all workers. Adoptive parents had 18 weeks less to spend with their children. It was ultimately at the end of a battle by the Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec, or FPAQ, that the tide turned. Passed on October 27, 2020 and assented to on October 29, Bill 51 gave equitable treatment to adoptive parents as of December 1, 2020 through the creation of reception and support benefits, as well as adoption benefits for the second parent. In total, adoptive parents are entitled to the same durations and income replacement levels as biological parents. For the time being, both the Canadian and Quebec plans do not provide any attachment benefits such as those proposed in this bill.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has studied the spending that Bill C‑318 would entail. The current proposal is that beneficiaries would receive a benefit equal to 55% of their average weekly insurable earnings for 15 weeks, up to an amount determined using the maximum annual insurable earnings received in the affected year. The maximum weekly benefit for 2023 is $650. For each child, those 15 weeks of benefits could be divided between the two parents. The cost of the program would be approximately $88 million over five years, from 2023 to 2028. However, it is important to keep in mind that the forecasts for the number of adoptions and births of children conceived through surrogacy are not robust and create some uncertainty as to the final real costs of implementing this new benefit.
To conclude, allow me to steer the discussion back to attachment theory, which is generally credited to John Bowlby. Bowlby drew attention to the fact that children turn to adults for protection from the time they are born. Stability, consistency and adequate basic care are key components of attachment theory. Depending on the child's disposition and the adult's approach to meeting the child's needs, the child-adult relationship develops into a mutual partnership.
A comforting, healthy attachment provides children with an important starting point for exploring the world, secure in the knowledge that safety is never far away. Attachment plays a critical role in teaching children to organize their feelings and behaviours, confident that they can rely on the person who cares for and comforts them. Forming attachments is also vital to a child's long-term psychological health. Attachments teach children to trust others, which makes it easier for them to form healthy relationships later in life. Most attachments, however, depend on two basic factors: proximity and time. The long-awaited arrival of a new child is an emotional time for parents, and this new benefit could help them adjust to their new parental role and give it their full attention.
As we know, EI is part of our social safety net. It is a proven fact that the pandemic has exacerbated the current problems with the EI system. We are asking for these changes to be made simply out of compassion and because EI is the tool we gave ourselves. It is our safety net to help people through hard times. We are asking for these specific benefits, but, as I heard a lot over the summer, especially from women's groups, and as we are resuming our work here in the House, I can tell members that a comprehensive reform of the whole EI system is badly needed to help people get through these challenging times.
1626 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her heartfelt intervention.
I think that we agree that on this December 6, we have to work on addressing violence against women.
Listening to my colleague talk reminds me that there is a direct link between poverty and violence against women. To help women escape the cycle of violence, we need to make sure that they have a bit more money in their pockets.
How can the government claim to have a feminist agenda while maintaining an EI system that is more discriminatory toward women? The same goes for refusing to increase old age security benefits. We know that this has a greater impact on women.
In what way do these two programs affect women more?
123 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
- Apr/29/22 11:57:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a fraud epidemic at Service Canada, and the federal government is doing nothing to help victims.
In my riding alone, over 175 people have come to me for help. Ottawa is withholding their benefits because they have been the victims of fraud. The fraudsters are the ones who should be punished, not the victims.
As we speak, thousands of people across Quebec have lost their jobs and are being denied employment insurance.
When will the government stop penalizing victims of fraud and give them their money?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/4/22 11:39:15 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the moment, it just looks cheap.
The minister cannot hide behind the commission. It is up to Parliament to amend legislation, as the commission itself pointed out. It is entirely the minister's responsibility.
There are exceptions to the law that allow people claiming EI to calculate their income over two years rather than 52 weeks. People who cannot work because they are sick, injured or incarcerated are entitled to this.
Why are new mothers who have lost their jobs not entitled to the same thing? It seems pretty simple to me.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 2:58:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is embarrassing. During the week of March 8, a day when we celebrate women's rights, this government, which claims to be feminist, is in court to retain the right to deny employment insurance to new mothers who lose their jobs. Let us just think about that for a moment. I could not even make this stuff up.
Women had to sue the Canada Employment Insurance Commission because the government has refused to correct the situation for years. Even though the women won, this government wants to appeal. Because of this government, they have to continue to fight. Is this the fight that a self-proclaimed feminist government should be waging today?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 12:21:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Mr. Speaker, I thank my eloquent colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his very interesting speech.
He said that no one can be against apple pie or the importance of protecting workers while we are still grappling with this pandemic and do not want anyone to infect others. Let us not forget that the purpose of these 10 days of paid leave is to ensure the safety of the individual, but also to protect others.
My colleague also addressed the Speech from the Throne. With respect to workers' rights, the Bloc Québécois notes that this speech makes no mention of the EI reform it has been calling for for months. This issue is being championed by my wonderful colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville. In 2021, it is more urgent than ever to conduct a major reform of EI in order to further protect workers' rights.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
