- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-356, and I have a lot to say about this bill. In my speech, I will try to address first the Conservative position and then that of the Bloc Québécois. If I have time, I will speak briefly on homelessness.
Bill C-356 reiterates the Conservative leader’s rhetoric on the housing crisis. In his view, the municipalities are responsible for the housing crisis by tying up real estate development in useless red tape. Let us recall that the Conservatives were among the first to play politics on this issue by directly attacking municipal democracy when they stated, during their opposition day on May 2, 2023, that they wanted to penalize municipalities that do not build enough housing.
The Bloc Québécois has long held that those best positioned to know the housing needs in their respective jurisdictions are the provinces, Quebec and the municipalities. The federal government has no business interfering. Moreover, let us keep in mind that housing is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Should our colleagues need a reminder, I invite them to refer to subsections 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution, which give the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights as well as matters of a local nature. The federal government therefore has no right to interfere.
Let us keep in mind the importance of municipal policy, the importance of this level of government and its closeness to the people. Municipalities know their areas and the actual needs of their citizens best. They are the ones that provide direct services and organize their living environment and their neighbourhoods.
When the Conservatives say that municipalities and cities are the ones that delay the process, that is nonsense. They call the phenomenon “not in my backyard”. We believe that the Conservatives prefer to dodge public consultations that help obtain social licence by communicating effectively with the neighbours of a given project. Instead, they prefer to give a free pass to real estate developers. To their mind, the public consultations that cities and citizens are calling for are a terrible scourge that harms everyone and blocks the construction of new homes. Nonetheless, the Conservatives should understand why public consultations exist; they exist particularly because we do not build just anything, anywhere, willy-nilly.
When it was elected in 2011, the Conservative government did not see fit to increase the budget to assist households still deemed to be inadequately housed, letting it stagnate at its 2011 level, or $250 million a year. When it introduced its 2015 budget, that government chose not to extend the funding for social housing stock. Bill C-356 blames the entire housing shortage on municipalities, but this crisis would not be nearly as serious as it is now, if, under the Conservatives, the federal government had not withdrawn funding for the construction of social housing.
The bill aims to control municipalities. It is an irresponsible bill that denies any federal responsibility in the matter and confirms that the Conservative Party will do nothing to address the crisis if it comes into power.
It is also a bill that offers no solutions. There are lots of condos on the market at $3,000 a month. What is lacking is housing that people can afford. That is where the government should focus its efforts. This notion, however, is completely absent from the Conservative leader’s vision. Bill C-356 gives developers the keys to the city so they can build more $3,000-a-month condos.
In short, the bill’s solution to the housing crisis is to let the big real estate developers do anything, anywhere, in any way they see fit. The populist solution offered by the bill ignores the fact that people do not only live in housing, but also in neighbourhoods and cities. That means we need infrastructure for water and sewers, for roads, and for public and private services, such as schools and grocery stores. Cities have a duty to impose conditions and to ensure that their citizens are well served.
Bill C-356 is also disrespectful and divisive. Since 1973, under the Robert Bourassa government, the Quebec Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif has prevented Ottawa from dealing directly with Quebec municipalities. The Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Framework Agreement reflects this reality, stipulating that Ottawa has no right to intervene in establishing priorities.
What Bill C-356 proposes is to tear up this agreement. Considering that the agreement took 27 months to negotiate, Bill-356 promises two years of bickering, during which all projects will be paralyzed. In the middle of the housing crisis, this is downright disastrous.
If housing starts in a city do not increase as required by Ottawa, Bill C‑356 proposes cutting gas tax and public transit transfers by 1% for each percentage point shortfall under the target it unilaterally set. For example, housing starts in Quebec dropped 60% this year instead of increasing 15%. If Bill C‑356 were in place, this would mean a reduction in transfer payments of about 75%.
Bill C‑356 goes even further, proposing that financing for urban transit be withheld if cities do not meet the 15% target it unilaterally set. This policy would result in a greater use of automobiles, since transit would only be built after the fact, not in conjunction with new housing developments.
Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois already has a wide range of proposals for solutions to deal with the housing crisis across Quebec and Canada. First, we welcomed the Canada-Quebec housing agreement signed in 2020. This agreement is valued at $3.7 billion, half of which comes from the federal government. However, we lamented the fact that negotiations for this agreement spanned three years. Funds that should have gone to Quebec were frozen until the two levels of government found common ground. The Bloc deplores the federal government's constant need to dictate how Quebec spends its money. Quebec wants its piece of the pie, no strings attached. If it had gotten it in 2017, Quebec could have started the construction and renovation of several housing projects, including social housing, three years sooner. This definitely would have eased the current housing crisis.
Unconditional transfers would greatly simplify the funding process. The multitude of different agreements creates more red tape and delays the actual payment of the sums in question. The Bloc also reiterated how important it is that federal funding address first and foremost the needs for social and deeply affordable housing, which are the most critical. Here is what we proposed during the last election:
The Bloc Québécois proposes that Ottawa gradually reinvest in social, community and deeply affordable housing until it reaches 1% of its total annual revenue and implement a consistent and predictable funding stream instead of ad hoc agreements.
The Bloc Québécois proposes that federal surplus properties be repurposed for social, community and deeply affordable housing as a priority in an effort to address the housing crisis.
The Bloc Québécois will propose a tax on real estate speculation to counter artificial overheating of the housing market.
The Bloc Québécois will propose a reform of the home buyers' plan to account for the many different realities and family situations of Quebec households.
The Bloc Québécois proposes that the federal government undertake a financial restructuring of programs under the national housing strategy to create an acquisition fund. This fund would enable co-ops and non-profits to purchase housing buildings that are already on the market, ensure they remain affordable and turn them into social, community and deeply affordable housing.
The Bloc Québécois will ensure that Quebec receives its fair share of funding, without conditions, from federal programs to combat homelessness, while also calling for the funding released in the past year during the pandemic to be made permanent.
In fact, I floated these ideas during the last election campaign in a regional debate in the Eastern Townships. The groups really liked the Bloc's recommendations. However, they lamented the fact that both the Conservatives and the Liberals did not attend the debate. Their absence did not go unnoticed. When parties say they want to make housing a priority but do not show up for the debates, what message does that send?
I am going to take a few moments to quickly talk about homelessness, a phenomenon that is on the rise throughout Quebec and Canada. We are now seeing that homelessness is becoming regionalized. In 2018, 80% of homeless people were in Montreal, compared to 60% in 2022. I am seeing the effects of this in Granby, which is in Shefford, the riding I represent. It is having an impact. The increase in homelessness is caused by issues stemming from the financialization of housing and real estate speculation. All of that reduces the availability of affordable housing.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-356.
I would like to add one last thing. Families and seniors affected by the housing crisis need realistic solutions for social, community and deeply affordable housing that meets their needs. Granby and the broader Shefford community are already concerned about social housing and certainly do not need to be hit with another example of Conservative misinformation. Our communities are capable enough to handle this themselves.
1613 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
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning Mathieu Caron, a man from Sherbrooke whose podcast helped me better understand what it is like to be an adult living with autism. Hi Mathieu.
Today I am talking about Bill S-203, which would provide for the development of a federal framework designed to support autistic Canadians, their families and their caregivers. It directs the Minister of Health to develop a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder. The national framework must identify measures relating to research, culture and tax benefits, among other things. The minister must consult with other relevant federal ministers, civil society groups, and provincial governments and the Government of Quebec, including their ministers of health. Lastly, the bill provides for the tabling of a report in Parliament, as proposed by Quebec senator Marie‑Françoise Mégie, who is also a doctor.
The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at second reading so that it can go to committee and be amended in such a way as to respect Quebec's jurisdiction. In my speech, I will discuss the pros and cons of this bill, share examples from Quebec and conclude with a reminder about the importance of investing in health.
To begin with, in 2019, the Minister of Health's mandate letter directed her to “[w]ork collaboratively with provinces, territories, families and stakeholders toward the creation of a national autism strategy”. On October 27, 2020, the Government of Canada announced $1.46 million for the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, or CAHS, to lead consultations on a national autism strategy. The CAHS report was released in May 2022, and the Public Health Agency of Canada hosted a national virtual conference on November 15 and 16, 2022, to inform the development of a national strategy.
As a reminder, autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental condition. The term refers to a range of disorders characterized by difficulties with social skills, repetitive behaviours, speech and non-verbal communication. Individuals on the autism spectrum may also have co-occurring health conditions that affect their overall physical health, including their mental health.
According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, approximately one in 50 Canadian children and youth, or 2%, have autism. That number has gone up over time. In Quebec, the annual prevalence of ASD in children aged one to 17 has been growing strongly, rising from one per 1,000 in 2000-01 to more than four per 1,000 in 2014-15. This prevalence differs according to the child's sex and age. It was 7.3 and 1.8 per 1,000 among boys and girls, respectively, in 2014-15.
People on the autism spectrum need support in various areas, such as housing, employment, education and, of course, health services. Within its areas of jurisdiction, the federal government can play a role in supporting these people and their families. Autism intersects with other identities such as race, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic status, gender and sexuality, and that intersectionality creates diversity in experiences and needs that must be taken into account. People with autism do not always feel safe or meaningfully included in their communities. Such experiences can have harmful outcomes to their health, safety and quality of life. We must work harder to include them.
Stigma and discrimination can be addressed by shifting public attitudes towards autism acceptance and awareness through public campaigns, social contact, training, and education programs. The physical and emotional safety of people with autism can be fostered by promoting autism-inclusive, neuro-affirming and accessible spaces, programs and understanding in local communities. Best practices for suicide prevention can also be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals with autism at risk for suicide.
Improving the accessibility and inclusion of public transportation, recreational facilities, leisure programs, and technology can enable community participation of people with autism. Quebec and every province and territory offer autism diagnostic and support services, yet there is wide variability in what is available, which can contribute to delays and disparities. Some people with autism are particularly disadvantaged, such as those living in rural and remote areas, equity-seeking groups, and adults with autism. Research to develop valid and meaningful strengths-based diagnostic tools and improve access to diagnostic assessments for adults with autism is also suggested.
Adopting family-centred services available across the lifespan can promote the health and well-being of the entire family. It also empowers families to be involved in service delivery.
Young autistic children benefit from early access to supports and services because this is a time of significant development. Equitable access to school and community supports across a range of life domains can promote academic success, life and social skills, and improve mental health.
Implementing health and education transition policies and practices may help manage and prevent mental and physical health challenges and promote better adult outcomes.
However, research about autism in adulthood is limited. More than half of Canadians with autism rely on disability benefits.
Academic supports and accommodations available in post-secondary institutions do not always meet the diverse range of autistic students' needs and abilities, which means that they are still not enrolling to the same extent as non-autistic and other disabled students.
Some ways to create more inclusive workplaces, which is also important, and to improve employment outcomes can involve providing autism-inclusive supports and accommodations, giving access to supported work experience and internships, addressing benefit disincentives, and promoting workplace autism acceptance. Mr. Caron spoke at length about this with me.
With the limited availability of affordable housing in many regions, autism-inclusive housing is in even shorter supply across Canada, and the need will only grow.
Second, with its generous social safety net, Quebec already offers a wide range of services for individuals with autism. The Bloc Québécois hopes that the strategy will recognize these efforts, and that Quebec will not be penalized for its generous social benefits.
We also have some excellent examples in Quebec. Les Grands Ballets Canadiens de Montréal offers a program called “dance for well-being”. This great model contributes to the well-being of people living with autism spectrum disorder, their families and caregivers through the benefits of dance.
Quebec offers a wide range of services for people with a physical or intellectual disability or an autism spectrum disorder to develop, maintain and compensate for their disabilities and promote their autonomy and social participation. These services are also intended for family and loved ones. They are divided into three categories. One category is local services that are often offered in the individual's living environments, such as the home, school or workplace. They aim to compensate for functional disabilities and reduce the risk of harm to ensure the safety of activities related to lifestyle. Examples include home support services, residential services, support for meaningful and rewarding activities, and support services for family and friends.
I would like to highlight the work that has been done for the past 45 years by the Fédération québécoise de l'autisme, a provincial group of organizations and individuals who are concerned about the interests of people with autism, their families and friends. This federation defends their rights, supports community life, informs and instructs Quebeckers on issues related to autism, and participates in research.
There are 16 regional autism associations in Quebec. Associate members include other associations, early childhood centres, rehabilitation centres, school boards, schools, hospitals and private clinics. Everyone works together. The regional autism associations are community organizations primarily made up of parents, and their shared mission is to promote and defend the rights and interests of people with autism in order to enable them to lead a dignified life and achieve the greatest degree of social autonomy possible.
Third, I certainly must mention the fact that the Bloc Québécois is adamant that delivery of health services is not a federal jurisdiction. It refuses to allow the federal government to impose its standards and ways of doing things on Quebec and the provinces.
As such, the Bloc Québécois wants to emphasize that one component of the national strategy, timely and equitable access to screening and diagnosis for autism spectrum disorder, is not under federal jurisdiction. When it comes to delivering health care services, the best thing the federal government can do is increase health transfers. That is why the Bloc Québécois will seek to amend Bill S‑203 to ensure that it respects Quebec's and the provinces' areas of jurisdiction.
In closing, I would be remiss if I did not mention the federal, provincial and Quebec health ministers' meeting, which took place from November 7 to 9, 2022, and ended inconclusively. The only solution is higher transfers.
The Bloc Québécois supports Quebec and the provinces' unified demand that the federal government raise health transfers from 22% to 35%. This permanent increase is what will help people living with autism spectrum disorder. Again, only a 35% contribution from the feds will enable people to live with autism spectrum disorder.
In closing, I thank the Granby association for intellectual disabilities and autism. I had the opportunity to visit this organization recently, and the people there are doing absolutely terrific work. Quebec has plenty of wonderful organizations like this one. I hope the federal government will provide health transfers so that we in Quebec can continue to help them and help people with autism.
1617 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 1:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am rather excited to rise today. It is always a pleasure to talk about the environment in the House, especially since I was a member of an ECOSPHERE fair on the environment for more than 10 years.
I ended up there when I was working for Christian Ouellet, whose work inspired me. I tip my hat to him. As an MP, he was the Bloc Québécois deputy critic for the environment and natural resources. I did a lot of research for him for studies on all sorts of environmental aspects when I was working on Parliament Hill. Whenever we talk about the environment, the diversity of what we might find always strikes us. It affects so many aspects of our lives.
When I agreed to be an administrator for the ECOSPHERE fair at the time, I found it really interesting how that helped me see the impact that common household items and personal use items have on the environment. There is a lot of talk about microplastics, construction and renovation materials, what we use for transportation, as well as all the new technology for green vehicles. This touches a very large area of activity. It also gave me the opportunity, over many years, to have many conversations and to attend many conferences on the topic.
That said, today I rise to speak to Bill S-5 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I will start by saying that we are in favour of the principle of this bill. However, the Bloc Québécois deems that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and our Quebec territory. That was brought up earlier during questions and comments, and my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île also said it, rather eloquently: On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians from all parties in Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asserting the primacy of Quebec’s jurisdiction over the environment. Elected representatives in Quebec unanimously oppose any federal government intervention in environmental matters in Quebec.
The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena. For us, that is really crucial, particularly as we have nothing to learn from the federal government when it comes to the environment. Quebec really has a great reputation, as I said. I realized that when working for the former member for Brome—Missisquoi, a great environmentalist who travelled internationally to represent Quebec in green architecture. We even have an international reputation when it comes to environmental matters.
That said, under our current laws, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois will do everything in its power to ensure that the federal government properly carries out its duties. That obviously involves updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. This is a necessary legislative modernization, and we will give it all the attention it deserves.
We want to point out that Bill S-5 does not constitute a comprehensive review of the CEPA. In fact, not all parts of the act are covered by Bill S-5. The bill includes many elements that are particularly technical, but I will not go there today. Those elements merit serious study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I think that my colleague from Repentigny, who is on that committee, will do excellent work, supported by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. Together, I am sure they will do a great job on this file. We really want those members to do this work as part of the committee to ensure that the modernized law will truly allow the federal government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities, while respecting Quebec’s environmental sovereignty.
The Bloc Québécois has been critical of some of the partisan claims inserted into Bill S-5. We are not fooled by the Liberal government's claim that modernizing the act creates the right to a healthy environment. That is absolutely not the case, even according to the senior public servants who presented Bill S-5 to parliamentarians when it was tabled. First, it should be noted that all the sections pertaining to the right to a healthy environment and to vulnerable populations are found in CEPA's preamble. Their scope is that of the act itself. They have no impact on other Canadian laws. While the bill would add the protection of this right to the federal government's mission, the proposed amendments would not necessarily create a true fundamental right to live in a healthy environment, although that is the crucial point and what more and more people are calling for.
If the government were serious about creating a new right and had any political courage at all, it would propose that the federation partners hold a round of constitutional negotiations to include this right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Since 2006, Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has stated: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved”. Once again, Quebec is a trailblazer.
Unlike CEPA, the Quebec charter, in Quebec's political context, is quasi-constitutional in scope. This is not insignificant. Clearly, Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect the fundamental rights of Quebeckers.
When it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. Just look at Bay du Nord, for one thing. Look at all the money the federal government is putting into the oil sands. Look at any number of issues. While Quebec is trying move away from oil, put money into a green transition, and support workers, the federal government continues to invest in all these fossil fuels.
Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois does want to work with all parliamentarians on chemicals management, the list of toxic substances, improved risk management accountability, comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements to ensure that the repealed act reflects, to the greatest possible extent, the recommendations of stakeholders such as environmental health protection groups and chemical industry partners.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be absolutely vigilant in its study of the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. Bill S‑5, which amends the 1999 Canadian act, makes related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and repeals the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Marc Gold and went through first reading on February 9, 2022. It is now at second reading, which began on March 1, 2022.
Perhaps the bill does seek to strengthen environmental protection for a healthier Canada, but as I said, it lacks teeth. It lacks something that Quebec has already. The bill is identical to Bill C-28, which was introduced by the environment minister and received first reading on April 13, 2021, before dying on the Order Paper on August 15, 2021, when the 43rd Parliament was dissolved. That brings us back to the impacts of the 2021 election. How many bills died on the Order Paper just for vote-seeking reasons? This bill did, but many others did too. I have risen in the House often to speak out against that election, which traded four quarters for a dollar at a great cost to taxpayers.
If the government were serious about its desire to get things done, it would not always be holding up the work. In August 2020, when it decided to prorogue the House, many reports were shelved, including the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected women. The 2021 election also resulted in a lot of reports being shelved. We see that there have been delays in far too many areas.
The bill is identical to Bill C‑28, as I said. This bill, which amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is divided into 12 parts. We could come back to it in a much more precise way, but it is also important to mention that in 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations, including the following: recognize and enforce the right to a healthy environment, address exposures of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, and recognize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government dragged its feet on this UN declaration for far too long. Canada was one of the last countries to sign on. It is really sad.
My time is running out. I had so much more to say, but I will just add that on the weekend, I met with Thibault Rehn, from Vigilance OGM. He was proud of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing in denouncing all this and calling for better traceability.
He also told me how proud it makes him to hear us talk about what we eat, what we put in our bodies, the work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the work of the Bloc Québécois in general when it comes to the environment. I realize that I get fired up when I talk about the environment, I could have said a lot more—
1633 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 5:28:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for agreeing to share his time with me.
I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion concerning post-secondary studies and research chairs, even though this is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
As the critic for status of women, I am perfectly aware that this group is still under-represented and that more work needs to be done. However, the debate we would like to have is not about the concept of positive discrimination in general, but about the specific policy of the Canada research chairs program, and its requirements and practices concerning equity, diversity and inclusion. We are not against equity. We are not against diversity. We are not against inclusion. I am pleased to note that once again, Quebec is working to raise awareness of such matters.
Today I will be speaking about what is already being done in Quebec, I will come back to Ottawa's paternalistic approach, and I will conclude by speaking about the importance of being proactive, especially in the case of women, but also in the case of indigenous peoples, people with disabilities and minorities.
First, we must speak about what is already being done in Quebec.
The right way to promote equality, diversity and inclusion would instead be to apply a preferential hiring policy, meaning that for equally qualified candidates, preference would be given to certain people. That is what many Quebec universities have already done with respect to women, and it has worked well.
We are not directly opposed to all current, future or possible policies aimed at promoting equity, diversity and inclusion, especially since these exist in Quebec. We are starting a debate on the matter, a societal debate which has not yet taken place, but which is necessary and desirable.
I do want to say that in Quebec, there are also CEGEPs. Today, we are talking a lot about universities and research chairs, but we must not forget about CEGEPs.
There is no university in the riding of Shefford, but there is an excellent CEGEP in Granby. It may be training future researchers. We must not forget them in the post-secondary education continuum, whether it is for pre-university studies or technical courses. That is why I was delighted to present female science students with certificates to recognize their academic excellence as part of Hooked on School Days. I also talked with Yvan O'Connor, the director of the Granby CEGEP, who told me about his institution's projects and development and the problems related to foreign student visas.
If the federal government wants to contribute to education, it should work on matters under its jurisdiction. For example, it could provide adequate funding for science, which it is not doing at the moment.
We are opposed to a federal policy that is specific, ill-conceived and tainted by ideology. It creates paradoxical situations, anomalies or inequities. Moreover, it represents federal interference in an area under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction.
Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, expressly confers jurisdiction over education on the provinces. It is generally known and accepted that education is a Quebec matter. Quebec's universities belong to Quebeckers, and they are funded through taxes paid by Quebeckers.
In fact, it is a direct intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, because the influence of the Canada research chairs program goes beyond simply funding research. In fact, it acts as a professor hiring program. The federal government is dictating hiring conditions to universities. This is unacceptable. The program must be reviewed.
The federal government can use its spending power to finance research, but it cannot, in any way, use this approach to change the way Quebec's universities function. Yet, that is what is happening because of the excessive constraints imposed by the Canada research chairs program, particularly because of its unreasonable equity, diversity and inclusion requirements.
In addition, through the requirements it imposes on its research funding programs, the federal government is undermining the autonomy of universities. There is no excuse for the government dictating the conditions for hiring professors. If the government wishes to appropriate the ability to spend on education, it must do so with no strings attached.
It is unacceptable for the federal government to impose targets on Quebec universities under threat of sanctions. Quebec universities are perfectly free to develop programs to address diversity and inclusion without having the federal government dictate the terms and conditions under threat of having part of their funding withheld. Federally imposed requirements are unacceptable and illegitimate impediments to their independence.
It is possible to have a policy that fosters hiring from certain groups of equal qualifications. That is true and it is already being done for women in some Quebec university departments, for example. However, to apply an equal opportunities policy, you must have candidates who are available and interested.
The federal EDI policy on academic research funding is an ideological drift that creates absurd situations, and it must be abolished.
If we want the academic workforce to be more diverse and representative of the Canadian population, the solution is not to impose arbitrary quotas at the time of hiring, because the most important criteria should be the excellence of academic records and the value of scientific research projects.
The solution should be proactive instead, so that at the time of hiring, the pool of candidates is already more diverse and representative of the general population.
We are therefore being asked to collectively reflect on how we can find positive measures that will promote equal opportunities by stimulating interest in the arts, science and all spheres of society. In all cases, this will be a Quebec discussion, as education is at the heart of our social model.
The federal government's responsibility is to stop interfering in the management of Quebec universities and to improve the granting agencies' research grants for students. Yes, quotas create certain effects. They are unequal. To put it bluntly, the CRC program's current policy prevents some researchers from applying for research chair positions because they are not part of the designated groups. They are automatically excluded, despite their qualifications, even if that means some chairs remain vacant.
The unequal effects of the hiring targets for the four designated groups, namely women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and visible minorities, came under public scrutiny when Laval University posted an ad for a job in the biology department in the winter of 2022. There was also an interesting column by Jean‑François Lisée, who denounced the incongruity of setting targets using the Canadian average.
With its Université du Québec network, Quebec made the choice to set up universities in the regions. That way, knowledge is not concentrated in the major centres, and this contributes to the social vitality of our regions. The current CRC policy requires our universities to recruit not only outside their walls, but well outside the regions in which they are established. The CRC policy directly hinders Quebec's vision. This is very important to me because it hurts our communities.
The federal government's position is rigid and ideologically driven. What is more, it constitutes interference in provincial jurisdictions. It is also an attack on the autonomy of universities. The federal government should review its research funding policy and allow the universities to determine their own hiring policies.
In Quebec, these criteria are evaluated based on the efforts made by the candidate to promote EDI, not on hiring quotas that exclude qualified researchers. We must not forget the important issue of university autonomy. These requirements prove that the federal policy does not respect the autonomy and independence of universities. The federal government's approach is extremely authoritarian and high-handed.
I would also add that, in the context of a labour shortage, it can take time to renew this pool, as requested by the federal government, given that many years of study are required for this process. That is the quandary faced by universities when they are required to fill positions with people from designated groups, except for women. Setting aside the issue of hiring quotas and the curious fact that women, indigenous people, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities are put in the same boat, this temporary excitement among elected officials and the media gives us an opportunity to again point out a fundamental fact about universities and their autonomy. We should remember that this is not about discussing the legitimacy of certain appointments from specific groups, because, in the case of women, that has been happening for more than 20 years. Instead, we are noting that the requirements imposed by the federal program are not being condemned by universities as an illegitimate and unacceptable restriction on their autonomy.
However, is this not a striking case of the denial of their management autonomy? In other words, these prejudices will be eliminated not by excluding certain people, but by improving selection processes. For example, universities could anonymize CVs or establish standard exams for a position. This is being discussed as a means of promoting the hiring of women.
These are points to ponder, because, beyond the debates on these exclusive criteria, I would like us to have a calm, healthy debate on proactive measures we can take. What barriers need to be broken down? Why are women still under-represented as entrepreneurs? Why are there still fewer women in politics? Why do we have to work harder to recruit female research chairs, especially in economics?
I was reading about that this summer in Hélène Périvier's excellent book about feminist economics, L'économie féministe. I highly recommend it. At the end of the day, I want little girls like my little Naomie to aspire to do the work they want to do, no matter what they choose.
Let us give them the choice. Let us give our universities the choice to operate the way they want.
1685 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
- Mar/25/22 10:33:43 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, it comes down to the new NDP-Liberal centralist alliance that categorically refuses to compromise when it comes to staying out of Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions.
30 words
All Topics
- 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
- Mar/1/22 12:03:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech.
I am thanking him now because, as of this morning, he seems to be in agreement with our motion on this opposition day. I assume that the New Democrats will vote in favour of the motion. That is interesting, but I would like to take this further.
When we talk about Quebec’s political weight, it is important to truly recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation. My colleague spoke a lot about the Liberals and Conservatives. As we know, in 2006, the Conservatives passed a motion recognizing the Quebec nation, but they have done nothing since then. No concrete action was taken by the Conservatives to follow up on the recognition of the Quebec nation.
I would like to know how far my colleague is prepared to go to recognize the Quebec nation. Should the government go as far as to implement standards virtually everywhere and to interfere in certain jurisdictions? How far is he prepared to go to recognize the Quebec nation?
183 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
