- Member of Parliament
- Whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Board of Internal Economy
- Bloc Québécois
- Salaberry—Suroît
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,425.78
- Government Page
Noted, Madam Speaker.
I know that Mr. Chevalier is listening to me, because I promised to speak on his behalf in the House of Commons. There is at least one person listening to my speech tonight. Mr. Chevalier asked me to speak on his behalf because this makes no sense. It has been documented that the government can afford to provide 26 and 52 weeks of benefits to workers who are sick. Our critic on this issue, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, has said as much, and she is calling for it in committee.
Mr. Chevalier was telling me that he may be reaching retirement and that he has no intention of claiming his pension or his provincial plan benefits because he wants to keep working. There is a shortage of drivers, so he wants to stay on. However, the government is giving him a hard time and messing up his plans because it is not giving him an incentive to return to the workforce.
He told me that he is going to fight his illness and manage on his own, because he has always been self-reliant. It is important for everyone to know that this government had the means and could have done it. This could have been included in the budget. There are times when ministers get it wrong. The minister got it wrong by increasing the benefit period from 15 to 26 weeks.
Bill C‑215, which we are debating this evening and was introduced by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, is a commendable bill that should make sense and could have been accepted and passed a long time ago.
Every member of the House, even on the government side, gets phone calls like the one I received from Mr. Chevalier. People do not understand why the government has not done something meaningful to encourage sick workers to get through their illness with dignity.
Today, I am pleased to be the voice of Mr. Chevalier, but I know that there are other Mr. Chevaliers in every riding who would have liked to congratulate the government for standing by them, as it promised, by helping sick workers recover with dignity and fight their illness without worrying. We know that EI sickness benefits do not cover 100% of a person's income, they cover 55%. That is not a lot. People already do their part, on top of all the expenses they have to cover to go see specialists.
In addition to fighting their illness, people like Mr. Chevalier who live in a rural area have to find transportation and pay someone to bring them to their appointments. I do not know whether my colleagues are aware, but people do not feel all that well after undergoing a radiation treatment. They need support. All of that costs money. In addition to having just 55% of his salary for 15 weeks, Mr. Chevalier had to use what little he had in his pocket to pay for all his treatment-related costs.
Mr. Chevalier told me today that he is going to have to move. He cannot afford his rent for the coming months. He is lucky that his landlord has a heart, unlike this government. The landlord let him out of his lease so that he could go live somewhere else where the rent is cheaper. Quite frankly, Mr. Chevalier does not have any other income. The only other option he has is to apply for social assistance.
What the government is telling this worker, who is in his sixties and who worked and paid into the system his whole life without ever getting an EI cheque, is that it has no heart. The member for Lévis—Lotbinière is trying, once again, to introduce a bill to fix that.
What we want is for those on the other side of the House to wake up and for the government to provide royal recommendation to allow Bill C-215 to pass, to allow people who are sick to be treated and often to fight for their lives, to beat the illness and, above all, to return to work.
I implore the government once again to give royal recommendation to Bill C-215, for all workers and for Normand Chevalier and everyone like him. If the minister does not intend to give royal recommendation, I hope she will go back and say that anyone who is currently receiving treatment is eligible for the 26 weeks.
769 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to be speaking tonight, but that is not really the case. I would have liked to have seen my colleague's bill, or my own bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament, passed by the House to allow sick workers to fight their illness, get healthy again and get back to work. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. I am here again tonight, and I think this is my third or fourth speech on the issue of sick workers.
We are talking about seriously ill workers who have paid into EI their whole lives. That means that there is a deduction, an EI premium, on their paycheque. That means that the employer has also paid contributions. It is an insurance program. Currently, sick workers are entitled to only 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits. We know very well that is not enough.
I believe I have repeatedly asked whether this government is a heartless one. There is a story I would like to tell. We talk a lot about statistics and data and documentation, but tonight I am going to talk about one particular person who called me last week. He asked me to speak on his behalf tonight.
I am talking about one of my constituents, Normand Chevalier, who lives in Saint‑Polycarpe. He is a worker and has been working for 50 years. I think this is the first time in his life that he has had to apply for unemployment. He is not applying for it because he does not have a job. On the contrary, he had a very good job. Quite honestly, even at 65 years old, he would have liked to continue working.
Normand Chevalier called me last week and said to me, “Mrs. DeBellefeuille, I have tonsil cancer.” It is a serious cancer. He has been undergoing treatment for 15 weeks now, and it is costing him a lot of money. He lives in the country. Saint‑Polycarpe is a rural town in the Soulanges area of my riding. There is no public transportation to the hospitals in Montreal, so he has to drive himself. He told me that he has worked his entire life and this is the first time he needed help. He has been going to radiation treatments for 15 weeks now, and he has to keep going because it is not over. If he wants to have a chance to survive, he has to continue his treatments.
He said, “You know Mrs. DeBellefeuille, I've used up my benefits.” He thought that with the government's top-up, he would be entitled to 26 weeks, but that is not the case. He began his treatments before December 18, 2022, and is not entitled to 26 weeks. He is among those who believed that because the number of weeks was increased from 15 to 26, they would at least be entitled to the additional weeks of EI sickness benefits to continue their treatments, to fight and, above all, not to worry about how they would pay their rent.
Last week, this gentleman told me that he was a driver at a company in Soulanges, that he was well liked and that he could hardly wait to get better so he could return to work. However, he was very worried because he did not know how he was going to pay his rent next month. Everyone has a story. Mr. Chevalier lives with his 16-year-old granddaughter. She, too, does not understand what is happening. Why is her grandfather, who is sick, hard-working and brave, not entitled to 26 weeks?
The bill we are debating this evening calls for 50 weeks and we support that. Some cancers require 37 to 40 weeks of treatment to get better and to beat the illness. That has been documented.
Mr. Chevalier told me that he was calling because he was so angry and he found the government to be heartless. When the minister increased the number of weeks from 15 to 26, why did she not decide that anyone who was already undergoing treatment would be entitled to 26 weeks? He said, “I thought that was how it was going to work, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.” However, he realized that the exact opposite was true.
741 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today as we debate the—what is it now?—18th or 19th time allocation motion so far.
It is hard to keep track because this habit has become so ingrained in how we operate. It is time allocation after time allocation. Maybe people will start using that expression. Time allocation used to be the exception, but now, since the pandemic, since the advent of the hybrid Parliament, it seems to have become common practice, and I think that is a shame. I think it is a shame to shut down democratic debate and take away what really matters in a Parliament: time and space to debate and air contrasting views.
That is why I am pleased to share some of my thoughts on Bill C‑32.
Before the economic statement, the Bloc Québécois had great expectations. We really wanted a conversation about health transfers. We were hoping for a sign that the government wanted to give Quebec and the provinces the health transfers they have been asking for so they can fulfill their responsibilities.
In Quebec, that means addressing the aging population and the significant issues with mental health services, which are lacking in number and scope to meet the demand. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the economic update about that.
My colleague from Shefford has said this, and the Bloc Québécois has said it, and it is one of our priorities. We do not understand how the government does not consider those between the ages of 65 and 74 to be people who need to regain a certain amount of purchasing power, especially with the inflation crisis. If there was ever a segment of the population that needed a helping hand, it is them. Increasing old age security would have really been good news, a sign that the government is listening to seniors, those who built the Quebec of today.
In the economic update, we really wanted to see the government's desire and firm resolve to overhaul employment insurance. Today, I will use the minutes at my disposal to speak in greater detail about the EI program and the need to reform it.
Today, as we speak, barely 40% of workers have access to EI.
That is sad because, as we know, the EI fund is an insurance program. That means that workers pay premiums on their paycheque and employers pay premiums, and the money goes to build the EI fund, an important reservoir for workers who need it. Unfortunately, although the fund is quite healthy at the moment, it does not actually serve the people who really need it. Access is restricted.
I am very committed to this cause. The Bloc Québécois has been asking for EI reform for years, and we do not understand the government's resistance.
As I like to remind everyone, I decided to run again in 2015, the year the Liberals campaigned on a promise of comprehensive EI reform. In 2019, they promised it again, and then again in 2021. It is promise after promise, but nothing ever happens. The government had included $5 million in its budget to conduct extensive consultations across the provinces and Canada to understand and gauge the needs of workers, employers and civil society, and yet, 18 months later, we still have nothing. There has been no proposal and no plan to reform EI, even though my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville made it a subject to be studied by her committee. The committee heard from many witnesses who expressed the needs and shortcomings of the current system, which, as we all know, really needs to be modernized and updated to be tailored to today's labour market.
Of course, we have a number of demands. Workers who have paid premiums all their lives but find themselves in a difficult situation, like if their business is forced to shut down and they have to rely on EI, receive benefits equivalent to 55% of their income. The Bloc Québécois believes that, in the overall reform, that percentage really needs to increase to 60%. I think this is reasonable, and the rate was 60% prior to 1993. I remember very clearly when it was reduced to 55% of income. This demand remains permanent and is also being made by all the stakeholders who support the unemployed and others.
In its overhaul of EI, we would also like the government to eliminate the one-week waiting period. I do not know the reason behind the one-week period, but it is in addition to the system's bureaucratic delays for those who lose their jobs. People do not choose to go on EI. They do so because they lose their jobs as a result of the closure of a business, layoffs or any number of other reasons. Because of this long waiting period, which really should not happen, claimants only receive their first payment after six weeks. At least, that was the waiting period before the government system was paralyzed, back when it was working well and the performance and service standards were met. That was in the old days. Now, someone who loses their job in early or mid-June will not receive a cheque until late September or early October, because the system is completely paralyzed.
Our demands for the reform are important, and we were hoping to see them reflected in the economic update. We wanted people with a serious illness to be able to get 50 to 52 weeks of special EI sickness benefits in the event they are unable to return to work.
As members know, in the last Parliament, I introduced a bill that proposed that. What is more, as we speak, Bill C‑215 has been studied in committee, and the majority of the members who sit on that committee voted in favour of ensuring that people who have a serious illness can take the time they need to fight the illness and recover their health without having to worry about their financial circumstances.
As things stand now, it pains me to see people get to the end of their 15th week of special benefits when they have not finished their cancer treatments, their chemotherapy or their radiation. By the next week, they will have nothing left to pay their bills.
The minister seems to be sympathetic to the situation, but I think it is unacceptable when she promises this will arrive in the summer, then in fall, then at Christmas. She keeps pushing the date back further and further. Although she has the budget to do this, she refuses to give a specific date that would give hope to those who are starting chemotherapy or radiation today or who are taking long-term sick leave to take care of themselves, so they can regain their strength and go back to work.
We have talked a lot about Marie-Hélène Dubé, a woman who had cancer a few years ago and who decided to fight to have EI sickness benefits increased to 52 weeks, because she had to re-mortgage her house to meet her responsibilities and take care of herself.
Unfortunately, in committee two weeks ago, she said that her cancer is back and she will not have time to heal before the end of her 15 weeks. She is reliving the nightmare she went through a few years ago. To my mind, that is unacceptable.
The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑32, because it does contain some good measures, but I implore the government to take a step in the right direction by quickly agreeing to reform EI and to implement the special benefits program for sick workers as soon as possible.
1331 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my speeches by saying that I am pleased to participate in the debate on a bill.
However, today, I have to say that I am really disappointed to be here once again debating a bill that, as we know, affects sick workers who need more than 15 weeks of special employment insurance sickness benefits.
During the previous Parliament, I had the privilege of introducing a bill that is similar to that of my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière. We are both concerned about people who worked and contributed their whole life and who did not choose to get sick, to get cancer, for example. They deserve more than 15 weeks of support.
It has been very well documented that, today, workers often need more than 15 weeks to recover. They need to fight the illness, receive treatment, heal and regain their strength before they can return to work. No one chooses to be sick.
As I was saying, I am always happy to debate, but I am incredibly disappointed today. I would even say that I am angry, because we are wasting time. As far back as at least 2011, all parties, including the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and even the Liberal Party when it was in opposition, agreed that it was time to amend the Employment Insurance Act and that these changes were needed to support workers through an illness.
I am disappointed because, as members know, I introduced Bill C‑265 in the previous Parliament, and this bill was passed at second reading. We worked on it in committee, which was an amazing experience for me. It was the first time that I had the opportunity to debate with parliamentarians from all parties and to hear witnesses speak to Bill C‑265. Today we are debating Bill C‑215, which is practically the same bill. I am sharing this story with my colleagues because committee stage is the right place and the most appropriate place to have in-depth debate and improve the bill.
We can all agree that Bill C‑215 is not a big bill. It seeks to amend just one section of the Employment Insurance Act. We are asking that benefits be extended from 15 weeks to 52 weeks. During the last Parliament, when we debated in committee, we heard from all sorts of witnesses. Quite honestly, I would say that we did not see any significant resistance to extending benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.
What really caught my attention was the study from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. According to that study, we collectively have the means to provide the most vulnerable workers the support they need to return to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated and documented the fact that a small increase in contributions, which does not amount to much in the lives of every employer, would financially help thousands of sick workers.
We all know someone in our lives who has gone through the process of recovering or fighting cancer. We know that some cancers can be healed in 15 weeks. However, we also know that if a person has the misfortune of being diagnosed with certain other cancers like colon cancer or rectal cancer, they will need 30 to 37 weeks of financial support to get through it. That is scientifically documented. Advanced technology and science are making it possible for more and more people with cancer to recover, but they still need to take the time to go through the treatment.
When it comes to honest workers who are among the most vulnerable, those who do not have group insurance or the necessary support from their employer, it is rather disgraceful that a rich country like ours is abandoning them.
I often joke that with a quick stroke of the pen, the government could decide, by ministerial order, to extend benefits from 15 weeks to 50 or 52.
It would be humane and compassionate of the government to say, after listening to the witnesses and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that since bills have been introduced year after year for 10 years, enough is enough. It should quickly pass Bill C-215 or give it a royal recommendation in order to reassure the sick workers who are watching the debate today and who do not understand what is happening.
Personally, I wonder why the government is not taking action on this file. Members will recall that, last year, we passed Bill C-30, which contained a provision that would extend benefits from 15 weeks to 26 in 2022. Why wait so long? What is the justification?
Bill C‑30 received royal assent on June 29, 2021, which was almost a year ago, but I am still trying to convince my colleagues that this failure to move forward makes no sense. Mainly, I am trying to convince my colleagues across the way, because they are the ones who are not on board. I know the Liberal benches over there are full of compassionate MPs who care about sick people, so why on earth is cabinet so dead set against it?
I have my theories, but I wonder which lobby group has been quietly telling cabinet to put it off for as long as possible. Maybe insurance companies, maybe employers? I have no idea, but I do want to point out that employers said they were not opposed to extending the special EI benefit period.
That leaves me wondering who is behind this, because I just cannot understand why I am still here on June 13 giving a speech about a bill to protect and support our most vulnerable workers.
I want to thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for not giving up and for reintroducing his bill, which will help put the spotlight on the government benches to make it clear to the Liberals that this is not a partisan issue. This bill is about humanity, compassion and understanding of the status of a worker who is seriously ill. Perhaps one day we will know who is preventing the government from moving forward more quickly.
It is supposed to come into force in the summer of 2022. According to my assistant, Charles, Quebec strawberries are in season, which means summer is here. If summer is here, why has the government not announced that it is giving royal recommendation to Bill C-215, so that we can give all our vulnerable and seriously ill workers all the support they need to fight their illness, recover and get back to work?
I appeal to the compassion and humanity of the Liberal members opposite.
1135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/22 4:44:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Terrebonne.
I would like to extend my warmest thanks to all the volunteers in the riding of Salaberry—Suroît, because in Quebec we celebrate volunteerism and volunteers from April 24 to April 30. This year’s theme is “volunteering changes lives”.
It is true that volunteering changes lives. It changes the lives of those who receive from volunteers, as well as the lives of those who give of their time. I would like to say a big thank you to all volunteers in the riding of Salaberry—Suroît, whatever sector they work in. There are so many sectors in which people can feel fulfilled and thrive while giving time to others in need, to young people, to all those who benefit from the generosity of others. I would like to wish all of them a happy National Volunteer Week.
Of course, the budget contains things I am particularly interested in, specifically anything to do with seniors. I devoted my professional career to caring for seniors, whether in the community sector, where I managed a volunteer action centre, as a social worker in the home care support department, where I helped seniors and their families live at home longer, or as a manager in a long-term care facility.
Most recently, prior to my re-election in 2019, I was in charge of housing. I managed spaces in private, non-unionized, long-term care facilities, in intermediate and family-type resources. I have dedicated my career to seniors and when I find myself in my riding, I am drawn to help them. My phone is definitely ringing these days. It has been ringing off the hook for almost a year now because seniors are angry; they are angry that they can no longer make ends meet. Facing the higher inflation rates since the pandemic, seniors have been calling and writing. They find it unreasonable that they have to go back to work in order to be able to afford rent or medication. I find this completely revolting, and we had expectations this budget would address that.
The FADOQ, with 500,000 members, is the largest seniors' group in Quebec, and it has called on the government to increase old age security starting at age 65. The government, however, has not indicated that it plans to do this nor did it put it in the budget, even though the House expressed a clear desire to do so. On March 8, 2021, the House voted on a motion to increase old age security by $110 a month for those aged 65 and up, with 183 parliamentarians voting for and 147 voting against. It was government members across the way who voted against the motion, telling seniors that they still have some energy left to work and then they will get their increase at age 75. They created two classes of seniors.
We are talking about three million 65-year-old seniors in Canada, seniors who worked their whole lives, who contributed to society, and who unfortunately need an increase but are not entitled to one.
I hear my colleagues say that they increased the New Horizons program and that they have done this and that. That is not what seniors need. They need to receive enough money every month to cover all the expenses they have to pay to live in dignity.
In Salaberry—Suroît, one in five people, or 20% of the population, is 65 or older. One of our seniors works bagging groceries. He is 68 years old and he works at my IGA in Ormstown. He made me promise to share his message with the government: “Ms. DeBellefeuille, this is crazy. I have no choice but to come bag groceries at the Ormstown IGA because I can no longer cover the cost of living, even though I worked hard my whole life”. I am here for him today because I speak on behalf of my constituents. I am their voice and I am here to make this message loud and clear: We are furious about how this government is treating seniors who worked hard their whole lives.
The other issue in this budget that really speaks to me as a former public health care worker is health transfers.
People often think that the Bloc Québécois's demands need not be taken seriously, but our demands are based on unanimous demands of the Quebec National Assembly, all the premiers of every Canadian province, the population as a whole and important groups.
I will list some of them because a number of unions came to Parliament Hill on April 4, which is something that has not happened in quite a while. They talked and they asked for what the provincial premiers are asking for, what the Bloc is asking for and what the Quebec National Assembly is asking for. The FTQ, a major union, was there along with the CSQ, the FIQ, the CSD, the Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec, the APTS, the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, the hematologists, the oncologists and the CSN.
That means a lot of people think like we do. We are seeing that the House, civil society, physicians, Quebec's health care workers, Quebec politicians and community groups feel the same way, even if the government does not. There is only one party that believes it is unreasonable to transfer the money that is in Ottawa to the National Assembly and the Quebec government so Quebec can manage it according to its priorities and expertise.
I have to say that it is the managers, the professionals and those involved in the day-to-day work on the ground who have the expertise and experience in health and social services. They are the ones in touch with the needs of our constituents in every riding.
I am expressing our disappointment not just with the fact that there is no money for health transfers, but also that if there ever is money one day, it will have strings attached, which is completely unacceptable. Quebec and the other provinces are capable of analyzing their own needs and putting everything required in place, including planning, organizing and providing services according to the needs of their communities.
However, Quebec and the provinces do not have the means. Considering our aging population, I would say that in the next 15 years, there will not be enough money to properly plan, organize and deliver services to everyone who needs them in our public health care system. We value our public health care system, and it needs to be funded properly. This means transferring the money that is sitting in Ottawa, the money that Ottawa would like to have a say in. Ottawa wants to tell us what to do and how to do it because it lacks confidence in the provinces when it comes to properly managing the transferred funds, even in an area that falls under provincial jurisdiction.
I have only two minutes left to once again explain how sad it makes me that the budget talks about increasing the maximum length of EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks in the summer of 2022, allowing sick workers to fight illness. Members will recall that I introduced a bill in the previous Parliament to increase those benefits to 52 weeks, and the member for Lévis—Lotbinière has brought it back again in this Parliament.
For two years, the government has insisted that it will change the number of weeks, but only to 26 weeks and only effective July 2022. That is not enough. Someone who has colon cancer will need 36 weeks to recover. That is a documented fact. I do not understand what is stopping the government from giving 52 weeks to sick workers who need it.
In closing, I can say that I would have liked the budget to include confirmation of a coming into force date for Bill C‑208, on the next generation of farmers. I say that because people in my riding are asking me about it. Farmers are being reminded once again that not only has the Liberal government abandoned them, but it also does not respect the democratic will expressed in the House of Commons. It is frustrating to vote on a bill and pass it, only to see the government refuse to implement it. The House can count on me to take every opportunity to point out that this is unacceptable.
1481 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
