- Member of Parliament
- Whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Board of Internal Economy
- Bloc Québécois
- Salaberry—Suroît
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,425.78
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
What is a budget implementation act? What are we doing right now? The government tabled a budget. In a budget, a government lays out the measures that it intends to take. To implement the measures set out in the budget, legislation must be tabled to execute what is stated in the budget.
I feel I ought to remind all those watching that the budget, which is very lengthy, held many disappointments for the Bloc Québécois. I would like to point them out because I care deeply about seniors, and there is nothing in the budget about them. Every time I organize events in my riding, seniors remind me that they feel like they have been forgotten by this government.
As well, there have been symposia, conferences and studies on the housing crisis. It is well documented that we are in the middle of a housing crisis, yet there are no specific measures in the budget to address that crisis.
Clearly, we are also a long way from the EI reform that the Liberal government has been promising since 2015. There is nothing in the budget on that.
There is also a major disappointment in terms of the environment. This budget still talks about carbon capture and storage, when we have known for many years that this technology is no good, that it is not ready and that it does not get the job done. In a way, the government is using this to ease its conscience with regard to the environment, but in reality, these are just backdoor subsidies for oil companies. Pretty much everyone knows it. By saying that it will fund research into carbon capture and storage, the government is trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes and ease its own conscience.
The funny thing is that, in 2008, when I was the Bloc Québécois critic for natural resources, I participated in a study on carbon capture and storage that reached the same conclusions as are being reached today. The same committee is still conducting studies, still documenting the issue of carbon capture and storage, and still reaching the same conclusions, namely that it is not really the best technology for reducing greenhouse gases. However, it allows the government to assuage its conscience, and in particular, it allows oil companies to feel like they are doing something for the environment.
However, I would like to talk about certain promises and principles that were in the budget but not in the budget implementation act.
I want to talk about the promise that the government made in the budget about anti-scab legislation. I believe that promise to pass anti-scab legislation is even part of the agreement between the Liberal Party and the NDP. I am talking about this because I know that my father René is watching right now. He is sort of the reason I am talking about anti-scab legislation, which is so important but which is absent from the budget implementation act. My father was a tradesman for much of his life. He was a union activist who unionized his workplace and always said that it was important to stand up for labourers' working conditions.
Today, there is nothing in the budget implementation act about anti-scab legislation, even though it would have been easy to include it. The budget implementation act is 430 pages long and amends 57 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Act. This lengthy bill also grants royal titles to Charles III. It is a really dense bill, but there is no mention anywhere of the possibility of us passing anti-scab legislation together. It would be very easy to do that, because the Bloc Québécois and the NDP agree. I would imagine the Liberals also agree, since it was mentioned in their budget. I do not understand why the government did not take advantage of its omnibus bill to include a bill that would certainly be supported by three parties in the House.
Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977. I think this is long overdue. We are behind the times in not having that legislation, because it is so important for governing the work of our union members.
I raised this issue because my father is watching. He must be proud to hear me defending an issue that he himself defended when he was a union member in his company. He was a sheet metal worker, so he was right on the shop floor. He realized that there were problems with working conditions, so he rallied the workers. He created a union and negotiated for all the workers. It is for his sake that I raised this issue today, and it is also for his sake that I am raising the issue of EI.
The minister's mandate letter mentions EI reform. For years, and even recently, the minister has been telling us that she was holding consultations. However, the consultations have ended. She said she was consulting, but the consultations are over. She will not stop consulting, but everything is documented. There is a consensus that the Employment Insurance Act must be reformed. This is an old act that is not modern, that is not suited to the labour market for either employers or employees.
It is hard to understand why the minister does not see it as a priority. In a way, I both understand and do not understand why. I think she may have good intentions, but it is cabinet, the executive, that does not want to move ahead for the simple reason that the government is using the surplus in the EI fund to pay for the surplus EI claims that it received during the pandemic. Basically, the fund is spending $24 billion to pay for what happened during the pandemic. I will note that people had to leave their jobs not because they wanted to, but because their workplace shut down. They were forced to apply for EI. It is only natural that claims would go up.
The EI fund took out $24 billion to cover all those costs. Now things are a bit better, and it has seven years to balance out. That is the minister's magic excuse, namely that until the account is balanced again, sometime in the next seven years, she cannot move ahead on reform or propose anything else that would improve the Employment Insurance Act. That is bad.
All the spending incurred during the pandemic was covered by the government, but now employer and employee contributions are being used to pay for all the jobs lost during the pandemic. It was not by choice. I think the government could have covered part of the cost and left the money for workers and employers alone, so that everything that is needed to reform the Employment Insurance Act could be done.
It is frankly laughable how every new minister's mandate letter or list of priorities states that this is a priority. It is not really a genuine priority. Every excuse or event gives the minister a reason to put off the reform.
I am very serious about this. The government must stop beating around the bush and reform EI once and for all so that Quebec and Canada can have modern legislation to govern the new reality of the labour market.
The Bloc Québécois will always be there to defend unemployed workers, employers and businesses that are struggling with replacement workers as we speak, such as the Port of Quebec and Océan remorquage in Sorel-Tracy.
It is very clear which side the Bloc Québécois is on. It is on the right side, the side of the people.
1338 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:25:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the fabulous member for Manicouagan.
We are here today to reiterate a fact to everyone and to all federal parliamentarians, specifically, “That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause”.
That is what today's Bloc Québécois motion is all about. It is an opportunity for parliamentarians to clearly indicate their support for a well-known provision of the Canadian Constitution that has been used on many occasions, particularly by the Government of Quebec.
The reason it is important to protect this provision, to send a loud and clear message, is because the Liberal government has recently been calling this provision into question, through the voice of the Prime Minister himself. This is not trivial. It is extremely important, and surprising at the same time.
The Prime Minister is talking about a major paradigm shift in relations between Ottawa, Quebec, the provinces and the territories. The Prime Minister is questioning the ability of Quebec and the provinces to decide for themselves. The Prime Minister is suggesting that using the notwithstanding clause is fine, but only when he thinks it is appropriate. That is why our motion is important.
Before the Supreme Court of Canada is called upon by the government across the way to rule on the use of the notwithstanding clause, let us send a very clear message. The notwithstanding clause is an essential clause in the federative pact. Without the notwithstanding clause, there would be no federative pact as we know it. It is the provinces, not Quebec, that managed to grab this right to difference.
I will humbly submit that the notwithstanding clause is the bare minimum for respecting the democratic agenda of the National Assembly of Quebec. Calling into question the right of Quebec and the provinces to use the notwithstanding clause is the symptom of a much deeper problem. The federal government is calling into question this constitutional provision in a very specific context.
The context, in my view, is the very recent passing of two laws in Quebec, one on language and the other on state secularism, that use the notwithstanding clause. These two laws share the fact that they deal with fundamental aspects of Quebec's identity, namely language and our own idea of secularism.
These two laws enjoy a broad consensus among the Quebec population. These two laws also share the fact that they have been debated, improved, commented on, studied, obviously criticized, but ultimately passed by elected members of the National Assembly of Quebec, with their eyes wide open, weighing everything in the balance.
It would seem, then, that the calling into question of the notwithstanding clause comes at a time when the Quebec National Assembly is asserting itself through these two laws. I point out this simultaneity because it is important.
Citizens may not be aware of it, but Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause several times in its history. While Quebec was repeatedly using the notwithstanding clause, no outcry questioning its choices could be heard.
Here are some examples to make that clear. Let us take the Act respecting La Financière agricole du Québec. Quebec wants to do everything it can to support the next generation of farmers, as the agricultural sector is essential to its economy and regions. We must therefore assist in some way the young farmers. This can be done only through invoking the notwithstanding clause. Has this created an outcry? The answer is no, not at all.
Now let us take the employment equity act. Quebec is taking the lead in promoting the inclusion of all its citizens of different genders, backgrounds and abilities in its workplaces. This requires invoking the notwithstanding clause. Was there an outcry? The answer is no, not at all.
The federal government is quick to challenge the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let us talk about small claims court, which is another concrete example. It is a Quebec innovation that allows citizens to resolve civil disputes in a more accessible, open and fair manner. The existence of such a court requires the notwithstanding clause.
Closer to home, there is the youth court. Quebec's elected officials are betting that protecting the identity of children during trials is more important than the right to a public trial. This requires the use of the notwithstanding clause. Is the judgment of Quebec's elected officials being called into question? Not at all. What I am trying to say is that in each of these cases Quebec proceeded in its own way. Our collective and democratic choices led to innovation and important legislation that all required the use of the notwithstanding clause. In these examples, the use of the notwithstanding clause was never called into question. Why is Quebec's right to make its own choices challenged as soon as we talk about language and secularism?
Perhaps citing these two recent Quebec laws, Bill 96 and Bill 21, which have elicited a rather public outcry on the Liberal benches, makes my argument a somewhat emotional one. They may be poor examples, so I will cite another.
Quebeckers remember how Liberal premier Robert Bourassa caused quite a stir, a very public stir, when he used the notwithstanding clause to protect the use of French alone on commercial signs. Times have certainly changed, but I think the debate is the same. The notwithstanding clause is all well and good except when Quebec wants to use it to assert itself. Then it is up for debate. This typical reaction to Quebec asserting itself is quite something. I wanted to briefly illustrate that in the context of today's debate.
In their speeches today, my Liberal and NDP colleagues have tried to distract our attention. Some members have raised the argument of pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. They say that Quebec would short-circuit the judicial process by stating from the get-go that its law is legitimate, necessary and balanced even though it needs the notwithstanding clause. I see that as a convenient red herring for some MPs because today's motion does not even ask members to address that issue.
Today’s motion merely affirms one fact: It confirms that federal MPs support section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would ask my federal colleagues, even if they do not always support the decisions of their legislature, to make it clear that they recognize that their province’s legislature is legitimate, and that it makes decisions democratically. In fact, what I am asking is that those members recognize the autonomy and sovereignty of their legislature.
I can tell the citizens of Salaberry—Suroît that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I undeniably recognize the legitimacy and autonomy of the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly. The members are elected, and debates take place. Several parties and schools of thought are represented, civil society plays an active role, and the media is doing its job. We live under the rule of law. Basically, it is not always perfect, but what we can say is that the checks and balances work well in Quebec. Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause has not upset this democratic balance of power. In fact, the notwithstanding clause is part of the balance of power of Quebec, its national assembly, its elected members and, ultimately, Quebeckers dealing with a federal government that is increasingly activist and less tolerant of the legitimate and measured decisions of Quebec society.
Let us decide for ourselves: Let us support the motion put forward by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly.
1329 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:21:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to indicate that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), all of the Bloc Québécois's speaking slots for today's debate on the business of supply will be divided in two.
49 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
