44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I want to make an important comment in relation to labour, which I think would benefit all members of the House. There is no question that there is in fact a war on workers. We are seeing it in Ontario, and it is going to be happening soon in Alberta.
Labour was happy to see the government move on the demands of the New Democratic Party in relation to anti-scab legislation and to the UTIP program, which benefits training centres across union halls in the country. However, one area that is a massive deficiency within this fall economic statement is EI reform. The labour movement has been pushing for this for a long time.
In the fall economic statement, we saw comments about an upcoming recession. Now is the most important time for Canadians who are contributing to EI. They need to see that working for them. That program needs to be enhanced. The government promised to do it; it has not done it yet. When will it?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his hard work on a number of files.
I had the opportunity to meet with members of Unifor a couple of days ago, and many of the issues the member identified were brought up, including the anti-scab legislation, which is coming forward from the Minister of Labour, and the need for EI reform.
One thing we have to look at is that during the pandemic, during the worst economic crisis our country faced, our government was there for Canadians every step of the way. As we go forward, I can assure all members in the House, particularly my friend from the NDP, because there is consensus on how we need to support workers, that we will work with him and his party to achieve what is right for workers.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the government's Bill C‑32.
Regular people will probably have a better idea of what I am talking about if I refer to it as the economic update. For most people, “Bill C‑32” does not mean much at all.
Typically, an economic update tweaks the budget tabled earlier that year. Early in the year, in March, the government announces measures for the coming year. Over time, it becomes clear some small adjustments are needed. That is why we get an economic update in November. We expect those announcements to be on a smaller scale than those in a budget.
The Bloc Québécois brought up three major priorities it wanted to see in the economic update. One of these priorities was an unconditional increase in health transfers; it is not there. Another priority was an increase in old age security for people aged 65 and over; it is not there. The third was a comprehensive reform of employment insurance because, as we know, people suffered immensely during the pandemic and because there were already problems with the program before COVID-19. That is not there, either, and yet we are slipping into a recession.
It is sad to see how the government was unable to hear these three major priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois, priorities on which the vast majority of Quebeckers agree. However, there is something else I will focus on. In the economic update we see yet another example of the federal level's contempt or arrogance in an area of infrastructure that is very important to Quebec.
I will give a brief overview. The federal budget announced last spring contained a little line of text that went virtually unnoticed. A budget often has 300, 400 or 600 pages. It takes a long time to read. When we need to comment on the document, we obviously focus on the key elements. Afterwards, we look at the details to see whether something was missed.
That may very well have been the government’s intention. In fact, that little line in the budget has big consequences for Quebec. This part of the text essentially says that, under the investing in Canada infrastructure program, the deadline for submitting projects, initially March 31, 2025, is brought forward to March 31, 2023. That means two years less to submit important infrastructure projects that are a priority for Quebec and the other provinces—except that, in the case of Quebec, there is something more.
The federal government and the Government of Quebec signed a bilateral agreement. The parties negotiated how this money would be allocated, since 90% of infrastructure assets belong to Quebec and its municipalities. It is clearly a Quebec jurisdiction, and that is why an agreement had to be negotiated.
These few words in the budget made us realize that the federal government could decide not to honour the agreement it negotiated with Quebec. We then went fishing and talked to the Bloc Québécois’s research department. We were told that it was probably not true, that the federal government would not do that, since it had a signed agreement with Quebec. We were told that it must apply to the other provinces, but that, since the federal government had a signed agreement with Quebec, it would surely honour it.
Despite everything, we still had concerns, and we wanted to know more. It is important to understand that this is an infrastructure agreement worth $7.5 billion, which is a lot of money. When we found out about the deadline change, $3.5 billion in the total envelope had not yet been spent, and we knew that an election was coming. With the fall election, we would end up in November, and there would be only a few months to submit billions of projects. That would be virtually impossible. It is a bit like having a gun to one's head.
Since the federal government and Quebec had an agreement, we figured that it must not be true. We asked the minister some questions in parliamentary committee. I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities what the deal was. We were concerned.
He told us quite candidly that he would take the money back if it had not been spent and the projects were not submitted to the federal government by March 31, 2023. He said that, in any case, other provinces wanted the money and that they too had projects. If Quebec did not submit the documents on time, that would be too bad, it would lose billions of dollars. That is what the minister told us in committee.
The worst part is that there was another component. There was still $342 million unspent in phase 1 of the agreement. According to the agreement, if the money for public transit was not spent in phase 1, it could be used in subsequent phases. I asked the minister what would happen with the $342 million, since the signed agreement says that we can use the phase 1 money in subsequent phases. He said that it would be returned to the consolidated fund.
The money was returned to the consolidated fund, and $342 million was essentially stolen from Quebec, without a word. If we had not seen those few words hidden in a corner of the budget, no one would have ever known. Unbelievable. That is how the hypocrites across the aisle work.
When we learned of this, we were obviously livid. We contacted the Quebec office in Ottawa so that it could notify minister Sonia LeBel. We spoke to our mayors, who were very upset. I must say that they could not get over the fact that the federal government had done something so disgraceful. We also spoke to the Union des municipalités du Québec, or the UMQ. Everyone was angry, everyone said that it was outrageous. The UMQ made a public statement asking the federal government to honour its word, to honour its signed agreement with Quebec. I spoke about this to Sonia LeBel, who was then the minister responsible for government administration and chair of the Conseil du trésor. She told me that she would continue to negotiate with Ottawa. She was hopeful that we could reach an agreement by working together. She told us she would not back down.
The same thing is happening again with the economic update. Despite all that was said by the Union des municipalités du Québec, the Bloc Québécois, the Quebec government and our municipalities, which will lose billions of dollars for infrastructure projects, the federal government arrogantly says that it is going ahead and that the municipalities will lose the money.
That attitude is completely mind-boggling, and I do not understand the reasoning behind it. I am certainly eager to hear what explanation the government gives me in the question and answer period that is coming up later, because I really cannot imagine what it could be. The only possible explanation I can see is that the government is basically on a power trip.
It wants to prove that it is the boss. Everyone else can drop dead. They have to do what the federal government tells them to do. It is going to show them who is in charge and put them in the corner.
That attitude is simply disgusting. An agreement was signed. Two partners sat down at a table and made a commitment after hours or days of negotiations. They signed an agreement and shook hands to seal their commitment to that agreement. Then the federal government ditched the agreement and did as it pleased, because it is the boss. That is the message the federal government is sending. It takes the money that is paid by Quebec taxpayers and intended for Quebec infrastructure projects, and then it threatens to send the money elsewhere.
I am sorry, but Quebeckers pay income tax like everyone else, so they are entitled to their share. This type of behaviour is totally unacceptable. In my eyes, it is theft. The federal government is acting like the mafia, like gangsters. There is a word for what it is doing, and that word is racketeering, meaning extortion through threats. That is what it amounts to.
The government told Quebeckers that they had two years left to submit projects, but now they only have six months and they just have to deal with it, because the federal government is the boss. That is the message the federal government wants to send, despite the fact that municipal infrastructure falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and its municipalities, and the federal government has nothing to do with it. Why does the federal government persist in sticking its nose where it does not belong? Why is it incapable of sticking to its own jurisdictions?
If we Quebeckers cannot get our own money, the money that is due to us because we pay income tax like everyone else, the only way to get our money and our share is to control the funds ourselves, and that means forming our own country. I hope Quebeckers will remember this. I hope the municipalities will remember this. I hope the federal government will finally listen to reason.
1582 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji. I would like to thank the member for his platform on prevention. I think that he has clearly outlined one of the concerns that the Conservatives have said. The Conservatives this morning have been talking about how Canada is sending out a blank cheque. I completely disagree with that. The government has provided some very great measures in this bill that would make sure more Canadians can keep money in their pockets. I also appreciated the measures that he thinks need to happen for the future.
Does the member agree that there needs to be a comprehensive EI reform, something that his party started campaigning on seven years ago?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C‑32 contains 25 tax measures and about 10 non-tax measures. There are two kinds: minor legislative amendments and measures announced in the budget in the spring of 2022, last spring, that had not been included in the first implementation bill passed last June.
This means that this bill does not contain any measures to address the new economic reality of a high cost of living and a possible recession. As with the economic statement presented two weeks ago, there is nothing new, it is a rehash. The government thinks its measures are like shepherd's pie, better served as leftovers.
This is a bill with no point or certainty. It does not deserve to be applauded, but contains nothing to justify opposing it. Given current inflation and the risk of recession, the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable individuals, namely to increase health transfers, adequately support those aged 65 and over, and urgently reform employment insurance. Since the government chose to reject those proposals, we denounce this missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are expected in the coming months.
The Bloc Québécois had asked the government to agree to the unanimous request by Quebec and the other provinces to immediately, sustainably, and unconditionally increase health transfers. The health care system is stretched thin.
While emergency physicians warn us that our hospitals have reached their breaking point, the federal government is failing to act. The government clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the consensus among the provinces to convince them to agree to dilute their funding requests. That is exactly what the Liberal health minister said in the Quebec National Assembly: It is called predatory federalism.
We know too well that the fixed incomes of seniors do not allow them to cope with what are currently such pronounced increases in the cost of living. Seniors are those who are most likely to have to make difficult choices, such as groceries, medication or housing.
Madam Speaker, I am told that I must share my time with me esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
387 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for seven years now, since 2015, the government has been saying it is looking into what it can do to reform EI.
The hon. parliamentary secretary tells us that the minister just said that she will take care of it and is still looking into it. Last year, she told us that she would present her reform this summer. Two seasons later, we are still waiting.
The government says that we are in an inflation crisis and that we may be heading into a recession. The Bloc is saying that the government needs to hurry up and ensure that EI is reformed before a potential recession hits, so that we have an automatic stabilizer and a social safety net in place. We do not want to end up with another CERB.
The Liberal minister promised us she would amend EI, but a Liberal promise is only worth something to those who want to believe the Liberals. We no longer believe them.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his focus on the need for EI reform. He has been asked a few times about what his party would like to see. I wonder if he could elaborate for us the types of reform his party would like to see to EI in this legislation.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her question and for all the work she is doing to defend her nation, which certainly needs a voice like hers in the House.
Since 2015, the government has been saying that it will reform EI. Consultations were held across the country and went on interminably, but we all know what is needed. What we do not want is the current Axworthy system, which does not work. We want a system that protects workers properly. Currently, six in 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI.
In particular, all the non-standard forms of employment must be included. The issue of self-employed workers is also a problem, along with the waiting period, the seasonal gap and everything else.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
