- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 62%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $216,581.38
- Government Page
- May/29/23 7:55:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, the government continues to heavily subsidize fossil fuels with taxpayer money.
For years, we have been waiting for a definition of an effective subsidy for fossil fuels. On two occasions in her reports, the Auditor General told us that she was not even able to evaluate whether subsidies were effective because the government had not even provided a definition.
Can the minister today provide a definition of an effective subsidy for fossil fuels?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:54:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, before the Axworthy reform of the 1990s, 64% of Canadians were covered by EI; today, 40% are covered.
Does the minister believe that going from 60% to 40% is the right way to help the unemployed who have bad luck in the labour market?
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:54:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, approximately 60% of workers who lose their jobs will not be covered by EI.
Does the minister believe that to be a sufficient rate of coverage?
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:53:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, this democratic chamber, the House of Commons, voted in favour of a bill introduced by my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, from the Conservative Party. This bill would enable people with very serious illnesses to receive 52 weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits.
The minister is offering six months, but in many cases, including when chemotherapy is needed, treatments can last from six months to two years.
Is the minister telling these sick people that they have to go back to work?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:52:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, when it comes to the wage subsidy program, the government got helping workers confused with Halloween because the Liberal Party was caught with both hands in the candy bowl. Liberal Party of Canada employees received wage subsidies.
Does the minister think that the political parties that benefited from wage subsidies should have to pay taxpayers back?
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:51:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, this budget allocates approximately $80 billion for so-called green subsidies. We do not know whether they are green or not because the government has always refused to define what constitutes an effective fossil fuel subsidy.
Approximately 30% of these subsidies go directly to fossil fuels. That is approximately $24 billion to $25 billion. Is the Minister of Finance not embarrassed to tell unemployed workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada that she is going to take $25 billion to $27 billion out of their pockets when that money is going directly to fossil fuels?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, indeed, just over $25 billion in additional funding was put into EI during the crisis. That was a small portion of the $250 billion to $300 billion that the Government of Canada spent to help Canadians and Quebeckers during the pandemic.
For the other programs, unlike EI, Quebeckers and Canadians have decided to stand in solidarity and band together to cover all of these pandemic-related expenses through the government's consolidated fund. In this case, the government is going to take another $25 billion out of the pockets of businesses and unemployed workers over the next seven years.
Does the government not think that it should show solidarity and treat this spending as pandemic spending instead of dipping into people's pockets for the next seven years?
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:48:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, there is the EI spring gap for temporary workers. There is the problem of inadequate coverage through the EI system. There is the actuarial financing of the EI fund, which is poorly suited to economic cycles and major disasters like the one we just went through. We have been calling for EI reform for years. Since 2015, the Liberals have been promising EI reform, but we have seen nothing of the sort.
Most recently, we were promised EI reform by August 2023, which is right around the corner. There was absolutely nothing in the budget. The actuarial calculation shows that an extra $25 billion will be taken from the pockets of unemployed workers between now and 2030.
Is the minister committed to keeping her government's promise to reform EI, or to at least announce a reform, by August 2023?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:46:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, during the pandemic, we saw significant gaps in the social safety net, especially Canada's social safety net, which led to the use of a set of temporary measures. Naturally, all parties quickly agreed to them. One temporary measure after another was implemented. Ultimately, these measures were poorly targeted and very costly.
Although it does not want to do so for China, does the government plan to launch a public inquiry into the reasons for these gaps in our social safety net so that, in the event of another crisis, we need not reintroduce the temporary measures one by one, since we know how costly they will be for taxpayers and future generations?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:45:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I notice that the longer the answers are, the more they seem like a “no” in disguise.
We know that during the pandemic, health care was underfunded, that there was a shortage of hospital beds that led to people being turned away, and that the pandemic measures needed to be extended.
If, during the pandemic, we had had a dental plan like the one the minister is planning, how many more hospital beds would Quebec have had as a result of that dental plan?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:45:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I like clear answers.
Do the minister and her government plan to offer the Government of Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation? Yes or no?
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:43:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, the minister confirmed that she supports the ongoing underfunding and that she also borrowed on behalf of the provinces. This is not a gift from the federal government. The money that the federal government sent during the pandemic was borrowed money.
Now there is no money for health care, but there is money for a dental plan. This is being done with the help of the federal spending power, which is the instrument of the fiscal imbalance.
The federal government is going to expand this program. The Government of Quebec and the Quebec National Assembly are unanimously calling for Quebec to be given the right to opt out with full financial compensation.
Will the Liberal government give Quebec the right to opt out with full financial compensation?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, this is the first government budget that we could describe as a postpandemic budget. Obviously no one here in Parliament is to blame for the virus. However, the programs that might have helped us to get through the pandemic at the time are the responsibility of this Parliament. We need to learn important lessons and make corrections. We also need to prepare for the next crisis that could arise.
The government boasts about having signed agreements with the provinces on health. These agreements were imposed. Out of the demands that were made by the provinces and Quebec, only $1 out of $6 was granted. Before the Liberals came along, the transfers covered 24% of provincial health costs. Now they cover just 22%. With these new agreements, which are not real agreements, we are back to 24%. They are perpetuating the chronic underfunding of health.
Does the minister recognize that the federal government's chronic underfunding has left us short on hospital beds and that the measures to counter the pandemic, which hurt our economy, had to be excessively extended?
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, we met with the minister about 21 months ago to fix the guaranteed income supplement problem.
Then the Liberal government decided to call an election. After the election, it decided not to recall Parliament, not to sit, essentially. Can my colleague explain that problem?
Why would the government have done that?
I am having a hard time understanding.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are talking about people with limited access to the Internet, but in general, I would say that it is important to take care of all seniors. As I said before, these people gave their all. They built our communities. They are active members of society. They are still involved. They deserve all the help they can get.
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely. Another member made that point earlier. It is always hard to get money from Ottawa, except for the banks. Certain government offices need to be more available to seniors and vulnerable people, rather than to Bay Street.
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, generally speaking, the policy is problematic in terms of transparency and understanding. It is very difficult for seniors and many other people to understand certain rules. We need to recognize that. As I said in my speech, when many intelligent people have a hard time understanding a rule, it could mean that the policy is not properly designed and needs more work. I think we should always keep that in mind.
That is an excellent question. I thank the hon. member.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if the member was a sovereignist like me, he would know that I commented extensively on the Quebec pension plan at the Caisse de dépôt et placement. I think he is getting mixed up. If he would like to cross over to this side of the House and support sovereignty, I invite him to do so.
In 2015, the members opposite boasted about reducing the retirement age from 67 to 65 years of age. Once the Liberals were elected and the time came to help seniors, they decided that people only become seniors once they turn 75. I think they should sell mirrors here, in the boutique.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a society is judged by the way it treats those who built it.
If the motion as moved is adopted, low-income seniors will have gone an entire year without their most significant source of income. The Liberal government deserves to be harshly judged for that.
To receive the guaranteed income supplement, a person needs to have worked and to be retired. The people whose GIS payments have been cut since July 1, 2021, are vulnerable seniors who lost a spouse, who were unlucky in their career or who continue to work after age 65, 67 or 69. It is unacceptable.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé, Beauport—Limoilou, Manicouagan, La Prairie, Jonquière, Terrebonne, Joliette and Montcalm. They are all members of the Bloc Québécois caucus who have teaching experience. We cannot have enough teachers in the House because the Liberals are slow to learn.
The chair is neutral, and she knows that repetition is a teaching tool. We will therefore repeat that the wording must be changed. In the motion, the date needs to go back to March so that our seniors can get their payments immediately in March. Some progress has been made, but the payments need to arrive as soon as possible, and that is not what we have before us.
We will likely be told that it is not possible to do this immediately, because there are obstacles. The Bloc Québécois sent two letters to the minister and asked countless questions in the House. Our finance critic met with the minister on April 19, 2020, not 2021, but 2020. Nothing has been done to this day.
Trying to work with the government feels a bit like a waltz. The music starts, you take the first few steps and then, after three or four turns, you realize you have just moved around in a circle. Here we are today, still trying to get the payment moved up to March. That is the problem.
I know that the Liberals will say that they want to fast-track the motion, that we need to move quickly because this is urgent. However, the date set out in the motion is this summer. I do not understand why the Liberals are in such a rush to take their time, or why they want to hurry up and wait. Why pass this motion right now if they do not want to change the date? I need someone to explain it to me in simple terms, because none of this makes sense.
The date is critical. When someone is deprived of their income, that is critical. Things can be done quickly. I know that the government can move quickly when it wants to. For example, just before the last election they got $500 cheques sent out very quickly, without any problem. I therefore do not see why there would be a problem here.
I spoke in the House this week and asked for funding for health with no strings attached, funding for mental health and transfers. One of my colleagues across the way told me that I was out of touch with reality for asking the federal government for funding with no strings attached for programs that fall under provincial jurisdiction, Quebec jurisdiction.
I am given to introspection, so I thought about it. I wondered why he told me that and whether I was off-base. After thinking about it, I realized this week that the members on the other side of the House are living in the Liberal fantasy world.
It seems like a great place to live. It is a world where inflation does not exist for seniors and grocery and housing prices have not gone up. It is a world where the people who receive the GIS do not need it. Basically, it is a world where there is no gravity, because gravity is what makes us keep both feet on the ground and makes us think about the real people who need that help right now.
For instance, a woman who is over 70 came to see me at my riding office in Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac. This woman closed her business last year. She earned very little and was unable to continue working, so she applied for the CERB. She was not given a choice as to the amount; it was a one-size-fits-all payment. Not long ago, she realized that her GIS would be slashed.
There is another woman, a 67-year-old from Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, whose GIS was cut off because she had earned a little money. She was not the only one to be cut off; her spouse was as well after he applied for the CERB.
We could talk about others, such as a 65-year-old woman from Mirabel who had earned a few dollars the previous years, was unable to continue working to make ends meet, applied for the CERB and now no longer receives the GIS. Those are the types of cases and people we are talking about.
Members on both sides of the House are getting to know me, and some must be thinking that the member for Mirabel has a flair for drama. However, I am simply repeating comments from officials with the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, a Quebec seniors' advocacy group, who are describing this as a “tragedy” for the most vulnerable seniors. “Tragedy” is a direct quote, for that is the exact word they used.
People from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, a Quebec association that advocates for the rights of retirees and pre-retirees, are saying the same thing. At a meeting I had with them, they identified this administrative error as a major problem. I want to take this opportunity to recognize Pierre Lynch and Lorraine Brunelle, who sat down with me to explain how this absurd error is having a daily impact on the budgets of those seniors who need it the most.
When people who have their GIS taken away call our constituency office, we help them. We call the CRA. The answer we get is that they knew it was going to be calculated this way when they applied for the CERB and they should have planned ahead.
I spend time with seniors. They are intelligent people. They are the ones who built Quebec, who built our society, who paid taxes their whole lives, who built the houses we live in. They are also the people who taught me and made me the person I am today. They did the same for my colleagues, and I have to admit that, in many cases, they produced good results.
These people are capable of figuring things out. However, when the program was introduced, nobody was able to figure out that it would be calculated the way the government calculated CERB income to determine the GIS.
In teaching, there are rules. I am going to add this one. When we explain something to a whole lot of people but nobody understands, that is our fault.
When we create a program nobody understands, the fault lies with the government that created the program. It is a mistake, and the mistake needs to be fixed.
Our seniors are important. That cannot be overstated. Our seniors have suffered as much as anyone else. They are part of our society. They are active members of our society and our communities.
Recognizing that a mistake has been made is a sign of intelligence. In this case, one half of the mistake has been corrected. The government recognized that there was a miscalculation and that action had to be taken. However, time is of the essence. It is winter, seniors have bills to pay, and prices are going up. We must look after them and ensure that they start getting these payments in March.
1374 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
