Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 261
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2020-09-29 22:32 [p.301]
Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Repentigny.
I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak on behalf of my constituents in Manicouagan. I wanted to say that because, as we all know, every time I speak in the House, I do the same thing: I think of the people of the North Shore, for they are my motivation, the reason for all my speeches in the House as the member for Manicouagan.
We should always bear in mind the fact that we are in this place to represent tens of thousands of people. In a sense, it is as though they speak through us, and so I speak on behalf of my people in this place in the hopes of securing our well-being. At the risk of sometimes seeming naive, I believe we can accomplish this by striving to live up to an ideal that I think is expected of us. I try to live up to that. What I do as an MP, I do on behalf of my constituents. I act on behalf of my people and what I do, I do for them, the Quebeckers, the people of the North Shore, the Innu and the Naskapi.
My plan is to address two aspects of Bill C-4: the underlying principle, or what it intends; and our responsibility as elected representatives. Social justice, the redistribution of wealth and de jure and de facto equality are all principles the Bloc Québécois holds especially dear. We want some degree of security for all of our people—children, workers and seniors—during these tough and uncertain times.
The duty to care for oneself and others was and seems to be the underlying principle of the Canada recovery sickness benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery benefit, which picks up where the Canada emergency response benefit left off with a more flexible employment insurance regime.
The Bloc Québécois is an opposition party that makes proposals, and back in April, we were already calling for an enhanced CERB that would meet people's needs and include an incentive to work designed to support our economy. We had to strike a balance between the needs of workers and those of employers. We needed to take into account the present and the future.
Although the Bloc Québécois would have like to have seen this change to the measure five months ago, we are satisfied that now, as we enter the second wave, the government heard and understood our proposal to help workers, who can now earn more, and business owners, who can now get the human resources they need. This just goes to show that the opposition is essential, as is the necessary democratic dialectic.
This brings me to the second topic I wanted to discuss, which is the responsibility of elected officials. I believe that it was unacceptable for the government to prorogue Parliament, because a crisis is inherently urgent. At a time when there were dire needs, when the public was asked to pitch in, to make sacrifices, to set an example and to demonstrate a sense of duty, the government shut down Parliament and disappeared. Why? Why were they hiding? What were they concealing? Why did they vanish? Did they just want people to forget?
Shutting down Parliament is not pitching in. It is not making sacrifices. It is not stepping up and demonstrating a sense of duty. It is not self-sacrifice. On the contrary, it came across as an act partly—if not fully—driven by selfishness, by blind partisanship, in an attempt to make people forget what certainly appears to be nepotism.
Shutting down Parliament for several weeks in the midst of a pandemic, in the middle of an emergency, as we were coming up with ideas, is not what the public could and should have expected from its elected officials, especially when prorogation need not have lasted more than a few hours.
Just as it did with the emergency wage subsidy, the government served itself instead of serving others. Now, when we have so little time and people are still coming up with ideas, proroguing and imposing gag orders is not what people can and should expect of us. That is the sign of an arrogant and complacent government that is trying to give the impression that Canadians are its primary concern, when in reality its main concern is its own interest and getting people to forget about the WE scandal, which is still ongoing.
In closing, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the measures set out in this bill that will support our own, the people of Manicouagan. However, we must consider not only the substance of the bill, or its meaning, but also its form. When that form involves a gag order, that has meaning as well.
The government failed in its duty by depriving elected representatives, voters, the people of Quebec, of democracy, all for what I wish were good reasons. If I were a Liberal MP, which, with all due respect, seems like science-fiction or even personal dystopia, and I had to go through the exercise that I spoke about at the beginning of my speech, namely thinking about what motivates me and the reason behind all of my speeches, I would do my job based on that motivation, which for me is the people of the North Shore. If I were a Liberal MP, I would realize how problematic my inconsistency was.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-09-29 22:39 [p.302]
Madam Speaker, as a Liberal member of Parliament, I am very proud of what we have been able to accomplish as a government over the last eight months. The member talked a lot about the prorogation. What we are talking about is that, instead of coming in on a Monday, we came in on a Wednesday. However, what the member does not talk about are the days we sat in the chamber in July and August. We would have to go back in history over 30 years before seeing that sort of coming together of parliamentarians on the floor of the House of Commons. There were hundreds of questions over the summer, possibly even thousands of questions, that were asked of ministers, giving opposition and government members the opportunity to provide direct input into the legislation we have right now.
I appreciate the fact that the Bloc will support the legislation, because through this legislation we recognize there is a way for the federal government, working with the provincial governments, to help all Canadians. I see that as a good thing. Does the member not agree?
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2020-09-29 22:40 [p.302]
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. I may not have the 20 years of experience that he was talking about today during the debates—I am just starting my second term—but I would point out that the House was not sitting this summer. We were meeting in COVID committee. Although I have less experience in Parliament, I believe we need to correct this, because that was not Parliament. Soon we will begin to have regular sittings.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-09-29 22:55 [p.304]
Madam Speaker, listening to some of the Conservative speakers, we often hear them say that we have gone too far in some of the support programs we have provided. We hear members of the New Democrats and, at times, even members from the Bloc say there is still more that we could do.
The reality is we went from having no program to creating the CERB program, with the support of a first-class public service. It is a program that has provided support for just under nine million Canadians, and the minister herself has indicated that it is not perfect. We are looking for changes. Now we are bringing it through this legislation, picking up where we can continue to support Canadians.
My comment, as opposed to a question, is if the member has those ideas, I would encourage her to continue to advocate as members of the Liberal caucus have done. When we consult with our constituents, and when we have thoughts and ideas in terms of how we believe the system could be improved, we advocate for those changes.
I appreciate the fact that she has brought those matters to the floor this evening.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2020-09-29 22:56 [p.304]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment.
I would like to remind him about a question I asked a little earlier during the previous debate. Essentially, we were here to make changes to the employment insurance system. I talked about how hard my office staff has been working. We have never stopped, and we are still working on that woman's case. Before making changes, we should have had time to discuss them, but Motion No. 7 was passed on May 26. This motion moved by the government and seconded by the NDP effectively eliminated both the House and democracy. We could not introduce bills, we could not move motions, we could not talk, we could not debate.
An hon. member: The Bloc did not ask any questions.
Ms. Monique Pauzé: Madam Speaker, there was nowhere for me to do that.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.
Before I came here at this late hour, I watched something that I am having trouble processing right now. That is the coverage of the death of a first nation woman, Joyce Echaquan. It should trouble all of us. We are sitting in this place tonight, debating this bill, and I am reflecting on the Prime Minister's comments. I actually agree with him for once. I do not agree with his overall response, but he made some comments earlier this week around the Speech from the Throne, and how the pandemic had exposed cracks in our society. It has, but it has exposed the cracks to people in Canada who have such privilege that they do not have to live in those cracks on a daily basis.
I worry about our capacity to address these issues because we have such a divide. There is a privilege in making the statement, “This pandemic has exposed cracks in our society” like a revelation, because there are people living this so profoundly day to day. What we saw tonight in the death of this woman should shake us all, regardless of political stripe. It should shake us into realizing that there is much more to be done, and statements of sympathy and caring down a path that is set one way or the other is not going to address this in a pluralism. It just is not.
That is where I would like to frame some of my comments tonight on the bill. How do we address these cracks? We are ostensibly addressing a bill tonight, given that closure was invoked on it. That is a signal often given by the government to say it is an important piece of legislation that is going to fix a bunch of problems. I think it is a missed opportunity. The process we are going through here, the time that we lost in prorogation, at this moment in our country's history, is a missed opportunity for us to look past our individual dogmas and actually chart a course forward that can address some of these fundamental inequities, the systemic racism, the systemic misogyny, the class divide that we see widening in our country.
I wanted to come in here and talk about this issue from the perspective of the people who live this reality in my community, because they have experienced the situation of the pandemic in a unique way. We already had a severe jobs crisis going into the pandemic.
I am hoping everyone can put their partisanship aside for a minute tonight, and understand what it is like to be living in a community that has no hope of getting back to work. We are here debating a bill tonight that is not tied to a plan for long-term economic viability or tied to measures that will get us through the pandemic beyond lockdown. That is the failure of the bill.
Of course, I think everybody in this place, including me, wants to ensure that Canadians have the benefits they need through the pandemic. There is no question of that. I know people in my community who need the CERB to make ends meet. That is the reality. For them it is like, “You guys have shut down my job. I need to eat, and you as government have made a decision to do this, so where is it?”
I was going to give a huge speech about how prorogation cost five weeks that we could have continued their benefits in.
Members have to understand what it is like to not only be told that one's job is dirty, but to have it disappear and then have no plan for what comes next.
I will speak from a woman's perspective tonight. The women in my riding have gone through so much. They are trying to keep marriages going throughout the downturn of the energy sector, and they hear that their jobs are dirty and that they just need to diversify the economy. These are women who care about the planet. They care about climate change, but they also work in an industry where they know that our energy is part of the solution to a transition to that clean economy and there is no plan, beyond government handouts, to restore their dignity and work. It is just take away jobs, take away dignity, take away marriages and take away their houses.
I just feel that the bill before us is a continuation of that spirit of the paternalistic attitude, the misogynistic attitude that is pervasive in this place. It is pervasive in our approach to legislation. It is pervasive in our messaging and our paternalism, be it “everybody just do their part,” or “we just need to give you more benefits.” There is dignity and beauty in self-determination that our systems, and the government's response to current events, have removed from people. So, yes, cracks in our society have been exposed to those who benefit from the power structures of systemic racism, of systemic misogyny, of systemic regional alienation, but they are apparent to everyone else. They are apparent to people who live this day to day. They are apparent in every part of our society, and I just feel like the bill fails it.
Of course we want benefits to be continued for people. I want the people in my community to work, but I want them to have an answer for their kids when they ask about Halloween, about holiday dinners, or when they wonder if they can go and see their mom in a long-term care facility after it has been shut down. It is not sufficient to say that an entire society should be dependent on the government. It is paternalistic, and it is misogynistic, to say that the government should be the only answer to this situation.
I guess I am pleading, after nearly 10 years of being in this place. I have tried the fight. I have tried the bombast. I do well at that. I am proud of the fact that, over the last two weeks, a small group of feisty people in Room 600 Valour got the government to admit to rapid testing, and I thank Bari, Julia, Sean and Jill. Those guys got her done. However, I am tired of this attitude that is so disconnected that some of the people in my riding feel that they cannot be Canadian anymore. That breaks my heart, and it breaks my heart to watch what we saw on TV tonight.
It is such a late hour, and I did not come with a prepared speech, but we can do better. The government has to do better, because our country is failing. It is not about politics anymore. It is about doing something bigger than that, and the bill before us could be so much better. It could do so much more. It could inspire Canadians. It could get us through this, but instead it is being rammed through in four hours. I cannot speak in 10 minutes to everything I talked about tonight, but Canadians need us to do that, and that is why this place matters. That is why each of us matters in here.
It is up to each of us, regardless of political stripe, to reclaim that power that every Canadian has and to make democracy matter again, especially with what we saw tonight south of the border. This is not entertainment, folks. These are people's lives, and what is happening here with the bill, with prorogation, is not enough. We need to do better. I call out of desperation and with a plea for hope that the government can do better than this. It is not enough.
I am happy to answer questions.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, how fascinating.
One thing I want to say is that I was deeply moved by my hon. colleague's speech. I too am an emotional guy. I too am in touch with my emotions. What is fascinating in all of this is that in 2011, when Stephen Harper was in power, the Liberals claimed it was impossible to impose a gag order or to prorogue Parliament, and yet Stephen Harper did it. The NDP said the same thing. Now, the Conservatives are telling the Liberals that it is not possible to prorogue Parliament or to use a gag order.
I want to understand something. Could my hon. colleague tell me whether the Conservatives, if they were to regain power, would be okay with proroguing Parliament and using gag orders again, as they have done in the past?
View John Brassard Profile
CPC (ON)
View John Brassard Profile
2020-09-30 0:28 [p.317]
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak a little French because I know that my colleague would like me to speak more French in the House.
I was not here when the Harper government was in power. I ran for office in 2015 for Prime Minister Harper, but we are not the ones who promised to do things differently in the House. It was the Liberals who promised that. The Liberals did not fulfill their obligations to Canadians in 2015 and they are not doing so now. I think that is the big problem that we are talking about today.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating Bill C-4. A debate is fine, but it would have been nice if the government had observed the rules of democracy from start to finish.
Near the end of her speech, my colleague said that the government could have prorogued Parliament for just 24 hours, rather than the five weeks. Like all bills, this bill may contain flaws that we might not notice at first glance, which is why the parliamentary process is useful, as it allows us to study the bill properly and hear from witnesses. That will all be impossible, unfortunately. We have to accept it, since now the government wants to fast track this bill, ignoring the need for rigorous, thorough analysis.
Not that the situation is not urgent; far from it. As we have been saying from the outset, a work incentive should have been included in the CERB way back in April. The lack of any incentive may have gone unnoticed when we were in lockdown, when virtually everything ground to a halt. That said, over the summer, Quebec tried to lift the lockdown and get the job market moving again. It was an extremely difficult situation.
Let's be honest. The CERB is not the only factor causing problems for employment. In times of uncertainty and fear, it is easy to imagine that many workers are afraid or do not really want to go back to work.
Let's get to the heart of the matter. As we know, the Bloc strongly favours workers. For that reason, as we have said, we support Bill C-4 in principle. We are naturally in favour of the idea of benefits that incentivize going back to work and that support people who have to stay home from work because they are sick or self-isolating. We are naturally in favour of providing support to those who would be putting themselves at risk by going to work. We are naturally in favour of supporting caregivers. That goes without saying. There is no problem there.
Furthermore, the bill will probably help unemployed workers, whether they are salaried or self-employed. Capping the benefit at $500 a week is entirely appropriate because under this new program, if an employer brings rehires an employee on a part-time basis, the employee does not lose the $500. My beloved riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is very reliant on agriculture and agri-food and is heavily dominated by the service sector. The coming into force of Bill C-4 will certainly do it some good. It will have a positive effect. While the CERB was rigid and vanished as soon as workers earned more than $1,000 a month, Bill C-4 adjusts the benefit in proportion to income. No worker will lose their income because they want to ply their trade. That is what the Bloc has been calling for since the spring. So much the better.
We are also in favour of support for caregivers. However, we think it would have made more sense to extend the benefit to parents of children aged zero to 16, instead of 0 to 11, purely because school is mandatory up until the age of 16. It is as simple as that.
We hope to be worthy of speaking for Quebec workers. Two days ago, Pierre Céré, from the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, said that these benefits will ultimately support the economy as the second wave begins. These benefits will help people pay their rent or mortgage and bolster consumer spending. These benefits will help keep the economy operating at a certain level during these difficult times.
Yesterday I also spoke about this with Mouvement action chômage in Saint-Hyacinthe, a partner of my office. This organization thinks the bill is worthwhile, which is similar to our position. We think the bill is worthwhile, but woefully inadequate, and we think it contains some grey areas. Some other aspects are worthy of mention, such as the single eligibility criterion, which we have not seen since 1977; the elimination of the waiting period until October 25; the 26-week minimum; the reduction of hours to 120; and the reduction of sanctions for terminations that are deemed invalid. In addition, the benefits system is much more flexible. The bill does contain all kinds of good ideas. As members know, the Bloc would prefer that Quebec be allowed to administer its own program and its own EI fund.
The fact remains that this bill contains many of our long-held ideas and requests, along with several things that unions and lobby groups have been calling for for decades.
It even makes good on some election promises that the Liberals made in 2015 but did not keep.
Some may say that all that is fine and dandy, but that is precisely the problem. Why did it take a pandemic for this to happen?
The pandemic did not create the difficult conditions for unemployed workers. It simply exacerbated a situation that has existed for a long time. The major difference is that all of the demands and proposals that I shared with the House, our own and those of the unions and lobby groups, centred on an overhaul of the EI system, not a temporary fix. It almost seems as though the Canadian parties are leaving some wiggle room so that they can go back to the way things were as soon as the opportunity arises.
What will happen when the pandemic is over? Will we go back to the old EI system, or will Bill C-4 be the basis for real, lasting change?
Over the last 20 years and more, the EI system has been slowly but thoroughly dismantled. Fewer and fewer people qualify for benefits. Only four out of 10 unemployed workers have access to the program.
I remember that when I first became involved in politics about 10 years ago, during the election campaign, there were already posters asking who had stolen money from unemployed workers. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. Employment insurance has been altered so drastically that it can almost be seen as more of a tax than an actual assistance program. That says it all.
The National Assembly has adopted several unanimous motions calling on Ottawa to stop making changes that negatively impact Quebec workers. The story is always the same, no matter which party is in power in Ottawa or which party is in power in Quebec City. We are being accused of engaging in constitutional squabbling. I am not afraid to talk about the Constitution. The Constitution applies to us until proven otherwise, so we should be talking about it.
Ever since 1996, Ottawa has orchestrated an outright misappropriation of money from the employment insurance fund. Surpluses have been transferred to the federal government's consolidated revenue fund. In 2014, the real government of Canada, the Supreme Court, overturned Quebec unions' case against Ottawa for misappropriating nearly $60 billion from the fund. Canada's highest court, which some see as the government of judges, allowed that money to be diverted. Then, in 2008, the Supreme Court found that surpluses were illegally diverted in 2002, 2003 and 2005, but it did not require the government to pay back what it took. What kind of a lesson is that? In all, workers were stripped of several billion dollars. All that shows a consistently predatory approach to employment insurance.
To sum up, we are not happy with the way Bill C-4 was imposed, but we do support, to an extent, much of what it contains. Here is the real question: Is this a major step on the path to concrete, long-term change, or is this a temporary change that will evaporate the moment the crisis is behind us?
It would be good to ask the parties seeking to govern Canada about this. If the past is an indicator of the future, we have good reason to be worried—quite worried. Luckily, the Bloc will not give up the fight.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. I have a good relationship with him.
Today, former NDP MP Françoise Boivin tweeted that she felt a pang at seeing her former NDP colleagues vote in favour of a gag order. I wonder what the member, who just gave a wonderful speech, thinks about that. One of her former colleagues, who was here during the Harper era and experienced these gag orders, would never have voted for one. She felt a pang at seeing her former colleagues vote in favour of the motion.
I would like to know how she feels about her former colleague's tweet.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the member and I work very well together and he will know that, at the international human rights committee, we had planned to bring forward a report on the genocide of the Uighurs in China. Of course I was very disappointed to hear the government had chosen prorogation. It is the reason we are supporting this now. It is very disappointing that we have not been debating this, looking at it and taking care of Canadians while Parliament was prorogued, but I feel it is so important that we get the help out to Canadians. Of course I am completely disappointed that the Liberals dropped the ball on this and left it to the last minute. It is a complete abdication of their responsibility, but I understand that it is more important for us to get the support to Canadians as fast as we can.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my hon. colleague said we need this to go out as fast as possible but we also need a guillotine motion, a debate closure motion, and that the NDP are supporting that. We have all said we need to take care of the citizens of this country. Would it not be appropriate to just have allowed debate to fall on its own?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I really wish we had that opportunity to debate, but because we have run out of time, I do not want to go back to the people of Edmonton Strathcona and tell them they have to wait. I spoke to a woman on the phone who burst into tears when I told her that we were fighting to have the CERB extended. I have talked to artists who do not know what they are going to do. I have stood on people's doorsteps and the one thing they have said to me is that they need to know how they are going to be taken care of because they cannot go back to work.
It is not about us in the House, or what we do in the virtual or the real House. It is about what Canadians need right now, and they need the support they are going to get from Bill C-4.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2020-09-30 1:13 [p.323]
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on this theme because, as the hon. member mentioned, it is frustrating to find ourselves with this sense of urgency, which was concocted by the government. I wonder what it will mean for Canadians if every time the Liberals come up with some kind of cockamamie political scheme, we decide to punish them.
I wonder if the member would like to remind members of the House when exactly the CERB expired and what that means for Canadians who do not know what is coming as a replacement and who already have to plan for October and have to know how they are going to pay their landlord and put food on the table. Yes, the blame lays squarely at the feet of the Liberal government for having created this sense of urgency when there was time to debate it.
However, is it the right thing to do to punish Canadians who are on the ropes for the incompetence of the Liberal government, or is it better to put that aside, in a state of emergency, and move swiftly to make sure that while we figure out the politics of it Canadian households are not on the ropes?
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I feel we are really missing the thread if we start to focus on whether or not we have had adequate time to debate the bill. Yes, it is vital for the strength of our democracy, but as I said, I am talking to people in my riding who are desperate, who need support and who need to know what is happening when the CERB ends. This will give them the ability to have some peace of mind.
Results: 136 - 150 of 261 | Page: 10 of 18

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data