Debates of Dec. 6th, 2022

Report Stage

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gave the hon. member the opportunity to advocate for seniors and talk about what a living wage would look like in retirement, and she chose not to answer the question, so I want to put the question back to the hon. member. What is the rate and how far would she be willing to go on seniors' pension rates to help lift them out of poverty? I ask the member to give me numbers.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have to do is understand that there is a point where seniors require that minimum amount. What is that minimum amount? It is going to depend on the individual and their lifestyle, but what is important is that, when a partner is gone, that pension is lost. It should be retained.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' spending is out of control. They are completely out of touch and do not have a clue about how the vast majority of people in Canada live.

Unlike their elite friends, whom they so fondly dole out tax dollars to in scandal after scandal, most people in this country work hard for what little money they have. The government is spending billions upon billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on frivolous vanity projects, on initiatives that no one other than their seatmate at the World Economic Forum would really care about. All the while the government is raising payroll taxes, tripling the carbon tax and implementing inflationary policies that weaken the dollar, which prices essential goods out of reach.

The callousness on display, the elitist attitude of cancelling one’s Disney+ subscription to save money coming from the people who are not hurting and who do not struggle to keep food on their tables or heat their homes, has to stop.

After seeing another load of spending and learning about Canada’s national debt of over a trillion dollars, one constituent of mine, Chris, wrote in to say, “I’d like to see them in our shoes that is the middle class or low-income households, with our wages. With high inflation for food, gas, heating, rising Bank of Canada interest rates, the soon to be tripling of the carbon tax, pay our bills, our mortgage, our debts, and see if the budget balances itself. I don’t need a handout of my own taxpayer dollars. I need a government that will fix the real issues behind Canada’s problems.”

My message to this resident of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, and to all Canadians who share this view, is that if we want to see change, we need to vote Conservative in the next election.

Our leader, the member for Carleton, knows the same simple fact that nearly everyone but our Prime Minister understands, that budgets do not balance themselves and that more spending, like what was announced in this fall economic statement, only adds inflationary fuel to the fire.

This is not the only feedback that I have received about waste and misplaced priorities. Recently, a 12-year-old wrote to me with a message that has more common sense in it than this government has displayed in years. This is from Everett.

Everett says, “I have been thinking about why the Prime Minister wants to further tax our hard-working farmers and their families. This tax will dramatically increase the cost of food to the consumer.

“Here is what I would say in Parliament and to the politicians: 'Mr. Speaker, if the federal government continues to enforce laws that control our farmers, there will be widespread criticism to the Liberal government, which has already spent billions of wasted tax dollars. Canadians have already faced difficulties in the beginning of the decade. Forcing our farmers to pay a tax on livestock methane will only lead to farmers who can barely get enough money to pay the ever-increasing carbon tax! It will lead to more bankruptcies in the country. Canadians are fed up!'

“They had already said it in the beginning of 2022. The government silenced them. With inflation, it will make it harder for Canadians to get past this winter. Canadians will be starving and this government will have caused another famine and caused people to starve.

“When will the federal government end the mandates against Canadian farmers?”

Well said, Everett. I thank him for sending that in. I agree. It is true. The government cannot see the forest through the trees, which is funny because they have committed to planting so many of them. I think it was two million trees, and they have planted zero. Is that not another Liberal commitment that has flown by the wayside, just like their promises for accountability and transparency?

It is no wonder that they have to resort to using Conservative ideas to give their fall economic statement any substance.

What ideas could those be? Well, investing in Canadian-made, clean, green technology. That is something we on this side of the House, Conservatives, have been calling for for years.

In fact, making investments in and growing Canadian capacity to be a global leader in clean green tech is exactly what we put forward in our last two platforms. It is an idea, I should add, that creates jobs and helps the environment, which was opposed by the Liberals before.

After learning that their current war against the Canadian energy sector had cost 170,000 Canadian workers’ jobs without a credible plan to back up their big assumptions and magical thinking, it is about time that they saw the light.

We should also note that the first figure is on top of the 180,000 energy jobs that were already destroyed under the Liberal government. That is 350,000 jobs, and counting, killed to satisfy the Liberal government’s imagination. While these Canadians look for work, the government buys the oil and gas we need from dictators instead.

Canadians need more common-sense initiatives, and it should be obvious that it is Conservatives who will give them that. It is Conservatives who will support our domestic resource industries and make positive changes that benefit all, even if the government tries to hide its mistakes and take credit for our ideas.

Do members know that the average before-tax income of a millennial in Canada is under $50,000? Do they know that the average Canadian family pays $39,000 in taxes? For Canadians aged 25 to 40, that means it is nearly impossible to get ahead. It means they will not be able to afford a home until retirement age, and that is if they get to retire. It means every dollar recklessly wasted by this government to grow inflation only puts them further behind. Tripling the carbon tax and increasing payroll taxes so the government can keep spending taxes does not give them hope.

This situation is surprisingly similar to what Canadian seniors currently face. They have sacrificed to save their money. After years of working hard, they gave it all to grow our nation, to make it successful and a great place to live. However, many are telling me they are feeling left behind and abandoned, forgotten by a government that no longer sees them as useful, a Liberal regime that would rather offer them death than sufficient medical or mental health care. They see no hope coming from spending announcements. They only see their bills piling up, groceries getting more expensive and becoming unaffordable, and a winter ahead of them with not enough money to keep the heat on. This is all thanks to the Liberal government's spending and mismanagement of Canada's finances.

From our millennials to our seniors, Canadians are saddened to see this once-prosperous, thriving country with an incredible reputation on the global stage become what it has become today under the government: a tax-and-spend nation that is driving people into poverty and is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the world.

I can see from the faces of those opposite that they do not believe me, but they should pay attention to this next bit of testimony.

A senior from my riding, from Wallaceburg, wrote that they are on ODSP and their cheque has been cut by $500. It's winter right now, they said, and they need that because of the price of heating oil. The senior said it cost $1,800 to fill the tank, and that is what they now get from ODSP.

This Canadian has nothing to live on and no other options.

What do members think about this heartbreaking story from another young mother? She wrote that she had spent the whole day consoling two brothers aged one and three, sick with a bad virus. If she could have given them Tylenol or Advil, she said, they would have had a bad day but they would have survived. Instead, these two very active boys cried and moaned, threw up and begged to be carried. They slept in her arms and were miserable all day.

Instead of acting quickly to see that Canadian children have the medicine they need, the government waited. Instead of working to make certain Canada never faces a similar shortage, it announces boutique spending policies that help no one.

This economic statement does not address the cost of living crisis that the costly NDP-Liberal coalition government has created. Its reckless spending and mounting national debt is simply not fair to future generations.

I have also been hearing from young people that with inflation and the cost of housing, they will be living in their parents' basements until at least the age of 30 and they have given up on their dream of owning a home for their family to live in.

To afford food, to be warm this winter and to give hope to the next generation of Canadians, Conservatives will always stand strong against the Liberal government's reckless spending and fight for common-sense policies.

Finally, here are some questions from average Canadians that no one has been able to answer yet: Where is this carbon tax going? Who gets it? What is it being spent on? No one believes that it is coming back to them, like the Liberals claim. Since the inception of the carbon tax, many have been asking how paying money to the government stops the global temperature from rising. How does money going from their bank account to a slush fund for the Prime Minister's self-glorification clean up the atmosphere, especially when China is the world's biggest polluter by far? How does paying a tax stabilize the weather, when the sun is the biggest influencer of the earth's climate? How does my handing money over to the least transparent, least democratic, most expensive government in our nation's history stop a hurricane from hitting the east coast? It is time to scrap the carbon tax.

Liberal spending is out of control. For the reasons outlined, I cannot support this economic statement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is this member or members in general from the Conservative Party, once again they demonstrate just how much they are out of touch with reality in terms of what the fiscal update budget is all about in the legislation the member is debating.

The member talked about seniors. Never in the last 50 years or so have we seen a government commit so much to seniors, whether it is literally lifting tens of thousands out of poverty or the increase of 10% for those aged 75 and over, which was an election commitment that was made by this government. That is not to mention the one-time payments that have been made over the years for seniors, and that everyone is getting a doubling of the GST credit over the next six months. There is a litany of things in this budget document.

The member continues to want to take the Conservatives' spin lines as to her opposition. Has she really gone through the fall economic statement? If so, how could she possibly say what she has said on the record today?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government's lack of attention to monetary policy is just letting too many Canadians fall through the cracks, especially our seniors. I am going to read for members an example from Martin, who sent me this letter. He says that he and his wife are pensioners. They live below the poverty line. At ages 73 and 68, they still work two to three days a week to make ends meet. He sent me a copy of his monthly budget and noted that after paying their bills they have no choice. They have to choose between buying clothing and putting gas in their car, and they have to save up to have some entertainment. He says, “We helped get this country to where we are today. Now, even at our age, retirement is not our future.”

Where is the help for Canadian seniors?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest, and the issue of energy certainly came up a lot.

I have before me a statistic that shows that since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, Canada's big five banks have invested $694 billion in fossil fuels. Although much of it was in the form of loans, that does not change matters. Should we be doing something about the banks?

I have another concern, one I know the Conservatives share. How can we make our economy greener so that jobs in the energy sector are more sustainable? How can we raise awareness about oil's carbon footprint?

We are seeing a lot of innovation going on. Should we be investing more in that? How can we make the economy more resilient in the prairie provinces?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about how the government is so out of touch with Canadians and how life is getting so much more expensive for Canadians. One of my constituents said they were sure I was aware that everything is going up. Gas is up where they live. It is up to $1.83 a litre. Groceries are skyrocketing. Housing prices are becoming impossible and with the government's carbon tax increase, it is only going to get worse. People have suffered enough hardship over these last two years with the pandemic and need some kind of reprieve.

People like my constituent, who live in rural areas, do not have access to public transit. They say it is unfair of the Prime Minister to continually punish them for something that is completely beyond their control. My constituent also needs to heat their home during the winter months. Heat is a necessity, not a luxury, and my constituent respectfully requested that I bring this to the attention of the House of Commons and plead with the Liberal government to help them, saying that this is unsustainable and wrong.

I agree with my constituent.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech expressing concern about seniors. However, I think she wants us to forget that it was the Conservative Party that tried to raise the age of retirement under the Harper government, and that had to be reversed. People would not be collecting OAS until age 67 if the Conservatives had their way.

On the other side, the member talks about young people trying to get a start. One of the main reasons I am supporting this fall economic statement is that it would take away the interest on student loans, which would go a great way toward helping people get a start in life.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, another senior in my riding emailed me who has a real concern about this winter because of the cost of living and what it is going to cost to heat his home. He said he just received his oil delivery yesterday for 415.4 litres of furnace oil at a cost of $885.82. He asks for somebody to please explain to him how he is paying more for furnace oil than for the price of diesel. He attached his receipt.

It is a very real issue for seniors. They are wondering how they are going to pay their bills and heat their homes this winter, and the tripling of the carbon tax is not going to help. We need to axe the tax.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today.

We are currently in a closure period imposed by the government, with the support and co-operation of the NDP, to limit the debate on the economic update. It is hard to consider this anything but unfortunate. As my Bloc Québécois colleague mentioned earlier, this is the twentieth time that the government has called upon its new NDP friends to stifle debate in the House. This is completely unacceptable and unfortunate and we must denounce it.

We are here to debate the economic update. We Conservatives are always very attentive to the government's reckless spending and mismanagement. Clearly, we have had a lot to say on the subject today, which is unfortunate for Canadian taxpayers.

Just today, the Auditor General released an initial report regarding the management of public funds during COVID‑19. The least that can be said is that it is quite disastrous for people who believe in the sound management of public funds.

The Auditor General “found that Employment and Social Development Canada established performance standards by focusing solely on the speed of payment” and identified at least $32 billion in overpayments and suspicious payments that require a thorough investigation. In short, to paraphrase the Auditor General, it was sloppy. This has been exactly the trademark of this government over the last seven years.

When the government indicated that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance would be tabling an economic update, which happened barely a few weeks ago, we made two very simple requests that were motivated not by ideology but by an acknowledgement of reality.

What do we do when we know that there are tough times ahead? Just like a good mother who has a family budget to manage, we need to stop the taxes, and above all, stop spending. If we have to make additional expenditures, it must be with caution and in a very specific and focused manner. Those were the two requests that we made; they were entirely logical and responsible, but sadly, the government did not heed them.

Should we be surprised that the government has continued in its seven-year-long tradition of spending recklessly? To hell with the expenses, as we say around here.

Let us not forget that, in 2015, those people stood for election and had the audacity to say that they were going to be bold, but responsible. They said they were going to run three small deficits in the first few years to stimulate the economy and then achieve a zero deficit in 2019.

That is the truth about that situation. After four years of the government's being in office under the Prime Minister, there were three huge deficits and another huge deficit in 2019. Liberals were elected saying there would be a very small deficit, but the truth is there are huge deficits, while, when the economy was reeling all around the world in 2008 when the Conservatives were in office, we were the first country in the G7 to get out of the crisis because we were serious in our administration.

Unfortunately, in their first term, the Liberals spent recklessly when, by rights, they should have been setting money aside for a rainy day.

Now, they are obviously going to tell us that, when they ran deficits, it was not their fault, it was because of COVID-19.

Well, we will play along. Sometimes, in a crisis, it is necessary to spend more. We recognize that. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, when we were in government, we ran deficits. The difference is that we brought them under control and then paid the money back and returned to a balanced budget.

However, since COVID-19 and since the Liberals have been in government, there has been a cumulative deficit of $500 billion. The deficit is like a bill we are leaving for our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren to pay, because we are living beyond our means. That is the reality.

Some will say it is not their fault that COVID-19 happened, but the Auditor General found that over 40% of this deficit has absolutely nothing to do with COVID-19, so that argument should be taken with a grain of salt.

The confirmation that the Liberals spend recklessly is that they are currently spending 30% more than before the pandemic. That is because they have been unable to control spending.

As for the excessive spending, we know these people have no shame.

About a year ago, the government decided to implement the sadly notorious ArriveCAN app for people arriving in Canada or those travelling abroad and returning to Canada. Travellers had to fill out a very complicated form. It made no sense. Worst of all, it cost taxpayers $54 million, when one IT company said that it was the type of job that would have taken them a weekend at most and cost a quarter of a million dollars. In short, instead of spending $54 million on something that did not work very well, and sometimes did not work at all, the government could have spent $250,000 and gotten the same thing done at a lower cost and more efficiently. Instead, this government overspent.

It was the same during the pandemic. Money was no issue, as they say. A $237‑million contract was awarded to Frank Baylis, a former Liberal MP, to manufacture 10,000 ventilators. Also, need I remind the House that CERB cheques were sent to prisoners and members of organized crime? It is a bit embarrassing, but it is a fact.

It is understandable that, in an emergency, processes are sometimes sped up. However, the Auditor General's assessment was scathing. The government mismanaged $32 billion during the pandemic. It makes no sense in this type of situation.

Also, as the member for Carleton, who is now the leader of the official opposition, said in April 2020, government should never punish or limit work.

All my life, I will remember going through the first summer of COVID‑19 as an MP. Every day, I met business owners who were angry and upset.

They were angry, because they were upset to see young people staying at home instead of working. That is the reality of what we faced the first summer, when young women and young men decided to stay at home and pick up the $2,000 from the CERB instead of going back to work.

I will never forget meeting the manager of a restaurant in Val-Bélair. I will not name the restaurant because he may not want me to tell this story. He came to see me and was very angry. He told me that it did not make sense and that it had to stop because it was not right. He said that a 17-year-old young man had come to see him and laughed as he told him that it was great because he would not be working over the summer.

That is not how a government should be run. That is not the right message to send our young people. When people are 16, 17 or 18 and working their first summer job, they are proud to get up in the morning and enthusiastic about working and earning their first three-figure paycheque.

We had the courage to identify the problem, but the Liberals went on as though nothing were wrong. Now we are dealing with inflation, the worst inflation crisis in 40 years. It is hurting everyone, particularly the most fragile and most essential sector of all: food.

As I noted yesterday during question period, the next few years are not looking any better. Four universities conducted a study and found that food inflation will remain above 10% inflation in the coming year. It is not a good sign when food banks report increasing demand and people who were donating to the food bank last year are now knocking on the door of that same food bank for goods and food. I see it in my riding.

That is why we will be voting against Bill C‑32. We believe that the government has not done its job properly in terms of sound management of public funds. It has spent recklessly. It has absolutely no control over its spending, but that has not tempered its ambition and desire to raise taxes.

The Liberals can say what they will, but raising taxes during a period of inflation is the worst-case scenario.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the issue of inflation. My friend has brought that up, and it is important that we put it in the proper perspective. Let us take a look at what is happening around the world. Whether we compare ourselves to the United States of America, England or many of the European countries, Canada is, at the very least, below the inflation rates of all those countries.

We understand it still hurts here in Canada. That is one of the reasons we have taken a number of measures to support Canadians directly. For example, we are doubling the GST credit for the next six months. That will put some cash in the pockets of people.

Would my colleague not agree that, in comparison to other countries, Canada is doing well? In fact, even though that is the case, we are doing more to support Canadians by bringing in good legislation such as the doubling of the GST tax credit.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me answer this question clearly. For sure, we see inflation all around the world. We also see, all around the world, serious governments lowering taxes. All the countries in the G7 reduced their taxation system except one country. Which one is it? It is Canada under the Liberal government. It not only decided to not lower taxes as every other country in the G7 has done, but also it plans to raise taxes with the carbon tax in 2023.

I cannot believe this gentleman, who I appreciate very much, is proud to say his government will raise taxes at a time of inflation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent's speech, and we disagree on some things.

First, I think he is generalizing when he says that only young people benefited from the CERB. That is not true. I want to see his data. I do not agree with him.

Second, my colleague talked about government spending. We agree on that, but I think he has forgotten about one expenditure, namely the wage subsidy for businesses. The Conservative Party received nearly $1 million through that taxpayer-funded subsidy, which was intended to help businesses stave off bankruptcy and keep the lights on. The former leader of the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Durham, talked about that before the election campaign.

The Bloc Québécois demanded that the parties pay back that money, which came from honest taxpayers and was not intended to fill the coffers of political parties. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the Conservative Party has begun paying back the wage subsidy that was intended for businesses.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hold my colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques in high regard and I thank him for his question.

To start, I am going to have to go back and read what I said. If, by any chance, I indicated that only young people benefited from CERB, I apologize. However, I do not believe that is what I said.

I still hear stories about the situation that occurred and that left a strong impression on many entrepreneurs and young people as well. Unfortunately, they did not have the pleasure and pride of working their first summer job and earning a living. No, they stayed home and received CERB. While it is true that some young people benefited from this money, they were not the only ones. Honestly, I do not think I went that far, but if I said they were the only ones, I apologize.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said at the finance committee that, “the $4 billion or $5 billion in this assistance for lower-income Canadians doesn't have a meaningful inflationary impact”.

Does the member agree that the windfall tax and the Canada recovery dividend are absolutely necessary so that these lower-income families that the Conservatives keep talking about can get the assistance they need from this bill?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the best way is to let people live out their ambitions. Nobody wants to spend all their life in troubled times. That is why we have to help everybody. The best way to help them is by not raising taxes and by leaving more money in the pockets of the people. Do not print more money and give it to everybody. We can be sure that by lowering taxes people will keep more money in their pockets, and they could have a good future with that.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to join in today's commemoration of the 14 women killed at École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989. The first shots were fired at exactly 5:10 p.m. We must remember, but above all, we must say, “Not one more woman”. We can truly make a difference by taking action together. I want to acknowledge all the shelter workers who are helping women flee violence. They can count on our support.

I will be speaking about the economic statement, Bill C-32, even though closure was once again invoked on the economic statement just a few hours ago. That is one time too many, because closure should be the exception in the House. It should only be used in genuine emergencies that require us to stop debate, for democratic reasons, for instance. That is not the case here, and it was not the case for many other bills. With the NDP's complicity, the government has once again missed an opportunity to take the time to make the debate fully relevant. That is what I hope to do with my speech.

The Bloc has already announced that it will be supporting the economic statement. The NDP is going to support it, and the Liberal Party wants to speed up debate. However, I hope the government will listen to our concerns about the economic statement. I hope it will listen and realize that it is never too late to act.

The Bloc Québécois asked for three things in the economic statement and Bill C‑32.

First, we asked the government to support health workers and sick patients by increasing health transfers. The government said no.

Second, we asked the government to provide proper support to our seniors aged 65 and older, most of whom are women. Seniors are being hit hard by the current economic conditions. They need appropriate support, which means ensuring that the increase to old age security starts at age 65. Seniors must not be discriminated against. That request was also denied.

Third, we asked for an urgent reform of EI, which is a federal program, a support program, a social safety net. At least, that was what it was supposed to be when it was created. It is the best economic stabilizer in difficult economic times. Again, we got no response, just radio silence.

The government rejected those proposals. We can only see this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers and Canadians cope with the difficult times they are already experiencing or may face in the coming months.

As the Minister of Finance said many times in her speech on the economic statement, a crisis is coming and we need to be vigilant. I would say that we need to be bold. As I was saying, EI is the ultimate economic stabilizer during a recession, and a recession may be just around the corner. Times like these may offer the best opportunity to reform the program. Perhaps we should avoid waiting until we are in the midst of a crisis. EI is also a tool for social justice that protects workers from the ups and downs of the market economy.

While a growing number of analysts are concerned about the possibility of a recession as early as 2023, the Canadian government seems to be going back on the comprehensive EI reform it promised in the summer.

On June 6, we asked the Minister of Employment a question here in the House about when we could expect the EI reform to happen. The minister responded as follows, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard to modernize employment insurance. Quickly, when we got into the pandemic, we recognized that the EI system had not kept up with the way Canadians work. That is exactly why we are working to improve the system in terms of adequacy, in terms of access and in terms of the individuals who pay in and who do not yet have access.

What we do know, however, is that the system, which has not been reformed in 15 years, is so broken that six out of 10 workers who lose their job are not entitled to EI. It is shameful.

The government has been promising to reform the EI system for seven years. It made that promise in its 2015, 2019 and 2021 campaign platforms, but nothing has been done and time is short. We definitely need to avoid a scenario where we are forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits. During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost more and are less effective. However, the government's financial forecasts prove that it does not anticipate accepting more workers' claims.

With respect to the 26 weeks of sick leave announced recently, this was a measure included in Bill C-30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago. The minister finally announced the measure, which will take effect on December 18 and only for new claimants. That is too little too late. We again decry the government’s lack of ambition. It is happy with a half-measure, and one that should have been in place last July.

According to the Canadian Cancer Society, 1 in 24 people have been diagnosed with cancer in Canada over the last 25 years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that claimants with a serious illness need an average of at least 41 weeks of benefits to recover. Therefore, even with an increase to 26 weeks, the government is leaving claimants with a deficit of 15 weeks without income. They will not be able to recover with dignity.

It is insulting, quite frankly, especially since a motion was adopted and two bills have been introduced here in the House in that regard. The Bloc Québécois introduced the Émilie Sansfaçon bill to increase EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks, and the official opposition party introduced a bill to increase sickness benefits to 52 weeks. Although a motion was adopted in the House, some parliamentarians still refuse to listen. The government has deliberately chosen to ignore the very well researched and careful advice of parliamentarians, experts and witnesses we have heard from.

As for EI reform, we are still waiting for the minister to come forward with a proposal for comprehensive reform. The temporary measures that were in place but were abolished in September would have been a good basis for reform. We still do not understand why the government eliminated them, only to go back to the status quo and the outdated system we have now.

This is despite the fact that the minister's mandate letter is quite clear. It says, and I quote:

...by Summer 2022, bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system for the 21st century, building a stronger and more inclusive system that covers all workers, including workers in seasonal employment and persons employed by digital platforms, ensuring the system is simpler and more responsive for workers and employers.

Let us just say we are a long way off. Ever heard of the winter gap?

I see that my time is up.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of what the civil service has been able to put together over the last couple of years. At a time when we had a worldwide pandemic, the development of the CERB program came from virtually nowhere, as we all know. When we take a look at issues such as employment insurance, we have seen a number of modifications to support Canadians to get them through our current situation. The minister herself has already indicated that we are looking at ways to make some additional changes to EI.

Would the member not agree that at the very least we have seen significant changes to date and that new programs have been there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way? The CERB program helped over nine million Canadians.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seriously, with respect to EI reform, apart from nice words and good intentions, nothing is happening. The government had promised it seven years ago. Now, we are hearing nice words about how EI needs to be reformed and adapted, but nothing has been done. The government has had to cobble together some measures from scratch because there are gaps in the system.

It eliminated measures that existed in September and that could have made a big difference for workers in the seasonal industry. This for me is the winter gap. The government will leave workers in limbo for periods of 15 to 17 weeks with no income and no work because it changed the eligibility criteria.

Is that what the Liberal government wants?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are experiencing a state of emergency. From indigenous communities to Quebec, it is no secret that violence against women is increasing in Canada. This is a critical issue, especially as everyone in the House just this morning marked the importance of understanding that action is greater than words. Women have passed away in the last few weeks in Winnipeg, and today we are marking the tragic memory of many women in Quebec who have passed away due to misogyny and violence against women.

I know the member has spoken passionately in the past about ensuring that we create equity, opportunity and resources for women, including women who are survivors of domestic violence and women who are survivors of many more kinds of tragedies.

The fall economic statement bill, Bill C-32, fails to acknowledge the fact that women are experiencing this national emergency. Could the member speak about the importance of ensuring that the government provides real resources to tackle misogyny in Canada?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague has just said.

More must always be done to support women and ensure that equal rights translate to equality in fact. When we talk about supporting women in cases of violence, we must also consider women in the workplace. They constitute over half of humanity, whether they are seniors or health workers. They must also be provided support through strong programs.

What I deplore is that the current government is more concerned with telling us what to do in programs that belong to the provinces than with enhancing its own programs, such as old age security, the issue of health transfers and EI reform. That is the problem.

We are losing time here trying to pass bills, like the one for dental care, for example, that infringe on provincial jurisdictions, instead of tackling EI reform, among other things.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her heartfelt intervention.

I think that we agree that on this December 6, we have to work on addressing violence against women.

Listening to my colleague talk reminds me that there is a direct link between poverty and violence against women. To help women escape the cycle of violence, we need to make sure that they have a bit more money in their pockets.

How can the government claim to have a feminist agenda while maintaining an EI system that is more discriminatory toward women? The same goes for refusing to increase old age security benefits. We know that this has a greater impact on women.

In what way do these two programs affect women more?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for her question, and I would like to acknowledge her very moving speech.

The employment insurance system discriminates against women in several ways.

First, it is often women who work in non-standard jobs. Because of the current EI rules surrounding eligibility criteria, it is very difficult to qualify for employment insurance when you work in a non-standard job.

Second, pregnant women who lose their jobs while on maternity leave or upon return from maternity leave are no longer eligible for EI. That is another way that EI rules discriminate against women.

Women won a court battle, yet the government has not even corrected this. What a disgrace.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her speech. Members will see that the spirit of my speech is somewhat similar to hers. Perhaps it is because we wear the same colours in the House.

As a human being, as a woman and in good conscience, I cannot help but bring up the three points raised by my colleague. These are the Bloc Québécois's demands. In short, the government has come up with an update that leaves us wanting more. We always expect more from the government, but in this case we were expecting at least a little something. These measures were already announced but not implemented last spring or, as has been said several times, are simply minor legislative adjustments. Basically, this is an update, but it is not something that required vision. It is not something that requires that attention be paid to what is going on around us right now.

We go to our ridings and we know what is happening. People stop us to talk about bread, butter and health. This bill is not really something that will go down in history. It is very unremarkable. The Bloc Québécois will be voting for the bill not because we are particularly enthusiastic about it, but simply because we cannot oppose a bill that does so little. The legislative adjustments needed to be done. That is the first thing I wanted to raise.

I talked about the Bloc Québécois's three priorities, which we mentioned several times recently, just before the update. I am here to represent the Bloc Québécois, but I would also like to talk about my riding. I sometimes feel like the government does not realize that, for residents in my region, the north shore, the issues of health transfers, EI reform and old age security for seniors aged 65 to 75 are intrinsically linked. First, there is the issue of money, and then the issue of health. I represent an ageing population of 100,000 people who live in an area where jobs are precarious, even for seniors. Sometimes, there are very good jobs in the mining industry. However, work in forestry, fishing or tourism is really seasonal. The workers are not seasonal, the industry is. Also, the region is vast. My riding spans two time zones. That says it all.

Residents are struggling with these issues, but the government does not seem to notice. It does not even mention them in its economic statement, even though the opposition keeps raising the issue of inflation and the amount of groceries people can afford keeps shrinking from week to week. In short, these issues went totally unmentioned, yet they are crucial for my constituents. For them, it is a matter of being able to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. I believe I have said this in the past. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, these are basic needs. People need to be healthy, they need to eat, and they need shelter. That is what we are talking about.

I would also like to come back to the issue of old age security. I talked about conscience at the beginning of my speech. I honestly cannot imagine what the government was thinking when it decided to divide retirees who have the same needs into two groups, seemingly arbitrarily. I think they all need three meals a day, whether they are 62 or 73. The government divided them in two and is doing nothing to change that. It is not doing the right thing. It is not saying that it was in fact a huge mistake, that it did not realize this would be a problem, but it could do that now, which would do it credit.

Instead, the government is leaving things that way out of pride. My constituents cannot live on pride, unfortunately.

I also wanted to come back to EI reform. My colleague mentioned the winter gap, which makes winters a time of great hardship for seasonal workers. I am referring to the seasonal gap, the period when workers in seasonal industries are left in limbo. This is happening at a time when people, including many of my constituents, are no longer employed in the seasonal industry and live in an area where there are not 28 other jobs available. It is not necessarily consistent over time.

It is not a labour shortage, it is simply that there are no jobs. These people have no income. However, industries and communities need workers, and the workers themselves need to work, of course. These people are not even getting any help.

As an aside, I read an interview recently with the Minister of National Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine concerning EI. I must say that I was stunned, and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville was probably stunned as well, to read that she wanted EI reform. However, it was not to honour the Liberal government's promise from 2015, but to address the labour shortage.

Right now, six in 10 people are not eligible for EI, and precarious workers and seasonal workers, which include women, students and youth, are struggling to make ends meet at the end of the year. In addition, our villages are experiencing an exodus. Now the Minister of National Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who is sort of my neighbour on the other side of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, comes along saying that EI will fix the labour shortage.

We have been hearing it for 20 years. There has even been talk of it since 1996 and the Axworthy reform. There are reforms going on. What we are being told is that it will be more generous and fix the holes in the safety net. However, the Minister of National Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine says that the criteria will simply be made even more restrictive, that people will be forced to travel 200 kilometres or 300 kilometres from home, rent an apartment and leave their family in order to work. At least, it seems it will be that way in my riding.

I would love to see the minister visit the fishing villages on the Lower North Shore. Fishers from Newfoundland came to settle in Quebec, and they now live there in communities of 200 or 300 people, where the economy is based on the processing industry in the village, on fishing. I would love to watch her to tell them that they will end up having to go work in Sept-Îles and Baie Comeau, 700 kilometres away, because hotels need workers in the winter.

That is not going to work, and it is frankly ridiculous. More than that, to me, it is an insult to my constituents, to the workers in my riding who contribute to the Quebec economy and the Canadian economy just as much as other workers. I have a lot to say about this topic, because I am deeply concerned about it. I am not even hearing good news. Not only is the government not talking about it, but worse still, we are getting bad news. That is really what the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine is saying. She is a bearer of bad news.

Finally, I would like to talk about health transfers. I mentioned how big my riding is. Imagine having to travel four, five or six hours from home for dialysis. Dialysis is not a yearly treatment. It is administered several times a week. That means choices have to be made, choices that are heartbreaking, because services are not available. They are not necessarily available in the cities, either. We have seen what is happening in the hospitals, which are overflowing right now. As we have seen, the Red Cross was called in to help out at CHEO. What is happening right now is very serious.

The provinces want health transfers. This is essential. We have talked about health care, and it is once again beyond me why the government is so determined not to meet people's needs. This is what the premiers of Quebec and the provinces are asking for.

As I have said before, this is about lack of vision and will. I believe I have talked about this in other legislative assemblies, but this trend is worsening. It is becoming increasingly apparent; there is no denying it. The government has no desire to undertake anything and would rather do the bare minimum. It avoids making waves. It takes shortcuts. Then it takes measures nobody is keen on and tries to ram them through.

The Bloc Québécois will reluctantly vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though we think it completely lacks substance.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Bloc, on a number of occasions, bring up what the member and some other members of the House have brought up. It is the presumption that the federal government arbitrarily decided that those who are over 75 would get more supports than those between 65 and 75. In reality, when we look at the data, it shows that once people hit the age of 75, their costs increase, their savings decline and their pensions are no longer indexed to inflation at the same rate.

The data shows that seniors over the age of 75 need more supports. It is not the first program we have developed in this country that is based on need. What we did when we brought in this program was look at where the need was and deliver it to those Canadians.

Why is it so difficult for the Bloc to accept the fact that the data shows people over 75 need more supports?