Debates of June 8th, 2022

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will recognize that it was the NDP that brought forward a motion just last week calling for repealing and ending all subsidies at a time when, under various names, we continue to see new ones added.

To answer the question, we know exactly where those funds should go. They should be going to workers, to invest in their long-term future and a prosperous transition for workers to ensure that they know that they are going to be a part of the economy of the future.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

It is my greatest honour and privilege to rise on behalf of the people in my riding of Bay of Quinte and the region.

I have found in my time as a member of Parliament that as an MP, I get to use my voice to speak for those people in the riding. My wife Allyson and I have met with so many great people, especially in the last few months. We have had nothing short of amazing experiences in listening to them and representing them here in Ottawa. It is my privilege to act as their voice in this place.

Today I talked with Katie, who cannot travel within her own country. She has an allergy and she cannot get out to see her family. I talked with Josh, who cannot afford a house. He has bid on seven houses now, and has been outbid each time. He is having a really tough time. I also spoke with Jane, who cannot afford either groceries or gas right now.

I am using this privilege to speak on behalf of people who are struggling and asking for help, and to ensure that we see a budget that makes sure that Canadians get to take control of their lives through uncertain times. Each and every Canadian wants equality of opportunity, to have a place to live and work, the opportunity to marry whom they want, to travel where they want, the opportunity to live freely and to pursue that which motivates them most, and not because government tells them it is the right thing to do, but because it is their right as Canadians.

It is my belief and my party's belief that the government's job is to provide equality of opportunity for Canadians to take control of their lives, as they have for the last 155 years, and to lead this planet with that Canadian innovation, entrepreneurship, creativity, hard work, passion, and yes, even politeness. We need to lead Canada in standing as a symbol of democracy and freedom. That is not to say government does not have a role, but it is not the role of government to lead; it is the role of government to empower our citizens.

We have the worst housing crisis in this generation in the whole history of Canada right now. We have an inflation crisis, a war in Ukraine and an energy crisis with gas as high as $2.50 a litre in some parts of the country. We have a food unaffordability crisis, with fertilizer up 42%, and in my riding, food prices have been up 30% in the grocery store, which is correlated to a 30% rise in food bank usage. We have 1.03 million jobs unfilled in this country. People are screaming for employees. We have clogged airports, lineups for passports and unstaffed Canadian border entry locations. I think it is safe to say that we just wish we could live through some precedented times. However, these unprecedented times need major action.

No matter the party in the House, I think we can all agree that these are trying times and that it is our responsibility to do what is best for Canadians, and not just in trying times but truly unprecedented times. We need new ideas. We need to make new stands. We need to inspire all Canadians to believe in themselves to start to solve the biggest issues that plague us.

While budget 2022 speaks to three main pillars, my objection to the budget, and my party's objection to the budget, is not just to the pillars but that it speaks to a government solving these issues instead of instilling that power to Canadians to solve those issues and get government out of the way.

There is pillar one, which is about investing in people. We certainly need people to fill the over one million jobs that are open, and there is a price to unfilled jobs in this country, which is $30 billion. Let us equate that to the tourism industry, which is worth $34 billion to Canada. Unfilled positions, which include in the tourism sector, are causing major backlogs. They are causing bottlenecks. We are short factory workers, skilled trades to build homes and software engineers who go to some of our universities but then get taken up by the U.S. We are short 25,000 truckers whom we depend on to take our goods across our country and across our borders. We are short 60,000 nurses and 14,000 doctors and specialists.

There are currently 1.5 million unemployed Canadians under the age of 66 and there are one million jobs available. Do members know who is not short of employees? It is the federal government. Since 2015, this Liberal government has added 62,000 federal employees to the federal payroll, which employs just over 319,000 employees right now. In spite of that, we have unprecedented backlogs in federal departments.

We know about the IRCC backlogs. Did members know that it is two million people? Do members know that we are waiting for 45,000 skilled trades to come to this country? It was just launched yesterday, or the day before, that we have hired 500 more employees. Why not just add more employees to try to solve the issue, and $85 million? There are two levers that we can pull. One is bringing more skilled immigrants in and the other is helping to get money to train skilled workers into better jobs. Members can excuse my constituents if they do not believe that budget 2022 will do anything to change that.

The alternative puts control into people and more money into colleges so that Canadians can choose to train for jobs that the regions need. As we have been studying this in science, research and industry, colleges have programs that work for the employers that have empty jobs so they end up getting the employees they need to put into those jobs, such as nurses and PSWs. Colleges also do training for skilled trades and technical jobs. That works in remote communities. Some 95% of Canadians live within 50 kilometres of a college in Canada. This also works for the rural communities and first nations communities.

Employers themselves, as well as economic development organizations, can train employees. My local organization, Bay of Quinte Economic Development, has a great program called Elevate Plus. It takes students and trains them in six-week cohorts in a classroom. I have been to the graduations, which are often emotional, because for many of these students it is the first job they have ever had. It is empowering and powerful. How incredible it has been for those students who were on Ontario Works social assistance, to come off of that system and get themselves jobs.

Housing can be a major driver. If we look at immigration, we should make sure we put the skilled trades we need first, such as plumbers, electricians and well drillers. We need at least 600 in my riding alone. We look at the million jobs needed filled across Canada, and many of them could be filled, which would build homes and create GDP and economic development.

The member who spoke earlier talked about investing in people's mental health, because when we help people, they help themselves. It is a major empowerment.

Pillar two in the budget is the green transition. This is obviously very important. We want a green future for our children. Given the choice, Canadians will make choices that allow them to make the planet greener, but the hidden danger of a green energy transition is ignoring affordability, security and reliability, which need to be a key plank in the green transition, but are not part of budget 2022.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has changed the world and has also triggered an energy crisis that is exposing the world's dependence on not only Russian energy, but green energy that is not yet available to replace it. We know the future is going to be green with hydrogen, modular nuclear energy and Canadian natural gas and converting the world from coal. It is going to be a big transition that we need to make as Canadians, and Canada is going to play a big role in that. When we ignore affordability, when people need to heat their homes and make a choices that are good for their family, we are ignoring the choices they can make. We are actually hurting them with those energy policies, not helping them. We need to include affordability, choice, jobs, income investment and productivity when including a green transition, none of which are in budget 2022.

Pillar three is about productivity and innovation. We have to work hard at the new economy. We have so many great jobs. We have never seen a time like this since 1900s, with the introduction of electricity, automobiles and the telephone. Now we have five major technologies converging. When the government talks about investing, we need to invest in mentorship and allow Canadians to bring that innovation to the forefront, such as AI, blockchain, robotics, energy storage and DNA sequencing, which are all working together.

I agree with the three pillars in the budget, but I believe that it is people, not government, who need to be empowered. People need to invest in it. I will say right now that Canadians are going to be the ones to lead this country out of inflation, out of all of our crises and lead Canada and the world forward.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is from Bay of Quinte, which also has CFB Trenton in his riding. He did not mention anything with respect to the additional $8 billion in funding for the Canadian Armed Forces in the budget. I know that he has brought forward the issue of Canadian Armed Forces housing and the issues that are facing the PMQs across Canada.

I would like to ask the member opposite for his opinion on the additional $8 billion in funding for Canadian Armed Forces members, which can include funding for housing. I know he has had some investments recently announced in his riding for Canadian Armed Forces housing. As a parent of two Canadian Armed Forces members and a mother-in-law of one, this is something that is very important to me, so I would like his opinion on the additional funding for the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have so much respect for the Canadian Armed Forces. I think the member and members of her family have also served in the Canadian Armed Forces and I thank her for her service.

There is a funeral on Friday for John Smylie who followed my father as honorary colonel on the base. It is very emotional. The base is worth so much to our region.

We thank the government for the investment in the base. Sixty homes is where the money went, as well as for an emergency response unit, which is so needed. Canada has a great role to play in the world. We still need a lot of housing in the military. Of the 6,000 homes, we are short 360 there.

I know the government is committed to investing in the military, as well as in NATO and NORAD. I very much thank all of those who are supporting the military.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to salute my colleague and thank him for his speech.

There is all kinds of stuff in this omnibus bill, which deals with such topics as space jurisdiction, strip searches in prison and whatever else, but 170 pages are dedicated to the new Liberal luxury tax.

This tax will have a significant impact on entire sectors of our economy. One example frequently mentioned by Conservative members on the Standing Committee on Finance is the whole boating and pleasure craft industry. When we asked finance officials to table the impact studies for this tax, they turned to us and said they had nothing, they did not know about it, and they had not done anything.

Does my colleague think it is acceptable for the government to implement a new tax that is going to affect whole sectors of our economy without doing any economic impact studies?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill said that taxing oneself into prosperity is akin to standing in a bucket while trying to lift oneself up.

We have industries that are just coming out of COVID. We know that industries are lacking labour. We know that industries have taken on massive loans, apart from the government, but they are trying to claw their way out. Every industry in Canada, every business and every Canadian is trying to get out. They are fighting just to get back up on their feet. This is not a time for new taxes. This is a time for tax relief.

We have certainly offered solutions for tax relief to Canadians. We certainly have to look at helping Canadians with tax relief. This is not a time for taxes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I sit on the defence committee and we heard a lot about the need of those in the armed forces who are struggling with the cost of living, with having to move all the time. Families are struggling with housing costs. One of the things that was offered up was a reinstatement of the cost of living differential for Canadian Armed Forces members.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on how that would help.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, anything that can go to the military is great. I think I have already said that.

There are a couple of things happening right now. When a military member moves from Cold Lake, Alberta, to CFB Trenton, the house price differential can be $500,000, so it is not helping with that. The $500 is there. On northern Vancouver Island, being offered Habitat for Humanity as a solution is not right.

We have to build homes. The least the government can do is to put homes up. We can get the army to help out. Let us get homes built and let us take care of our military, 100%.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from Bay of Quinte for such a great speech.

I am honoured to speak to Bill C-19, and I want to take this opportunity to speak to concerns about Canada becoming a country that is known for backlogs.

Immigration, passports, seniors supports, Veterans Affairs, Service Canada and so many basic services the government provides are in a tailspin of growing backlogs. We see that very clearly in the Canadian immigration system. The Liberal-made backlog at IRCC has now reached 2.1 million applications.

What does the minister and department think about that? The minister told the immigration committee, “I hesitate to describe [it] as a backlog, because it's normal to have an inventory of cases.” If that is normal, I would be very concerned to see what they consider abnormal. This is the biggest backlog we have ever seen in Canada’s history in immigration.

These are not just numbers. That is the key here. These are family members who cannot be reunited with each other. There are parents who are missing their kids’ first birthdays, their first steps and their first words.

There is also mental anxiety and many mental health issues. We hear about people being divorced. The suicide rates are going up because of this backlog. Employers cannot find labour fast enough. They are suffering, which means, ultimately, that our economy suffers. This is something we wish the government would take seriously, but we do not see much inside the budget that would help address the issue.

The government is now okay with stranding 2.1 million people and their families in bureaucratic limbo because it thinks this is normal. When did it become okay to normalize poor performance? Canada is welcoming record numbers of immigrants, all the while not dealing with labour shortages and the refugee crisis.

We also have a very concerning report that came out about racism at IRCC. There is nothing, whether in the budget or practically, being done by the government to address that racism. The most concerning thing is that, of the managers and employees who displayed racism, not a single one was reprimanded or fired. Rather, they were given bonuses. That is super shameful. It really is bad for our country to be known as a country that has an issue with racism within IRCC. This is on top of the backlog, and it is partly contributing to that backlog as well.

When the minister appeared at the immigration committee in February, he committed to returning processing times to the 12-month service standard and investing $85 million to fix the immigration backlog. However, after four months, the backlog grew from 1.8 million in February to over 2.1 million, and processing times are two to three times longer than what the service standards say. I would bet that every single MP in the House agrees with me that their offices are burdened because of the immigration backlog that was created by the government after it refused to address the core issues that are plaguing our IRCC department.

IRCC has even indicated that there was no plan to use backlog funding for the existing backlog, which is more proof that there is a lot of talk of throwing money at the problem, but there is no actual plan to do anything with that money. Backlogs are not just about paperwork and frustration. Despite IRCC treating everyone as a file number to be processed, real people are affected by the Liberals’ mismanagement of the immigration system.

I hear this from constituents all the time. Our office receives correspondence and phone calls from people ready to give up. We fear that people are contemplating suicide because after months of being separated from their loved ones, newcomers lose hope. They lose faith that they will ever be able to see their loved ones again.

Too many immigrants and too many newcomers waiting for their cases to be processed end up unable to see their children’s first steps, as I said. They miss funerals; they miss weddings. According to IRCC’s posted processing times, family sponsorship applications alone take 23 months for spousal sponsorship and 34 months for parents and grandparents, instead of the promised 12 months

We saw throughout this pandemic that getting help from family members was needed in certain instances. One mother was at home with a child who had severe disabilities and she needed either her spouse here or a caregiver. However, because of the backlog, that mother, who was in my riding, suffered. She cried many nights, wrote many emails and was on the verge of just giving up. There were many times when she would email my office and say, “This is it for me. I cannot handle this anymore.” It is sad to see that the caregiver program is so badly neglected that all caregivers now see no hope they will ever get here.

We wish the government would take these things seriously. Again, I know I am not alone in this chamber in talking about the problems in our immigration system. We have other Liberal MPs on record who are also tired of the backlog. One of them said in an article that this is messed up, and it is. It truly is. Lives are being ruined because of this backlog.

When we look at budget 2022, I do not see much in there that is going to address the issues, address the mental health problems that come with the issues being created or tackle in any way this backlog, which has burdened our businesses, Canadians and newcomers alike.

How do we fix a system that is so severely mismanaged? One suggestion, obviously, is to elect a Conservative government. Let us get things back on track. In the meantime, let us start with some common-sense reforms. For example, let us create a framework for better foreign credential recognition. It is an essential thing we could do today. There are many people in this country, and we all know some of them, who are either doctors or engineers back home. However, when they come here, because of credential recognition, they waste their talent. They are underemployed.

Why can we not work together? Why can the government not work with our provincial partners to do a better job in making sure we are recognizing credentials? That way we can fill the labour gaps. Our rural areas, especially in Quebec, are suffering the most. There are people who are retiring in our rural areas and it is so hard to find doctors. This is one way we could help address some of the labour shortages. There are many very talented electricians, plumbers and all sorts of tradespeople in this country who have so much to contribute.

Newcomers come to this country with a Canadian dream, much like me and my family did. This country gave us an amazing opportunity to become successful. I am the son of a taxi driver and of a mom who worked multiple jobs. This country gave us everything. I am so proud to represent a riding that has other such hard-working people.

I grew up in the riding I get to represent today. I stood in line to get low-income bus passes in my riding. We lived through that poverty. However, this country, through the grace of God, gave us everything to become successful. I am the son of a taxi driver who gets to stand here today and represent my constituents and be their voice in the house of common people.

Would it not be great if we could let everyone, newcomers and Canadians alike, feel free when they come here? That is what I want to speak to. I wish the budget would attempt to address more of that. How can we help unleash people's talents? How can we get government out of the way, get these backlogs out of the way and get the red tape and bureaucracy out of the way? How can we work together in this Parliament to address some of these issues? That is what I wish we could all work together on.

When we come to this chamber, there is a lot of partisanship, but there are practical, common-sense solutions being put forward on the table. I have only listed one. We could once again make Canada the great destination that it was known for. Canada was once known to be at the top of the list. When anyone wanted to immigrate, Canada was a beacon of hope. It was a beacon of freedom at one point. Today, people are skipping over Canada and it is really sad to see. I hope that, whether it is through this legislation or through this budget, the government uses the money to make this country a beacon of hope once again.

In closing, I move, seconded by the member for Bay of Quinte:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

and that the committee report back no later than June 20, 2022

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservative Party is once again proposing another subamendment. I understand the Bloc is supporting Bill C-19 and the New Democrats are supporting Bill C-19. However, the Conservatives, in their internal wisdom, have made the decision to try to prevent good legislation from passing.

Given we have so many progressive measures that are going to help Canadians coast to coast to coast, why does the Conservative Party feel so compelled to move a subamendment when it has moved amendments, subamendments and all sorts of other stuff on the main budget?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, given the track record of the government of the day, of course we need to raise questions and debate subamendments and amendments. There is a lack of trust with the government. We want to make sure we have the best legislation coming out of this place. That is why we have to do what we are doing.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his speech and thank him for it. I agree that the immigration department is having a lot of problems. Cases are not being processed in a timely fashion, and all of our constituency offices are all swamped, trying to help these people.

I agree with my colleague that immigration is one solution to the skilled labour shortage. However, there is currently a debate between France and Algeria, and I would like to hear his thoughts about it.

There is a shortage of doctors in France. Doctors are retiring, so France is recruiting heavily in Algeria. Now Algeria is starting to say that it needs more doctors, that France is stealing all its doctors. This then creates the issue of displaced resources.

I would like my colleague to comment on this phenomenon.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hope I understood the question right. It speaks to the point I brought up about foreign credentials.

We could do a better job, as a collective, in making some type of standard or striking a royal commission. We could create a standard, not just with the provinces but with other countries, for the shortage of labour or highly skilled workers such as doctors and nurses, whom we are going to need. We need them now, but we are going to need them later on too.

I know Quebec is really suffering when it comes to its numbers. We could help address some of those issues. Also, we need to do a better job with the provinces to help address their unique challenges. Communication is missing. There is a big gap in that, and I hope we can collectively work to help address it.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with a lot of what my hon. colleague just spoke about. I agree that foreign credentials are a huge issue, as is the immigration crisis we are seeing through the IRCC. My office is constantly battling with the fact that we are only allowed to ask about five cases every day, which is absolutely ludicrous.

The member did not speak too much about international students. In my community, at Fanshawe College, there are incredible students coming forward, yet they are limited in being able to find a pathway here after they finish their degrees. If he could comment on that, it would be great.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has one minute to respond.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, on this topic, I do not think a minute is enough. I totally feel for my hon. colleague and her question.

I consider one of my wonderful colleagues an older brother. My older brother from Surrey—Newton is very passionate about not just this issue but immigration as a whole. I met with some international students today in my office. I believe my older brother from Surrey—Newton did as well.

This is a big issue. On top of the hurdles they have, there is the incredible amount of money they spend to come to this country and the struggles their parents go through just to send them to this country. I think we do a disservice to hard-working, talented and energetic international students when they come here and do not have enough to survive and are left to fend for themselves. There are some really concerning things going on with them, such as human trafficking and abuse by employers. We need to work together to help address those issues, on top of the mental health issues that international students struggle with.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-19, which seeks to implement certain provisions of the budget.

Today I want to talk not so much about the measures that have been set out in this bill, but rather about those that have been left out. Believe it or not, despite the size of this bill, there is still a lot missing. Trying to understand this omnibus bill is quite the undertaking. Bill C-19 is 466 pages long and it has 32 divisions and 502 sections.

At the very least, we would have liked to see the government devote a substantial part of this massive piece of legislation to employment insurance reform. Here is a spoiler alert for those who have not had the time to read these 466 pages of pure joy: This bill contains virtually nothing about EI reform, and what little there is does not live up to expectations.

I want to share my disappointment and concerns. However, before I begin, I would like to say that I have tremendous respect for the Standing Committee on Finance, which had the monumental task of studying this bill. I want to mention that and commend the members of the committee. They were sent on an expedition, a journey, an adventure that they had to complete in record time. I do not know how many witnesses they heard or how many briefs they received, but I want to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette for his work on the Standing Committee on Finance, as well as his fellow committee members.

I am not in a position to lecture anyone about procedure. I am not an expert on House procedure. However, when I look at this bill that we have to debate in a hurry under closure, and I realize that we are going to be here until midnight talking about what is good about it, what we wish were in it, and our expectations, I just end up wondering what the point of this is. In these circumstances, would it not be better to give parliamentary committees time to study the issues thoroughly and come up with a bill that would do a much better job of meeting expectations? It is a suggestion.

I will now talk about workers. I want to talk about gaps in the bill and the lack of EI reform. It is not because I am a former union leader and still a union supporter. With all due respect and in all honesty, it is mostly because out of all the people who have called my office, not one has asked for a universal dental care program. I doubt I am the only MP in that position. No one has called me about that. Now, I am not saying it is not important.

My office has received calls about the labour shortage, the temporary foreign worker program, wait times for our businesses, immigration and payroll services. We are getting calls from our federal public servants, who are exhausted after two years of the pandemic. They are in negotiations and worried about what lies ahead for them. They have done their part, and continue to do so, but they are a little worried. All this to say that the federal government has a major issue to address: the employment insurance system.

That system is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. It has not been updated in 15 years; rather, it has been the subject of counter-reforms. Workers and employers alike have been demanding for years that this system be updated to ensure that it meets the needs of those who pay into it.

Nevertheless, successive Liberal governments have spent the last seven years promising to reform the system, but there is no sign of any intention to keep that promise in this budget. This is actually more like a step back for workers.

Let us review those broken promises. In 2015, the mandate letter for the minister at the time gave instructions to undertake “a broad review of the EI system with the goal of modernizing our system of income support for unemployed workers that leaves too many workers with no unemployment insurance safety net”. The fact that the system does not work properly is not news. That was from 2015, but the review never happened.

In 2019, the current minister was tasked with strengthening employment insurance through measures such as new special benefits models. That included improving the current pilot project for seasonal workers, which was supposed to become a permanent program that provided consistent and reliable benefits. She was even tasked with creating a new EI disaster assistance benefit. Well, that disaster happened. The COVID‑19 pandemic stressed the system like never before. There is a reason why the government had to make up benefits from scratch.

There are some serious flaws in the system. We have known that for many years. In 2020, the President of the Treasury Board told Le Soleil the following, and I quote: “We knew that the EI safety net had a few too many holes in it and did not provide sufficient coverage, but we did not move forward quickly enough with our reform.” I could not have said it better myself. It is really too bad that the government waited until it was backed into a corner before taking action. However, as the saying goes, it is never too late.

The reason I am so disappointed today is that, once again, the government has been making all sorts of other nice promises since the beginning of the pandemic. The minister's 2021 mandate letter states that it is up to the minister to, “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”. However, summer 2022 is in 13 days.

On January 1, the day of new year's resolutions, the minister stated in the Canadian Press that she was confident she would meet the timelines set out by the Prime Minister. She also indicated that in addition to instituting new rules and new benefits, the government was going to have to update its technology because the system is still running on code from the 1960s. In that regard, some Service Canada officials told us that they are still working with DOS. That is from another era, the era of the dinosaur.

If the minister was confident that she could meet the summer 2022 deadline, we can say without hesitation that she has failed. Where is the minister's plan? It is not in Bill C‑19 or in the budget. I am very disappointed to see that nothing is being presented before we adjourn for the summer.

I am also concerned. As the minister knows full well, at this time certain requirements have been temporarily relaxed. These adjustments are not perfect, but they have made it possible for several thousands of workers to access their benefits. Many have seen these flexibilities as a potential basis for reform. However, they will come to an end on September 25.

What will happen then? There is no plan. The most important thing is to avoid losing ground, because the status quo is not an option.

When we say that reform is needed now, that is not just some political slogan. As I said earlier, the pandemic has exposed the failings of the system and has demonstrated how urgently reform is needed for workers. There are many failings, but I will just talk about a few.

First, EI coverage must be expanded to as many workers as possible. It is a matter of fairness. As members know, just 40% of workers who contribute to EI qualify for benefits. Non-standard and part-time workers, the majority of whom are women and young people, are not eligible for the program even though they contribute.

Another problem is how EI fails sick workers. Organizations that specialize in this area are calling for a significant increase in the number of weeks of sickness benefits. A worker who has cancer, for example, needs at least 40 weeks of benefits to receive proper care and recover in dignity. This is what all studies have shown. These workers should be able to focus all their energy on healing, not on trying to make ends meet.

The government plans to extend the benefit period to 26 weeks. That was supposed to happen in July, but because of the computer system, it may only happen in the fall. Now we can say it is too little, too late. It is not enough. What sick workers need is 50 weeks. After 10 years of fighting and seven bills, this still has not happened yet.

When I was a union official, I defined my unionism in two ways: It was proposal-based and action-based. The Bloc Québécois continues to make proposals. We are asking the government to act, because the government is showing a real lack of ambition and keeps bringing in half-measures.

The Social Security Tribunal recently ruled that the current system consistently discriminates against women on maternity leave. A woman who loses her job during or after her maternity leave is no longer entitled to regular EI benefits. Once again, one would expect this self-professed feminist government to rectify the situation, but instead it has decided to appeal the ruling. That is outrageous.

The employment insurance spring gap is another major concern. We like to eat crab and lobster in eastern Quebec and in the Maritimes, but the plant workers in those regions are seasonal. It is not okay that in 2022, when the season is over, they end up without a job or enough income until the next season. We have to do something about that. We have to end the spring gap. We are talking about the vitality of our regions and seasonal industries such as tourism, forestry, the fishery and others. We cannot abandon these people.

The government has been regularly questioned on this issue over the past few years. However, all it did was simply renew the pilot project that provides for a maximum of five weeks of benefits, which is not enough. It is shameful to not go further than that. Honestly, this lack of political courage is disappointing.

Madam Speaker, I could keep listing the flaws in the system for the rest of the sitting until you stopped me. The thing to keep in mind is that these are major flaws that have direct consequences for the thousands of workers who contribute to employment insurance and are entitled to it. These workers are calling for an immediate reform of employment insurance.

I have been touring all the regions of Quebec for three months now. I have not visited them all yet, but I will. What I am hearing from people on the ground speaks for itself.

I have met with municipal officials, advocacy groups representing unemployed workers, local unions, national unions, consumer rights groups, women's rights groups, regional development corporations, youth employment centres, government officials, seasonal workers, and more. I have attended some incredibly enlightening meetings. I have seen the various regional and local realities. All the people I spoke to agreed that the EI program needs to be overhauled immediately.

They urged reforms that would strengthen the rights of workers, but I also heard countless stories about wait times. We have all heard such horror stories in our constituency offices. Workers who have paid into the program and are entitled to EI have been waiting months for their benefits because they are victims of fraud. They cannot pay rent or child support, and they still do not have their EI cheque.

At the last meeting we had with the ministerto discuss this at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, she said yet again that Service Canada answers calls. It seems to me that Service Canada should be answering calls more and that the minister should stop going on about how the department is meeting service standards. Workers waiting for their EI cheques could not care less about service standards. They want their rights to be recognized, and they want to collect all the benefits they are entitled to.

The last thing I want to touch on is division 32 of Bill C‑19. Actually, I would like to thank all members of the committee who accepted the Standing Committee on Finance's invitation to dig into the four or five clauses covering EI in Bill C‑19. Division 32, which is about the Social Security Tribunal, was the main issue that was discussed. There was nothing in the budget about reforming this significant aspect of the program, so news of this government legislative measure came as quite a surprise.

In a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, there is a section that deals with the board of appeal, which is tripartite in name only. It does not in any way meet the objectives and commitments the government announced in 2019. Both the finance committee and the human resources committee heard from representatives of the major unions and representatives of unemployed workers' groups.

I would like to quote a representative of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, or MASSE:

Let's first point out that MASSE is disappointed that the government chose to reveal its intentions regarding the new board of appeal for the first time when it introduced Bill C-19, that is, nearly three years after it announced reforms. By breaking its silence in this way after so many years, not only is the government now presenting stakeholders with a fait accompli, but it's also admitting that it deprived itself of a wealth of expertise, and this will undoubtedly influence the people's confidence in the quality of administrative justice.

Union representatives, so labour, and employer representatives were unanimous in telling us that we needed to get rid of this division of the bill. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Standing Committee on Finance were unanimous in their recommendation: We must remove division 32 from the bill. We worked hard, we listened to people, we listened to employers, we listened to workers and we succeeded, because the minister announced that she would withdraw division 32 from Bill C‑19 and make it a separate bill.

I hope that the new bill that will be introduced will respond to the consultation that was unanimous three years ago and to the needs expressed by the community. This does not bode well for the comprehensive employment insurance reform if the intention is to introduce it in the same way—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I apologize to the member, but her time is up. Twenty minutes went by rather quickly. I would also like to suggest that she use a lectern for her notes in future. The noise made by the paper near the microphone makes it hard for the interpreters to hear.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague focused on employment insurance. The government has made invested a lot in reforming EI. With unemployment at its lowest since 1976, I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the investments we have made in training workers and helping them re-enter the workforce.

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

Madam Speaker, what worries me is that we are in the midst of a crisis, during which the government took action quickly. During this crisis, we saw the flaws in the EI system. However, the government is telling us that unemployment is down so it can wait a little longer to reform the system. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

Clearly, training is necessary. It might be a good idea to increase training budgets so that workers can update, recertify and develop their skills. However, that work must be entrusted to the provinces, because it falls under their jurisdiction.

In Quebec, this responsibility should be given to the labour market partners commission, a unique commission that engages in social dialogue.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

The Standing Committee on Finance found that the government and the Minister of Finance did not show the necessary willingness to reform EI.

Does my colleague have a theory to explain why she is right about the government and about what, exactly, happened with this budget bill?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I congratulate the member for speaking in French. It was great.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to add that it was a pleasure to work with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA. I miss him. I congratulate him on his French and hope he will return to the committee, even if his colleague from Joliette wants to keep him on the Standing Committee on Finance.

He asked a very good question, but I am not sure whether I can answer him properly. The Standing Committee on Finance decided to assign some sections of this omnibus bill to other committees to make use of their expertise. EI reform falls under the purview of the HUMA committee, and therefore the Minister of Employment.

In spite of that, I had a hard time convincing the HUMA committee to study these issues. I was originally told that the Standing Committee on Finance would study them, but HUMA wanted to contribute.

The minister will present a reform because she committed to doing so in a bill she is to introduce in the fall regarding the board of appeal. In my view, these issues should be examined at the HUMA committee.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to recognize the members on the Standing Committee on Finance. I see the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, the member for Joliette and the member for Elmwood—Transcona. It was a huge task. Before this bill, we did have some great measures to help seniors with an increase to the guaranteed income supplement, and in this legislation, the Canada housing allowance did have a supplement added to it.

However, Canada still has some very great problems. We have problems with money laundering. We have problems with tax evasion. At a time of very high inflation, we also have a problem with excess profits. At a time when so many people are struggling and when we know that ongoing poverty costs our country much more, we need to make significant investments to address this situation.

I wonder if my hon. colleague can maybe inform the House of some of the measures she thinks were missing in this opportunity that could have levelled the playing field and addressed those serious financial inequalities that exist in Canadian society, not only for hard-working members of her constituency but right across this country.