Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am quite moved to speak today on the bill introduced by my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour in British Columbia. It is moving because this is a bill that will achieve consensus with financial support from the government and will truly change the lives of people who are experiencing immense suffering.
Today, I am moved. I am happy for my colleague. I am happy for him because he managed to convince everyone, including members of the government. Parents who are grieving the loss of a child will be able to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits without having to worry about paperwork and red tape. They will be able to focus on their grief, come together as a family, and receive the support they need without worrying about a missed payment or a letter asking them to explain themselves.
I feel that I am participating in a wonderful parliamentary moment today, and it reminds me that one of the reasons that brought me here is that I love making a difference in people's lives. As members of Parliament, we can do that, and this is a fine example of that. The beauty of private members' bills is that they are often based on personal experience, an observation we have made, or a significant need we can address. When we have the privilege of having our name drawn, we realize we have the opportunity to introduce a bill that will make a real difference in the lives of individuals and families.
I wanted to commend the member for his perseverance, his tenacity and the way he worked to mobilize us and bring us together on such an important issue. I am also pleased with the important amendments that were proposed. In our view, the royal recommendation was the most important factor because, without it, the bill would have gone through the legislative process more quickly. Clearly, any families who are listening at home, and certainly those who are currently grieving, want us to pass the bill quickly so that they can have peace of mind. I also agree with my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour that we seem to be on the same page and that it would be really good to expedite passing the legislation so that families can benefit from it.
There is also one recommendation that matters to me a lot, the one that extends this privilege to self-employed workers as well. I am going to make a statement. I have spent the past 42 years with the same man. He has been self-employed his entire life. He is an artist, a graphic artist. A lot of people are self-employed, but it has not been that long since self-employed workers in Quebec were allowed to contribute to the Quebec pension plan to qualify for a pension. It might be 20 or so years ago. The whole issue of employment insurance for the self-employed was sticky. I am pleased with this amendment, because it allows workers who chose self-employment access to the same protections as salaried workers. Actually taking them into account is extremely important.
It reminds me of the need for EI reform across the board. My colleague from British Columbia managed to get his bill through the legislative process quite successfully, and families are happy with it, but we could have made plenty of other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act that would have righted certain wrongs. I would like to share one that means a lot to me. It concerns women who take maternity leave only to find out when then return to work that their position has been cut. These women are not eligible for EI benefits.
In my opinion, this is discrimination. In fact, this has been denounced by all workers' advocacy groups and unions. How can we still accept that, today, a woman who exercised her right to maternity leave is told, upon her return, that she no longer has a job and that she is also denied EI benefits on the grounds that she did not accumulate sufficient hours during her leave? That is something that really needs to be looked at because it is quite unacceptable. I even wonder why the Liberals, now that they have a majority, are not fixing this gender discrimination, since, the last time I checked, men cannot get pregnant. That is something the government could change.
My colleague Louise Chabot, who was here during the last Parliament, prepared a bill that included all the necessary changes to reform EI. There is a nice bill that is now dormant and contains all the amendments that could be made to modernize the Employment Insurance Act. Today, we are talking about one specific section, about specific individuals, and that is great, we are very happy about that. However, the work to modernize EI must continue. We believe that EI needs to be completely overhauled.
Like my colleague, I also had the privilege of being randomly selected. I will therefore have the pleasure of introducing a bill next week. My bill seeks to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 who did not receive the increase that those aged 75 and older did. Like my colleague, I am definitely going to take up the torch, because I am surrounded by seniors who have no pension funds, who live solely on their old age pension and who cannot make ends meet because of inflation. Like my colleague, I will also make it my mission to try to convince everyone that seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 deserve the increase too.
The government should grant a royal recommendation for our bill too so that vulnerable seniors, those who are not lucky enough to have a pension fund or a job that allowed them to save, can enjoy a dignified retirement. It is up to the Quebec government and the federal government to provide seniors, the people who built the society we have today, with the means to enjoy a dignified retirement.
This is the first time I am asking this, but I encourage everyone to seriously consider how we treat our seniors today. Are they really the ones that we are choosing to abandon? Personally, I have lots of ideas on how to fund solutions, but I will come back to them in my speech next week.
I want to sincerely and warmly congratulate my colleague for choosing to come to the aid of parents grieving the loss of a child. The worst suffering a parent can experience must be to lose a child while on maternity leave. We have to cut through the red tape and give parents time to grieve.
In committee, we unequivocally expressed the view that the benefit period should increase to 50 weeks. It is wrong to think that healing from loss takes only a few weeks. We believe that it would have been advisable to increase the number of weeks of benefits so that people could truly work their way through the grieving process.
Together with our colleagues across the way and with our Conservative colleagues, we agreed not to put any obstacles in the way that would prevent the government from backpedaling on the royal recommendation. We were able to agree on fast-tracking it. I sincerely congratulate my colleague. I also want to tell the people listening to us or watching us that all parties in the House of Commons can work together. When parties work in good faith and focus on the common good, we get results that make a difference in people's lives. I want to thank him and wish him all the best. The Bloc Québécois looks forward to voting in favour of the bill.