Claude DeBellefeuille
Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“We are also told that it would have been easier to stop an organized network of pedophiles operating on the Internet. I asked if that means that such criminals cannot be arrested today, because we do not have a law on lawful access on the books. The answer is no.”
“We then asked the government if the commissioner could come back. What was happening was that department officials were completely dismantling all of the amendments proposed by the Privacy Commissioner. It is easy to understand why I was a little skeptical. I wondered if the commissioner and his team had really been that wrong.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words. I think she is brave, because she came during the clause-by-clause study, like my NDP colleague did. They did not have the right to speak, but they were there, hard-working and rigorous, and they proposed amendments. I have a lot of respect for these two members.”
“All the amendments I proposed came either from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Quebec Bar Association, or the chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. I did not propose far-fetched amendments. They were based on expert testimony that sought to help us strike a balance.”
“He is telling us that Canada is lagging behind. What exactly are we comparing ourselves to? The United Kingdom does not have a charter protecting people's rights, and neither does the United States. They have street cameras in the U.K. that film people.”
“However, it is still a parliamentary tool that can be used as a last resort when one feels that, no matter what people say, the government's primary goal is to run out the clock, hold a few hours of debate, and then, after about 20 hours, bring in closure and claim that the opposition parties are wasting their time.”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Claude DeBellefeuille, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 11.
“Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss not to begin my speech on Bill C-236 by pointing out that Quebec's early childhood week is drawing to a close. Yesterday was National Child Day. It seems only fitting to share that today, because it is a day for acknowledging that children are people and citizens in their own right who are entitled to freedom, safety and a life without violence. We must never forget that children are not only our future, but also our present, and we need to do everything in our power to take them into account, especially in our political decisions. I thought it seemed appropriate to highlight that today, considering that many children in Quebec, in Canada and around the world are experiencing violence at this very moment. We need to reaffirm that children have rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for introducing this bill. I can assure him that it has the Bloc Québécois's support. Here is my question. The bill would allow judges to consider a person's refusal to disclose the location of a murder victim's remains or body as an aggravating circumstance. However, my understanding of the bill is that if the judge does not consider this to be an aggravating circumstance, the judge must put that in writing and justify their decision to not take it into consideration. Have I correctly understood the spirit of my colleague's bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers do not want another Liberal pipeline of dirty western oil. We all remember last summer, when we had the worst air quality in the entire world because of the forest fires. Albertans may have forgotten that Jasper burned, but we have not. We have also not forgotten our produce growers who lose crops almost every year because of abnormal weather patterns. Climate change is already here. Will the Liberals shut down their new pipeline project?”
“Every year, during National Organ and Tissue Donation Week and world organ donation and transplant day, she makes a point of reminding people how important it is to consent to organ donation and to talk about it, because it can transform the lives of many people. (1825) Once again, I want to thank my colleague for allowing us to debate a very important subject this evening and draw attention to it through a medal for living donors. I agree with my colleague from Shefford that we will have to focus on the regulations and work with the many organizations involved to honour and pay tribute to individuals whose generosity has allowed others to go on living. I congratulate my colleague. I have a strong feeling that we are going to debate and expand on this bill in committee.”
“When an accident occurs and they lose their life, their organs, which are still viable, can be used to save the life of a very sick person who is eagerly awaiting an organ. I have a friend named Nancy Lefebvre who developed kidney disease at a very young age. She waited several years for a kidney transplant, undergoing dialysis three times a week. She had to stop working because she had no energy. When someone is no longer working, when they are sick and spend their days on dialysis, it is hard for them to stay positive. They do not feel useful anymore and they are afraid of dying. Fortunately, Nancy eventually received a kidney thanks to a donation from someone who had sadly passed away. With this kidney, she was able to go back to work and live her life. She even served as my official agent during my election campaign.”
“My colleague is proposing that a medal be awarded to honour all living donors who donate one of their organs while they are alive, so that someone can continue living their life. We are talking about kidneys, lungs and other organs. It is often kidneys, as my colleague mentioned. I would now like to shine a light on something that has not been discussed much. In Quebec, there is a week dedicated to promoting organ donation. During this week, municipalities are invited to raise a flag to raise public awareness about the importance of people signing the back of their health card to consent to organ donation. Many people are still unaware of this option and do not sign their health card.”
“Today, we have a perfect example in the member for Edmonton Manning. He introduced a bill that is meaningful to him based on his personal and family experience. He wants to change people's lives by shining a light on the importance of living organ donation. As my colleague from Shefford eloquently pointed out in her speech before mine, Quebec has been a leader in organ donation. The first doctors performed successful transplants and worked together over the years to create Transplant Québec, which is now a world-renowned model. Thanks to that organization, people can go on living. These are often lives that would have been at risk had it not been for organ donation. Organ donation is important, which is why we need to take the time to promote it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-234 , which was introduced by my colleague from Edmonton Manning . It is an important bill. We know that private members' bills are often rooted in the member's personal experiences. In the case of my colleague, back in 2003, he showed selfless generosity by donating part of his liver to his son, who went on to live a good life. I want to commend him for taking the time to bring this bill forward. Few people at home know what a privilege it is to introduce a bill in the House of Commons, because it takes some luck to win the draw. After that, the winning members need to choose a subject that they care about and want to bring forward in the House of Commons, a subject that can change things and improve the lives of the people around them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and I know that the border security issue is especially important to him. I would like to know his thoughts on the Canada Border Services Agency's commitment to hire an additional 1,000 officers, 800 of them armed and 200 unarmed. Does my colleague agree that we need not 1,000 border officers, but close to 3,000 to meet the needs and provide adequate border security?”
“That said, we know that victims' associations have been vigorously advocating for the information to be given to families and victims. We agree with all of their requests. I encourage my colleague to push for his bill because we definitely want the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study it. This would give the committee the tremendous privilege of contributing to amending an act to make it more compassionate, more considerate and more respectful of victims' right to information.”
“We must acknowledge that no victim's family will be happy to learn that the murderer or the person who killed their loved one will be granted escorted or unescorted temporary absences before 25 years have passed. That is why we are concerned about how this news will be announced to the families. I do not know if we will have the opportunity to discuss this at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but I think that part is essential. I think we can all agree that victims have a right to information. Now we will have to discuss how that information is shared. We are somewhat concerned about how Correctional Service Canada will make this requirement part of its procedures, especially given the staffing shortage, and about how this information will be handled and communicated to families.”
“The bill's demands are fairly simple, but there are still some questions. It establishes an important principle, that of informing the victims' families, but it does not really specify how this information should be communicated to families. Should it come in writing? Should it be accompanied by some form of support? For example, if a family receives a call or an email informing them that their child's killer has been granted temporary absences as of a certain date, could that retraumatize them? The Bloc Québécois wants to know how this information will be communicated to families, especially since our political party believes that they should be supported when learning the reasons for release.”
“The bill introduced by my Conservative colleague would enable families to seek redress and would prevent what Brigitte Serre's family went through in Quebec from happening again. Basically, it seeks to require the Correctional Service of Canada to document and explain why a prisoner was released on a given date and what assessment that decision was based on. Of course, under the current legislation, some information is communicated to the families, but no details are shared regarding dates. Families are asking for that information to be shared with them. Some even need it. If an inmate manages to get a hearing and convince their social workers and caseworkers that they are following a rehabilitation process, with an action plan in place to help them gradually reintegrate into society, it is important to communicate that to the family.”
“I am talking about 17-year-old Brigitte Serre, who was stabbed 72 times during an armed robbery at a gas station in Saint‑Léonard in 2006. The person who committed the crime, Sébastien Simon, had his first parole hearing. The family testified against his release. (1800) A few years later, the family learned that a hearing would soon be held to determine whether the prisoner could be granted escorted release, for example, but they were not informed until after the fact. The family learned several months later that the inmate had received permission to leave prison and even work up to 40 hours a week at a community organization, without them being informed, without their knowledge. The family condemned this situation and wanted to know why they had only been informed after the fact.”
“Some families or loved ones could even be given access to this information without necessarily making a request. We could ensure that these people receive the information automatically, but remove them from the list if they are not interested in receiving it. The goal is to simplify a process and a task that often falls on the victims' shoulders. If they do not want to receive the information, they could say so, while everyone who wants it would receive it automatically. The idea is to create a very clear process, because the way that all this information is being managed for the victims seems rather inconsistent. Here is an example that happened recently in Quebec. The family members of a victim asked for more information about the release of the criminal who murdered their daughter.”
“However, like my colleague, we believe it is important to review all the elements mentioned in his bill, such as the eligibility and review dates applicable to temporary absences or parole. It is also important to review the date on which an offender is to be released on temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release. The eligibility and review dates applicable to unescorted temporary absences or parole must also be reviewed. The bill also requires that the date of escorted or unescorted temporary absences or parole be communicated. Bill C-221 creates an obligation to communicate with the family to provide additional information about the abuser. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois agrees with that. We agree that victims who want and need help must be informed of the reasons for these dates.”
“The summary of the bill reads as follows: This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that information that is disclosed to the victim of an offence regarding eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole must include an explanation of how the dates were determined. It may seem simple. A family that has experienced a terrible tragedy will learn the conditions, know why the offender is allowed to be released, why a certain date was chosen and when it will take effect. Some families need this information in order to complete their grieving process or even to feel safe. As my colleague also said, some families do not want to know. Not knowing may be a coping mechanism or part of their grieving process.”
“Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to do so earlier, but I would like to once again commend my colleague for introducing this bill. After listening to all the speeches, I can see that members largely agree: Victims have rights, including the right to information. The bill that our colleague is proposing is almost a carbon copy of another bill, Bill C‑320 , which passed all legislative stages in the House and in committee but unfortunately died on the Order Paper. I would say that the bill before us today is part of a series of laws or regulations that aim to modernize the entire parole process by imposing certain conditions. It is high time that we focused on victims and their rights when someone has committed a horrible crime against a loved one.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague. Sometimes, especially when we sit on Fridays, we study private members' bills that are based on deeply moving personal experiences. I thank my colleague for introducing this bill and I assure him of the Bloc Québécois's support. My question is this. Would it not be possible to go a step further in the bill and stipulate that families be automatically registered to receive information, rather than the opposite, where the victim's family has to request the information? Does my colleague not think it would be simpler if it were automatic?”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that a losing a person who was murdered and then seeing the person who committed that crime get parole is a sensitive and emotional issue. As my colleague knows, and as the facts bear out, a lot of people are currently being detained arbitrarily or while awaiting trial. Our prisons are filled with people awaiting the outcome of their trials. The solution proposed by our colleague could create a space shortage. The question I want to ask my colleague is this. Has the time come to modernize the process and the various stages of parole? Is it not time to work on that very specific process?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I said from the outset that I have been in the House of Commons for almost 12 years. I have no problem saying no to this budget because it has absolutely nothing to do with us. It certainly does not meet the needs of Quebeckers. This once again confirms my belief that I am not in the right Parliament. My true place will be in the parliament of the country of Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, we responded to the question of privilege. We agree with the member that what happened is quite incomprehensible, as we said. The government cannot withhold documents or make a mistake of this magnitude. It has consequences. All of this has been documented. I also agree with my colleague that we should not put all our eggs in the basket of modernization through automation. I have to accompany my father to Service Canada because he gets lost. People must be able to navigate all these services. I think we need to modernize, but we also need to take into account the needs of the most vulnerable people. It is not always easy for them because they are vulnerable, but also because of where they live, where Internet and other services are not always accessible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I appreciate, for his question. This gives me an opportunity to tell him that it is about time, since it has been quite a few years. My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj said that we have been asking for this money for the airport runway for years. It is about time. Yes, it is good, but is it enough? Is it enough to convince seniors and Quebec's finance minister to support the budget? I do not think so. I believe that the Liberals have a duty to ensure that the infrastructure they are responsible for runs smoothly. It is great that they are doing this for the Magdalen Islands, but, honestly, there are other more pressing matters that are missing from this budget.”
“It means the government is turning its back on seniors, municipalities and the provinces. It also means it is giving up on the fight against climate change. We in the Bloc Québécois are calling it climate capitulation. Everything related to climate change has been dropped, and I think that is shameful.”
“There is loads of money for oil companies, but nothing really meaningful for our SMEs in terms of tax relief or support, especially for companies that are being hit hard by the tariff war with the United States. I am talking about small businesses involved in the secondary processing of aluminum, for example. There is very little on the table for them, or at least that is what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is saying. It is the oil companies that really hit the jackpot with this budget. Oil companies are getting more than $100 billion in renewed and increased tax credits. When I am sitting across from a vulnerable senior, I have to try to explain why this government decided to spoil the oil companies, which are already very well supported and have plenty of money. Directing those funds to oil companies means two things.”
“There is a 5% increase, but if we look at the fine print, we see that some programs will be done away with as of 2028 and that funding will be cut. That is unacceptable. If the government is aware of the Quebec communities' needs, then it is aware that we need a massive injection of money. I think that Quebec is now on its sixth health and social services reform because we are trying everything we can to better meet the health and social services needs of Quebeckers with the money that we have, so I am sure the government will understand why I am so disappointed. What also surprised me was how the small business sector reacted. I read that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that, no matter how much its members read, they could not find anything for SMEs. Everything is going to the oil companies.”
“The choices it is making are not in the best interests of Quebec and Quebeckers. I think that the Minister of Finance made that quite clear. Members know that health transfers are something that I care a lot about. As I said, I worked in health and social services in Quebec, in both the independent community system and the public system, and I can tell you one thing: Right now, everyone is stretched thin because they are trying to do more with less and meet the desperate needs of citizens. They have less with which to respond to those needs because the money is in Ottawa. I heard the Minister of Industry say that the government increased health transfers in the budget, but if we look carefully, we see that it is not a real increase because the system costs are higher. They are at 6%.”
“Now, the Minister of Finance is telling us that Quebec will be getting approximately $375 million a year. To give an idea of the scale, Quebec spends about $19 billion on infrastructure each year. What they are offering is peanuts. It is not nearly enough to enable municipalities and provinces to meet the challenges of modernizing their infrastructure as well as meet infrastructure requirements for schools, hospitals and long-term care facilities. What the budget tells Quebec and the provinces is that the federal government is going to aggravate their public finance crisis. That is extremely serious because we send part of our taxes to the federal government and Ottawa is supposed to redistribute them. What we are seeing is that the government is keeping that money for itself and choosing what it wants to invest in.”
“There is a lot of catching up to do when it comes to all this municipal infrastructure. It was an important request, yet what do we see in the budget? It looks like there is an investment of $50 billion when we first read the budget, but then we realize that it is not really $50 billion in new money. Instead, it is about $9 billion. (1230) I do not know if people are aware of this, but a hospital is being built in Vaudreuil, in my riding. Building a hospital costs at least $4 billion or $5 billion dollars. That is for a single hospital, so it is understandable that the provincial leaders are extremely disappointed with the budget. Quebec, for one, had high hopes of receiving at least a few billion dollars a year to be able to meet its significant infrastructure demands.”
“Those who receive the GIS, who work and earn a certain income, have to pay taxes. That does not necessarily improve their living conditions. The tax rate is high for people who earn an income in addition to receiving the GIS. There is nothing for seniors and it really bothers me to see how insensitive the government is toward seniors, both in the Trudeau era and now. The government also lacks sensitivity when it comes to infrastructure. Provincial finance ministers had requested $100 billion over 10 years to do major work on infrastructure related to health and social services and municipal infrastructure such as water and sewer systems. Infrastructure is what allows municipalities to deliver more density in housing. It provides access to water and ensures proper water treatment, for example. That is expensive.”
“Every year, their purchasing power diminishes because the cost of everything is going up, while their income remains the same. I find that unacceptable. I often say that I spent my career helping seniors as a social worker and housing manager for seniors. I can say that there is absolutely nothing in this budget to support seniors so that they can get through the difficult times we are currently experiencing. There is nothing except the New Horizons for Seniors program. It is insulting to see that this is the only budget measure specifically for seniors. I find that really shameful. Tax incentives could have been offered so that healthy seniors who want to work would not have to work for peanuts. If a senior wants to work, their income should increase, not decrease.”
“In the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, seniors aged 65 and over represent nearly 20% of the population. I can confirm that seniors got their message across. People who receive OAS and GIS get a little less than $2,000 a month. I do not know what the situation is like in my colleagues' ridings, but in my riding, there is virtually no housing available for less than $1,100 or $1,200 per month. I would say that is a major obstacle for our seniors. That is what people talked to me about during the election campaign. They were saying how outrageous the situation had become. They asked me why our voices were not being heard when it comes to increasing OAS. We know that the Liberal government continues to discriminate against seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, whose pensions did not increase.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of sharing my time with my friend, the chief whip of the Bloc Québécois and member for Berthier—Maskinongé . Before I begin my speech, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the 25 mayors in my riding who had the pleasure of being elected or re-elected. I would also like to congratulate all the municipal councillors who were elected on November 2 in Quebec's municipal elections. I want to assure them of my collaboration, as always. Together, we can achieve big changes and transform the world. I am pleased to speak to the budget. As I was saying to one of my colleagues, I have no problem voting against the budget. In my riding, throughout the election, the voice of seniors was heard.”
“This being Social Economy Month, it seems fitting and necessary that the Bloc Québécois support the next steps in this effort and continue building an economy that works for us.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, in this month of November, that we call attention to this year's Social Economy Month, because it builds on the advocacy and promotion surrounding the 2025 Social Economy Summit. The summit was so historic that the advocacy work and resulting call to action were unanimously supported by the Quebec National Assembly. The turnout included 1,500 people from all regions and all sectors, including the economic, cultural, community, union and political sectors. Their common goal was to highlight the transformative potential of the social economy for responding to Quebec's collective challenges, such as population aging, the housing shortage, the protection of our natural environment and cultural vitality.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canada summer jobs program definitely needed to be indexed. We have been getting many requests for years now to promote student employment and give them a great experience. It is true that it is very appealing, but quite honestly, if I had had a choice, I would have pushed for an increase in health transfers because this is what the provinces are really crying out for.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is fairly simple. The Quebec finance minister has expressed his profound disappointment with the budget, particularly because very little real money will be transferred to the provinces for infrastructure programs. It currently costs between $4 billion and $5 billion, or even more, to build a hospital. That is what we saw with CHUM in Quebec. During this public finance crisis, does my colleague think it is right that Ottawa, which has the money, is not transferring enough to the provinces so that they can invest in their infrastructure?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague's province is experiencing much the same thing as Quebec, in other words, a crisis in health and social services due to growing needs and an aging population. As a matter of fact, British Columbia and Quebec are the two provinces where the population is aging at the highest rate. In addition, health care professionals are being asked to do more with less. Does my colleague not find it unusual that, in the budget we are discussing today, there is no more money being transferred to the provinces so they can provide the quality services necessary to meet the needs of Canadians?”
“We think that some parts of the process could be significantly improved and that there are ways to prevent families from experiencing and reliving the trauma every time the offender applies for parole. I hope the debates will continue so that we can fully explore all of the bill's implications.”
“It is fundamental, and it is one of the beautiful aspects of this Parliament. As members of Parliament, we have the opportunity to introduce bills that are meaningful to us. When my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj spoke earlier, I admired his eloquence. He always knows how to present the pros and cons of a bill in a very thorough manner, without judgment. He uses facts and figures that allow us to improve our understanding and knowledge. Like many of my colleagues here, I am not a lawyer. What I understood from his speech is that we must maintain a balance between listening to families and listening to prisoners, who have rights under certain laws. I want to say to the families who have lost a loved one in such a horrific way that we empathize with them and that the parole system needs to improve.”
“This is what Bill C‑222 was all about. Today, we are once again faced with a bill that affects us as parliamentarians and as human beings, because it appeals to our empathy and our humanity. Losing a loved one to violent murder is a terrible tragedy. I cannot even imagine being able to overcome such grief. Our minds immediately turn to finding solutions. How can we put a stop to this? How can we ensure that others do not have to go through what we are going through? How can we improve the system? How can we put an end to this suffering? Often, an MP who is truly listening to their community, such as the member for Edmonton Griesbach , will introduce a bill that supports families in need. That is, if they are lucky enough to be randomly selected. I understand that.”
“Madam Speaker, As one of the parliamentarians present in the House on Fridays, I can attest that the last hour of debate is moving. Last week, we debated Bill C‑222 , introduced by the member for Burnaby North—Seymour , and it was quite emotional. The bill proposed amending the Employment Insurance Act with respect to maternity leave in cases where a parent is grieving the loss of a child. It proposed that benefits continue to be paid so that the parent could have time to grieve instead of having to return to work too soon. It was very moving. Conservative colleagues who had experienced the loss of a child gave heartfelt testimonials. We know that a private member's bill is often based on something that affects us personally, something meaningful, something we want to change or connect with on a more human level.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech, which was eloquent, as always. I feel the amendments that were to Bill C‑3 are reasonable. They do not negate the bill, but they do set out conditions for obtaining citizenship. That is reasonable. The fact that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives joined forces without the government's agreement is neither excessive nor abusive. It is an improvement and a way of regulating citizenship. How is it possible that we are debating a bill today when we know full well that on Monday, during the final vote, the NDP and the government will defeat the amendments and improvements to the bill? Once again, these amendments do not negate the bill or its basic thrust. They set out conditions for obtaining citizenship. Could my colleague talk to us about that?”
“That would be the last straw. I want to speak my truth, so I will say one last thing: I have never wanted to leave the House for the country of Quebec so badly.”
“All health care professionals in the public and community networks are worn out because transfers are not keeping up. Municipalities and provinces have made their needs known. They are the ones responsible for providing the services. Do our colleagues think that we are not troubled by the fact that not everyone has a family doctor? At the same time, Ottawa is not where things will get fixed. Ottawa will not tell the provinces what to do. It must provide the necessary financial resources to help the provinces. Each province has its own needs. The situation in Quebec is different from the situation in New Brunswick. We do not have the same resources or the same history, and our health and social services are organized differently. I sincerely hope that I will not see a single member from Quebec supporting this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: To me, this bill is deeply offensive and disrespectful. I am a social worker and a member of my professional order. I was a manager in the public health care system for years. One thing I know for sure is that, if my colleagues who work in hospitals, local community services centres and long-term care facilities heard what I heard today, they would be very angry about this disrespect and they would be loud about it. All health care workers are doing their best. They give it their all. Quebec has been through six health care reforms because we are trying to do more with less. Here in the House, I am being told that this bill will impose standards and demand accountability. Who would create those standards? In Quebec, we are doing our best with the money we have. What I am hearing today is ludicrous.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my very humble colleague. He is a lawyer, as members know, and he has some authority or reputation when he talks about a bill that is closely related to his former duties. I want to ask him the following question. What possible explanation is there for the fact that we now have a huge number of inmates awaiting trial? Is there a delay in appointing judges? Is someone dragging their feet? What could be causing this situation? From what I understand, Bill C‑14 may also lead to an increase in the number of people in jail. We do not disagree with that, but why are our prisons currently overcrowded with people awaiting the outcome of their trial?”
“In this case too, there is discrimination against those who work in certain regions of Quebec and who depend on seasonal employment for their livelihood. The Employment Insurance Act needs to be overhauled and modernized. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois offers its full and unwavering support, as well as its influence in the House of Commons, to enable the passage of the bill before us, Bill C-222 .”
“A person who has a child, goes on maternity leave and loses her job at the end of her maternity leave is not entitled to EI benefits because she has not accumulated the necessary hours of work to qualify for EI. This is deeply unfair. It is shocking discrimination against women. I want to say that there are members across the way who have an opportunity to convince their government to modernize the act, or at least to remove certain sections that discriminate against women who experience motherhood and lose their jobs after maternity leave. The act is also discriminatory with regard to seasonal employment in general. I do not like the term “seasonal workers”. It is not the workers who are seasonal; it is the jobs that are seasonal.”
“It will always affect us. However, having a much-needed break before returning to work is important. This brings me to the point that the Employment Insurance Act is outdated. It is not a modern piece of legislation. The Bloc Québécois has been saying for a while now that it needs to be modernized and adapted to the new labour market and new realities. For 10 years now, the government has been promising us an overhaul of the Employment Insurance Act that will take into account certain provisions whose inclusion in the act is no longer relevant. I will share my perspective as a woman and as a mother. I am sure that members of the House are aware of what I am about to say.”