Marilène Gill

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging a few people from my riding, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. We are talking about the economic statement and, of course, its implementation. A budget will be presented on Thursday, and many members across the way have told us that Thursday’s budget contains some real gems. In the meantime, there are people in my riding who are struggling right now. Obviously, we are constantly talking about the cost of living, the crisis with the United States and tariffs, as well as housing. I am also thinking of the folks who work for Parks Canada, for example, who have just learned that their jobs are being eliminated because the government has decided to make arbitrary cuts, just like that. Entire communities are going to suffer, and we are not getting any answers from the minister. I am also thinking of correctional officers. There is a penitentiary in my riding, Port-Cartier Institution, and officers there do not have all the tools they need to keep themselves, the inmates and the public safe. Many people back home are already suffering as a result of several measures introduced by the Liberal government. Meanwhile, members on the government side keep going on and on about how they are looking out for Canadians and they understand that there is a cost of living crisis and a tariff crisis. In fact, the Bloc Québécois made a number of requests to the government, all of which were dismissed out of hand. These requests were in line with what the public wanted. Again, on the ground, this is what people are telling us. When we talk to people, they do not talk about creating another agency, for example, or about some of the other measures set out in Bill C‑31, which seem to be very out of touch with the public. Some measures might be worthwhile, but I think it has been shown that many of them are not. When the government introduces too many bills that create Crown corporations, or when it seeks yet another mechanism to concentrate more power in its own hands while reducing accountability, I think that is a sign that it is short on good ideas and is simply making things up as it goes along. What is more, it is doing so through a succession of bills, each one amending the last. That suggests the government itself has not yet settled on a clear course of action. Let me get back to the Bloc Québécois’s requests, which are in line with what the public wants. We are here to represent our constituents. Personally, I am here to represent the people of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. One of the first things the Bloc Québécois asked for was to establish a wage subsidy program for sectors affected by the U.S. tariffs. In my riding, the forestry sector is a backbone of the economy, as is aluminum. My region has abundant natural resources. It is a forestry and mining community. People back home would have liked to see wage subsidy programs put in place to support them. I am thinking, for example, of the workers at the Outardes sawmill in my riding, which had to close its doors. I am talking about this sawmill in particular, but other devastating events have taken place before this. Entire families are being affected. I am talking about 300 families. In a region like mine, which is made up of small communities, 300 families affected means that not only is the industry itself shutting down, but so is the entire community. Sometimes that is what it comes down to. It is a vicious circle. We would have liked to see this measure put in place. Governments have acted in that way in the past whenever a crisis arose. This time, however, there is not even a willingness to help the people who will find themselves without a paycheque. Beyond the closure itself, there is also the question of the development opportunities that have been lost as a result. This is truly devastating. The government could have helped these people if it had wanted to do so. I want to talk about another measure that is also important to me. We keep raising it because it remains unresolved. People will tell me that this is the case for many things in this Parliament. I am referring to EI reform. Once again, the government tells us that it is going to change it at some point, and once again it makes promises. I have run in several election campaigns, and every time, there were candidates who told me that, yes, they would fix it this time. Some even told me that they would not change it and that they would have to be in government to do so. I figure that they are the ones in government now, and they would be able to change it if they wanted. We have been calling for this reform for decades. I am repeating myself, and we are tired of doing so. At the same time, we keep hoping that one day the other side of the House may finally see reason. EI currently covers 40% of workers, which means that 40% of workers who pay into EI will be able receive benefits. I spoke about this earlier today, but my thoughts are particularly with the seasonal workers in my riding. I spoke about natural resources, but I did not talk about fisheries, which is also a part of my riding. There is thus the whole issue of the fishery. The benefits of fish processing workers, for example, will run out at the beginning of winter or around Christmas, depending on their situation and the number of hours they accumulated. As members know, fishing is not something that people can do year-round and, unfortunately, we cannot make the fishing season last longer, because Mother Nature prevents us from doing so. Nevertheless, it is vital that we support these workers and this industry. There are several measures that could be put in place. I am not saying that this is just about employment insurance, but the issue of the spring gap has never been resolved. This is about supporting industries located in so-called remote areas, like mine, where the economy is built on natural resources, some of which are more lucrative than others. The mining industry is one example. The fact remains that many fishers are once again being abandoned I would like to talk about other sectors. I talked about forestry, but tourism is equally important back home. Why not resolve this issue once and for all? It is still possible to do so, but this issue has been completely left out of every bill. Again, I do not know what will happen on Thursday, but I hope there will be a thought for the people in my riding, who have very real needs. Much is being said these days about the crisis and the cost of housing, but the issue I am raising regarding employment insurance has existed for a long time. It is not a new problem. For those people who really struggle to make ends meet at certain times of the year and who are often skilled workers who want to work, we need to ask ourselves what message we are sending them. That message is that, even in times of crisis, we do not want to help them. They are being completely ignored. Earlier, one of my colleagues opposite said that the government has not forgotten about them at all, and yet the government has been promising to change things and reform the system for 12 years. I have been hearing the same promises since I was elected in 2015. However, after 11 years, soon to be 12, the government has done absolutely nothing. I therefore strongly disagree with him. Fortunately, organizations like Action‑Chômage Côte‑Nord and the Interprovincial Employment Insurance Alliance continue to drive this message home to the government. There is actually a petition going around right now, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to sign it, if they so desire, so that the issue of employment insurance can finally be resolved once and for all, so that discussions can take place and so that the government keeps its word, if it is capable of doing so. I have several other examples in mind. I had planned to discuss eight of them, but I think I have only two minutes left. Even so, I would like to remind the House of a request the Bloc Québécois has been making since 2025. There was an election that year, but the Prime Minister, who had not yet been elected, made a promise on April 25. Election day was April 28. On April 25, a carbon tax rebate of $814 million was promised to residents of the Canadian provinces, but not to those in Quebec. We were not asking for a rebate, since we would have preferred that the money be transferred to Quebec. However, every other province received compensation in respect of the carbon tax. It was a nice election gift, a gift that Quebec did not receive. We asked for the same thing. After all, giving money back to someone who did not pay anything is not a rebate; it is a gift. This gift was announced on April 25, no less. We, too, want our share of that $814 million. The people in my region, in Côte‑Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, need it. The needs are real. As I said, some people are struggling to make ends meet. Why was the government able to hand out this election gift to part of the country while denying it to Quebec? I find that unacceptable, and this situation should be corrected. There are several issues that could be resolved quite easily. It is simply a matter of common sense, fairness and justice. Let me mention one final example, an issue we have been raising for years because it, too, deserves to be addressed: the existence of two classes of senior citizens. The government continues to discriminate by providing an increase in OAS benefits to one group of seniors while denying it to another. I cannot understand why we must continue to point this out year after year, whether during the economic update, pre-budget consultations or the budget debate itself. The inequity is obvious. In my constituency, which has an aging population, seniors need this support. However, the government continues to deny it to many of them by maintaining this distinction. There is plenty more I could say about this, but we will no doubt have the opportunity to return to it in the next budget. All that to say, there is nothing for the riding of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan in this economic statement.