Julie Vignola

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the question has already been asked, but it bears repeating.

If I were still a teacher and I lost my job tomorrow morning, I would be entitled to up to 50 weeks of EI, depending on the number of hours I had worked. It is simply a matter of fairness. If I have to leave my job because of illness, it would only be fair that I receive benefits for the same number of weeks as someone who loses their job for any other reason. It is simply a matter of fairness and justice.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Shefford.

The issue we are debating is a delicate one, especially for me. Yesterday, at 1:30 a.m., a close friend of the Fermont community passed away after a long struggle with illness. Her struggle was made easier because the entire community was behind her. I do not just mean the residents of Fermont, but people from Fermont who have moved all over the province and across Canada as well.

We were all behind her. Some offered their time, while others quietly paid for her groceries or heating oil. She had a community to support and help her, but we did not talk to her about it, because she had too much pride and strength of character to accept that kind of help. That is often the case. Please forgive me if I am particularly emotional today. The ordeal this woman went through is something that my mother-in-law, my grandmother and my father went through as well. I would not wish it on anyone.

Roughly 23% of sick people have access to these 15 weeks of benefits, so already, not many people have access to employment insurance even though this is supposed to be a universal measure. With only 23% of sick people getting better within the 15-week period, it is no longer universal, it is discriminatory.

Illness, whether it be cancer or any other form of illness, is an ordeal for the person who is sick and for that person's friends and family. However, it is also a financial hardship. Perhaps some members have never been unemployed even once in their lives, so for those who do not know, employment insurance benefits are equal to 55% of the person's income. That is hardly a gold mine.

Sick people who are fighting for their health and their lives on 55% of their income are being told that they can have 15 weeks of benefits. What if they need 26 weeks to recover? Too bad.

However, healing requires not only family, friends, the community and money, but also good morale. It undermines people's chances of recovering when the morale is not there and when they are constantly stressed and do not know whether they will be able to put food on the table for their children the next day. That gives cancer or any other illness more power over the person's system. It has been shown that stress can have an irreparable effect on the immune system. If the immune system is already compromised and continues to grow weaker, there is less chance that the person will be able to recover from the illness or at least keep it in check. This may be difficult to understand for someone who has never been unemployed, who has never been sick or who has been lucky enough to have help. The purpose of my comments is to make members think. I am a teacher, as members know.

I was saying earlier that 23% of sick people will get better within 15 weeks. Most take 30 weeks to recover. That is probably why the Liberal government has suddenly agreed to increase the number of weeks of sickness benefits to 26.

However, that still leaves 20% to 25% of people who will need 50 weeks or even more. That is a significant percentage. We are talking about human beings. I am not talking about 1% or 2% or even 0.5%. I am talking about 20% to 25%, or one-quarter of the population.

There are 338 MPs in the House. If we all became sick tomorrow, one-quarter of us would need 50 weeks. How many of us would want to be without any income from the 26th week to the final week of recovery? How many of us?

This is a matter of compassion, but also common sense. We have a duty to our constituents, and this is their own money. Workers and employers contribute to the fund. This is not the government's money.

When the employment insurance fund gets above a certain amount, the government starts dipping into it. The government needs to stop doing that. This fund exists for the future and for hard times. It is our nest egg. When the nest egg is full because regular contributions have been made day after day, year after year, we are able to provide adequate, caring and compassionate support to those around us.

It is unacceptable that a person without group or private insurance ends up without money at week 16, unable to pay for rent, groceries or socks in the winter. It is unacceptable that the person is unable to support themselves or others. Worse yet, that person is getting poorer. Their morale is low, and the money is no longer there. If they are lucky, they have a nest egg. If they are luckier still, they have a network to help them, and they start a fundraiser.

Is that what Canada is? Is that the Canada we want for our people? Is that the Canada we want for the most vulnerable and marginalized members of our society?

Surviving cancer is one of the biggest victories a person can have. Even more extraordinary is that all those who win their battle go on to get involved in society, volunteering in their own community.

How much is this help worth? How much is a life worth? How much is it worth for a person to be able to return to work and get their confidence, their honour and their pride back?

We are talking about $1.1 billion if every sick person who is entitled to EI sickness benefits takes the full 50 weeks. When a person manages to heal and recover, they are eager to get back to work, because 55% of their salary is no gold mine, as I was saying. It is our duty to help our constituents, especially those who need it most.

I am calling on all hon. members to fulfill not only a duty of compassion, but also a duty of conscience and an economic duty.

[Public Services and Procurement, February 7th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the government launched a claims process for people who experienced severe losses because of Phoenix. The system has not been working for four years. It is beyond repair, as is the harm done.

Meanwhile, the President of the Treasury Board wants to throw 3,900 RCMP employees into this hellhole.

Can he commit to not forcing more public servants into this hellhole when there are so many problems and so many victims that need to be compensated? Phoenix deserves to be tossed in the trash. People deserve better.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, our two ridings are south of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean where aluminum is produced. I imagine the expansions supporting 60,000 jobs.

What impact does my colleague think that 60,000 jobs, with a payroll worth $3.5 billion, would have on our ridings?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question, which I answered at the beginning of my speech.

Canada does need treaties. However, the treaties must be fair and have a long-term vision. Currently, the long-term vision seems to be lacking, since it is our dairy farmers and aluminum smelters that will pay, and pay dearly, for the next 10 years.

I am not minimizing the consultations that have been held with various partners. Still, consultation does not necessarily mean listening and understanding. It simply means being present and sharing opinions. Those opinions can either be ignored or taken into account. That is the prerogative of the people who negotiate and sign the agreements.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his empathy. We share the same concerns for our constituents.

I do believe there should be more non-partisan discussion on such hot topics as the economy, our sovereignty, and Quebec and Canadian producers, since transparent discussions will make it possible to draft agreements that truly represent our people.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I said at the start of my speech, some aspects are interesting. Still, the fact remains that reducing the amount of powder that our farmers are allowed to sell is, in my opinion and in the opinion of the producers I know, an unacceptable and dangerous violation.

Canada is setting a precedent that could benefit the United States. We need be careful about that.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, for several days now, we have been discussing CUSMA and its advantages and disadvantages for our economy and our people.

I would like to take a look at it from a slightly different angle to try to make people understand why it is important not to take anything lightly in this matter. It is also important to be open to possible solutions that will help us implement an agreement with a genuine long-term vision, which is not necessarily the case right now.

We have been exporting our products outside Quebec since the era of New France, mercantilism and triangular trade with the French colonies in the Caribbean. Since then, we have never stopped exporting or trying to export our products and expertise. Just think of lumber exports to the markets of Great Britain in the 19th century or John A. Macdonald's reciprocity agreement, which was never really implemented but was the starting point for the FTA in 1989 and NAFTA in 1994.

The world has changed a lot in 25 years. I can understand that we feel the need to have an agreement that is in tune with the times, an agreement that reflects the current economic realities. Over the decades, we have created connections that provide consumers with access to a huge variety of products. The opening up of markets, combined with improvements in transportation and refrigeration, means that we can now have products every day that our parents only saw in their stockings at Christmas. Oranges are one example. Many of us could not imagine a morning without them. Basically, trade agreements are essential to the economies of Quebec and Canada.

In that light, CUSMA continues our history. At the same time, however, CUSMA marks a break with the past. In the past, Canada stood up to the Americans' demand that we abolish supply management. The argument we countered with was simple. If they stopped subsidizing their farmers so that they could sell their products at cost, we might consider opening up supply management.

With CUSMA, supply management takes a hit, yet we have made no demands to put an end to the subsidies to American farmers. Let me take a moment to explain what supply management is. Imagine a pie that represents Canadians' needs for dairy products. That pie is divided up among all producers, so that they can sell their products at a reasonable price, cover their costs and have an income.

Opening up supply management, as the last three agreements have done, means that we are giving a slice of the pie to foreign producers. This means the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians are no longer wholly met by our own producers, but by foreign ones too.

What that means for producers is that they must now divide up about 82% of the income instead of 100%. The situation is problematic for many producers, such as my friend Éric, who comes from a long line of dairy farmers. Now his father is trying to convince him to sell the farm because it is no longer profitable. Éric wants to keep the farm because he loves what he does. It is his life, his passion. He makes ends meet by taking snow removal contracts. He wants to keep his farm and pass it on to his children, who also love taking care of farm animals. Like any good parent, he wants a secure future for his children. CUSMA is putting a wrench in the works for Éric and for hundreds or even thousands of others.

I know very few people who would be able to make ends meet if they took a 20% pay cut today.

Consider this. How many members of this House would be prepared to give 20% of their paycheque to a U.S. senator? I am pretty sure the answer is none.

Nevertheless, that is exactly what CUSMA is imposing on our dairy farmers. The agreement hands over 20% of their income to foreign producers. It is unacceptable, unbearable, almost inhumane to do that to our own people. We need our farmers three times a day.

The concessions on supply management are not the only part of the agreement that break with our past. Canada literally punched a hole in its own economic sovereignty by allowing the U.S. President to decide how much milk protein Canada can sell abroad, besides what is sold to the United States and Mexico.

What is milk protein? It is not complicated. In the butter-making process, there is a by-product called whey that is dried to a powder. That is milk protein. Our producers sell about 55,000 tonnes of it a year.

The U.S. President decided that from now on, our producers should not sell more than 35,000 tonnes. What does that mean for our producers? A tonne sells for around $2,000. Every tonne they sell beyond 35,000 tonnes will be subject to a $540 tax. That is a quarter of the price per tonne.

By signing CUSMA, Canada is giving the United States the right to manage our agricultural economy and once again causing major income losses to our producers.

Once again, I will illustrate my point. Let's say I hold a small garage sale, and every year I sell about 200 items. Suddenly, my neighbour imposes some restrictions and decides what I can sell and for how much. If I sell more than the number he has decided on, I will pay a penalty. Would that be acceptable? As a human being, would I accept my neighbour's conditions? The answer is no. However, that is what we agreed to let the President of the United States do to our economic sovereignty.

I want to remind members that about 50% of Canadian dairy farms are in Quebec, even though Quebec accounts for only 23% of Canada's population, and 30% of the farms are in Ontario. Proportionally, Quebec is the one paying for CUSMA.

Our farmers are precious. Our instinct should be to protect those who are precious to us. In short, it seems that the concept of sovereignty is better known, applied and understood in Quebec than in Canada. Quebec seems to be two steps ahead of Canada when it comes to sovereignty.

We are the ones who should be deciding what is good or bad for our economy, not the President of the United States.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the House seems to be in agreement on a few points today, notably the importance of asking questions and getting answers. I myself have a question.

Throughout this debate, certain issues keep coming up, as some members have pointed out. One such issue is the ability to access the services of a sex worker, which I find concerning. A man can be told that he cannot be in contact with women, but he can be in contact with sex workers, as though their job means that they are no longer women, that they do not count.

I know, or at least I hope, that this is not what people wanted. Nevertheless, this impression can sometimes stem from a lack of knowledge about sex work.

Could the member answer my question? Maybe she knows, maybe she does not know, but I am asking the question openly.

In the continuous training that employees receive, how much emphasis is there on the social, economic and psychological realities of female and male sex workers, since male sex workers are also at risk?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Implementation Act, January 31st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the official opposition for sharing his thoughts on the protection of intellectual property.

A few weeks ago, a singer-songwriter from Quebec, Pierre Lapointe, said that for the hundreds of thousands of times his songs played on a certain Internet music platform that shall remain nameless, but whose name starts with “s” and ends with “potify”, he only received a few bucks in royalties.

How does my colleague believe we can protect our artists and their income from these practices on the web?