Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 415
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses.
Ms. Drever and Ms. Lidder, as you know, Guy Caron, who was an NDP member, tabled a bill in the last Parliament that addressed the transfer of family farms and businesses. We'll come back to that bill in this Parliament. Thank you for your comments.
I'll start with you, Ms. Tassé-Goodman. In your brief, you talk not only about informal caregivers, but also about the importance of establishing a public and universal drug plan. We already know that assistance for seniors and drug plans can improve the health of these people. As a result, our health care system saves money.
To your knowledge, have any analyses been conducted to look at this issue more closely? What's the impact of a drug program? What's the impact of additional support for informal caregivers with regard to maintaining a good quality of life and good health?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Yes, of course, and it would improve the quality of life.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
A universal public drug program would have the same impact. It would improve quality of life and prevent people from needing to use health care services because their health would be better.
We also understand the importance of indexing the Canada health transfer by 6%. The former Conservative government reduced this transfer by cutting funding for the health care sector. Unfortunately, the new Liberal government hasn't fixed this. Clearly, this issue must be addressed.
I'd like to go to Dr. Gaden and Mr. McClinchey.
I'm surprised—and maybe I misunderstood—that Canada is not keeping its obligations under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. As I understood it, Canada was actually providing less than half of what the treaty requirements oblige Canada to contribute. I'm wondering what the impact is of Canada not contributing its full share. Does that mean that many of these initiatives are taking place only on the American side of the Great Lakes, or does that mean that the United States is trying to fill the hole that's not being met by Canada, or does it mean simply that programs go without and we're not able to accomplish what is so vitally important in the Great Lakes? What is the consequence?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Brian Masse, the MP for Windsor West, has been very outspoken on this. You provided some guidance about how Canada can fully meet its obligations, but would you suggest we need to go beyond that? If we're already cutting short what are vital investments that need to be made, should Canada be thinking of going even beyond that? For how many years have we been shortchanging this treaty?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I’d like to thank the witnesses.
My first questions are for Mr. Lampron and Mr. Weins. You talked about the expanded market access under the recent trade deals and the negative impact on supply management. I have two questions for you. The first has to do with the reciprocity of standards between Canada and the U.S. As we know, Canada has higher standards than the U.S. American dairy products contain all sorts of additives that are prohibited in Canada.
Does the reciprocity of standards concern you?
Mr. Weins, you talked about the surcharge on exports. It will be important to explore how the surcharge on exports can be avoided within the context of an administrative agreement, and if I understand correctly, even in relation to countries other than the U.S. and Mexico.
Do you think that’s possible?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
Mr. Weins, did you have anything to add?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
You're underscoring the importance of that. I don't want to cut you off.
I'm just going to go to Ms. Ballantyne. I was going to ask you about the cherry blossoms just west of Harrison Mills as it's minus 10° in Ottawa, but I think I'll go right to child care. You talked about $1 billion more per year over 10 years, but also about negotiating enhanced child care agreements with the provinces, setting up a secretariat, putting in place a child care program that really is national in scope.
I guess I would ask you two questions. First off, we're probably talking about an additional close to $2-billion investment per year, I would expect, in order to really do this right. Is that not true? Second, how important is this for middle-class prosperity when you have families paying up to $2,000 a month per child care space? How essential is this to take that burden off? How does that contribute to Canadian prosperity when you make that investment? How does that contribute to accessing the labour force and providing more economic growth?
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
First of all, I appreciate the amendment to the motion and I think that's an important part of the discussion. There's some clarity that I will be seeking around the initial motion as well.
I guess at this point we're debating the amendment. It would be interesting to hear about the rationale for bringing the minister in for the two hours. Do ministers usually come for two hours? I thought sometimes it's their.... I would like some clarity from the member on whether he's expecting the minister to come for two hours, or for the first hour, as I've seen at other committees, and then have staff and bureaucrats come for the second session.
I'm wondering if I could get some clarification on the amendment, please.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Okay. Thank you.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you for that clarity.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank the member for the motion. This is a really important issue and one that is of concern to many Canadians, so it's good that we'll be looking at this and bringing more transparency to the process.
One of the things that would help me understand is that this motion actually doesn't tell us how long the study will be. Based on the briefings the Senate is receiving, is there is any way to understand how long this process would take?
Just so I understand, if there isn't a timeline listed in the motion, how was that established by the committee? Could I have some information about that?
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, again, for your patience as I learn and understand this.
It sounds like we have some decisions to make as we go along the process, and I am clear about that. What I am wondering about is how we will report back.
If we continue, let's just say we say that PROC is going to keep this and get regular updates. Will each update be a different report and will we be tabling them in the House? I'm just curious about the process. Maybe this is not the place to discuss it, but I just have some questions about how that would work.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
I think the steering committee is there for a purpose. I think it's a good way to start, to see how it goes. Then when we bring that information back to the committee, we'll become quickly aware of whether it's going to be a consistent practice of having everyone participate or whether it will be case by case. It's good to try the steering committee role first, bring it back and see how the committee feels about it.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm trying to understand this. Of course, as a new member of the procedure and House affairs committee, I'm not aware of how things have been done historically, so I appreciate your bringing this to our attention.
I'm wondering if I could get clarity around the usual practice. If we invite someone to participate in a meeting, will it set a standard that other people from other countries who come feel concerned that they weren't invited to a formal meeting of the committee?
I would just like—
Results: 1 - 15 of 415 | Page: 1 of 28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data