Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 3160
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. I think that satisfies the question.
(Clauses 289 and 290 agreed to on division)
(On clause 291)
The Chair: We'll go to clause 291, if you want to give us a quick explanation. Then we have an amendment from Mr. Ste-Marie.
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:38
Mr. Chair, would you agree if I put together clauses 291 and 292, because they are related? They deal with the extension.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:38
These clauses include amendments to provide an additional 12 weeks of Canada recovery benefits, to increase the maximum weeks available from 38 to 50 weeks or 25 two-week periods.
The first four weeks of these additional 12 weeks would be paid at $500 per week. The remaining eight weeks of this extension would be paid at an amount of $300 per week claimed. This means that those who extend their weeks of CRB beyond 42 weeks, as well as new claimants who apply for the first time on or after July 18, would receive the $300 per week benefit available up until September 25, 2021.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I am not mistaken, amendment BQ-7 is exactly the same as amendment NPD-18. So I assume that Mr. Julian will be able to say more about that.
In contrast to the CERB, the Canada Recovery Benefit requires claimants to conduct a job search. This is the equivalent of what is required of employment insurance recipients. Only those who are unable to find a job continue to receive it.
In our view, therefore, there is no need to decrease the amount paid by the program. We ask that it remain at $500 per week after July.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
The two amendments are very similar, and the reality is that we can't be slashing benefits from people at this point, with a third wave hitting our shores. People who are still unable to find work should not see a massive slashing of their benefits. That's certainly something we've heard as a committee. In this respect, I think things are very clear, if we are listening to the witnesses and listening to the concerns that people have raised about the slashing of these benefits at such a critical time.
We are in the midst of a third wave, and there's the possibility, tragically, of a fourth wave. We're now seeing new variants coming in. Why would we deny people the wherewithal to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads by slashing benefits at this time?
It's no time to do a victory lap. It's no time to say everything is done and we can wrap up supports. As we've heard consistently and repeatedly at this committee, it's important to extend supports. As Mr. Ste-Marie said, these are people who are unable to find work. We're not talking about people who are not in need. We're talking people who are in need, have to put food on the table and have to keep a roof over their heads. The slashing of the benefit means that, in so many tragic cases, they will be unable to keep a roof over their heads.
We've seen growing homelessness through the pandemic. We should be providing support so that fewer people become homeless and impoverished during the pandemic, not slashing benefits in a way that puts more of them out on the street and makes more of them unable to feed their families.
There are two other points I'd like to make on this, Mr. Chair. First off, food banks are absolutely overwhelmed, which shows the magnitude of the need right now. I just heard from a food bank this week that is struggling to keep up with unprecedented demand. At the same time, Mr. Chair, as you well know, this government provided $750 billion in liquidity supports to the big banks.
The contrast I think people see is striking. Let us not be mean-spirited with people who desperately need these supports. Let's not slash supports at this critical point—the third wave of the pandemic.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We've heard the explanation on the amendment and I will have to give a chair's ruling.
The amendment attempts to remove proposed subsections 8(1) and 8(1.1) in clause 291 of the bill. The effect would be to revert back to the existing text of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, which provides for a payment of $500.
Since the bill provides for a decrease of these payments, this amendment, if adopted, would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is therefore inadmissible, as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury. As I think Mr. Julian and Mr. Ste-Marie mentioned, this ruling applies to both BQ-7 and NDP-18. The amendments are inadmissible under the rules.
Are there any challenges to that? Everyone seems quiet. There's no challenge?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
He's a very polite member of Parliament. I'm less polite.
The government should be doing this. The government could provide a royal recommendation on this. It's outrageous that it is choosing to slash benefits at such a critical time, particularly when it has been so amazingly generous with Canada's big banks and Canada's billionaires.
It's an outrage, quite frankly, so yes, I will challenge your ruling on that basis. A government that actually cared about the people affected by COVID would not be doing this.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Polite or not, Mr. Julian, you speak from the heart.
Ms. Dzerowicz, there's a challenge to the chair, so I'll take that up first and then go to you.
Mr. Clerk, could you poll the committee on the chair's decision?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yes 9; nays 2)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
No, it's okay, Mr. Chair. I'll pass for now. Thank you.
(Clause 291 agreed to on division)
(Clause 292 agreed to on division)
(On clause 293)
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:47
Clause 293 would add proposed new section 9.1 to the CRB Act to specify that, if the week during which an EI claimant exhausts their EI regular benefits or a combination of regular and special benefits is in the middle of the CRB two-week period, then that person may receive a payment of $300 to avoid a one-week period without income, provided the person meets the other eligibility criteria of the CRB.
In other words, it is to ensure that if someone's EI is exhausted and they apply for the CRB, they will not face a one-week income gap if their EI ends in the middle of a two-week CRB period. That relates to clause 289, as I was describing at the beginning, in the event there should be an extension of the CRB in the fall.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are there any questions on that? No questions.
(Clause 293 agreed to on division)
(On clause 294)
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:48
This clause would increase the maximum number of weeks for the Canada recovery caregiving benefit from 38 to 42, with four extra weeks available, June 19 to July 18. These four additional weeks would be at the same current rate of $500 per week. This is accompanied by a corresponding amendment to the Canada Labour Code, which we will talk about in a moment.
Results: 121 - 135 of 3160 | Page: 9 of 211

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data