Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 706 - 718 of 718
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
2020-04-20 19:49 [p.2237]
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we can always do better. We know the government did not learn everything it should have learned when SARS was an issue. We have heard horrible stories about a lot of PPE being thrown away, because it did not have those systems in place. Absolutely, we can always do better. I was just talking about how we can do a lot better regarding the benefits and supports people need across this country as well.
We can learn globally from the countries the member talked about. We can learn globally from what the previous speaker talked about regarding tax loopholes. There are countries doing amazing things. We can learn from them and we can do better.
I hope our government continues to learn and do better.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, in this exceptional crisis that we are all going through together, I think all the parties have had a role to play to varying degrees. We in the NDP have always said we are not just a party that opposes; we are also a party that proposes. Obviously, we are never totally satisfied. There are still so many people who are suffering and not getting assistance. However, we made a few proposals that were heard, including the $2,000 monthly benefit, the 75% wage subsidy and making the wage subsidy available to community groups and NPOs, as well. We made a few similar proposals that have meant we are helping more and more people. We proposed that self-employed workers and part-time workers should be able to access this universal benefit, even if they still have a little bit of income. That was not the case at first, but a change was made.
I would like to draw the government's attention to two minor proposals that could make a real difference for many people. I know the Minister of Canadian Heritage has announced some targeted investments for the cultural sector and for artists. I would simply like to take this opportunity to ask him to not forget all the groups and artists who have been making investments for months or years thinking they would go on tour, make an album or create an exhibition, or because they were preparing for a festival. Obviously, most of the festivals planned for this summer have been cancelled, and perhaps this fall's festivals, too. All those activities are a write-off. I think we should be taking losses related to those investments into account and coming up with a plan to help the cultural sector. I just wanted to propose that.
As for community groups, they are eligible for the 75% wage subsidy, which is good, but it can be hard for them to prove a loss of revenue, given that they do not operate the same way as an SME. Furthermore, in a crisis, they receive more donations and government grants than usual. Under such circumstances, their needs are immense, but they may not qualify for the wage subsidy, because demonstrating a loss of revenue is not as easy for them as it is for a private company. This issue is worthy of attention, because groups in our communities have been delivering outstanding services lately. I am thinking in particular of food banks and services delivering food to people who are elderly or isolated. Those are two small things, but they can make a big difference for many people in our communities.
I know I do not have much time left, but there is one more point I would like to raise. It is the impact of successive cuts, year after year, to provincial health transfers. As a result of these cuts, our public health system is underfunded, which has put a colossal burden on the provinces, and this has contributed to the tendency to privatize services and take shortcuts. For instance, orderlies are asked to cover two floors instead of one, and nurses are forced to work overtime. Our public health care system has been weakened and diminished. Today, as our health care system is put to the test, that fact has become all too plain.
I would like to set the record straight right now. Federal transfers to the provinces went up by 6% per year for a 10-year period while there was an agreement with the provinces. The previous Conservative government made cuts. The calculation is a bit complicated, but transfer payments now go up by about 3% per year. That is a net loss for the provinces, and it means they have to shoulder much of the burden. According to our calculations, that means the provinces will have $36 billion less with which to provide good health care services to people over a period of 10 years. Unfortunately, the Liberal government stuck with the Conservative government's decision.
I think one of the lessons to be learned from this crisis is that we cannot allow the provinces to bear the burden of the entire health care system by themselves. The federal government needs to give them a hand. Health care funding used to be shared fifty-fifty within Canada. That balance is no more. We need to listen to the provinces and increase health care transfers.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about funding for health care. Of course, ideally, we would always like to see more money go to these things. There is also a question of how the money is used.
We had a case under the Liberal government of a vast stockpile of PPE being destroyed and not replaced. We had a case that was reported of the Public Health Agency of Canada, which was supposed to be responsible for pandemic preparedness, using money to fund climate change programs. We would normally think of that as falling under the umbrella of Environment Canada, but climate change programs were funded through the Public Health Agency of Canada, and yet the health minister has admitted that we were not prepared for this situation.
Would the member agree that we should also be having a discussion about how the federal government could be planning ahead and using the resources we have effectively? For example, it should use money intended for public health purposes and it should not destroy vital PPE.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am just not sure that I would describe the health care system as “these things”. It is much more important than that.
My colleague did raise an important question, however. Compared to many other countries, such as South Korea, it seems that Canada did not really learn anything from SARS. After the 2003 epidemic, an advisory committee recommended a control fund, but the fund was never fully funded. I would like to point out that my colleague's party did not fund it either, even though it was in power for eight years, including at that time.
In addition, I think we need to do more to make our medical equipment here and make enough of it to keep health workers safe. There will be a reckoning soon enough, but it is already clear to me that not enough was done in terms of preparation over the past few years.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-04-20 19:58 [p.2239]
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian emergency response benefit alleviated financial hardship for many Canadians, but unfortunately, too many are still without emergency relief. I have a long list of constituents and businesses that are currently missed by all of the relief programs that have been announced.
I have a constituent in my riding who is working part time and taking care of an elderly parent at home. In December, her father was hospitalized with congenital heart failure. When he came back home, she quit her job to care for him full time. By March, her father's condition had improved enough that she was able to start looking for part-time work again. Then the pandemic hit. She is viewed simply as someone who quit her job, and therefore, she is not eligible for help and is now struggling to pay her bills.
I have another constituent who was working two jobs. She lost the income from her main job and since her secondary job brings in slightly more than $1,000 per month, she is ineligible for assistance.
I have been contacted by students, some in the middle of their studies and some about to graduate. Students in the middle of their programs rely on summer jobs to pay their living expenses and to save for the school year ahead. Without those jobs, they do not know how they are going to pay their rent and grocery bills for the coming months. Some are uncertain if they will be able to go back to school in the fall and continue their studies. Graduating students are in a very tough spot as well. They are coming out of years of school, and they are looking forward to entering the workplace. Instead, they are facing a bleak reality and have nowhere to turn for help.
I have heard from seniors and people with disabilities. These Canadians are surviving on fixed incomes without any buffer for increased costs related to the pandemic. They are experiencing stress, anxiety and insecurity over being unable to cover their basic needs.
With each passing day, too many Canadians are getting closer to losing their businesses, their homes and their dreams. The stress and sense of hopelessness is taking a serious toll on mental health. Individuals, communities, cities, regions and our national economy will all be severely negatively affected if we allow these people and businesses to fall through the cracks.
What our current crisis has revealed more clearly and urgently than ever is that Canada needs a guaranteed livable income. A GLI is not a radical idea. It is an idea whose time has come. Imagine a safety net that captures everyone. For both social and financial reasons, Greens have been advocating for a GLI for years, and the Green Party caucus has been working to advance the national conversation on a guaranteed livable income.
My hon. colleague from Fredericton spoke about the need for a GLI in her speech in the House of Commons during the emergency session a month ago. My hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands brought it up again in the House a week and a half ago. A guaranteed livable income is an idea that the Green Party has been promoting since long before any Greens achieved the honour of taking a seat in this place. It is an idea that has gained support across the political spectrum, because it is a sound and sensible thing to do.
A guaranteed livable income is a fair system that alleviates financial hardship and rewards work. It would replace our patchwork of federal and provincial programs with a single, universal, unconditional cash benefit. The principle is to establish an income floor below which no Canadian could fall. The amount would be based on the cost of living in each region the same way a living wage is calculated. The benefit would be progressively taxed back according to income. Allowing low-income workers to retain the full benefit would be a strong incentive to continue working. There would be no big clawbacks that create disincentives.
The GLI would eliminate extreme poverty and free up our social services to focus on our mental health crisis and addiction crisis. An emergency guaranteed livable income could be set up to automatically make a payment to every Canadian with a social insurance number. Those who did not need the payment would have it taxed back by the CRA in the next tax season.
A guaranteed livable income in normal times would replace federal transfers for social assistance, disability supports, the old age supplement, the guaranteed income supplement for the elderly, the Canada child benefit for parents with children and the Canada workers benefit for the poor, all of which are very guaranteed livable income-like programs.
Because it is a benefit all Canadians would receive, a guaranteed livable income would eliminate the social stigma associated with needing income assistance. We would no longer have to pick apart people's lives to ensure they are eligible.
A GLI would make it possible for more people to upgrade their education and skills, increasing employability and wage-earning capacity.
Studies and pilot programs have shown that a guaranteed livable income or universal basic income improves the health outcomes of low-income people. They can afford nutritious food and a place to live, and long-term stress associated with poverty is decreased. These are just the broad strokes.
The benefits of a GLI are many, but right now, in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis, there is one potential benefit that stands out. Delivering a single, universal, unconditional cash benefit to every Canadian would be simple. Because a GLI would replace our current patchwork of benefit programs, it would dramatically simplify the administration required and save money there as well.
Everyone would receive a monthly payment. Most of the time, most people would not really need it and the funds would flow back to the government through taxes. However, when circumstances change, whether it is one person who loses a job or millions, having a guaranteed livable income in place would help us weather the storms ahead.
There are other storms coming. We know we are in a climate crisis. Epidemiologists and scientists have told us that we can expect more pandemics, we can expect more emergencies, we can expect more situations where people will lose their jobs and lose their homes as we struggle to deal with this climate crisis.
A guaranteed livable income would allow us to navigate future challenges without the stress, anxiety and hopelessness that too many Canadians are enduring now.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has often brought up the topic of a guaranteed livable wage, even long before the pandemic set in, so this is not necessarily talking about the pandemic.
Would he be willing to scrap EI, OAS and all of these other programs run by the government, in favour of this proposed guaranteed livable income?
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-04-20 20:06 [p.2240]
Mr. Speaker, that is the idea. Right now, we have a patchwork of different systems that people have to apply to, including welfare provincially or disability. There would be top-ups for people who have no ability to work, seniors or people with disabilities. That way, we would eliminate the bureaucracy of picking through people's lives to determine whether they are eligible for social assistance or a Canada emergency response benefit when we have another crisis.
Yes, it is an overarching program that would work with the provinces and the federal government, and we would need to negotiate it between the provinces and the federal government to make it work.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-04-20 20:07 [p.2240]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
I would like to know his party's position on the government's intention to support the oil industry with credit measures and the program to clean up orphaned wells.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-04-20 20:07 [p.2240]
Mr. Speaker, it is really important to support the workers in the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry has been dining out on Canadian resources and skipping out on the bill, and leaving these orphan wells. It has been taking its profits and then declaring bankruptcy and leaving orphan wells. We have a huge mess in the oil sands that is going to need to be cleaned up. This is work that needs to be done and there are oil and gas workers who can do that work.
There is also lots of potential with oil wells. About 10% of them are good for geothermal energy creation, and that has been studied and is something that can be done to actually create revenue from some of these orphan wells.
As the price of oil drops, we are also seeing these folks who have the expertise in drilling are going to be able to create geothermal wells as well. We are going to be able to start moving toward renewable because, let us face it, we are not going to be able to compete with Saudi Arabia when it decides it wants to drop the price of oil the way that it has. We are dealing with a geopolitical strife on the oil front.
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the member's speech highlights the privilege in this place and the fact he has been a part of the process all day long, and Canadians would not even have heard that if this day had not happened. He has appreciated it too, just as we are suggesting, that to be in this place is an important part of our democracy.
That said, I was part of the human resources committee. The basic income guarantee, or whatever it is called, is a great idea in theory, but there is a huge cost to it. It is not just the cost in terms of money but also in terms of all the other social aspects of it. We estimated it would cost $100 billion per year to run the program.
I am glad the member is supporting oil and gas workers too. It is great to hear the Green Party actually supporting oil and gas workers. Workers in my neck of the woods who are in oil and gas in central British Columbia will appreciate his comments.
However, the big question I have for you is how are you going to pay for a $100 billion program with such a decline in natural resource development, which your party helped cause?
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-04-20 20:10 [p.2240]
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can take any credit for the drop in oil prices and what has happened in the oil field. I am sorry, but it would be great if I could.
I imagine a better world. I imagine a cleaner world and dealing with climate change and the climate crisis.
We already pay $173 billion between the federal government and the provinces for the network of social programs that we use, so we would just re-tweak that money and get rid of the welfare programs and all of these additional little programs and create one large program that would work between the provinces and the federal government, and make it fair and have a system where people get taxed back when they do not need it. Then we would not have to worry about bailing people out.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-03-25 3:15 [p.2068]
Mr. Speaker, we are in an unprecedented crisis that is affecting all Canadians. It is therefore our duty to work together to quickly provide emergency aid. That is why you will find that there have been discussions among the parties and that there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:
(a) the application of Standing Orders 17, 36(8)(b), 39(5)(b) and 56.1 be suspended for the current sitting, provided that the responses to petitions and questions on the Order Paper otherwise due shall be tabled at the next sitting of the House;
(b) ways and means motion No. 4, notice of which was laid upon the table earlier this day, be concurred in, that a bill based thereon in the name of the Minister of Finance, entitled An Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19, be deemed to have been introduced and read a first time and ordered for consideration at second reading later this day;
(c) following the adoption of this order, the House shall resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider matters related to the COVID-19 pandemic for a period not exceeding one hour and provided that the Chair may preside from the Speaker's chair; that during the proceedings of the committee, the Chair shall call members in a fashion consistent with the proportions observed during Oral Questions; no member shall be recognized for more than five minutes which may be used for posing questions to a minister of the Crown or a parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of the minister; members may be permitted to split their time with one or more members by so indicating to the Chair; and at the conclusion of the time provided for the proceedings, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the committee shall rise;
(d) when the committee of the whole rises, the House shall begin debate on the motion for second reading of the bill referred to in paragraph (b), a member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may speak to the said motion for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments; provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member; and, at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred and that, if the bill is adopted at second reading, it shall be deemed referred to a committee of the whole; deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed;
(e) when the bill referred to in paragraph (b) has been read the third time and passed, the House shall adjourn until Monday, April 20, 2020, provided that, for the purposes of any Standing Order, it shall be deemed adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28, and, for greater certainty, the provisions of paragraphs (m) to (p) of the order adopted on Friday, March 13, 2020, remain in effect;
(f) if, during the period the House stands adjourned pursuant to this order, the Speaker receives a notice from the House leaders of all four recognized parties indicating that it is in the public interest that the House remain adjourned until a future date or until future notice is given to the Speaker, the House will remain adjourned accordingly, provided that (i) in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or either of the Assistant Deputy Speakers shall act in the Speaker's stead for all the purposes of this paragraph, (ii) in the event the House remains adjourned beyond April 20, 2020, pursuant to this paragraph, the words “May 1” and “May 31” in Standing Order 81(4)(a) shall be deemed to read “May 27” and “June 15”, respectively;
(g) during the period the House stands adjourned pursuant to this order, the House may be recalled, under the provisions of Standing Order 28(3), to consider measures to address the economic impact of COVID-19 and the impacts on the lives of Canadians;
(h) during the period the House stands adjourned pursuant to this order, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance shall each convene a meeting of their respective committee (i) at least once per week, unless the whips of all four recognized parties agree to not hold a meeting, and (ii) within 48 hours of the receipt by email, by the clerk of the committee, of a request signed by any four members of the committee, that during such meetings, committee members shall attend and witnesses shall participate via either videoconferencing or teleconferencing, that the committees meet for the sole purpose of receiving evidence concerning matters related to the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided that, for greater certainty, each committee may receive evidence which may otherwise exceed the committee's mandate under Standing Order 108(2), all such meetings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website, and notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email;
(i) starting the week of March 30, 2020, the Minister of Finance or his delegate shall provide the Standing Committee on Finance with a bi-weekly report on all actions undertaken pursuant to parts 3, 8 and 19 of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act and shall appear before the committee to discuss the report, provided that, until April 20, 2020, or any date to which the adjournment period is extended pursuant to paragraph f), if committee is not satisfied with how the government is exercising its powers under the Act, it may adopt a motion during a meeting by videoconference or teleconference to report this to the House by depositing a report with the Clerk of the House which shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House on that day;
(j) upon the presentation of any report pursuant to paragraph i), the Speaker shall recall the House to consider a motion to take note of the report of the committee which shall be deemed to be proposed and have precedence over all other business that day, provided that proceedings shall expire when debate thereon has concluded or at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and that at least 48 hours' notice shall be given for any sitting held pursuant to this paragraph;
(k) the Standing Committee on Finance be instructed to commence a review of the provisions and operation of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act within 6 months of the day on which the Act receives royal assent and to report its findings to the House no later than March 31, 2021, provided that the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House when the House stands adjourned and it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House on that day;
(l) within 30 sitting days of the resumption of regular sittings of the House pursuant to paragraph e) or f) of this order, the government table a comprehensive report of all activities undertaken pursuant to the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act and that this report be permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Finance; and
(m) the House call upon the government to provide regular updates to representatives of opposition parties on its management of the COVID-19 pandemic, including a bi-weekly conference call between the finance critics of recognized parties and the Minister of Finance.
That concludes the motion, and that is our government's emergency response to help Canadians. We will get through this difficult time together.
Results: 706 - 718 of 718 | Page: 48 of 48

|<
<
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data