Hansard
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 559
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-02-17 17:55 [p.4186]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table this petition, initiated and signed by my constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
The petitioners note that natural time-tested immune system essentials and holistic health practices do not receive enough attention for their role in preventative health care.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada educate and empower Canadians on holistic approaches to optimize and maintain their natural immunity and well-being; cover practices for health sustainability and wellness care under the Canada Health Act, including chiropractic care, massage therapy, acupuncture and naturopathic medicines; and support, promote and enhance Canadians' access to holistic health services and natural products.
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2021-02-16 13:20 [p.4120]
Madam Speaker, I am also presenting a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding who are calling on the Government of Canada to declare the overdose crisis a national public health emergency, to take steps to end overdose deaths and injuries, and to immediately collaborate with provinces and territories to develop a comprehensive plan, and to ensure that any plan considers reforms and that this emergency be taken seriously.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, the Canadian Statistics Advisory Council says the Liberal government does not have the data required to make decisions on the pandemic. This is the type of data needed to support public policy decisions being made now. Canadians cannot trust government decisions when the government does not have data or will not show what it knows, or maybe more accurately what it does not know. The government has gone from saying it has Canadians' backs to hiding things behind their backs.
When will the government provide Canadians with this data and share its plan for recovery?
View William Amos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View William Amos Profile
2021-02-05 11:46 [p.4066]
Madam Speaker, in order for Canadians to benefit from the digital economy, we are going to need to ensure that Canadians have confidence that their data is safe and that they trust their privacy is being respected. That is exactly why our government is strengthening that trust by ensuring Canada has a world-leading privacy and data protection system and the companies that break the rules face severe consequences.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, absolutely.
The Canadian Statistics Advisory Council says the Liberal government does not have the data required to make decisions on the pandemic. This is the type of data needed to support public policy decisions it is making right now. Canadians cannot trust government decisions when the government does not have data or will not show what it knows, or worse yet, what it does not know. The government has gone from saying it has Canadians' backs to hiding information behind their backs.
When will the government provide Canadians with data and share what its recovery plan really is?
View William Amos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View William Amos Profile
2021-02-05 11:47 [p.4066]
Madam Speaker, from the beginning of this pandemic, the Government of Canada has relied upon the opinions of experts to guide all of our decisions, whether in relation to procuring vaccines, rebuilding our biomanufacturing capacity or manufacturing PPE. At every point of the way, we have been relying upon Canada's experts and making sure that the data upon which our decisions are made is solid.
The Government of Canada shares as much data as possible and we know that this is important because open science is important. Our government is going to continue to work with our experts and rely upon their opinions as we make our decisions.
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition on behalf of Christine Wingate in memory of her late son Shane.
The opioid crisis, the most deadly public health crisis of my lifetime, which claims a life every two hours in our country, has seen a significant increase as a result of COVID-19. Opioid use and other drug use that is affecting communities from coast to coast is a scourge and must be addressed by the government.
The signatories call on the government to declare the opioid crisis a national health emergency. They call on the government to develop a Canadian overdose action plan in collaboration with provinces and territories and to take the steps needed to prevent overdose deaths and injuries, particularly by looking at best practices and successful practices from other countries.
On behalf of Christine Wingate and her son Shane, it is an honour to present this petition.
View Marie-France Lalonde Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marie-France Lalonde Profile
2021-02-04 10:22 [p.3971]
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today organized by Katherine Steinhoff in memory of her son Simon. It calls on the government to declare an opioid crisis, which is one of the deadliest public health emergencies of our lifetime. One death is taking place on average every hour, and the death toll has been 15,400 in the last four years alone. Petitioners call on the government to declare this a national emergency and immediately collaborate with the provinces and territories to establish a pan-Canadian action plan to end overdose deaths and injuries.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic that on this day, Groundhog Day, not unlike the plot of the movie of the same name, we find ourselves back in this place making further adjustments to the government's response to the pandemic. I do not offer that comment as a criticism of the government. I raise that point to serve as a reminder that we have been here before.
I also raise the point because we should all recognize that we may be here again, doing something similar in the future. I believe all of us would agree that, ideally, we would prefer that would not be the case. I am certain we would much rather see these troubled times put behind us. However, we know that the vaccine rollout has not, to date, gone well for Canada. We know that new and more deadly variants of this virus are being identified in different parts of Canada, and that should be concerning to us all.
For the record, I do not mention the slow pace of vaccine rollouts in my comments today as a political tack. I am certain that the government, like any government, would like to see a more timely and successful vaccine rollout. I would also add that that is not what we are here to debate in this bill today.
I am raising these concerns for a different reason, and I will come back to that. Let us first acknowledge that this bill proposes measures that we all support.
We support the enhancements to the Canada child benefit. The political notion of providing direct support to families was actually developed by a Conservative government in spite of the Liberals' claims at the time that parents would waste the money on beer and popcorn. When they came to power, the Liberals adopted this program and made other improvements. I have to give them credit for that.
In Canada, during the pandemic, the official opposition also supported programs such as the CERB, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency business account. There may have been some disagreements about the best way to implement them, however, in principle, we agreed with these programs.
For that reason, I will not be focusing today on the elements of the debate on which we agree. As many of us know, this bill is essentially divided into seven different parts. The official opposition supports most parts of the bill. However, we strongly disagree with part 7.
Part 7 of the bill proposes to increase the Borrowing Authority Act, basically to add another $323 billion in incremental borrowing until March 31, 2024. The official opposition would prefer to split this from the bill so that matters we do agree on can be voted on separately. We believe it is important to have a separate debate on that borrowing, which significantly increases our debt. Before some might say to themselves that I am being a typical Conservative, I would ask that everyone hears me out.
First, let me summarize briefly where we are. In 2015, the Liberal government promised to run modest deficits before returning to a balanced budget in 2019. Every person, whether in the chamber or here virtually, knows this did not happen. I am not here to revisit that, but simply to place it on the record as being a factual point.
In 2019, given the absence of following that fiscal plan, a new fiscal plan came from the government, and it was based on debt-to-GDP ratio. The Liberal thinking told us that as long as our debt-to-GDP ratio remained within certain parameters, everything would be fine. However, every person participating in this debate, whether in the chamber or attending virtually, knows that the debt-to-GDP targets are have now been thrown out the window. Again, I raise that because it is factually true.
We are now in a new situation, where the latest Liberal thinking has it that we cannot afford not to borrow more money, since interest rates are so low. Just because interest rates are this low it does not mean that it is okay to borrow so much money.
One has to wonder: What would happen if this plan, much like the Liberals' previous financial plans, proved to be wrong? What will happen if, or rather when, interest rates rise?
It is our job to be asking these questions. We need to ask ourselves how the decisions we are making today will affect Canadians in the future. If we are being honest with ourselves, how would we answer that question?
Some may say that hypothetical questions are irrelevant and that we need to focus on the now, since we are in the middle of a pandemic. I would like to take these people back to the same period last year.
One year ago, we had a health minister who told us that border closures would not work, and that travel restrictions would not only not work, but also could actually be harmful. We were told that they could stigmatize others. On that same note, we were also told that wearing masks was not recommended, as they would provide a false sense of security and should be avoided.
Now we all know how those polices turned out. I am not looking to belittle the government or government members. I am simply looking to point out how spectacularly wrong this advice was. How and why does this matter in the bill that we are debating today? It is because we have to accept that we have new and more deadly variants of this virus and that we are well behind in the vaccination fight against the original variant.
We may be in this fight for much longer than any of us would have ever anticipated or want to be. Obviously, we all have to hope and work hard to ensure that that is not the case. At the same time, we have to be prepared. That brings me back to part 7 of this bill, which fiscally proposes unprecedented borrowing to continue the firehose-like spending.
I would like to believe that most of us, even if it is not all of us, understand that the federal government cannot keep spending at the same rate as it has been. These expenditures are not sustainable in the long term. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said so, as did other leading economists.
Obviously, the government is very much hoping that this record spending will help us get through the pandemic. However, at some point, we will have to step back and ask ourselves whether the rate of spending is commensurate with how long we can actually fight the pandemic.
That brings me to my next question. Do we want these issues to be asked, debated and examined by Parliament or do we want to continue to allow the Liberal government to sign blank cheques and trust it to spend money in secret, just as it has been doing so far?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
We have an official opposition, and a third and a fourth party for a reason. It is to hold the government to account and now, more than ever, we need to do that job. I am hopeful that other members of this House will see the benefits of splitting part 7 from this bill and will agree.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I heard a number of Conservatives over the last week and a half go on about how we were told back in the day to not wear masks as it was not important versus where we are today. It goes without saying that the entire world learned and adapted to what it came to understand and know about the virus and the way it spread.
Yes, in the beginning we were saying just washing our hands should be enough. As the world started to understand more and more about this virus, it changed and adapted behaviours and recommendations. I cannot understand why the Conservatives are continuing to critique advice given a year ago versus the advice we have now based on the information we have come to know.
For example, I am wearing this mask, and I do even when I speak. I realize that when I speak, the particles in my mouth might go further than two metres and there is a desk full of people sitting right in front of me. We adapt, we learn and we change our behaviours as we move along.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I support health measures based on science. The point of my speech was that some of the assumptions the government made decisions on a year ago based on expert advice did not turn out to be true. If people came to me and said that they were going to do a two-day trek across the desert but were told by someone they only needed a certain amount of water and they would be just fine, I would tell them that it is always best to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
Unfortunately, if members on the Liberals side will not question the government, then it remains up to the official opposition. As I said, there are various viewpoints from the NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and independents. However, in this case, as a member of the official opposition, I am asking for a particular section of the bill to be cut out so we can debate it more intensely.
We should not be making such large-scale decisions in such a limited amount of time. Every time we have done that, it has turned out badly for every—
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the member raised the topic the member for Calgary Nose Hill raised about when and if vaccinated individuals could travel and what loosened restrictions there might be for such individuals. I do not have the answer to that, but I am going to go out on a limb and say the government is going to make its decisions on that based on advice from medical professionals, including our chief medical officer of health, rather than from MPs giving their personal opinions on the floor of the House of Commons.
Would the member agree that the best people to advise the government on making those decisions would be the public health officials who are spearheading us through this pandemic?
View Eric Melillo Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Melillo Profile
2021-02-02 13:52 [p.3898]
Mr. Speaker, of course we know that public health officials and the experts have to be the ones guiding these decisions. However, to my colleague's point, I would say that the lack of transparency by the government about what it is hearing from public health officials has caused a lot of frustration. There have been a lot of mixed messages, and I believe, in many instances, the Liberals have allowed their own political rhetoric to get in the way of some of the information from public health officials.
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-02-02 14:27 [p.3904]
Mr. Speaker, a recent report indicates that 65% of greater Toronto area workers are essential. In fact, Dr. Naheed Dosani indicates that those workers who get COVID-19 are “working in close [proximity]” and with “inadequate access to paid sick leave”. This is very clear. Paid sick leave will help us stop the spread of COVID-19 and will ensure that we save lives.
The Prime Minister says the job is done, and that it is already good enough, but the existing program has problems. Will the Prime Minister commit to fixing paid sick leave so it covers all the workers who need it?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-02-02 14:28 [p.3905]
Mr. Speaker, we brought in paid sick leave for Canadians who are not covered by their jobs because we know that, during this pandemic, people need to be able to make the choice to stay home if they start exhibiting symptoms and know that they can still put food on the table for their families. That is why we moved forward with federal sick leave. It is also why we are so happy to see many provinces step up to improve the system and to adjust it so it is right for their province.
We will continue to work hand in hand with the provinces on delivering for Canadians right across the country, because protecting our most vulnerable workers is part of the way to not just to keep up safe, but to make sure we recover well.
Results: 121 - 135 of 559 | Page: 9 of 38

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

For more data options, please see Open Data