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 5403
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's really nice to see all of my colleagues on the HUMA committee. My first questions are for Ms. McGee.
During this unprecedented time in history, as we've seen in other unprecedented times in history, critical social programs that have been created have collectively benefited all Canadians. There was, for example, employment insurance. I believe that now is a time in history when we have a chance to restructure our economy in a way that is more just and equitable for all. I recently introduced motion 46 in support of a guaranteed livable basic income that would be in addition to all current and future government and social programs, including accessible affordable social housing. How do you think a guaranteed annual livable income in Canada could help realize our international legal obligations to ensure the human right to housing?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much. I completely agree with you and I think, knowing that we could be in this for two or three more years, we need an urgent response to ensure that we can keep people out of poverty. That being said, can you speak about the critical importance of ending homelessness and ensuring adequate housing for all within the government's COVID-19 response strategy? I know that in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, which is the third-poorest in the country, we now have families going into shelters because we just don't have enough houses even for families, and that means kids becoming homeless and living on the street. That's another reason to speak to the importance of guaranteed livable basic income. How, going forward, is this going to be critical in the emergency response to COVID-19?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Yes. I totally agree.
I have one last question for you. Do you believe the national housing strategy should be revised or revisited to consider the increased vulnerability and housing insecurity facing Canadians as a result of COVID-19? I think you've spoken to a lot of that. My concern is that we have a homeless crisis, certainly in Winnipeg Centre, that I believe will grow rapidly. How should the response change as the situation rapidly changes?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My questions are for Madame Corriveau. I apologize that I will have to ask them in English. I am taking French classes, though so maybe the next time I can ask in French.
I really appreciated your comments on the need to invest not just in affordable housing but also in affordable social housing. There's a huge difference between the two. I want to speak more specifically about persons with disabilities who have been, in my opinion, completely disregarded during the pandemic, including in terms of our having a real housing strategy with real investments and affordable, accessible social housing. I'm wondering if you could speak more to that.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Just to expand on that, would you say it's important for the government to collect data? I know we talked about it for black and indigenous peoples. For persons with disabilities, there seems to be a real gap in data collection.
Can you expand on that, please?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Madame Corriveau, I have just one last question in that regard. Would you say that the failure to collect data further marginalizes disabled persons from accessing their human right to housing?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
I have one last question on the national action plan.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Sorry. I had myriad questions.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
This was something unexpected. I think we're being overly prescriptive here. The idea was that we were endorsing the notion of re-engagement of the Sino-Tibetan dialogue in general terms. Wouldn't it be better here to not get too detailed and in fact just talk about representatives of the Tibetan people and the government of the People's Republic of China?
I would prefer that, because we're getting a bit specific. We're kind of unprepared for this detail, given the fact that we've had only one witness and the debate we had the other day was partly about this issue and the fact that we're happy to endorse the dialogue between the Tibetan people and the People's Republic. By getting very specific, I think we may be going beyond what we have evidence for. I'm inclined to keep it general and not go into this kind of detail.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Chair.
I listened to what Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Virani said, and I think that is correct.
Given the difficulties we're having—I want to echo what Mr. Bergeron just said—the exact wording is not clear because it's not before us.
I heard Mr. Virani use the words “and/or” to allow the greatest possibility, but I'm not sure that's what is in the motion itself. There are envoys, the CTA or the Dalai Lama. Is that the...? Any combination of those is part of the motion. Is the wording accurate for that? That's the question.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
We've had no debate on that motion as amended, either.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Chair.
I'll be brief because I did express my support for this motion the last time it was raised, with the concern that we hadn't heard from other witnesses on the question of Tibet and that we ought not to be setting a precedent of dealing with questions in a piecemeal way. Therefore, I have my own motion put forward, and I understand there's a consensus on that among committee members, but we'll see.
It's important that we continue with our full study, but this is an important issue for the Tibetan community and the Tibetan people, and I think the fact of the matter is that it's before our committee now, even though somewhat irregularly, and I think we should pass it and give it our full endorsement.
Thank you.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
Thank you, Chair.
I want to speak in support of this motion for none of the reasons that Ms. Alleslev just referred to. In fact, if that were the reason, I wouldn't support it. The government is the government until it isn't.
The reason I'm supporting this, contrary to our normal role of “wait until we get it all, and let's talk about the relationship between Canada and China”, is that there is a sense of urgency to some of the measures that are being proposed, particularly those that would offer assistance to people who are now affected by these changes in the relationship with Hong Kong and between Hong Kong and Beijing. That's the reason for the urgency, in my view.
We should put what we have on the table so that the government can act, and we can try to influence the course of the government's activities while it is the government. That could be for longer than people think or it could be for shorter than people think, but that has nothing to do with my support for this motion. I think we should do it because it is important, but it is an exception to the overall thrust of having a report at the end, which we are all endeavouring to do. This is an exception as a result of the urgency of the matters before us.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I want to emphasize that I consider this an interim report as well, although it's not called that, and it should not preclude us from referencing the situation in Hong Kong in our overall report at the end. We should probably make sure that, in whatever report we do prepare, it's directed at basically the here-and-now situation.
Results: 1 - 15 of 5403 | Page: 1 of 361

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

For more data options, please see Open Data