44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/20/22 10:10:15 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 87 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/22 10:54:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, when members stand up on a petition, they are supposed to be capturing the essence of the petition itself and not necessarily endorsing the petition. The member stood in his place saying, “I am standing with”, implying that he is fully endorsing the petition. That is something members know they are not supposed to do.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/22 11:01:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 568, 570, 571, 576 to 578, 580 to 584, 587, 590 to 592, 594, 596, 599, 601, 603, 606, 608, 612, 613, 616, 617, 619, 620, 622, 626, 627, 629, 631, 634, 638, 641, 642, 644, 646, 647, 651, 658, 663, 668, 670, 684 to 687, 690, 695, 701, 704, 708 to 710, 713, 715, 717, 720, 726, 728, 733, 734, 739, 740, 742, 745, 751, 753 to 755 and 759.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and Liberal members have been very clear. We want an economy that works for all Canadians, and Bill C-22 speaks to that. It would ensure that we give more disposable income to people with disabilities.
The minister talked about how there is a disconnect in the issue of poverty for a person with a disability who is turning 65. The member opposite seems to want to mock the bill by challenging whether it will take effect. The Conservative Party of Canada can recognize what the government has been talking about: enabling Canadians to be actively engaged in the economy as full participants. Let us fight poverty.
Will the member be clear in her indication of support for the bill and its quick passage?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have before us is, in fact, of great benefit for individuals who receive a disability benefit. I am encouraged to hear that the Conservatives, as of late, seem to want to support the legislation.
What really intrigued me was when the member made reference to CPP as a tax. CPP is, in many ways, a source of income for Canadians who are going to retire in future. Yes, CPP premiums are going to be going up, which will allow for those workers in the future, when they retire, to retire with more disposable income.
Can the member be clear about whether he supports CPP increases, or does he believe that it is purely a tax? It actually is to ensure that seniors, when they retire, will have more disposable income.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to such an important piece of legislation, which the minister brought forward today. I know it will disappoint many members opposite, but I will be sharing my time.
Let me get back to the point. Whether it is the Prime Minister or members of the Liberal caucus, we can often be heard talking about an economy that would work for all Canadians. That is a central theme in the Liberal caucus. We understand and appreciate the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. Recognizing that the true value of having a strong and healthy middle class would give us a healthier economy and a better society.
When we talk about an economy that works for all Canadians, it is important. That is the reason I am so glad that the first piece of legislation on our return is Bill C-22. Bill C-22 would ensure that there is a larger disposable income for those individuals with disabilities. This is something truly unique happening here in Canada. We are recognizing that the national government plays a significant role in ensuring that people with disabilities would receive money coming from the government.
I hear many of the comments from opposition members talking about wanting more details. This legislation would establish the framework, and no doubt there would be interesting discussions taking place in the standing committees. However, we need to realize that, when we establish a national program, and we speak from experience because we have developed other national programs, we need to work with different provinces and stakeholders. Not every province is the same. Provinces and territories have different structures in place.
As a government, the last thing we want to see is a payment going out, and then a province clawing back that money from a person with a disability. There are agreements that have to be achieved. There are negotiations and discussions that have to take place.
In Manitoba, for example, there is an income support program for people with disabilities. We are talking about something that is relatively new that started just in the last year. It has been talked about for a while. I am an optimist. I am hoping that Premier Heather Stefanson will work with our minister, and maybe Manitoba and the Government of Canada could come up with an agreement that could ultimately see people with disabilities in Manitoba further ahead in regard to disposable income.
As the minister herself indicated in introducing the legislation, this legislation would potentially lift tens of thousands of people out of poverty. Our track record shows that lifting people out of poverty is something we have experience in as a government. It is one of the things that differentiates us from the Conservative Party. Whether it was the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted tens of thousands of people out of poverty, including hundreds in Winnipeg North alone, or the Canada child benefit, which lifted tens of thousands of people out of poverty, including again hundreds, if not thousands, in Winnipeg North alone, this particular legislation—
528 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my feelings are not hurt. Members can continue their idle chatter.
From my perspective, we continue to provide policy and budgetary measures that are, in a real and tangible way, lifting people out of poverty. Bill C-22 would do just that. It is legislation that all of us should be supporting and sending it to committee.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, just prior to question period, I talked about what the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus talk a great deal about, and that is moving forward, as we have in the past, and putting an emphasis on Canada's middle class, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that we have an economy that is working for all Canadians. That is something we take very seriously.
When we take a look at Bill C-22 and we get an understanding of the real purpose behind it, the principle, as I see it, is to ensure that all Canadians have a better, more equal opportunity to participate. This legislation would enhance the disposable income for literally tens of thousands of people with disabilities from coast to coast to coast.
Members should not be surprised at the progressive nature of this legislation. As a government we have demonstrated, virtually from 2015, that we are committed to supporting Canadians who need that additional support. I can recall when we first talked, in 2015, about increasing the GIS for the poorest of all seniors. I made reference before question period to the hundreds of individuals in Winnipeg North who were lifted out of poverty as a direct result of the increase to the GIS. Earlier I made reference to the hundreds of kids in Winnipeg North who were lifted out of poverty because of changes and enhancements we made, and because we brought in the Canada child benefit program.
Once again, we are seeing another progressive piece of legislation that will lift tens of thousands of people with disabilities out of poverty. This is the type of government that has made a difference in a very real and tangible way, ensuring that the disposable income of people in many different areas, in all different regions of our country, would be increased. That makes our economy healthier. It will increase and improve the quality of life for people who need it in a very real and tangible way.
The legislation itself will set the framework for a national program. Part of that program means that we have to work with the different provincial entities out there. Depending on the province, we could find a patchwork of sorts. There may be disability credits in some areas, possibly. There may be support programs in other areas. As the minister indicated when introducing the bill, we want to make sure that the money we are giving to people with disabilities today is not going to be clawed back in other types of provincial or territorial supports. This should be top-off money.
That is something that would require a great deal of effort, an effort we have demonstrated to Canadians we can be very successful in. One need only take a look at the child care program, the first-ever national child care program, on which we were able to achieve agreements with all of the provinces and territories. It is that same sort of worth ethic, working with Canadians and working with other jurisdictions, that will enable us to create the first-ever national disability program, arguably what could be the first such national program in the world.
This is a wonderful opportunity for members to be very clear in supporting the legislation. Let us see this bill go to committee, come back and ultimately become law.
562 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the legislation establishes the framework. There are budgetary measures, no doubt, and discussions that will have taken place between the different departments. However, one of the things that needs to be highlighted is the fact that there are so many variances from coast to coast to coast because of other provincial and territorial programs, and that at the end of the day we are going to have these negotiations to ensure that there is a sense of equity and fairness, no matter where people live in Canada. The ultimate goal is lifting people who have disabilities out of poverty. This legislation is a great step, a historic step forward in that direction.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not believe that one can provide the kinds of details that members of the opposition have been requesting in the last number of hours for this legislation. They will come in the form of regulations and in the form of negotiations between the provinces. What is important here is that every member of the House of Commons, whether from the Bloc, Conservative, NDP or Green, should be recognizing the principle of this bill by supporting and voting in favour of the legislation. By doing that, they are sending a very powerful message to all Canadians in all regions of this country that the desire of the House of Commons is to financially support people with disabilities in Canada. That is what this legislation would do, and we can all take great pride in supporting it.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will, in fact, review the member's bill. However, it is important to recognize that in Manitoba we have actually seen some movement from the province toward an income support program for people with disabilities. This is why I say it is so critically important. It is an opportune time to start looking at what other provinces have and to look for willing provinces with whom to sit down and try to negotiate.
I would like to say that Manitoba could potentially be the first province to have an agreement dealing with this legislation and some of the measures that the Province of Manitoba is taking. Hopefully all provinces and territories will be able to come on board, and that is why it is so critically important and why this legislation is timely. Let us get the job done by seeing it ultimately pass through the House.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear members of the Conservative Party stand in their place and say they will be supporting the legislation.
What I have witnessed in listening to the debate, just as the member has in listening to the debate, is there are concerns with regard to the depth and the details, or lack thereof. That is being implied by the opposition parties. I have indicated that it is in fact a framework. The minister responsible for the legislation indicated that she is open to thoughts and ideas with regard to improving it.
Based on the member's comments, is it safe to assume that the Conservative Party will be bringing forward amendments, and one specifically to ensure there would be annual cost-of-living increases in the program? Is that what the member is advocating for?
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first I must say that I disagree with the member's conclusions on economic policies with respect to inflation. To imply that provinces and even municipalities do not play a role in inflation is just outright wrong. They do, in fact, have an impact. One only need look at provincial variances, even within provinces. The member used the example of housing. That is something I would expand upon, but it is not what my question is about.
My question is about the legislation. Everyone in this chamber supports Bill C-22. That has been very clear. Yes, there are some issues surrounding the details within the legislation, but there seems to be a general feeling that those issues could be dealt at the standing committee. My friend knows how busy the chamber can get and how limited the time is here, whether it is because of the GST tax credit legislation that will be coming up, opposition days or the dental care legislation. We have a good opportunity to try to pass this legislation so that it at least goes to committee, and then we can have all sorts of debate come third reading.
Would the member not agree, given that everyone seems to be supporting the legislation, that it would be in the best interests of Canadians and people with disabilities to see the legislation go to committee? It seems to me that the principle of the legislation is universally accepted and supported in the House, so why not get it to committee?
256 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I asked the previous Conservative speaker about the possibility of recognizing the fact that there seems to be universal support. All political entities inside the House are supporting Bill C-22. When we talk about the principle of the legislation, it seems that everyone will be voting in favour of it.
In a legislative agenda, things get fairly busy, whether it is the GST, the dental plan or opposition days. Here we have a wonderful opportunity to try to pass the legislation, given that everyone is in favour of the principle of it.
Why would we not allow it to go to committee, where it could be thoroughly discussed in detail to look at possible amendments, and then maybe have a greater debate at third reading?
Would she support and would the Bloc support its quick passage?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things the member really emphasizes from my perspective is just how important it is that, as a government, we continue to work with the stakeholders and in particular our provinces. Today, it is a patchwork in terms of support. People with disabilities do not know what type of support they are getting. At the end of the day, we have one system in one area of the country and another in a different region of the country.
One of the objectives of bringing in a truly national program is not only to lift many people with disabilities out of poverty but also to, as much as possible, ensure that there is a sense of fairness and equity. Could my colleague provide her thoughts in regard to the role that Ottawa has to play in working with the provinces to ensure that there is that sense of equity and support for people with disabilities?
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for many of my constituents over the years who have required that super visa, one of the obligations, in fact, has been the insurance. As much as the member likes to talk about his initiative, I think we will find that there are members on all sides of the House, myself included, who have been arguing that the insurance cost was very prohibitive in terms of allowing and facilitating more parents and grandparents to come to Canada. There has been a strong advocacy on this area that predates the last summer.
I was quite pleased that we finally had a ministry that had looked at and investigated the situation, done its homework and recognized the value of opening it up to foreign insurance companies.
Does the member believe that there is any sort of due diligence required by the federal government to ensure the credibility of some of these foreign insurance companies?
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an issue I am quite familiar with. In fact, I can go back a number of years to the days I was the critic for immigration and a number of actions were taken by Stephen Harper.
Within the Liberal Party, we have always recognized the true value of parents and grandparents, even when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and he literally cancelled the sponsorship of parents and grandparents. He shut the door to Canada for parents and grandparents. Then he established a program to try to compensate by saying that we were now going to have a super visa.
Some of the concerns that the member has made reference to are concerns I raised many years ago, even when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. The Conservatives did not do anything regarding it. Yes, they eventually opened the program for sponsorship, but it was this government, back in 2015, that not only recognized it but showed it in our actions by more than doubling the number of sponsorships coming into Canada. We continue to increase the number of sponsorships.
The demand for parents and grandparents continues to increase. We in the Liberal caucus are very much aware of that. We have caucus groups that have dialogue and try to come up with alternatives, ideas and policy changes that would have a positive impact on immigration.
We have seen a record number of changes in immigration over the last number of years, with dramatic increases in a whole spectrum of streams. We have seen new, unique streams created, such as for Ukraine immigrants coming to Canada, and for Afghanistan, Syria and the many other streams that are there year in, year out. What about the provincial nominee program? We have all of these changes, and the numbers are very impressive as we continue to land a record number of immigrants coming here.
We as a caucus, and many of my colleagues who have spent so much time on the immigration file, understand the true value of the super visa. That is why there was a great deal of advocacy, and we were all pleased when the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship came out before the summer to announce some of the changes that many of us wanted to see.
We understand the role that parents and grandparents play today and yesterday in our communities. They support society in many different ways, whether it is by being that foundational rock within homes or supporting young families who are growing.
We understand that many seniors are like uncles. I say that as something I am greatly proud of in terms of how communities identify with families and associate the word “uncle” with someone who might be a bit older and continues to contribute. This is not only for families, but they are often there to support small businesses in our community. I know this because I see it every day.
The idea of the super visa is a good idea. There were some issues, and the minister brought forward some changes to two of the biggest ones.
I have always been concerned about the cost of insurance. If a person wants their mom or dad to come to Canada, they have to pay the insurance. Keep in mind that we may have 30,000 applicants coming in. We may have over 100,000 who want to come in and be sponsored. That is why the super visa is such a good idea. It enables more families to be reunited.
As a government, measures were taken to enhance the support of this particular program, one of which was to extend the number of years someone could stay in Canada without having to leave. Initially, that was at two years. In essence, a parent used to get a 10-year multiple entry visa to come to Canada for a visit, but they had to leave within two years. That has been extended. It is a very strong positive.
This other issue has really bothered me because it affects, in my opinion, a number of people who would be able to come to Canada. I encourage constituents, where they can, to be reunited with their parents. I know I am not alone among my caucus colleagues in this. As I said, if there is one issue that gets a great deal of debate, whether in caucus, a side room or in the mini caucus on immigration, it is the issue of immigration.
The cost of insurance is an issue. Opening it up to say that we are going to have foreign insurance companies participate in this process will, I genuinely believe, make it more affordable. That is something we will all benefit by. I do believe, given the work load that immigration and citizenship has had over the last number of years, that it has accomplished a great deal. Yes, maybe I too would have maybe liked to have seen this earlier, but we have it now. That is a good thing.
The member made reference to the low-income cut-off. The low-income cut-off is an issue that goes beyond just a super visa. If the member, for example, was to have introduced a motion or a bill that had the standing committee on immigration taking a look at the principles of the low-income cut-off, not only on the super visa, but also on other aspects of immigration, I think it would be something worthy of our taking a serious look at the standing committee on immigration.
I used to be on that standing committee. In fact, if I were on that standing committee today, it would likely be one of the recommendations I would support bringing forward, having a study that could assist policy-makers and members of Parliament on all sides of the House to be engaged in.
The issue of visitor visas is of critical importance to Canada as a nation. We get millions of people who come here every year. I do not know how many for the last year or so, but I do know that at one point it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 26 million people internationally who had entered Canada.
An hon. member: That is not a lot.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, that is a lot, contrary to what the member may be trying to imply.
Many of those people who visit Canada come here because they want to visit family. They are international visitors from countries such as India, the Philippines, Pakistan and many other countries around the world where a visa is required. I write letters of support. Prepandemic, it was likely hundreds every month. I think we are getting close to that same number today. It is coming back.
The number of people who want to come to Canada is high. I believe we will continue to look at ways in which we can enhance that to make sure that those who want to come to Canada, and where we are confident that they meet the basic criteria, are able to come to Canada. That is what I know my colleagues within the Liberal caucus want to see. We constantly advocate for it.
Nothing frustrates me more as a parliamentarian than when I get some of these visas that were rejected when someone wanted to come for a funeral, a graduation or a special family event. What that tells me is that we need to continue to push and work on this file, as I know many, if not virtually all, of my caucus colleagues want to do. We recognize the importance of families. We recognize the importance that visitors have on our economy and our society as a whole.
1300 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/22 7:14:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I disagree entirely with the member's comments. With respect to that destructive force, he underestimates the part his own political party has played.
When he talks about institutions, one of the greatest institutions we have is Elections Canada, for example, and the way in which, in an apolitical fashion, it has attempted to engage Canadians in the democratic process. The Conservative Party undermined some of the issues dealing with Elections Canada in the sense of a fair election.
When the member talks about the institution of Parliament, he claims that the NDP and Liberals working together undermines a sense of accountability. The party inside the House where I see the most resistance to modernizing the House of Commons is the Conservative Party of Canada. There are many things we can do by changing our Standing Orders to enable additional accountability. However, the Conservative Party consistently does nothing to see the modernization of parliamentary rules.
During the pandemic, the member was critical because we had an extended period of time. What he does not make reference to is the opportunity we had to sit for the first time in a long time during the summer, in the month of July. During the time we sat, we had the opportunity for additional accountability, where members of the opposition were able to hold ministers to account, not just in one question and answer and then on to the next MP, but in a series of questions based on time, where we could see 10 second or one and a half minute questions.
There have been opportunities for us to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability inside the House of Commons, but the real challenge has been to get the Conservative Party to recognize that, to support our institutions and to look at ways in which we can reform the House of Commons and the chamber, whether here or at our standing committees, as opposed to being a destructive force. If they are genuinely concerned about the democratic decline, first and foremost they have to accept some of the responsibility for that.
As I was yesterday, I continue to be very much open to ways in which we can make this chamber more functional because, as I have argued in the past and will continue to argue, we should never take our democracy for granted here in Canada. There are things that we collectively, political partisanship aside, can do to ensure a higher sense of accountability.
The member has concerns with respect to the media, which is a fundamental pillar of democracy. He takes objection to some of the manner in which subsidies are handed out and has said that we should not subsidize. We are very much concerned about fake news and indirectly, not with a political arm, are ensuring that some of our community and rural newspapers, and even those in urban centres, are able to maintain and support a media, which is so—
498 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/22 7:19:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is being very selective in what he is saying. Everything that I indicated in my four-minute response deals exactly with what the member is talking about. In good part, it demonstrates that the Conservatives, the official opposition, also have a role to play but choose to ignore that role.
The member referenced that we took a break. Well, when we took the first break of Parliament back in April 2020, every opposition party agreed to it. The member needs to be consistent. If he genuinely has concerns regarding democratic decline, then let us talk about ways we can improve it. Numerous members, including me, are genuinely interested in changing our Standing Orders and making this chamber more functional. By doing that, we will have more accountability.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/22 7:24:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in so many ways, the member is wrong. We have seen a government, under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, virtually from the very beginning back in 2015, that has taken a very progressive and aggressive attitude both in legislation and in the form of budgetary measures to support housing, in essence bringing forward a national housing strategy, billions of dollars overall.
It is having an impact. I would challenge the member to indicate what government in the last 50 or 60 years has invested more in housing in Canada. I will give some help to the member in terms of the answer: She will not find a government that has invested more than the current government has done over the last six years. We have made significant investments. Let me highlight a few when it comes to the important issue of indigenous people.
In collaboration with ISC and the CMHC, as of December 31, 2021, first nations have been able to support the construction, renovation and retrofitting of 25,102 homes on reserves, of which 17,432 have been completed. To support housing in Inuit and Métis communities, $980 million has been announced by our government since 2016. These investments have been provided to partners, and thousands of Inuit and Métis families are now living in new and renovated homes via strategies led by indigenous partners.
In the 2022 budget, we announced an additional $4 billion in funding for indigenous housing over seven years to accelerate work in closing indigenous housing gaps, including $2.4 billion over five years to support first nation housing on reserves, $845 million over seven years for housing in Inuit communities, $190 million over seven years for housing in Métis communities and $565 million over five years for housing in self-governing and modern treaty first nation communities.
Lastly, through the indigenous homes innovation initiative, we are supporting creative projects led by indigenous people to design and build more effective, sustainable and culturally inspired living spaces, some of which will specifically support indigenous women and girls from other vulnerable populations.
This government has committed and followed through on a wide spectrum of dealings in terms of Canada's housing crisis. I could easily spend the next 20 or 30 minutes just talking about some of those initiatives. We would have to go back many years, if in fact one could find a year, to find a government that has invested more in housing. If one does a comparison with the NDP platform back in 2015, we have out-measured and outdone that platform by a country mile.
This is a government that understands the value of housing to Canadians from coast to coast to coast and continues to work with indigenous leadership to ensure that wherever the federal government can play a role, it is, in fact, playing a role. We understand the importance of reconciliation and the way in which housing plays a critical role in it.
503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
