44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 7, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his comment, which gives me a chance to finish my speech.
The economic statement contains nothing in the way of impactful, innovative measures. At best, it rehashes things we have seen before, such as the FHSA. Worse still, the Government of Quebec has to make up for Canada's lack of vision. This economic statement is just like the government that issued it: weak and ill adapted to the changing economic reality. If Canada does nothing, there is no doubt it will miss the boat.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things I liked about my colleague's speech was her reference to the lack of an industrial strategy in the government's plan.
Does my colleague know that the government wants to spend more and more money, money that apparently grows on trees? That is what we see when we look at the government's spending. Is that a good strategy for Canada's future?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
If I understood correctly, he is asking me what I think about the current government's industrial policy. In fact, it is almost non-existent. As I said, the key or strategic industries are totally ignored, unfortunately. There are plans and promises, but sadly, there is nothing concrete.
I think that, when it comes to investments, we have to do our best with fewer resources. The important thing is to make government spending more efficient.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I think she knows that my riding is home to many seasonal workers. The Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence are very popular tourist areas. During the pandemic, temporary measures were put in place for people who had to stop working for mainly pandemic-related reasons. I have to say that those temporary measures were fairly decent. They could have opened the door to employment insurance reform, but in the end, the government did away with those programs, went back to the old program and thus abandoned all of the workers that did not accumulate a sufficient number of insurable hours.
Does she think that the fall economic update or economic statement would have been the right time to announce something for seasonal workers in the regions of Quebec?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her wonderful question, which gives me an opportunity to talk about a third measure that was conspicuously absent from the economic statement, and that is a major EI reform.
The government is saying that we are entering a recession, so why has it not already reformed the EI system to make seasonal workers eligible? Why has it not helped those who are receiving EI sickness benefits? We need EI reform. It was promsed a long time ago, but the government still has not done anything about it. That was conspicuously absent from the economic statement, the budget and the federal government's policy measures.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the fall economic statement, legislation that has been introduced in this House. New Democrats are supporting it because there are some important measures in the legislation that we think will help Canadians, and I will canvass a few of them.
This legislation would introduce a Canada recovery dividend, under which banks and life insurance groups would pay a temporary, one-time, 15% tax on taxable income above $1 billion over five years.
I should pause and seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this legislation would increase the corporate income tax rates of banks and life insurance groups by 1.5% on taxable income above $100 million. It would eliminate interest on the federal portion of student loans and apprentice loans. Finally, it would enact the framework agreement on the First Nations Land Management Act. All of those are positive steps that are worthy of support in this legislation.
While New Democrats are pleased to see advancement on these measures, we believe there is much more that the fall economic statement should have offered Canadians struggling with the rising cost of living. We know many Canadians are struggling to pay their bills. We also know many corporations are making record profits at the same time. We know inflation is crippling. The price of food, in particular, has skyrocketed across this country. The costs of utilities, insurance and fuels are all up, making it really tough for many Canadians in every corner of this country to make ends meet.
That is why New Democrats would have welcomed a windfall tax, like the one this legislation already applies to banks and life insurers, being expanded to other corporations that are making even higher profits than those sectors are, like food companies, including Loblaws, and like the oil and gas sector. The revenue the government could recoup from applying this tax to big box stores and oil and gas companies alone would total over $4 billion. That is money New Democrats believe would and should be used to help Canadians mitigate the rising costs they are facing, including the cost of heating their homes. New Democrats have long called for the elimination of the GST on home heating in times of struggle like this, particularly as we enter the winter season.
Eliminating the interest on the federal portion of student loans would offer loan holders an average of $4,000 of savings over the lifetime of their loan, and this is important. For years New Democrats have called for the elimination of interest on student debt. We should not be making money off the debt that students are incurring to get an education. Frankly, I have long believed that post-secondary education should be free, at least the first four years, whether it is an apprenticeship, community college or university, whatever it is, so that we encourage and facilitate our younger generation to become more educated. I believe higher-educated societies are more prosperous societies, and it is an investment. Just like public school is free until grade 12, there is no reason we should not extend that to 16 years of public education.
What is not in this legislation is what will have the largest impact on people. It has been estimated that the cost of home heating could go up by as much as 30% in some places in Canada, so eliminating the GST on that would be a simple way to offer Canadians respite in an immediate way.
Food bank usage has drastically increased as the grocery chains that supply Canadian consumers with the food they need to survive are recording profits of $1 million extra a day.
Health care systems across this country are in chaos. There is no new money and no progress after the recent meeting of health ministers for improving health care and ensuring that the federal government increases its share of spending to better approach the fair deal that historically is the underpinning of the Canadian health care system.
The economic policy being used in this legislation is a good start, but it is not broad enough. If we expanded some of these good concepts in a much more broad, targeted and intelligent manner, we could generate billions of dollars that could be used for these very valuable social and economic development programs.
Once again, when we educate our young people, it is not merely good for them. These are people who will generate the ideas, economic activities and professional skills that will generate income into the future, so it is an important economic basis as well.
681 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Certainly, the member for St. Catharines had a lot to say earlier, and we would like to request a quorum call.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 5:43:47 p.m.
- Watch
I will ask the clerk to count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We have a quorum.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just for clarification, in order to have quorum, does it require only one Conservative or more than one Conservative?
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 5:44:43 p.m.
- Watch
On a point of clarification for the hon. parliamentary secretary, as long as there are 20 members in the House, there is quorum, no matter how many from each party.
Again, I want to remind members that we want to get on with the business of the day.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Waterloo.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the member's comments, not only with respect to the different programs and how we can support Canadians, but also on students and student loans.
In the riding of Waterloo, we have three post-secondary institutions, the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga College. All students have been asking for the removal of interest from the federal portion.
I would like to ask the member to perhaps elaborate on the difference between paying back the principal versus charging students a ridiculous amount of interest, which is really stopping them from pursuing their future and having that financial opportunity. I would love to hear some more comments from the member on that issue.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that great question and her concern for students and making sure we facilitate the education of Canadian students.
When I went to university in the 1980s, I and many of my friends came from working-class homes. We could go to university and work part-time jobs. Tuition was low, and we could get an education without going horrendously into debt. That is no longer the case.
I do not see why getting a university, apprenticeship or community college education should cause people to go into debt, when we do not expect that for grades 11 or 12. I think this is a really good start by the government, and I congratulate my colleagues in the Liberal Party for recognizing that we can start by eliminating interest, because we should not be profiting from the debt of students. Then I think we need to take that next step and make sure students do not go into debt at all to get an education.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 5:47:06 p.m.
- Watch
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 5:47:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Thursday, December 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 5:48:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:01 p.m., so we can start Private Members' Business.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 5:48:25 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill S-223, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).
The bill proposes much-needed reforms that would seek to end the illicit trade in organs, a trade that preys upon human suffering and desperation. Organ trafficking is a transnational and global challenge that frequently involves the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable living in under-resourced countries. Generally, wealthier individuals, often from more affluent countries, drive the demand for organs, while the supply of organs usually comes from developing regions.
While there are no known organ trafficking cases where the transplant occurred in Canada, there have been reports of Canadians participating in transplant tourism. This practice involves individuals going abroad to buy organs that are needed for medical reasons but not available in their own countries.
Those from whom the organs are extracted may be coerced, or they may be influenced to agree to organ removal through exploitation of their vulnerabilities. For example, they may be promised a significant monetary reward that would ease financial desperation. These individuals must co-operate in the organ trafficking enterprise, for example, by submitting to compatibility and other types of testing, and preparing for and undergoing surgery. Once the surgery is performed, they are often not provided the promised reward or the care necessary to heal from that ordeal, resulting in long-term complications and even death.
Organ traffickers, those who perform these surgeries, and intermediaries who locate organs for transplant capitalize on the desperation of both the sick and the impoverished. Those from whom organs are extracted are often left uncompensated and in poor health. The Canadian health care system struggles to provide care to those who return home after such surgeries, as health care providers do not have the information necessary to address complications.
Bill S-223 proposes new offences that directly target organ trafficking conduct. Some will note that we already have Criminal Code offences that criminalize organ traffickers. For example, Canada's human trafficking offences apply where traffickers recruit, transport or harbour victims to extract their organs through coercive practices. These offences apply extraterritorially, which means Canada can prosecute Canadians and permanent residents of Canada who engage in trafficking conduct abroad.
The problem is that no offences apply where organs are purchased and coercive practices cannot be proven. In so many of these cases, victims are pressured or influenced to agree to sell their organs, and even where overt forms of coercion are present, the relevant evidence is difficult to obtain, including because it may be located in another country.
In this regard, the proposed offences in Bill S-223 fill a critical gap in the law. Not only does the bill propose new offences that would criminalize facilitating and participating in extracting organs coercively, or obtaining organs in this context, but it also criminalizes facilitating and participating in extracting organs that are purchased or obtained for consideration, as well as obtaining purchased organs.
The bill also extends extraterritorial jurisdiction, which means Canadian citizens and permanent residents can be prosecuted in Canada for engaging in conduct abroad that is prohibited by the bill. This includes those who engage in transplant tourism. The bill also proposes to make foreign nationals and permanent residents who engage in conduct prohibited by the bill's offences inadmissible to Canada for having violated human or international rights, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity under section 35 of the IRPA.
The bill's objectives are consistent with international standards. For example, the World Health Organization has stated that payment for organs is likely to take unfair advantage of the poorest and most vulnerable groups. It undermines altruistic donation and leads to profiteering and human trafficking. Such payment conveys the idea that some persons lack dignity, that they are mere objects to be used by others.
Various World Health Organization documents also directly address organ trafficking, for example, the 2010 guiding principles on human cell, tissue and organ transplantation, and the 2008 declaration of Istanbul on organ trafficking and transplant tourism and commercialization, whose focus is on preventing organ trafficking and transplant tourism. The declaration recommends prohibition of transplant commercialization, a term that is used internationally to refer to treating organs as commodities to be bought and sold.
Bill S-223's reforms would place Canada at the forefront of the international community on the issue of organ trafficking. Very few countries have sought to combat organ trafficking by targeting the demand that fuels this harmful trade. I am very proud of what this bill's legislative history shows: that combatting organ trafficking is an issue all partisans in Canada can support.
Health Canada continues to lead an initiative called the organ donation and transplantation collaborative in order to help increase access to legal and safe organ transplantation. The collaborative's goal is to achieve organ donation improvements that result in better patient outcomes and an increase in the number and quality of successful transplantations.
There are many impressive actions taken by the collaborative to achieve change in this space, including creating a pan-Canadian data system that will support decisions, avoid missed opportunities and improve patient care; identifying decision-making and accountability mechanisms to ensure Canadians have access to an organ donation and transplantation system that responds to their needs and those of their families; maximizing donor identification in hospitals and referrals to transplantation services across Canada; identifying underserved populations and improving patients' access to post-transplantation care in remote communities; increasing living donation as a preferred treatment option for kidneys and the liver, for example; and supporting health care professionals through professional education.
These efforts, together with Bill S-223, will make Canada a world leader in responding to organ trafficking. While many like-minded countries regulate the transplantation of human organs and prohibit organ trafficking in the same way Canada currently does, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, few countries have criminalized purchasing organs, including transplant tourism.
The government supports the Criminal Code reforms proposed by this bill and will continue to work toward bringing them into force. We are committed to ensuring the bill's reforms support their objective of ending organ trafficking in all its forms, including the commercialization of human body parts, and the harm it causes to those impacted and to all of society.
1070 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
