SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 151

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2023 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 151 - Feb/1/23
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Feb/1/23 4:24:22 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
11 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 151 - Feb/1/23
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Feb/1/23 4:24:35 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
18 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 151 - Feb/1/23
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Feb/1/23 5:35:37 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-22 
Mr. Speaker, looking at the legislation we have before us, it is important to recognize that, whether today or during the pandemic, the government has recognized and supported our disability communities. The minister and the parliamentary secretary made reference to the numbers and the impact it would have on millions of people. This is indeed progressive legislation, and it sets a framework to ensure that people with disabilities are provided with support. Realizing that there is some ongoing work required to complete or complement the legislation, would the member not agree that this is a positive step forward? This is why we expect the legislation will pass, hopefully with support from all parties of the House.
116 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 151 - Feb/1/23
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Feb/1/23 5:52:10 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-22 
Mr. Speaker, one thing is important for us to recognize. The member made reference to it, and I believe it is really important: The types of disabilities vary, obviously, with a very wide spectrum, and we need to acknowledge that in every aspect of our society, people with disabilities contribute in every way. When we talk about supporting people with disabilities, we should not in any way whatsoever infer that they are not contributing in a very wholesome way to Canadian society. What we are talking about is ensuring there is a basic level of support coming from the national government for people with disabilities. I remind members that we should recognize the immense contributions people with disabilities make. A disability does not mean they are not capable of doing anything that any of us would be capable of doing, in many ways.
143 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 151 - Feb/1/23
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Feb/1/23 6:09:01 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-22 
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that genuine supports would be going out. We saw it during the pandemic, where the government came forward with one-time payments for people with disabilities. This legislation demonstrates a clear commitment to continue to provide supports. One of the issues raised when we talk about federal supports going to people with disabilities is the issue of the potential threat of clawbacks at different levels of government. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on ideas for potential safeguards or on issues related to the potential of other types of clawbacks from other jurisdictions taking place. Is there anything she would like to say on that particular point?
118 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 151 - Feb/1/23
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the member would likely find individuals in every provincial or territorial jurisdiction who would make similar arguments. Many of them might actually be separatists in their own jurisdiction. The issue I have is this. Canada is a nation with 10 provinces and three territories. Would the Bloc be advocating that Canada should just dismantle CRA and have all provinces operate on their own? It seems to me that the Bloc has an approach to take anything that would minimize the federal government's role, in essence, any resources we get, just to be that ATM. Things like OAS and many other programs that the federal government provides, I think, are really important. Would he not agree that, for example, if one is a senior in Quebec or a senior in B.C., Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada, one should be entitled to the OAS? The federal government is, indeed, in a good position to administer many programs.
163 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 151 - Feb/1/23
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, I will continue along the line of what the member said was the truth. We heard a sense of the truth from the member when he indicated that really what this is about is separating from Canada. That is what seems to be the primary motivation for Bloc members in making their presentation, if we listened to what the member was suggesting. I would like to hear the logistical arguments on why it would be in Canada's best interest as a nation to do what the Bloc is proposing without a separatist bias. Every province and territory has separatists who live in them. However, if we listened to what the member was articulating, it was not about the logic behind the bill. Are we to say that every separatist in every province is saying they should have their own taxation, or that they should forget about OAS and they want their own OAS program? I suspect the separatists inside this chamber would say they do not want a national OAS program. I beg to differ. I would suggest that with the OAS supplements, GIS and many other programs that are out there, all Canadians in every region of our country benefit from them. The Bloc has failed to demonstrate why it is in Canada's best interest, including the province of Quebec, and why there is an argument to be made for a single system that is solely based on the province of Quebec versus Canada. I believe the Liberal caucus is open to the arguments, but not with the bias that I heard demonstrated by the former speaker who last addressed the chamber. I believe in the distinct nature and uniqueness of the province of Quebec, and I think there is a great deal of sympathy in terms of how we can recognize that in many different forms. However, in no way was that demonstrated in the debate on the introduction of the bill, particularly by the Bloc member who spoke previously. I suggest that the bill, before going to committee, needs to be looked at again. At the end of the day, I am somewhat concerned about how the Conservative Party is placing itself on this legislation. I hope it is not an appeal to garner support from the Bloc side. I think we need to take a look at Canada and the services it provides. If there are better ways we can provide those services, then we should look at those. However, it does not mean that we start taking apart Canada, whether it is separatists in one province or another, which is their ultimate goal and the purpose of the legislation as it was implied in the previous speaker's comments.
458 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border