44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 29, 2023 02:00PM
- Mar/29/23 3:18:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday just before we adjourned, you made it very clear to the House that we are only supposed to address people by their riding or their title. However, yet again today we have seen, and in particular from the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, the use of names. I am not going to repeat it. Basically, he did not use the minister's real title, but rather a fictitious title he decided to make up.
I wonder if you could once again remind the House of this very important rule and perhaps even ask the member to apologize.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 4:06:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of residents of my community. It states that whereas every Canadian has a right to a safe and affordable place to call home, whereas the Canadian government legislated the recognition of housing as a human right—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: It is the first time I am being heckled during a petition.
Whereas the Canadian government—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 4:07:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I recognize this is very complimentary of the government, so I understand why the Conservatives would heckle.
Whereas the Canadian government has launched its first-ever national housing strategy, with more than $72 billion invested, and whereas budget 2022 earmarked a historic $14-billion investment to double the construction of new housing in this decade, the undersigned residents of Kingston and the Islands call upon the Government of Canada to continue investing in affordable housing and improve housing outcomes for all Canadians.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 4:52:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see that the Conservatives know how to jump up and clap. After they were heckled by the President of the United States last week, I was starting to get worried they did not know how to stand up for anything.
In any event, it should not be a surprise to anybody that the Conservatives are against this budget. Yesterday during question period, the Leader of the Opposition's deputy told us she was not voting for it even before she had seen anything in it.
I want to talk about two specific items in the budget that the Conservatives are choosing to vote against.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke at great length about his lack of interest in green technology and green programs in the budget to help grow an electrical grid that is completely green. I hope he knows that the one riding represented in this room, out of the 338 of them, to benefit most from that is my neighbouring riding and that of his seatmate, Hastings—Lennox and Addington. That riding would benefit the most from this program given the announcement of a $1.5-billion investment by Umicore to set up the largest battery manufacturing plant in North America in that riding.
In addition to that, there are the endless continued supports in the budget for Ukraine. It is the prerogative of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who stands up for Ukrainians repeatedly, to vote against it, but those are two incredibly good measures that would benefit Canadians and our allies around the world.
269 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 4:54:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just for the record, it is “questions and comments”. Is that right? I do not have to ask a question, do I?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to this bill. I really do appreciate the comments from the member for Elmwood—Transcona prior to me in regard to the manner in which Conservatives often refer to employment insurance as a payroll tax. It is not a payroll tax. It is a program that is funded by both the employer and the employee, and it is a program that is used as an insurance mechanism to take care of individuals when they reach a point in their working career when they need to access that employment insurance. It is a critical program, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.
I would remind the House that this is not the first time this bill has come forward. This bill came forward in another form previously. I believe it was Bill C-265. Unfortunately, at the stage after debate on the bill in its previous form, it ended up not being able to proceed because it did not have the royal recommendation required in order to proceed.
Members might know that royal recommendation is required for any private member's bill in Private Members' Business that comes forward that is expending money on behalf of the government. One cannot do that within a private member's bill. It requires a royal recommendation from cabinet in order to proceed. The reality is that very few bills that come from Private Members' Business actually get that royal recommendation.
As a matter of fact, early in my time in this House, in 2016, I brought in a bill related to employment insurance as well, which required royal recommendation. It did not get that royal recommendation. I was not able to convince the government to do that, even as a member of the governing party. Luckily, I was able to allow it to continue to pass at various stages with the assistance of all the opposition parties and the majority of the backbench on our caucus, but the reality is that one will eventually get to a point where one cannot proceed any further.
I think it is important to do that. If it was not done, then every single bill that came forward would be a bill authorizing the government to spend money, and one cannot do that through Private Members' Business.
The only difference, in my understanding, between this bill and the previous version is that it has added two more weeks to it. The previous version talked about 50 weeks of employment insurance, and this one talks about 52 weeks.
I find it unfortunate that the sponsor of this bill, despite the fact that it is a well-intentioned, well-meaning bill that warrants serious consideration, is doing the same thing that was previously done. Ultimately, when tabling this bill, the sponsor must have known the outcome of it and how the Speaker ruled on it the first time.
I understand that there was also, if I recall correctly, an opposition day motion from the Bloc Québécois on the exact same issue. We have seen the issue come forward several times, and we have ended up in the exact same place every time.
Having said that, I think it does warrant real consideration. As we modernize our employment insurance system, we should be looking at opportunities where we can improve. I think it is worth pointing out that we have, as a government, improved those EI benefits, for starters, on maternity leave. This is something I was targeting in my private member's bill.
It used to be that the only people in the skilled trades were men, but now we are seeing more women enter the trades. The reality is that if a woman is a welder, for example, as in the case that inspired my bill, and if she were to become pregnant, she would not have the ability to take leave and still get paid, still have that income.
If a woman is pregnant, she is not sick, but she might still have barriers to work. The employer that Melody had was a very reputable company in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, but it was just not large enough to sustain a full-time employee who was off on leave. She looked for ways to use EI, but she was unsuccessful in doing that. At the time, I was able to convince the government through the issue. Even though it would not give royal recommendation, it did agree to extend the number of weeks so that if an individual was in the same circumstance as Melody in my riding, EI benefits would apply long enough for her to get to full term with her pregnancy.
That is just one way that we have expanded the EI sickness benefits, extending it from 15 to 26 weeks, to fulfill our 2019 platform commitment. We know that this extension will benefit approximately 169,000 Canadians every year. It is part of our long-term plan for EI modernization, and I believe that together, we will continue to build an inclusive, flexible EI system that all Canadians will benefit from, particularly those who need to access it, for years to come.
I admire the resiliency of those who keep bringing this issue forward. It is unfortunate that the government will not be able to support it given the fact that it requires royal recommendation. I should not even phrase it like that. It is unfortunate that it will not even get to the place where we can have another vote on it. Since the precedent has been set for the exact same bill, the Speaker will most likely turn it down based on the requirement for royal recommendation. However, as I have previously indicated, royal recommendation is very seldom, if ever, given to private members' legislation. Nobody knows that better than I do. I brought forward a bill on EI specifically in the very early years of my time here, the first year in which royal recommendation was required. Given that fact, my bill was not able to continue down the necessary path.
I encourage members to continue to talk to the ministers responsible about this issue and see if we can move in a direction that helps to modernize EI. We know that the labour force is changing. I only gave one small example, that of more women working in trades and the different requirements they might have when it comes to taking time off as a result of becoming pregnant, in the example of my bill. We need to continue to modernize our employment insurance system, and input from all members is very important in that regard. Therefore, I encourage those who are passionate about this issue, as I am, to continue speaking about it.
1148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
