Scott Duvall

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a need for change. We have been saying this for years and years. One of the things we must recognize is that many employers have given up giving people group insurance for when they are off sick. My constituents in Hamilton Mountain have been asking me for a very long time about the 15 weeks and to make sure that it is extended.

Where did the year come from? That is what it used to be when people used to file for unemployment insurance, but we played so many games with this system we forgot about the people who are off sick. It is not just for cancer. It could be be kidneys, transplants, the whole works. After 15 weeks some people are not well enough to go to work, but all of their income is lost. We have to extend it.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, for the last couple of days, the Liberals have been blaming the Conservatives and the Conservatives have been blaming the Liberals for negotiating the worst agreement.

The investor-state provisions in the original NAFTA were negotiated by the Conservative government. Do the Conservatives not agree that it is a good thing the investor-state provisions that allowed investors to sue our government were scrapped in the new NAFTA, or CUSMA?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns with the agreement when it comes to our sovereignty. Clause 32 states that if we begin negotiations on a trade deal with a non-market economy such as China, we need to have the permission of the U.S. If we do not get that permission, we cannot trade and we get kicked out of CUSMA.

Does Mexico also have to get permission? Do the Americans have to get permission from us? If they do not, why not? Why is that clause in there only for Canada?

[Old Age Security, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are wondering why proposed changes to the OAS benefits will leave behind those aged 65 to 74. Raising benefits for only those over 75 will not fix indexing problems the government promised seniors five years ago. This means living standards for seniors will continue to fall behind other Canadians and the gap will grow faster for those between 65 and 74. Those relying the most on OAS benefits, like single seniors and women, will be hit the hardest.

This is unacceptable. The government is creating two classes of seniors. The increase should be applied to all people over the age of 65.

When the Conservatives raised the retirement age to 67, Canadians rebelled. Has the government found a crafty way to increase the eligibility age, smoothing the waters with a small increase for a limited number of seniors? Every senior in our country deserves a raise.

I ask the Liberals to abandon this proposal and come up with a plan that truly provides retirement security for all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, this is a very terrible story and I think all of us in the House want to find a solution so that this never happens again in an investigation.

One of the things the member mentioned in his speech was that the Conservatives recommended their people, but in 2017, the government was warned. As the CBC notes, two former Parole Board officers warned the government that “changes to the way board members were nominated could lead to inexperienced members making 'dangerous' decisions.”

In Quebec, 14 of 16 members were not reappointed, leading to a lapse in the usual practice of pairing new members with experienced members.

Do you think we should have a review of the process that is actually happening? Maybe we made a mistake. Maybe we should not have so many inexperienced people and should not try to pair them up with experienced ones. At least it is a constructive idea, and I think it is the right idea to make sure we have done the right thing.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Implementation Act, January 31st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I agree there are a few things that are better than they were in the last agreement. I will admit that.

However, I am concerned about the sovereignty. In clause 32, it states that if Canada begins negotiations on a trade deal with any non-market economy, such as China, we must notify the U.S., submit the text of any deal and get permission to continue those negotiations. If the U.S. disapproves, it could exclude Canada from CUSMA.

Does that work in reverse? Does the United States have to come to Canada and get our permission, and if not, why not?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Implementation Act, January 31st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am concerned about is that, when the first agreement was made, it was such a great agreement that the minister said that she did not want to renegotiate it, did not want to open it back up, and that it was very naive of the NDP to ask them to do that as it would be opening a Pandora's box.

However, the Democrats in the United States reopened it and apparently we got a better deal than our first best deal.

What is the best of the best? Is the first one the best, or is the second one the best? Is there a third best?

[Pensions, January 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, workers in Regina and across the country are fighting corporations for their pensions. They should not have to fight their government too.

In the Minister of Seniors mandate letter, it says that only people over 75 will get an increase to the old age security pension. The Liberals' wealthy and well-connected friends will be fine, but most seniors between the ages of 65 and 75 will be left behind.

Will the government agree to raise benefits for all seniors or will it continue to leave certain seniors in need behind?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, December 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned seniors and how the Liberal government is helping them. He was boasting about helping the people on old age security who are 75 years and older.

When I was campaigning and door knocking, many of the seniors who are 65 years and over were crying for help because of the high costs of living, rent increases and the amount of money being taken up by inflation. Why is it that the government has taken the approach of raising the pension, which is good news, but only for people who are 75 years and older and not for people who are 65 years old and over?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London on her return to the House. It is always a pleasure to work with her.

In the member's beautiful speech, she mentioned seniors. The throne speech said the government wants to strengthen our pensions, as the member mentioned, and make sure that our seniors have a healthy living. However, we were told last week in the House by the Minister of Seniors that old age security would be strengthened, but only at the age of 75.

Does the member support what is in the throne speech or does she believe that this increase should start at age 65 for all pensioners on old age security?