OTTAWA – As Parliament begins a new sitting on Monday, the Green Party of Canada reminds Members of Parliament that people in Canada are counting on them to stay focused. The urgent needs of the people, not any pre-election posturing and positioning, must be our priority.

“Unfortunately, much of the spirit of cross-party collaboration that delivered a lot of essential support for people in Canada has disappeared,” said Green Party Leader Annamie Paul. “Despite marketing a ‘Team Canada’ approach to fighting the pandemic, the Prime Minister has not invited other party leaders to a COVID-19 briefing for months. This has prevented parties from presenting a united front to the public that would have increased confidence at this critical time.

“And while cooperation does not exclude healthy and necessary opposition in Parliament, it does preclude the kind of unnecessary brinkmanship we witnessed several times in the last sitting. As we continue to face down the pandemic – whether it’s vaccine procurement and distribution, or messaging – there should be no place for politics in any aspect of Canada’s COVID-19 strategy.

“As this new sitting begins, we note the government is straying further and further from the Prime Minister’s promise to ‘keep doing whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to beat COVID-19 and protect Canadians through the crisis.’ Whether it’s sick pay, a long-term care (LTC) strategy, universal pharmacare, dental care or relief for students, the Green caucus will be working to see that the government’s commitment is fulfilled.

“The government of Canada has failed to address the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in LTC. Canada has the worst record for protecting LTC residents during this pandemic, and it has been described as a senecide. With hundreds of outbreaks and thousands of deaths in LTC, the Prime Minister must convene a First Minister’s Meeting to agree on an urgent action plan to implement the clear, actionable recommendations that experts say will save lives immediately and that the Green Party has laid out. The health and security of every person in Canada is the Prime Minister’s responsibility and he must show leadership.

“In the case of Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the government admits it made a fundamental mistake but refuses to correct it, placing the burden on vulnerable recipients instead. In December, it acknowledged that it had communicated wrong eligibility information to applicants. Despite this, and in the midst of a pandemic, the Prime Minister insists that cancelling repayments is ‘off the table.’ Recipients who did not earn $5,000 dollars gross in the previous year must repay the full amount (up to $14,000 dollars).

“Green Party MPs are hearing from constituents who have no hope of paying back the amount and who are fearful and overwhelmed,” said Ms. Paul. “The Green Party has said that the government must do the right thing and confirm to these good faith recipients they will not be required to pay back the CERB they received.

“The CERB debacle underlines the fact that a patchwork of stop-gap measures will always result in people being left without support. The Green Party supported extending emergency benefits and plans to reform employment insurance, while emphasizing the need for a permanent, universal benefit. The pandemic has more than made that case, and now is the time for the government to launch discussions on implementing a Guaranteed Livable Income – something the Green Party has been advocating since 2006 and which the Liberal caucus has named as its top policy priority.

“The Liberal government’s climate plan and legislation introduced last fall are simply not good enough and will not allow Canada to meet its Paris climate obligations. Canada continues to fall further behind in the global race to launch a green economy while countries like the U.S. push ahead in planning theirs. It is frustrating to see workers in the oilpatch being left behind because their government is failing to plan for their future,” said Ms. Paul.

“Last week, President Biden demonstrated decisive climate leadership, and now is the time for the federal government to show that it is serious about protecting the climate and the future of Canadian workers. The Green Party was the first to propose a North American Carbon Border to protect Canadian workers and businesses. We are the only federal party committed to ending fracking, new pipelines and oil and gas exploration projects and instead using those funds to invest in renewable energy, green infrastructure and Cleantech, a sector estimated to be worth US$3 trillion dollars globally by 2030.”

“Finally, the Green Party reiterates its call for the Prime Minister to convene an intergovernmental COVID-19 task force to coordinate a national response to Canada’s greatest health crisis in over a century.

“On day one, President Biden appointed a national COVID-19 Coordinator to create a unified national response, recognising that a coordinated approach and roadmap were needed,” said Ms. Paul. “At the same time, Canada has no national coordinator, no national strategy, and no roadmap. Across the country, frontline workers and medical associations have raised the alarm about the dangerous lack of collaboration and coordination across levels of government and pleaded with the federal government to intervene. The Green Party has made the same calls for months and will continue to push to see this task force convened.”

“As we enter this sitting of Parliament, I want to say to all people in Canada that leadership and ambition in our policies is possible. We know what has to be done, and Greens understand that Canada has the chance of a lifetime. All that we need is the political leadership.”

# # #

For more information or to arrange an interview:

Rosie Emery

Press Secretary

613-562-4916×206

rosie.emery@greenparty.ca

The post Green Party urges focus and collaboration as MPs return to Parliament appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Government must accept responsibility for CERB confusion appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post A compassionate approach to CERB clawbacks appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-10 13:58

The approach is so very flawed, Madam Chair, in that it attempts to punish people as opposed to encouraging them. I think the Liberals have been overly influenced by the Conservative Party’s cries that there’s vast fraud, that Canadians are cheating. The reality is that if you want to create an incentive to go back to work, you don’t threaten people. What you do is create a sliding scale. You let people continue to receive CERB, but maybe less as they begin to earn more, so that you have a transition on a sliding scale to go into the wage subsidy or into CERB.

I ask the honourable minister this: How can it be considered fair to say that someone isn’t eligible, even though they believed they were? The language in this bill, particularly at proposed paragraph 12.1(1)(e) in the penalties section, is an unreasonable determination that someone has violated the act and is subject to jail time and heavy fines.

Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Delta)
2020-06-10 13:58

Madam Chair, because of parliamentary privilege, I can’t and won’t speak to specific acts of a piece of law that hasn’t actually been introduced in the House, but I’ll tell you that what we’re trying to do is enhance our integrity measures. We’re working with those people who made an honest mistake, those who took advantage of returning to work when they were still receiving the CERB. We’re working with those people. We’re absolutely confident that those people will find a path forward.

We want to deal with intentional fraudsters, people who are criminally taking advantage of seniors. Members of this House have brought fact patterns to my attention and have said, “Please deal with these.” This is exactly what we’re trying to deal with, Madam Chair.

The post Canadians should not be punished for staying on the CERB appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-10 13:56

Much worse than part 3, from our point of view, is the treatment of people who are at this point potentially to be jailed for refusing to return to work when it’s considered reasonable and they are recipients of CERB. I wonder about the reasonableness here. It’s a subjective test. This is a wrong-headed approach to go after people and threaten them. The retroactive section has already made the Canadian Civil Liberties Association question its constitutionality.

To the minister, what’s reasonable, and in whose eyes is it reasonable? In today’s news, Hamilton’s chief medical officer says there is a spike in cases among young people, who likely were exposed while taking public transit to get to work. Their commute wasn’t safe. Who determines reasonableness in deciding it’s not safe to go back to work?

Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Delta)
2020-06-10 13:57

Madam Chair, as with the current CERB, moving forward it tries to encompass the situations of people who are unemployed, people who can’t work because of child care responsibilities, people who are ill or sick. Moving to a broad term of “reasonableness” allows us to look at the individual circumstances of the person. If we stuck to language like “suitable” or “appropriate”, that would qualify the job. We’re trying to look at the person and their particular circumstances as we work to ensure that if someone is immunocompromised and can’t take transit to their job, then it’s reasonable for them not to take that job. That’s the exact example we’re trying to encompass with broad “reasonableness” criteria.

The post Who determines whether it is reasonable to return to work? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-05-14 17:44

Thanks.

I hope I won’t use it all and then more members can ask questions.

I’m not sure which officials I need to ask this, but it’s following up on this general conversation we’ve been having about getting things out quickly versus full controls and rigour. What I wanted to suggest, because it’s been missing in this conversation, is that part of the reason for speed is flattening the curve. People won’t stay home and stay away from work if they’re not financially secure and don’t see some aid coming. There’s the connection between getting CERB out quickly, getting it to everyone who needs it quickly, and not necessarily being concerned at the front end with making sure that everybody is “eligible”. I wouldn’t call it all fraud. I certainly agree with the chair that there are lots of circumstances here where there could be confusion.

What I wanted to ask officials was, to get a sense of if the instructions had been other than what they were, if the instructions had been, “Don’t approve anyone until you’ve checked, you’ve gone back into their background, and you know that this is someone who deserves the benefit.” What would that have cost the Government of Canada? Did we have the capacity to do that?

We’ve heard from witnesses that it would have significantly delayed when people got their money, for which I think there would have been a public health impact. This is a public policy issue at a very high level. I just wonder, is there any estimate of what it would have cost the Government of Canada to have staff checking all the applications?

Frank Vermaeten
2020-05-14 17:46

I’m happy to respond from our perspective.

I want to clarify that there are certainly upfront checks that are done. For example, we check that the social insurance number is valid, that the person is of legitimate age to be able to receive this and that there’s no double-dipping with respect to the various programs. Certainly there is upfront verification. I just wanted to assure you that it’s not without that.

With respect to creating a system where individuals would have to prove that, in fact, they have no income, I can’t tell you what the cost would be, but I can tell you it would be an extremely lengthy process to provide us the information. That they don’t have income is very difficult to prove in real time. I think not only would it have been very costly, but I think most importantly it would also have delayed the ability to get the money out to individuals by weeks, if not months.

The post How much would it have cost the government to check every CERB application? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

OTTAWA – The Green Party welcomes the financial relief that Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) will bring to many Canadians affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, however MPs are pointing to gaping holes in the relief program that will leave many others facing financial hardship.

“Too many people fall through the cracks when it comes to the eligibility criteria of the CERB program,” said Green MP Paul Manly (Nanaimo-Ladysmith). “Like the person in my riding who is a part time paramedic. He lost another contract job that he needed to survive. He is not eligible for CERB because he still has some paid work as a paramedic. Or the health care workers with multiple part time jobs at care homes that can now only work at one because of health authority orders. We need frontline workers in these positions to be able do the work we ask of them and not be stressed out about paying rent and feeding their families. Small business owners who pay themselves with a dividend, are also ineligible.”

Greens have long advocated implementing a Guaranteed Livable Income program that would replace the current array of income supports, such as disability payments, social assistance and income supplements for seniors.

“If we had implemented an Emergency Guaranteed Liveable Income and sent everyone a cheque we could have saved people, civil servants and the system a lot of stress,” said Manly. “The Canada Revenue Agency could have figured out who deserved the funding and who didn’t through the tax system afterwards and taxed back those that didn’t need the extra income. It’s not too late to do that.”

“So many Canadians like artists and musicians rely on piecemeal employment to make ends meet,” said Green Party Interim Leader Jo-Ann Roberts. “Employment is no longer as easily defined as it was 10 years ago. The CERB eligibility rules exclude far too many of these workers, including self-employed people who have lost contracts but retain a small percentage of their income. They can’t abandon the work that remains but the income is not enough to survive on. Students and seniors whose part time jobs have been cancelled may not be eligible because of the $5,000 minimum income rule. Students who did not have work have no relief programs available to them.”

# # #

For more information or to arrange an interview:

Rosie Emery

Press Secretary

613-562-4916 ext, 204

rosie.emery@greenparty.ca

The post Too many Canadians still face hardship despite government’s CERB program, says Green Party appeared first on Elizabeth May.