SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 184

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 25, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 184 - Apr/25/23
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)
  • Apr/25/23 10:13:51 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, next I am tabling a petition from citizens concerned about the government's proposals to politicize charitable status determination in Canada. They note a proposal in the Liberal Party election platform to deny charitable status to organizations with convictions that are different from those of the Liberal Party as it relates to the issue of abortion. The petitioners note that the effect of this would be to deny charitable status to hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not share the government's views on those issues. The government has previously used a values test to discriminate against worthy applicants to the Canada summer jobs program. This would be a kind of recapitulation of that proposal. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political positions or religious values, and to affirm the right of all Canadians to freedom of expression.
172 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 184 - Apr/25/23
Ms. Louise Chabot
  • Apr/25/23 12:02:58 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Madam Speaker, several measures in our policies discriminate against women. Employment insurance is a prime example. When the employment insurance program was initially designed, it reflected the fact that workers work full time and that male-dominated jobs were the most important. That may have been appropriate at the time. Now women are being discriminated against in two ways. The eligibility rules work against them because the rules are designed for those who work 40 hours a week. If a person works only 20 hours, they are necessarily discriminated against. Then there are pregnant workers, women who carry a child and then lose their job. The rules currently discriminate against them because they will not be entitled to employment insurance if, when they return, they no longer have employment. They are no longer entitled to their benefits. They won in court and the ruling was appealed. I hope that decision will be upheld. The EI program needs to be reformed. It is essential and a matter of fairness.
168 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border