Diane St-Jacques

[Family Supplement, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to a motion I find very interesting. This is a motion based on mutual assistance, generosity and caring, values we all share. This motion could make a huge difference in the lives of hundreds of Canadian families.

Before going any further, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, for bringing this topic to our attention. In fact, Motion No. 395 is aimed at indexing the family supplement to the cost of living.

Introduced during the major employment insurance reform carried out by our government in 1996, the family supplement is aimed at providing more targeted assistance to low income families who are unemployed. In fact, it allows beneficiaries with children earning less than $25,921 to get up to 80% of their insurable earnings instead of 55% as do other beneficiaries.

The latest Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report published in 2003 shows that the family supplement is efficient and meets the needs and expectations of families. In 2001-02, our government paid close to $176 million in family supplements to over 187,000 low income beneficiaries. This means that thanks to this measure 10% of all employment insurance beneficiaries are getting higher benefits.

The supplement is about $42 a week. This is a significant amount of money for those going through tough times. In fact, the benefits of families receiving the family supplement are 38% higher than before the 1996 reform.

Such results are proof that replacing the higher rates for dependents found in the old system with the family supplement was an excellent decision. However, inflation has rendered it less efficient and higher salaries make it less accessible in real terms.

In such a context, there is no doubt that indexing the family supplement to the cost of living could have a positive impact on a number of families.

Several federal benefits and programs are indexed to inflation. The child tax benefit is a case in point.

When we carried out the reform of the employment insurance program in 1996, we made the commitment to keep a close watch on the short and medium term impact. That is why we provided for an annual independent assessment review. That turned out to be quite useful. First, it indicated that the employment insurance program is providing the unemployed with the help they need when they need it. Also, it helped to identify and correct some inadequacies along the way.

In the last couple of years, we made adjustments to the short work weeks, eliminated the intensity rule and changed some of the criteria concerning benefit repayments.

Today, we have an opportunity to consider a proposal that would enhance the employment insurance program. Indexing the family supplement to the cost of living would complement the work we have been doing in the last few years to fight poverty.

The February 2003 budget has helped us to move forward more quickly. Let me remind the House of some of its components. First, we will gradually increase our support to low income families through the Canada child tax benefit. By 2007, with this benefit, we will be providing $10 billion in annual assistance, twice as much as in 1996.

In a practical sense, this means that next July, the benefit will go up by $150 annually. In four years, the maximum benefit for a family will be $3,243 for the first child and $3,016 for a second child.

Also, in the next five years, the provinces and territories will receive more than $900 million to improve access to quality day care and promote the development of young children. Our government has certainly proven time and again that it takes the well-being of Canadian families to heart.

Today, the hon. member for Ahuntsic is suggesting a measure that would take our fight against poverty one step further.

Two thirds of the beneficiaries would be mothers. This measure would give low income families more help when some of their members are unemployed.

I have always thought of such measures which directly help Canadian families not as an expense, but as an investment in the future. However, our government is not in the habit of making decisions without a thorough consideration of all the impacts.

EI is a complex program and any change can have a direct impact on the viability and efficiency of the whole plan.

On the face of it, Motion No. 395 seems to be a very interesting proposal.

I urge my colleagues to consider Motion No. 395, because it will help us make a more detailed examination of the impact of indexing the family supplement when we prepare the next budget.

[Canada Student Loans Program, March 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Fundy—Royal for bringing forward this motion that gives us the opportunity to review the operations of the Canada student loan program and look at whether it still meets the very purpose for which it was created.

With his motion, the hon. member wants to eliminate the need for parents to contribute toward their children's studies, more specifically to eliminate the needs assessment process used to determine if a student is eligible for a Canada student loan.

The fact is I know that the Department of Human Resources Development is also considering the parental contribution, mainly its use in the needs assessment process. This process, based on a moderate standard of living, is used to assess the ability of a family to cover part of the cost of their child's postsecondary education. It also takes into consideration the cost of living in the various regions of our country and the size of the family.

We want to ensure that the Canada student loan program meets its primary goal, which is to give low income students access to postsecondary education.

We all know that in this knowledge-based economy, we must help all Canadians acquire the skills and knowledge to reach their full potential.

As elected representatives, we must determine how best to achieve that goal and, if choices must be made, we must ask ourselves if we are helping students by making it easier for them to get loans and thereby increase their debt load at such a crucial time in their lives?

As a society, we are responsible for encouraging families to contribute, particularly during this important part of their education.

As a government, we must work with our partners, the provinces, to ensure the viability, flexibility and accountability of this important social program.

These are important factors that the motion does not take into consideration.

First, we must not blow things out of proportion. Eliminating parental contributions from the needs assessment process, as this motion proposes, will not have a discernible effect on most students and families already entitled to assistance.

In Canada, the majority of students who receive student loans—roughly 54%—are not considered dependents of their parents. They are eligible for student loans based on their own financial resources and not on their parents'.

It is estimated that for roughly 70% of students who apply for student loans and who are considered dependents of their parents, the parents do not have to contribute any money. In other words, this motion is proposing a measure that is already being applied to most post-secondary students who receive loans under the Canada student loans program.

It is estimated that for 18% of students who apply for loans and are considered dependents of their parents, a parental contribution can be as high as $2,999. A contribution greater than $3,000 was reported for only 12% of students who are dependents of their parents.

The member for Fundy—Royal admits this contribution is calculated based on the parents' income, the number of dependent children, the cost of living and whether the family has any added financial barriers. Corrections are made to the amount of the parents' contribution when they have an unforeseen decrease in income or have any added expenses.

One basic component of the Canada student loan program that must not be forgotten is that parents who can afford it are expected to help pay for their children's postsecondary studies. This program was never intended to replace family assistance, but to complement it as required.

At the present time, the Canada student loan program provides $1.6 billion in loans to some 350,000 students.

If we implemented what the motion proposes and eliminated the parental contribution, this would mean that the parental contribution would be converted into part of the loan the student would have to take out.

The program at present is based on need and was created some 35 years ago to help low income families have greater access to postsecondary education, hitherto limited almost exclusively to the children of better-off families.

I therefore believe that we can certainly discuss the amount of the parental contribution and the pros and cons of various methods of calculation. If, however, the government were to eliminate the parental contribution standard, how could it assess each student's needs fairly? On what would it base that assessment? What would be the limits imposed on the program and the cost to be met by the taxpayers if each and every student could apply for assistance and receive the maximum amount regardless of parental income?

Finally, what would be the repercussions of this measure on student debt load later on? These questions need to be looked at very carefully before calling upon the government to examine elimination of this provision, because the Canada student loan program is one of the most productive programs we have implemented in this country.

Since its creation, it has served to support the educational objectives of millions of students. I am sure that a goodly number of the members of this House are among them. It is in part thanks to this program that Canadians are now considered among the best educated and most skilled people in the world. This is why we as a society need to guarantee access to postsecondary education to all Canadians, so that they may adapt to the new knowledge-based economy.

However, this does not mean that we cannot do better. Every year, the government implements a number of initiatives aimed at improving access to postsecondary education, while ensuring that the Canada student loan program continues to meet the needs of students.

The 2003 budget carries on in that direction and the government will invest an additional $60 million, over a two-year period, to strengthen and improve the program. This budget initiative will address the main concerns of stakeholders and of provincial and territorial governments.

Thanks to these measures, students will have more money available, since they will be able to keep a larger part of their income while they are getting an education. Moreover, the first $1,800 in scholarships that are awarded based on merit will be exempted.

The budget also improves access to interest relief measures and to the debt reduction repayment program, so as to help students who have borrowed money and who are experiencing financial difficulties. These measures include interest relief to help students manage their debts and debt reduction to help borrowers who are experiencing financial difficulties.

An extended repayment period is also provided for those who need it, and there is tax relief for interest on loans.

Finally, we will improve access to financial assistance, by making protected persons, including convention refugees, eligible for the Canada student loan program.

These improvements seek to ensure that the Canada student loan program continues to meet the needs of students. Together, these measures will open the door and increase accessibility to education, improve debt management and significantly strengthen the support provided to part-time students. They will definitely promote continuous learning.

Many of these initiatives are the outcome of the regular consultations that have been taking place between the Government of Canada, student representatives, the provinces and advisory groups.

The Government of Canada is constantly looking for solutions that will help the largest number of people. This is why we do not hesitate to discuss issues and options.

But, as I said, I do not think that rejecting one of the basic principles of the Canada student loan program is a good solution.

I will conclude by congratulating the hon. member once again for introducing this motion.

[Criminal Code, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, let me assure you that the numbers that I mentioned a few moments ago prove one thing, namely that this government has the best interests of workers at heart, particularly women who must balance work and family responsibilities. We will always work toward allowing women access to the job market while taking the family aspect into consideration.

But beyond the numbers, we have here a program that is effective and transparent. Through several programs and various initiatives that were introduced, the government has adopted a human approach that is tailored to the needs expressed by working mothers over the last few years. And we have every intention of continuing down that road.

[Criminal Code, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by telling the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the federal Court of Appeal allowed Human Resources Development Canada to apply judicial review in this case, and that the period to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada expires on March 7, 2003. Therefore, it is not appropriate to comment on this, since the period has not yet expired.

I can, however, confirm that the changes made to the employment insurance system have benefited women. The adoption, in 1996, of an hours-based system, in addition to amending the provisions affecting persons returning to the labour market and the recovery process, as well as the extending of maternity or parental leave from six months to one year, have greatly benefited women.

Improved parental and maternity benefits under the employment insurance system have been a huge success and well received by Canadians. These benefits allow workers to remain home for their child's first year, which, as we know, is a time when parents play an essential role.

Since January 2001 parents have had the possibility of staying at home with a little one for a year, and I can tell you that recent figures show that a lot of Canadians are taking advantage of this. We are pleased to see that our efforts to help out working parents are having some success.

I will provide a few figures to back up my statements. Over 200,000 Canadians received maternity or parental benefits in 2001. Applications for parental leave rose from 173,790 in 2000 to 216,010 in 2001, an increase of 24.3%. Applications for maternity benefits also rose 16.1%, from 170,950 in 2000 to 198,420 in 2001.

In 2001, 8,240 more Canadians were able to draw maternity or parental benefits because of the reduction in the required hours from 700 to 600.

The 2001 Monitoring and Assessment Report clearly indicates that 88% of workers would be entitled to EI benefits if they lost their jobs or left them for just cause. For full time female workers, the percentage rises to 96%. Among part time workers, more women—55%—would be eligible than men—40%.

The labour market situation is, therefore, favourable to women. In January 2003, the unemployment rate for adult females was 6.1%. SInce we became the government in 1993, the number of jobs held by women has risen by 1.4 million.

All in all, the employment insurance program helps women when they need help, and we will continue to see that it remains accessible to Canadians in need.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government has recognized that this is a very sensitive issue for all Canadians. This is why we have held consultations over a period of more than 90 days, which is 30 days more than usual.

I would just like to reassure the hon. member that the priority of this government and this department is food safety and public health, of course, and that the minister will make a decision based on these two priorities.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised certain concerns about recent Health Canada proposals to regulate food irradiation.

In response to a number of industry submissions, and in compliance with the Food and Drug Regulations, Health Canada has examined submissions concerning the irradiation of ground beef, poultry, shrimp and mangoes.

The study included an examination of the effects of irradiation, its impact on the nutritional content of the food and the micro-organisms present.

Over and above an assessment of the data presented, we also took into consideration a number of major studies carried out around the world on the effects of radiation.

Three conclusions arise out of the studies by Health Canada's scientists: the consumption of ground meat, poultry, shrimp and prawns, and mangoes would not result in any identifiable risk to the health of the consumer; the irradiation of these foods would not result in any health concerns for consumers; and the proposed uses of food irradiation could be beneficial through improved safety and quality of these food products resulting from enhanced control of pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella.

Food irradiation is a method that uses radiation energy to improve food safety by destroying pathogenic bacteria, by extending the shelf life of food, and by controlling insect infestation.

It is one of many techniques that can be used by food producers to protect the quality of food items before they reach retailers.

The other techniques include cooking or heating, canning and steam pasteurization. Irradiated foods can also be used with these techniques to improve safety.

Food irradiation is regulated by the Food and Drugs Act, and only the items listed in a table of the regulations can be irradiated.

Division 26 of the regulations provides that industry stakeholders must submit a request to be allowed to irradiate a given product.

Based on the representations and on the best available scientific research, a multidisciplinary team of pharmacists, toxicologists, microbiologists and nutritionists determines the safety of the food and the effectiveness of food irradiation. No changes are made to the regulations on food irradiation until all the issues relating to food safety have been dealt with and the proposed objective is justified.

Concerning the hon. member's specific concern about the safety of any chemicals produced by the irradiation process, Health Canada has taken this into account as a significant factor in its evolution.

The hon. member is no doubt aware that the studies that detected the presence of the chemicals of particular concern to the hon. member were conducted using irradiation doses 100,000 times stronger than those allowed in Health Canada's proposed regulations.

At the levels of irradiation authorized under the proposed regulations, such chemicals are produced only in very small amounts. In addition, each food product has undergone toxicology testing that has shown that, at such levels, there is no risk to human health.

I point out that the new chemicals produced in irradiated food have been studied by many researchers and assessed by many organizations, such as the World Health Organization, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the European Economic Community's science committee on food.

In each case, these studies have confirmed Health Canada's assessment and concluded that, from a toxicological point of view, these small amounts of chemicals would not have any adverse effect on human health.

I will conclude by saying that given the nature of the proposal, products and process involved, many Canadians will be interested in this issue. This is why Health Canada has held public information meetings in Vancouver, Edmonton—

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the government never stops trying to improve its services. Given the increasing popularity of these services, they can be overloaded, but the minister is doing her utmost to improve service.

I would like to list for him the things we are trying to do at the present time. We plan to improve services so that clients may obtain the help they need directly, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week; to improve the way calls are handled; to change the deadlines for reports so as to reduce busy periods; to train our employees so that they can help clients take advantage of all possibilities open to them; to ensure that clients have access to staff trained to meet their needs; and of course to encourage use of the Internet.

As I have said, serving Canadians is one of this government's priorities. The department will continue to seek ways to improve the quality of our services.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to inform the member for Acadie—Bathurst that it is not because people live in his region that they have fewer services. The government's goal is always to provide the best possible services to clients at the offices of Human Resources Development Canada wherever they are, whatever their situation or level of literacy. We want to offer a uniform service that meets their expectations and provides them with a choice.

We process roughly 3 million requests a year. On average, we pay out $13 billion in benefits a year.

To meet these needs for services, we rely on a network of more than 8,000 employees, 320 human resources centres, four information technology centres, six insurance payment operations centres and 11 employment insurance call centres.

I should add that each year the workload fluctuates—as the member knows—generally in July and November, which has an affect on the speed with which we can process requests. Also, we notice changes in the method of service delivery that our clients want and this choice can have direct repercussions on our other service methods. Our call centres have to respond to a higher volume of requests each week. We have identified these repercussions and implemented plans to manage our clients' requests and follow their progress.

I can assure the House that Human Resources Development Canada is committed to continually improving the quality of services to Canadians. This is why, in order to determine the degree of satisfaction of those who use our main services, surveys were conducted in 2001. The results are as follows: 77% of the respondents were satisfied with the general quality of the service, and close to half were very satisfied; 86% of the clients who visited a Human Resources Development Canada office were satisfied with the quality of the service received in person, and more than half of these people said they were very satisfied; 82% of the clients were satisfied with the service received by telephone; and over 80% of the respondents told us that the explanations provided by the staff were easy to understand, that the information was accurate, that the service was excellent and that the answers were complete.

We know that we can always improve on these results, and this is what we are trying to do.

As regards employment insurance, the modernization initiative will help us improve the technological tools that we already provide to our clients.

These tools are Appliweb, which allows claimants to submit their claims on line, thus accelerating the process, and Teledec, which allows claimants to submit their reports by telephone, instead of by mail. There is also the direct deposit, whereby payments made to claimants are deposited directly in their bank account.

We are working on improvements that will reduce the burden of call centres. For example, our clients will have the option of submitting biweekly reports on line. This will reduce the number of calls received by our offices.

I would like to reiterate to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst that service to Canadians is our priority. Throughout the initiative to modernize our service to Canadians, we will continue to improve the way services are provided.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank and congratulate the hon. member for his contribution. He has been working for a long time on this, to promote an initiative that is one of the government's priorities.

We must remember that there was nothing previously to help families in such stressful circumstances. I want to tell the hon. member that I intend to reiterate my request that he support this initiative. I am also counting on the support of all the hon. members of this House in order to implement it as soon as possible.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for giving me the opportunity to speak about this initiative that was announced in the 2003 budget and that the government and I feel very strongly about.

The Government of Canada is committed to improving the support provided to those who need to take time away from their work to take care of a child, a parent or a spouse who is seriously ill. This budget sets out new employment insurance benefits for natural caregivers who take leave from work to provide care for a seriously ill or dying child or parent.

This government has the best interests of Canadians at heart, and improving the life of our fellow citizens is our priority. The commitment that we have made basically increases the support available to workers so that they do not have to choose between keeping their job and taking care of a seriously ill member of their family.

The welfare of the family has always been and will remain one of the cornerstones of our social policies, as evidenced by the fact that we have also introduced the extended parental leave as well as the national child benefit.

As we know, Canadian workers' jobs and the financial security of their families can be put at risk by the need to take care of a seriously ill family member, not to mention the intense stress on family life.

I would point out to hon. members that 77% of Canadians taking care of a seriously ill family member take time off work, and 56% of those take unpaid leave.

Another major priority for this government is to help Canadians strike a balance between work and family life. Employers are equally aware of that reality, let me tell you. According to a recent survey, 60% of business executives support the government's intention to provide income support to employees who need to take time off work to look after a seriously ill family member.

Our government is therefore continuing its efforts to meet the commitment made in the throne speech, so that Canadian workers who are already stressed by the serious illness of a family member do not have to cope with any more stress.

We want Canadians able to be able to keep their jobs and count on a decent income so that they may devote all their energies to their loved one. The hon. member felt that six weeks was not very much, but it is a start. The Kirby report spoke of six weeks for looking after a sick person. I believe we need to wait until this program is put into place before looking at how it might be made easier or better. For the moment, however, I think the important thing is to start putting it in place.

There seems to be general all-party support for such an initiative. I trust that I will be able to count on the support of the hon. member, as well as all other members of this House, in getting this fine initiative started.