Debates of Feb. 16th, 2000

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

They keep yelling.

All the yelling across the way will not make more housing available after the next election. This is ridiculous.

This is the question I want to ask my friend. Devco has been supported for 30 years by the federal government. My colleague said that. How can we make a change at Devco? Do we keep on putting money into something that continually loses money?

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Give them a fair deal. That is what the government should do.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The member is saying that it is a fair deal. In my region we lost many people from the lumber industry. I am sure it is the same in Acadie—Bathurst. Sometimes when the resource is no longer there or people cannot make any money, they have to make a change.

What would my colleague suggest the federal government do in order to keep the people working at Devco? I just cannot see how it can stay open if it loses money.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very fond of my colleague opposite. He goes to the same barber as I do, and we get our hair cut the same way.

If I have a heart attack here, in the House, fighting for the people in the Atlantic region, it will have been worth it.

I will repeat it in English. If I have to have a heart attack in this Chamber fighting for the people in my riding and the people of the Atlantic, it is worth it to have one.

Regarding health care, in 1969 the government was paying 50% of the cost of health care. Today we are down to 13%. I do not care what happened back in 1993. The Liberals have cut health care. That is why seniors do not have adequate health care any more. That is why people want to privatize health care. It is because the Liberals have cut health care.

Our grandparents and our children have to wait in the hallways of hospitals to get service. When our parents have cancer they have to go to the United States to get service. That is what the Liberals have done in our country.

To answer the hon. member's question about Devco, we need a fair deal for those people so that they can get up in the morning and be proud because they have served the country for 30 years. For 30 years they have gone underground and put their lives on the line for the country. They deserve better than what the Liberals have given them today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Unfortunately, there is no more time for questions and comments. The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today in the debate on second reading of Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The reason we are having to debate this bill is that, on January 28, 1999, the federal Minister of Natural Resources announced the closure of the Phalen Mine and the privatization of the Price Mine, both of these being coal mines located in Cape Breton and operated by the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

Bill C-11 means the withdrawal of the federal government from coal mining in that region.

As a result of this decision, once the closure and privatization have taken place, some 1,000 people will be without work in a region where the unemployment rate is already close to 25%.

I believe we should take advantage of the debate on this bill to properly examine how this could happen. Our role as parliamentarians requires us to question the economic development choices made by the federal government in the past, so as not to keep on repeating the same planning errors.

Today we have an example of this in the coal mining sector. In recent years, the fishers have also had to pay a high price for the federal government's lack of planning and poor resource management.

We must also ask ourselves how the government needs to act in future to ensure regional development, and we must wonder, in light of its numerous failures, whether it ought not to leave this to the provincial governments, which are often in a better position to know what a population to which they are closer needs.

In closing, I shall focus on the importance of planning replacement industries when the decline of others is predictable, and particularly on the replacement of polluting energy sources such as coal by renewable and cleaner energy sources.

But I would like first to return to the situation of the workers, who, after years of work in the harsh conditions of the mining industry, find themselves without work and with few prospects for the future.

That moves me, because last year, with some of my colleagues, I met the representatives of these workers, who were very concerned about their fate. They had come to Ottawa to tell parliament and the government that they should do something to save their community. To my way of thinking, they are the victims of the lack of vision of the federal government, whose economic strategy for this region hinged solely on the mining industry.

Since 1967, the federal government has injected over $1.5 billion in coal mining by the Cape Breton Development Corporation. However, by the end of the 1960s, a commission on the future of the industry on Cape Breton Island indicated that coal production should be phased out and the local economy diversified. Unfortunately, the Liberals of the day, like the Liberals of today, lacked political courage. Instead of planning a change in the economy in co-operation with the provincial government, the federal government preferred to keep its little empire, which assured it maximum visibility.

And so the federal government continued over the years to encourage hundreds of young workers to go into the mines like their father. It said to them “Trust the federal government, you young men, you will have jobs for the rest of your days. Keep on mining”. We can see what happened. Today, the government is putting the key in the door and proposing an early retirement program that, however, excludes some 230 miners with over 25 years' seniority. These events are serious, very serious.

In my opinion, the federal government has a moral responsibility to these workers and to the some 6,000 people living off coal mining, since it is in large measure responsible for this situation. I encourage my colleagues who will be examining this bill in committee to remember this responsibility when they address the issue of pensions and acquired rights.

This situation totally upsets me, since I have seen the federal government behave this same way in many other sectors of the economy, dropping them overnight, with no transition, with no alternative, when its visibility was threatened.

One only has to think about the program for older worker adjustment. That program was designed to help workers who were often the victims of the federal government's mismanagement and of plant closures. That program helped workers, in spite of being underfunded and in spite of criteria which were sometimes inflexible and which did not take specific circumstances into account. But at least there was a program.

Unfortunately, this is no longer the case since 1997. The then Minister of Human Resources Development stubbornly refused to maintain the program. And the new Minister of Human Resources Development did not have anything concrete to propose to these workers, even though a unanimous report from the human resources development subcommittee recommended that measures be taken for workers, including the 230 miners. But the government has nothing for these people. This is how caring this government is.

The government abandons these workers, but it has no qualms about using employment insurance surpluses, about using money that belongs to workers and to which they are entitled. These workers are even more frustrated when they see that the Department of Human Resources Development uses their money for political purposes and distributes it so freely that it is unable to know who got money and for what purpose.

In order to avoid other human dramas such as the closing of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, this government must absolutely have greater long term vision. If mines in Cape Breton had to close, other coal mines elsewhere in Canada could suffer the same fate.

Alberta produces 50% of Canada's coal and British Columbia produces 35%. And even if western coal is of better quality than eastern coal, the fact remains that power plants, which are the main users of coal, are gradually replacing it with natural gas.

Moreover, the price of coal on the international markets has declined sharply over the past 20 years. Between 1981 and 1994, prices of the two leading types of coal dropped by 40% to 50%. And this trend is expected to continue because this is a source of energy that leaves a high level of very polluting residue in the air.

Even the report released last September by the federal government appointed task force said that coal use was coming to an end. It felt that Canada should rapidly cut back on its use of coal to produce electricity if it was to meet its commitments to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions.

The report also concluded that, in order to produce more electricity while reducing pollution, coal would have to be replaced by energy sources that produce less atmospheric pollution, such as hydroelectricity and natural gas. An analysis suggests that Canada should reduce its production of coal-generated energy by 38% over the next decade.

I point out in passing that while Canada, by signing the Kyoto protocol, undertook to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 6% annually to 1990 levels by the year 2012, Canadian emissions increased by 13% between 1990 and 1997 and that, without a radical change in government policies, greenhouse gases could increase by as much as 41% by 2020.

In light of the predictable decline in fossil fuels and given its international greenhouse gas reduction commitments, it is high time the federal government invested substantially in the development of alternative forms of energy. The government must have a long term plan to favour the use of energy that is less harmful to our health and our environment, such as hydroelectricity, wind energy and solar energy.

If the government had acted 25 years ago, we would not see what is happening now in Cape Breton. We would not be faced with the fact that 1,000 workers will lose their jobs and that an entire community is threatened because of decisions that were not taken 25 years ago.

I will take this opportunity to mention that the federal task force report I referred to earlier asked the federal government to harmonize its environmental assessment process with the provinces' processes, so that it will no hinder the development of new sources of energy, particularly hydroelectricity, which could help Canada meet the targets set out in the Kyoto protocol.

Therefore, I encourage the federal government to start planning now, in co-operation with provincial governments, the transitional measures that will be required to reorient the economy of areas that are in decline such as Cape Breton, particularly in the energy sector.

The federal government can no longer afford to close down entire industries or regions by walking away from its responsibilities to workers and communities.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the House and to those who are listening to the debate on television that our friends in the opposition are confusing two very important elements with respect to Bill C-11.

Bill C-11 essentially authorizes the sale of the Devco assets so that the private sector can take those assets to create jobs and continue coal mining in Cape Breton.

I appreciate that the opposition would use this as a platform to talk about the human resources package, to talk about health care in Canada, to talk about any number of other issues some related and some not. But using this simple bill which will allow for the sale of Devco assets and the continuation of coal mining as a platform for other issues could create a delay, but hopefully would not, that may hurt that process. I do not think anyone wants to see that.

I simply want to make it clear that on the human resources side, which is very separate from this bill, the government has made a commitment of $111 million of severance and early retirement measures for the workers and $68 million for economic development. Add to that $12 million from the province. This has been made available to the communities so that they may redevelop their local economies to respond to the realities at Devco.

The member for Jonquière raised a number of very good points. I go back to my comments and questions to the opposition last November. Do we not believe that the best ideas for economic renewal come from the communities, their leaders and their citizens as opposed to Ottawa or elsewhere in the country? Should we not empower them to find the best solutions for the challenges they face?

I caution opposition members to focus on the need to get on with the future of Cape Breton. Focus on the need to make sure that a strong private sector buyer is able to create the jobs that we hope can be maintained. Do not confuse the human resources package with the need to move on with the private sector partner.

Does the member for Jonquière not agree that the very best solution for local communities is to allow local leaders and citizens to implement their ideas so that their economy best reflects their needs and the capacity of their citizens in this millennium?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his question. I believe he has not looked at the history of what has been going on in Cape Breton for the past 25 years. He is not familiar with history, a history that was made by this government, by the Liberal government of the day. This government is responsible for the situation we are in today. Had it left the local communities and the province to do what they wanted, had it not played sugar-daddy in order to build up its empire and get back its visibility, things would not have ended up like this.

In the past 25 years, the government has invested $1.5 billion, or $1 million for every one job. Instead of handing it back to the people, it invested again in order to extend the life of something that was doomed to failure.

I have quoted federal government studies which have stated for years that our thoughts about coal have to be changed. It has continued telling people “Things are fine. Stay as you are, the future is no problem.”

This government had no social conscience. Today, once the harm has been done, the hon. member over there tells us “We are going to pull out. We are going to leave the local communities to become self-governing”. They turn everything topsy-turvey and then they withdraw. They cannot ignore the fact that they are the ones in the wrong, and they are the ones who have to right that wrong.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments with respect to what is happening in Cape Breton. I hear the members on the government side talk about the real issues, about what we are talking about and that this has nothing to do with the human resources package. As my colleague has mentioned, what we are talking about is that the government has funded this corporation and clearly and obviously has run this corporation into the ground and has now decided to walk away.

What we expect from the government is a fair settlement for the men, the families and the communities of Cape Breton Island. I hear the government members saying would it not be better to allow the communities to decide their fate. Cape Bretoners have been wanting that opportunity for 30 years, but they have never had that opportunity. It has always been left in the hands of the friends of the government to decide for Cape Bretoners what is best for them. That is what has happened to this crown corporation.

Does my colleague agree with the New Democratic Party that this is not about the government making the decision to arbitrarily get out of the industry? It is the government and it can make that decision. This is about ensuring that Cape Breton miners, their families and communities are given a fair settlement before the government walks away and sets this corporation up to sell it probably to another Liberal friend.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for her question. I think she has clearly identified the cause and the effects.

A government that turns things upside down, that decides to withdraw from certain fields after making sure that these fields no longer meet the aspirations of the locals, is not entitled to do so. It must do so according to the conditions of the people who have been deprived of development in their region.

I have never been to Cape Breton, but I hope to go there one day. People have said to me that solutions were put to this government over the years.

Earlier, I spoke of the POWA. This program existed before. It did not suit everyone, but it was one small way this government could, with our money, with its ever diminishing open-mindedness, meet the needs of these people.

Well, no. It did not suit it any more, since it was good for the people. So it withdrew it.

This government has always acted unilaterally, pulling out once it has deprived communities of their independence.

It must meet the needs of the people of Cape Breton. It must give them a hand. It must help them. These are proud people. They love their community and want to stay there. They are very ingenious and have my full support. The government has got to have a social conscience.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that in the month of January the miners had to go underground on strike to try to get a negotiated settlement.

It is not as if there were no precedent. One example is medical benefits. When Via Rail was shut down, medical benefits were provided to those employees. When CN was shut down, medical benefits were continued for those employees. When Devco was being closed down, the government told the miners who have gone underground and suffered injuries and their families that there would be no extension of any medical benefits whatsoever.

That is the kind of settlement the miners are seeking, in other areas as well, in terms of relocation and in terms of education.

My colleague has done her homework for which I commend her. She has a sensitive understanding of the issue. Would she not agree that these people should be entitled to the same benefits as the government has given to other Canadians when it phased out industries?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in reply to the New Democratic Party member, I think it is obvious that they are entitled to the same benefits as other Canadians in similar situations.

This government will have to stop closing its eyes. It is throwing money out the window. Billions of dollars have gone missing. Communities have legitimate rights and the government is denying them those rights?

I think the government is on the decline. In life, things keep moving forward, until one day they take a turn in the opposite direction. I think that this government is completely cut off from the real concerns and needs of ordinary people.

The people of Cape Breton have needs that must be met. It is the government's fault they are in this mess.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.28 p.m., very little time remains before we must proceed to Private Members' Business. Is there unanimous consent to see the time as 5.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Auditor General Act

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

moved that Bill C-203, an act to amend the Auditor General Act (Poverty Commissioner), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to talk about the creation of the position of poverty commissioner. On March 25, 1999, I introduced a bill to amend the Auditor General Act. Because the session was prorogued, I reintroduced this bill and we are finally discussing it.

When I introduced this bill last year, I had no idea that today's debate would take place in the context of the scandal relating to job creation at the Department of Human Resources Development. The management of job creation programs reflects badly on the whole Liberal government. In this context, having a poverty commissioner would be a good thing.

Before talking about the purpose of creating the position of poverty commissioner, I want to briefly remind the House about poverty. The figures say it all.

We can quote four sources, including the Canadian Council on Social Development. Between 1989 and 1997, the number of children living in poverty increased by 37.5%. In 1989, the members of this House unanimous passed a resolution to eliminate child poverty. Ten years later, there is a 37.5% increase, according to the CCSD.

Campaign 2000 made the same finding: there was a 47% increase in the number of poor children in families with an income below $20,000, a 44% increase in the number of children living in low income families, and a 51% increase in the number of children living in a family relying on social assistance.

Data from Statistics Canada indicate that between 1993 and 1996, 23% of single parent families had experienced poverty for a period of four years. Single individuals make up 19% of the poor, and single parents 23%, a very large proportion of whom are women. It is also reported that one quarter of the population has experienced poverty for at least one year.

In the 18 to 24 year old group, 33% have been poor for one year. According to the Canadian welfare council, the fourth source of reference, four out of ten heads of single parent families are living in poverty, as well as single individuals.

Clearly, four different sources that have analyzed the increase in poverty among children, adults, women and female single parents tell us that since 1989 there has been a real increase in poverty, and this is a source of concern. Certain categories of the population suffer more from poverty, for instance the elderly. Although their situation has improved markedly, we are very much aware that the older one gets the more chance there is to find oneself poor. This is the case for those over the age of 74. It is primarily older women who are poor, and it is said that the proportion is twice that for men.

The situation of young people aged 18 to 24 is also cause for concern. According to Statistics Canada, their poverty rate is the highest of all age groups, 26% in 1995. It is said that, after taxes, 32.5% of young people between 18 and 24 have faced poverty for a full year.

So, poverty is also expressed in terms of increased demand on the food banks. In all our ridings, there has been an increase in demand on the food banks, more suicides, student and family debt, many bankruptcies and reduced savings.

I have cited a lot of figures, but behind them lies a lot of human drama. There is a lot of economic vulnerability, even though the growth rate is strong. Part of the public is not entitled to the redistribution of wealth.

Too many people are kept from being full-fledged citizens. I see poverty as being on a continuum, where, at one end, people are extremely poor and, at the other, people are poor. Those who are extremely poor have a hard time obtaining the essentials, that is, food, clothing and housing. According to the UN, they represent about 6%. At the other end, there are the people who just manage to make ends meet at the end of the month. But where it hurts is the lack of manoeuvring room these people have in meeting their family's daily needs.

Here too work must be done to understand all the facets of poverty. In our society, poverty has many faces, even though they say we live in the best country in the world.

With the present government, we have just gone through six years of social deficits. Let me raise four points, or four government decisions that have really contributed a great deal to the unravelling of our social fabric.

Let us take the Canada social transfer. Provincial governments have lost $33 billion in transfers. This is $33 billion less in provincial coffers, but also $33 billion less in the pockets of individual citizens. The Canada social transfer provides money for education, health, and welfare.

I am now travelling throughout Quebec to speak about what the federal government has done, and the drastic cuts it has made. The sick, women, and children are those who have been hurt. Those cuts will last until 2003. That is right, the cuts are not over just yet. Since the government came to power, the cuts have totalled $21 billion.

What does this mean, cuts of $21 billion, in practical terms. It means a loss of revenue for the provinces. In Quebec, it means we will be hiring 3,000 physicians less, 5,000 nurses less, and 5,800 teachers less. It also means that those most affected, welfare recipients, will get $500 less.

It really hurts. Cuts in the Canada social transfer affect individual citizens the most.

Another issue is the EI surplus. Twenty six billion dollars were snatched back, and six unemployed workers in ten no longer qualify for employment insurance, the new name for unemployment insurance. The problem is that people who suddenly find themselves out of work can no longer count on benefits that would at least ensure them a decent standard of living until they found another job.

Another problem the government has not had the courage to tackle is the non-indexing of tax credits and tax thresholds. The result is an additional $2 billion in the federal government's coffers. This means that, between 1993 and 2001, non-indexing will have enabled the federal government to rake in an additional $17.59 billion.

A fourth issue is federal government funding for social housing. This has become a matter of serious concern. If the federal government had put more money into social housing, there would have been 30,000 additional units in Quebec so that families had decent housing.

The cycle I spoke of earlier in connection with poverty also exists for those who are homeless or do not have decent, safe accommodation, with a roof over their heads that does not leak.

During the holiday season, we saw troubling images of the quality of housing occupied by certain people. This is a disgrace in a country that claims to have the best standard of living in the world. A poverty commissioner could keep close tabs on this government.

I moved a motion in the House of Commons asking the government to develop a concrete plan of action for the next ten years, with full funding, not the piecemeal approach we are used to with this government. There should also be someone in charge of ensuring that any measure taken by this government is properly managed, and monitoring its impact.

We are concerned about the impact of the measures taken haphazardly by this government. It is a big machine. We are all aware of the scandal that was just uncovered at Human Resources Development Canada. We know how this scandal is hurting individuals who might have benefited from government grants awarded through HRDC.

What is happening right now at Human Resources Development Canada is nothing new. I have here an article published in 1987, where a $1 billion black hole is mentioned. This article was written in 1987 by a reporter saying that the way public finances were managed had created a $1 billion black hole.

The government had introduced a tax deduction, a tax loophole really, for businesses involved in research and development. It was later found out that some of them had taken advantage of this loophole but did not give anything in return, because they had not done any research and development. There was no control with regards to the way public finances were managed. This is very troubling.

It is said that such things date back to the time of Marc Lalonde, a Liberal Minister of Finance. Then came another Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, who wanted to put on the brakes but realized it was too late, because the total was up to one-tenth of the national deficit, because of these very shortcomings, these programs and measures that are taken without any real thought.

I could list a number of such shortcomings between 1983 and 1987. I would, however, prefer to continue with the importance of having a poverty commissioner. There is a scandal going on at the present time. In three weeks we may no longer be talking about it, but we know that we taxpayers are the ones providing the funds, and we want to ensure it is better redistributed throughout all of society, to provide more help to those who need it.

It is therefore very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the federal government's actions, which is why a poverty commissioner could put some order in all of this. Not after five or ten years. The auditor general reports on the government's management of various departments, but I consider that the government distributes its largesse with excessive randomness and lack of rigour. There is an ongoing saga of financial shortcomings in all of this government's programs.

I have contacted the auditor general. I would have liked to have seen him report to the House on child poverty in this country, in light of the resolution adopted in 1989. I asked him to assess the measures, decisions and the feedback mechanisms proposed by the government in 1989 having a direct impact on child poverty and to measure the effects on the targeted clientele.

The auditor general's response was that I was raising a very important issue, but that it was the government's responsibility to do such an assessment itself. However, when the government does its own assessments, we know whose desk they land on and how difficult it is to get answers from the minister.

So, the creation of a position of poverty commissioner would set the record straight. The Minister of Human Resources Development is acting as judge and jury in the scandal raging at HRDC. When a government is under attack, it defends itself, and often we do not get the whole picture or the whole truth.

An independent poverty commissioner could answer parliamentarians' questions instead of getting the run around as we are getting the run around at the moment. We in the Bloc Quebecois want an independent auditor. This was supported by 100 of our colleagues in the House of Commons; ten members from all parties.

My fight is not over. I have brought it here to parliament, but I want to recruit support. I have had a lot of it, but what I am after is to have the government see to it that public funds are better managed. Too many people are suffering as a result.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this private member's bill presented by my colleague from the Bloc. It is a bill to amend the Auditor General Act to appoint a poverty commissioner.

The purpose of this bill is to create the appointment of a poverty commissioner for the purpose of reducing or eliminating poverty in Canada. The poverty commissioner would report to the auditor general and through him annually to the House of Commons. The bill gives the poverty commissioner powers to study the causes and effects of poverty, to recommend courses of action to the government, to hold public consultations and to evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken by the federal government.

I have worked with the member and I know she has a heart of compassion for people and a real desire to see people in distress have some measure of assistance and have their concerns addressed in a meaningful way. I commend my colleague for her caring and compassion. When we are in public office we need these perspectives in order to have practical measures to address the concerns of a wide range of Canadians, including those who live in poverty.

There are members in this House who have probably experienced a measure of poverty in their own lives. Some have been more fortunate but we all know that we are responsible to assist each other when we are in need and in distress. This is a proposal whereby we can be of practical assistance.

There is a point of debate here, and I welcome the opportunity to participate as my colleague has invited us to, as to what degree we are personally responsible to be involved in the lives of other people. The poverty commissioner to some degree may allow some of us as Canadians to feel that we do not have to become personally involved in empathizing and caring for the needs of each other because there is an official to do that. My colleague will possibly address this concern when she makes her summary remarks.

We would want to make sure that in taking official measures to address the needs and concerns of our fellow citizens that we do not forget our personal responsibility to reach out to others to care for them, to give them that kind of person to person assistance. That would be more meaningful than all of the debates, studies, interventions, lobbying and papers could ever be.

I wonder whether the member would consider adding an element to her bill. The poverty commissioner she is proposing would also propose, suggest and advocate ways in which we as citizens could personally reach out to each other in a meaningful way.

As she has pointed out, there are many causes of poverty. I would suggest that to some degree when Canadians are in circumstances of distress, someone reaching out to them in a personal and caring way can make a tremendous difference. The encouragement and the interaction during circumstances of distress can give a lift that more official measures will not do. Perhaps my colleague would consider that as an element of her proposed plan and of the work of the poverty commissioner.

We could get into a long debate about the definition of poverty. I am not sure that would be particularly fruitful at this time. At some point we would want to make some distinctions between levels of poverty. There have been a number suggested.

There is the low income cutoff in Canada below which everyone is considered to be of low income or in poverty. However, that level keeps riding as the standard of living rises and perhaps is not a measure of poverty in its truest sense.

The social union and the talks between the provinces and the federal government have suggested a market basket approach. Poverty would be measured by an individual's or a family's ability to afford the necessities of life such as food, clothing and shelter.

These things can be debated. I think my colleague would agree that is not the point she is making at this time. It is not about splitting hairs or becoming technical in the definition of poverty, but about a more meaningful approach in extending practical assistance to people who are in distressed financial circumstances. If she agrees with that, and I think she does, then possibly at this point we could leave aside that element of the debate.

In a country as rich as Canada, it is inconceivable that there are not the resources to ensure that all of our citizens have the necessities of life. My colleague has made that point very eloquently. This country has the resources to provide people with the necessities of life when they are unable to secure those necessities themselves. It also has the resources to provide them with access to education, health care, transportation, housing and learning information because we need knowledge in order to build skills to provide ourselves with the means to secure the necessities of life and more.

It is a point well taken. It is disturbing that in a country like Canada we would have to debate this in the House of Commons. We have seen on our television screens the horrific scenes from countries like Sudan. That is something that goes beyond poverty to tragedy. In a country like Canada we generally do not think in terms of that kind of need. We should not have to think in those terms. It is important that we realistically address the expectations we have for all of our citizens and not just for some.

I have a suggestion for my colleague who has made this proposal of a poverty commissioner. There needs to be measures whereby people can move from the category of poverty to, shall we say, more desirable circumstances.

Many of us were impoverished students at one time. We were barely able to afford one meal a day but we knew that was temporary. We did not consider ourselves to be impoverished because we knew it was a temporary step before we gained the skills and employment we needed in order to have much better circumstances.

Similarly there are people who are new to our country and who are becoming established. They are in very straitened circumstances, to use an old fashioned word. Again they know it is temporary and they look forward to entering our country's economic life and succeeding.

There are individuals who technically but temporarily are in poverty. However I think the member is referring to people to whom poverty all too sadly is more or less a permanent way of life. We need to address this in a coherent fashion. We have piecemeal approaches, some of which, as the member pointed out, have just recently fallen under some cloud. We want to have a very comprehensive way of addressing serious issues like this one.

I commend the member for her efforts. I hope that these remarks will be of assistance to her.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on private members' Bill C-203 to amend the Auditor General Act to create a poverty commissioner.

I agree with other members who have said that it is very sad we even have to contemplate the creation of a poverty commissioner in a country as wealthy as ours.

I want to reflect on the first international trip I made as a member of parliament with the minister for CIDA. We went to Jordan and Israel and into refugee camps on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I had never seen or experienced poverty like that. It was so crushing. The smell and the sight were really appalling and shocking. All I wanted to do was turn around and go back to my beloved country but I still had five more days to go through those refugee camps to experience and see what those people had to live through. There is no escape at that level of poverty. They are walled in with security and armed guards all around them. There is very little hope for those people.

Last spring I made a trip up the James Bay coast to various first nations communities. I saw the poverty they were forced to live in. It was incredibly degrading for them. They had to send their children to a residential school. That was an incredible symbolism of oppression and degradation for them. The school had no fire exit and only one door. None of the fire escapes on the four storey building functioned.

It is unbelievable that in this country people are forced to send their children to those schools. People live three and four generations in one home because our country will not accommodate them in any way and help them live in dignity. The fact is that in the first place they had been forced to move to an area that could not sustain their traditional way of life. This meant they could not feed their children in the way their parents had managed to feed them. We forced them into poverty and then abandoned them to that poverty.

Think about what is happening around us right now with the rising cost of heating oil. For many people it could be completely unaffordable. I do not know if any other members of parliament have ever had to wake up in a house with no heat in the middle of winter and know that there would not be any heat for a long time. That is an experience of poverty which families suffer in this country. There will be even more because social assistance rates are very minimal. They are not adjusted when the cost of heating oil goes up. People who need to heat their house have to take that money out of the food money for their children.

Our first nations people suffer poverty in disproportion to everyone else in this country. The kinds of institutions that would help them or those living in our inner cities move out of poverty are not there. Shamefully, our inner cities are degenerating and there is no hope for the people to move out.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We have to suspend the sitting.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.59 p.m.)

The House resumed at 6.18 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. There are 30 minutes left for the consideration of Private Members' Business and we will then go to adjournment proceedings. Thus, the business of the House will be extended.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, we must have the unanimous consent to do so.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

According to Standing Order 30(7), and I quote:

If the beginning of the Private Members' Hour is delayed for any reason, or if the Hour is interrupted for any reason, a period of time corresponding to the time of the delay or interruption shall be added to the end of the Hour—

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I reiterate my support for the creation of a poverty commissioner. As well, I urge the government to take a serious look at the causes of poverty.

We know that more women live in poverty than men. The rate of children living in poverty has increased. Single parent families headed by women often live in poverty. Women's wages are lower than men's. If women want to escape poverty through education, tuition costs have risen astronomically, which makes it even more difficult for women to achieve higher education unless they have the goodwill and financial help of their families to carry them through.

The poverty commissioner would evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken by the federal government to reduce and eliminate poverty, and advise the federal government on measures it could take to reduce or eliminate poverty.

With the change from unemployment insurance to employment insurance we have a very successful method of redistributing wealth to those who are in need and have paid insurance to cover the losses when they are unemployed.

However, outside of that strip along the southern U.S. border, where most Canadians live, there are those of us who live in remote, rural areas who work in extreme climates where employment is seasonal. We were disproportionately affected by the changes to employment insurance. In Yukon alone it meant a reduction of $7 million. That money was not coming into our area because people were no longer eligible for employment insurance benefits. There are similar stories across the country in every single riding.

I would like to comment on something the Reform member said about creating a poverty commissioner, how it would somehow take away from an individual's ability to reach out in a personal way to help those around them. With the cuts we have seen, people have been trying to look after each other in very practical ways, especially in the areas of education and health care. However, even at the height of the cutbacks there was no lack of people looking out for each other. It never took away an individual's initiative to help someone, to see someone in need and go the extra mile for them. Creating a poverty commissioner would not disempower a single Canadian from taking the initiative to help someone else, to mentor them so they can then become responsible members of our community.

I would like to end by quoting a very respected former member of this House, J. S. Woodsworth, who said “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”. To this end, may we take our share of the world's work and the world's struggles.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to join the debate today on this bill which would establish a poverty commissioner.

In January of this year the PC Party released the report of our task force on poverty. Set up last March, the task force held 16 public meetings across Canada to listen and learn about the causes, the effects and possible solutions to the growing problem of poverty.

We proposed 41 recommendations, which will be considered at our policy convention in May. These recommendations focus on fixing the problems, not allocating blame.

Our task force was set up because the government refused to agree to a joint parliamentary committee to study the problem of poverty, as proposed by one of my colleagues last year during a day-long debate on the issue.

Poverty is a cause of despair among Canada's disadvantaged, while the growing threat of poverty is a source of insecurity for its middle class. It is clearly time to move forward on this issue.

The task force report of my party presents a menu of proposals to start addressing the problems of poverty. Poverty is not a choice for many Canadians; however, poverty comes with a high cost to all Canadians. It is a major social and economic problem which denies our great country access to millions of Canadians who, due to circumstances, cannot contribute to the growth of our great nation.

The direct economic costs totalled billions of dollars in income support and other programs. The indirect economic costs could be even higher since poverty compromises the realization of Canada's potential as an innovative, competitive and prosperous nation in our new global economy. The human costs are immeasurable.

Poverty is a fact of life for almost one in five Canadians. What is most alarming is the growing number of children living in poverty. These children are starting life at a disadvantage. Our task force was told that those who are born poor are at greater risk than children from higher income families of experiencing poverty right through their adulthood.

Today many children are going to school hungry. Children are also part of the growing number of homeless people in Canada. In some of our wealthiest cities the use of food banks is growing at an alarming rate.

The return on investment in preventing and reducing poverty in Canada would be tremendous. The economic and social well-being of all Canadians would be improved. Our task force was told that each dollar invested today in programs to reduce and eliminate child poverty could result in future savings of up to $7.

There are no easy solutions to poverty, but it is time to recognize and deal with this growing problem. The successful implementation of an anti-poverty strategy requires a mechanism by which results can be measured and governments held accountable.

Internationally, Canada has been measured and found wanting in dealing with the issue of poverty.

Our task force talked to Canadians about the need for a social audit. We proposed that a Canadian social audit be conducted by an arm's length agency similar to the auditor general, the privacy commissioner and the information commissioner, including representation from all Canadian governments and all sectors of Canadian society. We are proposing that the social audit agency be appointed by and report to parliament. The social audit should include a mechanism for public input and the results of the social audit should be made public. This would help Canadians determine how well their social programs are working and would give us a tool in developing workable solutions to the problem of poverty in Canada.

The bill we are debating today proposes a similar mechanism. The bill would establish a poverty commissioner under the auspices of the Auditor General Act. The poverty commissioner would analyze the causes and effects of poverty in Canada, evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken by the federal government to reduce or eliminate poverty and advise the federal government on measures it could take to reduce or eliminate poverty.

The poverty commissioner would be a senior officer reporting directly to the auditor general and would report annually to the House of Commons as the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development does now.

Canada currently participates in an international social audit led by the United Nations committee on economic, social and cultural rights, which is charged with monitoring and reporting on countries' compliance with the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Canada ratified the covenant in 1976 with the written agreement of every provincial and territorial government in Canada. By signing this agreement Canada explicitly recognized in particular the right of every Canadian, as outlined in Article 11, to “an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions”.

The international covenant requires periodic reviews of Canada's compliance with the agreement. In 1986 a group of independent human rights experts formed the United Nations committee on economic, social and cultural rights, which was created to develop a meaningful system of supervision to monitor countries' compliance. The Canadian report is prepared by a federal-provincial-territorial committee of officials responsible for human rights legislation in Canada. The UN committee reviews the reports, questions government officials and seeks input from Canadian NGOs. Then it publishes its own conclusions and recommendations.

The last report was critical of Canada and its lack of progress in implementing this covenant. Specifically, the United Nations committee report noted that:

—since 1994, in addressing the budget deficits by slashing social expenditure, the State Party has not paid sufficient attention to the adverse consequences for the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by the Canadian population as a whole, and by vulnerable groups in particular....The absence of an official poverty line makes it difficult to hold the federal, provincial and territorial governments accountable with respect to their obligations under the Covenant.

Under international law we are obligated to take action to improve the standard of living of our poorest citizens. We do not need international experts telling us that it is time to deal with this problem. It makes more sense for Canadians to judge how well the social needs of Canadians are now being met.

It is clear that a domestic social audit for Canada would be an invaluable tool to determine the effectiveness of our social programs in meeting the needs of all Canadians. As our task force stated in its report, it is up to us to start working together to build a road from this poverty. An arm's length poverty commissioner or social auditor could give the government invaluable guidance in targeting Canada's social programs to make them as effective as possible.

I feel kind of sad that the bill is a non-votable bill because it is an extremely good one. I assure the Bloc member that we support the motion even though it is non-votable. If it were a votable item, my party and I would surely support this kind of bill.