House of Commons Hansard #36 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was poverty.

Topics

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, and again I stand to be corrected, it is still happening. We have had a shift in government, but it is still happening.

What perplexed us, and at that time we were the third party in the House, was the deafening silence that came from this place. No one felt any obligation at all, at the national level in government, to speak to an action that hurt kids severely. I think the government had an obligation to speak and it still does.

To answer the question from my colleague from Windsor West, I think the obligation goes beyond just verbal reaction. When something like that happens, the national government has to do something. We cannot standby and let any government turn around and attack the poor in its own jurisdiction. I do not know how we would call anything like a 21.6% cut in income as anything other than an attack. These are the people in poverty.

I remember saying at the time that the history books will show that it was one of the darkest times in our province. What made it extra dark was the acceptance by the public that this was okay and by all of us as politicians who did not do enough in our communities to ensure that one could not get elected on that kind of an agenda. It should never have happened.

The point is that it did. In this federation, there has to be room somewhere for the federal government to do something, other than stand back and wring its hands and say “We're sorry, it is not good”. It did not even say that. I hope that at least it wrung its hands.

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, our children are Canada's greatest resource. That is why, even as it fought the deficit, the Government of Canada continued to meet the needs of children a priority. In this fiscal year, for example, the Government of Canada will invest more than $13 billion in programs that support children and their families, but I agree that we must do more.

I would like to reflect on the government's commitment to our children, our achievements to date, what remains to be done, and how, with the passage of Bill C-22, the new Department of Social Development will become the catalyst for even greater action on behalf of our children.

No single government or jurisdiction can meet the needs of children on its own. We know that. That is why it is so important for the Government of Canada to collaborate effectively with provincial and territorial governments. I deplore these clawbacks. We have worked hard at this partnership and results are starting to bear fruit.

In 1998 federal, provincial and territorial governments reached a historic agreement to establish a national child benefit that has been called the most important social program introduced in this country since medicare.

Through this program, we work together to prevent and reduce child poverty, to ensure that it always makes economic sense for a parent to work rather than to receive social assistance where possible, and finally, to reduce overlap and duplication, and streamline all of our efforts collectively.

While the provinces, territories and first nations provide the services and the programs, the Government of Canada provides income support through monthly wages to families with children. In 2002-03, for example, the Canada child tax benefit provided $5.3 billion in benefits to more than 80% of Canadian families with children. An additional supplement for low income families added another $2.4 billion to this total and reached 40% of Canadian families with children.

Our most recent progress report showed that the program is working. In 2000 the national child benefit reduced the number of low income families by about 5%. In other words, 55,000 children living in about 23,000 families were no longer living in low income families. It is beginning to work.

To put this into even more practical terms, the national child benefit put, on average, approximately $1,800 worth of disposable income into the pockets of these low income families. This is a significant step to reduce the depth of child poverty in this country, but we must do more, and we will do more.

That is why the Government of Canada announced last year that it would increase the national child benefit supplement by $965 million per year by 2007-08. One child in poverty is one child too many.

The spirit of partnership that underlined the creation of the national child benefit was based on a collaborative approach in this country to meet the needs of children and their families. A year after the national child benefit was established, the Government of Canada and its provincial and territorial counterparts launched the national children's agenda. This agenda sets out a shared vision for children through four broad goals: health, safety and security, success at learning, and social engagement and responsibility. We know that if we do not help our children at the early stage, we often lose them and we lose the tremendous potential they have to offer. This is a great disservice to our children and to our country.

Let me touch on three separate initiatives that demonstrate how this partnership is allowing us to focus on our children. In 2000 the federal, provincial and territorial governments launched the early childhood development agreement to help children reach their full potential. Each year the Government of Canada transfers $500 million to support four key areas ranging from prenatal programs and family resource centres to child care and community based services.

This agreement has already brought positive results. In Manitoba, for example, 6,000 vulnerable women have received support to help them have healthy pregnancies. This is very important.

All these efforts are not enough to support the critical need for early childhood development supports and services. That is why last year the federal, provincial and territorial governments scaled up their commitment through a new multilateral agreement for early learning and child care. To that end, the Government of Canada committed to transfer more than $1 billion over five years to provincial and territorial governments to support new investment in early learning and child care programs and services across Canada.

Everyone, children, adults and communities, need to continue learning to make the most of their opportunities. That is why the Government of Canada established a pilot project known as the understanding the early years initiative. It is allowing 12 communities to understand the multitude of factors that influence a child's development. Armed with this information, they can make sound decisions about the right policies and investments that will work for them. Building on the early successes of this initiative, budget 2004 provided funds to expand the program to up to 100 communities across Canada over the next seven years.

All of these programs are laying a strong and needed foundation for our children's future, but there is still one gap. I am speaking of course about early learning and child care.

Canadians told us that child care needs to be a priority, and we agree. They told us that child care should foster children's emotional, intellectual, social and physical development. They told us that child care must be affordable and available to all families who want their children to participate. The time has come for a truly national system of early learning and child care. The Speech from the Throne committed the Government of Canada to move forward on this agenda and to do so expeditiously, which it has.

In November federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed on the shared principles that would guide this new national system of early learning and child care. These four principles of quality, universally inclusive, accessibility and development are the same ones that were recommended unilaterally by both parents and experts.

Much more work needs to be done and we are determined to lay the foundations for the system as quickly as possible. Ministers agreed to meet early in 2005 to finalize an agreement, and this is very hopeful and exciting for our whole country and for our children.

For its part, the Government of Canada will commit an additional $5 billion over five years to make this new national system a reality soon. This rapidly expanding agenda for children demands special attention from the Government of Canada. It demands a department devoted to the social well-being of children, their families and all Canadians. It demands a department with the expertise and experience to understand that early childhood education, quality early learning and child care go hand in hand with economic performance, health, social spending, urban planning and social equity. That is why it is so important to enshrine in law, which we will do, hopefully, from this day forward, the departmental structure for Social Development Canada announced last December.

By splitting Social Development and Human Resources Development into two separate portfolios, the government is giving more weight, legitimacy and value to each one. That means that the government will be better able to give the children's agenda all the attention it so richly deserves.

The Government of Canada has worked effectively with its provincial and territorial counterparts to address the needs of our children. It is time now to take the next step in this ongoing process by creating Social Development Canada.

I urge all members of the House to support the proposed legislation. Our children deserve no less than all the attention that we can afford to give them. I can tell members that as a new MP I will make it a high priority for myself, as well as our government, to put the needs of children first, and this is a first step.

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Boulianne Bloc Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague. I think that she also gets to the heart of the matter when she says “One child in poverty is one child too many”. Unlike her fellow MP and minister, I think that she is really getting into the debate.

I would like to ask her a question though. How can we believe her when she says that child poverty is now a priority for the government? We all know that for many years, in a period of economic prosperity, nothing has been done about it. As I said earlier, the child poverty rate was close to 16%, or one child on six. What changes can we expect then?

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, our government has put huge investments into the area of helping our children but we do have to do more. Our national child benefit does benefit children across the country and it will be increased each year. This is something that is historical and shows what our government thinks. It shows that it is a priority.

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, I have a concern that I would like to express and one on which I would like the hon. member's comments.

We know that child poverty and the poverty of women is tied to our employment insurance system. Right now approximately 35% of women will never be able to collect from premiums that they have to put into the system. It has been a deplorable state. It has been a cash cow for the government and it has been off the backs of workers, predominantly women and children who do not get the supports necessary in times of need.

I would like to ask for the member's opinion, in terms of our current employment insurance system, on whether or not it needs to be fixed. What in particular would she agree to do to fix that system?

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, we do have the Prime Minister's task force which will be bringing down recommendations on this issue. We also have the subcommittee of human resources. This matter has been taken very seriously.

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Gagnon Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Madam Speaker, I like the speech on poverty that I have just heard. However, the time comes when we must get to the real numbers.

They think they can reduce poverty by increasing the structures, but I do not understand. Entering into areas of provincial jurisdiction is not the way to reduce poverty, at least as I understand it.

I would like to ask the hon. member this question. In five years the federal government has increased the numbers of its public servants by 46,000, or 21%. Does this help to reduce poverty, or would it not be better simply to provide services? The number of structures are increased, but the government just gets fatter and poverty is not reduced.

To follow up on the question that was just asked, at present 39% of workers who have paid employment insurance premiums can hope, if they should lose their jobs, to receive employment insurance benefits. Thus, 61% of the workers who have contributed will not get benefits. Does my hon. colleague not think that among these workers, fathers supporting their families, there might be pockets of child poverty?

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, as a government I think we have shown initiative by striking the task force and bringing down recommendations. We understand and acknowledge that there are issues. I believe we will be anticipating some improvements and changes.

In terms of jurisdiction, I know I have heard the hon. Minister of Social Development say on many occasions that there will be respect for the jurisdictions.

I want to commend the hon. member on the model in Quebec which it is renowned. I am confident that the member would want our government to extend this positive benefit to all Canadian children.

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Gagnon Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Madam Speaker, I do not understand. I will just take the example of seniors. I will use the word “steal” because no other word fits what is being done to our seniors. From the poorest of our seniors, those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, $3.2 billion has been taken over the last 10 years. Now, with this legislation and this new department, are they preparing to repay to these seniors the money that was stolen from them, through no fault of their own? Is that not a source of poverty?

I know people who have had to provide their aged parents with the necessities of life, but realized, when their mother died at the age of 88, that she had been deprived of $90,000 by this government. Children having to support their parents who were deprived of the money owed to them. Is that not a way of impoverishing the children?

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, we have this in the GIS and we are proposing increasing that. It was part of our platform and we intend to follow through on that.

As well, I understand that those people who were not getting the money that they were supposed to get were given, I believe, up to 11 months back.

The splitting of this department will be helpful to everyone, to seniors, to caregivers and to our children. It will give emphasis to every area in a way that has never happened before.

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yvon Lévesque Bloc Nunavik—Eeyou, QC

Madam Speaker, what I cannot understand is that since the beginning of this session, we are speaking out against the increasing number of departments and the duplicating of jurisdictions. For example, another department will now be created and the number of public servants will be increased again in this area.

The provinces, Quebec as well as Ontario I am sure, have departments that could very well manage these programs. Why do we not release funds for these departments in these provinces? This would help save a lot of money that could be used directly to reduce poverty. What we are doing now is only making the rich richer.

How does the member plan to ensure justice is done for the poor people?

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, we are not infringing. In fact, we are doing the opposite, we are collaborating. This will allow us to give the adequate resources so we can follow through in a more effective way. It is a one-stop shop. It is not a duplication. It is a shared service model and one that will be beneficial and will enhance our capacity again to distribute the services in a way that affects people's lives and quality of life.

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Gagnon Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I still do not understand. What we are hearing is unacceptable. How dividing a department in two has increased the number of public servants by 14,000? This will increase spending by some $700 million a year. How does this create a single window?

Do you not know that if these $700 million a year went into administration in the jurisdictions belonging to Quebec and the other provinces, that would help to alleviate poverty? Is the member serious when she thinks that a bill such as this would help reduce poverty? I cannot believe it.

When the government increases the number of public servants by 46,000 and its administrative cost by $7 billion a year over the last five years, do you think that this money does not create poverty?

We say that this money must go to the provinces. To those who are responsible for social assistance, health and education, I say stop encroaching. Perhaps they will then be able to think about reducing child poverty.

I would like to have a reaction on this. There are perhaps two minutes left.

Department of Social Development ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member is getting his information but this entity has pre-existed. The member must be aware that the bill would only legalize it. This concept was under another umbrella and what we are simply doing is making it a legal entity. It is not a duplication.

In terms of extra costs, the fact is that there are virtually no extra costs. The same services will be distributed from the offices that currently exist. I believe there are 300 regional offices across the country.

The House resumed from November 30 consideration of Bill C-5, an act to provide financial assistance for post-secondary education savings, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motions Nos. 1 and 2.

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at the report stage of Bill C-5.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 2.

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the question now before the House.

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare Motion No. 2 lost.

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Liberal

Joe Volpe LiberalMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

moved that Bill C-5, as amended, be concurred in.

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Education Savings ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.