Debates of Feb. 20th, 2007

Opposition Motion—National Anti-poverty Strategy

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the time I have I will reiterate what the Conservative government did in the last budget, which the NDP did not support and which really surprised me. We had tax cuts for the most vulnerable, those with the lowest incomes, and that took 650,000 people off the tax roll. Those are not the people at the top end. Those are the folks at the lower end who have low incomes.

We did more in one budget to help the poor in the country than the last government did over the last four or five years.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

I will begin by honouring the member for Sault Ste. Marie for his tireless efforts in bringing this motion before the House and the amount of work he has done from coast to coast to coast in terms of trying to raise the awareness of all around the matter of poverty.

I will speak specifically about poverty for first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and I will begin with the Assembly of First Nations' “Make Poverty History” campaign. It has a first nations plan for creating opportunity. Its campaign lays out some pretty desperate statistics.

Someone from Save the Children, an international organization, recently came to Canada and visited two communities in northern Ontario. The person looked at the desperate situation around housing, water and access to education for many people on first nations reserves.

The Assembly of First Nations talks about the shocking reality of first nations poverty and provided a couple of statistics. It talked about the fact that one in four first nations children live in poverty in Canada compared to one in six Canadian children and that suicide accounts for 38% of all deaths for first nations youth aged 10 to 19.

With regard to housing, first nations homes are about four times more likely to require major repairs compared to Canadians homes overall. Nearly 1 in 30 people live in homes with no hot or cold running water, no flushing toilets, and 5,486 of the 88,485 houses on reserve have no sewage services. About one in three first nations people consider their main drinking water supply unsafe to drink.

With regard to communities, applying the United Nations human development index would rank first nations communities 68th among 174 nations.

The statistics are grim. What we see is decade after decade of report after report that talk about exactly the same kinds of issues. Surely by now parliamentarians would be weary of hearing about the reports and be moved to action.

The Assembly of First Nations is actually moving itself to action because it is tired of waiting on parliamentarians. On Friday, this document will be made public. National Chief Fontaine and the Assembly of First Nations have put together a campaign entitled, “The $9 billion Myth Exposed: Why First Nations Poverty Endures”. This document, which will be public on Friday, states:

Where is the $9.1 billion being spent? Only $5.4 billion of all federal “Aboriginal” spending actually ever reaches First Nations. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Department officials have confirmed that only about 82% of policy and program funds actually reach First Nations in the form of grants and contributions. Treasury Board estimates that 11% or $600 million per year is spent on INAC departmental overhead. It is estimated that only about 53% of “aboriginal issues” funding from other federal departments actually reaches First Nations. This issue requires further study.

The document goes on to talk about why first nations are still living in poverty:

The federal system of fiscal transfers to First Nations communities is broken. Quite simply, funding cuts to First Nations programs and services over the last decade have made impoverished conditions much worse. First Nations communities have to provide more programs and services, to more people, with less money every year. The result is that the poverty gap has been widening further every year. Due to the 2% cap on core services that has been in place since 1996, the real purchasing power of FIrst Nations has steadily decreased due to annual increases in population growth and inflation. The total purchasing power lost by First Nations communities since 1996 is now 23 cents for every dollar, and we are losing more every year that the 2% cap remains in place.

Further on in the release, National Chief Fontaine talks about the fact that the first nations population is growing at a much faster rate than Canada as a whole. More than half of first nations people are under 23 years old. Freezing their budget at a 2% to 3% growth rate means that first nations governments cannot keep up with the demand of their growing population.

The Auditor General has recognized the fact that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada funding increased by only 1.6%, excluding inflation in the five years from 1999 to 2004, while Canada's status Indian population, according to the department, increased by 11.2%.

Furthermore, there is a notion that first nations receive a disproportionate share of money, but according to this release, first nations individuals receive less than half the amount allocated to each Canadian. On average, Canadians receive $15,400 in programs and services from their three levels of government, whereas first nations individuals receive $7,200 in comparable programs and services from the federal government. Those are shocking figures. It does not stop with first nations.

I would like to talk about the Inuit. In the report “Housing in Nunavut: The Time for Action is Now” from 2003-04 and 2004-05, again there are more grim statistics. I will not go over the whole report, but it talks about the fact that 38.7% of Nunavut households are in core need, which means the housing is substandard, inadequate or unaffordable. Fifteen per cent of Nunavut's population is on a waiting list for public housing. This percentage does not include the number of people who have given up and removed their names from the list. The approximate length of the waiting list for public housing is three years. Three thousand units are needed immediately to relieve the current overcrowding rate and bring Nunavut on par with the rest of Canada. For the Inuit peoples in this country, there is a litany of problems, housing, education, access to water.

The Métis National Council Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable sectoral sessions policy papers talk about housing, education and health care. I am going to briefly touch on housing once again because poverty and housing go hand in hand. If one is poor, one cannot afford adequate housing. In the Métis homeland, close to 60% or better of self-identifying Métis adults live on less than $20,000 per annum before tax. We know in many parts of this country that on $20,000 per year one could not possibly afford to rent or own adequate housing accommodation. These low income levels translate into higher incidents of affordability problems. This is compounded in many larger urban centres by the high cost of housing, both rental and home ownership, and by costs for shelter rising faster than income. All this dramatically affects the total wellness of families as there is no money left for other necessities in life once they have paid for their housing.

One of the things often talked about is consultation. First nations, Métis and Inuit peoples would welcome meaningful consultation. They would welcome being at the table as the problems are identified. They would welcome being at the table as the solutions are discussed. They would welcome being at the table in a meaningful way when implementation plans are being drawn up. The reality is that consultation is often superficial, rushed and does not allow communities the broad spectrum.

One only has to look at the matrimonial real property consultation that is currently going on. The Native Women's Association of Canada has talked about how there were serious concerns from participants regarding the short timeframe for consultation and the turnaround time for the consultation process. They go on to talk about how in other consultation processes they were given at least a year. In this case they were given a mere three months.

We know how complex the issues are. When we talk about issues like poverty, housing, matrimonial real property and education, meaningful consultation means that first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples must help develop that consultation process. The courts have talked about that.

In conclusion, the Assembly of First Nations put together a report card on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The Assembly of First Nations talked about the lack of progress on key socio-economic indicators. Based on our assessment, Canada has failed in terms of its action to date.

This is an equal opportunity failure. It is a failure on the part of the former Liberal government and it is a failure on the part of the current Conservative government. They have failed to put meaningful action in place in terms of housing, education, access to clean water, sewer infrastructure, et cetera.

International communities are now paying attention to what is going on here in Canada. Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples are living in third world conditions.

I would urge all members of the House to support the New Democratic Party motion and make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. Fairness and affordability should be our mantra.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made many statements and used a lot of facts and figures, but she knows me, she knows my riding, she knows that with all those figures and the value that they have, nothing compares to walking down the streets and visiting the homes. It is quite dramatic when we visit the people who live these lives and live in communities such as Pikangikum and North Spirit. Walking down the streets, one wonders how they can live in those homes and how they can survive some of our harsh climates.

I believe that the member and I were elected on the same day. It is one thing to look back and blame people, but I want to look forward and see how we can do this.

I want to speak to my colleague about consultation. She mentioned that there was no consultation in the past, but I happen to know there was lots of consultation in the Kelowna accord. It was a process we started and regardless of whatever reasons she wants to give, it was not moved forward. It is about carrying on the talk. The Kelowna accord was the first step in answering that.

I would like her opinion on whether the Kelowna accord was a valuable step forward. Should we carry that forward?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know from communities like Pikangikum that the needs are desperate. I referred to a litany and again, there is a litany of communities across this country, Pikangikum, Kashechewan, Attawapiskat, and many more. The Kelowna accord was a good step toward closing the poverty gap in this country for first nations, Métis and Inuit people.

Recently the Auditor General in reviewing the B.C. treaty commission process, the B.C.T.C. process, talked in her report about the failure of governments to develop a meaningful consultation process. Although Kelowna was a good step, we know in many other circumstances that the consultation process has not been developed. When we are talking about land claims, comprehensive land claims, specific land claims, treaties, implementation of treaty agreements, the consultation process is flawed. In many cases, there is absolutely no dispute resolution process, for example.

I would agree it was a good first step, but I would suggest that there is much more work to be done.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from listening to some of the conversation today I have some hope that we might get to an anti-poverty strategy that might deal with some of the very difficult circumstances that many of our first nations people live with.

I was in Thunder Bay a little over a week ago and there the face of poverty is obviously aboriginal. Poverty is horrendous and terrible and should not exist in this country.

The United Nations has called on us, because we signed on to covenants, agreements, to address the human rights of all of our people, particularly our aboriginal people. The UN has been particularly scathing in its criticism of us. Today's motion flows from some of that international concern and the leadership that has been shown.

I am really disappointed that the Bloc has indicated that it is not going to support this motion. When the Bloc members get a chance to speak, I would like to ask them why it is that they cannot see that we have been called upon by the international community to live up to some of the covenants on human rights that we have signed. The conditions our aboriginal brothers and sisters live in need to be addressed by the federal government. We need an anti-poverty strategy to, at the very least, deal with that.

How would the member square the circle of the Bloc not supporting this very important motion that has at its very heart the righting of our relationship as a country with our first nations?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member for Sault Ste. Marie talked about is fundamental to developing an anti-poverty strategy and that is the fact that the current government has failed to support the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. That would have been a strong signal to first nations, Métis and Inuit people and all Canadians that we take seriously indigenous rights in this country.

I would encourage all members, including our Bloc colleagues, to support this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the NDP's motion today. I would also like to thank all of my colleagues who have talked about this motion today, especially the member for Sault Ste. Marie. For months now, even years, he has been travelling across Canada, visiting every region to learn more about poverty that has taken root over the years—poverty that is totally unacceptable.

The opposition motion was tabled by the NDP member for Sault Ste. Marie; hats off to him. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, there is a growing prosperity gap in Canada that is making it harder for working and middle-class families to make ends meet and sees more and more Canadians, including women, children, seniors, aboriginal people and people with disabilities, slipping into poverty and therefore calls on the government, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, to implement a national anti-poverty strategy beginning with the reinstatement of the federal minimum wage to be initially set at $10 per hour.

It says quite clearly, “in cooperation with the provinces”. I have trouble understanding the Bloc Québécois' argument that this falls under provincial jurisdiction. It says “in cooperation with the provinces”. Please. I do not see how the Bloc Québécois can go back to the workers of Quebec and explain that it voted against a motion because it claims a federal body cannot raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour to try to help poor people in this country, our workers.

I will not waste all of my time on that issue. It will be up to Quebeckers to judge the Bloc on its position when the Bloc votes against the NDP's motion this evening. This measure will not eliminate poverty, but it will help fight it.

Today, when men and women earning minimum wage cash their paycheques on Fridays, they have to go to food banks to get enough to make ends meet. This is happening in our country, which is supposedly one of the best countries in the world.

A while ago, the Liberal government, with the help of the Conservatives, made deep cuts to employment insurance. Now, 800,000 people do not qualify for employment insurance and 1.2 million children go hungry and live in poverty in our country. That is totally unacceptable.

In Toronto, people are sleeping on cardboard boxes in front of city hall. This had never been seen in the past. Today, in big cities like East Vancouver or Montreal, people are having to beg in order to get food. In a country like ours, this is unacceptable.

The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan spoke about the aboriginal people, for example. Is poverty among the aboriginal people acceptable here, in Canada? Is this acceptable? I say it is not. It is shameful.

We see the Conservatives defending the corporations or companies that do not pay their employees. They do not talk about the company presidents, for example, who draw salaries worth tens of millions of dollars a year. As of January 15, they will have received more in salary than what the poor in Canada make in an entire year. No one talks about that.

I am proud of the NDP. During the reign of the former Liberal minority government, it secured $1.6 billion for affordable housing, to give people a chance to have a roof over their heads. I was proud of that. In Bill C-48, $1.5 billion was provided to give students a chance to survive. Poor people were trying to send their children to university and were not able to do it because it put them $40,000 in debt. That is what it costs them. At the time, the Liberal government applied their bankruptcy over 10 years. They were treated like second-class citizens. And yet if a big corporation tells the government that it is going bankrupt overnight, there is no problem. It hides its money somewhere else, in other countries, some here, some there, and then it decides to declare bankruptcy. For those corporations, that is fine. But we, collectively, cannot help our families.

I know that welfare is a matter under provincial jurisdiction.

When the government cut employment insurance, it sent people directly onto welfare. The rate of people receiving welfare has risen everywhere in Canada. I think that as leaders and legislators we have a responsibility to provide the tools so that people can get out of poverty. For a country like ours, as rich as ours, not to be able to feed its schoolchildren is shameful.

Take employment insurance as an example. The government has passed laws that create poverty rather than stemming it. That is what the government has done.

When we proposed measures in the House to change the Employment Insurance Act so that workers who lose their jobs could receive employment insurance, the Liberals and Conservatives were against those changes. That is what has led to poverty.

People in my riding call me and say, “Mr. Godin, I do not even have money to pay for the oil to put in my furnace,” or “Sir, I do not even have money to pay for wood to heat with. My children and I have to live in a house where it is cold and we are freezing”. This is shameful.

I am proud of the NDP motion. This evening, I would like to see who will vote against this motion. I am anxious to see who will vote against the idea of being able to help a worker to earn $10 an hour in our country.

The government boasts that the unemployment rate has declined and that there are more people working. In fact, there may be more people working but some of them are forced to hold three jobs in order to make ends meet.

Some people are forced to work in a restaurant during the day, to work in a second restaurant at night and to work in a third restaurant on the weekend in order to get by. Often, it is women who are the poorest. They are frequently single mothers. Look at the percentages and look at the studies that have been done in Canada. We are not helping the people who live on social welfare.

There should be transfers to the provinces, especially when we see that the government has billions and billions of surplus dollars in its coffers. I repeat, there are billions and billions of dollars.

The transfer of funds to the provinces would enable poor people to get off the street, to find affordable housing. What kind of society do we have? On the one hand, each week the government sends its ministers travelling to other countries of the world to tell everybody what a great country we have in Canada. On the other hand, we are not even able to look after our aboriginal people, nor are we able to take care of the poor people who live on the street. We are not able to look after the children who go to school on an empty stomach because they did not have even a glass of milk for breakfast. It is shameful. This evening, I defy anyone in this House to vote against a motion that seeks to prevent poverty in our country.

In the period when Ed Broadbent was a member of Parliament, in 1989, Parliament was unanimous in its desire to eliminate poverty within 10 years. However, instead of being eliminated, poverty has doubled.

Instead of helping to eliminate poverty, they have created it by making cuts to employment insurance. Then, they tried to make us believe that people were lazy slackers who did not want to work. That is not the case. It is because their jobs have been eliminated. Workers have lost their jobs in textiles and the fishery. Paper mills have closed their doors. Sawmills have shut down. That is what is happening in our country. That is how we have created poverty.

To be eligible for employment insurance, a worker must have accumulated 910 hours. Many women work 20 hours per week. In spite of that, they are not eligible for employment insurance. In addition, processing employment insurance applications takes 45 days. During that time, how do you think those people are supposed to live?

In conclusion, I ask this House of Commons and all political parties to vote in favour of this motion, for all Canadians and also for Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois is ready to vote against this motion. I ask the Bloc to vote with us in solidarity with all workers.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yukon, National Defence; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, Manitoba; the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Shipbuilding.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his tenacity on the EI file. He is very good at his work.

He would be interested to know that in 1989, Ed Broadbent, on what we thought would be his last day as a parliamentarian, brought forward a private member's motion to seek to achieve the elimination of poverty by the year 2000. It was a Friday afternoon. I believe there were only 11 people in the chamber when the question was put.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

That's not true. I was there.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The papers reported just a handful of people in the House. When they called the question, somebody said, yea, and nobody else said anything. It carried and disappeared.

The papers did not even report the story, which was interesting. However, the speeches were good because they emulated many of the arguments that the member opposite made about the basic necessities of people, and he gave examples of that.

My question for the member has to do with a federal minimum wage, starting at $10. It appears that it is just a way of indicating to the provinces that they should also reassess their own minimum wage levels. Is this something that the member would recommend to all provinces, to emulate the $10 minimum wage?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the members that at the time Doug Young was a Liberal, although I know he signed a card with the Reform Party after. On July 31, 1989, he wrote an article in the paper stating that it would be devastating if the Conservative government cut the employment insurance, that it would cause poverty for all people.

On that Friday, if there was nobody in the House of Commons, I do not know where they were. They were being paid to be in the House. The NDP was in the House doing its job. Maybe the Liberals were at home.

When we look at the $10 minimum wage, we want all provinces to follow. If we want it to work, it is in cooperation with all provinces to ensure it is done across the country. They have to work together to bring their minimum wages up.

When I speak to business people, they tell me if everybody raises their minimum wages, they will be okay with it. If people get paid more, it means that they can buy more. Right now they are at the point where they are starving. They are not buying. If only one province brings its minimum wage up to $10 an hour and another stays at $6.50 or $7.00, then competition happens. They will agree with it if we do it across the board and help all people raise their standard of living. Nobody can live on $6 and $8 a hour. It is impossible. Go and ask them, and that is what they will say.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's presentation was excellent. He has such passion the people in Canada who live in dire circumstances and in poverty. He is a great advocate for working people in the country.

One of the things he mentioned was the issue of women working 20 hours a week and not being eligible for child care. It reminded me of something Rosalie Abella, a Supreme Court Justice, said. She said that child care would be the ramp that would drive single parents out of poverty.

Would my colleague speak to the commitments made in 1993 by the Liberals on a national child care program and again in 1997 and in 2000? They never acted on this. Could my colleague tell us about his experiences with women who are looking for child care in his community?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was invited to a meeting in Moncton. Women were talking about child care. They sincerely did not believe the $100 being given by the Conservatives to parents with children would help those parents who had to work.

The reason for child care is because parents have to go to work. It is not for the ones who stay home because their husbands make maybe $80,000 a year. The ones who are forced to go to work need child care. They need workers to be well paid. They need good programs and decent child care. The Conservatives have been negligent on that. It took it away from them. Shame on them and shame on the Liberals, too.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Joliette.

I am happy this afternoon to rise and speak to this motion denouncing the impoverishment of the middle class and proposing a national anti-poverty strategy. Although the middle class has obviously been slipping into poverty, the Bloc Québécois has problems with a national anti-poverty strategy.

Whether Liberal or Conservative, the federal government has obviously failed in its duty to the most vulnerable people in society. The gap between rich and poor has been constantly widening.

All the while, the Bloc Québécois has been resolutely defending the interests of the unemployed. I myself brought forward a bill to improve the employment insurance system. Other colleagues in the Bloc have introduced a number of bills on employment insurance and an independent employment insurance fund. The Bloc has always tried, therefore, to defend the interests of the unemployed and will continue to do so.

We tried to defend the interests of older workers through programs on mass lay-offs and the interests of older people through the guaranteed income supplement. We defended women, minority groups, and all the Quebeckers whom the government abandoned when it eliminated or cut back the programs to help people on low incomes.

The Bloc Québécois agrees that it is important to have a national anti-poverty strategy, but it is the strategy of the nation of Quebec that it supports. The federal government’s responsibility is to provide adequate support, through financial transfers, to the provinces and Quebec to help them combat poverty.

The Bloc Québécois feels that a Canada-wide strategy adopted by the federal government, as proposed in this motion, would not solve anything and would just duplicate what is already done in Quebec and some provinces.

Quebec already has $7 daycare, benefits for families living on modest incomes, and low tuition costs, and the results have been very good.

For example, our numerous programs to support families resulted in the birthrate actually increasing in 2006. That has not happened for 20 years. When there is proper support for families that want to have children and programs to provide them with a reasonable standard of living, then we see an increase in the birthrate.

The key for us is obviously always respect for particular jurisdictions. We urge the federal government to do a few things that for far too long it has refused to do, in particular, improve the employment insurance system, establish a work program for older workers, use the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation surpluses to build social housing, and implement some of the other programs we have suggested over the years.

In regard to the proposal in this motion for a minimum federal wage, it is important to know that the minimum wage varies now from one place to another. In Quebec, for example, where the government is already very aware of this issue, we have had legislation to fight poverty and social exclusion since December 2002, in addition to the social programs addressing poverty. The minimum wage in Quebec is among the highest in Canada.

If we could get transfer payments that would enable us, among other things, to resolve the fiscal imbalance, we could obviously increase what we give to the most disadvantaged people in our society. Among the most vulnerable people that the federal government has abandoned are thousands of Quebeckers.

There is no doubt that we will remember September 25, 2006 as a dark day, as a result of those cuts. It was the same day on which the government declared an annual surplus of $13 billion. I would remind the House that the Conservatives announced $1 billion in cuts over two years. How were these drastic cuts to be made? They were to be made based on Conservative ideology. The cuts affected education and literacy programs, a number of programs targeted at those most in need, and social housing. For us, this was a dark day, one that we deplore. The anti-poverty strategy will have to be rebuilt from scratch. Certainly, we must compensate all those people who have been left needy and destitute.

I would like to touch on child care services. In our view, as soon as it came into power, the Conservative government reneged on the agreement Quebec had with the previous government, which recognized its competence, after Quebec fought hard for years and years to have it recognized. Since then, the government has created a shortfall of $807 million. It has done the same thing with the agreements it had with the other provinces.

Furthermore, the Conservative government went ahead with a taxable allowance of $1,200 paid to the lower-income person in each couple, not based on household income. In our view, the direct payment to parents constitutes a federal social program, that is, an element of federal policy. This is clearly interference in our jurisdictions, which means another broken promise made by the Prime Minister, who said he would respect Quebec's jurisdictions.

We all know that the need is in Quebec but the money is in Ottawa. We have said so on many occasions. Furthermore, the Conservative government is attempting to meddle in Quebec's jurisdiction by establishing what it calls a pan-Canadian child care system—although no spaces have yet been created—that meets pan-Canadian standards, with conditions that it wants to impose for quality of service, universality, accessibility and child development. We will obviously say no to that.

The Bloc Québécois has reminded the government more than 50 times—that is right, more than 50 times—that it was encroaching on our jurisdiction and we asked it to back down and provide full financial compensation.

This federation already does not work very well. If we have to keep telling the government that it is encroaching on our jurisdiction, we will never get anything done and we will spend our days just defending ourselves and trying to keep what is ours.

With regard to child care, it is important that we recover what belongs to us in order to continue investing in our day care system. It is important to speak of the thorny aspects of federal taxation. Child care expenses are a federal deduction. However, since the child care expense for 200,000 Quebec children is $7 per day, the parents can only deduct the amount they pay. Consequently the federal government has appropriated almost $1.5 billion from parents since 1998. Quebec pays for day care services for these children and Ottawa pockets the money. Year after year, the government appropriates $250 million from Quebec parents, or an average of $1,316 per child, which is much more than the taxable $1,200 allowed by the federal government.

I will stop there, but I will be pleased to answer questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague from the Bloc for her presentation. My question will be simple. This is an issue of federal minimum wage. In 1996, the Liberal government transferred this file to the provinces, which created a difference between the provinces, such as Quebec and New Brunswick. This seems different, but it is a federal jurisdiction. It is a matter of federal employment, federal jobs.

My colleague is saying to all Quebeckers that because of the provincial jurisdictions that the federal government granted us in 1996, the Bloc does not agree that the minimum wage for workers in Quebec should be increased to $10. For that reason, they will prevent this House from passing this motion, or at least they will vote against it.

It is true that Quebec has good child care and many good things. We would like to have as many across the country. The rest of the country says it would like to have the same thing as Quebec. The same is true when it comes to pesticides. Quebec has good legislation against pesticides, preventing people from using pesticides on their flower beds. When the NDP tabled a motion to ensure that everyone across the country got the same treatment as Quebec, the Bloc voted against it.

Since this seems to be a provincial jurisdiction, they would rather focus on that than combat poverty. They prefer to focus on provincial jurisdiction instead of the poverty and hunger of women and children. Is that what they are saying here this evening?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. He obviously completely misunderstands.

When this motion speaks about a national anti-poverty strategy, it means a strategy applying all over Canada. We always say that it is better to transfer the money to the provinces. The provinces are closest to the needs of the people and are best positioned to determine what those needs are and provide the necessary assistance.

This can easily be seen in aboriginal affairs. Under the Indian Act, the federal government is responsible for aboriginal peoples and we can see what a bad job it does.

It seems to me, therefore, that it should leave the management of these anti-poverty strategies to the governments in whose jurisdiction they lie. We know where the money is best invested. Give it to us and we will solve our problems.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Quebec mentioned child care in Quebec. In fact, when we are elected as members of Parliament, we are here to represent our own ridings as well as the rest of Canada. We are talking about a child care strategy. The previous government signed landmark agreements with each province. I wonder if the hon. member was in favour of those particular agreements rather than the $100 taxed benefit.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. To begin with, I obviously represent the people of Trois-Rivières and I represent Quebeckers.

I already stated our position in my address. Insofar as the child care agreement is concerned, we finally obtained this after a hard fight and we fully agreed with it because it complied with the areas of jurisdiction. There was an agreement for $870 million to be paid to Quebec over five years and for it to manage its child care system. That was fine because we already had a system that worked well. We have our own ways of doing things. Our system is also perfectly integrated with our educational system and schools. This approach suited us very well, therefore.

The drastic cuts that we are seeing now pose a threat to our daycare system, which we want to expand. That is why we will continue to oppose them.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion, particularly after the member for Trois-Rivières, who has given a masterful explanation of why the Bloc Québécois opposes the NDP motion.

I listened to my NDP colleague earlier talking about federal jurisdiction in relation to the Canada Labour Code. However, people are not living in poverty based on some jurisdictional division, they are poor in the context of a society, as part of a group that we call a nation, with a state. In the case of Quebec, it is the Quebec state that has this responsibility. In fact it is a constitutional responsibility, in the Canadian context, to ensure that people are able to live their lives without being affected by poverty, with an adequate standard of living.

We cannot compartmentalize things the way the NDP wants to do. In fact, that is not what the NDP wants to do. It would like it to be the federal government that has responsibility for all of Canada, for the fight against poverty. But to the Bloc Québécois this is doubly clear. We think that this fight against poverty must be a function of the Quebec state and of the collective spirit of the Quebec nation. It is therefore clear that the sole purpose of the NDP motion is to give the federal government powers to harmonize, centralize, coordinate. Those are words that we hear from the Conservatives and the Liberals as well as the NDP. On this, they all sound exactly alike.

So it is not a question of the minimum wage or the fight against poverty, it is the fact that behind those good intentions we know very well that there are centralizing aims.

When we talk about childcare, it is the same thing. They say, "Oh, the Quebec child care system, what a great model".

It is no longer the case now, but the Liberals wanted to implement a Canada-wide child care system. They wanted to compel Quebec to spend all the money sent by the federal government for the Canada-wide child care system on the child care system. But we already spend a lot on this, while there are other social needs to be met, precisely so that we are able to have this national Quebec strategy to combat poverty. In particular, there is social assistance, which has been particularly ignored in the political arena in recent years, which is too bad.

The same is true for the minimum wage. I agree that the minimum wage has to be raised, but the battle will be waged in Quebec, with the unionized and non-unionized workers and the labour federations. That is true for Quebec, with the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the CSD, the CSQ. They have a very important responsibility for waging this battle to have the minimum wage raised in Quebec. The same is true for the provincial federations in the rest of Canada. If the CLC wants to coordinate the battle, let it do so. In Quebec, however, just on this point, more than half of unionized workers are not affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress. The responsibility of the labour movement in Quebec is therefore to wage a battle that must be fought on the Quebec battleground, not the Canada-wide battleground.

I might also point out that employment insurance was once under provincial jurisdiction. It was transferred to the federal government in the early 1940s. I always say that Adélard Godbout must be turning over in his grave if he sees how the federal government has used employment insurance as a cash cow, for all sorts of purposes other than the ones it was meant for. Poor Adélard Godbout must be turning over in his grave for agreeing to let the federal government do this.

It was probably done with very good intentions. I can imagine the debate that took place. “What? Quebec nationalists want to prevent the federal government from setting up a fine unemployment insurance program”—in those days they called a spade a spade— from sea to sea, an cross-Canada program that we will coordinate. It will be wonderful”.

What happened? The workers in Quebec, despite their extraordinary efforts at the time of Mr. Axworthy's so-called reform, were not able to succeed because there was no mobilization in the rest of Canada, except in New Brunswick, I must admit.

We were the only ones willing to fight. Now, all across Canada, people recognize that the system has been completely destroyed by the federal government. There is a lot of work to be done there.

I hope that the solidarity of workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada will mean that, with the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Liberals, I hope—the fact of being in opposition will perhaps open their eyes to some of the gaps—we will be able to reverse the trend and produce a system that will contribute in each of the provinces and in Quebec to supporting the anti-poverty strategy.

The motion starts from good intentions, but it hides a basic problem in its conception of the fight against poverty. That is what we are rejecting in voting against the NDP motion. Let us recall the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The motion before us is a good example.

In addition, they want to maintain this system that is really a concession. I have a great deal of trouble understanding that there should be a Canada Labour Code. In my view, it would be much more normal for workers who reside in Quebec to be covered by the Quebec Labour Code. Among other benefits, that would entitle workers who are pregnant to preventive withdrawal from of work, which is not the case with the Canada Labour Code. Let us remember that less than 8% of all workers are covered by the Canada Labour Code.

There is a second factor. The motion looks very good but it does very little. They tell us that we need an anti-poverty strategy—a national strategy. However, that does not respect the motion adopted by this House, which recognized that the Québécois form a nation. They should have said, at least, a bi-national strategy. In my opinion, Acadians also form a nation and the first nations are also nations. They should have proposed to implement a multinational, pan-Canadian strategy within a united Canada.

However, in my view this is an aberration. All workers in Quebec should be covered by the Quebec Labour Code. So, I will not support a motion that wants to institutionalize a situation that we virtually corrected by saying that workers who are subject to the Canada Labour Code, in Quebec or in any province, will be subject to the same minimum wage as other workers.

We must work to increase the minimum wage, but it must be done on the basis of the Quebec and Canadian labour movement. When I speak of the labour movement, I am talking about people earning the minimum wage and who are not organized. That is where responsibility, of the unions in particular, is important. Otherwise, we fall into the corporate approach.

When I said that this motion looks good but does little, I was referring to the fact that only 1% of the workers subject to the Canada Labour Code earn the minimum wage. The motion implies that it is a key part of a multinational anti-poverty strategy in a united Canada. That is wrong. Only 2% or 18, 000 working people would be affected by this NDP motion.

I think they should have ended this motion by saying that the House of Commons requests the government to reinstitute a proper employment insurance system. That would affect hundreds or even millions of working people all over Quebec and Canada and would be in an area of federal jurisdiction. That would have been much clearer.

It is the same for older workers. Why did they not say that a program to help older workers is a priority or a key part of a multinational anti-poverty strategy in a united Canada? Why not mention the guaranteed income supplement?

Quebeckers have decided, at the present time, to have a child care system that is not public. I remind the House that these are non-profit organizations where users pay $7. Let us hope that, after the election campaign, it will still be $7. If Mr. Charest manages to fool people and get re-elected, I would be very worried. But I do not think so. I have confidence in the intelligence of Quebeckers. It should be said, though, that the government provides a lot of support. As a result, the federal government does not have to provide $1.5 billion in tax credits—as my hon. colleague mentioned earlier—of which Quebec parents are therefore deprived.

If there had not been a centralizing desire behind this motion, the Bloc Québécois would have agreed with a Canada-wide strategy to fight poverty in the federal government’s own jurisdictions and not in ways, as proposed here, that are aimed simply at further centralizing a country that is already too centralized.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Joliette, I too came from the labour movement. I used to represent members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, a fine union that is active in Quebec as well, but I disagree with the member profoundly on his reasoning for not being able to support this particular resolution.

I am sure he knows that there was a labour compact. There was a solidarity among working people that manifested itself in the post-war era, a labour accord, so to speak. If productivity is up and profits are up, workers' wages are supposed to go up correspondingly. That was the deal.

That was the post-war accord, the labour contract we made with industry so that there would be relative labour peace and we would not have to wildcat or resort to violence in the streets to get our fair share of this great nation's prosperity. But that accord was broken. It was violated. It has been torn up. The compact has been destroyed. Therefore, this is now up to leadership in labour movements, to activist parties like the New Democratic Party and to members of the Bloc, who I assume share this objective of sharing the redistribution of wealth in a more equitable fashion, which is the job that labour unions have always had the responsibility for.

I do not understand my colleague's reasoning in that he can find an excuse to not support something that I know he personally is committed to and to let some other reason get in the way of the primary objective, which is to elevate the standards of wages and working conditions of the people we represent. When I say “we”, I mean them and us.

I do not accept his arguments. I disagree with his arguments profoundly.

Let me simply say that we live in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world. I do not accept that we cannot afford to provide the basic needs of a family for it to survive. I reject that out of hand.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take another example. I completely understand the NDP members' position. To them, the government of the Canadian nation is the federal government. Unlike us, they would probably prefer that the federal government have far more responsibility.

For example, when the Standing Committee on Finance travelled across Canada, I saw that many people were toying with the idea of a federal education department. If the federal government were to announce that it was creating a federal education department and that it wanted to invest $5 billion in post-secondary education, and if in future the provinces had to meet standards imposed by the federal education department, we would be opposed to that. What would our NDP friends—and I stress the word “friends”—have to say? My NDP friends would say that, for the good of the students, we have to vote for this plan. We cannot accept that, because education is one of Quebec's constitutional responsibilities and because education and post-secondary education are extremely important aspects of Quebec's identity. Such considerations are not important to the New Democrats, but they are important to us.

This measure affects barely 18,000 people who do deserve better working conditions and a much higher wage than they are currently earning. But this strategy is ill considered. We would have preferred that the motion pertain to some of the federal government's key areas of jurisdiction: employment insurance, old age security and other areas that are the federal government's constitutional responsibility.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how disappointed I am. The road to hell is paved with good intentions: what kind of a statement is that? I came here full of hope. I came to the House in 2004 full of optimism that I could work with people of kindred spirit to change the circumstances for many of the people I served as a soup kitchen coordinator before I came here, so that we would make life better.

I have worked with a number of Bloc members on committee and have found them to be people of kindred spirit. I thought we could do something and make things better. Obviously this is a most important moment for me, in bringing forward a motion that would commit the federal government to an anti-poverty strategy, and now he says no. I do not--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Joliette should know that the time has expired, but I will give him a few moments to answer.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. If something other than this wording had been chosen, we would probably have been able to agree. We are not opposed to the good intention, we are opposed to the way it is worded and to the plan that is hidden behind this motion.