Eleni Bakopanos

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to a what I thought was perhaps not a question, I want to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that in the social economy file there is a group that is working on the prairies with aboriginal groups. It is called the Kitsaki Management Limited Partnership, and it in fact deals with La Ronge First Nation Band Council which created it. In partnership, it has established businesses that generate economic and social benefits for band members. That is why the social economy is one that allows the aboriginal people or other disadvantaged groups in our society to build some sort of business.

According to what I have in front of me, Kitsaki has between 20% and 100% ownership interest in businesses ranging from bulk hauling, mining support operations, hospitality, wild rice, financial services, catering and janitorial services, beef jerky and a sawmill. This is one example and it is one of the largest companies in Saskatchewan, as a matter of fact. Therefore, if the hon. member wants to look at what the social economy can offer the aboriginal people, these are very good examples.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I have not had the opportunity to rise in the House for quite some time, I first want to wish a happy new year to all my constituents in my riding of Ahuntsic, who gave me the privilege and honour of representing them here in the House.

Second, I want to thank the Prime Minister for entrusting me with new responsibilities in the House, and about which I am very passionate.

I want to focus today on what the throne speech said about the social economy, which the Prime Minister has made me responsible for.

I want to begin by quoting the World Health Organization. It states:

Societies that enable all their citizens to play a full and useful role in the social, economic, and cultural life of the society will be healthier than those whose people face insecurity, exclusion, and deprivation.

People will ask me, when my title is read out: What is the social economy? It is a relatively new term but one that has been used over the centuries in different terminology. Cooperatives is one example that is used in the rest of the country. In Quebec we talk about l'économie sociale.

I also want to make reference to what actually is the terminology used by the department to which I also have the honour of being parliamentary secretary. The way social economy is defined in terms of the department is that it is made up of foundations, cooperatives, mutual societies and associations that engage in economic activities with social goals. Through their activities and actions, they support their members, citizens at large and the community.

The concept is based on values of sustainable development, equal opportunity, the inclusion of disadvantaged people and civil society.

The social economy is rooted in entrepreneurship and independent community action. However, its main focus, which is what I really like about this file, is the fact that it empowers citizens to effect change and to effect change at the community level but in partnership with both the private sector, the public sector and a whole range of other partners at the local level.

As I said, the concept itself dates back to the early reflections of the 18th century and even the 19th century where we had the workers' movement, for instance trade unions, in various parts of the world. In the western world the social economy became more in vogue after the 1990s when we saw that the markets began to have a different dynamism than they did before. Market solutions to social problems is a relatively new concept. However, as I said, the form that it took before, the cooperatives, has been around for quite a while, especially in the 1970s.

On page 12 of the throne speech, for those who are interested, the government laid out how it views the social economy. It states:

And the Government will help communities to help themselves.

One of the best ways to do this is to get behind the remarkable people who areapplying entrepreneurial skills, not for profit, but rather to enhance the social andenvironmental conditions in our communities right across Canada.

In the Prime Minister's speech, on page 31 of the Debates of the House of Commons , he stated the following: “Enhancing quality of life in our cities is about wanting to help each other. It is about a willingness to work together to build great places to live”.

The Prime Minister continued as follows:

Today this willingness is everywhere in Canada. We see it in the efforts of a million Canadians working in the voluntary sector. And they have our support.

We see it in the efforts of the people who are applying entrepreneurial creativity—not for profit, but rather to pursue social and environmental goals.

That is what we call the social economy—and while it may be a less familiar part of our economy, we must not underestimate its importance.

He said further:

The people who are dedicated to these efforts understand the power of the social economy. The people themselves represent a powerful social resource, and it is high time that the federal government recognizes this.

I think that is why he assigned such an interesting and exciting mandate to me. That is why we must put in place at the federal level tools these groups can use in their activities.

I also want to mention a group that has been actively involved in this area in recent years. I am talking about the Chantier de l'économie sociale du Québec. Following the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's remarks, the Chantier issued a press release, stating:

The Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's remarks constitute unequivocal recognition of how important the social economy is to the social fabric and the economic vitality of our communities. The Canadian government is thus recognizing the pluralistic character of our economy, which is based not only on market and government activities, but also on the contribution of a collective entrepreneurship dedicated to the well-being of its members and our communities.

Such government recognition is meaningful, as it requires government to commit the tools and effort necessary for the development of social economy enterprises, as confirmed in the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's reply this morning in the House. These commitments should translate into an efficient response tailored to the specific needs of social economy enterprises, particularly in terms of capital and openness to various entrepreneurial support programs.

That is exactly the point I would like to address now, because what is important is to recognize organizations that have been active for a long time in the social economy.

First, I will focus on some in the riding of Ahuntsic, which I represent. I would also like to pay tribute to them. One example is the Corbeille Bordeaux-Cartierville.

Corbeille Bordeaux-Cartierville—“corbeille” refers to a basket—is a restaurant, a caterer and a frozen food delivery service. It is a business that reintegrates into the work force workers who need training.

There is also a furniture restoration workshop in Ahuntsic-Cartierville, known as AMRAC. It, too, has the goal of reintegrating workers. They restore and sell used furniture. It is amazing what they produce. AMRAC's furniture is very popular in the riding of Ahuntsic.

Another example is the Association récréotouristique Ahuntsic-Cartierville. The Bistro des Moulins, on Visitation Island, is another group promoting the social economy. All of these organizations are supported by the Corporation de développement économique communautaire of Ahuntsic-Cartierville. They provide some funding.

One of the most important groups in Quebec—somewhat outside the boundaries of the riding of Ahuntsic—is the Chantier de l'économie sociale. This organization supports development and counsels businesses and business networks in a way that complements existing networks. For a number of years, it has been one of the essential partners in the economic activity sector in Quebec.

Another is the Réseau d'entrepreneurs en économie sociale, which is a network of social economy organizations. Its goals are to provide promotional and other services to assist growth and development, while fostering recognition of an image based on the quality of the products and businesses involved.

Many of these businesses hire people with disabilities, women and immigrant women.

I will finish by saying that in both the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's speech there were certain recommendations that came out through the consultations that I did as parliamentary secretary and through the consultations I had with the Prime Minister when he was the finance minister and when he was running for the leadership. Some of those recommendations ended up in both the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's speech.

We will be looking at all the funding programs on the federal level to ensure that they have better access to funding and core funding of social economy organizations. We will also look at regional development programs and make sure they also are accessible to the social economy partnership.

The last comment I want to make before I finish has to do with the Canadian CED Network which is building a fund to mobilize and plan communities. I thank the Prime Minister again for making this one of the priorities in his speech and in the throne speech.

[Employment Insurance Program, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in the debate on the motion tabled by the hon. member for Charlevoix, proposing to grant specific status to seasonal workers under the employment insurance legislation.

As hon. members know, today's debate is of particular importance, since it deals with a program that has been very helpful to workers who cannot continue to work because they were laid off, because they are suffering from a serious illness, or because they must care for a young child. The employment insurance program is more comprehensive than it was when we came to office 10 years ago.

Recently, in January, we also implemented—as most members in this House know—a new compassionate benefit for Canadians who work and who must take a leave of absence to look after a member of their family who is seriously ill. A quick look at the 2002 monitoring and assessment report on employment insurance shows just how effective this program is.

During the period in question, over 1.9 million people submitted new claims and in excess of $11.5 billion was paid in benefits.

The numbers on access to employment insurance were very positive since 88% of those who contributed to the program would have qualified for benefits if they had lost their job.

Active re-employment measures helped workers improve their employability. Indeed, the $2.1 billion invested under these initiatives allowed us to help 570,000 claimants.

Making the rules to qualify for special benefits more flexible and increasing parental and maternity benefits have allowed many claimants to cope with serious illnesses and to better fulfill their family responsibilities.

However, while EI's overall performance is good, there are some workers who face special challenges, to which the hon. member has referred, due to the nature of their work and the industries in which they are employed.

Seasonal workers are one such group whose work is key to a number of industries and regions, as the hon. member mentioned in his speech.

Recognizing this, EI contains many features that benefit them. For example, its hours-based eligibility system is well suited to the special characteristics of seasonal work, which often involves a large number of hours per week. This means clients can use every hour worked in calculating their eligibility and benefits. Every hour counts, which is contrary to what there was before 1996. In the past a worker had to work a minimum number of weeks, which excluded some workers.

We have also established, as a government, economic regions to make it easier for EI to respond to the higher unemployment rate seen in some parts of the country. Simply put, as the unemployment rate increases, the number of hours a person needs to work to access EI goes down. This takes into consideration the difficulty experienced by some workers in finding jobs when unemployment is high in their region.

We also extended the transition period for the regions of Bas-Saint-Laurent/Côte-Nord and Madawaska-Charlotte which will allow many seasonal workers to qualify with fewer hours and receive benefits longer.

Then there is the EI's family supplement, which tops up the benefits of many low income seasonal workers who have children.

The small weeks provision also provides seasonal workers in all regions with higher benefits and helps them keep their skills up to date.

Active re-employment measures help seasonal workers improve their employability and increase their chances of finding year-long jobs. Consequently, those who claim benefits frequently on a regular basis, 80% of whom were submitting claims according to a “seasonal” pattern, received nearly $3 billion in regular benefits between April 2001 and March 2002.

Workers with a seasonal pattern of EI claims received an average of $329 a week, 7% more than recipients in general receiving regular benefits and fishing benefits.

However, no system is cast in stone. As we said, several changes have already been made in our system. Some recent changes have been to the benefit of seasonal workers. Among other things, the intensity rule was abolished, the revenue threshold for short weeks was raised and so was the level of refund for people receiving benefits frequently or for long periods.

Even if the employment insurance plan can help, it is only part of the solution. We must also find a way to strengthen the communities and stimulate local economies in order to promote the creation of full-time and year-long employment.

That is exactly what the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and other federal departments are doing, in partnership with regional development agencies, employers, community groups and trade unions.

We want to consider what the overall impact might be on EI, other clients and our labour markets generally.

The hon. member has in fact raised a valid point. We are seeking input from all our partners and basing our decisions on the best data available to show us where we are going and what changes may be needed along the way. It is for this reason, since this is an ongoing consultation, that I will be voting against the motion and would encourage other members to do likewise.

Still, I want to congratulate the member for caring about seasonal workers. The government shares his concern for their situation.

I encourage the member for Charlevoix and all the other members, since a number of them have raised this issue over the last few years, at least since I have been a member of this House, to help the government in its search for comprehensive solutions to the problems of all workers, including seasonal workers.

It is only through a joint effort that we will find sustainable solutions to the social and labour force problems faced by a great number of Canadians.

[Family Supplement, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to start by thanking all my colleagues who participated in the second hour of this debate, especially the member for Beaches—East York and the members for Portage—Lisgar, Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, Fundy—Royal and Winnipeg North Centre. I thank them for their support.

It is fitting that we discuss this issue today, six years later, and that we address what is happening with the EI Family Supplement. I agree to a certain extent with all the recommendations of my three colleagues, who made suggestions to improve our system. One of the recommendations that I find very attractive—and I think should be reviewed by the government—is the one that we lower taxes for low-income families.

I think the suggestion from the hon. member for Fundy—Royal that we should in fact re-examine where we draw the poverty line in this country is a very important recommendation. When I began this process, the member for Portage—Lisgar asked why it was necessary to bring forward this motion. It was necessary because after a few attempts at having it become part of the budget process and also part of the budget on the government side--and I am a member of the government, of course--I was unsuccessful. I felt it was an important enough issue, as based on everything we have heard today, that I should bring forward this motion to draw attention to the fact that it has not been done.

In the present context of having a surplus and having taken care of the deficit and the debt in this country, I believe we should be looking at ways of improving the situation of low income families. In my opinion, this is just one step in a series of other steps that have been taken by the government in order to ensure that low income families in fact have enough money to be able to live decently in this country.

I do not want to repeat a lot of what was said during the debate, but I again would like to make it clear that in 2000 and 2001, the most recent statistics show that $157.4 million was paid out in family supplement benefits. In addition to the regular employment insurance benefit, low income recipients with children received on average an additional $44 per week. According to the 2001 employment insurance monitoring and assessment report, nearly 11% of all EI claimants received higher weekly benefits through the family supplement.

Again, as other colleagues have said, women and youth benefit especially from the family supplement. Approximately two-thirds of recipients are women and 14% are youth. Women also accounted for 88% of the growth in family supplement top-ups paid to sickness benefits claimants.

I just gave the House an example of a situation concerning the family supplement that shows its obvious advantages for low-income families. It is a good program and I believe the support I received from all my colleagues from both sides of the house shows there is a need for this change. The members may wonder why we are asking for this again. As I already said, there is an obvious need.

The commitment to do more has to be our commitment in this place. We came here to do more and to do better for low income families and for children and women. We should keep what I consider our tradition and our promise on the government side: that we will do everything possible, especially in this time where we do have a surplus in terms of the budget, to make sure that the ceiling for receiving the family supplement is not frozen. It has been frozen since 1996 at $25,921.

I would like to close by first of all thanking all the hon. members who took part in this debate and also those who seconded the motion, the members for Beaches—East York, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, Vancouver East, and St. John's West. I wish to thank everyone who took part in this debate. I want to thank them for their support and for the fact that they seconded the motion.

And since, as Acting Speaker, I do not often have the opportunity to do so, I would like to thank my constituents, who gave me the honour and privilege of representing them here in the House of Commons.

[Cyprus, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I address this Chamber today in order to wish the most cordial of welcomes to His Excellency, the High Commissioner of Cyprus, on the occasion of his visit to Canada.

Canada has always encouraged and supported the complete and permanent settlement of the Cyprus issue via United Nations resolution.

Today there is a new beginning to end the close to 30 year impasse of the Cyprus problem. It is a new era for all the people of Cyprus.

I was extremely pleased to be informed last month, just over a week following the April 16 signing of the accession treaty for Cyprus to the European Union, that thousands of Greek Cypriots, including family and friends of mine, crossed Europe's last great dividing line, the so-called “green line”.

These individuals were able to visit their native homes for the first time since Turkey's invasion in 1974. They were able to set foot on their native soil for the first time in almost 30 years.

Canada will continue to work with the UN to persuade Turkey and the Turkish-Cypriot leader to work within the UN process to end the division of Cyprus and bring unity to the Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

We wish the newest member of the EU, the Republic of Cyprus, peace and unity.

[Family Supplement, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have the name of the hon. member for St. John's West, who I know wanted to second the motion, added to the other members who have seconded the motion.

[Family Supplement, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because the hon. member for Vancouver East, although I should not mention the absence or presence of members in the House, but I know she was not here to second the motion when I asked for unanimous consent, so may I have unanimous consent to include the hon. member for Vancouver East as having seconded my motion also?

[Family Supplement, April 30th, 2003]

seconded by the hon. member for Beaches—East York and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should index the family supplement to the cost of living in the next Federal Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to seek support for Motion No. 395, which aims to have the family supplement indexed to the cost of living in the next federal budget.

It is with great pleasure that I address the House today. I ask my hon. colleagues to support this motion which, in my opinion, addresses one of our main concerns in the riding of Ahuntsic, and other parts of Canada.

I have always made it my duty to help the less fortunate. I am therefore pleased that this motion is geared mainly toward the two most important and vulnerable groups in society: women and children.

Before I begin I would like to thank my hon. colleagues and other members who agreed that the hon. member second the motion. I am sorry that some of the other members who wanted to second the motion were not physically in the House to do so, but I will mention their names: the member for Beaches—East York, my good friend and colleague; the member for Vancouver East, who was not in the House unfortunately when we asked for unanimous consent; the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, thank you; and the hon. member for St. John's West, who wanted to second the motion but was not physically here. I thank them all.

I thank all my hon. colleagues who support this motion.

Indexing the family income supplement under the EI program is important and timely. It is important, and this motion refers to the Government of Canada action plan to help children and their families. It is timely because it has been six years since this family supplement was established. After six years, it seems appropriate to conduct a review to determine whether changes, like the introduction of indexing, are required.

What we are attempting to do is to add one more brick to the existing foundation built by the Government of Canada to help Canadian families and their children.

Allow me to begin by presenting a brief synopsis of some initiatives that the Government of Canada has undertaken to combat poverty and provide Canadian families with the necessary tools to meet their basic needs. That does not mean that we in this House have eliminated poverty. I am sure no member of Parliament is proud of the fact that we have 1.5 million children who live below the poverty line.

Since 1993, one of the principle platforms of the Government of Canada's social and economic agenda has been the support of children and families. In 2002-03 alone, federal investments in child benefits, through the national child benefit and Canada child tax benefit, amounted to about $8.2 billion. Low income families received approximately $5.9 billion of this sum.

This financial support clearly illustrates the Government of Canada's commitment to supporting children and families. In budget 2003 the government built on this foundation with increased support for Canadians, especially children, by, among other items and other programs, increasing the national child benefit supplement to $965 million a year by 2007 and committing $900 million over five years to improve early learning and child care programs and services.

I am hopeful that if our economy continues to grow and the government's budget surplus increases, we can increase more rapidly and quickly the amount of the national child tax benefit and other benefits for children.

The government's economic and social action plan contains more examples of initiatives, such as the national homelessness initiative, designed to help children and the most disadvantaged families. I am in a position to confirm that such initiatives contribute efficiently to the well-being of families and children.

In my riding of Ahuntsic, Café 18-30, an organization working with youth at risk, is but one example of our commitment to fighting poverty among young people and securing a good start in life for all our children.

The government assists Canadian families through the employment insurance program. In 1996, following extensive consultations with Canadians, the Government of Canada replaced unemployment insurance with employment insurance to reflect the changing needs of the economy, the labour market, and workers. At that time the government committed to monitoring the impact of the program on people, communities, and the economy.

As part of this reform, we introduced the family supplement to replace the unemployment insurance dependency provision. Under the previous unemployment insurance legislation, any claimants with low weekly wages could qualify for a 60% benefit rate instead of the standard 55% if they had dependents as defined under the Income Tax Act. Eligibility was based on the income of the claimant regardless of total family income or earnings of the spouse, with low income defined as average weekly earnings of less than $408 in 1996.

Both spouses in a family meeting the criteria were eligible for the 60% benefit rate and both could receive the rate simultaneously.

However, eligibility for the employment insurance family income supplement, which replaces the unemployment insurance dependency provision, is based on family income. Only one of the spouses may receive the family income supplement for a given period. The monitoring and assessment report says that the family income supplement targets low income families more effectively than the unemployment insurance dependency provision.

The family income supplement is an additional support for employment insurance recipients who have children and whose annual family income is lower than $25,921; it supplements the basic benefit that they receive.

Recipients of the family supplement get an 80% employment insurance benefit rate of their insurable earnings compared with the 55% that most claimants are paid. These same families also receive the Canada child tax benefit. The most recent statistics for 2001-02 indicate that $175.7 million was paid in family supplement benefits to a total of approximately 187,000 recipients, of which 134,000 were women.

In addition to the regular employment insurance benefit, low income recipients with children received, on average, an additional $44 per week. According to the 2001 Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report, nearly 11% of all EI claimants received higher weekly benefits through the family supplement. Women and youth especially benefit from the family supplement as the statistics show. Approximately two-thirds of recipients are women and 14% are youth. Women accounted for 88% of the growth in family supplement top-ups paid to sickness benefits claimants.

I just provided the House with a picture of the situation concerning the family income supplement program that shows the obvious advantages of this benefit for low income families. These families still need other support programs, and not only the supplement. However, it is a step in the right direction. I believe this is a good program. Members may therefore wonder why we are asking them to examine Motion No. 395.

I will take this opportunity to address that question. First, I would like to make clear that evidence shows that the employment insurance program is working and is providing unemployed Canadians the support they need when they need it. The commitment to monitor and, if necessary, amend the EI program was not an empty promise.

In the intervening years the government has made changes to improving the program and some of the changes came from members of Parliament from both sides of the House. We made small weeks a permanent and national feature. We enhanced parental benefits and repealed the intensity rule. We modified the clawback provisions and repealed the undeclared earnings rule.

Obviously there is more to do and we can all agree that hon. members in the House have often brought forth motions like my own and others in order to improve the program and improve the system that we have right now.

In keeping with our promise and our tradition I would ask that the government index the family supplement to inflation. There are many reasons for looking favourably upon this motion. One is that the income ceiling for receiving the family supplement has been frozen at $25,921 since its inception in 1996. The result has been that owing to the strong labour market, earnings have increased and family supplement claims have decreased by 4.2%.

On the surface this decrease in reliance on the family supplement would seem auspicious for low income families, but in truth, the increase in earnings that would put some families over the maximum income to be eligible for the family supplement may, in part, be due to rising wages in response to inflation.

The cause of the decrease in claims is something that we would want to examine more carefully. The fact is that many federal program eligibility requirements and payments are already indexed to inflation including among others, the Canada child tax benefit, the Canada pension plan and the guaranteed income supplement.

The indexing of the family income supplement would support the government's efforts to reduce poverty, particularly among groups that are the most affected, that is women and children. The indexing of this component of the program would constitute an additional federal contribution to many provincial anti-poverty strategies.

Before continuing to work and to find new ways of helping families and women, I want once again to thank all my colleagues, both from the government and the opposition, who supported my Motion No. 395. I encourage all my honourable colleagues to support this motion. I want to thank them in advance, as I said, on behalf of all Canadian families and, particularly, all the children who will benefit from it.

Since I do not have this opportunity often as Acting Speaker, I would like to thank my constituents who gave me the honour and privilege to represent them, here in the House.

[Family Supplement, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I need the consent of the House to show that a number of hon. members wish to support my motion. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of this House to add to the list other opposition members who support my motion.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting with the government on each of the present motions.