Karen Redman

[Persons with Disabilities, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, you may find unanimous consent to suspend the House until 12 o'clock.

[Persons with Disabilities, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 243 which calls upon Parliament to ask the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to undertake a study of the current level of financial support provided to persons with disabilities through the Canada pension plan and report back to the House no later than May 2007.

I tabled this motion at the beginning of Parliament several months ago. I view the amendment put forward by my Bloc colleague as a friendly amendment that would move the reporting back to the House to be no later than November 30, 2007. I find that an acceptable amendment because I feel, as colleagues from other parties have said previous to this, that we need to have a comprehensive look at this. This is one piece of the support we give the disabled.

It is interesting to note that the Canadian Human Rights' annual report of 2006-07 reported that the largest single source of human rights violations reported to that committee was from the disabled community. Clearly, we need to do more to help Canadians living with disabilities.

As a former member of the Independent Living Centre in Kitchener, which is run under the auspices of the Mennonite Central Committee, in which I have many friends, I have some experience with the disabled community in Kitchener Centre. All too often, people with disabilities come into my Kitchener office and talk about being forced to choose between purchasing their medications or being able to afford their food and rent. This is quite unacceptable and, in fact, appalling in a nation as prosperous as ours.

It is a great concern that people with disabilities face constant challenges in meeting the bare minimum for basic living expenses. I am sure I reflect a concern that all members of the House share about the number of people with disabilities who face enormous financial challenges. That is why I tabled the motion that is before the House today.

Research shows that Canadians with disabilities have a lower average income and rely more on government programs for income support than other Canadians. People living with disabilities are not always able to earn adequate income through employment. In 2004, the average earnings for people with disabilities were $30,700. This is 15% less than people who were in the job market without disabilities.

Late last year, the United Nations adopted a landmark convention on the rights of people with disabilities and the convention focuses on the rights and development of people with disabilities and presents a vision where disabled people no longer need to endure discriminatory practices and attitudes that have been permitted to prevail for far too long.

For Canada to fully respond to the need of all people to contribute to the best of their ability and to realize their potential, we must address the income deficiencies that exist among people living with disabilities. The purpose of my motion is to seek the review of the financial support provided to Canadians through the CPP disability program.

In 2005-06, almost 296,000 individuals with severe and prolonged disabilities, along with 89,000 of their dependent children, received $3.3 billion through CPP disability. The maximum monthly benefit in 2006 was $1,031, which amounts to $12,372 annually. I defy members of the House to imagine what it would be like to live on that kind of annual income.

We know the Government of Canada supplies support to people with disabilities and their caretakers through a variety of income measures but we need an inter-jurisdictional discussion with other levels of government to ensure that people living with disabilities are able to live, thrive and flourish in this very rich country and not be relegated to being marginalized. That is why I put this motion forward and I appreciate the support of all members of the House.

[Infrastructure, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government's budget ignores infrastructure needs in southwestern Ontario. The finance minister's unfair infrastructure program means that Ontario, with 12 million residents, receives a mere $25 million.

Why is a government that inherited huge surpluses ignoring southwestern Ontario which is a vital part of our province's economy?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to rise. There was what I think was some good-natured banter going on when my hon. colleague was talking about this very important issue. I represent a riding in southern Ontario, so I do not pretend to be an expert on the Wheat Board, but I have to say that I grew up going to school with farm kids and I know how important the marketing boards are in Quebec and Ontario.

Here is what I find egregious about all of this: the duplicity, the dishonesty and the insult to the intelligence of Canadians. That is what I find in this entire exercise in this plebiscite for the Wheat Board. I would ask my hon. colleague if this is not the most egregious part of this whole thing: the misrepresentation of the results of the Wheat Board plebiscite, the fact that they disenfranchised many farmers before they actually had it, and that they had numbered ballots.

I think it is a cause for concern for all Canadians.

[Quarantine Act, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to seek unanimous consent that notwithstanding any Standing Order or special order, the debate scheduled to take place later today on the motion to concur in the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be deemed to have already taken place, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to the end of government orders on Wednesday, March 28.

[Criminal Code, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting in favour of this bill.

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, after we had paid down an inherited $42 billion deficit and paid down the debt so we could start reinvesting in the Canadian economy and priorities of Canadians, under our watch we indeed did reduce the EI contribution on behalf of both the worker and the employer, every consecutive year. We also invested in training for older workers and issues that dealt with the changes in the manufacturing bases.

Another thing that is lacking in this budget is vision. There is no plan for the changes and the challenges that face the manufacturing structure. That sector is hugely impacted in my riding of Kitchener Centre and right across this country.

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the helpful manner with which the government member has asked me that question, but I want to assure her that I have read the budget. What is alarming about this budget is that it divides community against community. It divides high income Canadians against low income earners.

She is quite right. There is some money. I have read the budget. There is some money there for master's and Ph.D. students.

However, there is no financial relief for undergrad students. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but generally speaking one has to get a B.A. or a B.Sc. before one goes on to a master's and a Ph. D., so indeed, this is providing no student relief for those early years and that fundamental basis.

There is no money there for literacy, a building block whereby we start on innumeracy and we start to be able to be functioning members of society.

This budget is stunning in what it is lacking and some of the moneys that are put in are so far out; I will return to the health care money for Ontario: 2014. I ask the member, how is that reasonable when this is a 2007 budget?

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today and offer a few comments on the recent budget speech. I am also pleased to be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre.

This is the second budget that we have seen from the Conservative minority government. The first example of Conservative management of the public purse raised the tax rate in the lowest tax level for the poorest members in our communities. This most recent Conservative budget distinguishes the present finance minister as the $236 billion man, Canada's biggest spending finance minister ever.

I have been in the House long enough to recall times when Canada's coffers were not so plentiful and I have to tell the House that this budget makes me nervous. Governing is more than writing cheques. Canadians expect leadership and vision. They want a strategy for long term national growth. They want investments for the prosperity of Canadians and a commitment to fairness to each and every citizen.

What we have in the budget that was just tabled by the government is a budget that ignores the plight of the poor, the less fortunate and the homeless. At the very least, the barest of minimums, the largest spending budget in Canadian history should offer something for everyone. This budget does not.

When I return to my home in Kitchener Centre this weekend, I expect to be asked what is in the budget for ordinary people. It is a natural response to a federal budget. Canadians contribute. They expect and they deserve a return on their tax dollars.

I will have to tell the single mother that she will have to wait for child care spaces for her two young children as the current government does not look at children, our future, as a priority. Of course, she will be grateful for the $310 per child in tax relief, but it is not enough for child care even if she can find spaces for her two children.

Waterloo region is home to multiple post-secondary institutions and they are outstanding institutions. We have Conestoga College, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University.

I am incredibly disappointed that the Conservative government did not announce an extension of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. This foundation delivers $350 million in needs-based grants on an annual basis. It is another example of how lower incomes are simply ignored as a group by the government. The best and brightest are not always the richest, and as a result, students are carrying an enormous debt burden.

We all want to feel safe in our home and on our community streets. When I think about building a safer Canada, I think about crime prevention and I think about the important work of the council.

It is my experience that many members of the government feel strongly about crime. They feel strongly about punishment. But they only have a cursory regard for crime prevention.

There is no doubt that it is important to invest in the anti-drug strategy that has been announced in the budget and in efforts to combat sexual exploitation of children as well as combating human trafficking.

Recently, I reviewed research conducted by the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council in Waterloo region, and it calls for a reduction in violence by enhancing human and social development.

The tools to reduce violence are extensive and sensible. It is an increase in early childhood education with a focus on the underserviced and low income areas. Studies show that centre-based child care prepares children for school and a successful school experience will lead to fewer dropouts. By providing supplementary nutrition and supportive counselling to low income pregnant women, we contribute to better life outcomes. Low birth weight is a risk factor for violence.

Crime prevention is key to a strong, safer, and better community. Child care is a part of that solution. Support for women is part of that solution. Support for lower income people is also part of that solution.

The fact is that the budget makes no mention of poverty. It does nothing to address homelessness. This is a glaring omission. As a matter of fact I find it astonishing.

We should think about how we Canadians spend our paycheques. Our first priorities are where the needs are the greatest. The necessities are food and shelter, but when the Conservative finance minister sets out to spend more money than any other finance minister has spent before him, he ignores these needs. He does not even mention necessities such as food and shelter. He says he wants to help those who are huddled around the kitchen table, but he completely neglects Canadians who are huddled around the heating grate or the alley dumpster behind the local restaurant.

There is no doubt in my mind, when prosperity enables us to spend, we should spend it where the need is the greatest. While those on that side of the House may disagree with me, I believe that there is much agreement about those huddled around Kitchener Centre kitchen tables and in constituencies right across this country that we need to reinvest in those who have the greatest need.

Despite the tremendous resources the government has at its disposal, the budget does little for the average working family. There is nothing to position Canada for the 21st century. On this side of the House we cannot stand up for such a narrow, ineffective budget, particularly at a time when Canada faces enormous challenges on competitiveness, the environment and social justice.

In Ontario, we shall have to wait till 2014 for fairness on federal health transfers. That is simply too long for patients and others who are waiting for surgery, and it breaks a Conservative campaign promise to address wait times immediately.

Further, there is still no long term predictable funding mechanism to address public transit, which leads to more ad hoc projects as opposed to an integrated, comprehensive plan to reduce gridlock. This is of particular concern in my community where a partnership with the region's light rail transit proposal would connect the region and present extensive economic growth opportunities. The budget is silent on those kinds of projects.

It is through fiscal prudence and responsible spending of Liberal governments that Canada eliminated a deficit and went on to build one of the strongest economies in the world. I am astonished at the level of spending in the Conservative budget and I am completely disappointed by the haphazard manner in which this money has been disbursed.

Preparing a budget, whether it is for a household or a nation, is a delicate balancing act of many competing priorities. As a member of the Liberal Party, I have consistently advocated for support for Canadian families while promoting fiscal responsibility in building a strong economic foundation for the future. I find the budget to be irresponsible, shortsighted and lacking vision, and because of these reasons I cannot support it in the House of Commons.

Canadians deserve better.

[Committees of the House, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because we now have clarification and we have not been asked to revert to orders of the day or to a previous section, but only to have those questions read into the record and to stand, I believe you would find unanimous consent.