Diane St-Jacques

[Charlie Biddle, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were saddened to learn of the death of Montreal jazz great Charlie Biddle, at the age of 76.

A native of Philadelphia, Charlie Biddle emigrated to Canada in 1948. He was a side man for such greats as Oscar Peterson, Thelonious Monk and Charlie Parker and was greatly respected by his fellow musicians. Charlie Biddle redefined the Montreal jazz scene.

He worked as a car salesman during the day for 18 years, while playing the clubs of Montreal at night. He made a name for himself internationally with his appearances at the Youth Pavilion during Expo 67. In 1979 he organized a three day long jazz festival which many consider the forerunner of the Famed Montreal International Jazz Festival, which began in 1980.

In January 2003, the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society honoured Charlie Biddle with the Calixa Lavallée award for his contribution to the ever expanding jazz scene. The next day, he received the Order of Canada. His devotion and passion show through in his music.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to pay tribute to him for his body of work—

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat a little of what I said in my first answer. Indeed, we have invested money, including $2.5 billion for the national child benefit.

The hon. member made reference to Campaign 2000. In one of the latest reports, it was noted that in the past four years, child poverty has decreased. I know there is still a lot to do. It is not enough to invest money, but we must continue to find solutions to counter child poverty. That is what the Government of Canada is currently doing.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville, I would like to point out that the fight against poverty is one of the top priorities of the Government of Canada.

September's Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the Government of Canada's determination to help children and families escape poverty and ensure that Canadian children get a good start in life.

We are fighting poverty on various fronts, including the national child benefit, which provides income support measures as well as programs and services designed for poor families with children. There is also the early childhood development agreement to improve and increase services to ensure that young children are healthy and ready to learn.

The Government of Canada has invested $2.5 billion to date in the national child benefit to reduce and prevent child poverty and to help parents enter the labour market. Under the benefit, a family of four with two children can receive up to $4,680 in benefits per year. In 2004 this amount will reach almost $4,800 a year.

The provinces and territories are reinvesting some $608 million from savings made under social assistance, as well as $125 million in new funding for benefits and services for children from low income families. The Government of Canada is providing $2.2 billion over five years to provincial and territorial governments to support investments in early childhood programs and services.

This year, we will be providing $400 million to the provinces and territories under the agreement on early childhood development. Under this federal-provincial-territorial agreement, governments agreed on four key areas to help young children: healthy pregnancies, births, and infants; improved parenting and family supports; improved early childhood development, learning and care and strengthening community support.

This is where the government is investing to help fight child poverty.

[Employment Insurance, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and for allowing me to respond for the first time as parliamentary secretary.

I want to assure the member that the department is very aware of the needs of the people and the communities and that the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is working very hard with the community on this one.

That is why the minister asked the department to set up a joint committee with representatives from employers, employees and the federal government in order to find lasting solutions to this situation. We believe that the problem is not just about employment insurance; job creation solutions also need to be found.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Churchill. As we discuss the motion to amend the Canada pension plan, we should keep in mind that last year was the 75th anniversary of the first public pension plan in Canada.

In 1927, the government of the day, led by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, implemented the first Old Age Pensions Act. Those first pensions were based on a study of income and were very modest by today's standards. They were $240 a year. Eligibility was very restrictive. Only British subjects aged 70 or older, who had been living in Canada for 20 years or more, were eligible.

At the time, this was a radical change in social policies. It became the basis for an overall system of public pensions and income security programs that make Canada today one of the best and most progressive countries in the world.

The old age security program, the Canada pension plan, and the Quebec pension plan, in Quebec, are the foundation of the retirement income system in Canada.

A key element of the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan is the disability benefits that provide income to Canadians who cannot earn a living because of a serious disability.

To have a sense of the importance of these benefits for Canadians, note that during the 2000 fiscal year, the Canada Pension Plan paid out $2.6 billion to some 280,000 disability claimants who had contributed to the plan, and an additional $245 million to the children of these contributors.

This is the main long term disability benefits program in Canada. Each year, some 65,000 new claims are received and processed.

When we take a close look, it is fair to say that Canada's public pension system has truly been a successful experiment.

From its modest beginnings in 1927, we have developed an income support system that is the envy of the entire world.

Yet, we rarely hear public debate about the system. Millions of Canadians use it and benefit from it every month, but they rarely give it any thought.

I would say that we do not hear public debate about the Canada pension plan for the very reason that it does work well.

We all know the saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Today, however, we are being asked to fix something that is supposedly broken, and how? By amending the way pensionable earnings are defined by the Canada Pension Plan.

I am sure that the hon. member on the other side has good reasons for wanting to make this amendment, but I do not believe the system is defective, as she is attempting to suggest today.

In reality, if we change the definition of pensionable employment as suggested by this motion, we are going to create a precedent which might end up creating new and more serious problems for this and a number of other pieces of legislation.

For example, if we accept the inclusion of workers' compensation payments as pensionable income for CPP, why would we not accept other forms of social transfer, such as employment insurance benefits or provincial or municipal social benefits?

If we act unilaterally to amend the definition in the federal act, how will the provinces view it?

We need to keep in mind that the federal government is jointly responsible for the Canada pension plan, along with the provinces.

For example, in the case of disability benefits, the Canada pension plan and the various provincial workers' compensation plans can be taken into account for personal disability benefit claims.

Over the years, the two levels of government have worked hard to ensure that benefits to the disabled are integrated on both the federal and the provincial levels.

It would certainly be impertinent of the federal government to decide to unilaterally amend the definition of eligibility without prior consultation with its provincial partners.

The technical reasons that I mentioned show why the House should not support this motion. This does not mean that we should not ensure that all disabled workers in Canada receive all the benefits they are entitled to.

Since we must do so, I want to reassure the member for Churchill that this government, and I would say that this is true for all governments in Canada, wants to ensure that workers who become disabled are fully informed of the disability benefits to which they are entitled and can receive them.

That is why the Income Security Programs Branch of Human Resources Development Canada is working in close collaboration with each of the provincial workers compensation plans to improve and simplify disability benefit claims and the eligibility process.

It is also why the department has established an active public relations communications program that provides useful information on Canada pension plan disability benefits and how this program works.

There is always a delicate balance when it comes to managing a program as large and as complex as Canada pension plan disability benefits. Sometimes, certain cases give rise to discontent. The hon. member opposite is perhaps seeking to resolve a specific case with this general amendment, but agreeing to this motion would mean changing the definition of pensionable employment for everyone.

There could be unintended repercussions that could undermine a system that has worked well for many Canadians and which is talked about in other countries.

This government is willing to make changes to the Canada pension plan whenever all stakeholders clearly identify a need.

[Employment Insurance Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for having launched this important debate on a matter that cannot help but interest large numbers of Canadians. It is, in fact, a matter of interest to the country as a whole, since it impacts upon the workplace, the health care system and society in general.

Last year I had an experience that made me more aware of this situation, when I was involved in fundraising for Leucan. I came to know parents who had left their jobs to be with a sick child and was able to see the many difficulties and constraints parents have to deal with during this painful time.

I must acknowledge that the bill introduced by my hon. colleague addresses concerns that are shared by the Government of Canada.

Bill C-206 needs to be seen in relation to the commitment made by the Government of Canada in the last throne speech.

In the September 2002 Speech from the Throne, the government announced its intention to make changes to existing programs The government will also modify existing programs to ensure that Canadians can provide compassionate care for a gravely ill or dying child, parent or spouse without putting their jobs or incomes at risk.

These commitments show the government's concern with the difficulties being faced by many Canadians in balancing work and family.

There is no question about my colleague having his heart in the right place. He is concerned about the difficult situation being faced by nearly one in four Canadian workers. These workers or other family members are looking after a family member who is elderly, disabled or seriously ill.

My colleague's deep concern for these devoted people who are having to reconcile family responsibilities and work pressures is obvious. Theirs is a superhuman task.

It is also undeniable that the efforts required to establish this balance among all one's obligations, often incompatible obligations, is a heavy burden for many Canadians. We know that close to half of all Canadians experience average, if not high, occupational stress levels. That figure is close to twice what it was 10 years ago. We also know that women who have to reconcile work and family responsibilities are twice as likely to experience considerable stress.

This personal conflict does not only impact on individual health and well being, although this is enough of a concern in itself. Mental or physical health problems also have repercussions on the economy.

These repercussions are directly related to job satisfaction, to loss of interest in the organization and burnout, which can ultimately lead to someone leaving their job. Work-related absences represent approximately 20 million work days and $2.7 billion annually for Canadian businesses.

Taxpayers are affected too: health care spending is increasing. The cost to the Canadian health care system resulting from the difficulties of balancing work and family life has been estimated at over $425 million per year.

What concerns me is that the proportion of employees caring for both elderly parents and children has risen from 9.5% to 15% over the past decade. Given these demographic trends, the situation can only get worse. That is why the Romanow and Kirby reports recommend that the Government of Canada ensure income support and job security for caregivers.

What the member is trying to accomplish with Bill C-206 is an act of compassion worthy of praise. There is no doubt that we must look at this issue.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government recognized the vital importance of job protection and income support to workers whose family is in crisis because, for example, a loved one is seriously ill or dying.

I think that it is not acceptable to any of the members that 56% of Canadians dealing with these types of responsibilities must take time off work without pay.

That is why Human Resources Development Canada is developing policy options for a new leave for family reasons. Our first goal will be to effectively meet the needs of Canadian workers and their families.

We made a commitment to change our existing programs to allow Canadians to provide care for their child, spouse or parent who is seriously ill or dying.

I would like to mention one concern I have regarding Bill C-206: the fact of having to choose between work and providing care for a family member.

On this point, I am very happy that the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore was open to amendments to his bill. This is something that could be done in standing committee.

According to the amendment proposed, people would have to leave their job or be laid off in order to receive employment insurance benefits.

I am sure that all members would agree that the last thing we want is for Canadians to have to choose between their job and being a caregiver for a family member who is seriously ill.

The new compassionate leave that our government is proposing would allow Canadians to miss work temporarily to provide care for a child, spouse or parent who is seriously ill or dying.

The benefits the government is considering providing would add to the support measures intended for families who need them the most. This would avoid having vulnerable families slip into poverty. This would also help Canadian companies keep their skilled employees, an issue of great importance for all employers at a time when the labour pool is diminishing and there are not enough qualified workers. Our compassionate approach to people's personal problems will contribute to a more productive economy.

Our initiative will also meet one of the key recommendations of the Romanow report and will help to achieve the targeted results in a federal jurisdiction.

I can assure the hon. members that we are consulting with provincial and territorial governments, employers and stakeholders in order to move forward with this initiative. We are confident that we will have their support.

According to a recent COMPAS survey, 60% of CEOs and senior managers of companies are in favour of the government providing temporary financial support to employees who have to stay away from work in order to take care of members of their immediate family who are seriously ill.

I should also point out that according to surveys, Canadian companies have adjusted well to the extended parental leave that we implemented a year ago to promote balance between family and work.

Of course we are well aware of the cost of such programs and we want to create a program suited to the most practical needs of Canadians.

We understand our colleague's generosity of spirit. We must turn good intentions into good results for Canadians who have to cope with serious family health problems. Our goal is to come up with an effective and economical initiative that will meet needs yet be flexible and practical.

Let us make no mistake. The Government of Canada fully recognizes the challenge faced by many Canadian workers. We are determined to give them the support they need to cope with this difficult situation.

I am certain that the new leave for family reasons that is being developed will take into account the hon. member's concerns. I hope I can count on his support.

[Economic Development, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, more than a hundred mayors, municipal councillors and economic development officers from the Eastern Townships and the Montérégie are in Ottawa today to attend a seminar organized by my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi.

They are taking part in information sessions on subjects relating to government programs. I thank them for responding to this invitation in such large numbers.

Their presence confirms their concerns and interest in developing new tools and opportunities for their cities or areas.

The information they will receive today will certainly be of use to businesses and organizations in a number of municipalities.

In closing, I extend my greetings to the mayors and councillors from the riding of Shefford, as well as those from surrounding ridings. I hope they will have a profitable day and thank them for their support and excellent cooperation.

[Family Literacy Day, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, January 27 is Family Literacy Day, which was created to celebrate literacy and to promote reading as a family activity.

This is also an opportunity to emphasize the government's commitment to literacy and the essential role of Human Resources Development Canada and the National Literacy Secretariat.

Each year, the Government of Canada invests nearly $30 million in literacy projects throughout Canada. As stated in the 2002 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada has made literacy a priority. The throne speech reminds us of the government's commitment to invest in literacy and education and its promise to promote work-based learning.

Being able to read and write is an essential skill in today's labour market. It is important to read to our children every day in order to teach them very early on the joys of reading and learning.

[Arts and Culture, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of August, I had the great pleasure of announcing that the Department of Canadian Heritage, through Musicaction, would provide $250,000 to the École nationale de la chanson de Granby.

Last week, on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I announced that financial support totalling $160,000 would be provided to the Réseau national des Galas de la chanson. This money will help greatly in further promoting French language songs and performers.

The Réseau national des Galas de la chanson is a network that includes the most important Canadian galas, including the Festival international de la chanson de Granby, Chant'Ouest, Chant'Est and Ontario Pop.

With the Festival de la chanson, which is in its 35th year, and the Palace theatre, where the event is held, Granby was already playing a major role in the promotion of francophone songs. With the addition of the École nationale de la chanson and the Réseau national des galas de la chanson, Granby will become a hub for song.

I salute all those who are behind these ambitious projects. Let us make room for talent and culture in the riding of Shefford.

[Veterinary Colleges, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have just attended an important announcement concerning the future of Canada's colleges of veterinary medicine. This is the outcome of intensive political pressure by members of the Liberal caucus over the past few months. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to inform the House of what the Government of Canada intends to do to help the colleges of veterinary medicine retain their accreditation.