Denise Savoie

[November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, committed to literacy by cutting? I agree with refocusing, yes, but I do not see how cutting will get us to a comprehensive plan.

I would like some clarification on funding for literacy. The minister told the House on September 26, “we are spending over $80 million a year on literacy programs for adults”. In fact, I think the minister's own briefing notes, which I have here, state that the spending is “$81 million over two years in adult learning, literacy and essential skills”.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain this discrepancy? The government estimates we reviewed do not add up to $81 million a year. In fact, it would appear to be the same failed level of funding that we had before.

We have been told that the minister did not meet with groups before making these cuts. I meet with these groups on a daily basis when I travel across the country with the parliamentary secretary. I wonder what she would suggest I tell these groups about the government's vision to develop, not just bits and pieces, but a comprehensive plan to address the huge inequity that is growing in Canada due to low literacy levels.

[November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it has been six weeks since the Conservative government announced a cut of $17.7 million to adult literacy programming. After six weeks, it is still very unclear exactly what is being cut and every answer from the minister last week was an evasive one.

I believe we all agree that literacy is a fundamental building block of Canada's human capital and productivity. It is a critical requirement for social and economic equity.

The Liberal record on literacy was not good. There are 1.2 million more adults with insufficient literacy skills after the Liberal reign, the number having risen from 7.7 million to 8.9 million. Instead of drawing simplistic conclusions, as the minister has, and cutting into programs that support the delivery of literacy programs, we should remember that the Liberals spent just $1 per Canadian per year on adult literacy. That amount was clearly far too small to make any significant impact in improving our literacy levels in this country.

The Conservative government's response is to take that failed Liberal funding and cut it by $9 million a year. The minister refuses to call these cuts “cuts”.

We are told that no existing agreements will be cut, but that is because there are very few existing agreements for literacy at the moment. The call for proposals due in early January was delayed until August, we have been told by many groups, and all received proposals are currently under review. Literacy groups across the country are hanging by a thread waiting for this year's funding. Hence, no cuts; just an inexcusable delay in funding and a drastically smaller pot of funding to draw from.

The minister lists projects that were funded by the Liberals that appear to be wasteful. However, if the Conservative government really believes in helping the 8.9 million adults with low literacy levels, if it were genuinely interested in retargeting and refocusing literacy spending to improve Canada's literacy rate, it would certainly not reduce the amount of government spending on literacy.

Retargeting does not mean less money; it means money better spent, better focused. With 8.9 million adults in need of literacy programs, there is no rationale for lower spending. Given that every 1% rise in literacy scores equates to a 2.5% rise in productivity and a 1.5% rise in gross domestic product per person, cutting literacy is simply the wrong approach.

What we need in Canada are adult learning systems that are easily accessible, part of a coherent learning framework and sufficient help for every adult in need of literacy training.

My question for the parliamentary secretary to the minister is, when will we get to a pan-Canadian literacy strategy, as has been advocated by people very knowledgeable in literacy programming right across Canada?

[Cornerstone Building, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this week I attended the opening of the Cornerstone Building, a non-profit project that could be used as a model of community development and urban sustainability.

In August 2005, the Fernwood NRG Society bought this historic building that stood vacant in the centre of the neighbourhood. Now, after 15 months of hard work, including by scores of volunteers, it is a café, a resources centre with other retail space, and four units of affordable rental housing for families. Revenues from the project will support Fernwood NRG's many community programs.

The Cornerstone is also good for the environment, with new geothermal heating. The Cornerstone project shows what a community working together can achieve. I am proud to have it in my riding. This type of project could be a reality across Canada with a national green housing strategy.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are estimates that have been provided for each of the programs. As I said when I referred to the veterans independence program, that program would in itself save money for the government for a long time. We have always known that a proper national home care program for all Canadians would keep seniors in their homes longer and out of hospitals and would at least be cost neutral, if not a saving.

For each one of these programs estimates have been done, and of course the government has more resources and analysts and researchers to look into the costs than does the opposition. I trust that if the government is interested in moving forward with this program--

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

In the past month, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the government attribute $13 billion to our surplus without considering many other very important needs in our society. Basic literacy is important for people to participate in the economy, and now some figures are being brought out about this.

I would like to repeat and emphasize that I myself have been a witness to the incredible work that our military has done, whether it lies in being at sea for months or in jumping in the ocean out of a helicopter to save someone. That we now become stingy after the fact, after they either have to take medical leave or retire and leave their families in distress, is just not an acceptable response by the government.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think the issue of due diligence is an important one in all areas of the military. It is not just important to do our due diligence when we send them abroad and send them to war or to the theatre of war such as we are doing now in Afghanistan, it also is important to do our due diligence in all cases of looking after them and their families when they return.

I believe that government has a role to play, if it is committed to our forces, in looking at the finances to allow this to happen. It is not just a question of buying equipment. It is also important to look after the people who are involved in serving us.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this debate today. I will be sharing my time with the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I would like to thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his work not just on this motion but generally on behalf of veterans. He gave some very moving comments this morning about his family's experience in Holland and their gratitude for the work that our armed forces did at that time.

On a personal note, I can certainly say that my years of experience of working with our armed forces personnel have allowed me to observe their dedication and their willingness to serve wherever and whenever they are asked by the government to do so.

A month ago, on October 5, I spoke in support of a bill to honour our soldiers by designating a peacekeepers day. It was a symbol of our gratitude, of our recognition of the service of soldiers who have risked their lives, and continue to do so, in the service of our country, of peace and of democracy.

Today, through this motion, we can do more than offer a token of gratitude. We can actually rectify a number of unjust situations that veterans and their families continue to face.

I will focus in particular on two aspects of this motion that several of my constituents have either spoken or written to me about. I will begin with clause 2 of the motion that proposes to extend the veterans independence program to all widows of all veterans, regardless of the time of death of the veteran and regardless of whether the veteran was in receipt of VIP services prior to his or her death.

The veterans independence program is a national home care program provided by Veterans Affairs Canada. It depends on the person's circumstances, health and needs, but it includes housekeeping, ground maintenance, personal care services, health support services and access to nutrition. The program was established to help clients remain healthy and independent in their own homes or communities. Widows whose husbands died prior to 1981 are not eligible for the program, nor are those widows whose husbands did not receive VIP benefits prior to their death.

The interesting thing about this part of the motion is that it would actually save money for the government by allowing seniors to stay in their homes longer. Many of the women cared for their husbands in their homes for years, assisting them with daily living and other caregiving duties. Some of these women are now facing declining health and need these services. Access to these services would give special recognition of their supportive work and allow many of them, as I said, to remain healthy and independent in their homes.

This is no simple program gap. It is a serious omission with real life consequences for Canadians every day.

Just this spring a local Royal Canadian Legion brought to my attention a case of a veteran from my riding who passed away in November 2005. Before he died, the Department of Veterans Affairs had installed a chairlift in his home. His wife, who is also not well, has difficulty with her mobility and is not able to get around in the house without the aid of the chairlift, yet they came to this veteran's home in late March of this year, a few months after his death, to remove the chairlift. They did not phone the veteran's wife or family to inquire about an opportune time to remove the lift, nor whether the lift was still required by the veteran's spouse.

The legion pointed out that this veteran's widow deserves to be able to use the chairlift. After all, she was the one who raised their children on her own while her husband was away serving our country in a theatre of war.

Her family is trying to give their aged mother the dignity of remaining in her own home for as long as possible, and it is not possible without the chairlift. I agree that it is the very least we can do to honour this woman for her sacrifice and the sacrifice of her husband to allow this device to stay for as long as she needs it. This chairlift I am happy to report is still in the home, but only because this couple's son stood strong and refused to let MEDIchair remove it.

It should not fall to the families of Canadian veterans to defend their parents' right to live with dignity. That should be a given from the government that waxes poetic about its commitment to our troops, yet somehow has continued to let the troops and their families fall through the cracks in their later years.

Now is the time to do more than talk about honouring our soldiers. The Conservatives can keep the promise the Prime Minister made while in opposition and help the spouses and the families of our veterans.

A second way to do that is to eliminate the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled Canadian Forces members. The service pensions of retired Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel are reduced significantly when the pensioner receives CPP or CPP disability benefits. This reduction formula is especially punishing for the military personnel and the RCMP now disabled and in receipt of CPP disability benefits.

Eliminating this clawback would assist in recognizing their special contributions to our country. During their working years they face dangerous conditions, extended family separations, hazards to health and safety, long stretches of overtime, and have to re-establish family life with new postings many times over their career.

One of my constituents recently wrote me to tell his story. When he became a pensioner on February 22, a portion of his Canadian Forces annuity, equal to about 70¢ per dollar of CPP disability pension, was clawed back. He wrote:

I have contributed to both the Canadian Forces Superannuation Plan and the Canada Pension Plan for all of my working life. I know that CF and RCMP members were SUPPOSED to have contributed to CPP at a lower rate than others; however, my records show that I have contributed the maximum allowable amount every year from 1974 to 2005. Both the CFSA and the CPP are pension plans, to which one contributes with the understanding that when one retires, one collects the benefits of that pension plan at the rate to which one has become entitled.

These two issues are in addition to three others that the Royal Canadian Legion has brought to our attention. This motion seeks to allow a veteran's spouse to receive pension benefits upon the veteran's death, removing this desperately antiquated clause that unfairly penalizes older women.

This motion would push to increase the inadequate survivors pension amount from 50% to 60% to give our veterans and their families comparable treatment from superannuation and survivor benefits to those received by individuals in public or private pension plans.

These five points are no-brainers in my opinion in recognizing the exceptional contribution and sacrifice of our Canadian Forces veterans and their families. Our inaction is a disservice to those who have served us very well. There are surely more issues than these to address, but let these five points be a beginning.

I would briefly like to mention the next immediate step to take after this and that is to reconsider the discontinuance of danger pay to our injured soldiers in Afghanistan. This is another issue that cuts to the heart of how we recognize the contribution of military families. Their family member comes home from a theatre of war with an injury and we dock his or her pay for getting injured. I agree with a constituent of mine who wrote, “I am in awe that Ottawa can't see the harm that is being caused to the morale of our troops over a relatively small amount of money”.

When a government makes that most solemn decision to send the men and women of our Canadian Forces to war, those men and women respond with wholehearted courage and commitment. Once our veterans have served Canada, it is time for Canada to serve our veterans.

[Phthalate Control Act, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I want to thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for all the work he has done on this very, very important bill.

As has already been pointed out, Canadians are very concerned about the number of toxins found in our bodies. In fact, this was discussed at a meeting on health and the environment that many people in Victoria attended last weekend. They wondered about the lack of interest and the lack of urgency that the Liberals had shown and that the Conservatives are now showing with regard to regulating the 4,000 chemicals that were approved before the government passed the Environmental Protection Act and that are still on the market, such as the phthalates we are talking about this evening.

Two decades went by before these products received serious study in Canada. The three chemicals we are talking about today are among the 69 substances on the priority list for the CEPA review process. Two of them, DBP and DEHP, are already considered toxic, within the meaning of section 64 of the act, and a decision on the third, BBP, is pending.

We know that these chemicals are toxic and represent a threat to our health. How could we let them into our lives?

It happened because our governments, the people who are responsible for acting in our best interests, protecting us and protecting our health and that of our children, have long been refusing to act according to the precautionary principle. In fact, during the last debate on this bill in this House, the parliamentary secretary seemed more concerned about the economic impact than about the health of Canadians.

One of the great failings of our society is our persistent refusal to act according to the precautionary principle when it comes to toxins in our environment. As far back as 1964 the World Health Organization told us that 80% of all cancers were due to synthetic human made carcinogens. Now there is overwhelming evidence that the huge increase in cancer rates is linked to the increased chemical production of the last 100 years.

What have we done with that knowledge? We have put, it seems to me, profit before people. We have allowed chemicals to enter our environment, our household products, and our children's toys. If we want to have a sustainable health care system, we will use preventive medicine. Reducing toxins is our first start.

We know that, compared to the European Union, Canada is dragging its feet on regulating these chemicals and that it is not acting according to the precautionary principle.

What I do not understand is that we, the public, have to prove that these chemicals are hazardous, whereas the chemical companies do not have to prove that their products are safe.

We have to start shifting priorities.

Let us remember this principle requires government to act even in the absence of certainty if there is a risk of irreversible damage. Studies have linked serious health defects to all kinds of problems, from endocrine disrupting mechanisms to developmental and many others.

This bill is important, because it points to the need to act.

I would like to address this evening some of the parliamentary secretary's concerns during the last debate. He indicated, for example, that the human health assessments concluded that two of the three substances, namely DBP and BBP, do not pose any undue health risks. He failed to mention that there are few cumulative or interactive studies possible, given the wide number of chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis.

The U.S. national academy of sciences has decided that DBP is a developmental toxin and BBP is a development and reproductive toxin. California has placed these products on the proposition 65 list of harmful substances. Yet, we have not ensured that Canadian children are protected from direct exposure to these chemicals.

The parliamentary secretary also indicated it would be premature to act in light of the ongoing study of the 4,000 products still on the market. I certainly agree that a comprehensive response is needed, but a specific response to these particular chemicals does not preclude comprehensive action as he suggests. Indeed, both are needed. How long does it take to put in place regulatory mechanisms, especially for known toxins such as the phthalates.

Canadians have in fact benefited somewhat from decreases in some of the phthalates due to actions not taken in Canada, but from other jurisdictions.

Canada does need a regulatory backstop to ensure that Canadians are protected and Canada does not become a dumping ground for these toxins. The question when addressing potential toxins should not be, do we remove them? It should be, do we allow them to enter our environment in the first place?

Many Canadians have concerns about the way we still approve chemical products. Is it too lax? Are enough tests done? The onus is on whom to show that the products are safe?

Bill C-307 should be brought to committee to highlight that the chemical approval process in Canada should find ways to better protect our children. That must be the fundamental goal. I urge my colleagues to approve this bill at second reading and to bring it specifically to the committee's consideration to bring out these various issues.

[Witness Protection Program Act, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am not in any way questioning the good intentions of the member for Lévis—Bellechasse who introduced this bill. However, I think his position is actually contrary to the policies of his party. Although he wishes to protect women and children in our society, by cutting numerous programs, the Conservative government will only put them more at risk. I would like to list some of the programs that were cut.

I acknowledge—and all the statistics show—that women are still the victims of spousal violence. However, given the government's approach that all persons must fend for themselves, I think we are going in the opposite direction from the member's goal.

The government has just imposed drastic cuts on Status of Women Canada. This organization speaks out and advocates for women's equality. Now that it has been muzzled, it will be more difficult for it to advocate for women. We know that financial support for the administration, which allows this organization to function, has been cut, so, again, I would ask that he speak to the members of his caucus and the Prime Minister to reinstate that funding.

On the question of programs for prevention, they are almost completely sidelined in favour of simply making more criminals, creating more prisons and building the prison industry rather than helping those who are at risk through solid prevention programs. The funding, as we saw in the budget, has become so limited that its usefulness is questionable.

On a third point, the Conservative Party has been unanimously against the arms registry. We have seen many crimes in the past year that have seriously endangered what we think of as our country's values. The saw the terrible tragedy at Dawson College, and recently women and children have been the victims of conjugal crimes.

We have to begin questioning why some of those weapons are even present in our society and why the government would not present a bill to simply ban the sale or the presence of these semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. There is absolutely no reason for them in our society. Friends of mine who are hunters tell me that they do not need them.

Yet these are some of the measures that would begin to help reduce crime in Canada, particularly, as we have seen in the past few years, violence against women and children. I believe those measures, with the appropriate funding, would be more effective in helping address a problem that we have all recognize. We all want our country to have a strong social cohesion, to be a place where women and children feel safe.

I would suggest that these are the measures of which our party would be more supportive.

[Petitions, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a petition from my constituents in Victoria, which is very timely in light of the government's introduction of the hot air act.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to honour our legal commitment to the Kyoto treaty; to further pledge to reduce Canada's greenhouse emissions by 30% below the 1990 level by 2020 and to 80% by 2050, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the State of California have done; to institute a revenue neutral carbon tax to increase prices of fossil fuels; and, finally, to enforce increasing fuel efficiency standards on all motor vehicles.