Libby Davies

[Food Safety, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a watershed day for taking responsibility. First, the CFIA took responsibility for its part in this recall. Then XL took responsibility for the faulty operations at the plant. The only person with the infallibility complex who refuses to take responsibility is the Minister of Agriculture himself. When will he apologize for his failure to keep Canadians informed, and when will he tender his resignation?

[Food Safety, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's response is again very short on the facts, so let us review those.

The minister said he was aware from day one of all of the activities, which means he knew about the broken safety equipment. That means he knew on September 6 that XL Foods was withholding critical data from government officials. It means he knew on September 13 that meat from XL was not safe enough for American consumers. Why then did he withhold vital public health information from Canadians?

[Food Safety, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on September 13 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency yanked XL's exporter licence at the request of U.S. officials. The Minister of Agriculture and his department determined that this meat was not safe enough to be sold to American consumers, yet he did not pull XL's Canadian licence for another 14 days. Therefore, for 14 days the Minister of Agriculture allowed the same tainted meat that was not safe enough for Americans to be sold to Canadian families. Why?

[Mental Illness Awareness Week, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 20th anniversary of Mental Illness Awareness Week, organized by the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health. Because of it, we hear the inspirational stories of Canadians living in recovery from mental illness. Mental Illness Awareness Week reaches out to organizations and people across Canada to raise awareness on the importance of mental health and the need for increased access to mental health services for all Canadians.

One in five Canadians experience a mental health issue. It is a reality that touches us all. The recent mental health strategy by the Mental Health Commission of Canada made very clear recommendations on what all levels of government must do to address mental health in a way that is comprehensive, accessible and forward looking. It is critically important that the federal government show its leadership and implement these recommendations.

I hope all MPs will join in celebrating the courage and resilience of the six million Canadians living with mental illness.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is it is not giving that assurance at all. I know what the member means. I think we have all shared the frustration that the minister does not really seem to be aware of the actual impacts or consequences of the program.

Had the government bothered to talk to people on EI and find out what the heck was going on, maybe we would have a better program and we would not be here debating it today.

As we have seen in so many instances, and to answer the fellow who wrote the email, the government did not bother to go out and consult with people or even employers. There are in fact disincentives in this pilot program that mean, particularly for lower paid workers or workers who get just a day, a day and a half or two days of work, people are losing money. Why on earth would anybody do that?

This is a terrible flaw in the program. We are asking the government to address the problems and make it work.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we do try to be optimistic. I have a feeling the member for Hamilton Mountain will be proved right when we have the vote tomorrow night.

I think there is a deep problem here. We have a government that is suspicious of people. There is always this assumption that people are trying to get away with something. The fact is that most people on EI, or any income assistance program, are there because of genuine need and they play by the rules.

The new rules that have come in, whether it is having to work much further away, or this pilot project, are really designed to frustrate people. That is really regrettable. Surely the system should work for people. It should be accessible, it should be understandable and it should be available when people need it.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the NDP motion before the House. I know we have been in the House all day debating this very important motion and we are getting toward the end of the debate today, so I am happy to have an opportunity to speak.

I thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who brought forward the motion, as well as the member for Hamilton Mountain. I know both as our EI critic and as our HRSDC critic, they have worked really hard on this file.

I have been listening to the debate all day and it is very interesting to hear the mantra, the message, the narrative, the talking points of the Conservatives who are saying that all the opposition does, the NDP and the Liberals, is oppose everything. I really want to set the record straight. This motion is an opportunity to deal with something that is very specific, and that is the working while on claim pilot project for EI. It is a very specific motion. The reason it is very specific is because we are trying to address something that is clearly not working. Therefore, for the Conservatives to come out with this blanket black and white statement that the opposition is opposed to everything, is simply not true. It is sort of the big lie technique, as I heard one of our members say earlier.

I remember a few budgets ago where the NDP successfully convinced the Conservative government to make changes to EI and to include additional funds. As a result, we voted for those measures. We look at legislation, budgets and motions before the House based on their merit. If the working while on claim pilot project were actually working for people, we would be supporting it.

The whole point of today's debate is this. We have been inundated in our offices across the country by real people who are on EI and who have a terrible time with this so-called pilot project that is meant to help them. Let us be very clear about this. This is not a motion just to oppose the government for the sake of opposing. This is a motion to demonstrate and focus the attention of the House on a project that is really important to hundreds of thousands of people and the fact that it is not working for them. We want it to work for them.

I will read the motion. It states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the new Working While on Claim pilot project is: (a) not benefiting the vast majority of EI recipients who are able to find employment; (b) creating a disincentive to take part-time work; and (c) leaving low income Canadians worse off than before; and that the House call on the government to take steps to fix Working While on Claim immediately.

The motion is very straightforward. It is looking for a pragmatic approach to say to the government that its claims that the project is helping just about everyone is not true.

I forgot, Mr. Speaker, to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beaches—East York.

The motion is for us to draw attention to something that is very important.

We have heard the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development repeatedly claim, “the vast majority of EI recipients working while on claim will benefit from the new pilot project”. It has to be on the record. The facts are irrefutable that this is not the case. Many people are not only not benefiting, they are hurting and taking home less money now than they were under the previous program. There is something wrong with that picture.

Members of the House do not have to take my word for it. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission is an independent body that analyzes what goes on with EI. It submitted a report to the government on these changes in May, so it is a very recent report. It estimates that while 403,000 Canadians would benefit, 240,000 would be negatively affected.

If we do the math on this, we can see that it means that nearly four in ten EI recipients will be negatively affected by this pilot program. Any idea that this will help the vast majority of EI claimants is simply not true. It is really a cruel thing to keep saying that people are being helped when in actual fact they are not, certainly not the vast majority. This debate is focusing very much on the facts.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for Simcoe—Grey, claimed on September 24 “those who work more will be able to keep more when it comes to their employment insurance”. As we see from the report from the commission, and as we our constituents, this is simply not the case.

I hope members across the floor recognize that we are not just doing something to oppose for the sake of opposing. We are trying to be proactive and constructive by bringing forward a motion for correction.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain earlier today gave a wonderful outline of why she knew it would be very unlikely that the motion would work. It is unfortunate and in a way sad and disappointing that the government is not willing to acknowledge the problems that exist with this program. It begs the question as to what really lies underneath these program changes.

Many members have made the point today that employers and workers contribute to the EI program. It is not a government program, but it is an important part of Canada's social safety network. Unemployed Canadians need to be able to rely on it when they are in difficulty. It begs the question as to why the government would do such a shoddy job in bringing forward a program that will not in any way live up to the goals and objectives that those members themselves have put forward. That is why we have the motion today.

Many of us could speak at length about the overall situation with EI just from our experience in dealing with constituents. It is really incredible to see how this program has taken a dive over the years. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas pointed out earlier that some research done by CANSIM showed just how much the EI program had changed in the country. We know now that less than 40% of unemployed Canadians receive EI benefits. That number is higher for women and seasonal workers. Women are often in part-time work so they fair even less well than that general statistic. Surely this should raise concerns for us.

In the 1990s, 70% to 90% of Canadians who were unemployed were eligible for EI. The rules were relatively fair and they did the job that they were designed to do, and that was to help people through difficult periods of unemployment. We have seen a downward spiral, which started with a Liberal government that made reforms, but things became worse. Now we are at today's situation where even a so-called pilot project that is designed to help people keep a bit of money while working is hitting the people who are most vulnerable, the people who are making the lowest wages. That is patently unfair.

I hope the members of the Conservative government across the way will consider the motion on its merit. I would like to prove the member for Hamilton Mountain wrong. She gave a great speech earlier. I hope she might be wrong and the motion might go through. I hope the Conservative government will recognize that there is a genuine attempt here to show what needs to be done to the program. The motion calls on the government to make the changes so unemployed Canadians can receive the help they need.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, October 1st, 2012]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-445, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (genetic characteristics).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for seconding this bill today. I also thank the former member for Burnaby—Douglas, Bill Siksay, who first brought this very important issue before Parliament when he was a member of Parliament. I also thank the Coalition for Genetic Fairness which has done a tremendous amount of work to bring forward this very important issue about Canadians who have genetic diseases and who often face discrimination.

The bill has a simple purpose. It would enact an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to add genetic characteristics as a prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Many people may think that this is not something that affects a lot of people but it does. There are very real cases of people who have experienced discrimination from insurance policies or different kinds of disability policies based on their genetic history.

Now that we live in a day and age where we can have genetic testing, this becomes an even more important issue. It is very important and timely that we have a debate in Parliament about the issue of genetic discrimination and we look to this particular amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a way of giving people the valuable protection they need as we do for all Canadians.

I hope when this bill comes forward for debate that members will engage in that debate and understand the seriousness of this issue.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with the member that the minister does not seem to understand her own project. The information we have received in the House during question period and debate shows how much misinformation there is and how contradictory the government's responses have been.

However, I do know that the Liberal member for Cape Breton—Canso was initially very positive about the working while on claim provision in May. In fact, he congratulated the minister at committee for that program. I wonder if the member could illuminate us about what has happened since May, when I think at least one Liberal member thought it was a good program.

What changes have taken place that now lead the Liberals to understand the problems with the program and the harms that are being caused to many people on EI? It is something that we have to deal with and hold the government to account for.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know specifically of any loopholes. However, I asked the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader earlier what he thought about loopholes, as he has been very involved with the bill, and he did mention one potential area where something could apply locally but not at a national level.

Maybe there are no loopholes in the bill, maybe it is airtight. However, it does require a very close examination to ensure that one cannot get around the principles being put forward on loans by doing indirectly what one is not allowed to do directly.

I have full confidence that the NDP members on committee who get this bill will do their due diligence in examining the bill in great detail. Maybe there will be amendments and when it comes back at report stage we will have an improved bill. We know what we are looking for and what we want to accomplish here, but I think that will be the work of the committee. I look forward to it.