Lynne Yelich

[Early Learning and Child Care Act, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-303, the proposed early learning and child care act introduced by the member for Victoria. This is a crucial issue.

Canada's new government recognizes that one of the most important investments we can make as a country is to give parents choices when it comes to caring for their children. We take the commitment to support parents' choices in child care very seriously, and choice is definitely the operative word here.

Canadians voted for a platform that put choice in child care as one of their top five priorities. We promised choice in child care in the Speech from the Throne. We committed to it in budget 2006, and now we are delivering on that commitment to Canadian families through our universal child care plan.

Our plan represents a flexible, balanced approach that enables parents and communities to develop the child care solutions that work best for them. This is a plan founded on respect for parents' expertise in deciding what is best for their children and for the roles and responsibilities of the provinces and territories in delivering child care services.

Bill C-303, in contrast, lacks the flexibility that would enable parents to make choices they want. The legislation fails to properly respect the expertise of parents or the established roles and responsibilities of the provinces and territories in the realm of child care service delivery.

On the contrary, what Bill C-303 proposes is tantamount to an intrusion into provincial and territorial jurisdictions. The bill would impose singular, one size fits all criteria and conditions on provincial and territorial governments in order for them to qualify for federal early learning and child care funding.

Unlike the inadequate and ineffective approach envisioned in Bill C-303, our new universal child care plan recognizes that no two Canadian families are alike. We understand that parents with young children balance their work and family lives in different ways and for different reasons. We are very aware, for example, that the services provided by day care facilities that are open from nine to five are simply not an option for the many Canadian parents whose schedules require that they work evenings, weekends, split shifts or 12 hour shifts. Neither is standard day care the answer for parents taking evening courses to enhance their skills.

Standard day care is an equally unrealistic option for farming families, for families working in the fisheries and for the many Canadians with young children who live in rural or remote communities. Moreover, as a recent Statistics Canada study confirmed, almost half of Canadian parents continue to find ways to stay at home to care for their preschoolers themselves.

Given this wide range of parents' situations and needs, we have developed and, more important, acted on a child care plan that responds to the diverse circumstances and real needs of Canadian families.

As the House is aware, our universal child care plan has two parts: a universal child care benefit and a child care spaces initiative. Together, these two components represent an investment of close to $12 billion over five years to improve the lives of Canadian families, an investment that is more than twice that proposed by the former Liberal government.

Allow me to elaborate for a moment on the first component of the universal child care benefit.

This direct benefit to Canadian families helps them choose the type of child care that works best for them. I am pleased to inform the House that this past July, parents across Canada began receiving the benefit of $100 a month for each child under the age of six, a benefit they are free to use in the best interests of their own children. For example, they can apply the $1,200 a year toward the cost of formal day care, they can use the benefit to pay for occasional babysitting or for child care help from a grandparent or a neighbour. If parents so choose, they can purchase educational resources, like an educational DVD, for their preschoolers, or they can use the benefit to pay for special outings to a museum, for example.

As I noted earlier, we respect parents' choices and this is what the benefit delivers. Some 1.6 million families with 2.1 million children will receive the benefit. Families who are already registered for the Canada child tax benefit, accounting for more than 90% of families, received the universal child care benefit automatically.

However, we want to ensure that all parents with preschoolers receive the benefit. To this end, the government has been very active in reaching out to the families not currently registered for Canada child care tax benefits to encourage them to apply. Our outreach efforts include a special website, radio ads, print ads in national and local daily papers, and special efforts directed at aboriginal, minority French language and ethnocultural communities.

The government is proud to support the choices of all Canadian parents trying to give their preschoolers a strong start in life. Canada's new government is equally committed to the second component of our universal child care plan that will provide a flexible approach to child care spaces that meet Canadian parents diverse needs. The new child care spaces initiative will provide incentives that can be translated into more child care options in large urban centres and rural areas. It can also provide flexible hours for many parents whose work hours do not fit the standard nine to five model.

In designing this initiative, we have been consulting with the provinces and territories, as well as businesses, communities and non-profit organizations to tap into their expertise. Furthermore, a ministerial advisory committee was recently named by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to advise her on the design of a child care spaces initiative.

Chosen for expertise in child care, work-family issues, community organizations and the needs of employers, the committee will present the minister with a report outlining its advice and recommendations this fall. I would like to note for the interest of the House that this report will be available to the general public.

This responsive, flexible approach which respects parents' choices and parents' expertise, along with the roles and the responsibilities for other provinces and territories, is in keeping with our promise to Canadians and Canada's own promise for the future.

For those reasons we are unable to support Bill C-303 proposed by the member for Victoria.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the employment insurance program and examine the issues raised by the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

Before commencing, however, I would like to point out that many issues raised in Bill C-269 were raised in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities report, for which the government will table its response in the very near future.

The government is committed to ensuring that its programs respond to the realities of the Canadian labour market. In this regard, it is important that program changes, including those to the EI program, be founded on sound analysis of evidence.

Equally important, is that careful consideration be given to labour market impacts and the costs of individual measures.

To inform decision making on any potential EI changes, the government draws upon extensive monitoring, assessment and evaluation of the program.

In addition, EI pilot projects can be utilized to assess the labour market impacts of new approaches before permanent changes are considered. Currently, a number of pilot projects are in progress testing the efficiency of measures to address many of the issues referenced in Bill C-269.

Bill C-269 proposes fundamental changes to the Employment Insurance Act, changes so fundamental that they would represent a substantial program expansion, requiring considerable preparatory work and sound analysis. Before contemplating such extensive measures, it is important that we examine each of these proposals individually and, most important, look at their overall impact.

Bill C-269 would reduce the number of hours required to qualify for EI to a flat 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional unemployment rate.

The EI program's variable entrance requirement is designed to help provide adequate program access across the country and is adjusted monthly to reflect unemployment rates by region. The higher the unemployment rate is in a particular region, the more difficult it is to obtain work and to accumulate the necessary hours to qualify for EI.

Evidence indicates that the variable entrance requirement, as compared with a fixed entrance requirement, as proposed in this bill, has played an important role in equalizing the percentage of individuals who meet EI entrance requirements across unemployment rates.

While I would not presume to speculate on the reasoning behind the proposed fixed entrance requirement, some have argued that the qualifying period should be reduced because they claim that fewer than 45% of unemployed receive EI benefits in some parts of Canada.

This is a misleading way to look at the statistic and is a flawed measure of EI access across Canada, for this statistic includes those who have not contributed to the EI program by paying premiums, such as individuals who have never worked or who are self-employed.

For the record, 80% of unemployed people who pay into EI and who become unemployed, through no fault of their own, are eligible to receive EI benefits.

It is important also to remind the House why there is a 910 hour entrance requirement for new labour market entrants and those re-entering the workforce after an extended absence from the workplace.

The objectives of these measures are to ensure that those accessing insurance based income support have demonstrated significant workforce attachment as to prevent a cycle of reliance on EI while also strengthening the relationship between hours of work and benefit entitlement. I would note that this requirement does not apply if an individual has worked at least 490 hours in the year prior to the qualifying period of this claim.

According to successive monitoring and assessment reports, the objects of this policy are being achieved as these reports suggest that the current entrance provisions are encouraging workforce attachment.

Nevertheless, in areas of high unemployment, a pilot project was initiated to test the labour market impacts of reducing the hours of work new entrants and re-entrants required to qualify for EI benefits from 910 to 840 when linked with employment programs.

With respect to the bill's proposal to substantially increase EI benefit entitlements, overall evidence continues to indicate that the duration of EI benefits is sufficient for the majority of claimants. On average, individuals use less than two-thirds of their EI entitlement before finding employment. Even more telling, only a small percentage of claimants entitled to 45 weeks of benefits use all the weeks available to them.

Observers have noted, however, that certain individuals in seasonal industries may face an income gap when their EI claim runs out prior to returning to their seasonal job. Consequently, this past June our new government announced the extended EI benefits pilot project. The pilot project provides access to five additional weeks of benefits to EI claimants in high unemployment regions, up to a maximum of 45 weeks. The pilot project will test whether providing additional benefits has adverse labour market effects and whether it effectively addresses their income gap.

Bill C-269 also proposes to increase benefit levels by raising the maximum insurable earnings, or MIE. In 2001, it was determined that the annual MIE would be frozen at $39,000 until the average industrial wage increased to an equivalent level. The impetus of this decision was the fact that the MIE was substantially higher than the average industrial wage and, as such, could act as a disincentive to work. The same rational applies today.

The bill before us today also proposes raising benefit rates from 55% to 60% of average weekly insurable earnings. The current 55% EI benefit rate is designed to strike a balance between providing adequate temporary income while maintaining work incentives. Evidence indicates that the current benefit rates meet the needs of unemployed workers and in fact only 12% of those who become unemployed show a drop in household spending one year after a job separation.

Bill C-269 also proposes to eliminate the two week waiting period. The waiting period of the co-insurance feature of EI is similar to the deductible of other insurance plans in that it serves to eliminate short claims that individuals are able to cover and makes sure that insured persons absorb some of the costs of the employment interruption. While employees bear the cost of the two week waiting period, this is offset in that they pay a lower premium than their employers.

Turning to the issue of arm's length employment arrangements between relatives, section 5 of the EI act states:

Insurable employment does not include

(i) employment if the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm’s length.

This provision ensures that conditions of employment in family businesses are similar to those who have only an employee-employer relationship. We should recognize that in the overwhelming number of cases 92% of family member claimants are able to meet this requirement.

To summarize, Bill C-269 proposes fundamental and far-reaching changes to the EI program, changes that could potentially cost over $2 billion annually. Even more important than the financial considerations is the fact that Bill C-269 could very likely reduce work incentives at a period when the overall labour market is robust and, indeed, in many sectors there are significant labour shortages.

While the government shares the member's concerns for the unemployed, the evidence at hand suggests that supporting Bill C-269 would not be a prudent course of action. For this reason and for the points that I have outlined, we cannot support Bill C-269. I can say, however, that the government is committed to ensuring that the EI program continues to serve Canadians in an effective and timely manner as we continue to monitor and assess the program.

[Adjournment Proceedings, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that Canada's new government is acting to support Canada's national housing system.

As her party's housing critic, the member opposite recognizes that our national housing system requires the coordinated action of many players to support housing choices for people with different needs, including those who need affordable housing. Key participants include everyone from municipalities and provinces to non-profit community groups, builders and architects. No one can do it alone.

Canada's new government is doing its part by helping Canadians most in need gain access to safe, affordable housing and we are doing our part to help Canadians access home ownership. I can assure her that this government will continue to work with the various housing stakeholders to strengthen our housing system.

[Adjournment Proceedings, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. I am confident that as her party's housing critic she is cognizant of the complexity surrounding the issue of housing policy and the need for informed debate surrounding it, for this issue involves countless players working together to help meet the unique and varying housing needs of Canadians throughout our country.

I would like to assure her and her party that the new Government of Canada recognizes affordable housing's importance in improving the lives of individuals and families. Indeed, we are taking substantial action on a number of fronts.

For instance, Budget 2006 provided, pending confirmation of the government's financial results for 2005-06, an investment of $1.4 billion and the establishment of three housing trusts, with the provinces and territories, for affordable housing, northern housing and aboriginals living off reserve.

I also believe we share a common desire, indeed, a fundamental commitment, that all Canadians should have a reasonable opportunity to own or rent their own home.

But where some would speak to the abstract world of strategies and structure in addressing this issue, we speak of action. We speak of commitment, one that is demonstrated in the nearly $2 billion the Government of Canada provides annually to support 600,000-plus existing social housing units across the country, support that primarily assists low income households. It is a commitment demonstrated through our decision to ensure the maintenance of shelters and related services for Canada's homeless people in urban and rural communities and by extending the national homelessness initiative, including the supporting communities partnership initiative, to March 2007 at a cost of almost $135 million.

The Government of Canada is acting on other fronts as well. For instance, in collaboration with provincial, territorial and local partners, we are delivering on the $1 billion affordable housing initiative, funding that has created 27,000 units of new affordable housing in communities across the country.

In addition to creating new units, our commitment to housing is demonstrated in our support of programs that maintain the existing affordable housing stock and funding for the residential rehabilitation assistance program and several related housing renovation and adaptation programs that provide financial assistance. Our commitment to repairing homes occupied by low income people and converting non-residential buildings into residential use has been extended for 2006-07 at a cost of about $128 million.

The government's role in housing extends beyond helping low income households. Indeed, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, our national housing agency, helps all Canadians by lowering costs and improving access to mortgage financing through its mortgage loan insurance and mortgage securitization programs. In fact, CMHC mortgage loan insurance has assisted one in three Canadian families with the purchase of their home. Also, its mortgage loan insurance helps finance affordable housing with no premiums charged for affordable housing projects.

I again assure my colleague that Canada's new government is committed to housing and to taking the necessary action to keep our national housing system strong.

[Housing, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member must have forgotten that she helped pass the budget in which the Government of Canada allocated up to $1.4 billion for affordable housing. This is a one time investment that indicates $800 million to increase the supply of affordable housing, $300 million to the provinces to address immediate pressures on the off reserve aboriginal housing and $300 million to address the particularly acute housing situation in Canada's north.

[Housing, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has confirmed that she has reached an agreement with the province of British Columbia to transfer the administration of federal resources for existing social housing from CMHC to the Government of British Columbia.

The new agreement will better integrate social housing clients and make efficient use of tax dollars. Savings will be realized through streamlined administration and efficiencies. Under the terms of the new agreement, federal funding will continue to be used for low income housing.

[Education, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of improving results and of fostering a well educated and highly skilled workforce. We believe in the 2006 federal budget, in which we announced significant support for education. We offered it for training. We invested in post-secondary education and infrastructure. We improved tax assistance for education. We introduced both a new tax credit and a new grant for apprentices.

[Program for Older Worker Adjustment, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are in fact going to be studying employability this summer. We have a feasibility study right now. It was marked in the budget and I welcome any suggestions the member has for our programs.

[Program for Older Worker Adjustment, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows since he is on the committee, we are studying employability. I welcome all of the suggestions he has to help us with the older workers program.

[Child Care, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in taking from the children. We believe in giving to the children.