Maria Minna

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-66.

Every hon. member in the House knows that rising energy prices have an impact on Canadian consumers and on our economy. The bill demonstrates our government's commitment to action that will make a difference for Canadians, and in particular, Canadians who live on low incomes. It demonstrates our attention to the needs of people, such as many of our seniors who we know are feeling the pinch of high energy prices.

Bill C-66 is the result of listening to Canadians and looking at the evidence. Bill C-66 is about making responsible choices with public dollars that allow us to identify how we can do the most good for Canadians who need it the most.

Our government and, I am sure, many of us as parliamentarians have heard from organizations, such as the Consumers Association of Canada and Option consommateurs in Quebec. We have heard from many business groups, community organizations and individuals. They have pointed out the many ways that rising energy costs affect us all in terms of fuel costs for cars and trucks, in terms of the oil and natural gas that Canadians use to heat their homes and in terms of the cost of making and shipping products from farms and factories.

Their stories are important but hearing from these groups and from citizens is only part of making effective policies. We also need statistical evidence on issues, such as energy prices and impacts, which Statistics Canada has in abundance. We need evidence on consumer patterns, which Industry Canada is able to provide with its Consumer Trend Report.

That is the difference between being in government and being in opposition. In government we need to listen and use the evidence that finds those places where we can actually make a difference, not just a headline. That is the reason an across the board tax cut in some area is not at the top of our list. It would do little to help the people who are facing the biggest challenges today. That is the reason massive intervention in the energy marketplace is not on that list either. In today's global market it simply does not work and only triggers negative impacts for our economy.

On the other hand, the energy cost benefit would provide the kind of targeted assistance that three million low income Canadian seniors and low income families with children need. That is real action, not rhetoric.

We know that a lasting way to help a lot of families control rising energy costs is by making their homes more energy efficient for the long term. This is not new to us. Our government has launched many programs to help consumers choose wisely when buying products that use energy or when they buy fuel. Programs, such as the new ENERGY STAR program, are helping consumers every day. They are making it easy for Canadians to choose the most efficient electrical products and appliances in the marketplace.

The same is true for the auto fuel consumption data that Natural Resources Canada publishes annually based on information collected by Transport Canada. In that way consumers can choose vehicles that are the most fuel efficient.

I am sure my hon. colleagues know that our government has also put in place the EnerGuide program and programs to assist consumers to conduct energy audits of their homes. Those audits are already enabling Canadians to cut their heating and cooling bills in the most cost efficient way possible. If consumers act on the recommendations of these energy audits by making energy saving investments in their home, they can look forward to as much as $150 of the cost of the audit being refunded. This is already in place for Canadians.

The legislation would enable our government to go even further to help Canadians with a focus on assistance to help pay for items such as draft proofing, improvements to heating systems and the replacement of windows under the new EnerGuide program for low income households.

As I believe members know, the bill would enhance market transparency and accountability. It would do this through the new office of petroleum price information, which is a very important office.

If we were taking these actions, all would be important steps ahead. However, we have been getting ahead of the curve. We have been taking actions that are designed to reduce the dependence of Canada on conventional energy sources. I am speaking of initiatives like support for demonstration projects that are producing ethanol from crops such as corn, straw and other forms of cellulose. We aggressively are pursuing alternative energy sources such as wind power and solar energy.

I am a member of the finance committee and it is in the process of doing prebudget consultation hearings. I believe tomorrow, Thursday and Friday the committee will be in Toronto.

During the panel on the environment, some fantastic presentations and recommendations were heard. One of them was on wind power. In fact, the presenter stated that we would be able to provide all the energy requirement for remote and small communities in our country through wind power in the near future. I think that is a fantastic way to look at our society. It is a way of dealing not only with the environment but with the cost of energy.

There are many other examples that were presented at that hearing. Europe has a great many to offer us already. If I am not mistaken, Germany already provides 6% of its energy through wind power. We need to go in that direction.

In September our government's Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency contributed $3.6 million to help establish the Canadian Wind Energy Institute at North Cape, Prince Edward Island. We are moving ahead ourselves quite aggressively in that direction.

The Prince Edward Island wind-hydrogen village project is in operation to test ways to use wind energy as a primary energy source. That project is exploring how to use wind energy as a way to produce hydrogen to provide backup and primary electricity for industrial, farm and household needs, not to mention hydrogen fuel for transportation.

We are doing that and a great deal more. Solar energy was another one.

My corner of Beaches—East York is doing its part. I was proud to be at Glen Stewart Park a couple of weeks ago to plant trees in memory of the late Bob Hunter. As I pressed the sapling into the soil, I could not help but reflect on the positive difference Bob had made with his life. Greenpeace International put it well on its website when it said, “Perhaps more than anyone else, Bob Hunter invented Greenpeace. His death on May 2 nd 2005, of cancer marks the passing of a true original, one of the heroes of the environmental movement...”

We have one of our own eco-warriors in Beaches—East York. Ours is one of the most environmentally conscious ridings in metro Toronto. We have in our midst some eco-pioneers of whom Bob Hunter would be very proud today. Take Alex Winch of the Beach Solar Laundromat on Queen Street East, for example. When I brought environment minister Stéphane Dion to meet Alex this spring, the minister was very impressed with the solar laundromat and of the--

[World Teachers' Day, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Teachers' Day and I would like to take this opportunity to join parents and communities around the world in recognizing the pivotal role that teachers play in providing quality education to our children. Through their daily work, teachers make a tremendous contribution to sustainable development by building its human foundation, developing a child's capacity and desire to learn.

Teachers are important to the overall development of their students' character and minds. They are understanding individuals and greatly affect how the next generation views the world and its citizens.

To the teachers of Beaches—East York, indeed all teachers in Canada, I wish to say thanks. It is because of their devotion that our children know that no door is closed and that no dream is too distant to achieve.

[Housing, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, co-operative housing is an important part of the housing continuum. It provides a secure, affordable option for low and moderate income Canadians. However, in recent months many federally administered co-ops funded under section 95 of the National Housing Act faced a subsidy shortfall when their mortgages came up for renewal. This problem was threatening the financial viability of many projects.

Could the Minister of Labour and Housing tell the House what he has done to fix the problem and to assist the people in that situation?

[Infrastructure, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberal government, the Ontario government, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the City of Toronto signed two historic municipal funding agreements under the new deal for cities and communities.

Today's announcements represent the fourth gas tax agreement and first public transit agreement signed under the new deal. The result will be environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure, better public transit, improved water and waste water management and cleaner energy systems in communities.

My colleagues from Toronto and I fought hard to give cities sustainable funding and a place at the table.

This is the beginning of a whole new relationship between the three levels of government in Ontario. I am very proud of it. It is a historic moment. I ask the House to join us in this historic moment in Ontario.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has repeatedly used the word “theft”. That is totally unparliamentary language and I want the hon. member to withdraw it.

Madam Speaker, I think you should make some rules in the House. It is unparliamentary language. It is not true. I would ask him to say that out of this chamber.

Madam Speaker, would you please tell the hon. member to use parliamentary language in this chamber.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 15th, 2005]

No, I am sorry, but I have never voted against. I did not vote against that. I would never vote against it. I agree entirely that it needs to be reformed. I support it and I always have.

The other thing I want to say is with respect to the earlier comment the hon. member made on the Supreme Court decision. Yes, there was a decision that is going to have some impact. This is why I am saying we need to take this seriously and we need to address the reform of our system to ensure that in fact we address the shortages of doctors and health care givers and the wait lines that exist.

We have a timeline for 2007. I think we need to bring that forward. I think we need to have a much more aggressive approach in the short term, the medium term and the long term, together with the provinces, to ensure that the system is reformed as quickly as possible. We need to ensure that every Canadian gets quality service and timely service and timely surgeries, first of all to discourage private sector care. At the same time, we need to look at what we can do to ensure that the private sector does not grow in this country.

In fact, to answer an earlier question with respect to the U.K. and other places, Roy Romanow, who did a massive consultation and visited all of the other jurisdictions in the western world, basically came back and said there are no better systems. In fact, allowing private care does not help the lines and does not make it better because all it does is siphon off the resources over to the other side. It does not make it any different. It does not shorten the lines. It does not provide better quality at the end of the day.

Our job is to ensure that we fight and that we fix the system as quickly as possible, because at this point it is no longer an issue of resources. It is an issue of reforming and strengthening our system to ensure that the private sector in fact is kept out of our system. As we can see from the media in the last couple of days, the American for profit companies are looking very keenly over the border to see how fast they can move in on some of these areas. I certainly would not want to see that happen.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 15th, 2005]

I think it is a good question too, because I agree that it needs to be reformed, absolutely.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 15th, 2005]

No, that is provincial jurisdiction. For somebody who always says we should never get into provincial jurisdictions, he now sits there and recognizes the fact that it is provincial jurisdiction; that is where the problem is and it has to be fixed so that there are doctors available. My own mother-in-law, for instance, cannot get a family doctor, but there are doctors available.

The system can be fixed. It means that we must have the political will. The money is now there. It is not a matter of weakening the act. It is a matter of fixing the system and making it work for Canadians so that they can enjoy it for the next 100 years, not to privatize it and not to weaken the Canada Health Act, which the hon. member would like to suggest is the only way out of the situation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 15th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not need the hon. member to suggest to me that I do not write my own speeches. That is exactly what I do, as he knows, and I have my own ideas to express in this area, thanks very much.

First, by not protecting the Canada Health Act we in fact are not protecting Canadians. The two are the same, quite frankly, so I am talking about protecting Canadians. I am talking about getting enough doctors. I am talking about getting the wait lines down. What the hon. member forgets is that in Ontario for 10 years Mr. Harris cut taxes to the bone. We have put all of that money and more back in three accords, but it did not matter because Mr. Harris kept cutting services.

At the same time, the reform needed in the system did not happen. There are huge shortages, which have to be addressed. There is absolutely no question about it. That is why we have a third accord, which provides an additional $41 billion plus an escalator for the next 10 years to make sure there are enough funds. Now it is not an issue of money but an issue of reform. The provinces and the Government of Canada have to work together and they have to work fast to reform.

First of all, some of the doctors in this country are far too busy worrying about their bottom line and not about reform. Community health centres is the way to go. We have to reform the primary health care delivery system in this country. Otherwise it does not much matter what we do because we cannot bring the costs down. That has to happen.

We need to bring down the cost of the wait lines. If that means guaranteeing that people can be treated by bringing in foreign doctors and getting them ready to work, because we have denied them work for I do not know how many years and they are driving taxis instead--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 15th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, budget 2005 is not just about numbers. It is about people. That is why I was very pleased to see in budget 2005 measures to assist seniors, children and persons living with disabilities.

I would like to take a moment to outline some of the measures focused on our senior population, something on which I, together with the Liberal women's caucus, have worked very hard for two or three years to bring about change in some measure. By the way, the Liberal Party is the only party that has addressed directly seniors issues in the last few years. This budget begins to address them very directly and I am sure that in future programs we will do even better. My colleagues and I began serious work on seniors issues a couple of years ago. Hard work has paid off. We are now seeing through budget 2005 significant investments across a wide range of policies that matter to seniors.

Budget 2005 investments include increases in the guaranteed income supplement, or the GIS as it is known by most people. The budget proposes to increase maximum yearly GIS benefits by over $400 for single seniors and almost $700 for couples. Half of this increase will take effect January 1, 2006 and the remaining installment will take effect on January 1, 2007. A total of 1.6 million GIS recipients will benefit from this increase, including more than 50,000 seniors who will become eligible for benefits as a result of the change.

It is important to mention that the increase in the GIS will be of particular benefit to senior women, who account for more than one million of the seniors receiving GIS benefits. This assistance means being able to buy food and medicine as well as pay rent in many places like the city of Toronto.

Budget 2005 also proposes to expand funding for the new horizons for seniors program to promote voluntary sector activities by and in support of seniors. Funding for the program will increase by an additional $5 million in 2005-06, $10 million in 2006-07, and $15 million in 2007-08.

Budget 2005 also proposes to set aside a further $13 million over the next five years for a national seniors secretariat to be established within Social Development Canada. The organization will serve as a focal point for collaborative efforts to address the new challenges for seniors. This will allow the Government of Canada to tackle issues such as seniors housing in my riding. The Government of Canada has invested $1.25 million toward the construction of a new 25 unit apartment building for seniors, as I said before.

Budget 2005 will further support seniors by increasing the amount of income that Canadians may earn without paying federal income tax, which will remove about 240,000 seniors from the tax rolls.

Budget 2005 also proposes to double the amount that caregivers may claim for medical expenses from $5,000 to $10,000. As we all know, this is a very important part of reform that is required. Home care is one of the areas that we must work on and must deliver.

In addition to these things, we must continue to work to reform the pension system and also to provide proper home care across this country. One such thing is to look at RRSPs. Today RRSPs only benefit certain people who can put away a great deal of money throughout their working lives. They do not help the average Canadian, as most people know.

We must look at renewing and reforming our pension system as well as affordable housing, home care and many other things to make sure that seniors can live independently, with dignity and with respect in our society and continue to contribute to our society.

After fighting for Canadian children for the past 10 years, I was extremely pleased to see the Liberal government propose a budget bill that includes funding to establish the foundations for a national early learning and child care program. Investments in early childhood development pay off far more than any other educational investment at any other time in a person's life.

My constituents of Beaches--East York made it very clear to me that they wanted this agreement. There are parents who have told me that they cannot work because they do not have child care. This investment is good for Canada's children. It is not only a social investment but it is also an economic investment. It is an investment in the future of our children, which means that it is an investment in our health care system, as well as crime prevention and a great many more things that we could talk about. At the end of the day, it is an investment in the future of our country.

Some of the most vulnerable people of our society are not discussed very often. I want to touch on this area for a moment.

I am proud of the steps we are taking in the budget to develop a fairer tax system for our fellow Canadians living with disabilities. In recent years the government has taken significant steps to enhance tax fairness. Budget 2005 builds on those actions by improving the tax recognition of the costs associated with a disability, caregiving and adoption.

In budget 2003 the government established the Technical Advisory Committee on Tax Measures for Persons with Disabilities to advise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue on how to address tax issues affecting persons with disabilities. The committee's final report contained 25 recommendations. The government is acting on the committee's recommendations.

New measures in this area include the extension of eligibility for the disability tax credit to individuals who face multiple restrictions which together have a substantial impact on their everyday lives. It also means a credit to ensure that more individuals requiring extensive life-sustaining therapy on an ongoing basis are eligible. The budget also clarifies eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit to include the provisions dealing with impairments in mental function.

This budget also adds physiotherapists to the list of health professionals who can certify eligibility for the disability tax credit. It expands the list of expenses eligible for the disability support deduction to include costs such as for job coaches, deaf-blind intervenors and Braille note takers.

Another important measure for students who are eligible for the disability tax credit is the extension of the contribution period. The maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement has been increased to $750 from $571 per year. The annual child disability benefit has been increased to $2,000.

These are areas that I am extremely proud of. Not only does the budget deal with children, seniors, families, people with disabilities, but it goes beyond that and addresses broader issues such as the environment which affects our health and our economy. The future direction of our economy affects just about everything.

The new deal for cities is another area in which we have made a commitment and on which we are delivering. It is an area that has been crying out for action for some time. We are bringing the cities to the table. There will be tripartite agreements. The cities will be at the table to decide, together with the Government of Canada and the provinces, how moneys will be spent in those cities so that their needs are attended to directly. This is very important.

The municipal green fund is another area that addresses the environment and the municipalities. In fact, not only are we renewing this program, but it has existed for quite a few years. This program is not new to this budget; it is one which we have had for quite some time.

The latest decision by the Supreme Court also reminds us that we must not forget that while we have made a commitment of $41 billion to renew our health care system, we must now fight to ensure that the health care program remains a publicly funded, publicly administered universal program and that privatization does not creep into the system. That means we may have to push forward the wait time limits. We have to push forward the reforms together with the provinces and put pressure on our partners in the health care system to make sure that the deficiencies that exist are fixed as soon as possible.

We have to also look at the Canada Health Act. Perhaps it needs amendments and strengthening. We also have to look at other potential powers and strengths that we have at our disposal. Our health care system is not only a social program, but it is very much an economic program. We have recently seen the differences at General Motors between the costs per car here in Canada and the costs per car in the United States. It makes our businesses that much more attractive, that much more cost effective. Productivity is something the hon. members opposite talk about a great deal. Educating children, early education, health care, training and education go to productivity.

Even Mr. Dodge, the governor of the Bank of Canada, said very clearly two or three times during his hearings before the finance committee that if he only had one penny left to spend, he would invest it on children. He said that at the end of the day that is where he would get his biggest reward, his biggest return on long term productivity, lower costs to health and a much more productive society. That is where he would invest.

The former deputy of the Department of Finance and head of the Bank of Canada stated that.

As I say, this is fundamentally important. These are programs that finally address the social justice issues in our country but also very fundamentally address the economic policy as well. They are intertwined. Social policy and economy policy are not two separate things. They are one and the same. One cannot deal with one without addressing the other. If that is done, it is done at our peril, and we would not have a society that functions, is prosperous or current in today's modern society.