Marie-Claude Morin

[Service Canada, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's response.

When the Conservatives talk about optimizing the budget, I understand. I understand that sometimes cuts have to be made somewhere. That is normal. They are managing a country. However, when we see frivolous spending, such as when senators spend on extravagances and ministers pay $16 for orange juice at the expense of taxpayers, I think it is completely illogical to cut public services.

Right now, the provinces have their hands full as a result of the current government. They are drowning and so is the middle class. Never has the state of social programs in Canada ever been so critical. Things are not working at all.

The minister gave me a rhetorical answer and I do not believe him.

[Service Canada, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it very much if my colleagues would take their conversations outside the House and if this were not deducted from my time.

I will continue.

Members will recall that the government promised that the $5.2 billion in cuts would not directly affect services provided to Canadians by Service Canada. The Parliamentary Budget Officer discovered that, on the contrary, most of the savings would be realized from program cuts.

In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that only 15% of the anticipated cuts over the next three years would be made to administration, for example communications or human resources. When the report was released, the government slammed the Parliamentary Budget Officer for supposedly overstepping his mandate by asking for details about the money Ottawa was not spending, in other words, the cuts. It claimed that the PBO was supposed to concentrate on the money that was being spent.

Do I need to remind the House that the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer was created by this same Conservative government out of a concern for transparency?

We realize today that the transparency the Conservatives talk so much about is deteriorating as the government's tenure increases.

The role of the PBO is critical. His analyses to date have shed light on a number of files and have even led to the elimination of some policies that were too expensive or unjustified.

Yesterday, the House voted on the NDP motion to reaffirm the essential role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and to make the incumbent of the position a completely independent officer of Parliament. Unfortunately, the Conservative majority voted against our motion.

Last fall, I asked the minister whether she had read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report and whether she realized that services to the public were being significantly affected. As usual, I received an empty response that did not really address my question.

So this time, I am asking why her government refused to heed the opinion of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was just trying to do his job.

If the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an office created by the Conservative government, is an independent officer of Parliament, it would be a good idea to listen to what he has to say, would it not?

[Service Canada, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last November, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report on the Conservative government's proposed cuts.

[Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have put a lot of thought into what I will say about this bill before the House makes a decision at second reading.

I could recap my colleagues' arguments that added to the discussion and enriched debate. I could repeat the troubling statistics that reflect the serious shortage of affordable housing. I could quote from the scathing UN special rapporteur's report, which ranks Canada quite low. I could remind the House that we are the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy. Or perhaps I could talk about the co-operatives that are worried about the end of federal government operating agreements and the impact that will have on their low-income renters.

However, I feel it is more important that the House hear about the many measures being taken by civil society organizations to demonstrate the importance of a national housing strategy.

Dignity for All, which works to eliminate poverty in Canada, launched a widespread movement in support of Bill C-400. The organization dedicated part of its website to the movement and launched a massive letter campaign. As we speak, representatives from this organization are trying to rally more people and elected officials around this cause.

The National Union of Public and General Employees, and its Women 4 Change initiative, also supports the bill. On its website, it encourages its 300,000 members to sign the petition in support of this bill and to write to their MPs to urge them to back the bill.

All kinds of organizations have done the same thing. The academic community is speaking out. Groups such as the Canadian Federation of University Women and the École de services publics at Université de Saint-Boniface have done their part, as have many religious organizations throughout Canada including the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Catholic Women's League, Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice, the Federation of Sisters of St. Joseph of Canada, and the Canadian Religious Conference. All these organizations have taken steps to raise awareness and convince the House to pass Bill C-400.

In a last-ditch effort, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, published open letters in a number of Quebec's daily newspapers. One of these letters was addressed to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, my colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. The letter explains the following to the minister:

This strategy would achieve much more than the federal government's ad hoc and clearly inadequate interventions of the past 20 years in the areas of housing and homelessness.

I think this is rather compelling. I do not need to remind the House that Canada is supposed to have its universal periodic review with the UN Human Rights Council in the spring. I am anxious for that to happen. Canada will have to report to member countries of the United Nations human resources committee on its accomplishments in the area of housing. We will be following this.

Many organizations, including the Social Rights Advocacy Centre, have already indicated in their submission regarding this periodic review that Canada needs to create a national housing strategy.

Lastly, my office received a number of letters of support and several hundred pages of petitions from various organizations and individuals across Canada in support of Bill C-400.

I could not possibly thank everyone, since I have only a few minutes, but I wish to commend the following: Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario; AFEAS; CHRA; the Confédération québécoise des coopératives d'habitation; the Canadian Mental Health Association; the National Aboriginal Housing Association; the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents over 2,000 municipalities; as well as all previously mentioned organizations.

I even have a letter from the Province of Manitoba in support of Bill C-400. I ask the House: what more do we need to pass this legislation?

We must remember this.

Safe and affordable housing is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right.

Secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing is a right. It is not a privilege. It is a fundamental right and it is also a determinant of health.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-400—although I do not know the exact date of the vote—in order to ensure that all Canadians have access to decent housing.

[Petitions, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who have presented petitions in support of Bill C-400.

I also have a pile of petitions from Canadians across the country, Canadians of all ages and social classes, who are calling on the government to step up and adopt a national housing strategy, so that all Canadians have access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

[Employment Insurance, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is still way off the mark.

Since she does not understand what the impact of her reform will be, I will give her a real-life example. That may help her.

In my riding, Les Serres Rosaire Pion et fils is a real institution, employing 125 workers in its greenhouses in the peak season. But the changes to employment insurance will force a number of them to change jobs. The greenhouses will lose a number of skilled workers, which will of course have a negative impact on productivity, profitability and the local economy.

Why does the minister want to hurt our economy by lowering the productivity of our businesses—

[Housing, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to tell the hon. member that Bill C-400 is not just about holding meetings. A national strategy is also about taking action.

Housing is not just a provincial responsibility. It is a shared responsibility. The federal government has responsibilities when it comes to housing. It must make appropriate investments and work with the provinces. Working with the provinces means talking with them, consulting them. When I talk about the provinces, I am also referring to the territories, of course. Talking with the provinces means consulting with them, being open and listening to their needs. However, this does not seem to be what the government is doing right now with regard to housing in Canada.

The housing crisis is a growing problem. I would like to provide another statistic. Right now, in Canada, between 150,000 and 300,000 people are homeless. It is not normal for a so-called rich country such as Canada to see families in core housing need and people living in the streets—

[Housing, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before Christmas, Food Banks Canada reported that reliance on food aid had reached an all-time high in Canada.

The report also indicated that government measures to increase the number of affordable housing units were the primary solution to this problem. I said at the time to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that there was no such commitment in her government's most recent budget.

When we ask questions on this issue, we are told that the government has invested over $2 billion in affordable housing through its economic action plan, and so on. According to the Conservatives' talking points, the government helps 755,000 Canadian households every year. The problem is that the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada reports that some 3 million Canadian households, including 750,000 children, are in core housing need.

The government does not seem to understand that it will take more than just funding to solve the housing crisis in Canada. We need a long-term plan that includes programs to end homelessness and to ensure that all Canadians have a roof over their heads. Canada needs a national strategy. We are the only G8 country that does not have a housing strategy.

With 3 million Canadian households living in housing insecurity, it is obvious that Canada has fallen behind when it comes to investments in affordable housing. Of all the developed countries, Canada has one of the least developed social housing sectors, and fewer and fewer Canadians can become homeowners.

In May of last year, this House unanimously adopted Motion No. 331 introduced by the hon. member for Shefford. This motion confirmed that the federal government has international obligations respecting the right to housing under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The motion also recognized the duty to support efforts by Canadian municipalities to combat homelessness. Bill C-400 is a logical extension of these efforts.

Canada will undergo its second universal periodic review by the UN Human Rights Council in 2013. It will have to report to civil society organizations and member countries of the United Nations human resources committee on its accomplishments in the area of housing.

A number of groups think that the conclusions of the UN special rapporteur will be worse than those in the 2009 review. At that time, the special rapporteur criticized this government's inaction in dealing with the crisis, which is getting worse. This shows the importance of a housing strategy, which is supported by hundreds of organizations.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain to me why the government refuses to discuss such a strategy when it would greatly improve the situation?

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my hon. colleague for this very relevant question.

It follows the same principle as sustainable development and the environment, which I was talking about earlier.

For instance, eight SMEs, which have less goods to ship than a large company, could decide to get together and use rail rather than road transportation, since they are located more or less in the same place and their goods are going to roughly the same destination.

Our SMEs would be more profitable, because transportation would be cheaper, faster and more efficient. It would also be easier for them to develop a market across the country and maybe even internationally than if they used only road transportation.

And getting back to a sustainable development perspective, this would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her very relevant question. I wanted to touch on that point in my speech, but I did not have time.

At times, companies get frustrated and have no desire to use rail transportation because it is so inefficient. These companies turn to trucking. That is not ideal for infrastructure, namely roads. Roads degrade more quickly when trucks use them over and over again.

Investing in rail transportation infrastructure is a good thing; it is also good for the environment. The number of trucks on the roads will decrease significantly if the rail system is used properly. And, consequently, greenhouse gas emissions will be significantly reduced.

The environment is an essential part of quality of life for Canadians from a sustainable development perspective. It is simple: a reliable rail system is part of a sustainable development plan.