Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has clearly demonstrated the importance of this bill, and yet, it took 12 years for it to be introduced.

Today the NDP members are the only ones rising to speak to it. No one else has given a speech. What message does that send to workers and to Canadians in general?

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, during the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we were reviewing the transportation of dangerous goods by rail and the role of safety management systems. One witness from the steelworkers union said that Transport Canada was not doing its job and was not enforcing the rules. Rules are proposed, but Transport Canada is not enforcing them. It also gives companies permission to do all sorts of things and that is how we end up with situations like the one in Lac-Mégantic.

Does my colleague not think that having an independent body—an independent safety regulator—might help solve this type of problem?

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, based on my colleague's speech, she clearly really cares about the people around her and about workers. Her last comments really struck home.

In her speech, the member talked about certain problems and about ways this bill could have been improved. For instance, she talked about an independent safety regulator. Certain things were suggested in committee, for instance, including a mandatory review of the legislation in five years. She even said that the witnesses supported such a measure. That is also Justice Wells' position.

Does my colleague see any downside to including a mandatory review in five years?

[Housing, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the homelessness partnering strategy funding will be renewed next Tuesday.

It took one year for the government to announce the new criteria. Obviously the negotiation process has been delayed and now services will be interrupted. Organizations that help the homeless are laying off their employees and cutting services to the most vulnerable.

Can the minister tell us how many organizations will be affected and what she is going to do to remedy the situation?

[Committees of the House, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the report was used primarily to change the position. What was happening in the House did not suit them. Then witnesses were invited and we heard their testimonies in committee. There were things the government might have done, but the government decided not to listen to the witnesses.

I would like to know what important things some witnesses had to say about what that the government might have done to help them.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to the Building Canada Fund, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) agency; and (b) what agency was responsible for allocating this funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) agency; and (b) what agency was responsible for allocating this funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy: (a) what was the total planned budget for fiscal year 2012-2013, broken down by (i) each province and territory, (ii) each of the 61 designated communities, (iii) each funding program, including designated communities, rural and remote homelessness, Aboriginal homelessness, federal horizontal pilot project, homelessness knowledge development, and national homelessness information system; (b) what is the total planned budget for fiscal year 2013-2014, broken down by (i) each province and territory, (ii) each of the 61 designated communities, (iii) each funding program, including designated communities, rural and remote homelessness, Aboriginal homelessness, federal horizontal pilot project, homelessness knowledge development, and national homelessness information system; and (c) what was the actual spending for fiscal year 2012-2013, broken down by (i) each province and territory, (ii) each of the 61 designated communities, (iii) each funding program, including designated communities, rural and remote homelessness, Aboriginal homelessness, federal horizontal pilot project, homelessness knowledge development, and national homelessness information system?

[Homelessness, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the official NDP opposition critic on housing and homelessness to speak to Motion No. 455.

This motion addresses the lack of data on homelessness in most Canadian communities and problems caused by using a variety of methods to collect data on homelessness, as my colleague said.

The current wording of the motion refers to carrying out homeless counts only. It does not seek to paint a complete picture of homelessness in Canada, which could contribute to a better understanding of the reasons for the situation, as well as the nature and the scope of homelessness, including the less visible aspects. This could also help with prevention and response actions.

The New Democratic Party believes that the federal government has a major role to play in the fight against homelessness, particularly in terms of the funding required.

I have risen in the House several times to ask the government to take the necessary action to make fighting homelessness a priority for Canada.

Specifically, I have asked the Conservatives to index funding for the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS, which has become increasingly underfunded over the years because of the rising costs of services and salaries.

Unfortunately, in the 2013-14 budget, the government only partially renewed funding for the HPS, cutting $15.5 million from a budget that was already too small to meet the needs.

I have also asked the government to review the new approach that it unilaterally imposed on the provinces and municipalities, an approach that shifts most of the funding for homelessness to programs that focus on housing.

Radio silence there too. The ministers have been trained to deliver all kinds of lines, but they never answer our questions. Far be it from me to say that we should not make it a priority to provide housing to the homeless.

I strongly believe that eliminating poverty starts with ensuring that all people have a roof over their heads. However, for years now, I have been criticizing the government's hypocrisy on issues related to housing and homelessness.

This government is bragging all the way to the United States that housing has all of a sudden become a priority, simply because the government is changing its approach to combatting homelessness by focusing primarily on housing and allocating a paltry $119 million per year to this issue. What the government is not saying is that from 2011 to 2013 alone, it saved $65.2 million by refusing to renew funding for long-term social housing agreements that were set to expire and that, by so doing, the government will have cut over $1.7 billion to the detriment of the most underprivileged members of our society by 2030.

We will see what direction the government wants to take when we debate Motion No. 450 on federal funding for social housing.

The NDP recognizes the problems related to the lack of data on homelessness in most Canadian communities and the variety of data collection methods. More accurate data on homelessness in Canada would help in the development of better prevention and intervention practices.

In that sense, the motion is a step in the right direction because it will provide a more informed view of homelessness in Canada.

According to the letter I recently received from the motion's sponsor, he intends to count only the number of people who use homeless shelters. That is a major problem because this method completely ignores less visible homeless people, those who do not use any services and who could be helped before they become chronically homeless. In other words, prevention is completely ignored.

From 2005 to 2009, the National Shelter Study analyzed national data collected annually in order “to establish a baseline count and description of the characteristics of the homeless population in Canada”.

With regard to the findings of this study, Stephen Gaetz, a recognized expert in the field of homelessness, said:

While this approximation gives us a good baseline estimate of shelter users, it does not tell the whole story. As Segaert points out, the study did not include individuals in transitional housing (for individuals or families), Violence Against Women shelters and second-stage housing, immigrant/refugee shelters, halfway houses or temporary shelters (e.g. for extreme weather).

Take, for example, homeless women. That phenomenon is not as noticeable and it is very poorly documented because women do not use shelters as often. If the motion limits the counts to shelters, the issue of female homelessness and possible ways of preventing it will not even be considered.

If the motion is intended to go beyond a simple census, it could contribute to a better understanding of the reasons for the situation, as well as the nature and the scope of homelessness among women—and other forms of less visible homelessness—and it could also help shape prevention and response methods.

We also believe that the definition of “homeless” must be broad enough to include homeless individuals who are less visible, despite the difficulties that may entail. The motion is silent on that front, and in his letter, the member for Edmonton East clearly states his intention to include only chronically or episodically homeless people who are ill or have another debilitating condition. Someone who has been homeless for 11 months because he lost his job would not be counted.

The NDP believes that it is important to involve the groups fighting against homelessness and other levels of government in determining the definition of who is “homeless”, the methodology on how the count takes place and the “point in time” that will be used to that end, in order to prevent Conservative unilateralism.

What exactly is meant by “agreed-upon”? Unlike our colleagues opposite, the NDP believes in consultation, not in imposing criteria that groups fighting homelessness do not agree with. They are the ones out there, doing the work.

Speaking of unilateralism, we would like to know which version of Motion No. 455 actually reflects the sponsor's intentions. The French version states the following:

Que, de l’avis de la Chambre, il faudrait recommander à toutes les municipalités qui recensent les sans-abris [which implies those that are already carrying out counts] une « période de référence » normalisée à l’échelle nationale qui soit assortie [...]

However, the English version seems to involve everyone in the process.

That, in the opinion of the House, one nationally standardized “point in time” should be recommended for use in all municipalities in carrying out homeless counts...

Are we going to ask all the municipalities to carry out such homeless counts or are we simply going to standardize the definition and methodology for the municipalities that already carry out homeless counts? We have to decide because the translation is ambiguous.

In any case, the NDP, like many groups and associations directly or indirectly fighting homelessness, believes that the costs involved in implementing this motion should not be covered by the municipalities, or taken out of the direct transfers or the homelessness partnering strategy budget, which are already inadequate for preventing and properly dealing with homelessness.

The Conservatives are masters at the art of getting other levels of government to pay for their policies. The municipalities already have limited financial resources, which are likely to become even more limited when the new building Canada fund and its new conditions come into effect. As for the provinces, they have already paid enough for Conservative policies since the Conservatives came to power. We believe this practice must end.

Despite claims to the contrary by the sponsor of the motion, the bill could be quite high. In 2001, at the request of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Statistics Canada published the Survey of Homelessness in Canada: Street Component Feasibility Study, which dealt with the feasibility of conducting a homelessness count in a number of Canadian cities. The author of the report found that such a comprehensive count would be prohibitively expensive, roughly $10 million Canadian, and present important methodological challenges, with no guarantee that the data would be reliable.

We support the principle of this motion, but a number of details have to be clarified. I urge my colleague from Edmonton East to seriously consider my comments if he wants my support and that of my colleagues, and if he wants to show that the fight against homelessness is truly important to him. A much more complete picture of the situation and action on prevention are needed in this fight.

[Homelessness, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, is the intent of this motion really to focus only on counting the number of people who use shelters or are in the street, or does the member think a more in-depth study should be done, one that includes hidden homelessness, for example among women, since they rarely use shelters?

Indeed, simply enumerating the people who use shelters will give us a very limited view of homelessness, as the member knows. However, a more thorough examination of the problem will give us the big picture. This will help us better target services, and therefore intervention, and will also allow us to focus on prevention, which is so important to really combatting homelessness.