Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that no one would be affected by the Conservatives' changes to employment insurance. My riding of Hochelaga was hit hard by closures, with the 700 or more jobs lost at Mabe for example. Hochelaga would benefit from a real job-creation plan to help these workers.

Will the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development finally admit that she was wrong and stop her crusade against unemployed Canadians? Will the minister take a step back with her reforms?

[Innovative Projects in Hochelaga, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to sing the praises of two of Hochelaga's innovative projects.

The drivers and guides of Vélopousse help people discover the neighbourhood by taking them on a rickshaw ride. It is environmentally friendly, original, educational and fun. It provides summer employment for students in the neighbourhood and it costs only $5.

The second project is called Ateliers Bon Débarras. For the past four years, it has been helping young people 16 and 17 years old to integrate into society by teaching them to build furniture using recycled products.

Congratulations to those responsible and to the participants of these two extremely successful projects.

Finally, allow me to congratulate my son Nicholas and his team from Concordia University in Montreal, who made it to the final round of the Canadian Satellite Design Challenge. Right now, experts are testing their satellite and, if it is declared the winner, then Concordia will be the first Quebec university to launch a satellite into orbit. Go Space Concordia!

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her excellent question.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill favours certain groups, but unfortunately other groups have been forgotten. There is a distinction made between various groups of people. However, it would be really unfortunate if one particular group of people, a group of parents, for example, were forgotten when it would be so easy to make amendments to this bill.

The NDP is in favour of referring this bill to committee. I hope that the committee will consider all the issues raised by the NDP, including this one, and others raised by the Liberals. The committee will be able to make key amendments to ensure that all parents faced with difficult situations such as these might benefit from this legislation.

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Yes, I obviously agree with him when he says that there are gaps in the legislation. I support the bill, but I have already indicated that it has problems. In fact, that is precisely why I cannot understand why there are so few Conservatives rising to speak about the bill and support it. Is it because they are in the majority and they think that the bill will be adopted regardless, or is it because they think the bill is so perfect that there is no need to discuss it?

In my opinion, their way of thinking smacks curiously of 16th century colonialism where certain nations believed that their way of thinking was the only right way to think. I feel that history has proven that this was not a particularly enlightened way of thinking. One only need ask the first nations, for example.

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I will begin by stating that I will be supporting Bill C-44. Perhaps some of my colleagues have children, and they know as well as I do that the most difficult thing in the world is to watch their child suffer or to learn that their child has suffered. I do not even want to imagine what a parent goes through when their child disappears or dies as a result of a crime. It is far too painful. A mother or father never recovers from such a blow, and it must take a long time for the pain to subside even a little. I still think of my grandparents, who died 25 or 30 years ago, and that is nothing compared to the loss of a child.

Bill C-44 will allow parents who go through such turmoil and grief to take the time to heal a little before returning to work. It will also prevent them from suffering serious financial difficulties in the meantime. Parents of a seriously ill child will be able to take the time to be with their child during that difficult period. When my children were young, one of them played baseball with a young boy whose younger brother had a serious illness. The little brother was about five years old. He was being treated and often stayed in hospital. You do not leave a five-year-old child alone in the hospital. Both parents had used up their holidays and other leave, but the illness obviously did not go away by the time they had exhausted their leave. They had to ask for unpaid leave. Their finances suffered and they were afraid of losing their jobs. That is exactly the kind of family that could have benefited from leave with benefits.

Helping parents in such a way is an excellent initiative. However, I find it somewhat maddening that the Conservative government is prepared to amend the Canada Labour Code to help one group of parents but not another. When the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie wanted to bring changes to the same code to protect pregnant or nursing women, the Conservatives slammed the door in his face. This really smacks of partisanship and cynicism. The purpose of his bill was to prevent miscarriages and health problems in newborns by ensuring that pregnant and nursing women whose jobs fall under Canada Labour Code jurisdiction were not subject to dangerous situations at work.

Why show kindness and common sense to one group of parents, but not to another, when in both cases, we are talking about the life of a child or unborn child? The trauma is similar. It makes absolutely no sense. The only plausible answer to my question is that Bill C-44, which we are discussing today, was introduced by a Conservative minister, while Bill C-307, which sought to compensate and protect pregnant women and their unborn children, came from an NDP member. Is that what the Conservatives call democracy now that they have a majority? The public will remember that come 2015.

There is another problem. Just a year ago, when the Conservatives promised the public that it would help parents of murdered, missing or seriously ill children, they also promised to do so out of general revenues. That is what Bill C-44 proposes in the first two cases, but not in the third. Benefits for parents of sick children will be taken from the employment insurance fund. Why do I see a problem with that? There are many reasons.

First, the employment insurance fund has a deficit of $9 billion. Second, employment insurance money is supposed to be a safety net for unemployed workers. Third, once again, the Conservatives did not do what they said they would do.

Let us talk about my first point: the employment insurance fund has a deficit of $9 billion. The anthropologist in me would like to give a quick history lesson. In the 1990s, under a Liberal government, the state stopped funding employment insurance. Instead of having three contributors to the fund—the worker, the employer and the state—there were only two contributors, the worker and the employer. So the pot was already shrinking.

In the late 1990s, the Liberals took money that had been set aside for workers and rolled it into the general revenue fund to balance the budget. That money did not belong to the government because, as I just said, it had been contributed to the fund by workers and employers.

When the Conservatives came to power, they continued to chip away at the employment insurance fund. What a surprise it was when recently, there was no more money in the fund to pay claimants. The government had to increase workers' and employers' premiums. That is not fair. People paid for that insurance for years, and then they were told there was no more money and they would have to pay more if they wanted the benefits to which they were entitled.

If a private investor takes off with our savings, we call foul, but is it any different when the government does the same thing?

Second, I mentioned that the employment insurance fund is supposed to be a safety net for workers who lose their jobs. That is why it is called “insurance”. Maybe we should stop calling it “employment insurance” and start calling it “unemployment insurance” like in the old days because it is insurance against unemployment, not for or against employment.

The money in the fund comes from workers and employers and should be used when a person loses his job and has a hard time finding another one, or when the nature of his work does not make it possible for him to work all year long. Everyone knows what I am referring to because we have been talking about seasonal workers a lot lately.

This fund could be used to address a number of other problems directly related to employment. For example, over the years, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who was the NDP employment insurance critic, made dozens of proposals to expand the scope of the program. Less than four out of 10 unemployed people receive employment insurance benefits. This shows that there is a fundamental problem with the system. The money in the fund should be used to address these problems.

Benefits for parents of sick children should come from general revenues—as per the Conservatives' election promise—and not the employment insurance fund.

All the money pillaged from the employment insurance fund—$54 billion—could and should be used today to help workers affected by the latest economic crisis, those workers who recently lost their jobs as a result of all the Conservative government cuts. There are 300,000 more unemployed people today than before the 2008 crash.

To conclude, I support Bill C-44 because it supports parents going through painful times, and who should not have to add financial problems to their stress. However, I would like to ask the minister to keep the promises made by her party to use general revenues and not the employment insurance fund to cover these measures. I would also like to ask her to consult Canadians in order to learn about the real problems faced by thousands of unemployed people, in order to make reforms to the system that will make it fair for everyone. I can assure her that she will have the complete co-operation of the NDP for such a project.

Finally, I would also like to ask the government to show as much compassion for the parents of children who have disappeared in circumstances that are not related to a crime and also to caregivers who find it difficult to survive on the meagre resources currently provided by governments, as requested by the Canadian Palliative Care Association.

[Social Housing, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, everything is a matter of economic effectiveness for the Conservatives. But when it comes to social housing, they are doing everything to be ineffective.

The various levels of government spend at least $4.5 billion for homelessness-related health care, police and prison services. According to a recent study, the federal government could save 54% of that money by helping the homeless have better housing. The facts are clear: investing these savings could help fight poverty and homelessness.

Will the minister finally admit it and commit to providing stable funding for social housing?

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the first question about the corporate tax rate. As I mentioned in my speech, increasing the rate to 19.5% is the right thing to do. Corporations would still be paying less than the U.S. rate. This would give us more room to manoeuvre to help the most disadvantaged.

As for the second question, I must say that I have forgotten what it was. But, in any event, I would not have had time to respond.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would not say that everything is bad in every bill, motion or budget proposed by the Conservatives. However, when we do not agree on certain things, when we find certain things so bad that we cannot vote in favour of them, then we will oppose them.

With the last budget, the Conservatives were always accusing us of opposing something or some bill, of voting against the poor, against the disadvantaged, against a lot of things, apparently.

Voting in favour of a budget is like voting in favour of a collective agreement. In a budget, there are things we agree with and other things we do not agree with. However, we must vote on the bill as a whole. Either we refuse it all and try to work on it or we accept it all. When we do not agree with an important part of a bill, we reject it.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her kind comment.

Let us talk about the employment insurance fund: $57 billion was taken from the fund in the past merely to pad the government coffers. The Conservatives and the Liberals were trying to balance their own budgets using money that was paid into the fund by workers and employers. The money in this fund does not belong to the government. Because they did this, we now have less money to pay people who need employment insurance benefits. No one likes receiving employment insurance, but there are some people who have no other choice.

What the Conservatives are proposing now is penalizing people who have lower salaries and those who cannot work full-time. In my opinion, the old method and the current method should be combined to ensure that people who are able to receive a higher salary benefit from the program, but also to ensure that people who do not benefit from the program can choose to combine the two programs in order to take advantage of the calculation that would be most beneficial to them.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' motion raises some points that are worth discussing. It is true that recent changes to employment insurance have hurt low-income workers. It is also true that non-refundable tax credits for caregivers cannot even be used by many people because their income is too low to take advantage of the tax deductions. And it is quite true that income inequality is growing in Canada. In fact, the gap in Canada is greater than in the United States. The Conservatives are rather silent about this, perhaps because they dare not admit that it is true. However, the changes called for in the Liberal motion barely scratch the surface of the problem. It is a good start, but we need much more profound changes in our society, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

I could criticize the government for all its measures with which I disagree, but as a member of the NDP I want to do politics differently. As our friend Jack often said, we want to work together. Therefore, rather than blaming the Conservatives, I would like to suggest some things we could do to help the most disadvantaged, measures that are compassionate, but that would also benefit the country financially. That is something they should like.

The motion we are debating today talks about reducing income inequality between the richest and the poorest. Let us talk a little bit about the neediest of the needy, those who do not even have a roof over their heads.

A recent study by Stephen Gaetz entitled The real cost of homelessness asks an intriguing question: can we save money by doing the right thing? It seems that a number of studies in Canada and the United States show that investing in prevention costs less, in the end, than using a patchwork of emergency solutions. Furthermore, we would be acting very compassionately. For example, the homeless are more poorly nourished and more stressed, often are the victims of violence or accidents, and do not sleep as well. The homeless are three and a half times more likely to have asthma than an average person, four times more likely to have cancer and five times more likely to have heart disease. In addition, they are 20 times more likely to have epilepsy and 29 times more likely to contract hepatitis C.

According to Michael Shapcott, from the Wellesley Institute in Toronto, in 2007, the monthly cost of a hospital bed was $10,900. Comparatively, the cost of a shelter bed was $1,932. Even better, the cost of a social housing bed in Toronto, where rent is not the cheapest in Canada, was $199.92. You do not have to be good at math to see that the best solution is rather obvious, in both economic and human terms.

A homeless person is also at a higher risk of ending up in prison. In fact, according to a study by Kellen and others in 2010, approximately one in five inmates was homeless at the time of being incarcerated. According to Statistics Canada, in 2008-09, the average yearly cost of incarceration for a male was $106,583, and was $203,061 for a female. I highly doubt that subsidized housing for one of these people, even including support workers, would have cost the government as much.

So yes, I agree with Mr. Gaetz: we can save money while still doing good. Secure, affordable, adapted, adequate and safe housing helps prevent a lot of problems. It is an intelligent way to effect profound changes in society, not only for the homeless, but also for everyone. Everyone should have the right to adequate housing without having to destroy themselves financially.

Many families and individuals have a hard time making ends meet because they earn a pittance, because they are ill, because they are retired and living on a fixed income, because they are young and are having a hard time finding a first job, or because they are students.

It is mainly these people who see the gap between their incomes and those of the wealthy getting wider every year.

Yes, we must ensure that employment insurance is fair for everyone, including those who cannot find full-time work and who will lose out with the new clawback mechanism established by the Conservatives. By the way, the presumption that everyone can find full-time work is false.

At the museum where I worked for 19 years, there were only three guides who had full-time jobs because of the nature of the work. The other 17 worked part-time. Jobs are becoming increasingly precarious, particularly in seasonal industries such as tourism and education. Many workers in these industries are women or young people who have less chance of success from the outset.

Yes, we must also ensure that caregivers can benefit from tax credits, even and particularly those who do not make enough money during the year to be able to take advantage of tax deductions. Once again, many of the people in these circumstances are women. Nonetheless, I am going to say it again: we need to take things much further than this motion.

Why not make the housing renovation programs permanent rather than providing temporary programs that leave something to be desired? With doors and windows that do not leak, heating systems would use less energy, and people would have lower heating bills and more money to spend on other things. There would also be more jobs available in the area of renovation.

Why not renew the agreements between the CMHC and social housing projects for buildings that need to be renovated or for those that cannot continue to provide subsidized housing once their mortgage expires?

Why not allow housing co-operatives that are trying to find another source of funding to end their agreement with the CMHC before the set end date without extremely restrictive penalties? This would allow them to find the money they need to do major renovations that cannot wait and that they do not have the means to do given their existing agreement with the CMHC.

Why not invest a portion of the CMHC's profits in new social housing, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, of course? People wait years for social and community housing. In the meantime, all of the money they spend on rent, which costs them much more than 25% of their income, could be helping other sectors of the economy. That money could also help them avoid having to choose between buying food or paying the rent. In the end, it would be better for the government too.

Why not bring back the 19.5% tax rate for big corporations, a rate that is, after all, still lower than that in the United States and that would give the government the money it needs to offer services to those who need them most? That money could be reinvested in housing and the fight against poverty.

I should point out that the NDP has repeatedly asked the House to adopt a national anti-poverty strategy. Maybe it is time for that now. All of these suggestions would help reduce the gap that is widening at an alarming rate between rich and poor in Canada.

Yes, I will support the Liberal motion this evening, but the House should also support bills introduced by my NDP colleagues, such as Bill C-241 and Bill C-400, which would guarantee all Canadians the right to decent, affordable housing so that they do not have to do without other essentials.

I hope that the members of all parties will set aside partisanship and support these important bills when the time comes to vote on them in the House. Forward-thinking, human policies like these are the only way to tackle growing inequality in our society.