Mylène Freeman

[Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation System, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

According to the FCM, approximately one-quarter of Canadians have septic tanks. It is true that this affects many Canadians right across the country.

A lot of people are leaving the regions. And the septic tanks is one of the reasons they give for not wanting to buy a house in the regions. It should not be. Everyone pays the same taxes. Everyone should receive fair treatment and receive the same investments as everyone else.

[Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation System, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with the FQM's support for the motion and the proposed program, we would clearly need to work with the province to ensure that everything runs smoothly.

We all know that the municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction whereas waste water falls under federal jurisdiction. We therefore have to work with all the stakeholders involved. That is why I included this in the motion.

I hope that all the stakeholders who are interested in implementing a program will work together in good faith to produce tangible results for Canadians.

[Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation System, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very simple question, and I will provide my colleague with a very simple answer.

The thing I would like us to do is discuss the motion. I do not want the government to feel that its hands would be tied by legislation. I want us to take concrete action together as a House. I hope the member will see this as an opportunity for the House to do something for rural Canadians, for real. I hope we can all work together so that this becomes a reality.

[Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation System, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Julien Béliveau, Agnès Grondin, the environmental advisor for the RCM of Argenteuil, and Marc Carrière, the executive director of the RCM of Argenteuil, who continued to raise this important issue for the environment, for the economy and for true equality between rural and urban communities.

I would also like to thank all the RCMs, all the municipalities and all the constituents in my riding who have also given me an enormous amount of support on this initiative.

Mr. Pearce also received the support of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the FCM.

The FCM represents virtually all Canadian municipalities. The organization, speaking on behalf of Canadian municipal issues from across the country, adopted a resolution asking the federal government to treat rural communities fairly by investing a fair share into the protection of water and health of the rural communities. Despite all the work that Scott did on the issue, with the support of his MRC and the FCM, the Conservative government's response was a resounding rejection, showing a clear lack of attention and sensitivity to the real concerns of rural communities.

The fact that this is an important issue in my riding should not prevent anyone from seeing that it is also an important issue across the country.

After attending the FCM conference in Saskatoon last year, I obtained the support of the FCM for the motion that I am presenting today. According to the FCM:

The municipal sector and the federal government are jointly responsible for protecting public health and the environment. We are convinced that the government can include septic systems in its comprehensive approach to water and deal with the issue of waste water for all Canadians.

Canada's rural municipalities want to work with the federal government using a comprehensive approach with clear commitments.

There are many rural municipalities across the country, literally from coast to coast, that are calling for the federal government to take a leadership role on this issue. From Gambo in Newfoundland and Labrador to the city of Powell River in British Columbia and everywhere in between, from the village of Delia, Alberta, the town of Lumsden in Saskatchewan to Saint-Roch-de-l'Achigan in Quebec to Grand-Sault in New Brunswick, municipalities have responded to this proposal with overwhelming support.

The Association of Summer Villages of Alberta, for example, which represents 51 municipalities directly affected by the motion, wrote to me describing its situation, saying:

--deficient waste water management is a major polluter. We recognize the need to have proper waste water systems but do not have the funds/ resources to establish these systems....up to acceptable standards so as to protect the public resources: lake protection, water quality and public health.

Many other municipalities across Canada wrote to me to express their support for the motion, for example, the village of Fruitvale in British Columbia. It said:

--the rural area surrounding Fruitvale has only sceptic field sewage systems and in recent years a number of them have failed which has caused significant financial problems for some rural homeowners.

The town of Conception Bay in Newfoundland said:

A financial program to assist those not yet connected would be beneficial and appreciated by those who would avail of possible funding.

I could go on and on, but what is important to note is that this is such an important issue for all rural municipalities across the country.

In response to my proposal, the government might say that it has already invested in wastewater treatment infrastructure. However, it has only done so for cities and village centres, leaving rural Canadians to their own devices. Meanwhile, federal taxes paid by rural Canadians are being invested only in the cities. Rural Canadian citizens do not want preferential treatment; all they want is fair treatment.

The government might say that there is a Canada Mortgage and Housing (CMHC) program that addresses the problem. Unfortunately, the program does nothing of the kind. According to Gore Township:

…the CMHC and Société d'habitation du Québec programs… do not address the socioeconomic issue being described and the funds allocated for the region… are laughable compared to potential demand;

For the RCM of Argenteuil, a total of $90,000 has been made available for a population of 30,000. That amounts to five or six septic tanks for every 30,000 people. It is completely ridiculous. The situation is not unique to Quebec either; information from the municipality of Delia, Alberta, for example, corroborates this. According to the municipality:

--grants from the Province of Alberta cannot be used to assist private property owners to upgrade their private sewer systems...

In a discussion of the matter with their member of Parliament, he admitted that it was not enough to deal with the problem.

Nevertheless, the problem is more than anything else an environmental issue. My motion was accordingly supported by the Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec, a non-profit organization of various drainage basin organizations working to mobilize, coordinate and generate action by citizens and water stakeholders.

The importance of water in Canada is all too often forgotten. With more than two million lakes and the world’s largest reserves of soft water, we often take our water for granted. However, even though it is a resource that is essential to life, the environment and our economy, it is not protected from contamination.

Outdated septic tanks ought not to be taken lightly. An analysis prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme states that:

Septic tank systems, the largest source of waste discharged to the land, contain many organic contaminants and are suspected to be one of the key sources of rural well contamination.

According to Environment Canada, waste water causes the loss of oxygen dissolved in lakes and is therefore responsible for the death of fish and other aquatic biota. Phosphorus and nitrogen can also cause eutrophication or the overfertilization of receiving waters that can become toxic for aquatic organisms, promote the excessive growth of plants and thus reduce the amount of available oxygen, harm and alter the habitat and lead to the decline of some species.

The problem is not new. As pointed out by the Laurentides' CRE, “waste water ... has been considered a source of pollution and eutrophication of aquatic environment for over 30 years.” Therefore, non-compliant or poorly maintained septic systems can cause “a proliferation of algae, aquatic plants and sometimes cyanobacteria”.

So, it is clear that obsolete and defective septic tanks have a major impact on our environment, and that inaction would have disastrous consequences.

We only have to look at the situation of Lake Simcoe, for example. The government's plan to revitalize and clean it is immense. Thirty million dollars have been set aside to fight against the phosphorous destroying the ecology of this important southern Ontario lake.

Environment Canada's press release for this plan describes that:

As part of this investment, the Septic System Funding Program will receive $760,000, for the third phase of a multi-year initiative. Building on the success of Phases 1 and 2, this program will continue to administer grant funds in order to encourage landowners within 300 metres of Lake Simcoe to upgrade and/or repair their current septic systems.

Another example is Lake Winnipeg. Again the government has had to intervene with a program of expensive and extensive phosphorous pollution cleanup that could have been avoided.

While, I am very glad the government is acting to clean up Lake Simcoe and Lake Winnipeg, a substantial amount of money could have been saved if we had acted before it got to the point of no return.

Canadian lakes and rivers are important natural resources and regional economic engines. All Canadians want to preserve and protect their environment and their health.

In conclusion, this motion would have a positive impact on the environment, because defective septic tanks are a major source of pollution for our lakes and rivers. It would also have a positive impact on our economy, because a measure like the one proposed in our motion is good for the financial health of those Canadians who are affected. Finally, it would have a positive impact on rural-urban equity.

I hope all members from all parties in this House realize that the motion is an invitation to discuss this issue and find solutions for Canadians in rural settings.

[Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation System, February 5th, 2013]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should study the possibility of establishing, in co-operation with the provinces and territories, one or more financial support programs, inspired by the one proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, that would bring up to standard the septic systems of homes not connected to a sanitation system, in an effort to ensure urban/rural balance, lake protection, water quality and public health.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today my Motion No. 400, which seeks to protect the water and public health of our rural communities. The motion calls on the government to study the possibility of helping to bring up to standard the septic systems of homes not connected to a sanitation system, in an effort to ensure urban/rural balance and the protection of our lakes, rivers, water quality and public health.

As an MP who lives in a rural area, I had to bring this issue before the House in order to address the urban/rural imbalance in federal priorities and because this is important for the environment and public health.

I am using my motion to highlight this important issue for Canadians in rural ridings and I hope that it will encourage the House to take meaningful action in the service of our fellow citizens.

Since I was elected, I have made it my duty to consult with, and listen to, residents in my riding with a view to taking meaningful action on their behalf. This motion stems from concern in my riding, but also concern on the part of all Canadians who live in rural communities, which is approximately a quarter of all Canadians.

The first person to raise the issue being debated in this motion was Scott Pearce, the mayor of the Township of Gore, which is in my riding. The mayor cares about the well-being of the residents of his municipality and he was the Conservative candidate in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel in 2008. I am proud to have him as an ally and to be working alongside him on behalf of the people of our region.

In 2006, he began fighting for an assistance program for property owners with septic tanks who have to replace or upgrade their tanks. He noted that a number of residents in his municipality were not able to make their septic tanks compliant due to the huge cost involved.

For those who may not be familiar with the issue, rural homes are not connected to municipal waste water treatment plants and on-site treatment and disposal of waste water are relied on.

While researching this project, I had the opportunity to visit the Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre of the University of Guelph's Alfred campus to meet the staff members and discuss the issue. They told me that in Ontario, for example, there are approximately 1.2 million on-site systems and this number is increasing at a rate of 25,000 systems each year. The costs are highly variable depending on a number of factors like proximity to the house, soil type and house size, but can be anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 each time for the homeowner.

Replacing the tanks amounts to a huge financial burden for rural residents, especially those with a below-average or fixed income, such as retirees.

At the same time, the federal and provincial governments are setting aside up to 85% of funds to ensure that municipalities can build or modernize their infrastructure. Cities can get federal grants that easily amount to the cost of one tank per residence. Rural residents feel abandoned by the federal government on this issue.

With that in mind, Mr. Pearce sought the support of the RCM of Argenteuil. The region is greatly affected by this problem, and the RCM has supported his work. With local allies such as Julien Béliveau, Agnès Grondin, environmental advisor to the RCM of Argenteuil, and Marc Carrière, the executive director of the RCM of Argenteuil, he has continued to put—

[Petitions, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the petition I am presenting today is just some of the support for my motion I have received from across the country, from coast to coast, from citizens and municipalities alike, and, on top of that, from ridings of all stripes. These petitioners are from Ramea, Newfoundland and Labrador. They are calling on the House of Commons to support my Motion No. 400, an issue that unites rural Canadians from across the country. It calls on the House to take leadership in protecting our water, our rivers and our lakes.

[Canada Labour Code, February 4th, 2013]

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to be speaking today in support of the bill introduced by my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes. Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, which would grant extended parental leave for multiple births or adoptions, is simply a way of levelling the playing field for parents of multiples.

This bill addresses a simple situation. Parents normally receive 35 weeks of parental leave and benefits per child, but that is not the case when parents have two or more children at once. That discrepancy is based solely on the children's date of birth. Birth or adoptive parents of twins or multiples are at a disadvantage.

This bill is designed to help these families by granting them more parental leave and providing adequate financial support. Parents could take as many as 72 weeks of leave for multiple births or adoptions. These 72 weeks could be shared between the two parents, depending on their needs. Obviously, every family's situation is different. We want this to remain flexible. The weeks could also be fully used by one parent.

Currently, neither the Canada Labour Code nor the Employment Insurance Act provides any flexibility for parents who give birth to or adopt multiple children. This is unfair to parents of twins, triplets, quadruplets and so on, and to parents who adopt more than one child at the same time. On the Service Canada website, the section on employment insurance maternity and parental benefits simply states the following:

The number of weeks of EI maternity or parental benefits you are entitled to receive does not change, even if you have a multiple birth...or if you adopt more than one child at the same time.

Having more than one child at a time may seem to be an uncommon occurrence, but it is not at all unusual and is happening more and more frequently. In 1980 in Canada and Quebec, twins occurred once per 54 births. In 2010, twins occurred once per 33 births. The rate has gone up.

Since 1981, the incidence of multiple pregnancy has increased by 50%. Today, 3% of all pregnancies are multiple pregnancies. With twin births alone, 6% of children born today would be affected by this legislation, not to mention pregnancies involving more than two children and adoptions.

This is not a huge number, but it represents many children who will have less access to their parents early in life because they are multiples. We want to give all newborns the same opportunity.

The rate of twins born in Canada has increased dramatically, according to Statistics Canada and Health Canada, and the rate of multiples even more than that. Each day, more than 26 Canadian moms give birth to multiples. This increased number of multiple births can be seen largely in consequence, but not a direct effect, of the trend toward women delaying childbirth. More and more women look to complete an education, establish a career and gain economic stability before starting a family. Studies show that the older a woman is, the greater her chance of conceiving twins or multiples.

That is why it is important to support the bill and acknowledge that the situation of moms is changing and that more multiples will be born. We need to understand that these children and parents need to be treated fairly within our employment insurance system. We should always be thinking about equal treatment when looking at laws in the House.

I want to briefly refer to a book written by an expert on the matter, Gisèle Séguin, who is the mother of twins. For many years, she was very active in the twins parents association in her area.

Her book, Jumeaux: mission possible!, was published by the CHU Sainte-Justine Mother and Child University Hospital Center. According to the author, a multiple pregnancy is automatically a risk pregnancy. I believe my colleague mentioned this. A multiple pregnancy can result in premature birth. The children require more care. Being pregnant with more than one child probably changes people's plans, such as returning to work as quickly as anticipated. In any event, a child who is more at risk requires more care from the parents.

Moreover, the financial stress makes life difficult for parents. Raising twins costs twice as much as raising one child or two children born at different times. There are twice as many diapers, high chairs, and car seats to buy. Everything needs to be doubled. When children are not the same age, some things can be reused. But with twins, two bicycles or two sets of hockey equipment are needed at the same time. With a multiple birth, the cost of education doubles or triples. We must bear in mind that raising multiples requires more energy and results in greater financial stress.

I think that my colleague has found a good solution to this problem, one that will help us support families with multiples.

I hope that the Conservatives and all members of the House will acknowledge that this is a question of equal treatment for the children and parents in the case of a multiple birth. I am very pleased that my colleague has introduced this bill.

In closing, I am asking all my colleagues to support this bill.

[Canada Labour Code, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, may I ask how much time I have?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada should be dealt with quickly and efficiently.

However, we are very concerned that the bill is far too stretching. Did the minister just say “six months”? Did he just admit to that? I do not really consider that serious criminality. For instance, for people who have grown up in Canada and commit crimes that puts them in prison for six months, we need to accept that this is far overreaching and the government has gone too far with its bill this time.

Frankly, we made very reasonable amendments at committee that would have curbed the excessive power and the overreach and would have ensured that we followed judicial process in the country and they were rejected. Had these very reasonable amendments been accepted, we would have been able to support the bill through the House to ensure that Canadians were safer.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to work with the opposition. Therefore, we cannot support the bill.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Davenport reminded me that this is the first time I have stood in the House this year. Happy new year to everybody. I am very glad to be back.

We heard in committee that there were many people who came to Canada as small children a couple months old or a year old. The only country they know is Canada. They are, for all intents and purposes, Canadians, but have not necessarily become citizens yet.

That is very scary for a person who has grown up in Canada and who may fall into the wrong crowd or make a few mistakes, which is completely normal. If these people have been raised by Canadian society, it is our responsibility to understand that they are not non-Canadians or individuals who are foreigners who we can just deport because they do not have their citizenship yet.

We have to take responsibility for the fact that these people, for all intents and purposes, are Canadian.