Olivia Chow

[Child Care, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the OECD issued an international report on child care and Canada is at the bottom of the list. It recommends that each country should invest at least 1% of the GDP on child care and Canada has an investment of 0.03%.

Given that child care is very much connected with productivity and economic growth, will the minister commit to success rather than failure and support the NDP child care act in the coming debate on Monday?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should ask themselves when is insurance not insurance. The answer is clear: when it does not insure anything. For too many Canadians, that is the brutal reality of employment insurance.

For years the Liberal government let the system fall apart. It treated EI like tax revenue, let the burden grow, and at the same time began neglecting the benefits. We now have a system that is failing workers and failing the economy.

The United Nations has slammed Canada for this and so should all Canadians. Employment insurance today is a scam, pure and simple. It is a scam and a sham for most workers.

In Canada today, employment insurance is not insurance at all for the vast majority of workers who pay for it. In Canada today, employment insurance is a penalty. It is a burden. It is a cost with no return for most workers.

Over two-thirds of workers who lose their jobs are not eligible for benefits. They can pay the penalty as long as they are working, but cannot collect it when they need it. It is like telling them to pay for a house insurance policy, but if their house burns down, it is too bad. They will not get any insurance, they will not get anything back. That is a scam.

If an insurance company operated like that, we would expose it as a scam and close it down. The Government of Canada has been operating a scam and it is up to this Parliament to fix it. The people who get hurt the most by this insurance scam are the ones who can least afford it. They are the breadwinners whose children depend upon them, single parents, people who are trying to break the cycle of poverty, low-paid workers in service employment, young people who are trying to pay off their student loans, and older workers who have a tough time getting back into the workforce.

It should concern every member of this House, including the 80% of members who happen to be male, that women are very hard hit by this insurance scam. These are women who all too often have to work part time in low-paying jobs, women who pay the penalty but too often are not eligible for benefits two-thirds of the time. They pay the penalty and pay through the nose for child care, if they are lucky enough to find any. Yet, they get nothing in return if, heaven forbid, they lose their jobs.

Those who need the most get the least. This makes no sense at all. We are pushing people onto social assistance, onto welfare, rather than paying them what they are due.

Just today, I wrote to the Minister of Human Resources on behalf of a constituent, a citizen who lives in my riding of Trinity--Spadina. This man has a serious blood disorder which has prevented him from working since the end of June. He is finally getting a sickness benefit, but that will only cover him until the middle of October. If he still cannot work, he can apply for an extension, going through all the paperwork again and providing the medical evidence, but even then the maximum he would get is 15 weeks and after that, nothing at all.

This constituent told me very clearly that his medical condition is really serious. It is unlikely that he will be able to work for an extended period of time, but all he can get is sickness benefits, not even regular benefits. Why? He needs to accumulate 665 insurable hours to be eligible for regular benefits. This man did his best, with his ailment and against all odds, and made it to 639 insurable hours, just 26 hours or three working days short. That means it is too bad, he will get no regular benefits. He is unlikely to ever string together enough working days at a time to be eligible.

He made a contribution to the economy by working, paid his EI and taxes. We take whatever we can and give him a few weeks of sickness benefits, and then what? What will the government do?

At the end of the day he will probably be accused of being a burden on society. This is like his house being burned down or his car getting smashed and not having insurance coverage even though he paid for the policies. It is just adding insult to injury. It is a scam and it is really unfair.

What does the employment insurance program mean, every member of the House should ask? We either give coverage to workers or we do not. If we give insurance coverage, let us ensure that everyone gets the benefits. That is what insurance coverage is for. Let us stop penalizing workers who need employment insurance and pay their dues. Let us start supporting them by making good on the insurance coverage. That is what all workers need, the safety net of insurance. These people are not asking for a handout. They are asking for a payout on the insurance coverage.

We should stop this scam, this extra penalty on workers, because it is unfair, unjust and unethical. If the House fails to pass this private member's bill and allows this practice to continue, then the government should probably be closed down and sent packing for conducting an insurance scam. That is what it is, a scam.

We have the opportunity to start reforming the system with this bill today. We can start fixing the system and providing benefits for workers who lose their jobs or become incapable of working through no fault of their own. That is what we have to do. EI payments should never be seen as a handout, just like house insurance or life insurance is never seen as a handout. The policies were paid for completely by hard earned dollars from working Canadians. Governments have been raking in this money in shovels full and we should not ask the people to grovel for it.

Actually, it is worse than a scam because people have no choice. They cannot shop around to get another employment insurance company somewhere else. They are stuck with the Government of Canada, the only game in town, so let us start by honouring those commitments and providing the protection we need. Let us support Bill C-269 and amend the Employment Insurance Act.

[Emergency Management Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is a bogeywoman in this emergency management bill.

In terms of SARS, many workers ended up losing their jobs in hotels. Many citizens ended up not having a whole month of salary because of the quarantine situation. Many people were not able to go to work and as a result suffered financial consequences. In the case of the blackout in Ontario, many people lost their businesses and some businesses never really recovered. As a result of this emergency crisis they desperately needed compensation.

I would like to find out from my friend whether in his mind emergency compensation should come from the federal government or the provincial government. Should it be a shared responsibility or a fifty-fifty responsibility? In these types of spectacular crises, who should bear the responsibility of compensating citizens and businesses that suffer huge financial losses?

[Emergency Management Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I am not sure whether I received the answer previously I would ask for clarification again. In the definition of the bill does “local authorities” include municipalities, yes or no? I raise that question because in the bill it states that the federal government would come into the picture only if requested by the province and not by any other level of government.

In that case, if, for example, in the city of Toronto there is a problem on the highway, like Don Valley Parkway or QEW with millions and millions of cars, it is 100% local government responsibility.

We talked about the London bombing with respect to public transit. Unlike London, England, the operating funds for local transit systems are 100% local government. In London the state government is actually involved in operating the public transit system. The fire departments are 100% local authorities and local government. Therefore, the financial assistance and the coordination, if there is an emergency, a lot of these areas are connected to local municipalities.

My question is clear. In the bill does the phrase “local authorities” also mean local municipalities? Why would the government not amend it to add in the request of the provinces and/or municipalities in that case?

[Emergency Management Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the emergency response teams really deal with municipalities, whether they be fire, ambulance, police, et cetera. The bill talks about coordinating activities of government institutions relating to emergency management with those of the provinces and those of the local authorities.

I want it clarified whether the local authorities include municipalities and, if so, what kind of process is in place to do the coordination.

The other thing is that subclause 4.(1)(j) of the bill also talks about providing financial assistance to a province. However, my understanding is that a lot of these emergency response teams, such as the fire department, is 100% funded by local municipalities and not necessarily through the province. The subclause says that financial assistance to the province would only be provided when the province requested assistance. In the case of, say, the fire department, it may not come from the province. What if immediate assistance is required from agencies that are connected only through the local municipality?

The other concern I have is on the public health side. A lot of public health departments in urban centres, for example, are strapped in terms of their funding and have been unable to translate a lot of the material. In big urban centres such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, a lot of information needs to be translated into different languages if there is an emergency. This is critically important in order to reach all our residents, whether they speak English, French or another language, if unilingual that way, so they can immediately get the kind of information that is critically important.

Does the definition of local authorities really connect with municipalities and the financial arrangements?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2006]

With respect to the $474 million that has not been spent of the $1 billion allocated to federal housing programs in November 2001, what does the government plan to do to speed the flow of federal dollars allocated to housing?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 18th, 2006]

With respect to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has the CMHC had a budget surplus during the last five years and, if so, what was the surplus for each year; and how has the government spent these surpluses?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 22nd, 2006]

With respect to Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006 (Budget Implementation Act), which only allocates $1.4 billion of the $1.6 billion allocated in Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, adopted in 2005, for affordable housing, what has happened to the remaining $200 million in affordable housing funding secured in bill C-48?

[Chinese Canadians, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday was Father's Day but many Chinese Canadians never knew their fathers because of the racist head tax. Very few of them could celebrate Father's Day because their fathers died waiting for an apology and redress.

A few minutes ago I welcomed a trainload of very frail seniors who have arrived in Ottawa looking for justice at last, but justice without compensation for families there is no reconciliation. It will not work.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing tomorrow and offer compensation to Chinese head tax payers' descendants?

[Petitions, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition consisting of many pages of signatures of people in the city of Toronto.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enact legislation to provide a side guard for large trucks and trailers to prevent cyclists and pedestrians from being pulled under the wheels of these vehicles. The petitioners state that given that a coroner's report in 1998 looking into the deaths of Toronto cyclists has recommended several times that these side guards be installed and given that it is a legal requirement in the United Kingdom and Europe, Canada should also do the same.