Peter Julian

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer grandstanding that helps communities in Mirabel to the inaction and forced expropriation by the Liberal government. It is appalling to me that the Liberal government wants to hang on to all of that land, even though the communities have expressly said they would like to go back to farming that land, the most productive in Quebec.

It is very similar to how the Liberals hoard the surplus. They have hoarded $9 billion. We have seen more and more people in food banks. We have seen more and more families forced out of their homes. We see hospitals closing in my community of New Westminster because of federal cutbacks. There is more and more credit card medicine. We see post-secondary education that is cut off to people in moderate or low incomes.

We are seeing crisis after crisis, disaster after disaster, and all we see from that side of the House is inaction and words. That does not help communities across this country. This motion will, and that is why we support it.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on this motion. First I have a personal story to tell.

The first time I took an airplane at Mirabel airport, I had to stay there 24 hours because the only flight from Mirabel to Vancouver had been cancelled. And so I spent 24 hours in that airport. There were not many people about, day or night. During those 24 hours, the Canadian taxpayers spent $55,000. With better planning, that airport might have worked, but it was empty.

When I look at it, I think we can compare it to other policies of the Liberal government. We have a child care system that is empty and lacks funding. Our health care system is empty and lacks funding. Government business is also empty in that way.

Unfortunately, Mirabel is a metaphor for many of the Liberal government's bad decisions. The motion by the Conservative Party, supported by the Bloc and the NDP, calls on the government to take the appropriatemeasures to sell the 4,500 hectares or 11,000 acres of arable land back to thefamilies and farmers whose land was expropriated to build the Mirabel airport.

At first glance, this motion makes a lot of sense. We know that the history of Mirabel airport is marred by one of the most useless major expropriations in Canada's history. We are well aware that farmers in that region fought hard against the federal government, precisely to avoid the situation in which we now find ourselves.

The federal government's decision to have this airport built on the site of the village of Sainte-Scholastique and to expropriate 39,255 hectares of Quebec's best farmland wreaked havoc on the lives of 3,000 owners and their families.

Of course, Expo 67 and the euphoria that followed had generated a great deal of enthusiasm across the country. We also had big projects with the Olympic Games coming to Montreal. These were nothing but good intentions for the future of Montreal and for the development of modern infrastructures to increase Canada's accommodation capacity, which is essential to our prosperity. These were of course good intentions, in the context of an election for the Liberal government.

However, we are well aware that good intentions do not make a good government. As we can see whenever an election is held, the federal government's good intentions or promises, whether they relate to health, post-secondary education, child poverty or the homeless in Canada, lack direction and are not followed by action.

The road to Mirabel was full of good intentions, but things did not work. Indeed, the road to Mirabel quickly became a road to hell for the 3,000 people who had been expropriated, for the communities displaced and disturbed by the presence of the airport. A total of 12,000 people were affected by this major displacement. This quickly became a road to hell because of the government's mismanagement, at the expense of taxpayers. A lot of money and a lot of hopes were wasted on Mirabel.

How do we explain this administrative disaster, this Liberal mismanagement? There are a number of reasons. First, there was a rivalry between the Liberal government of Mr. Bourassa and the Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Bourassa wanted to build the airport close to Drummondville and then help Quebec City benefit from it, while the federal government was more interested in helping Ottawa and the surrounding region. So, Mirabel was a compromise and neighbouring communities were the victims of that compromise.

There was also a very bad business plan. According to experts hired by the federal government, passenger traffic through the new Montreal airport should have been four million in its first year, six million in 1980, 10 million in 1985 and 40 million in 2000.

In fact, 94,000 passengers passed through the airport in 1975, 1.4 million in 1980, and there were never more than 2.5 million a year. Thus, only half of the passengers the Liberals anticipated passed through the airport in its first year. Clearly, it is not just in estimating surpluses that the Liberal government makes mistakes.

Economic uncertainty in the 1970s saw a decline in Montreal's commercial importance and caused an exodus of corporations to Toronto, to the benefit of Lester B. Pearson Airport. Other colleagues have already mentioned that.

As always, it is difficult for the Liberal Party to admit its mistakes. It was Brian Mulroney's Conservative government that pointed out the mistakes of the Liberal government, just as it was the Liberal government in 1993 that pointed out the mistakes made by Mr. Mulroney's Conservative government. And we still remember the promises that were nothing more than promises.

It was not until 1985 that the newly elected Mr. Mulroney returned 32,000 hectares of land. The airport was using only 2,000 of the 39,000 hectares. This measure only made sense because 95% of the expropriated land had never been used. What a waste.

Unfortunately, at the same time, Mr. Mulroney's Conservatives also handed over the management of the airports to an independent corporation, which complicated the legal issue underlying restitution of the remaining surplus of expropriated land. We all know that ADM is accountable only to itself. The Liberals favour this type of body that reports to no one and does not hold public consultations.

We know that the Conservatives also have a lot of experience in building white elephants. And there were plenty of them. The record deficits of the 1980s were mentioned earlier, but record deficits go further back than that. In the 1960s and the 1970s, the Liberals and the Conservatives produced quite a number of white elephants.

We can think of the infamous Diefenbunker, built to protect federal government against a nuclear attack. Over $20 million dollars were wasted in 1961—which translates into over $100 million in 2004—on a shelter that was, in reality, merely a political one.

Mr. Diefenbaker had decided to forego the building of the Avro Arrow fighter plane, a 100% Canadian technological gem, in order to build a shelter that was quickly made obsolete by new military technology. The Conservative legacy is not necessarily better that the Liberal's. Before I go back to Mirabel, I want to point out that this shelter is now a museum. They even considered growing mushrooms there. Both parties have pretty bad records when it comes to financial management.

Going back to Mirabel, initial costs were estimated at $425 million, or $2.3 billion in today's terms. On opening day, costs had skyrocketed to $1.5 billion, or $5.5 billion in 2004 dollars. The costs had indeed doubled. Five years after opening day, Mirabel had a $20 million annual deficit.

I mentioned earlier that the 24 hours I spent at Mirabel cost $55,000 to Canadian taxpayers.

I would like to pass to another disturbing development that could indicate another Mirabel. It is the question of the RAV line in British Columbia. We were told a few months ago, by the B.C. Liberal provincial government, that this particular development, the RAV line, would not cost a penny more than $1.55 billion in public funds.

We have recently heard that the low bid on that particular project, that is receiving both federal and provincial funding, is actually $343 million above that limit, above which the taxpayer would not be responsible for a cent. We have moved from $1.55 billion to $1.9 billion. We know as well for this project, this white elephant in British Columbia, that 90% of any ridership shortfall will be picked up by the taxpayers. It is appalling that this has been pushed by both the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals. This indeed could be another white elephant.

Coming back to Mirabel, we can look at the needs of our population which are being ignored, needs in health for seniors or for people with disabilities. And funding is insufficient for our education system. During the election campaign, I met dozens of young people in my riding, who never considered pursuing a post-secondary education because of this lack of funding and the enormous debt they would have by the time they got out of college or university.

Yesterday, I met with a delegation of students from my riding. These students told me they were deep in debt. This situation is largely due to the cuts and tax reductions that benefited those who need them least.

When we think about the state of our environment, and the toxic waste poisoning our communities and our children, the taxpayers' money can certainly be put to other use. The Diefenbunker and the Mirabel airport are two monuments of the mediocrity of the Conservative and Liberal governments' policies.

At present, the federal government still owns 8,000 hectares in the Mirabel area. We know very well that it does not need that much land. Ottawa could sell between 5,000 and 6,000 hectares back to the farmers and their communities, to contribute in a way to the revival of these communities affected by the forced expropriation in the 1970s.

But the Liberal government persists in refusing to give away more land to farmers in Mirabel. Yet, contrary to what it says, the federal has some room to manoeuvre. In the worst case and with one of the most optimistic scenarios about the future of Mirabel, like the one proposed by the Transport Minister, 3,000 hectares will be more than enough for the airport.

With 3,000 hectares, Mirabel would still remain one of the largest airports in the world. There will be room for Bombardier and dreams. There will be room for the good intentions of the Transport Minister, but there will be no room for wasting the public's money. We need more efficient management of public funds. If we keep 3,000 hectares and sell the rest of the land, and this is the most important aspect, we will also have room for the communities affected.

The Liberal government should not forget that it is important to acknowledge the errors it made in the past, otherwise the communities in Mirabel will continue to suffer unnecessarily.

It will keep those lands and continue to waste money. At the same time, we know that many important needs are being ignored in the name of so-called fiscal responsibility. How hypocritical.

Everyone knows that Mirabel was a fiasco. No one would dare deny this without being ridiculed. It is high time that the situation be remedied once and for all.

The citizens of Mirabel's communities lost their lands and their community, in many cases unnecessarily. Thirty-four years later, they are still waiting.

It is high time to pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to the community of Mirabel what is Mirabel's.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much the presentation of the hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

The issue has come up of the example that was set by the British Columbia New Democratic Party government to set aside 12% of the land mass over 10 years, which is unequalled in North America. While unfortunately that great environmental policy is now under attack by the provincial government in British Columbia, it is still a shining example for the rest of the country.

I want the member to comment on the issue of the British Columbia NDP government and the establishment of a parks network. I also would like his comment on the issue of underfunding of our national parks. We have a bill before us today that will move us toward putting the kind of infrastructure in place to address these issues. Obviously the parks system has suffered from chronic underfunding by the Liberal government. I would like his comment on that.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I have listened to the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie with interest. I found his speech very interesting and his presentation on the law went into considerable detail.

He spoke a great deal about ecosystems and protecting areas. I share his conviction that more needs to be done as far as the environment is concerned.

I come from BC, a province where the NDP government set a ten-year objective for parks and wildlife sanctuaries of 12% of the provinces's total area. It managed to accomplish that within the ten years and was the first in North America to put in place these resources for the public.

Does the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite Patrie believe it would be a good idea to follow the NDP's example in BC and to have a target figure of 12% of the Canadian territory in order to protect our Canadian species as well as protecting our land?

[World Trade Organization, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Montcalm for this motion on such an essential matter. Essential not only for the livelihood of our farmers, but also for the maintenance of an independent food policy, in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada.

Our system of dairy product supply management as well as the collective marketing of wheat is endangered at the present time. Its life is in danger: first of all, because of the attacks by the World Trade Organization; second, because of the propaganda from the right, for example the Fraser Institute and the lobbyists connected with multinational interests; third, and most important, the lack of resolution and sincerity on the part of the Liberal government.

Let us start with the WTO. Everyone knows that the World Trade Organization, the WTO, which replaced the GATT in 1994, is mandated to promote integral free trade for all international trade, with the corollary being the abolition of any form of subsidy or control mechanisms for agricultural production.

Whereas initially the GATT and then the WTO had set agricultural products aside in a separate category, the tack that has been taken in the negotiations in recent years is a bad sign. From now on, the WTO wants to consider agriculture as a sector just like the others, and to eliminate not only any possibility of subsidy, but also the mechanisms of supply management and collective marketing that are so important to Canada.

In fact, as recently as July 31, 2004, the 147 members of the WTO, Canada included, unanimously agreed on a negotiation framework to allow the resumption of the Doha round of trade negotiations.

The new agreement commits WTO members to the elimination of agricultural export subsidies and targets in the longer run Canadian supply management practices and state trading enterprises such as the Wheat Board.

We know full well that agriculture is not like other sectors and that we cannot leave this key sector in the hands of bureaucrats and WTO officials or the dozen or so multinationals that control the world's food production.

We know full well that a farm producer's job is one of the most difficult and essential jobs there is. Food does not grow on the supermarket shelf. A farmer has to take risks and work very hard in order possibly to earn enough to live on, small compensation for the invaluable service farmers provide to Canadian society.

It is only normal, and we must commend them, that farmers have managed to come together to create such important management mechanisms for the smooth functioning of this key sector and to ensure that their family gets a fair share of the fruits of their labour.

In my opinion, this House has a duty to protect these assets, especially since it is in the public interest to do so.

This brings me to the second threat against our supply management system and single desk selling: the relentless attack of big agribusinesses and those who serve them. Their agenda is to promote bigger profits and the control of larger market shares through the complete deregulation of agriculture. Why else would they want to abolish such a successful system of supply management in the dairy sector, a system which in fact secures a decent income to our farmers without any drain on tax revenues?

Poultry and dairy are two of the few areas in agriculture where farmers make money and can stay in business without being run down by multinationals. Instead of applauding a system that helps us remain standing and keep what is left of our family farms and preserve some of our farming communities, those so-called free marketers, which in fact are looking for a back door to corner the market, allege that Canadians pay more for dairy products than do American consumers. This is hogwash, frankly.

A 2001 OECD report comparing estimates of total consumer and taxpayer support to milk producers in Canada and the U.S. for the period 1998 to 2000 found that they are virtually identical: 58% and 55% of total gross farm gate receipts respectively. Producer support to milk producers throughout all OECD member nations also averaged 58% during that same period. Moreover, for the past decade the dairy farmer of Ontario grocery basket has been cheaper than the American equivalent.

Because the Canadian Wheat Board is a state trading enterprise, it is under constant attack from Canada's trading partners, particularly the United States and the Cairns group, of which ironically Canada is a member. These forces continue to challenge its legitimacy, lobby the WTO and support their friendly lobbyists in Canada to undermine the confidence of Canadians in the Wheat Board.

This brings me to my final point, the third danger to our agricultural marketing system: the apathy and insincerity of the federal government. Although the Liberals made the support of the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management one of their platform planks in the last federal election, the WTO framework of negotiations to which the Liberal government agreed in Doha contains elements that could eventually impact the Canadian Wheat Board's current capacity to market wheat and barley.

For instance, article 18 of the WTO framework calls for the elimination of export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programs with repayment periods beyond 180 days. The same article also mentions that the following should be eliminated:

Trade distorting practices with respect to exporting STEs (State Trading Enterprises) including eliminating export subsidies provided to or by them, government financing, and the underwriting of losses. The future issue of the future use of monopoly powers will be subject to further negotiation.

While current practices are consistent with current trade obligations, the latter are a priority on the WTO negotiation table. Given that government financing and export credit could be eliminated, it is unclear how the Wheat Board could survive in the long run without vigorous political action. On one hand, the federal government swears allegiance to the Wheat Board and supply management; on the other hand, it signs international agreements that restrict our freedom to choose what is good for our sovereignty and our existence as a nation.

The federal government has overseen crippling grain prices and rising input costs while helping foreign investors through deregulation, NAFTA and the WTO. Under NAFTA the income of farmers in all three countries has declined. How can we trust the government to defend those institutions and walk the talk when the record is a record of broken promises?

We cannot trust what the Liberal government says since it uses its words to disguise its thoughts. We must be vigilant and closely follow its initiatives at the WTO and elsewhere.

Just before I conclude, I would like to read an extract from The New York Times editorial of October 1, 2004: “In Canada, the supply management system estimates demand, coordinates supply, and is profitable for small farmers. It is a non-subsidy way of supporting farmers and does not use tax dollars. The system is under threat from world trade rules. Should Canada be required to dismantle the system in the years to come, it could mean significant reorganization and re-scaling of sectors of the dairy industry and one that may be less secure for small farmers”.

The Wheat Board and supply management is under attack. The motion that has been brought forward by the member of Parliament for Montcalm helps to address that critical issue that has importance not only for rural communities across the country, but also for urban areas that benefit from the contribution rural areas make.

I and the caucus of the NDP strongly support this motion. We hope that it will pass in the House.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Sault Ste. Marie for his eloquence and also for his vision. After the last 20 years of what we have seen, first, in the 10 years of the Mulroney Conservatives, with the record cutbacks, budget deficits and financial mismanagement, and then in the last 10 years of the Liberal government, where we have seen consistent cuts putting the corporate sector ahead of the community, I found the hon. member's vision very positive and enlightening. At the beginning of this year, for example, record corporate tax cuts were brought in rather than funding adequately the communities that we know are impacted across the country. After all of that, I found the hon. member's vision very positive and enlightening.

He did mention GAP. He mentioned the disconnect between what happens here in Ottawa and what is happening in communities. He mentioned the GAP program in his area of northern Ontario. Earlier in my speech I mentioned Navigating the Waters, a wonderful employment program for persons with disabilities. It has been slashed and will end at the end of this year.

Basically we are seeing the country turned upside down. I want to ask the hon. member about this. In his opinion, how do we turn from the last 20 years, with the country being turned upside down and the devastating impact in communities, to turning this country right side up so that Canadians can finally start to benefit from an improved quality of life and we can start to address these important social issues?

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. Things are somewhat disconnected from reality. When you look at the real situation, you see that government cuts have done a lot of damage in communities across the country, including cuts in employment programs like Surf the Wave, a program which helped more than 5,000 handicapped people across the country to find a job for a paltry $950,000 a year. Nevertheless, the government announced, early this year, that it will cut this program. It will eliminate it at the end of the year.

Let us talk about education. Student debt across the country is rising; it is, in average, between $20,000 and $30,000 per person. In my community, in my riding, I meet dozens upon dozens of young Canadians who would like to make a contribution to our country but who are unable to do so, either because they cannot afford to have a debt, or because they already have one. They find this situation incredibly difficult.

There has been a lot of talk about the housing issues and the employment insurance fund which denies some 800,000 unemployed Canadians the minimum they need to put food on the table and forge a decent life for themselves and for their families.

With all those cuts, even if my colleague made a very good presentation, I think his speech was disconnected from the reality that we see across this country and in our communities. I wanted to ask the hon. member if he understands how disconnected it is from the situation we have in Canada.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of the employment insurance fund.

Over the course of the past 11 years, $46 billion have been taken from workers. Eight hundred thousand Canadians who have paid into that fund are not able to qualify for basic employment insurance. We also know we have a growing number of poor children in this country, 1.4 million poor children. We know women are particularly vulnerable to the fact that they are paying into an insurance fund that is being syphoned off by the federal government in order to do, goodness knows what. It brought in a corporate tax cut at the beginning of this year but it certainly is not doing a heck of a lot for those in communities across the country.

Why has it taken so long for the government to act in any of these areas? We have mentioned housing, which is deplorable. We have mentioned the situation for persons with disabilities, which is catastrophic across the country. We have mentioned employment insurance, where in many communities people do not have access to basic employment insurance. We have seen the impact on communities. Why has the government not acted?

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was on the point of discussing the issue of housing and homelessness among people with disabilities in the community. This issue has come up in the House today and in communities across the country. I wanted to cite a number of important statistics.

Almost half of the homeless population, which is growing, has a disability and one in seven persons with a disability has affordability problems with respect to housing. According to the 1986 census, more than half of the owned households where a person with a disability lived earned less than $30,000 per year. Over 80% of rented households where a person with a disability lived earned less than this. In Toronto 37.5% of persons with disabilities live in poverty. Most shelters cannot accommodate individuals who need support with daily living, and the structural accessibility of shelters continues to be a barrier for persons with disabilities.

One in five persons with disabilities need housing adaptations of some kind. Cost is the most commonly cited barrier for adults with disabilities not acquiring needed adaptations. Persons with disabilities in rental accommodations and rooming and boarding houses are least likely to be satisfied with their accommodations. Cost has been cited by persons with disabilities across the country, who wish to move yet cannot, as the major barrier preventing relocation.

I raise these issues in the framework of Bill C-23 because we are not doing nearly enough to address the important needs of persons with disabilities. Much more can be done. We can ease the financial burden upon those with disabilities by making the disability and medical expense tax credits fully refundable. We can provide child care and respite care for families who look after children with disabilities. That should be instituted.

Many people with disabilities today have trouble accessing adequate long term home care, and often only receive this immediately after being in hospital. This is simply insufficient. Living standards should be improved for persons with disabilities.

We have looked at the issue of transport. There was a time in the past when Canada was seen as a world leader in improving accessibility to rail and air transportation for persons with disabilities. We now find that the government's decision to rely on voluntary codes of practice rather than federal regulations has halted further advancement in this area. Many people with disabilities across the country believe the situation has regressed.

Navigating the waters, which I have brought up in the House, is a national employment initiative of the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres. It has supported over 5,000 persons with disabilities by helping them upgrade their skills and find jobs, at a cost of only $950,000 per year. As I mentioned, that program has been threatened with closure because of inadequate federal funding. This is shameful.

We have a situation where the lives of persons with disabilities could be dramatically improved, yet they have not been addressed. We hope, by studying the bill in committee, that it will help to start to address these important issues for people with disabilities.

It is tragic to see that disabled people account for 41% of those who must rely on food banks. It is also tragic that close to half of the homeless are disabled people. So, these last 10 years have been terrible and full of challenges for the disabled.

We are looking forward to discussing these issues in committee, in the weeks or months to come. We will ask disabled people to come and testify and to talk about their lives, in the hope that we can improve this legislation, and that we can also begin to improve their lot in Canadian society.

[Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Ottawa Centre for agreeing to share his time with me.

He talked a lot about the issue of housing and the homeless. I want to add to what he was saying and I want to talk about how Bill C-23 relates to persons with disabilities in the country. This is an extremely important issue. The NDP is in favour of referring this motion to committee. What we want in particular is for extensive consultations to be held in committee. We want there to be consultations with labour groups across the country, as well as women, first nations, young people and student groups. Equally important: we want groups representing persons with disabilities to be consulted as well.

Some aspects of this legislation have a profound affect on the issue of persons with disabilities. If we improve their situation somehow, then we might improve the general situation for persons with disabilities in Canada. However, if we do nothing, if the legislation is nothing but policy, then their situation will not change at all. After 10 years of having a Liberal government, their situation is not good.

I do want to speak to this bill and speak to the vigilance that is required when we are talking about persons with disabilities in this country. We know that persons with disabilities represent almost 13% of the population and that currently there is a 50% unemployment rate among people with disabilities and one of the highest suicide rates in the country. In my region, homelessness has tripled over the past three years. We also know that nearly half of those who are homeless across this land are people with disabilities.

Obviously their situation is very serious and we need to address it. We need to address it immediately. We are hoping that we will have consultations through the process of the examination of this bill in committee so that we can actually start to address these long-standing issues for people with disabilities.

One thing we would like to see developed is a labour market strategy for persons with disabilities, which would include a plan for increased participation in the federal government workforce. As we know, increasing employment for the disabled would go a long way in improving the quality of living of these Canadians.

We would like to see an independent commissioner reporting directly to Parliament who would monitor the federal government's compliance, in all departments, with policies for persons with disabilities. This commissioner of course could further advise ministers about the effect on persons with disabilities of upcoming legislation or regulations.

We know that increased employment will not be sufficient. Expanded measures are also needed to help employers other than the federal government make workplaces accessible and accommodate persons with disabilities.

Some of the facts are pretty daunting when we look at persons with disabilities in this country. We know that they represent 12% to 13% of the Canadian population and that government programs are the main source of income for the majority of persons with disabilities who are not in the labour force.

I have mentioned the employment rate for persons with disabilities. It is almost half that of their non-disabled peers.

As we know, additional costs are associated with living with a disability and persons with disabilities typically need higher incomes to maintain an adequate standard of living.

Working age persons with disabilities get only 76% of the average household after tax income of all Canadians.

As well, cost has been cited as the main barrier preventing individuals from obtaining the assistive devices they need to be integrated into the workforce.

Less than one-half of the 1.9 million persons with disabilities in Canada over the age of 15 receive the help they require with activities of daily living. Forty-five per cent say they need more help than they are receiving and 10% say that they receive no help, this after more than 10 years of Liberal government. It is clear that the situation for persons with disabilities in this country is shameful.

When we look at sources of income, either from paid employment or from income support, we see that the majority of persons with disabilities continues to experience chronic poverty and inaccessible support.

Persons with disabilities are more likely to experience food insecurity in this country than their non-disabled peers are, and as I mentioned earlier, 41% of those using food banks have either a disability or a long term illness.

The situation is deplorable. There is so much more we can do. At the committee stage we are hoping to raise some of these issues that are important in the consideration of human resources and social development. More could be done in regard to greater recognition of the extra costs involved in leading a life with a disability. We could look at an expansion of the special opportunity--