Rachel Blaney

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak on Bill C-26. I will be voting in favour of it.

I am very proud to represent the riding of North Island—Powell River, which is full of hard-working people from many sectors, largely the resource sectors. It is in a wonderful place of transition right now. I do know that all the hard-working people in my riding work hard towards a good retirement. That is a priority for all of them.

In my riding, I take a lot of time to speak with seniors. Earlier this year, I was really proud to travel around Campbell River and go to several different seniors centres the day before Canada Day. I have to say that I really appreciated Carol Chapman and the Canada Day planning committee who worked so hard to allow dignitaries to go into these homes annually and to be with the seniors the day before, and really get an opportunity to speak and chat with them.

It was heartbreaking in some cases to talk to senior constituents of mine who have multiple challenges as they age, including concerns about how they are going to make ends meet and afford their medication. That is a reality in this country and my riding.

This bill will take 49 years to reach full implementation. My son just turned 16 in June, and he will be experiencing the full benefit of it. However, the reality now is that many seniors are living in poverty, and that number is growing in my riding. On a weekly basis, constituents are contacting my office to share their real challenges. The truth is that Bill C-26 will not address these issues. My office hears about seniors who are making choices between purchasing medication, buying food, paying for the heat, or figuring out how they are going to pay for transportation.

This is not a discussion that seniors should be having in a country like Canada. In the numerous town halls I have held on seniors issues in the riding, seniors say that what they really want to see is a national pharmacare program. These seniors were very clear that affordable medication would be a real change for them and would make a real difference.

There was also a clear demand for a national seniors strategy. I can see why. Nationally, we know what is happening. There is a Broadbent Institute study and analysis of the economic circumstances of Canadian seniors, and it tells us a startling story. The study found that 47% of Canadians aged 55 to 64 are without an employer pension plan. It also found that roughly half of Canadians aged 55 to 64 are without a workplace pension and have less than $3,000 saved for retirement. The poverty rate of seniors has increased from a low point of 3.9% in 1995 to 11.1% in 2013, or to one in nine seniors.

One of the particular privileges of being a member of Parliament is that we get to speak to and be in our communities. I was heartbroken when one person who had worked with the homeless population for over 30 years made time to come to see me to tell me that in the last three years he had seen a startling change. For the first time, seniors were walking through the door, telling him stories of being at risk of homelessness. Seniors, people in their 70s, were couch-surfing.

How can that be in Canada? How can it be that seniors are now seeing homelessness as one of the options they have to face at a time when we should be taking care of them?

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, we are seeing these issues increase. For example, in Campbell River, where the overall population is projected to increase by about 16.3% by the year 2030, the population of people 75 years and older at the same time is expected to increase by 128%. In the Comox Valley, where seniors 80 years and older are currently 4.7% of the total population, there will be an increase to 7.4% by 2031. Most startling, in the regional district of Mount Waddington, the overall population is expected to decrease by 9.8% by 2030, while the population of seniors 75 years and older is expected to grow by 263%.

Powell River, with 23% of its population aged 65 and older, has the ninth-largest population of seniors out of 10 locations across Canada. The issues of seniors in my riding are real and growing.

This bill is a start for my child, but it is not a solution for the people I serve. We know that only 11.5% of CPP recipients currently receive the maximum benefit, and for women it is only 4.5%. These numbers are telling us an important story why we need to see a CPP increase. As Susan Eng, the former executive vice-president of advocacy at CARP, said:

So why is a CPP increase needed again? Canadians are not saving enough for retirement and government can help. Those braying “Too bad for them!” need to realize that every pension dollar reduces the need for taxpayer-funded payments like Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplements or even welfare.

The other reality is that young workers are facing a more precarious work environment than ever before. Many people are facing the reality of a patchwork approach to employment. Seasonal, part-time, and temporary work is precarious work, and people are putting these kinds of jobs together to try to support themselves and, in many cases, their family.

The reality is that only four out of 10 people have a workplace pension plan. I have had young families speak to me about the debate they are having whether to save for their children's education or for their own retirement. That is shameful in this country. The majority save for their children's education. They should not be having this debate.

Sadly, I also have constituents who have to go to the food bank weekly just to feed their family. They cannot afford food and have challenges paying for their housing and everyday costs. How will they put away money for retirement? A tax-free savings account will not make their life easier.

I spent many years in the non-profit sector. The people who work in that sector are tremendously passionate about the people and organizations and services they provide, but very few of them have workplace pensions. When we look at the return on investment we get from those non-profits, it seems the right thing to make sure that the people who work for them get a return on investment for their retirement.

Poverty is also not very good for business. In the world in which we live today, with so many financial challenges, there will continue to be challenges for many in the future, such as small businesses. People who have lower incomes spend money locally. This bill would mean less abject poverty in the future, and that would result in more local spending.

Bill C-26 is a start, but I still have many concerns. I want to know how the current government is going to address the erosion of workplace pensions in Canada. How will the current government address the increasing levels of poverty among seniors while we wait for these enhancements to take place? This bill would not address the 30% of single female seniors who are currently living in poverty. How do we lift them out of poverty now? Seniors deserve better. This is a step in the right direction, but it can be better. The people of Canada and the people of my riding deserve it.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I am going to support the bill today, but I have a lot of serious concerns.

The people of North Island—Powell River have a lot of seniors living in extreme poverty. I have talked to constituents who face challenges, asking themselves whether they should pay for their medication or eat this month, or pay for their medication or have heat this winter. Those are real concerns, so this is a good solution, potentially, for the future for someone like my 16-year-old son. However, is this the best solution for today?

Also, can we hear a little more about how we are going to invest in seniors today, and are we going to make sure that we do not see a clawback of the GIS in the future?

[Transportation, October 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, last week, a tanker barge ran aground off of B.C.'s north coast, spilling 200,000 litres of toxic fuel into a sensitive area. After a slow response, one of the ships helping with the cleanup also began to sink, and this is what the minister calls a world-class response.

This relatively minor incident still caused major damage. If it had been a fully loaded supertanker, the devastation would have been off the chart.

When will the government finally implement a permanent ban off of B.C.'s north coast?

[Income Tax Act, October 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, coastal communities, especially like the ones in my riding of North Island—Powell River, offer many opportunities to work and play in nature. Whether it is fishing, logging, hiking, skiing, or simply enjoying the outdoors, the general ruggedness presents many unique dangers. The advantage of knowing first aid can mean the difference between life and death.

I am glad to be speaking about the importance of first aid this afternoon. I wish to thank the member for Cambridge for tabling this private member's bill.

While nearly 80% of Canadians believe that first aid is a very important skill to have, only 18% of Canadians are actually certified. The bill we are debating aims to provide a financial incentive to encourage more Canadians to receive first aid and other emergency health and safety training courses. Taxpayers would be eligible for this credit, and so would their qualifying children.

Bill C-240 proposes to introduce a non-refundable tax credit of up to $200 for first aid courses, CPR training, and automated external defibrillator, or AED, training. According to the Red Cross, Canadians with first aid training and certification are considerably more confident in their skills and ability to help someone experiencing a medical emergency.

Life emergencies are generally unexpected and can be life changing. Having the know-how to prevent, manage, and respond is profound. Whether in the wilderness or at home or at a workplace, having someone with first aid creates a safer environment for everyone.

Agencies in Canada offer a wide variety of courses and are often accessible to smaller communities. This is important, because being trained in first aid techniques allows us to determine the immediate course of treatment required until advanced medical help arrives.

While I support this initiative at this current stage of debate, I would like to point out four concerns I have about the bill and its unintended consequences.

New Democrats are concerned about the excessive number of boutique, non-refundable tax credits that have been added to the Income Tax Act in recent years. The Conservative government was well known for introducing a myriad of these tax credits. The trouble is that often these tax credits make the tax system less transparent and they add to the complexity of the income tax system, yet once they are put in place, there is little public accountability with respect to their effectiveness or the amount of money spent on them.

According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, whether or not these measures are desirable and effective in achieving their objectives, they have distributional impacts in that they affect the taxes paid by different income and demographic groups, and indirectly, they reduce available revenues that could be used for income transfers or public services.

These kinds of tax credits are believed to primarily benefit middle- and upper-income families who would not face the same financial barriers as low-income Canadians in accessing this training.

If the goal of this bill is to increase the accessibility of first aid training by means of incentives, we must therefore look at the question of who could be left out. The cost of undergoing training is prohibitive for many large families or lower-income Canadians, meaning that they may not have enough income to benefit from a non-refundable tax credit. This is problematic. All Canadians deserve access to first aid training and the incentives that would go with it.

I hope the committee studying Bill C-240 will be able to broaden the reach of the bill.

According to a 2012 lpsos Reid survey undertaken for the Canadian Red Cross, first aid training for 53% of the respondents had been arranged by their employers, in which case the employers likely financed the cost of the course. The sponsor of the bill acknowledged this fact in his speech to this House.

This initiative may also have the unintended consequence of subsidizing the corporate sector by inadvertently encouraging employers to abandon their existing first aid training programs. This may be a second potential drawback of Bill C-240. I would be keen to hear stakeholders speak to this if the bill makes it to committee.

The third concern I hope the committee will commit to study is costing. Canadians have a right to know and as parliamentarians we have a responsibility to stay on top, and see how much this is going to cost.

I truly believe that all bills that amend the Income Tax Act should be properly and transparently costed for parliamentarians and the Canadian public. As of this moment, the Library of Parliament estimates there will be a potential cost of between $30 to $60 million a year. That is concerning for me.

I wish to highlight a possible omission in the bill. I regard first aid as help given to a person until treatment is available. The bill, as drafted, supports a limited vision of first aid: standard first aid, mariners first aid, CPR, etc., but what about mental health first aid? MHFA is excluded. I hope the sponsor of the bill will be able to explain this.

One in three Canadians will experience a mental health problem at some point in their life. Just as physical first aid is administered, MHFA is given until appropriate treatment is found or the crisis is resolved.

Whether we are talking about the skills taught by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, or different distress centres across Canada relying on applied suicide intervention skills training, let us not forget that these workshops do save lives.

In rural and remote communities like the ones that I serve, having people with all types of training in first aid is significant. The need to support people during times of distress, whether it be mental health issues or physical health issues, is key in the regions where the help that is required may take some time to access. Many service organizations in my riding work hard to provide these supports and benefit from MHFA training.

I would like to finish by commenting on the reasoning given by the member for Cambridge for tabling his bill. In his speech he talked about the approaching demographic shift, and the associated challenges with an aging population.

Emergency preparedness is indeed a crucial element to this, and I commend the member. Having performed numerous consultations in my riding, specifically, on seniors issues, I can share with full confidence that what is needed and what seniors want is home care.

The 2016 federal budget does not include any additional provisions for home care or palliative care, even after the Liberals promised $3 billion for home care during the campaign. It is time for the Liberal government to act.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate speech on this very important issue. I agree that Canada is a very welcoming country. The story of the Yazidi women touches us all. Action is long overdue. One concern is processing delays.

Would the member not agree that we need to urge the government to waive the additional level of screening and bring Yazidis to Canada following the UNHCR screening process?

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech, and the thoughtfulness with which he held himself today.

However, I did notice the member's response to the last question. He said we cannot act alone, and I understand that. What we do know, if we look across the world right now, is that Australia and Germany have created a very special program that is helping to get these young women into their countries and protecting them.

If we have a model out there that we can look at, not acting alone but looking at best practices, could we not see the current government take the initiative, work with those, and get those young people here and protected in Canada?

[Public Services and Procurement, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Phoenix pay system is causing havoc in my riding of North Island—Powell River. In one horrible case, a constituent of mine was asked to prove she was in financial default so her case would be deemed a priority. Let me make it clear to the government that if workers are not getting paid, it is a priority.

We know the minister says she did not read the report that highlighted several problems with Phoenix. Will she now act and commit to ending this sluggish process and help workers get paid?

[Islamic History Month, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, October marks the occasion of Islamic History Month.

I want to offer all Canadians the opportunity to celebrate and learn with me the rich contribution of the Islamic heritage to our society. Let us take the time to read and share examples of these bountiful contributions, whether in terms of the sciences, humanities, medicines, and arts.

The diversity of the Muslim community across our country is important, because Islamic History Month can be an especially successful undertaking through the efforts of communities across Canada. That said, all Canadians should get to know each other a little better. Building these bridges will only strengthen our multicultural fabric that I am so proud of.

By showcasing these historical contributions, we can advance together in the best possible way. With this knowledge, we can combat ignorance and lslamophobia.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, why did the Conservative government not focus more of its efforts on facilitating trade and improving opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises instead of negotiating flawed trade and investment deals that sacrificed tens of thousands of Canadian good-paying jobs?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-13 would change how Canada deals with goods in transit and non-compliant goods, including hazardous products and pest control products. There are several small manufacturing businesses in my riding that work tirelessly to protect their employees and to encourage growth. The NDP wants to see some of these small and medium-sized businesses flourish with agreements like this.

Is my colleague confident that the changes proposed in Bill C-13 will maintain existing health and safety standards for workers who may come into contact with these products?