Sheri Benson

[Housing, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the national housing strategy was announced, but the housing crisis in Canada deepens every day. There is still no sign of an indigenous housing strategy.

As we approach another brutal Canadian winter, shelters will be overflowing and more people will be left out in the cold. The most vulnerable are being asked to wait until after the next election.

On National Housing Day will the government enshrine the right to housing in legislation so that everyone can have a safe, affordable place to call home?

[National Housing Day, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Housing Day and I want to give a big shout-out to the Saskatoon Crisis Intervention Service and Alberta, the only province with a plan to end homelessness. Housing first, community-based leadership and ongoing provincial government support for local expertise and efforts means Alberta cities are leading the way in this country toward ending homelessness.

In my city, the Saskatoon Crisis Intervention Service is the home of the housing first program “journey home”. Journey home provides housing and support to Saskatoon residents, the majority of whom have been homeless for two to five years. Housing first works. In just one year, journey home participants had a reduction in the use of emergency services, like police, by 58%, a savings of over half a million dollars.

We can end homelessness. The solutions are already taking place on the ground. The government needs to step up sooner rather than later and treat the homelessness crisis with the urgency it deserves.

[Canada Post Corporation, November 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, Canada Post's targeting of vulnerable postal workers is shameful. First it cut off short-term disability payments, then long-term disability payments. Then it went after people's maternity leave benefits. This is a morally bankrupt tactic by Canada Post and so far the government has chosen to be complicit. Cutting benefits is not good faith collective bargaining.

What is the government doing to stop this brutal assault on workers' rights and encourage Canada Post to bargain in good faith?

[Asbestos, November 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that Quebec's commission on occupational standards, equity, health and safety, as well as all of Quebec's health authorities, have called for zero tolerance for exposure to asbestos, because it is so deadly and because that is the scientific evidence.

In closing, I would like to echo Kathleen Ruff again:

...the Canadian government has endorsed a double standard within Canada itself and is supporting a project that allows workers to be exposed to 10 times higher levels of asbestos than are permitted elsewhere in Canada....Why did [the Liberal government] deny the clear scientific evidence for so long?....The answer is clear: It was because public policy was captured by the asbestos industry.

That is shameful. Where is the comprehensive removal and remediation plan? Is the government still waiting for the asbestos lobby to write it?

[Asbestos, November 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to dedicate my remarks this evening to Howard Willem, a federal public servant who died from being unknowingly exposed to asbestos in his workplace. Before his death, Howard was a tireless advocate of a ban on asbestos because of his work and that of his stepson, Jessie Todd. Saskatchewan was the first province to have a public registry of buildings containing asbestos. In Howard's words, people have to say enough is enough. We need to know.

In June, I asked the government if it would be implementing a comprehensive strategy for asbestos removal to protect all Canadians and all workers. At the time, the answer was that the strategy was under construction. Four months later, we still have nothing even resembling a comprehensive asbestos removal and remediation strategy. Instead, what we have are regulations with notable exemptions.

As Kathleen Ruff, a prominent Canadian human rights activist and board member of Rideau Institute has said: “I would give them credit for finally moving to ban asbestos, but I'm troubled by these weaknesses and gaps and, if anything, they seem to have gotten worse.... They seemed to have weakened their proposed regulations.”

If the health and safety of Canadians is the reason for a ban on asbestos, why allow exemptions? These exemptions include magnesium extraction companies being permitted to work on nearly 800 million tonnes of asbestos residue remaining near the mines in Quebec. The use of road infrastructure containing asbestos will also be exempt from the ban, and with no exemption date in mind. The ban also does not apply to structures or products that already contain asbestos, another reason many think the ban is not strong enough. Asbestos in Canada will still be found in a wide variety of products, including building insulation, ceiling and floor tiles, automobile brake pads, cement and plaster products.

Canadians were expecting a complete and comprehensive ban. When is ban not a ban? It is when we get so many exemptions that workers will continue to be exposed to deadly asbestos. It seems that despite the lofty goals the government likes to talk about, its actions reflect instead the desires of powerful and well-financed lobby groups.

The federal government is even financing companies that are hoping to continue to make profits from using asbestos. The asbestos lobby is rejoicing that the Canadian and Quebec governments are financing a project to extract magnesium from the millions of tonnes of asbestos mining waste near the town of Asbestos, Quebec, and the Canadian government has given the company $12 million for this project. It appears that no independent environmental assessment has been carried out. Public health experts have been excluded and both the Quebec and federal governments have turned a deaf ear to their concerns.

The International Chrysotile Association and pro-chrysotile movement deny the science on asbestos and oppose banning asbestos, claiming it is virtually harmless. If the government is all about evidence-based decision-making and truly believes that any exposure to asbestos is harmful, which the evidence shows, then why has it allowed these exemptions that will continue to put Canadians' lives at risk?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2, November 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, speaking of massive, I would like to make a general comment on the size of this omnibus bill and all the things that are included in it. I would assume that my hon. colleague would agree that parliamentarians are not given enough time to actually scrutinize, on behalf of their constituents, what exactly is in the bill.

I was on the pay equity special committee. We made a recommendation that the government implement the recommendations from the 2004 task force. In the short time I was able to actually look at the document, it appears the government has not followed up on that unanimous recommendation from the committee. I wonder if my hon. colleague would like to comment on that.

[Transportation, October 31st, 2018]

Last year, Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan government killed the STC and today Greyhound Canada service ends at the stroke of midnight. The most vulnerable Canadians will suffer because of the uncertain future of safe public transportation across western Canada. People deserve better than disappearing bus routes and a last-minute promise of funding with no details and no timelines. When will the government tell Canadians how it will ensure safe and equitable transportation for all?

[Elections Modernization Act, October 30th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to attend the electoral reform committee meeting in Regina and had the chance to get to know my hon. colleague across the way a little better. I want to make two comments with respect to two disappointments in this bill and ask for his comments.

Many of us would say that young people came out to vote, especially young New Democrat and Liberal voters, on the promise by the Prime Minister that 2015 would be the last election to use first past the post. I think that many of those voters, although they would be pleased to see some of the changes within this bill, would be very disappointed to see that the changes do not include that very explicit promise made by the current Prime Minister. I am wondering if my hon. colleague did not also expect more from this bill, given the fact we have waited three years for that change.

[Petitions, October 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table a petition calling for a national framework to promote eye health. Folks in my riding are asking the government to develop a national framework, stating that the number of Canadians with vision loss is expected to double in the next 20 years. They say there is an emerging eye health and vision care crisis affecting all segments of the Canadian population, but in particular Canada's most vulnerable populations. Children, seniors and indigenous people are at particular risk.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to acknowledge eye health and vision care as a growing public health issue, particularly for Canada's vulnerable populations, and to respond to it through the development of a national framework for action to promote eye health and vision care. This would benefit all Canadians through the reduction of vision impairment resulting from preventable conditions and the modification of known risks.

[Housing, October 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the application process for the government's co-investment fund is onerous and complicated for non-profits. On the other hand, the rental construction financing initiative geared to the private sector has less stringent criteria for affordability, environmental assessment and accessibility.

Why do non-profit groups have to jump through more hoops to get similar benefits? Will the minister listen to feedback and allow flexibility so these non-profits can get down to work?