Sheri Benson

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke of two issues that I raised in my comments, one was putting time allocation on the debate of this bill and the second, what I feel is the most important point, was that the inequities built into the enhancement to the CPP would not help women who have left the workforce to raise children or people with disabilities get the same enhancements.

I would like to hear definitively from the government if it is going to fix it, and I have not heard that. I do not think suggesting that it might have been missed in very high-level conversations with very smart people is sufficient. It is, ultimately, the federal government that brought forward the CPP enhancements and regime that they are asking the provinces to sign on to, so our due diligence at this level and the due diligence of those at the table from the federal government should have realized this and made changes then.

I will leave my comments there, hoping that the government will give a definitive answer yes or no to that question.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to talk about a very important bill, Bill C-26, and the security of people in Canada when they retire.

I have a few introductory comments. I echo the comments of my colleague from Vancouver East who arrived in the House as a brand new member of Parliament, looking forward to a new spirit of collaboration and co-operation. Our hopes were very high that things would be different. I therefore want to register my disappointment around the government's choice to move forward with time allocation. I share that disappointment with the colleagues on my side who, unlike me, will be unable to share their points of view and comments with our colleagues today.

As I said, I am honoured to be speaking to Bill C-26, which will amend the Canada Pension Plan Act and incorporate recent agreements the government has been able to reach with the provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan.

Although the effect of the changes will not be felt for many years, 49 years, this enhancement is a very important first step in improving retirement for young Canadians. I want to acknowledge and offer my congratulations to the many citizen groups, in particular, unions that have really been fighting long and hard and laid the important groundwork so we were able to get to an agreement on these enhancements.

When this is fully implemented many years from now, but still important, the CPP will replace 33% of pre-retirement income, which is up from its current 25%. The New Democrats have long worked hard for improvements to many aspects of our social safety net, including the Canada pension plan, fighting for better old age security, and increasing guaranteed income supplement benefits.

As I mentioned in some of my questions, retirement security for many Canadians has reached a new crisis level. It really has been increasing and made worse under some of the policies of the previous government, which really saw the crisis come to a head with many people being unable to look toward a retirement. A golden retirement, as people used to say, will not be there.

A large part of that problem is that six in 10 working Canadians no longer have a workplace pension. I will do what a lot of people do not do usually and reveal my age. I am 53 years old. My dad would have been one of the first groups of workers who worked for a very large multinational corporation and had a workplace pension. Closer to the end of his tenure in the corporation, during a large corporate takeover, he lost that defined benefit pension plan. My parents, along with many others, have had to look forward to retirement, but, as my colleague on the opposite side said in his previous comments, have had to take on a lot more risk when it comes to pensions, more risks than his parents had and many before him. Younger generations are looking forward to an even more precarious work environment and retirement, one that may not provide them with the things they need to have a safe and healthy retirement.

During the election, the Liberals promised to enhance CPP, and we are glad to see that has come forward. I have a couple of comments on this.

I want to acknowledge my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. As any good MP would, he did some digging and studying up on the bill so we could speak about it as it was coming forward. He found some flaws with it. I thought the government would be very eager to hear about this and do a quick fix. It is one of the reasons we want to continue to debate this, because we would like to hear a response from the government that it does plan to fix this. Just saying that going to committee somehow that will make everything better does not reassure me or people in my constituency, in particular, women and those living with disabilities, that their retirement is going to be as secure as they thought it was.

Of course, what I am talking about is that the proposed changes to enhance the Canada pension plan would actually not afford women and those with a disability the same increases. Although we know this was brought in under a previous prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, it was not included in this particular enhancement to the Canada pension plan. I know members on this side and my colleagues have been asking the government over and over, both in question period and in debate, to tell us if this was a mistake. We have asked if it is going to fix it, or if it was not a mistake, why it was not included.

Of course, if it was not a mistake then I question its claims about being sincere in addressing some of the inequities and issues, particularly when it comes to retirement for those two groups of people who would be most vulnerable. They are those living on some type of CPP disability and women who had to leave the workforce who were the primary caregivers of children and were therefore not contributing to the Canada pension plan. From what we can see, from what we know, and from the research from my colleague, these folks are not going to see the increase, as others would. It is one reason to continue debate.

I understand the government has just recently, within a month, done some great work and brought our provinces together and got agreement. However, sometimes in haste, things get overlooked. This is one aspect I hope the Liberals just overlooked, and I hope they are going to try to fix it, because it is extremely important to me.

When I was campaigning to be the member of Parliament for my riding of Saskatoon West, one of the key issues in my riding was income and affordability. For seniors, it was being able to afford housing, and if they were lucky enough to scrape together enough to afford housing, they were not able to afford medication.

Retirement income, particularly for women and those who have lived on a more limited income because of a disability, is extremely important to me. Therefore, I rise today to speak about this and to draw it to the government's attention again. It would be nice to hear, definitively, from the government that it does plan to not allow this inequity to move forward, that it does plan to fix it, and not just say that everything will be all right, that we will talk about it in committee, to just get going with this, and keep talking—or not keep talking, I guess—so that we can address this.

I feel honoured to stand up and speak about this issue. I want to congratulate my colleague for bringing forward these two key pieces of inequity in the legislation.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his passion, although I do not necessarily agree with some of my colleague's comments.

I would like the member to respond to the fact that we do have a pension gap in this country. There is a crisis. Canadians are saving less money for their retirement. Unfortunately, for many Canadians who are saving for retirement this pension gap became worse under the previous Stephen Harper government.

I would like to know what my colleague's party is talking about. Could he explain to us what lessons Conservative members learned from their retirement plan for Canadians that obviously did not work and many Canadians are living in poverty in retirement.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, November 16th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (prohibition of asbestos).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce a bill that would ban a deadly substance, asbestos. I have heard from many constituents who have lost loved ones to this terrible scourge, and the epidemic of asbestos related deaths must be stopped.

I am always open to working with the government to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. I hope all members of the House will support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Status of Women, November 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal government shelved pay equity legislation in 2005, and this Liberal government has further delayed it to late 2018. It is just not good enough. Women have waited 40 years and should not have to wait even longer. We are calling on the government to table proactive federal pay equity legislation by December 2016.

The Prime Minister has already indicated that it is 2016 and that gender parity is overdue, so what are they waiting for?

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-235.

I have had the privilege over the past year since my election as the member for Saskatoon West to meet with a wide range of groups and individuals in my community. One meeting which stood out for me was the one with representatives from the FASD Network in Saskatoon.

The FASD Network of Saskatchewan is a provincial organization that works with families, children, and adults affected by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is a group of dedicated parents who came together in the early 1990s, seeking support and understanding. They have common concerns about the challenges related to parenting children affected by prenatal exposure to alcohol.

When the network began, very little was known about FASD. Families faced stigma, lack of services, and misunderstanding. Now, 20 years later, the network is a community-based, provincial organization with an office in my riding in Saskatoon. Over the years, the level of knowledge and understanding in Saskatchewan communities has grown along with the network. Today, the network offers support, training, and events across the province.

Before I speak to the bill itself, I would like to reiterate and emphasize some facts about FASD, some of which we have heard already.

FASD is the biggest single cause of mental disabilities in most industrialized countries. According to Health Canada, FASD affects nine in every 1,000 babies in Canada, or 3,000 births per year; 300,000 Canadians are currently living with FASD.

As we have heard, FASD is an umbrella term to describe a range of disabilities and diagnoses, the severity of which may be affected by how much alcohol was consumed by the mother and when.

The effects of FASD, such as difficulty reasoning, inability to remember things like appointments, trouble learning from past experiences and not repeating mistakes, can often contribute to other problems, including mental health issues, dropping out of school, trouble with the law, chronic unemployment, drug and alcohol addiction, and homelessness.

Amy Salmon, executive director of the Canada Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Research Network, CanFASD, has said:

We know that people with FASD are overrepresented—both as offenders, but also as victims—within the justice system. And we know that in many places around the country, people with FASD are also overrepresented among those who are incarcerated.

Living with FASD is about more than a diagnosis. It is also about living with strengths and struggles. It is about living with a disability. All across Canada, infants, children, youth, and adults live with FASD and experience a range of primary disabilities caused directly by prenatal alcohol exposure. No two individuals experience the primary cognitive, behavioural, physical, or sensory disabilities in the same way.

FASD affects not just the individual, but families and their communities as well. There are no confirmed statistics on the number of Canadians living with FASD, but the commonly stated rate is 1%. Using that rate, about 153 Saskatchewan babies were born with FASD in 2014.

It is a lifelong disability, but when we have the right attitudes and put the right supports in place around both the families that are going to be having children and the families that may be living with children who live with FASD, we can set people up for success.

Here are some sobering numbers. An estimated one out of 100 newborns are affected by FASD in Canada and, of that population, 60% of those individuals will have interaction with the justice system. In 2014-15, the cost of incarceration for individuals ranged from $199 for provincial jails to over $300 per day federally. FASD is an invisible disability, thus, opting for FASD testing and referrals to community services and support systems will decrease the fiscal impact of high cost incarceration, while ensuring continuous support from the community.

This combination of individual, professional, and systemic factors converge to result in a disproportionate number of youth with FASD being incarcerated. In fact, youth with FASD have been found to be 10 to 19 times more likely to be incarcerated than youth without FASD.

In another sample of 253 individuals with FASD, 60% reported a history of being charged, convicted, or in trouble with authorities, and 42% of adults had been incarcerated. Recent data from the forensic outpatient clinic in Saskatchewan revealed that the rate of FASD diagnoses was 55% in its adult population. All of the available evidence to date indicates both the necessity and value of incorporating FASD screening and diagnosis into the justice system.

In the absence of a full diagnosis that requires a multidisciplinary team, several screening tools have been developed and validated, including the FASD checklist and the Youth Probation Officers' Guide to FASD Screening and Referral.

With improved understanding and recognition of FASD in the criminal justice system, appropriate and early interventions and management plans can be implemented. Whether encountering the justice system as a witness, victim, or offender, individuals with FASD have unique and often complex needs that are not supported in the current justice system model. With improved training of FASD for front-line workers, individuals with FASD will have access to equitable justice outcomes.

The framework for action on FASD, unveiled in 2003, recognized that:

The costs of FASD to society are high—without taking into account the lost potential and opportunity, direct costs associated with FASD over a lifetime have been estimated at about $1.5 million per person with FASD.

I am in full agreement with FASD Saskatoon when it says it is imperative for Canada to recognize FASD as a cognitive disability that reduces moral culpability and thus should be a mitigating factor during sentencing. FASD is brain damage.

While Bill C-235 should not eliminate culpability, the courts need to question the ethics and fairness around proposing sentences without accounting for organic brain damage, which could result in charges that the person does not understand stem from his or her actions.

It is essential to have mandated training for front-line workers to increase awareness and understanding of the impact an FASD diagnosis has on individuals entering the justice system.

As is so often the case, when formal systems fail, the community steps in to address and support individuals who fall through the cracks. In my community, I am grateful for the work of the CUMFI Wellness Centre and the FASD support network, and now they need government to partner to ensure equity and fairness for individuals living with FASD.

With training, the legal system can adapt to these individuals with FASD and formulate manageable criteria for interaction.

Since the inception of Saskatoon's Mental Health Strategy court, the network staff in Saskatoon have connected with 29 individuals who live with FASD. Of those 29, 22 became part of the support program's case management and were supported through and after the court process. Of these 22 individuals, three are still going through and being supported through the court process. So far, of the 19 people who have been supported and sentenced through the Mental Health Strategy Court, 17 have not reoffended.

The evidence is clear. People with FASD need support systems both within and without the court system.

Because this disability is often overlooked, those working in the justice system need to be trained to recognize it, and there must also be recognition that individuals and their unique circumstances matter in the pursuit of justice.

It is about making the sentence fit the crime and letting judges exercise discretion based on the facts of the case. In other words, it really is the antithesis of the prescriptive, costly, often ineffective, and frequently unconstitutional approach taken by previous governments, which really removed a lot of judicial discretion in favour of a one-size-fits-all minimum sentence.

We in the NDP support quick passage of this legislation, which has been introduced in past Parliaments and enjoyed support across parties. We look forward to studying the bill in committee.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member and have agreed on many occasions with his statements and speeches in the House. The hon. member has good insight into many important things that we are doing in the House. I do not want to repeat what the previous member asked, but I feel I have to, because we are repeatedly getting the response he made back from the government.

We are not talking about how many times Liberals have consulted with people. We know they know the rules, the Elections Act, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about ministers of the crown who have a higher level of accountability to the public for their actions.

We all heard the big fanfare when the Prime Minister said that things were going to be different and read his big letter that ministers were going to be held to a higher account. Why write that letter, why ask people to do something, if he had no intention whatsoever of asking them to fulfill that accountability?

[Indigenous Affairs, November 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there is a mental health crisis faced by indigenous youth, and the government's response needs to equal the scope of that crisis. As my colleague and friend, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, has said, not only do these communities “need immediate support to address this mental health crisis, they require long-term...solutions”, and “We cannot continue to stand by and watch our Indigenous youth fall through the cracks.”

Will the government follow through on its commitments to stop subverting Jordan's principle? Will it provide adequate funding for medical and mental health services for indigenous children now?

When our government stops fighting families in court over dental care and provides funding for decent, secure housing, then we will all finally see the change so desperately needed on the ground in these communities. I do hope the government will match its rhetoric with actions and honour its commitment to first nation peoples everywhere.

[Indigenous Affairs, November 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to rise the day after the House voted to support an NDP motion calling on the government to recognize and remediate the historical discrimination faced by indigenous children across Canada. I would like to thank the government for finally acknowledging that it is inexcusable to shortchange kids, and I hope it will begin to work with all of its partners to address the huge gap in services that exists for first nations children.

There are now three compliance orders issued by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Will the government now stop fighting families in court and start working with experts and representatives from indigenous communities to get the help where it is needed as soon as possible?

During the debate on the motion, the member for Labrador was very indignant about this issue and accused the NDP of pulling numbers out of thin air. I would like to take this opportunity to point out to the hon. member and, by extension, the government that the numbers were not pulled out of thin air, but were based on the very numbers provided by the government itself. The same numbers the member disputed were given by Cindy Blackstock to the government six months ago. It did not dispute the numbers until it was asked to spend the money on kids on the ground.

Ms. Blackstock also pointed out that there is a stack of reports from the last 50 years that the government can draw on to implement some much needed services right away. However, the government preferred to appoint its own consultant, also called a special representative, to repeat much of the work that has already been done, instead of implementing solutions it already has.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, there have been six youth suicides in the last four weeks. These young people and their families need support and services in their communities now.

Last week, the NDP held a press conference in Saskatoon to call on the government to end the band-aid approach and to turn our culture of deniability into a culture of accountability that puts kids first. Chief Tammy Cook-Searson of the Lac la Ronge First Nation and FSIN Chief Bobby Cameron have called for all levels of government with overlapping jurisdictions to “work together to develop a plan of action to prevent future tragedies of this kind among aboriginal youth”.

Instead of stable funding for social workers and support programs in communities, the government has cut 25% of front-line workers in recent years. Then, when there is suicide crisis among young people, emergency workers are flown in for a few weeks, but these workers cannot stay and the cycle begins again.

The same goes for communities where there is no medical centre. Patients and at-risk youth have to be flown out of their communities, instead of being helped and treated at home close to their families.

What the tribunal has ordered is an immediate remediation of this situation. Indigenous kids are being underfunded, and this has to stop. It is a national shame that today, in 2016, there are as many children in care as during the residential school era. Why is this happening? It is because there are not enough support services to allow families to stay together through a crisis.

The first 2,000 days of a child's life is when their most critical phases of development take place. What happens in the first 2,000 days can have a lasting effect, for better or worse. It is unconscionable for any government to postpone help when it is so urgently needed.

How is it acceptable to postpone 54% of the announced funding until the last year before an election, or the year after the next election? Will the government revise its planned five-year roll-out of the funding it has announced to get funds to where they are needed right away, instead of in another four years? Indigenous children cannot wait.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, October 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very detailed presentation speech on some of the measures that are contained in the bill, which is close to 234 pages long. I am disappointed that it is being presented in this way and that we are not having enough time to really give it proper consideration and study.

I would like to share with my colleague my disappointment with one part of the bill; that is, the decision not to index the child benefits over the next few years. Actually, the indexing will not happen until the next federal election. That will have a bigger impact on low-income families, which are the majority of families in my riding.

I wonder if you would agree with me that was a bad decision and that indexing should happen sooner, not in the next election.