Sheri Benson

[Labour, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the right to refuse unsafe work is one of the three basic health and safety rights achieved by the labour movement, along with the right to know about the hazards in one's workplace and the right to participate in workplace health and safety decisions. While procedures and circumstances may vary from province to province, just about all workers have the legal right to a healthy and safe workplace that allows, and in some provinces obligates, them to protect their safety by refusing to perform work they believe has the potential to harm themselves or others at the work site.

All workers in Canada have the right to work in a safe and healthy environment. Over the last decade, the previous Conservative government had undone many of the progressive advances for workers that had been achieved over generations.

On February 19, I asked the government why it had not tabled legislation to reverse some of the most egregious changes brought in by the Conservatives. Sadly, I did not get an answer.

On the health and safety front, the Conservatives used the omnibus bill, Bill C-4, to change the Canadian Labour Code to limit the rights of workers to refuse unsafe work, and also to do away with the independent health and safety officers, relegating their responsibilities to political appointees of the minister.

The bill also made sweeping changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act to prevent federal public service workers from filing complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It also gutted public service collective bargaining by allowing the government to unilaterally determine which workers would be deemed essential and therefore forbidden from striking, without recourse to a third party review.

During the debate about these changes, many individuals and organizations brought forward grave concerns.

Larry Rousseau of PSAC wrote that the changes that were stuffed into the 309-page budget implementation act would turn the clock back 50 years for labour relations.

However, no voice was more compelling than that of Rob Ellis, whose 18 year-old son, David, was killed on the job. On David's second day of work at a temporary position in a bakery, he was pulled into an industrial mixer that was operating without a safety guard and lockout. David lacked the experience to comprehend the dangers of the workplace.

Rob Ellis, his dad, said:

We should not assume that new workers have enough experience to recognize or categorize the level of danger of every workplace condition. New or young employees should be encouraged to say no to unsafe work. And when they do stand up and say no, they should not be subject to discipline if their complaint is rejected without investigation...

During the federal election, the parliamentary secretary's website promised that a Liberal government would, “Repeal the Conservative definition of “danger” in the Canada Labour Code that is regressive and sacrifices the health and safety rights of workers.” Why has the minister remained silent? Through the hon. parliamentary secretary, I simply ask the minister this. When will the government repeal these draconian measures?

[Housing, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things I would like to ask my hon. colleague to immediately start. I totally understand that housing is a partnership between the federal and provincial governments, and I welcome the consultations between those two levels.

I want to see the federal government stepping up and saying that housing is a right, providing a framework for those conversations and not just going into them with this wide open agenda.

Many provinces have huge debt and their ability to be a part of a joint framework, a joint funding arrangement may be at risk. Therefore, the federal government needs to step up and say that housing is a right and it needs to address the dire housing needs of thousands of Canadians immediately.

A great first step of part of a national housing strategy is recognizing that every Canadian deserves a home.

[Housing, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on March 11, in the wake of a horrifying incident where two homeless people from Saskatchewan were put on a bus to B.C., I asked the government to commit to a national housing strategy that would end homelessness in communities across Canada.

I was encouraged to see that the first Liberal budget has committed some much-needed funds to support the housing needs of first nation communities, victims of domestic violence, and young Canadians, and to create more affordable housing. Unfortunately, after decades of neglect and indifference, Canada's social housing infrastructure is in tatters and is woefully inadequate.

While the new money is certainly welcome and overdue, I think that the government recognizes that much more needs to be done. Housing is one of the most important social determinants of health. Without a secure roof over our heads, it is difficult, if not impossible, to work, study, raise children, or be healthy, and it costs all of us so much more in health care costs, lost potential, and human tragedy.

Too many Canadians are in precarious housing, or have no housing at all. Many more are paying too much for housing. This is a situation that must change.

The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association estimates that roughly 140,000 families are waiting between five and 12 years for subsidized housing in Canada. According to a recent study, 40% of renters spend more than 30% of their household income on the cost of rent and utilities, the level at which many say housing costs become unaffordable. About 20% spend more than half their income, which housing advocates say puts them at high risk of becoming homeless.

My hon. colleague, the member for Hochelaga, has recently completed a report on homelessness in Canada after a three-year tour of more than 30 communities, and she found that the situation is devastating. She said:

Throughout Canada, I met tenants who had to choose between paying rent and buying groceries. In a country as wealthy as ours, this situation is unacceptable.... Housing is a right for all of us and eliminating poverty starts with ensuring that everyone has a roof over their head.

The current housing crisis is not new. It has been getting worse because of government inaction. A former Liberal government brought sweeping reforms to the National Housing Act in 1973, and the minister responsible for housing described adequate, affordable shelter as an “elemental human need”.

How times have changed. The dark decades since have seen the abdication of leadership on the federal level by both the Liberal and Conservative governments, accompanied by diminishing investments and the devolving of responsibility to lower levels of government. We do not even have a minister of housing in the cabinet.

The Liberal government has a chance to turn the crisis around. The funds announced in the budget are a good first step, but there is so much more to do.

The member for Hochelaga's report, “A Roof, A Right”, sets out a sensible approach to correcting the housing deficit in Canada, and I ask the government to act on the recommendations in this report. The member has also introduced two bills aimed at addressing the housing crisis in Canada, one that would include the right to housing in the Canadian Bill of Rights and a second that calls for the implementation of a national strategy for secure, adequate, accessible, and affordable housing.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has also expressed concern about the persistence of a housing crisis in Canada and has called on the government to bring in a national housing strategy that recognizes the right to housing.

Investing in housing is not an expense. It is an investment in individuals, communities, society, and the economy as a whole. Will the government commit to immediately implementing a national housing strategy?

[Human Rights, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to commemorate the 12th international day against homophobia and transphobia.

There is much to celebrate when we think about the progress that has been made in this country, from 1979, when Svend Robinson became the first MP to come out as gay, to Bill Siksay, the former MP for Burnaby—Douglas, who introduced the first bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.

I am particularly honoured to pay tribute to the hard work of countless Canadians like Bill, and my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. Their tireless advocacy comes to fruition today as we applaud the proposed inclusion of gender identity to the human rights code, and to the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code.

However, there is still so much to do. There are still too many places where discrimination, persecution, and violence are practised with impunity.

Today, let us pledge to continue to work towards a world where everyone is equal, no matter their race, colour, gender identity or gender expression.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 10th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the previous government made a lot of negative changes to the employment insurance system over the last decade, and of course we see that many people in our communities are continuing to be hurt by that.

Unfortunately, the bill that has been put forward by the government does not undo some of those changes, so I want to ask the member this. Do you believe that workers in all parts of Canada deserve fair access to employment insurance, their money, and better benefits?

[Canada Post, May 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals made a solemn promise to save home mail delivery. The Prime Minister himself said, “We are committed to restoring home mail delivery”.

Seniors and Canadians living with disabilities have been counting on the Liberal government to deliver on its promise. Instead, the minister is now saying that everything is on the table. Meanwhile, Canada Post is raking in the profits. There is no excuse for this betrayal. Why are the Liberals breaking their promise to Canadians?

[Asbestos, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, any Canadian who works in or visits a building that contains asbestos really does have the right to know that they may be exposed to harmful substances.

With the recently announced registry of federal buildings containing asbestos, at least workers can verify if their workplace will expose them to asbestos. I call on the minister to make this registry accessible to all Canadians without delay.

At the same time, I hope the minister is also planning to create a nationwide registry listing any facility that contains asbestos, not just the buildings owned and operated by the federal government.

It is an undeniable fact that asbestos is responsible for thousands of deaths and it is unconscionable for the government to continue importing and using it in any form. When will the government ban all asbestos?

[Asbestos, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on February 2, I asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to stop using asbestos in federal public buildings.

Asbestos has been called the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known, and New Democrats have been fighting hard to get this carcinogenic and toxic material out of buildings and people's lives. This known carcinogen has claimed the lives of thousands of Canadian workers, and so it is shocking to learn that while the federal government is spending millions to remove it from buildings, it is installing asbestos in other buildings.

I was very encouraged when the minister replied that the government would undertake a review of this issue. It was quietly announced at the end of March that as of February 1, 2016, the federal government has officially banned the use of asbestos-containing materials in all construction and major renovations.

The NDP applauds this move. It is a good first step in a decade-long struggle to remove asbestos from workplaces and buildings. However, Canadians are left wondering what will it take for the government to finally remove this cancer-causing substance once and for all.

Last week, on April 28, the National Day of Mourning, I called on the government to join a growing list of countries, including Australia, Britain, Japan, and Sweden, that have already banned the deadly killer, and so has the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Labour Congress, and many more organizations.

Over 150,000 workers in Canada are currently exposed to asbestos, especially in the areas of specialty trade contractors, building construction, auto repairs, maintenance, ship and boat building, and remediation and waste management. Many Canadians, including children, are unknowingly exposed to asbestos every day. It is found in schools, hospitals, homes, and building materials.

Canadians dying of cancer caused mainly by workplace exposure to asbestos has risen 60% between 2000 and 2012, according to Statistics Canada. Since 1996, there have been 5,000 approved death claims stemming from asbestos exposure, making it by far the top source of workplace death in Canada. However, statistics show that asbestos imports in Canada continue to rise.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies all commercial forms of asbestos as carcinogenic. Its evidence shows that there is no safe form of asbestos, nor a threshold that it considers safe.

When pipes and tiles containing asbestos are cut to size, fibres are often released. Materials naturally break down over time, and warning labels fade. It is impossible to monitor all workplaces to ensure that younger and newer workers in particular are wearing protective gear. When there are rushed deadlines or precarious, informal jobs, proper procedures often fall by the wayside. Younger, less experienced workers are less likely to complain.

The World Health Organization bluntly said that “All types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis..”. Yet, Health Canada's website continues to play down the risk of asbestos exposure. It never clearly states that all forms of asbestos cause cancer, but rather “Asbestos poses health risks only when fibres are present in the air that people breathe.”

Why does the government continue to allow Health Canada to post misleading information about the safety of asbestos? The minister has said she has heard the concerns expressed by Canadians over the continued use of asbestos and that “The health and safety of our building occupants and visitors are a priority.”

If that is true, when will the government ban the use of asbestos entirely?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1., May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the speaker prior to me, had asked for consent, through a motion, to separate out this bill so that some of the bigger, more complicated pieces could be referred to committee for study. Included in that, of course, were the issues surrounding veterans, and I fully support that.

This is my first time in Parliament, obviously. I was looking forward to more democracy and an opportunity to discuss and feel that democracy at the committee level, so I was disappointed that so much was included in the bill and that we are getting shortchanged as far as being able to really look at what is contained in this bill at the committee level, where parties are able to work together democratically to improve bills.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1., May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that the member's background is in the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Club. I would like those in the House to know that the YMCA is the largest provider of child care spaces and services in Canada, so I obviously like the YMCA.

That is a very good question and New Democrats got asked about that. In my comments, I talked about the opportunity to make real change, to make the tax system more progressive rather than regressive. The corporate tax rate in Canada is at its lowest point ever since the year 2000. It is one of the lowest in the G7 countries. We had an opportunity to increase the corporate tax rate slightly in order to increase the government's revenue. I believe the government has an issue around increasing revenue, but that money would be available to fund programs like a national child care program, which is essential for a government that wants equality for women.