Submission in Response to the Poverty Reduction Consultation

To: The Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Employment and Social Development Canada

From: Elizabeth May, O.C. Member of Parliament Saanich-Gulf Islands Date: June 5, 2017

Dear Minister Duclos,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments on poverty reduction strategies in Canada. I am encouraging my constituents to participate in this discussion, through the online survey, and as well as the virtual town hall on June 5th.

I was heartened to see that your ministerial mandate letter included the development of a Canadian Poverty Reduction Strategy. Personally and as a matter of Green Party policy, we support the adoption of Guaranteed Liveable Income to actually end poverty. I have long advocated for a comprehensive plan to address poverty in Canada.

The Green Party of Canada supports a nationwide Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI) that would apply to all Canadians without a needs test. It is very encouraging to see pilot projects in basic income now proceeding in Ontario and BC (pending the new Horgan government coming to existence).

I also support increasing our low- income housing levels, childcare programs, and removing taxes for Canadians living below the poverty line.

The recent and planned initiatives to support poverty reduction from this government are steps in the right direction. But if this government is genuinely committed to the goal of eliminating poverty, then the time is overdue for a truly innovative initiative. In this brief, I have outlined three key aspects of a bold poverty reduction plan.

A Guaranteed Livable Income

The Green Party’s GLI is a version of the so-called guaranteed annual income (also known as a negative income tax) that has been proposed for many years. It is an idea whose time has come. The principle is to establish an income floor below which no Canadian could fall, but with incentives for recipients to continue working and to earn more.

The GLI would replace federal transfers for social assistance (welfare), disability supports, the Old Age Supplement (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) for the elderly, the Canadian Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) and National Child Benefit Supplement (NCB) for parents with children, and the Working Income Tax Benefit for the poor – all of which are already very GLI-like. In this regard, the Child Care Benefit (CCB) the Liberal Government introduced last summer, replacing the CCTB, the Harper Conservatives’ regressive child care benefit (UCCB), and income splitting, could be considered as a step towards a GLI program. The GLI would not impact Employment Insurance (EI), the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), child care subsidies, social housing drug benefits or dental care.

Once started, the biggest challenge in implementing a GLI will be jurisdictional: to get all levels of government to work together on this initiative. In particular, provincial governments would have to use their authority in some areas of income support to collapse programs or to integrate them into a single program. Total federal-provincial spending on income support in Canada reached $185 billion in 2013, equal to 1/10th of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).To ensure political, multi-jurisdictional coherence, GLI will be an early agenda item for the Council of Canadian Governments. The Greens have called for the creation of the Council to bring federal, provincial-territorial, municipal and local governments and First Nations, Metis and Inuit people around the table to set national goals.

There is an enormous and persuasive amount of research which demonstrates that the multiplicity of income support programs – overlapping, confusing, and riddled with perverse incentives – is a huge problem. The basic idea of the GLI would be to replace separate federal and provincial programs with a single, universal, unconditional cash benefit delivered through the tax system. Establishing the base amount would depend on the measure of poverty used. The Green Party recommends using the OECD’s Low Income Measure (LIM) that has been adopted by Ontario. (Note that about 1/3 of Canadians have a yearly income lower than $20,000.) As money was earned above the minimum GLI level, it would be taxed back gradually. Benefits like free dental care or prescription drugs for low-income Canadians would continue.

The simplest way to begin the transition to a GLI and to put more income into the hands of the poorest Canadians would be for the federal government to make all tax credits refundable (like the WITB, and GST). This would impact the personal credit, the spousal credit, the caregiver credit, as well as some deductions like the child care expenses deduction (CCED) which would be converted to a credit. In this connection, it should be noted that there has been some useful but limited federal- provincial coordination in select areas in recent years, such as the consolidation of the hodge-podge of tax credits – sales, property, energy – into a more effective monthly payment delivered quarterly through Ontario’s Trillium Benefit and Québec’s Solidarity Tax Credit. British Columbia has similarly consolidated its Climate

GLI will be an early agenda item for the Council of Canadian Governments. The Greens have called for the creation of the Council to bring federal, provincial-territorial, municipal and local governments and First Nations, Metis and Inuit people around the table to set national goals.

There is an enormous and persuasive amount of research which demonstrates that the multiplicity of income support programs – overlapping, confusing, and riddled with perverse incentives – is a huge problem. The basic idea of the GLI would be to replace separate federal and provincial programs with a single, universal, unconditional cash benefit delivered through the tax system. Establishing the base amount would depend on the measure of poverty used. The Green Party recommends using the OECD’s Low Income Measure (LIM) that has been adopted by Ontario. (Note that about 1/3 of Canadians have a yearly income lower than $20,000.) As money was earned above the minimum GLI level, it would be taxed back gradually. Benefits like free dental care or prescription drugs for low-income Canadians would continue.

The simplest way to begin the transition to a GLI and to put more income into the hands of the poorest Canadians would be for the federal government to make all tax credits refundable (like the WITB, and GST). This would impact the personal credit, the spousal credit, the caregiver credit, as well as some deductions like the child care expenses deduction (CCED) which would be converted to a credit. In this connection, it should be noted that there has been some useful but limited federal- provincial coordination in select areas in recent years, such as the consolidation of the hodge-podge of tax credits – sales, property, energy – into a more effective monthly payment delivered quarterly through Ontario’s Trillium Benefit and Québec’s Solidarity Tax Credit. British Columbia has similarly consolidated its Climate

Action Tax Credit with the federal GST credit and provincial HST credit. But so much more action is needed.

The introduction of a GLI payment would provide a regular minimum payment to every eligible Canadian adult and child. The payment would not be “clawed back” by any level of government. The GLI would be designed to be reduced gradually as a recipient earned additional income, in such a way as to be phased out completely once an upper threshold of income earned, say, $60,000 was achieved. The overall cost of the program would depend on the rate of reduction as the recipient’s employment income increased to the upper threshold.

A National Housing Plan

I was pleased to see the money dedicated to housing in the 2017 budget, and look forward to reviewing the National Housing Plan from the Liberal government to be revealed this year. I do wish that the timing of funds was not back-ended so heavily until after the next election.

The Green Party supports the development of a National Housing Strategy, and calls on the government to:

• Develop a National Housing Strategy through the Council of Canadian Governments. Canada is the only country in the OECD without a housing strategy. Any coherent plan must include concrete steps for a seniors’ housing plan, a First Nations plan, a plan for social housing, and for affordable market housing;
• Create a Housing First Approach, a one-on-one outreach initiative that houses chronically homeless people and provides immediate support;
• Dedicate funding to the co-operative housing sector to enable more new affordable housing projects to proceed, while extending funding for co-ops whose contracts with the federal government are expiring;
• Retrofit all Canadian homes by 2030 to increase energy efficiency, cut heating and electricity bills, and reduce 80% of building emissions by 2040;
• Implement a Guaranteed Livable Income to help low-income Canadians and youth reach their dream of affording a home;
• Increase access to social housing for First Nations on and off-reserve, while strengthening enforcement of living and maintenance standards through our proposed Council of Canadian Governments; and
• Ensure a percentage of all newly built units are reserved for affordable housing.

Nation-wide Pharmacare 

Canada is the only industrialized country with a universal health care system that does not provide for universal coverage of prescription drugs. By negotiating purchases in bulk and combining administration costs, a single Pharmacare program could make affordable medicine a reality for all Canadians while saving billions of dollars.

Implementing a federally-led Pharmacare program would ensure that all Canadians have access to a universal prescription drug plan by expanding and coordinating the patchwork of public and private schemes that already provide drug insurance to some twenty-two million Canadians. National Pharmacare would also ensure screening of all drugs for safety and effectiveness by requiring that all provinces participate in the Common Drug Review to address drug safety (based on the approach of the University of British Columbia’s Therapeutics Initiative). The Canadian Medical Association’s 2015 proposal notes that a pan-Canadian plan would save Canadians $7.3 billion a year in costs, yet it would only cost the public sector an additional $1 billion a year.

The Green Party’s Pharmacare plan expands and coordinates the patchwork of public and private plans that already provide drug insurance to 22 million Canadians. The program adopts the four key recommendations of the Pharmacare2020 Report published on July 15, 2015: universal access to necessary medicines, fair distribution of prescription drug costs, safe and appropriate prescribing, and maximum health benefits per dollar spent.

This plan ensures that 2 million Canadians would have access to prescriptive medications that they otherwise could not afford. Moreover, the Green Party’s approach will apply greater rigor to drug registration by applying the approach of the Therapeutics Initiative. We will not register drugs that hurt more people than they help. Not only will it improve the health of Canadians, it will save up to $11 billion annually.

A national Pharmacare program is the missing piece from one of our greatest achievements as a country: universal healthcare.

Nationwide Child Care

Canadian families need access to affordable, high-quality child care as an aspect of early childhood education. There are also clear benefits to maximizing time together for parents with young children. Canadians want a program with flexibility.

The Greens are committed to a high-quality federally-funded child care program in Canada, accessible to any family that wants to place children into early childhood education. Workplace child care has been shown to improve productivity, decrease employee absenteeism, ensure quality care for children (because parents can ‘drop in’ at any time to see their young children), and permits longer breast-feeding of infants. Work-place child care spaces create other benefits. Emerging literature indicates small children benefit enormously from time with their mothers, especially when very young.

The beneficent spiral of providing workplace child care also includes making it easier for many working Canadians to use mass transit. When parents and children travel to the same destination, the trip can often be made in less time on public transit, enabling parents to spend more time with children.

We propose:

• Restore and revamp the 2005 agreement reached between the federal government, provinces, and territories to achieve a universal access child care program in Canada;
• Create a national Children’s Commissioner, as recommended by UNICEF, to ensure children’s best interests are considered in policy development and that services across the country are better coordinated;
• Specifically ensure that Canada’s universal child care program provides workplace child care spaces wherever possible;
• Tax shift to make advertising directed at children ineligible for corporate tax write-offs;
• Accelerate the creation of workplace child care spaces through a direct tax credit to employers (or groups of employers in small businesses) of $1500 tax credit/child per year;
• Value the decisions of parents who choose to stay home with children;
• Promote and facilitate access to the Roots of Empathy Program, an effective, award-winning program developed by a non-profit educational organization, to all Canadian children at some point in their elementary school years.

Conclusion 

Millions of Canadians are currently living in poverty. In a wealthy country such as Canada, this is unacceptable. Eliminating poverty while supporting healthy communities will pay for itself in reduced health care costs and crime rates. Failure to eliminate poverty will cost our society far more than an effective plan to make poverty history in Canada.

As this government develops its Canadian Poverty Reduction Strategy, I recommend the following:

• Implementing a guaranteed livable income;
• removing taxes for Canadians living below the poverty line;
• Developing a National Housing Plan that includes concrete steps for a seniors’ housing plan, a First Nations plan, a plan for social housing, and for affordable market housing ;
• Developing a nation-wide Pharmacare plan;
• Apply a carbon fee and dividend system. (Though carbon pricing is not included in your ministerial mandate, this system will help us fights climate change and poverty at the same time. A carbon fee and dividend system would put a price on carbon and give the revenue back to Canadians on an equal, per capita basis – providing a first step toward basic income for all.)

Again, thank you for undertaking this consultation. I would be more than happy to meet with you and your staff to discuss this important issue further.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada

The post Elizabeth’s Submission to the Poverty Reduction Consultation appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The IDB was first celebrated on December 29 when the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on Biodiversity in 1993.  Canada played a leading role countering George Bush’s attempts to prevent it.

Just over ten years ago in 2002, the world’s leaders agreed to work on reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Sadly, they have not achieved their goal. In fact, the various factors that lead to such loss have, in too many cases, intensified.

The consequences of this global failure will impact on our water, food systems, health, environmental and physical security, including the severity of climate change, and even our planetary culture. As usual, the poor are and will continue to suffer the most as they try to eke out a living from an increasingly barren and hostile planet.

The Green Party calls on the Harper Conservatives to do much more to support, both financially and practically, the implementation of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. This is not a “green” issue; it concerns the future of our earth.

The post Green Party Marks International Day for Biodiversity appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Old age is not for sissies,” said Bette Davis. Indeed, it is not, but the images from our childhood of what it meant to be “old” have changed dramatically. Of course, as I enter my 60th year, my perspective on what it means to be “old,” of necessity, shifts. As another popular aphorism, puts it “the hardest thing to decide is when middle age begins.” Thanks to advances in health care and a focus on healthy living, Canadians are living longer. And today’s senior has different issues and challenges than in our grandparents’ day. I see it every day, as my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands is one of those with the highest proportion of older citizens. While so much in the mass media sees only the negatives of this aging demographic, there is much to celebrate.

The group Moses Znaimer calls “zoomers” are not abandoning their love of tennis or skiing. The aging population is increasingly embracing the benefits of staying involved, especially as they give back to community through the donations of thousands of hours of volunteer work.

That is, of course, not to deny the challenges. Today’s seniors want to know that pension and retirement savings are adequate to maintain an active lifestyle. The Green Party supports expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. CPP is sustainable and reliable. It is time to review whether RRSP is working as a vehicle. Evidence suggests its uptake is very limited, it has a large impact on government revenues and yet it seems to benefit primarily those Canadians who least need it.

Staying active is challenging in a car dominated culture. An aging population increases the need for convenient, accessible, mass transit. As it becomes less safe to drive at night, seniors want access to public transit.

The most extreme challenges of aging are experienced by seniors living in poverty, a disproportionate proportion of whom are women. While the percentage of seniors living in poverty dropped dramatically from a high of approximately 30 per cent in 1976, to a low of 4.7 per cent in 2007, the poverty rates for seniors have begun to move up once again5.8 per cent in 2008. We cannot be complacent about the economic struggles of our seniors.

Meanwhile, the widely-repeated claim that the growth in aging Canadians as a proportion of our population will drive up health-care costs is not supported by the evidence. Empirical evidence suggests that the aging population is not a major cause of increased costs. According to the Canadian Institute of Health Information: “Analyses of the drivers of increases in public sector health expenditures over the last decade showed that the contribution of aging has been relatively modest. To date, system-level cost drivers such as inflation and increased utilization have played bigger roles in health spending increases,” according to Health Care Cost Drivers: the facts, CIHI, November 2011.

The largest single driver for increased health-care costs is the rising cost of pharmaceutical drugs. We are all too often seeing evidence of over-prescription of drugs, and registration of drugs that actually will harm more people than they help. While seniors are wrongly seen as the reason for increasing health-care costs, the reality is that seniors are particularly vulnerable to the excess use of prescription drugs.

That is not to say that our health-care system is ready for an increase in the diseases of aging, particularly dementia and Alzheimer’s. We need to significantly improve supports for family members. So often a senior becomes the full-time caregiver for their spouse. Particularly, seniors of limited means lose any potential for enjoying life as they sacrifice for their partner. Better respite programs, better supports for home care, as well as more beds in long-term senior care facilities are needed, with supports from both federal and provincial governments.

We also need to have a conversation about the loss of basic rights experienced by seniors in care. One of the most shocking trends that I have uncovered since becoming an MP is the loss of basic human rights for seniors in residential care. Shockingly, I have heard dozens of stories of seniors being denied access to family members, being placed on drugs they do not want, and even being denied the right to go home to family members who would welcome them.

And lastly, we need to grasp the nettle of the thorny ethical problem of assisted suicide and the right to die with dignity. The solutions will not be simple because the problems are complex. Nevertheless, Canadians are demanding better answers. We need to engage in a respectful, informed discussion starting with a review of the various legal regimes in use around the world. We need to ensure that discussion is grounded in bioethics and premised on an acute awareness of the slippery slope of creating the impression that some human lives are worth more than others. What we must not do is to continue to ignore the suffering of well-informed, adult Canadians who wish to make a choice to die with dignity in their own country.

Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Being old is not what it used to be appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“October 17th is an opportunity to hear the concerns of people living in poverty. They are on the frontline of the fight against poverty. Eradicate poverty is a goal we should collectively pursue. Political leadership is key in that regard; a Green Party government would place poverty eradication at the heart of its action,” added Rebecca Harrison, Green Shadow Cabinet member for Poverty Elimination.

Through resolution 47/196 adopted on 22 December 1992, United Nations’ General Assembly declared October 17th as the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty and invited all States to devote the Day to presenting and promoting, as appropriate in the national context, concrete activities with regard to the eradication of poverty and destitution.

The post Internatio​nal Day for the Eradicatio​n of Poverty appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Our planet’s population reached 7 billion last October,” observed Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “Because of this, many try to blame ‘over-population’ for increasing global suffering, but it is more about political will.”

May noted that the Harper Conservatives’ slashing of $377.7 million from CIDA and Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) indicates that their political will is seriously lacking when it comes to honouring Canada’s stated commitment to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

The Goals, endorsed by Canada and 188 other UN members in 2000, vowed to minimize extreme poverty, hunger, and disease, and promote gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability.  Even in 2010, Harper urged world leaders at a major UN summit on development aid to focus on results, not “lofty promises.”  He argued that:  “Together, we must keep our promises and work towards practical, durable solutions.”

The Harper Conservatives have also taken a dangerously wrong turn concerning access to legal abortions in the developing world.  Every year, at least 330,000 women die from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth.  Of these, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that almost 70,000 women die due to complications caused by unsafe abortions. 

During the 2010 G-8 Summit, the Harper Conservatives promised up to $1 billion in nutrition and health-care initiatives to promote maternal and child health in the developing world.  However, they also ended Canada’s traditional funding for legal abortions – ignoring global data showing that such restrictions only serve to increase the number of unsafe abortion procedures and complications.

“As the Harper Conservatives break in another CIDA minister, this is an excellent time for them to reverse their backward and cruel policy on legal abortion funding,” said May.  “This would help improveCanada’s increasingly negative international reputation – as well as saving lives,” May said.

Harper will also have an opportunity to develop more humane policies during a Family Planning Summit to be held in London, UK, on July 11. 

“I urge the Conservatives to use this summit to announce increased funding for sexual and reproductive health rights, including the rights of women and girls to have access to contraceptive information, services, and supplies, without coercion or discrimination,” said May.

The post World Population Day appeared first on Elizabeth May.

After an 11-day visit to Canada, during which he met with citizens across Canada and received testimonies in-person and by mail from Canadians, including significant interaction with Canadian First Nations representatives, the Special Rapporteur issued his preliminary report May 16, 2012.

“We are deeply indebted to the United Nations and the Special Rapporteur for highlighting the crisis in social assistance and food security in this country. We share his concern regarding the deep and severe food insecurity faced by aboriginal peoples across Canada living both on- and off-reserve in remote and urban areas as well as the food insecurity faced by families on social assistance. 1 in 4 First Nations children live in poverty, with poverty affecting some 3 million Canadians. It is completely unacceptable,” said Vanessa Long, Social Services Critic for the Green Party of Canada.

“As Minister Kenney pointed out, we are a wealthy nation with a high standard of living and M. De Schutter was right on that our privileged status makes it even more unacceptable that 1 in 10 families with a child under 6 are food insecure,” commented Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, “Canadian Parliamentarians committed in 1989 to eradicating child poverty by 2000 and here we are 23 years later and the levels are basically the same. Ineffective policies and lip service have been paid to the issue but we are forced to ask if they really care at all.”

“M. De Schutter has very clearly connected the dots between callous government policy toward our most vulnerable citizens, the increasing gap between the wealthy and poor in Canada, social assistance levels that every year fall further behind the rising costs of living, and Food Bank usage that is increasing,” Ms. Long continued,  “These are not merely accidents of a global economy as our government would have us believe, but the logical result of decades of mismanagement by this country’s governments at all levels. Canada has no national food policy or strategy and no means to deal with systemic issues relating to food, hunger, and food systems.”

“The current government has made it clear that they do not consider food security a right for all Canadians and their policies and inaction in the face of a national crisis in our poorest households fits right in with their emphasis on oil and gas first, everything else last As Greens, we are a values-driven Party, and one of our six values is social justice. You can be assured that eradicating child poverty would be a top priority with any Green government, in Canada or elsewhere,” Ms. May concluded.

The post Greens Commend UN Special Rapporteur Olivier De Schutter appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Motion No. 1
That Bill C-316 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2
That Bill C-316 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3
That Bill C-316 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4
That Bill C-316 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5
That Bill C-316 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for seconding these amendments.

Bill C-316, a bill put forward by the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, I believe has a lot of people confused about the nature of employment insurance for people who have been incarcerated. There has been a lot of media coverage of this and I will just summarize it before I explain why I have put forward these amendments.

The media coverage and the comments from Conservative members of Parliament have tended to be of the nature that average Canadians are shocked to find that people who have been incarcerated get better employment insurance than law-abiding Canadians. If that were true, I would be shocked and I would also support any efforts to take away preferential treatment for people who have been incarcerated.

However, when we look at the act, that is not the case. I have before me the Employment Insurance Act, particularly subsections 8(2) and 8(6). What these subsections do is to establish when people are entitled to their employment benefits. They have to have, of course, an adequate number of weeks of work. They have to show that they are unemployed and, at that point, because they and their employer have paid into the system, they are entitled to collect benefits. However, they are not entitled to sit back and wait, not work for a while, and then go for their benefits later. Instead, they have to apply immediately. 

Now, there is an exception to this qualifying period, and it can be extended. According to subsection 8(2) of the Employment Insurance Act:

A qualifying period mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is extended by the aggregate of any weeks during the qualifying period for which the person proves, in such manner as the Commission may direct, that throughout the week the person was not employed in insurable employment because the person was

(a) incapable of work because of a prescribed illness, injury, quarantine or pregnancy;
(b) confined in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution; 
(c) receiving assistance under employment benefits; or
(d) receiving payments under a provincial law—

—relating to danger to an unborn child, et cetera.

Therefore, let us just be clear on what the current state of the law is.

People in jail do not get to collect employment insurance benefits. They are, by definition, not searching for work, not capable of work. They are in jail. When they leave prison, do they get better benefits than anyone else? No, they do not. This piece of legislation only says that for the people who are entitled to their employment insurance benefits because they have worked and are unemployed, if the period of time in which they could normally have applied for employment insurance was interrupted by illness, pregnancy, and a number of other conditions, including if they happened to be in jail, their qualifying period will be extended.

Most of us hope that we will never be in jail; we are all law-abiding citizens here. However, let us imagine the kinds of situations in which we would now deprive people of the employment insurance benefits to which they are entitled.

Believe me, as I stand here speaking against Bill C-316 and calling for the amendments that we have put forward, which would, to be clear, eliminate the entire bill, I am aware that my position could easily be mischaracterized as though I wanted people who have gone to jail to get preferential treatment, as though I am not siding with law-abiding Canadians against people in jail.

However, let us look at the public policy question here. If someone is incarcerated for more than two years, this act would not help that person. The employment insurance regulations or the current status quo would not extend benefits for so long that someone who has gone to jail for a serious offence could get out of jail and then apply for employment insurance. That would not work.

By definition, the extension of their qualifying period, not an extension of cheques or any additional money, would only apply if they had been incarcerated for a year or less. That applies to certain types of offences.

Under the new omnibus crime bill, that would potentially apply to someone who had grown six marijuana plants, or, to use a real-life example from this chamber, to someone who had refused a breathalyzer test, for example, and might be sent to jail for a year or less.

Let us then imagine the public policy implications of what is essentially punishing this person again. In this light, I would like to read into the record some of the testimony given in committee by a representative of the John Howard Society to explain why it opposes these measures.

Let me commend the committee for the amendment that clarified that the first version of the bill would have applied to someone who was awaiting trial and then found innocent. We now have an amendment, which certainly improves the situation, that says people will only be deprived of employment insurance opportunities, in other words their entitlements, if they have been in jail because they were found guilty of something.

Let me read into the record what Catherine Latimer, executive director of the John Howard Society, said at committee. She stated:

—Bill C-316 would disentitle people to the benefits of an insurance scheme to which they and their employers had contributed. It would create unfairness for claimants…For those convicted and sentenced in a criminal court, it would amount to an additional ex post facto penalty to a criminal sentence that is dubious in law and could lead to a disproportionate penalty.

She continued:

It would also undermine public safety by jeopardizing employment prospects and denying insurance payments to a vulnerable group as they seek to successfully reintegrate into the community. For these reasons, the John Howard Society of Canada urges you to oppose Bill C-316.

The Elizabeth Fry Society did as well, pointing out that there were a disproportionate number of marginalized people in jail, particularly low-income women, first nations, et cetera.

I would like us to step back and reconsider. It may be fun to pretend that our current employment insurance scheme gives a disproportionate benefit to criminals. It does not. It might be fun to let people think that people in jail collect employment insurance cheques. They do not. All I am saying is that if people go to prison, they have, in the words that we are so used to hearing, paid their debt to society. Now we are going to say no, that they have not quite finished paying their debt to society and we are going to pull the legs out from under them. If they were entitled to employment insurance benefits to help them get back on their feet, to help them find work, to be meaningful members of our society, we will kick them while they are down and say that they will not get employment insurance even if they or their employers have paid into it.

There are some crimes that one might describe as victimless crimes, particularly crimes that would apply to this legislation, where people were in jail for one year or less. The trend of the current flood of legislation in the House that seeks to punish people who have made mistakes, that says they can never pay their debt to society, or get back on their feet or be given a chance is worrying. The employment insurance scheme is for people who have been incarcerated for a year or under, maybe for shoplifting, which is not commendable. Driving under the influence and refusing a breathalyzer is not commendable, but we have to give people a chance.

When they have paid their debt to society and get out of prison, they are entitled under the current statute to, at that point, put in their claims. They will not get any more money than others who find themselves unemployed. They simply have the opportunity to have their qualifying period extended. If people were entitled to employment insurance when they went to jail, they are entitled to employment insurance when they get out. They can get back on their feet, hopefully find jobs and swear off whatever it was they did wrong in their lives. Goodness knows, a lot of good people can make mistakes and end up in jail. We ought to give them a helping hand and not pass additional punitive legislation that takes away their right to employment insurance.

With that, I would ask all members of the House to give serious consideration to the amendments we have tabled today.

The post Employment Insurance Act (Bill C-316) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We seem to have a persistent problem of accessing painkilling drugs globally and we recognize that. However, there has been an idea that has been floated for a number of years with the Senlis Council relating to Afghanistan. The hon. member may know where I am going with this question now.

There has been some very viable and impressive proposals to use poppies for medicine. In Afghanistan, there is an ongoing problem of development, poverty and conflict. A solution that makes sense to us in the Green Party is a system to develop painkillers from the poppy crops of Afghanistan. This industry would be legal and end the heroine trade, which is illegal and dangerous. It would provide painkilling opiates and the shura councils would be the local coordinators of this in Afghanistan.

I would add that this has been done in Turkey and it worked. It shut down the illegal opium trade by creating a safe, secure supply of painkilling drugs to the world, while also providing some sustainability to those farmers and that—

The Speaker: I have to stop the member there. The parliamentary secretary has about 30 seconds to respond.

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I did see the newsreels today with this proposition brought forward. Unfortunately, at this stage of the game I have not had a chance to really look at what the report had to say, so I cannot make an educated comment on her question. I will try to look into it further and see if we can have a conversation later.

The post Emergency Debate – Drug Shortages appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Poverty is not only a reality for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, it’s a national problem that costs all Canadians.

“Canada has a filthy little secret,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada and MP for Saanach-Gulf Islands B.C., said of Canada’s levels of poverty. “And it’s one that costs us 5.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent of our GDP.”

That’s $86.3-billion to $102-billion annually.

View the full original article >>

The post Canada needs a national housing strategy to help end poverty appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Ms. May has agreed to have all of her expenses open for public scrutiny and has also suggested capping or cutting MPs’ current base salary of $157,731.

“Canada should pay its MPs well but reviewing their pensions in the context of today’s circumstances would be prudent,” said Green Finance Critic Ard Van Leeuwen. “The divide between pensions haves and pension have-nots is growing in Canada and it`s not appropriate to have MP`s at the very high end of the spectrum.”

“We should be examining options for MP pension reform.  We would be willing to look at any proposals brought forward,” said Green National Revenue and Ecological Fiscal Reform Critic Erich Jacoby Hawkins.  “Originally, there was a need to balance the economic uncertainty of being an MP and to ensure good candidates.  However, with the salary plus benefits, and since an MP is in a position to make maximum RRSP contributions, there is no longer any justification for an MP to have a special pension plan that is richer than one any other employee with similar income would have.  We should also examine pushing back the eligibility for receiving benefits to age 65, thus reducing the potential for double-dipping.”  Once they sit in Parliament for six years, MPs are eligible to collect full pension benefits at age 55.

The recent focus on MP pensions comes from a report by the C.D. Howe Institute revealing that MP pension funds, rather than being invested, are guaranteed by law to grow 10.4% per year.  This is in contrast to other pension funds that are vulnerable to market downturns.  The end result is that taxpayers end up paying $23.30 to the MP pension plan for every $1 paid in by the MP.  The report also says that the pension plan is underfunded by up to $1 billion. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has been leading the charge to have these inequities addressed, calling the situation “a national disgrace.”

“The bottom line is that we need to ensure that all Canadians have adequate incomes in retirement.  A pension system must keep the elderly out of poverty, require minimum additional contributions and have low administrative and investment costs.   An MP’s pension should be in line with what someone with a similar salary in the public service receives,” said May.

The Greens have also been calling for enhancement of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) by phasing in the doubling of the target income replacement rate from 25% to 50% of income received during working years.

The post MP Pension Reform Needed, say Greens appeared first on Elizabeth May.