Peggy Nash

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member's critique of the budget. I hear his colleagues describe the federal government as a very frightening far right-wing government. They rail against the policies and budgets of the government in their ridings. However, when they come to Ottawa, they either vote with the government, or they stay in their seats. Which is the real opposition? What they say in their ridings when they talk to constituents, or what they do in Ottawa?

We know there is nothing in the budget for the very poorest people in our society, nothing for homelessness, nothing for affordable housing, nothing for seniors. It completely abandons the manufacturing sector.

Is it a far right-wing government that Liberals will do everything to fight against, which is what they say in the riding, or is it the vote in favour or sitting on their hands when they are in Ottawa? Which is it?

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, despite the aberration of the government in Ontario, which is now the responsibility of the official opposition, given their candidates are these days, I remind the member that the NDP has a record of more balanced budgets in the country than any other political party.

The government has been shovelling taxpayer dollars out the door, and I remind him once again at a rate of six to one in the budget. Building on that, hundreds of billions of dollars have been made in tax cuts by the government, and the previous government, toward the most profitable corporations. By doing that, Canadians have been denied the services, the goods, the infrastructure and all the aspirations that they seek.

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, they doth protest too much.

I remember that the previous government, like the current government, was going down the path of shovelling huge corporate tax cuts to their friends, mainly in the oil and gas sector. This is in spite of all its red book promises, which are certainly a testament to its legacy of broken promises.

The NDP ensured that $5.4 billion of those corporate tax cuts, rather than going into the pockets of the executives of those companies, would be invested in the community in housing, in transit, in students, so their tuition was reduced, and in foreign aid. That is the kind of negotiation around a budget that ought to be done.

The members opposite squandered that opportunity. They have basically sold their opposition to supporting a budget. What did they get for the budget? They got absolutely nothing.

The member opposite comes from Toronto. He ought to be ashamed of how the budget betrays the aspirations and the needs of the city of Toronto.

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that there was no federal election in 2005 and that I was not elected until 2006.

I will also challenge the opposition that—

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Outremont for sharing his time with me today.

I am very pleased to speak to the budget tabled yesterday by the government.

Budgets are about priorities. Budgets are about choices. Budgets define governments. Budgets are about how to use the resources that we all contribute to make our country and the world a better place.

For too many years, budget after budget, even with record surpluses, we have been left with a smallness, a stinginess in our budgets and therefore in our society. People now know that after years of tax cuts mainly favouring large corporations and the well-off, we face huge challenges in our society that governments have not addressed. We have huge unmet needs, yet we are offered a breathtaking lack of vision with the budget.

Once again, the opposition is sadly putting narrow, partisan self-interests over the good of our country. The Leader of the Opposition comes to Toronto and says some very nice sounding things about reducing poverty, but just like on his record with Kyoto, it is all meaningless. He and his party are supporting budget after budget and vote after vote that take the country in the wrong direction.

Today, Canadians are working longer and harder. More and more people are falling below the poverty level. Incomes are flat. Personal debt is at an all-time high. Seniors are struggling to stay in their homes. Students are starting out in life with a huge debt. Millions of Canadians have no family doctor.

What has the government done with its latest budget?

We know in broad strokes what it has done. We know that for every dollar it spends in programs and services and all the various things it includes in the budget, it spends $6 for corporate tax cuts, $6 to the big polluters, $6 to the big banks and $6 to its friends who are already make a lot of money.

What this means overall is average Canadians, people who work very hard, who pay their taxes and who want to see their money invested back into their communities, pay 12% more for the services that we all need and profitable corporations pay 14% less. There is something wrong with this picture, but the government's direction is clear.

It is not that people cannot find a sprinkling of money here or there in the budget, which they might like. It is that the government has shelved out most of the money to the big banks and the big polluters. It takes the country in the wrong direction. Canadians want environmental responsibility, not rewards for those who pollute without sanction.

What is left? What do we see in this budget? Let us take a look.

To deal with the crisis in homelessness, what do we find in the budget? Every day I see people on the streets of Toronto. They are desperate to find proper shelter. A growing number of people are absolutely falling off the bottom of the economic ladder. There is nothing in the budget for them.

To deal with affordable housing, what do we find in the budget? Parents are struggling with high rents and minimum wage jobs, although the government will not support a national minimum wage. People are struggling with poverty level jobs and high housing costs. There is absolutely nothing in the budget for them.

What is in the budget to retrofit buildings, a major initiative to increase energy efficiently? There is nothing.

What about child care for all the parents who are struggling to get adequate care and a good start for their kids in life, for parents in my riding who are paying sometimes $2,000 a month for a couple of kids in child care? There is absolutely nothing.

What about seniors who want to stay in their homes and are looking for home care? There is nothing.

What is there to clean up pollution in the great lakes? There is nothing.

What is there for the five million Canadians who cannot find a family doctor? There is nothing.

What about reducing wait times in the health care sector? There is nothing.

What about those who cannot afford the prescription drugs they desperately need? There is nothing in the budget for them.

What about culture, the stories that we tell each other, the images, the arts that define us as Canadians? There is nothing, not even a mention of art, in the entire budget.

What about climate change? There is nothing.

The biggest investment in the budget is $350 million for nuclear development. That says it all. I believe the members opposite, the opposition who are supporting the budget, ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They should not go back to Ontario and pretend to be standing up for Ontarians, pretending to be standing up for Toronto, pretending to be standing up for those less fortunate because they have betrayed them with the budget.

Rather than using our resources to give the big polluters or the big banks a big cheque, what people in my community tell me is that they desperately want to see money spent on infrastructure. They pay a lot of money in taxes and they want that money invested back into their communities in infrastructure, especially in a national transit strategy.

The gas tax transfer, which is a positive step, falls far short of beginning to address the decades of neglect in expanding our transit and fixing our infrastructure. There is no significant dent in the $123 billion deficit in infrastructure. We know the government's plan, with its new crown corporation for public-private partnerships, is about privatizing as much profitable infrastructure as possible while leaving citizens on the hook for any cost overruns. That is some partnership.

Toronto was Canada's big major cultural centre. Top-up funds for the big six cultural initiatives such as the opera, art gallery, after the community has raised so much of its own money, are missing. There is nothing for the television fund, nothing for Telefilm Canada. That is the government's vision for the arts, absolutely nothing, a blank.

Ontario is especially hard hit. The government continues to ignore the manufacturing crisis, which is throwing hundreds of thousands out of their jobs. Our government risks permanent damage to this key engine of our economy. A bit of money for auto, for research and development is not a strategy to help our manufacturers and exporters deal with the spiralling petrodollar in Canada.

Where is the plan to deal with the high dollar? Where is the national “buy Canadian” procurement policy that most other developed countries use to boost their local products? Where is the plan to balance our trade so we do not export all our good jobs? Where is the green job strategy? Where are we positioning Canada and our economy for the 21st century? Simply, we are not.

While Ontario faces a tsunami of job loses, we continue to be hammered by the lack of employment insurance for those who have faithfully paid their premiums.

Why do Ontarians get on average $5,000 EI less than those in other parts of the country? Why do almost 80% of those who are unemployed in Toronto get no EI? What other insurance program takes one's premiums and fails to provide the benefits when disaster strikes? What a rip-off for Ontarians.

Creating a crown corporation for EI is the wrong approach. This will let government duck its responsibilities and public accountability. It continues the fine tradition of the previous government to take billions of premiums paid by workers and employers and use them to pay down the debt rather than provide benefits for those most in need.

Budgets are about priorities. They are not about what one says, they are about what one does. We know the priorities of the government are about downsizing, about getting out of services, about getting out of the things that Canada and Canadians care about most. It is about helping their friends, the big polluters and the big banks.

Again, those on the opposite side, in the opposition party, ought to be absolutely ashamed for allowing the Conservatives to take Canada in the wrong direction. They did it on Afghanistan by not only getting us into this combat mission, but then enabling the continuation of this war to 2009, and who knows for how long into the future, and they are doing it with this budget.

I regret the budget so badly fails Canadians. I will proudly join with other MPs of the NDP in standing by our principles, in standing up for Canadians and in opposing this budget.

[The Economy, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, privatizing our public infrastructure is not the way to go.

Ontario is on the verge of being a have not province. Over and over, Ontario is ignored or even hurt by Conservative economics. Ontarians get $5,000 less in employment insurance than those in other provinces. There is no strategy to buy Ontario-made products. Ontario's cultural sector is forced to beg for resources. When will the Conservative government start treating Ontario families with some respect?

[The Economy, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has relied on Ontario to be the economic engine of our country, but reckless tax cuts from the government for the oil and gas sector are driving up our dollar.

With forestry being hit hard in the north and the manufacturing sector in crisis, hundreds of thousands of hard-working Ontarians are losing their jobs. Wal-Mart McJobs are no substitute. For how much longer will the Conservative government turn its back on Canada's largest province?

[Arts and Culture, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the big six cultural organizations in Toronto renewed their call today for the federal government to include much needed top-up funding in their budget announcement tomorrow.

Organizations like the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum are invaluable institutions that tell Canadian stories, shape our identity as a nation and allow Canadians to share the work of our great artists and performers.

These cultural organizations have managed their limited finances well, but maintaining and improving their infrastructure is very costly. Canadian tourism is already threatened because of the dramatic rise of our Canadian dollar. Canadians overwhelmingly support their artists and have handed over hundreds of millions in donations.

It would be a tragedy for Canada's cultural industry to suffer because our finance minister could not offer up the modest funds that many Canadians have already surpassed in donations from their own pocket.

[Canadian Content in Public Transportation Projects, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

Our government spent about $280 billion last year on goods and services. This represents about $1.00 in every $5.00 that we spend in our economy. Given the size of these expenditures and the importance they are to our country, we need to take great care in how this money is spent.

Both the current government and the previous Liberal governments had taken the approach that the lowest price is the law when it comes to procurement in general and, specifically, in transportation, regardless of the impact of how that money is spent on our economy and on our society.

So, what happens? We have situations such as the situation in York region in 2004 where 30 brand new buses were purchased with public funds and not purchased from one of the several Canadian domestic bus manufacturers but, rather, from Belgium. We could say good for the Belgian economy and good for the Belgian bus manufacturer, but very bad for the Canadian economy.

Just last summer, the federal government awarded a military contract for troop buses to a German bus maker over a Winnipeg manufacturer because the German bid came in $2,000 cheaper per bus, which was .5% of the overall price in the $14 million contract. So, a Winnipeg bus manufacturer and all of the jobs that would have resulted from that, plus the taxes that would have been paid by the company and by all of the employees of that plant plus all the ancillary services and support, plus all of the parts that went into those buses, were lost by this federal government.

These are just two examples out of the many instances that we could cite over the last several years of Canadian procurement gone awry.

Other countries, including our major trading partner, stand up for their own economy and their own industries and services. The Europeans, the Japanese and even the Americans, especially the Americans, protect their own domestic market in this fashion.

Of course, one application is the U.S. buy America act which applies to all contracts over $100,000. For vehicles such as rail cars and buses, there is a 60% content requirement and for iron and steel, there is a 100% content requirement. This is perfectly allowable under NAFTA as chapter 10 of NAFTA excludes grant programs, and state and provincial procurement. So it is completely in keeping with our trade commitments.

In fact, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters Association went further last week with its report on renewing Canada's infrastructure. CME head Jayson Myers said: “If we continue to be boy scouts to the world, we'll continue to lose investment and lose product mandates elsewhere”.

The CME further said:

By leveraging these investments, governments in Canada would level the playing field to international standards for transportation equipment and infrastructure manufacturers in Canada, reduce business uncertainty by forcing clear, full and open competition for all contracts, and help government effectively address the legal and political controversy surrounding sole-source contracting.

The CME was talking about all infrastructure, not just transportation.

I want to give an example of sole-source contracting. When the leader of the NDP negotiated with a previous Liberal government to take $5.4 billion in corporate tax cuts and insisted that the money be invested for Canadians to meet the goals of Canadians, part of that money was invested in transit across Canada. What that meant in the city of Toronto, for example, was that the city was able to purchase buses, and not just any buses but low-emissions buses, hybrid buses in order to reduce pollution on the streets of Toronto.

They are accessible buses that are easy for people to get on and off. Best of all, those buses were made right in Mississauga, so they were able to ensure local production, ensure jobs in addition to the spin-offs of that plant and all of the taxes and benefits that go with such a procurement.

Canada clearly needs to catch up and follow the lead of our major trading partners. The federal government announced investment in infrastructure and a significant portion of that needs to go to Canadian companies. Our procurement policies need to invest in our products and services and all of the spin-offs that I have described. The requirement to do this simply does not exist in Canada and that needs to change.

When the federal government funds infrastructure, transportation projects, this funding has to ensure a minimum of local benefit. So I would argue that all procurement should meet the test of these Canadian procurement measurements, not only transportation. Now this is done on a case by case basis with relatively low Canadian content levels, but this does little to reduce the uncertainty for manufacturers to sole-source here who do not currently produce in Canada today.

If we leveraged the money that we spend collectively, of all governments throughout the country, for public procurement, we would ensure that not only the manufacturers we have today in Canada but other manufacturers would come to our country, invest here, create jobs, and boost our economy in order to compete for those dollars.

With all of the challenges that are facing our economy today with the high dollar, and a driven high petro dollar because of reckless tax cuts put forward by the current government and previous governments that are in fact helping to fuel a high oil price economy that we are faced with, and other stresses that our economy is facing today, we need to take action.

This government has neglected the manufacturing sector. Defining requirements for public procurement and ensuring domestic sourcing of procurement is one major way to boost our manufacturing sector, boost our economy, reduce unemployment, and maintain and create good, quality jobs in services, but especially in the manufacturing sector.

So, while I do believe that this motion falls short in terms of not requiring specific content levels and while not applying to all procurement, which I believe is appropriate and which other countries do, I certainly believe that this is a positive step.

I see that my time is just about out. I would urge all members of this House to vote in support of this motion and take this as one step along the path to finally catching up with our G-7 partners in ensuring that we are standing up for Canadian production.

[Child Care, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, children deserve a good head start in life. Quality child care supports early learning, an essential first step. It promotes and equalizes opportunities for all children, regardless of income or social background.

One in six Canadian children lives in poverty. More than 50% of single female parents are poor. Dependable affordable child care would improve the lives of these families.

The OECD says that the gender wage gap is the lowest in countries that provide public child care, like France and the Scandinavian countries. Most Canadian women with children under five work outside the home, yet less than 20% of Canadian children have access to regulated child care spaces. In fact, the OECD ranks Canada dead last among 14 countries when it comes to child care.

Previous governments failed to deliver, while cutting corporate taxes. The Conservative government's big tax cut for the banks and oil companies last fall could have created 320,000 child care spaces—