Rob Oliphant

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is totally interesting to be on this side of the House. This is not a Liberal budget. In every way the budget shines as not being a Liberal budget, so of course we are critical of it. Once we had read it, once we had a look at it, once we examined it, we saw both its flaws and also areas where the government had learned something, unlike the New Democrats, who refused to even read it before they decided to vote against it. This is part of parliamentary democracy, part of making this country work. I pledged to my constituents that when I came here, I would find a way to make this work. We are trying to make this work. We will hold the government accountable. We will hold it responsible.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member, in referring to that economist in his statement, was thinking of the Prime Minister .

Absolutely, the answer is yes. Employment insurance was never meant to be a static plan for all regions, for all times, for all places and for all people. It is meant to be a plan that is flexible and that moves and changes as the times change. Absolutely I believe that employment insurance is a valid and very important instrument to be used to spur on economic development.

We have to keep money flowing. We know that when people are unemployed they are often one cheque away from paying the rent, from feeding their family, from getting the work done that needs to get done. That money is not socked away. That is not money that is stuffed into a mattress. It is money that is spent. Absolutely, that money should be increased.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Guelph.

It is a great privilege to rise again in this House to offer my thoughts, opinions and some of my concerns on the government's so-called economic action plan. Call it old-fashioned, but I would much prefer to simply call it a budget. Naming the document an economic action plan suggests that it is far more grandiose than it may possibly be and I think it stretches the imagination just a bit. For me, an economic action plan would have more imagination, coherence and compassion, so it is a budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will not remember, but the first time I rose to speak was on November 27, just minutes before the Minister of Finance presented his now infamous economic and fiscal statement. The minister's fiscal update was as audacious as it was inaccurate, as presumptuous as it was pompous, and as fatuous as it was fictitious. It sadly underestimated the serious nature of the economic downturn in Canada and gravely underestimated the tenacity and the persistence of the opposition parties to stand up for Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable among us. In a word, it did not wash.

However, it did get this House and indeed the whole country talking about the true state of Canada's economy and the uncertainty that grips many households in our country this day. For this we strangely thank the minister and give him a vote of confidence at least to that degree. Canadians have been in conversation about these serious matters in coffee shops, at dinner tables and on the Internet, largely spurred on by their perception that the finance minister and the government had its collective head in the sand. Thanks to that, a great conversation has been going on from coast to coast to coast.

Many on this side of the House would like to take credit for all the significant changes the Minister of Finance included in the budget speech that were not indicated in the fiscal update. I think, however, that sells Canadians short. Of course we had a role to play in the minister's about-face, but the larger role was played by the citizens of this country who simply knew that they had to make their concerns heard. They had to tell their stories.

Over the holiday break, I suspect that members on the government side heard much of what we heard as well. Seniors are worried about depleted savings and precarious pensions. Workers are worried about reduced hours and layoff notices. Employers are worried about shrinking foreign and domestic orders. Store owners are worried about inventory growing as people become increasingly cautious about spending their money. Food bank volunteers are worried about shrinking donations and growing lineups. Small business owners are struggling to find financial institutions willing to lend them the money they need to keep going. Newcomers to Canada and young people are pounding the pavement hoping to find their first job, yet they are finding the pavement pounding right back at them. On the upside, one credit counsellor and trustee in bankruptcy told me that business had never been better. Times are tough and are getting tougher out there and we have been hearing about it.

In presenting his budget last week, the Minister of Finance has shown at least some capacity to listen and to learn from this great conversation that he, and humbly I would add, perhaps something from this side of the House as well, provoked. For that, I commend him. I would have to say it appears that having listened, he added just a touch of red dye to what would otherwise have been a deeply blue budget. At best, it has taken on a purplish hue, which is probably the best we can ask for from the minister.

I am not suggesting it would be easy for any government or finance minister to chart a course through this global economic mess, but this budget could have been so much better. What has stunned me about it is its utter lack of imagination, its lack of coherency and its lack of compassion for the most vulnerable. It portrays a government that does not really believe that government can and must be a force for good. At best, it is a grudging nod to the public sector's role in helping our economy through rough waters while ensuring that Canadians survive the turbulence. At worst, it suggests a sheep in wolf's clothing. Think about what some imagination, coherence and compassion could do in this budget. Here are just a few examples.

On imagination, the Conservatives offer $1 billion for development of green technology, mostly directed at unproven methods to capture and store carbon. Where is the support for alternative energy sources? What of conservation? We live in a time when global warming threatens to destroy our planet. At the same time, contractors need work. Trained and skilled workers are available. Why has the government missed the opportunity for a nationwide program to retrofit houses and green the apartment, condo and business towers of this country?

On coherence, we see $2 billion thrown at affordable housing as a one time use it or lose it effort while the minister responsible proudly states that no one should infer that the government actually has a national housing strategy. Perish the thought that the government would take seriously its role in ensuring that every Canadian has a roof over his or her head while creating jobs at the same time.

On compassion, if the government were serious about helping the hardest hit in this time of economic upheaval, less focus would be put on rewarding people for building a new deck or installing a new jacuzzi, which they are probably going to do anyway, and more thought would have been given to opening access to employment insurance and extending benefits to those already covered. Only 42% of those currently jobless qualify for EI and the payments start too late, are too small and end too soon. This is not a new problem, nor is the lack of compassion shown by the government.

I will be supporting this budget. Perhaps I am as grudging in my support as the government is in its spending plan, but even in my support, I will be watching for the money to flow, watching for jobs to be created, watching for the vulnerable to be cared for, and watching for some sense of imagination, some coherence and some compassion to flow from the government as well.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous pleasure and a great privilege to rise and speak for the first time in the House. I begin by congratulating you on your election. I pledge that I will do my best to honour the traditions, protocols and etiquette you have suggested to make the House more congenial, and the Parliament more effective.

It is a great honour to represent the people of Don Valley West and the communities of Leaside, Thorncliffe Park, Flemington Park, Don Mills, Lawrence Park, North Toronto and York Mills. I thank them for their support in the recent election. I thank them for putting their faith in me and letting me be their voice and vote in this Parliament.

I also thank my campaign team, who put their faith in me and taught me how to be a winning candidate. They tolerated me on my worst days in what turned out to be lengthy by-election and election processes. Don Valley West has come to expect the very best of its representatives, and I particularly thank my predecessor, the hon. John Godfrey. His work on issues important to all Canadians, such as child care, the city’s agenda, and especially climate change and the environment have set a high standard for me to reach. I can only hope to serve my constituents and my country with as much intelligence, grace and principled conduct.

The task at hand is the debate on the Speech from the Throne offered by Her Excellency the Governor General last week. As with every throne speech, there was much hopeful anticipation about the government’s agenda for this Parliament. It might surprise the hon. members opposite and perhaps some of the hon. members on this side of the House that I found a number of laudable elements in the speech as it was read. In fact, it was much less brutal than one might have expected following the heated rhetoric of the last campaign.

While exceedingly short on specifics, the throne speech did manage to cover a number of the bases one would hope to see covered in such a speech. Specifically, I was impressed that the government seemed to indicate that, despite all evidence to the contrary, it might actually believe that government can and should be a force for good in people’s lives, and that it is appropriate for government to intervene, act and ensure that our future, particularly our economic future, is protected. The government might actually believe that it is right for governments to work as partners with business and industry to stimulate the economy, and that it is sometimes necessary to finance some of this economic stimulus to ensure that countless Canadians are not needlessly hurt by the dramatic decline in our economy.

What surprises me about this recognition is that it is simply not even close to what the hon. members on the other side of the House were telling voters during the election, week after week in the recent campaign. In fact, during the campaign, the Conservatives ran against incurring deficits and un-budgeted spending while continually denying that Canada was heading toward a recession.

There are two possibilities as to why the government has so radically shifted its position with respect to the economy, and neither of them, frankly, is pretty. First, it is possible that it completely misread the international economic indicators visible to most of us. Second, it is possible that it failed to see that the domestic economic policies followed in their first mandate, policies of irresponsible tax cuts and bloated government spending, have left the government completely incapable of responding quickly or well to the situation. I am talking about incompetence of the highest order.

The Prime Minister himself declared, “This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G-7 countries”.

He said that just days before the recent election, again boldly declaring that we are not going into deficit. Those statements were made only six weeks ago, and were made in the face of reams and reams of evidence to the contrary. All this from one who claims to be or have been an economist.

If this was done truthfully but naively, it smacks of utter and complete incompetence. If it is not incompetence, ineptitude or mismanagement, I fear it may be a far more serious problem for the government. If it is not incompetence, it is deception or misrepresentation. The campaign run by the Conservatives was disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

One of the main reasons I entered public life was to raise the ethical bar. Canadians want politicians to say what they mean and to do what they say.

Voter apathy, civic cynicism and outright disgust with politicians is based on political leaders refusing to say what they mean and, even worse, failing continually to do what they say. Voters are increasingly savvy and are simply tired of politicians telling them what they think they want to hear and then turning 180 degrees and doing something completely different.

At the core of the Speech from the Throne lies bear the ethical reality that shapes the government. It is a government that will say anything, do anything, promise anything to get elected and simply cannot and will not be trusted by Canadians. The throne speech reveals at its core that the government is morally bankrupt. It has lost its moral compass.

My comments thus far have been only on what the speech says, not on what has been left out. It is a speech that reveals the Conservatives to be morally adrift, to lack imagination and creativity, and they continue their hidden agenda of dismantling the social framework that defines Canada. However, it is what the throne speech is not saying that is more important.

Where is the national housing strategy? That is what the people of Don Valley West are looking for.

Where is the will to tackle family poverty and child poverty, the poverty of too many of our seniors? That is what the people of Don Valley West are asking for.

Where is funding for youth initiatives, arts and culture, post-secondary education and women's programs? At door after door, that is what the people of Don Valley West told me they wanted.

Where is the recognition that the immigration system is broken and that newcomers to this country are more than economic units but also add to the beauty and the wealth of this country in numerous ways? That is what the people of Don Valley West want to hear.

Where is the commitment to shouldering our share of international aid and restoring Canada's position on the international stage as peacekeepers?

Where is the care for our veterans, old and young? That is what the residents of the veterans wing at Sunnybrook hospital are asking me about.

Where is the imagination that is going to help the poor and those who will be displaced by today's economic reality as it descends upon us, just as the government has emptied the cupboard?

These are the concerns of the people of Don Valley West. That is why they elected me. That is the voice that I bring to this place. That is what my party offers and that is what I pledge to work on.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member as a new member just like myself.

My question for him is about his moving tribute to the veterans who were in his families, his father and his grandfather. I found that noble and moving.

However, I recognize that in the Speech from the Throne there is no mention of veterans or the care of veterans, either veterans from the first or second world war or new veterans coming home from Afghanistan. It is of great concern to me that the Speech from the Throne simply fails to mention the service which is ongoing and the care which is needed, both in veterans' facilities and for their families upon their return home.

Is that a concern for the member as well?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks eloquently about the threat to sovereignty in the far north. I am not sure whether she has actually ever been to the far north or not, but as someone who has lived in the subarctic, I know many of the problems that are faced in that area of the country. The area of the country that she represents may not know that climate change is probably the greatest threat to sovereignty in the far north.

We may protect it with frigates and we may protect it with all kinds of military operations, but the caribou herds and the people are all threatened by glaciers that are melting and water levels that are rising. I am wondering what the government is planning to do. What is in the throne speech about climate change and how will the government respond to it?