Debates of Nov. 28th, 2008

Economic and Fiscal Statement

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

As this is my first speech in the House, I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the voters in the riding of Alfred-Pellan, who renewed their confidence in me during the most recent election. I would also like to thank those who have given their time and energy to the Bloc Québécois team to raise awareness of our ideas and our priorities. I would have been so proud to have seen their efforts result in a plan to bring some much-needed stimulus to the economy.

I believed that the Conservative government, with the support of the opposition parties, would have offered Quebeckers and Canadians solutions to help people and businesses deal with this global crisis that, some say, will be worse than anything we have seen since the Great Depression.

Every other government on the planet is taking steps to deal with the crisis by stimulating the economy, but this government has given us a partisan, ideological statement that has a lot in common with the Reform Party's far-right agenda, a right-wing ideology that has blinded the government to the importance of acting now.

Instead of breathing life into the economy, which desperately needs help, the Conservative government has chosen to stifle it. It has left businesses, regions, and by extension, the entire population, high and dry. We cannot accept that. My party and I condemn the fact that, instead of tackling the economic crisis, the Conservative government has chosen to create a crisis of democracy for strictly partisan reasons by eliminating funding for political parties.

In the current economic situation, the Prime Minister should have given workers a helping hand, but instead he decided to attack their interests by suspending their right to strike. He also continued his campaign to erode the status of women by making pay equity a right henceforth to be negotiated in the collective bargaining process but without compensating for the fact that the fundamental right to strike is being eliminated. In the hope of more readily imposing his ideology, the Prime Minister wishes to muzzle the political parties, the unions and women. In short, he wants to muzzle all opposition.

Although they said they were prepared to work with the opposition parties, the Conservatives rejected the proposals in the economic recovery plan presented this week by the Bloc Québécois. These were realistic proposals that met the needs created by the current economic crisis. The federal government has the responsibility to take action at the juncture of this economic crisis. Furthermore, Ottawa has the means to do so without increasing debt servicing or creating recurring deficits.

The Bloc Québécois put forward a recovery plan to help businesses and the general population, a three-part plan that could have made a significant contribution by injecting some $23 billion into the economy. The plan we presented this week was realistic and it could have been implemented to help Quebeckers and Canadians protect what they have and to stimulate their industries and the economy.

This plan included immediate measures that cost nothing. Some of the measures not retained were: adopting legislation on the government's preferential procurement practices; regulations requiring federal organizations to use forestry products in federal construction projects; abolishing the two-week waiting period for employment insurance benefits; reinstating funding for economic development organizations; reinstating cultural programs; the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and credits for non-polluting industries, particularly in Quebec; raising to 73 the age for converting an RRSP to a RRIF.

Our plan also includes measures for businesses. For example: a $4 billion modernization fund to stimulate investment in manufacturing companies and increase productivity; a comprehensive plan to support the manufacturing and forestry sectors; a $2 billion development fund for affordable housing using CMHC assets; and a $2 billion fund for home energy efficiency renovations, also using CHMC funds.

We have also proposed measures to help people directly, such as full compliance with the equalization formula; an additional $1.3 billion transfer for post-secondary education; an incremental increase in the guaranteed income supplement; graduated retroactivity for those eligible for the guaranteed income supplement who were swindled by the government; improved access to the employment insurance fund; an income support program for older workers; and a $4,000 rebate program for the purchase of electric, hybrid or fuel-efficient vehicles.

As I said earlier, the government has sufficient means to fund this kind of economic stimulus package. Funding can come from a strategy to reduce the use of tax havens for tax evasion. We also recommend that tax breaks for oil companies be cancelled. Ottawa's financial assets, which total $176 billion, will also be called upon.

Instead of showing Quebec and Canada its true Reform Party colours with its right-wing economic statement, the federal government could have put forward measures, some of which would not cost a penny, to help the economy.

That is what the Bloc Québécois proposed to the Minister of Finance just days ago. Our economic stimulus plan is realistic and strong, and it shows that we can act to stimulate the economy and give businesses and individuals the tools they need to deal with the crisis.

The Bloc Québécois will vote against the Harper government's ideological economic statement because it attacks democracy, workers and women, while doing nothing to stimulate the economy. The Conservatives have chosen provocation over cooperation, but the people do not want an election.

In closing, I would like to quote La Presse's André Pratte, a strong federalist. This morning, in an editorial entitled “Irresponsible, Mr. Harper!”, he said—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I believe that the hon. member is referring to the Prime Minister, and he must use his title, not his name.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you were right to call me to order.

I was quoting an article written in French by André Pratte which said: “Mr. Harper is attempting another one of his dirty tricks... The opposition parties will have no choice, they will have to vote against the bill. It is a question of survival.”

Because I believe in democracy, in workers' rights and—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member knows that even when he is reading an article, he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. He ought to refrain from using the names of members of Parliament and refer to them by their title, even if he has to insert that into an article.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.

I will end by saying that I believe in democracy, in workers' and women's rights, and I will stand with the Bloc Québécois to oppose this economic update.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as an aside, Marc-Aurèle Fortin was a great painter.

I would like to ask my colleague a question following his wonderful speech. Would any of the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois create numerous jobs and, in addition, fulfill one of the duties of a civilized society, which is to provide decent, affordable housing to everyone? Where would this money come from so that the budget's fiscal balance would not be affected?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. That is one of the elements of our plan that I mentioned briefly. Obviously, one way to make a quick contribution to this country's economic development would be to use the surplus accumulated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, which amounts to about $8 billion.

The government should quickly implement a plan for affordable housing, which is desperately needed across the country. I have had feedback in my riding, where people have to go on a waiting list before they can get affordable housing. Since the government coffers already have a surplus, this would have no effect on the budget. This immediate action would be appropriate to respond to the economic crisis.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt we have committed funding over five years of $387 million, or $1.9 billion, which is a significant amount.

The member wishes to use the funds in CMHC. CMHC has insured mortgages. It is there, although a huge amount, to protect against any defaults.

Particularly given the uncertain times in the economy, would the member not agree with me that it is wise to ensure there is a sufficient amount kept in surplus or in assets so the liquidity is there in the event it is necessary? Would the member not agree that it is only prudent to do this and that it would not be wise to take funds out of this account?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the wording of the Conservative member's question is a very good reflection of his party's philosophy: always be cautious, maintain a balanced budget, but all the while ignore the crisis we are currently experiencing.

But a government needs to be close to its people to realize that they are experiencing difficulties. Many of them are losing their jobs. Seniors' incomes are decreasing, because their assets, their pension plans, are consistently decreasing. They do not know how they will survive.

The government's job now is to invest in the economy, and later, when the economy has improved, the government can focus on a balanced budget.

As for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it has an existing surplus that is not being used. We are not talking about the government creating an additional expense in the current budget. We are talking about the government using the surplus instead of letting it sit there as their ideological safety net, saying that there is a huge $8 billion surplus, and it will stay there as protection, but all the while, people need housing. Building more affordable housing would stimulate the economy.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to speak to the economic statement, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Beauharnois—Salaberry for putting their trust in me for the second time in the recent election. The people of Beauharnois—Salaberry voted 50.1% for me, which is a powerful motivator. I am happy about that, and I would like to thank them and tell them that I intend to continue the work I have been doing in my riding and in the House of Commons since 2006 with the same passion, the same thoroughness and the same determination.

In the same vein, I would be remiss if I did not also thank all the people who worked on my campaign. I want to tell them that I owe this victory essentially to them, because of all the time and energy they put into the campaign. I extend my thanks to them.

I would like to speak to the economic statement delivered in this House yesterday by the Minister of Finance. Many things have already been said about this statement. I listened carefully to the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Now, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues and share my reactions.

On listening to the speech by the Minister of Finance, the first thing I sensed was a great deal of provocation, pure and simple. There was the Conservatives' usual arrogance, along with the confrontational attitude we have seen before. The Conservatives had promised to be more conciliatory and to work with the opposition. Yet at the first opportunity, what they gave us was pure provocation.

We can see that this government has no concept of the political reality in which it has found itself since 2006. I believe the Conservatives do not understand how they fared in the election in Quebec and that they are turning a deaf ear to the message from the voters. The people have just barely given the government a second minority. Obviously, they do not want an election.

Since this is a time for compromise, openness and action, I cannot understand the attitude of the government, which has presented us with an economic statement that is very surprising, but unacceptable. The Conservative government, which had again said that it was prepared to work with the opposition parties, has—I would say deliberately—provoked all the opposition parties in this House since this session began.

Rather than tackling the economic crisis, the Conservative government decided to invent a democratic crisis—for reasons that are purely and strictly partisan, truth be told—by eliminating funding for political parties, knowing full well that this measure hurts third political parties in particular.

The government is claiming that it wants to save $27 million. And yet it did not hesitate to call an election that cost $300 million when voters did not want an election. Furthermore, this government broke its own law by calling an election for reasons that, I believe, were purely partisan. It just does not make sense. The Prime Minister said he wanted to call an election to be in a better position to manage the crisis. After calling an election and returning to power, the first thing he does is to again throw this House into a democratic crisis. He is not really doing anything to deal with the economic crisis and has not put forward a concrete plan.

The Prime Minister should have given workers a hand, but he decided instead to attack their rights by suspending the right to strike. As a woman, I am particularly affected by the attack against women in making pay equity subject to negotiation. I was very surprised, in today's question period, to note the silence of the Minister of State (Status of Women) who did not raise an eyebrow or express her disapproval, as a woman, of her government's position on pay equity.

This comes in addition to other actions by a government trying to obtain absolute power by attacking all opposing points of view, anything that does not suit its ideology, anything that does not match its world view and anyone who opposes it. It wants to silence them. Consider the media. It is no secret to anyone, and the government was highly criticized for it. We also know that it tried to block the work of parliamentary committees. It even attacked the credibility of the Chief Electoral Officer in the in and out scandal.

It also attacked the Auditor General by asking her to submit her press releases to the Prime Minister's Office for approval. It also attacked civil society groups that dared to take legal action against the government for some of its actions such as eliminating the court challenges program.

I would also remind the House that during the election campaign, the government announced unfathomable and unacceptable cuts to artists, and despite unanimous consensus in Quebec, it has maintained those cuts. The Minister of Canadian Heritage at the time promised during the election campaign that the programs would be replaced, but we know very well that this is false, since the new Minister of Canadian Heritage reiterated in this House that there was no way he would reverse his decision regarding programs to promote Canadian artists on the world stage to expand Quebec culture.

Clearly, this is a question of ideology. This economic update contains no economic or administrative decisions, only ideological decisions. The Conservative government is using this twisted method to impose its ideology more easily. It is using the economic update to silence political parties, unions and women, in short, to silence any form of opposition.

When I was debating with the Conservative candidate in my riding during the election campaign, I was able to see how much contempt the Conservatives have for workers and unions. I was debating with him about having empathy for people who lose their jobs, and about the fact that we must offer them what they need to get through this crisis. I felt the same way during my debate with the Conservative candidate as I did when I heard the Minister of Finance scoff at workers' rights.

We can see the logical progression, and that these decisions are purely ideological. Instead of presenting a plan to stimulate the economy and give it a boost, the Prime Minister went for measures that will stifle the economy. While all the governments in the world—this came up a lot today—are taking action to counter the crisis, the Conservative government is doing the exact opposite. The federal government did not get the job done. It did not do what it could have done when it comes to measures to help people and businesses through the financial crisis.

The only measure put in place to help individuals is a temporary reduction in RRIF minimum withdrawals. That is a step forward, but is it not nearly enough compared to what the Bloc Québécois has proposed.

We have been saying this for a week already. The Bloc Québécois proposed a series of measures to help individuals through the crisis. We would like the government to listen to us and implement the measures we proposed, not in a few months or a few weeks, but to implement these measures now to counter the economic crisis and help individuals and businesses through this difficult crisis.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her presentation. I would like her to elaborate a little on the issue of political party financing, as proposed in the government's economic update.

As we know, the federal government has had a law governing the funding of political parties since January 1, 2004. This was a first, since, prior to that, money just fell from the sky and landed in secret slush funds. This was a big step for Canadian democracy. That law was inspired by similar legislation adopted in Quebec in 1977, under the René Lévesque government. The new legislation ensured equilibrium among the parties, so that there would be some degree of uniformity or equality in terms of political party representation.

The current proposal upsets this equilibrium in which the limitation on political party fundraising was balanced by appropriate and uniform funding provided by the government to all political parties. This would reverse existing legislation. We see this as an attack on democracy.

I would like the hon. member to add some of her personal thoughts about that very worrisome part of the government's economic update.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Political analysts clearly expressed themselves in the newspapers this morning and said that cutting the subsidy to political parties was a purely partisan move. It seems as though the Conservative government thinks that people are completely lacking in intelligence. But their intention is clear: they want to put an end to a democratic practice that protected us from wrongdoing or fraud in political party funding, as has happened in the past. It is a purely partisan move. And the Bloc member is not the only one saying it. This opinion is shared by Quebec, by the opposition parties and was expressed in national newspapers today.

I would like to add that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance gave his speech, he said that the opposition “got their hopes high” in terms of seeing concrete measures in the economic update and that they have no reason to be disappointed. We have more than hopes, we have expectations. We formulated very concrete proposals and we want the government to take them into consideration.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments with interest.

We are in tough economic times. The finance minister and this government took pre-emptive strikes over a year ago to stimulate the economy, and the rest of the world is trying to catch up.

With regard to political subsidies, I wonder if the member is aware that just yesterday the NDP premier of Manitoba was planning to bring in a share per voter of $1.25, similar to what exists federally, but upon reflection decided not to do so because he realized that it would not be a good use of taxpayers' money in these tough economic times. In fact, in Manitoba union and corporate donations are not allowed either.

If Manitoba has gone without taxpayer-subsidized votes for about 10 years now, why can we not do that on the federal scene as well?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, Manitoba can make its own decisions, and I respect that. In Quebec, we have also chosen to contribute financially to parties. That law, introduced by René Lévesque, cleaned up political financing in Quebec. Maintaining financing is a way to avoid slush funds. I want to reiterate that the purpose of this move is not to better manage taxpayers' dollars, but is more to kick the Liberals when they are down, financially speaking.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the member for Vancouver East.

When I stated in the House a couple of days ago that I could not support the Speech from the Throne, I did so because the throne speech laid out an agenda for this Parliament that completely ignored the concerns of hard-working Canadians in this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty. It did not address their fears about lost jobs, lost pension benefits, lost EI benefits and lost savings. As an agenda for economic recovery, the throne speech was a lost cause.

The right-wing hecklers on the government side tried to shout us down. They said that a detailed economic plan would be inappropriate in a throne speech. They said that we should wait until Thursday, when the economic update would be tabled. That would be the time for action on the economy, they said. That would be the time for bold strategic measures that would offer hope to Canadians. That would be the time, they led us to believe, that the Minister of Finance would morph into a northern Obama, vigourously attacking the economic crisis and protecting Canadian families from its ravages.

Yesterday the finance minister attacked all right, but instead of attacking the recession, he attacked democracy, he attacked workers, he attacked women and he attacked seniors. Of all of those attacks, his attack on democracy, I suspect, is perhaps the least sexy for those watching this debate on television this afternoon. After all, party financing is insider baseball and hardly tops most Canadians' list of concerns, so let me dispose of that one quickly.

Jean Chrétien knew the Liberal Party was hugely dependent on donations from large corporations to finance that party's election campaigns. In fact, 80% of the party's financial support came from Canadian companies, not individual supporters. To kneecap his successor, Paul Martin, he made corporate donations illegal. All parties would now have to raise money without the support of corporate and union donations, and individual donations were capped.

As partial compensation, he implemented instead a system whereby each party would get $1.75 annually per vote garnered in the most recent election. This is the subsidy that the economic update suggests will be cut as of April 1, 2009.

I can see eyes glaze over all over the country as I discuss this item, so let me just say this: as a proposed measure of fiscal responsibility, it amounts to one-twentieth of 1% of just the increase in the government's overall spending since it took office in 2006. It has nothing to do with attacking the economic crisis. It has everything to do with implementing the strategy of Conservative adviser Tom Flanagan, who said in his book, “The path to Conservative political dominance is to financially bankrupt your opponents”. It was an out-and-out partisan attack.

The same is true of the government's attack on workers. At a time when Canadians are deeply worried about the future of the their jobs, the government's sole response was to propose a ban on the right to strike for public sector workers. That measure is completely unconstitutional and therefore serves no purpose other than signalling the government's intent to attack workers instead of helping them through this difficult economic time.

Leaders in countries around the world are taking bold steps to invest in the economy and to protect and create jobs. They are offering a 21st century version of the New Deal.

Here in Canada, we got no deal at all. There was no new infrastructure spending that could have helped workers, suppliers and communities. There was no mention of a stimulus package for transforming the auto sector. There was no investment in the new energy economy. There was no mention of innovation or of research and development. There was not a word about addressing the need for more workers in health care, aged care or child care.

The job creation package Canadians so desperately need is nowhere to be found in this update. To add insult to injury, there is not even an investment in restoring the social safety net, and this precisely at the time when Canadians most need it.

In the manufacturing sector alone, we have lost over 350,000 jobs since the government came to power. As I said during question period the other day, EI claims in Ontario are up 14%. Claims are up 30% in Windsor and a staggering 96.4% in the finance minister's own backyard of Oshawa.

Ontarians are urgently looking for reform of the EI system. On average, they get $4,600 less a year than workers get in other parts of the country, yet the economic update does nothing to make EI more equitable or more accessible for workers who have lost their jobs.

EI is an essential part of poverty prevention. The government's silence on this cornerstone of our social safety net is a direct attack on the very people who have paid into this system all their working lives.

Some of those people, of course, are now pensioners, and they are profoundly worried about their retirement savings.

The economic update announced a 25% reduction in the amount of mandated minimum registered retirement income fund withdrawals, and, to be fair, that is at least a step in the right direction. However, for seniors who have watched their retirement savings disappear before their eyes, a moratorium on mandatory withdrawals would have gone much further in dealing with the anxiety that they are feeling.

Other pension measures are even more disturbing. The government announced that it is planning to allow pension plans under federal jurisdiction to double the length of time required for solvency payments from 5 to 10 years. The conditions are that companies must have the agreement of pension plan members and retirees by the end of the year 2009 or they must secure a letter of credit to cover the five-year difference to protect pensioners. That is certainly good news for companies but is it really good for members of the pension plan?

I will cast it in this light. The way the system works now, if an employer under funds the pension plan and uses that money for other corporate expenditures, retirees and other beneficiaries of that plan, in essence, become financiers of the company. They lend companies money for their business. However, unlike other financiers of the company who lend money, they did not get to make a decision about whether they wanted to take on that risk and, in these uncertain economic times, I very much doubt that it is a risk that most beneficiaries would be willing to assume.

If the government were serious about wanting to support workers instead of attacking them, it would have replaced its vague language on proposed “consultations on issues facing defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans” with strong language on the need to work with labour, business and other levels of government to discuss mechanisms, like a pension insurance fund. Or, it could have adopted provisions of the very first bill that I introduced in the House after being elected in 2006, the workers first bill, which would have given workers' pensions super priority in cases of commercial bankruptcy.

The primary focus of pension reform must be to protect the pensions of workers but that, of course, is not what we find in this economic update. What we do find, however, is yet another attack on women. It eliminates the ability to make pay equity claims retroactive.

In the most inflammatory language, the government suggests that pay equity is a problem because it is inherently litigious and adversarial. It goes on to say:

This costly and litigious regime of double pay equity has been in place for too long. We are introducing legislation to make pay equity an integral part of collective bargaining.

This is yet another direct attack on the hard-fought gains by Canadian women and it is an attack that is driven purely by the right-wing ideology of the Conservative government.

The stage for this was set in the last Parliament. The Conservatives then cut funding to Status of Women. They cut funding for the court challenges program. They cut funding for the arts. They even cut funding for children's literacy. This had nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. It was an ideologically-driven attack on programs that supported the most disadvantaged in our society.

Canadians deserve more from their government and Canadians need more from their government. They need to know that the government shares their worry about their jobs, their pensions, their savings and their homes.

Political leaders around the world and every senior economist in Canada agree. Hard-working families need action now. They need a bold plan, strategic investments in our ailing economy and economic stimulus now but, inexplicably, the economic update does not deliver.

The vote that I am casting on that update next week is not a vote that I am casting for myself. I will be casting it for the seniors and hard-working families in my riding who sent me to Ottawa to fight for them. They are under attack and I will not take it sitting down. I have stood up for them in my community and I have stood up for them in the House.

When I rise to cast my vote in opposition to this update, I will again be standing up for those Hamilton Mountain residents who entrusted me with the responsibility to make this Parliament work for them.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's remarks from across the way, especially the concern she expressed for the seniors in our country, but I want to correct a couple of things to which she made reference.

She indicated that when she votes next week, as she put it, against the economic and fiscal update, she will be voting on behalf of seniors. She should be aware, and I hope she is, that when we vote Monday on the ways and means motion to implement certain provisions from budget 2008, which I think was passed last February or March, which was a long time ago, by a previous Parliament, and certain provisions from the economic and fiscal update, those provisions will have to do with taxation measures.

Many of those taxation measures deal directly with seniors, the very people she says that she wants to help, measures like RRIFs and the reduction in the amount they must pull out of their RRIFs. That measure will help them considerably. She should be aware that and that is what is contained in the ways and means motion that we will be voting on.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member was not here when I delivered my speech because I did say that the 25% reduction in the mandated RRIF withdrawals was a step in the right direction. However, it does not go nearly far enough.

Seniors have been devastated in terms of what is happening to their portfolios as a result of the economic downturn. The member will know that organizations like CARP and others are saying that what we needed was a two year moratorium. That would have really helped seniors.

More important, there is nothing in the economic update for those seniors who do not have investment portfolios. Where is the help for those seniors? The economic update is absolutely silent on helping the most vulnerable in our community. I will make absolutely no apologies for standing up for seniors in the House.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Hamilton Mountain on a very wide-ranging commentary on the budget update.

My question is predicated on a call that I had from a small parts jobber who has been implicated and impacted by the recent Magna announcement that it will be laying off over 800 workers.

In meetings that we have had with the big three, they have indicated that after capital expansion and change in the assembly line, there are five new products that have been invested in and are ready to go. However, they are in danger because the government is focused on what the United States will do.

Perhaps the member would like to answer the question that I am trying to answer myself. Why would we wait to see what the United States will do on something that is so self-evident? The capitalization, the investment and the transformation have already taken place, the products are ready to go, and yet the government is not prepared. It still looks at it as a bailout as opposed to a stimulus that would actually bring those products on line, create the jobs and the investment that it carries with it and would answer my friend's issue in York South—Weston that he and his employees would still have jobs.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree, not only with the member for York South—Weston, but perhaps, more important, with his constituents. Like him, I have had numerous emails, one just this morning from someone who works at a dealership selling cars in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. Everyone is concerned about the profoundly negative impact that this economy has had on the automotive sector.

The member will know that we are not just talking about auto jobs because for every auto job seven additional jobs are created in our communities as a result of the auto sector.

We have a government that is saying that it will wait to see what happens south of the border. Frankly, that is not good enough. I bet that part of that south of the border package will be an investment in the industry but only if we actually protect jobs in our country. In the process, the Americans may actually siphon jobs out of our country and have them move south of the border.

What we need is to invest in the auto sector here, transform the industry, create jobs, protect jobs and help families in our communities.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today in response to the economic and fiscal update that we heard yesterday. I am very proud to be here as a re-elected member for the constituents of Vancouver East. My community is largely a low-income community and I know people were listening to the economic and fiscal update yesterday. They were very eager to hear whether the government was getting it, whether it had heard the message from ordinary people across the country about how they were hurting, the jobs being lost and how families were struggling week by week and month by month.

Sitting in the House yesterday and listening to the Minister of Finance, I must say that I had a sense of anger. The emails and calls I have received from my community tell me that people were not only disappointed but angry that the Conservative government failed to respond in a moment of urgent need to the needs of average people.

What we saw yesterday instead was an attack on the rights of working people and on our political democracy. When we go through the statement and look at it line by line, we see immediately that what is glaringly absent is a program for the strong economic stimulus that is required in this country. One only has to look at the global situation and what has happened in the last few months to feel the anxiety that people have about what is unfolding.

This is a time when people expect their government to show leadership. When we look at the international community and see what other countries are doing, it is very evident that they are understanding that a serious and substantive investment as an economic stimulus is the centrepiece of any economic program that needs to be put forward. However, here in the House yesterday we saw none of that. What we saw instead was an attack on people's rights and an undermining of the programs we have had in this country.

I particularly wanted to hear any message or indication that the housing crisis in Vancouver would be addressed. In the city of Vancouver, there is, in effect, a zero vacancy rate. People are paying 60%, 70% and even 80% of their income for housing, if they can find it. We have seen housing that is being demolished or converted. We have seen thousands of low-income units lost in the Downtown eastside. We have seen renters in the west end, on the eastside, all over the city who are scrambling to survive, to find their most basic need, which is the right to shelter, security and housing. What better example could there be for an economic stimulus and investment in our economy and yet the government was silent on this matter.

I want to remind the government that back in 2007, the inner-city inclusivity table for VANOC, the Olympics, came up with a report that was a collaboration between businesses, the city, the province, the local community and civil society. They determined that the city of Vancouver needed 3,200 units by 2010 to deal with the crisis that was already there in 2007. Not one step has been taken to deal with that urgent recommendation made in 2007.

We know from the most recent homelessness count done in metro Vancouver that homelessness has increased by 22%. We know that the aboriginal population is most at risk for homelessness. In fact, aboriginal homelessness has increased by 30% over 2005. Although aboriginals only comprise 2% of the population, they comprise 32% of the region’s homeless population. These are staggering statistics. They speak to a society that has become deeply divided due to public policy and policies of the Conservatives and prior governments that have eroded basic programs, affecting the ability to get EI, the opportunity to have safe and secure housing and to have a decent job.

Those factors were already place. It is now being accelerated and deepened and turned into an even greater crisis because of what has happened with the world-wide financial credit crisis.

What we heard yesterday was a slap in the face to Canadians. It was an insult to see the minister come forward with a program to eliminate strikes in the public sector and the roll-back of collective agreements. This is just sheer folly. Ideology is leading the government rather than programs, supports and measures to help workers and average families wherever they might be.

Surely the government must be aware that in 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down British Columbia's Bill 29, which Gordon Campbell tried to do exactly the same thing. He rolled back collective agreements and wages in the health care sector. Those collective agreements were torn up. Thankfully those unions brought forward a challenge to the courts and it went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The ruling from the Supreme Court said in essence that workers had the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate and that the right to free collective bargaining was protected by freedom of association in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is clearly being said by PSAC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, as it now lives in fear of losing its very environment and rights, which have been established over many decades.

As my colleague for Hamilton Mountain said earlier, not only is there an attack on the rights of workers by undermining the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike, but there is a double jeopardy, and that is an attack on women's equality.

What right does the government have to abandon all the work that has been done on pay equity? Every union member has the right to file a grievance. The union has a right to file a complaint about pay equity issues and it has the right to deal with it through the collective bargaining process. For the government to take that on and to use this economic crisis as an opportunity to attack those worker rights as though somehow we would not notice or somehow it would slip it through, is incredibly appalling. It is unconscionable and it is a real revelation and indication of the government's agenda.

Yesterday, we had an economic and fiscal update that did not give any concrete significant economic stimulus to help those families in need.

Another thing we listened for was whether there would be any reform for the EI system. What kind of insurance scheme do we have when workers and employers have paid into it, but two-thirds of people do not even qualify any more? What happens to those workers when they are thrown out of their jobs or they are laid off because of the worsening economic situation? One would think they would be able to rely, at least as a basic source of security and income, on an employment insurance system that should be there when they need it. Even that system has been gutted over the years. We have said loud and clear in the House that the EI system must be reformed. There must be money put into that system.

We know $50 billion-plus have been created as surpluses in that system, but they have not been ploughed back in to help workers with retraining, with assistance when they have been laid off, or whatever their circumstances have been. This is a travesty.

I am very proud to say that the members of the NDP are standing up as a united caucus. We will be voting against the economic and fiscal update and the ways and means motion on Monday. We understand the devastation it will bring. We understand it completely missed the mark in helping the people who need it. It is an ideological attack put forward by the government on democracy, on workers and on women. It has failed the people who are in need and therefore we will not support it.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, could the member opposite comment on a remark made by one of her colleagues, the member for Winnipeg Centre? When this individual was informed about the government's intent to end welfare for politicians, he responded by saying that this meant war. In a week when we see what has happened in India, when our men and women are in Afghanistan and so much horrificness exists in the world, to use that phrase to end political welfare seems very inappropriate. Moreover, the Manitoba NDP government, which had a plan to introduce a similar contribution per vote, has decided to move away from that.

Does the member agree with the Manitoba NDP government and does she think maybe her colleague went over the top?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do know all of us in the NDP, including the member for Winnipeg Centre, have expressed our outrage about all aspects of the economic and fiscal update.

I also know the Government of Manitoba is reviewing and considering bringing in controls around political contributions and financing.

I understand the member is now, out of desperation, trying to spin this. He is using the term “political welfare”. However, the Conservatives have opened the door again to take us backwards, in terms of allowing big money to dictate how elections are run in our country.

We happen to believe in a level playing field. We believe in a democratic system. What we have has been a fair system. The Conservatives have decided they want to attack that.

However, I want to be very clear on this. Our opposition to the economic and fiscal update is primarily because there is no economic stimulus and no help for the workers and the families needing it. That was meant to be the primary reason for the economic update and the Conservatives failed to deliver on that score.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from the NDP a few questions about the asset management aspects of the economic update.

First, in short form, it seems to me, to use the words of the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, that this is a fire sale of public assets. Would the member comment on the rationale contained at page 52 of the document presented by the Minister of Finance, where it states “an asset purchased in the 1950s may no longer be relevant to the core responsibilities of the Government more than 50 years later?”

Second, the government says that it would employ a considered approach, taking into account the condition of the markets to make sure a fair value could be achieved for these assets.

In a down in the economy, in a buyer's market, does the member think that any of these assets will be sold and if so, does she think there will be any fair market value? Does she think there will be any value to the government in disposing of such assets?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this point because it is hard to cover everything in 10 minutes. This was one issue I did want to get to. Again, what we have seen with the economic update is the government trying to manoeuvre and manipulate and slip in some programs that it has always wanted, like selling off public buildings, which are owned by the people of Canada. It is using the rationale of the economic recession before us to get that through and hope that nobody notices.

I agree with the member. The idea that the government will get fair market value for these valuable properties, which have an immense public value, in today's market is ludicrous. Any real estate agent or any expert on real estate will tell us that this is the worst time to do that. Why would we sell off these valuable assets when they should be kept for the benefit of the people of Canada?