Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2008

Economic and Fiscal Statement

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have had a chance to rise in this Parliament, I want to take this opportunity to thank my lovely wife and two daughters for their continued support over five elections. I also thank the 91,000 constituents in the country’s number one riding, Sackville—Eastern Shore for their undying support of the work they have asked me to do.

The people have entrusted me once again, for the fifth time since 1997, to represent the issues of the riding and of Nova Scotia in Ottawa. They have asked me to bring their concerns to Ottawa and not necessarily Ottawa’s concerns to Nova Scotia. I also thank the many people on our campaign team who volunteered and assisted us in the last federal election.

Politics is made up of human beings, whether they are right wing, left wing, in the centre, Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Green or whatever they may be. However, there is one person in the House of Commons who in many ways rises above all the partisanship games we now play.

There is a wonderful article, on page 28 of today’s Hill Times, about the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia. At three o’clock, a book about his life will be released. Every time I see the hon. member from the Winnipeg area, I am inspired by his enthusiasm, tenacity and desire to overcome hurdles that befell him at such a young age. For a quadriplegic man to rise as a parliamentary secretary in the House of Commons, regardless of the party he represents, is a testimony to not only he and his family, but to his heart, his love and his faith in God. I congratulate him and everyone else who has suffered through adversity and overcome it in order to become a great Canadian citizen. I congratulate and salute the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

Getting back to why we are here, On Thursday, we had the economic statement or so-called fiscal update. To call it an economic statement or fiscal update was stretching the boundaries of what I would call the truth. In fact, if truth were an island, it would be uninhabited right now. The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance had many options on what they could have done and what they should have done.

I personally believe the time for statesmanship and leadership was at hand. One does not get many opportunities in life to stand in the House of Commons and take a bipartisan approach to address a very serious problem, our economy. In many ways, the situation was not caused by our own doing, although the Parliamentary Budget Officer did say, independently of any political party, that many of the concerns we faced now were brought on by political decisions of the previous mandate of 2006-08.

We asked repeated questions in the House of Commons on the economy and were told to wait until Thursday to get our answers. We were told to wait until Thursday and we would be told what the government would do to help. We were led to believe that if we waited until Thursday, the sun would shine once again. Thursday came along and what did we get? We did get some good things such as the change to the RRIFs to help seniors with their pension availability and their investments, a very good thing for which I applaud the government. However, one or two items out of a speech of that size is not good enough. The Conservatives attacked women and public servants for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

During the campaign, I did not hear from any side that public servants were the problem of our economic situation. I did not hear that to take away the right to strike would solve our economic problems. It was a rather bizarre moment for me to sit in seat 308, one of my favourite seats in the House, wondering where the government was going with the statement. The day of that announcement, we had layoffs in southern Ontario. We had layoffs on Sunday in northern Vancouver Island. We had layoffs in Nova Scotia. Across the country, people are hurting. Instead of addressing that issue, the Minister of Finance addressed the public servants and the issue on political party funding.

To be completely honest, on a personal level and not from a party point of view, I do not really care about the public funding we get. If the government wants to scrap it, it can scrap it. The reality is that the economic statement was not the place to make that announcement. An all-party committee could have discussed it and moved it forward, as was done when it was brought in initially.

It was brought in so that we could stop the big money influence that directs us. If somebody donates $50,000 to a person's campaign and someone else donates zero dollars and the two of them phone that person, we know which one the person would respond to first. It is only understandable that the person would respond first to the person who donated $50,000, because money talks. The purpose of that legislation was to get rid of that influence from big corporations and big unions.

We had that debate in 2004, but if it was the wish of the government of the day to remove that funding, there were many other opportunities for it to do so. It was an ideological and political statement, not an economic statement. That is why we are here today discussing this very serious issue.

The Prime Minister and the finance minister could have and should have recognized the seriousness of the situation and said very openly, as president-elect Obama has done, that they would reach across the aisle to meet with the leaders of the other parties and their economic advisers and that they would meet with economic advisers throughout the country, including labour, the provinces, and the municipalities, to set up a summit to deal with this issue internally as quickly as possible.

We did not get that type of leadership. If the government had said it within that framework, we would not be talking about this today.

We have a serious situation. Regardless of who forms the government, some tough choices have to be made. Leadership and statesmanship come only so often, and unfortunately the current Prime Minister dropped the ball severely on this one.

I am not the only one saying this. The chambers of commerce of Canada, representing 175,000 businesses, were “disappointed” with the so-called economic statement. I just had a meeting with the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce. They were disappointed with what was going on. They were looking for leadership and did not get it.

Only the Prime Minister and the small group of people around him can actually explain why they did what they did. I have a lot of good friends on the other side, not only in the NDP but also among my Conservative colleagues. I understand that they want to know what is going on, what is happening and why this is all going on.

They do not have to look farther than the front bench to know exactly what happened. Because of the style of the Prime Minister, he has decided, for whatever reasons, to approach politics in that particular manner. It is most unfortunate. All of us who have been here a little while know this is not how it should be, regardless of whether it is under the former Liberal government or the current Conservative government. The reality is that we could have done much better.

On my desk here, in my office on the Hill and in my office in Nova Scotia I have stacks of emails, faxes and letters. I will respond to each one in my riding personally and explain why we have come to this point. Most of the letters, even the ones I get from across the country, are saying there should be a pox upon all of us.

What are we doing now? We are standing up in the House of Commons, the people's place, and talking about ourselves, not about the issues facing this country. That is a missed opportunity. How many times, Mr. Speaker, have you been here and ended up listening to conversations between elected officials just about themselves?

I cannot say how disappointed I am personally in the whole process through which it happened. It did not have to happen this way.

I can assure everyone that the comments made on Thursday by my friend the Minister of National Defence, whose riding is next door to mine, were completely and utterly irresponsible for a cabinet minister of any government. He said after the statement that when the opposition acts like chickens, they start to look like chickens. What was the defence minister thinking when he said that?

What did he expect the reaction from the opposition would be? Did he think the opposition would just lie down and take it? Did he expect thanks for his wise counsel and for advising us on the proper language and protocol of parliamentary democracy?

We have had enough of that defence minister and his wisecrack comments. We have had enough of the Prime Minister and his dictatorial ways. We have offered the olive branch on many occasions, only to have it cut away.

Members of the opposition, regardless of whether they are Liberal, Bloc or NDP, have said enough is enough. We understand the anxiety of the Canadian people throughout the country who wonder what is going on, what is it going to lead to and what it will mean in the future.

To be honest, I do not have all the answers yet. I do not think the current government has all the answers either, but collectively we could have done it. Collectively the House could have stood for something much greater. Collectively we could have shown the spirit of the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia. Collectively we could have had the chutzpah of the great Bill Blaikie of Winnipeg, the knowledge of a Stanley Knowles, the foresight of a Tommy Douglas or even the compassion of a Joe Clark.

However, we lost it. Now we are going to have to work doubly hard to get all that back. I can give the assurance that no matter what happens here in the future, on a personal level I and many other MPs are going to try to repair the damage caused by the Prime Minister and his finance minister.

The reality is that we have people in the country who have been laid off. We have Canada Post workers on strike to prevent Canada Post from using EI as a sick leave payment. We have fishermen in southwest Nova Scotia who are getting only $3 a pound for lobster. I hope you are a fan of seafood, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is that fishermen cannot make a living catching lobsters at $3 a pound. We should be talking in the House about how to deal with that specific issue.

Last year, Air Canada gave $43 million to one man, Robert Milton. This year, what did it do? It shut down the flight attendant bases in Winnipeg and Halifax. That resulted in 200 jobs being taken out of Nova Scotia because Air Canada said it was in a tight fiscal situation.

What are those workers and their families expected to do? They voted for us to come here and deal with that issue. What do we end up doing? We end up talking about ourselves.

The reality is that our health care systems in this country are nowhere near what they should be. Our first nations are in desperate straits and require serious infrastructure, and they need it now.

My colleague from northern Ontario has said repeatedly that they need a school in one of his northern ridings. He has asked for it repeatedly and he keeps getting “No” as the answer. Why do they have to keep begging for what we in the south already have? It is simply unacceptable. Those are the issues we should be working on.

The environment was not even mentioned during Thursday's debate. The one issue that links us all together is the air we breath, the water we drink and the food we eat. Because of selfish interests, that issue is now being completely disregarded. Those are the issues we should be talking about.

What about jobs? What about retraining for young people, unemployment insurance for those who are laid off, and bridging pensions to allow older workers in the forestry sector to retire with some dignity, not just in Quebec but across the country?

There should be a proper buyout by the Government of Canada if it wishes to reduce the number of fishermen in the country. If it buys into the idea that there are too many fishermen and not enough fish, why not offer a proper buyout and let them leave with dignity?

Everybody knows that we recently attended a Remembrance Day ceremony on November 11 for veterans and for those who died to give us the democracy we have today. Is our democracy perfect? Absolutely not, but it is the one we have to live with, and there are certain rules by which we all need to abide. If those rules need to change, we can look at them in the future, but 117,000 veterans buried in 72 countries around the world never got a chance to wear their medals, and they sacrificed and died so that we can sit in the House of Commons and debate these issues.

Veterans and their widows need support programs and systems. They should not be put through a Cirque du Soleil act to get the benefits they require. Those are some of the issues the House should be tackling and dealing with, and I know that in a cooperative manner we could do that.

There are many other issues, from education to infrastructure to water and sewer systems and beyond. For example, what happens to the men and women of our military when they come back from the mission in Afghanistan? Will they receive the immediate help they and their families require? These are some of the important issues we need to speak about.

Why is it that over 4,000 men and women medically released from the military have their disability payments clawed back from their pensions? That is a debate we should have in this House of Commons.

Why is it that Agent Orange victims, Chalk River victims and others have to go to court to seek redress from not just this government, but any government? These veterans served us so proudly, and now in their hour of need we let them down.

Those are the issues we should be talking about, but again the economic statement, if we can call it that, mostly goes after the women of the public service in terms of their pay equity battles. Again I am completely flabbergasted, after eleven and a half years here, as to where that came from. I have absolutely no idea.

As well, why would the Prime Minister provoke, and literally attack, the official opposition party, when it was already in dire straits in terms of the election?

Now we see the members of the Liberal Party saying they are not going to accept it. We in the NDP and the Bloc are not going to accept that type of attitude.

This country has many problems. Collectively, we on this side are going to solve those problems. If the Conservatives' unwillingness or inability or ineptitude does not allow them to see the problem and to deal with the issues, then we on this side will do just that, because that is what Canadians have asked us to do. That is what workers and their families have asked us to do. That is what small businesses have asked us to do.

Recently credit card companies have been jacking up the rates they charge restaurants and small businesses when credit cards are used for those services. Why are they jacking up those rates? Why is it that a person who is going through difficult times and misses a credit card payment has his or her credit card rate jacked up by an additional five per cent as a penalty for missing the payment? Why would they do that to people?

These are some of the issues we should be dealing with and fixing, but again I go back to the fact that we end up talking about ourselves. The Canadian people, regardless of which side of the fence they stand on, are going to look seriously at all of us.

We wanted to know why voting was down to 59%. It was because the Conservatives started the last election on a broken promise. They had a promise of a fixed election date. Nobody brought the government down. There was no confidence vote in this House of Commons, yet the Prime Minister went to see the Governor General and had, I assume, a nice cup of tea. Then he said, “This is it. We are shutting it down”. There was no reason at all. They just shut it down and went into a $300 million election. True, they came back with a few more seats, but they did not get a majority and they did not get the popular vote.

That should have told them very clearly that they had to work with the opposition leaders and the opposition parties to move the situations of this country forward. We offered the olive branch, and it was cut off. My question to them is, why? Why did they do this?

Only one man, or maybe two, can answer that question. I do not think anyone here right now could answer it. The Prime Minister should really tell the Canadian people why they did what they did last Thursday.

If we collectively work together, we can solve the problems of this country. I have been on the committees for fisheries and oceans and for veterans affairs for a long time. Those committees work very well together, regardless of the committee members' party affiliations. That is how this House should work, but leadership is required. We were looking for leadership on Thursday, but it did not materialize, and that is most unfortunate.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. All this business going on today is a result, apparently, of the financial statement made by the Minister of Finance.

My question is on how to answer a question from a constituent in my riding. It is typical of questions that are asked. The person said, “We just had an election. It was fairly recently that this election took place--”

[An hon. member]

It was just weeks.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The member says “weeks”, and it was weeks.

This lady wondered how the opposition can just say all of a sudden that they are going to be in charge, when the public of Canada voted Conservatives an increased number of members in this House and gave us a vote percentage in the 30s, a clear mandate,.

I do not have an answer for that. I wonder if the member could help me with that question.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, they say in the House to never lead with your chin because it could be batted out of the park.

I appreciate the question. I advise the hon. member to walk down to the Library of Parliament and understand parliamentary procedure in Canada.

I remind him that he should tell his constituent why there was an election in the first place. I also remind the hon. member that he did not get a mandate. The Prime Minister was not elected as the prime minister, he was elected as the head of the Conservative Party and because the Conservatives got the majority of the seats, they get to govern.

The prime minister and cabinet must at all times have the confidence of the House of Commons. When they lose that confidence, two things happen. There is either a replacement of government from opposition, or we have an election. That is the parliamentary rule. It is Parliament 101.

If the hon. member would like to walk down to the library and get a further explanation, I am sure there are some wonderful learned people there who could walk him through the process.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have heard my colleague's long-overdue lecture on the British parliamentary system. I am dumbfounded by the fact that we have to give our colleagues across the way a political science primer, Politics 101: the British parliamentary system.

The first thing a minority government has to do is get the consent of enough opposition members to pass its bills and retain the confidence of the House. If it fails to do so, it cannot fulfill its duty and, according to our system, must automatically be removed from its role as the governing party.

The problem we are dealing with today is not the opposition's fault. It is the fault of an inept Prime Minister of Canada. That is the problem.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of his question was the fact that we were looking for and seeking leadership from the Prime Minister of Canada and his finance minister on Thursday. It simply was not there. They did not deliver the goods. In their words, they did not get the job done.

What that means is this week we end up talking about ourselves and not the issues. My hon. colleague knows that many forestry workers are out of work. He probably knows many people who would love to work in construction but the money has not flowed for infrastructure programs. He probably knows many young people who are looking for retraining to get skilled jobs. He probably knows many immigrants looking to get that initial foot in the door.

Those are some of the issues the House should be talking about. I would love to be standing in the House talking about my first motion on veterans, which was passed in the House but ignored by the government. It is those issues that the House should be collectively talking about, not about ourselves.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it was said in the House today that we need to listen to Canadians. We need to articulate what Canadians have been sharing with us, what each of us has been hearing. Right across the country, Canadians have said loudly and clearly they do not like what is happening with this illegitimate coalition. Here are some of their statements, “I strongly oppose a coalition government. The Canadian people voted for this Prime Minister, for this government just six weeks ago. We gave the Conservatives a chance. The Liberals and NDP are just on a power trip. They are not interested in Canadian people. Imagine needing the help of the Bloc. They don't even want to be part of Canada. The fact is the Bloc's agenda is to break up Canada, nothing furthers a separatist agenda more than economic chaos and a federal government that does not work. All they need to fulfill their goals is naive partners lusting for power. Behold the Bloc, NDP and the Liberals”.

Does the member support this illegitimate lust for power?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Langley is a great city. I have visited Fort Langley many times. Congratulations to the member.

Let me remind the hon. members of that party what David Orchard, once a leadership candidate for the PC Party, said when a certain defence minister or a certain person at that time wrote on the back of napkin a deal between the PC Party and the Reform Party or Alliance Party. He said that party was conceived in deception and born in betrayal. That is the last party to talk about ethics in this House of Commons.

The reality is, and the member knows it, we are all on committees and Bloc members of the committees have worked many times with us on fisheries issues, on immigration issues, on all kinds of issues. I have travelled with Bloc members across this country, ask my colleagues of the Conservative Party, and I can honestly say that every Bloc member I have worked with, be it fisheries, environment, veterans, defence, whatever, has had the true interests of the issue at hand. And the Conservatives know that as well because Hansard is full of compliments of the individual members of the Bloc who have worked very diligently on issues of unemployment insurance, job training and the environment.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised some very interesting points.

It is kind of interesting to note that there is a criticism of the illegitimacy of a coalition when, back in 2004, the current Prime Minister entered into discussions for a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP in, to use their words, a grasp for power.

That is not what this is all about, though. What it is about is that the government has failed to deliver to Canadians an economic outlook and statement, and commitment to address the economic crisis, the financial crisis. It has failed to deal with the issues of how we are going to mitigate job loss in those areas where it is clear it is coming, to create jobs through infrastructure funding, and to help those people who find themselves in a position where they will not be able to find work early enough and may be too old and may not be able to get the kind of employment they are going to need to pay their bills.

I ask the member whether or not the Conservatives in fact have not got it right, they did not get the job done, they should have addressed the economic crisis in Canada first, and put the people first, political interests last?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, a long-time member of the House of Commons, understands it extremely well. They had the opportunity. It does not come by very often. However, they told us for a week leading up to Thursday, with all the questions we asked, “We're not going to answer them. Hold off until Thursday. Everything will be answered on Thursday”.

We did not think to ask on pay equity for women in the public service because we did not think that was an issue. Obviously, somebody over there thought it was, somebody thought that the economic crisis of this country is because of women and pay equity in the public service. Nobody raised the issue of the funding for our parties in the House before then because nobody thought it was an issue; not even the Conservatives. All of a sudden, it came up.

What will that do to create any jobs in this country? What will that do for retraining or to protect the environment or any of those issues? Instead of talking about the issues, we ended up talking about ourselves. That shows what the Conservatives lack. They either do not know or do not care how to fix the problems of our country. This side is going to do it.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like many members I too would like to congratulate the re-elected members and also the newly-elected members. When they entered this House, I am sure many of them probably did not expect the first order of business would be to deal with these issues.

I also want to thank the people of Brandon--Souris who for the third time have returned me to office. I often say to people that Brandon--Souris is the heart of Canada in my mind. We look in all directions to the rest of Canada. In Brandon--Souris we have a bit of an affinity with the rest of the country in the way we look at things and the way we do things, and I think we do it with respect on all sides.

I do want to talk about a few things, but I will start with the fiscal update.

It is important for Canadians to recognize that the finance minister said very clearly from the start that this would not be a budget. He said it would be a fiscal update. He said it would be a where we are at this point in time in Canada. He said it would outline what the future may hold and what we are prepared to do in the future should those situations occur.

Everything I have heard from members opposite in this debate is talk about the fiscal update. We talk about strengthening our financial institutions. We talk about how not only this government but previous governments have taken steps to strengthen those institutions in order to make them able to withstand the pressures that we are now under in a world economic downturn.

We have talked about taxes. We have talked about other countries that have reduced taxes for their individuals and for their corporations. Why? Because the individuals are the wage earners and the corporations are the job creators.

We need individuals and corporations to be in a position where at the end of the day they can continue to make decisions that move our country forward, create the opportunities that we all hope and wish for every constituent we represent, but also move the country forward on the financial side so we can strengthen our economy at the same time.

We made a commitment as a government to the G7, G8 and G20 nations that we would not do anything radical, financially or economically. We made an agreement with them because we did not want countries acting independently of each other thereby creating themselves another crisis.

We only have to look to the south of us where should the American government decide to make substantial changes without consultation or discussion with us, those changes could jeopardize us and put us in a terrible position immediately, not down the road. We know the issues facing the people in America. We know the challenges they are going through. I believe we are starting to see and feel that impact.

Many of the steps that this government has taken have put us in a position where we can still stand today and say that Canada is a leading nation in the world economic situation.

Many top financial people suggest that Canada is going into this economic situation last and is going to come out of it first. Why? Because we have solid principles in place that guide our lending institutions, that guide our monetary situation, and protect Canadians from the downtown that we are now experiencing.

What I would like to acknowledge is the fact that the fiscal update addressed some of the issues that Canadians were talking to us about the most. I refer to one example and that is the seniors' issues.

People in my constituency have told me they are in a tough situation. They have a challenge facing them because they have to make a decision with their future and their investments. They believe that right now is not a good time to be looking at cashing in some RRIFs.

This government addressed that. Did we address it completely or satisfactorily for every Canadian? I suspect not. A government looking after a national population has to make decisions that impact all Canadians, not just specific organizations or specific groups that have an issue they want the government to take up.

We have done that. We did it with modicum. We did it with the idea that more may be needed.

Members opposite talk about stimulus. We have all seen what stimulus can do if it is done wrong. The money flows, people seem satisfied for a short period of time, but when the money dries up, we face the same realities that we are facing today. We have to come forward with a financial plan that addresses the specific needs.

Many of my colleagues and many of my friends are involved in the automotive industry. I was involved in the automotive industry. I understand what people in that industry are going through, but for a government to simply step up to the plate and say that we are going to throw billions of dollars at a problem without a plan, without an outcome that can be measured at the end of the day, what would we be telling Canadian taxpayers? We would be telling them that the only solution to any of our problems would be to throw more money at it to try to make it go away.

We could do that for political expediency if we so chose to do, but that is not the objective of a sound government. It is not something that I will encourage or ask my government to do. I just will not let it do that.

We have to look forward. Over time in the next few months we are going to see some changes in the world economic situation and we will be able to address them directly as opposed to throwing money at the wall and hoping that some of it sticks and some of the benefits take place.

I have listened to the other members. I have read their documents. I have looked at the agreements they have made. All they are doing is echoing the same thing we said in our fiscal update. We need to spend more money on infrastructure. We have addressed that.

It was clearly outlined by the finance minister that we would double the spending on infrastructure in the next fiscal year. That creates more opportunity and more jobs. It actually enhances our ability to move goods and services not only across Canada but around the world, which again creates the opportunity for us to benefit, to grow and to continue to fight the economic downturn that we are now facing.

People join political parties for various reasons. There are political parties on the right and political parties on the left. There are environmental parties. Canada is a complete mixture of thoughts and ideas, but when we make the decision as individuals to join a political party, we make that decision based on what that political party is saying to us and how it impacts our lives and how it fits in with our thinking in the world, in the political system and in our governments of today.

I freely admit I have been a Conservative for a long time. I grew up in a Conservative family and I believe I have the Conservative values that I think are necessary not only to make my community, my province and my country move forward but to also position us as a country in the world where we can show responsibility and accountability to the people. I suspect when members joined the Liberal Party, when members joined the New Democratic Party and when members joined the Bloc party, they all agreed with specific parts of that respective party.

When we get into the dialogue in this chamber, those commitments and dedication to the party principle become even stronger and are echoed across the country. It must be so difficult today for some members to forfeit that belief, not everything, but to forfeit the belief that they have stood for.

I talked about joining a political party. The next step is when one becomes active in that political party, when one takes a role in that party, the governance role or being part of the executive that manages all of the campaigns. We all count on those people. However, when one makes that next step one is saying, “I really believe in what these people are saying. I really believe in what my party believes in and I am prepared to make the sacrifices to make that work”.

The one step further relates to everyone sitting in the chamber as elected members of Parliament. We have made a decision not only to believe in a party and to be active in it, but to let our names stand. For me, the proudest moment I have ever experienced in my life is the honour that has been bestowed upon me not only to serve federally, but also to have served provincially and municipally. I have had the great fortune to represent people having been elected by the people based on what I stood for and what I presented to them as their representative and what I promised I would do as their representative.

I suspect today there is a lot of anguish on all sides in regard to what we see taking place in the public sphere. I suspect there are a lot of people who have made commitments to all political parties. I am not excluding the Conservative Party from this. I think for many people who have supported a party financially, or with their time, with their effort, with their volunteerism, everything they have done to support that political party has come into question over these last few days.

I am disappointed. I certainly think Canadians are tremendously disappointed in us. Collectively we have to take a deep breath and recognize in what we are doing and the commitments we are making today how the people we represent and who support us, sometimes blindly, must feel.

I am receiving numerous emails, phone calls and letters. Sometimes in this business we tend to exaggerate, but I have heard from over 100 and less than 1,000 people, and I suspect the number will continue to grow. People are disappointed in all of us. They are frustrated with the way we are carrying on. They are frustrated with what is happening to democracy in Canada. I fear greatly that we will all suffer the consequences of what we are doing and what is happening today in Canada, particularly in this Parliament.

Everyone agrees that the economic downturn will impact Canada. No one will deny that. We have been fortunate as a country to stay above that fray for a while, but it is obvious that in the next several months we will have some tough decisions to make as a country and we will have some tough decisions to make as a government. However, we need to do it for one reason, and that is to benefit Canadians, not ourselves nor our families.

When a person is elected, particularly in Manitoba and not so much at the federal level, they are elected without fear or without favour. That means they are able to make the decisions they believe are best for Canadians without fear of repercussion or without expectation of favour. If we all stepped back and took a look at ourselves and listened to those words, things might change in the House, and I desperately hope they do. Things might change for Canadians when they see us actually working on their behalf instead of the self-serving righteousness that we all offer.

Members opposite spoke clearly about the rules of Parliament, how governments can change and how people can move in and out of government without elections. I grant that; I know that is the rule and I fully understand it. I want to relate a story going back to when I was a young boy.

We were playing ball, 12 and under ball. We were small-town kids who needed everybody to make the team. We always liked beating those teams from the bigger towns. If we could do that, we were satisfied. We did beat a bigger town team. We beat that team three games out of four, but lost the series on a rule. Did that bitterness ever go away? I could go back to my small community and raise that issue with people today and they will remember the precise moment in time and history when we felt, as small-town folks, that we were being taken over and dictated to by the guys from the big town. It was all within the rules. It was all clear. The rules allowed for it, but it did not make it settle any better with my community.

I do not think Canadians will be satisfied with this. We can say that the rules are the rules and we are strictly following the rules, but again, I would ask us to look deep into our souls and ask whether this is how we want to do it. At the end of the day, is this where we want to be? Are we willing and able to stand in front of our communities and say, ”Yes, today we are the government and this is how we did it”.

We have to take a hard look at that. Canadians cannot afford the upheaval that we are presenting to them as members of Parliament. We are the people who are supposed to be making the laws of this country and creating the opportunities. Instead, we are seen collectively as self-serving and nothing more.

It is a challenging time for Canada. Everyone has issues to deal with. I listened to the members opposite. We all have specific concerns in our communities that we are trying to address.

I represent a large agricultural base which has suffered in the last several years from drought, from rain, from just about anything, just as people in our forestry sector and people in the automotive sector are suffering. We have to find solutions, but we have to find solutions that work, not solutions that continue the status quo, which is not working. If we do not look beyond that, we are in for serious challenges and we are going to create a deeper challenge for us in the future.

I have sat in the chamber for four years. I have been in opposition and in government. As I said earlier in the House, I have seen the bitterness that has evolved. Again, I will not point a finger at one or two individuals. As a group we have to acknowledge that we have all contributed to that situation. As politicians, we had better take a sharp look at ourselves and where we want to go in the future.

We are talking about a fiscal update. We are talking about a budget that will come out in the last week of January. It gives the government and people time to digest all of the situations impacting us. It gives us the ability to listen to whatever input the opposition members may have, but we have to do it constructively. We have to listen in the same breath.

The state of our economy is not as dire as we are saying it is today. The potential is there. We all acknowledge that. Our challenge is to manage the situation as we see it today and what we see in the future.

I look back and question some of things our government did, but when I look at the results today, I have a comfort zone that people smarter than I had ideas and solutions to some of the economic situations we were facing. We are prepared to put those ideas out there for debate and for the government to move on them. I think we did a lot of the right things.

This morning I had a call from a gentleman I have known for years. I have great respect for him. He is disappointed in us all. I will end with his comment to me. He said, “I see bitterness on all sides. I see anger and hatred expressed publicly that I never thought I would see in my lifetime. My advice is to never let your hate of someone or something deny your love for Canada”.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech and I would like to take this opportunity to pick his brain. Since he is on the other side of the House in the Conservative caucus, he might be able to shed some light on the actions of the last few days.

What was the Prime Minister thinking when he decided to present this economic statement or misstatement, which has been called by none other than Don Martin, a delusional document?

What was the Prime Minister thinking when he decided he was going to use this document to take away the right of public servants to strike? Did he think that any of the three parties on this side of the House would agree with that position?

What was the Prime Minister thinking when he decided he was going to attack pay equity for women? Did he think that none of the parties on this side of the House would object to it?

What are the answers to these questions?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while I will not speak for the Prime Minister, I can say how I interpreted it. I interpreted it as the government saying to Canadians that we are prepared to share in some of the cost and some of the hurt that people are going through, ergo, the removal of the vote subsidy. I think he was saying that Canadians want to provide the stability we are all asking for right now. Was that the right way to go? No, perhaps not, but that has been taken off the table. I would say that Canadians are looking for this government to show examples where it is prepared to take leadership roles in this area too.

At the end of the day, if that was the issue that provoked what we are seeing on the other side, then I would say that the provocation has been removed.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have stood in the House since the election, I want to begin by thanking my constituents of Hamilton Centre for returning me and giving me the honour of being here again for a third term.

When I was listening to the member I was struck by the member’s respectful tone, tenor and approach as he tried to avoid being offensive. He conveyed a partisan message in an effective way without being personal or making things any worse here. I applaud him and thank him for that tone.

I have not had a chance to work with the member that much but we have many similarities. We both came here in 2004 and we both served municipally, provincially and federally. We also have both been inside cabinet in government and in opposition. I understand very much where the member is coming from.

My question is similar to the one that the previous member just asked. The member said in his earlier remarks that the intent of the economic update was not to prescribe details but rather to talk about broad strokes and generalities and yet part of that statement was an outright attack on the rights of women and labour. I would like to know how he can square the intent of a generalized statement in which the government did not provide the details we needed for stimulus but did provide details on attacks of other citizens.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the government presented an update on the financial situation in Canada. It talked about the strengths and the opportunities in our economy and it talked about what may lie ahead.

With regard to the two issues the member brought forward, the government has recognized that perhaps it was not the right time to do it and it has taken them off the table. I think the opposition's message has been made loud and clear.

The fact is that we as members of Parliament and as elected politicians must show the Canadian public that we, too, are prepared to make hard financial decisions that impact our lives and, regrettably, we tried to do that. I would ask the member opposite if that is what has provoked the coalition that we are hearing about.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Brandon—Souris on being re-elected by his constituents for a third term. I also thank my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country for electing me for a second term. I will continue to work hard, and I am humbled and honoured to have this opportunity.

Nineteen percent of my constituents are 65 years of age or older, the highest census metropolitan area in Canada. A big issue of concern was the stock market and the fluctuation in their portfolio values. Retired individuals across the country are very concerned with the RRSP requirements and the RRIF withdrawals.

Would my hon. colleague indicate how the fiscal economic update addressed this specific issue, an issue of concern to all Canadians?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, and I remember hearing from members opposite, this was an issue that concerned us all. If we have people in our constituency who are retiring, the time of their retirement will be impacted dramatically by the economic downturn.

I spoke directly to the Minister of Finance, as I am sure many did, and the advice was that whatever we can do we must do. We must send a message to them. We have reduced the amount they must withdraw at that particular time by 25%. It is a good first step. As I said earlier, the budget may contain more things that will address those particular issues.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Brandon—Souris just talked about the fact that members are receiving a lot of emails. All my colleagues on this side are also receiving those emails and we can see that a lot of people are angry and dissatisfied with the whole situation.

The words being used tell us that most Canadians believe in three assumptions concerning Quebec and the Bloc Québécois: First, that we are a bunch of troublemakers who are never happy with what we get; second, that we receive much more money from Canada than we put in; and, third, that we are the source of a lot of problems.

The finance minister said this morning that we in the House were dealing with the devil.

If all those assumptions are true, the sovereignty of Quebec should appear to all my colleagues as a good way to solve a problem once and for all, while making a lot of money out of it. Why is it that my colleagues are making so much effort to keep us in the system?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will just state very clearly that I believe in a Canada that includes Quebec and I will do everything I can to ensure that happens.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about supporting people with RRIFs. I wonder if the members opposite could tell us why people who are on old age supplements could not be helped. We were told the other day that $100 a month for seniors on the old age supplement would eliminate about 80% to 85% of the poverty among seniors in the country.

Why did we not hear that from the government in its economic update and not just about people who have retirement savings?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a government we have done many things that address the retirement age group of people. The splitting of an income has created better opportunities. We have increased the level at which they can become tax free, and that continues to go up. We have actually increased seniors' ability to withdraw their RRIFs from 69 to 71, which was necessary at the time to help address some of the issues.

Not everyone has an answer in a day but what we have proposed to Canadians is very positive. I think that when they see our budget in January, Canadians will understand what we are trying to do and will support it.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, may I say that I will be sharing my time with...

[An hon. member]

Stéphane Dion?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville, and certainly not with the stranger across.

We have just come from an election; it was only 48 days ago. An election represents not only an opportunity but also a responsibility for members and candidates to go into their ridings; to talk with the people, to meet with social and economic groups, and all the different institutions. It is necessary to find out the real needs of the people; to learn about their hopes, but, above all, we must be able to identify solutions and take action to apply those solutions.

Of course, considering the election results; in the light of the government’s Speech from the Throne, and also the economic statement, it is obvious that the necessary and indeed essential work of talking to the people has not been done. I should allow for a caveat. If the work was done, the Conservatives did not listen. If, in fact, they did pay attention to the needs of their residents; if they did actually listen, their leader probably spoke louder than their own voters. If none of these things happened and they came forward with solutions other than the solutions proposed by the Bloc Québécois, it must be because they do not have any ridings like those in Quebec. Those are ridings that have Teflon protection, so that they are not affected by reality. However, I am sure the financial, economic and social problems affecting Quebec must also affect all of Canada.

Why then are they acting this way? Clearly, what they have presented to us is not an economic statement. It is really an ideological statement. It is an ideology that finds its roots in the tar sands. One can imagine what would grow there, what would come out of it and what the Conservatives are feeding on. That must really fog up their glasses, because we must recognize that the vision of this government is very, very short.

We have gone from one minority government to another. It is true that during the last election the Conservatives insisted it was their intention to elect a majority government. That was the reason they called the election. Now, having been denied that result, and frustrated at the fact that the great majority of voters said no to them—however, I should not exaggerate; there are limits to everything—they bring forward an economic statement that clearly shows how blind the government is to the need for urgent action. While all the governments in the world are taking action against the crisis, this Conservative Reform government—or Reform Conservative government, whatever you call it, it is the same thing—does exactly the opposite.