Debates of Feb. 11th, 2009

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague for Welland. He is correct, contrary to what the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell said. What our Conservative colleague must tell us is what he would do with those who are unemployed, who cannot find another job, who cannot be retrained because they cannot go to another job. Would he adopt the same measures, for example, as those he adopted for women? The conservatives have taken a right-wing stance.

Before asking my question, I will quickly remind them of the following: the Conservatives cut the national day care program; they cut assistance to women's offices—only 4 of 16 remain; they cut literacy programs. They even put in their economic statement—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like the hon. member for Welland to have the opportunity to respond to the comments and the question.

The hon. member for Welland.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague when it comes to daycare. Clearly that is a critical component when it comes to the issue of allowing folks to have the opportunity to look for work.

If we do not have daycare facilities, if we do not have that space for our child, how are we to get out in the marketplace to look for that job, especially if that daycare space dried up when our job dried did. If it were tied to our job, it disappears. If it were tied to our income, it disappears because we can no longer afford it.

On retraining, let me just speak to what the gentleman who owned the—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I want to commend my colleague from Welland for articulating very carefully what happens to people when they are unemployed. It is important to do that because we can get caught up in the loftiness of national programs and billions of dollars this and billions of dollars that. At the end of the day, however, everything we do is about, or is supposed to be about, people in their homes, raising their families, hopefully going to work and going about trying to enjoy as much as they can the quality of life this great country can offer.

I want to address this very quickly because I suspect one of the backbenchers will want to jump up for their moment of fame and ask me to address why it is that I can come in here and, before even seeing the budget, say that I will be voting against it.

I have a great answer for that one. I spent eight years in the Ontario legislature watching the Mike Harris government dismantle all the things that were great about the province of Ontario. After one budget from Mike Harris, I did not need to read any other budgets. I did but I did not need to because I knew the destructive path that premier and that government were on and I knew the damage they would do. A lot of what is happening in Ontario is the result of those chickens coming home to roost.

Not only is it a government with the same direction, but the chief of staff to the Prime Minister of Canada just happens to be the same chief of staff that Mike Harris had.

I look at the front bench, I listen to QP, I listen to ministers talk and what do I hear? I hear a finance minister going on and on about tax cuts and corporations, and this, that and other thing. He is the same finance minister we had in Ontario. I know the damage that finance minister did.

There are other cronies from that era. Make no mistake, many of us in this House knew exactly what that budget would do, whether or not we had the details. We knew that even if there were something in there that was halfway good, we could not count on the government to implement it. We could not count on the government to keep its word. It passes laws and goes against them. It makes promises and goes against them.

Why, for one minute, would we believe that the government would suddenly be different? All the government had to do was get past the vote, remember, and the Liberals made sure it did. Now, whether it is implemented in a way that is acceptable or not, time will tell. I have no doubt in my mind how all of this will ultimately play out.

I want to raise a couple of issues—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The member for Hamilton Centre has the floor and there will be an opportunity for questions and comments.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that but please do not ruin my fun. Half the fun is watching them react and getting them going because that is when we start to see the real members. I would ask that they not be shy on my account and let it rip.

There are a couple of things I want to raise that are here. The Conservatives talk about us not knowing what is in the budget, and our friends in the Liberal caucus are having fun with that drumbeat too, but I have something to tell the House. There is something called the strategic review of programs, which sounds pretty official. What it means is that over three years the government will eliminate $1.3 billion in current money being spent in programs, but we do not know which programs.

Therefore, I say to everyone who is watching who feels that there are parts of the budget they like, that they had better keep an eye on the prize. Until we know what those cuts mean, it may be a program that affects someone who is watching or someone who knows of a family member, a business or a community that is using a program. The $1.3 billion coming out of program spending will hurt somewhere, someone and something. We just do not know what.

Then, of course, thanks to my friend from Ottawa Centre who has been following this like a laser beam, we have almost $10 billion that shows as revenue. Where will the revenue come from? We are not really sure. The government just tells us that it will sell things. What things? We do not know, but $10 billion means a lot of things will be gone. What a lousy time to be selling anything, if we are talking about real estate, which is what most of it is, unless it is going to tap into the art gallery and start selling pieces of art.

I say, with respect, that members do not need to talk to me about passing a budget that members have read or not read. There are things in the budget that no one in this entire House knows in detail what will be cut.

I want to take a minute to talk about EI. I know it has been talked about by a lot of people but I am from Hamilton and we are hurting. We are losing thousands and thousands of jobs every month. When we talk about the manufacturing sector being hit hard, that is Hamilton. This hits home for me.

For every $60 in corporate tax cuts that the government could find, it found $1 to help the unemployed. On the five week extension, let me put on the record what Don Fraser, president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, said about that. He said:

That extra five weeks, in the greater scheme of things, is just window dressing.

It is all window dressing because the government still has not made the fundamental changes to the system. Even if someone were to benefit from that, the total dollar value for that five weeks is $11 million. This year the national budget is about $258 billion, give or take a few million. The give or take is probably more that the actual increase in benefits that unemployed workers saw.

It is unfathomable in this day and age in the middle of a crisis, with people losing jobs hand over fist, and the one thing the government does not do is help those people and families survive. What an abdication of responsibility.

What is the government's rationale, one might ask reasonably. Let us ask the government. This is the minister responsible, in her own words, “We do not want to make it lucrative home and get paid for it”.

I defy any member of the government to repeat that in front of unemployed Hamiltonians who have just been rejected for EI, who do not know how they will pay the rent or make the mortgage payment, who have birthdays and graduations coming up, but who have no money and no hope. Eleven million dollars are pitiful.

Of the 100% of people who pay EI, 32% of women and 38% of men qualify. Let me put it the other way around. We have an insurance program run by the national government, but paid for by premiums from workers and employers, not tax money. This means that 68% of the women and 62% of the men who paid into EI will not even qualify.

We are worried about people who are on EI because it is not enough to sustain them, but what about those who do not even qualify? Those people get to go on welfare after a lifetime of working.

The Conservative government had a chance to treat Canadian workers, particularly those who are or going to become unemployed, with dignity and give them hope and recognize that their lives and their challenges are important, but it failed them.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, 28,000 Canadians aged 15 to 24 lost their jobs in January. The unemployment rate has gone up to 12.7% and in the last three months alone that rate has gone up by 2.9%, which is roughly about 75,000 jobs. Many of these people do not qualify for employment insurance.

It is scandalous that the Conservative and Liberal budget has zero dollars to help cities, young people and keep child care spaces open. The budget has zero dollars to help the unemployed in Toronto. The budget is a direct cause of the painful municipal property tax increases our families are experiencing.

I know the member has had municipal experience. Could he tells us what kind of impact the budget is having on the city of Hamilton?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the budget is absolutely devastating on many fronts, not the least of which is on people who do not qualify for EI. This is moving from the human factor to the mechanics of running our communities, but if people do not qualify for EI, they will have no choice but to go on welfare. Welfare is cost shared by the municipalities and they are the order of government that can least afford or manage their way through this recession. We are not only hurting individuals, we are hurting municipalities as well.

What really hurts is that when the NDP was in the same position with the Liberals in power in a minority situation, we managed to get over $4.5 billion in exchange for us allowing their budget to pass.

Where was the official opposition on this bill? Why did it not use that power to leverage improvements for the unemployed, to help our communities and to provide child care spaces? Why did it just give it away for nothing?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I need to comment on the passion that my hon. colleague brings to this debate.

Unfortunately, we have all heard over the last few days about the layoffs at Xstrata in Sudbury. Seven hundred families are being affected. We are now trying to get the government to look at the legal binding agreement that Xstrata has with Investment Canada through the Minister of Industry.

The Employment Insurance Act will not allow individuals who have severance packages to claim EI. My colleague and I come from similar communities. How will the choice between making $400 a week or taking a severance package affect families in his riding?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Sudbury is right. Our communities have a lot of similarities. In fact looking at the history of the ups and downs of our communities, I think we are on track, and Welland would be similar, as would Windsor. Certainly a lot of the older communities, and I speak of Ontario as it is what I know best, are facing the same dilemma.

What really troubles me, and this is why the passion in terms of what is happening, is that if people are not in absolute, destitute poverty before they reach out for a program, the government seems to insist that they take the last hit and get knocked down and when they have absolutely nothing, then they will be offered bare subsistence help.

We are looking for two things: help for families and workers who need it now, and so importantly, hope for the future for those workers and their families. Our children in high school, universities and colleges are terrified right now. They are looking around and saying, “Mom and dad are getting crushed. Everybody I know is getting crushed. Where do I find my place in this world? I thought Canada was one of the greatest countries in the world. Why is it that people seem to be doing so, so well and my future looks so, so bleak?”

That is what the government has given us. We had the opportunity to make a change. All Canadians can hope for now is that change comes sooner rather than later.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation bill, a bill that covers a budget which really has no vision or direction. It is a budget that represents a scattergun approach to stimulating the economy, one which, at the end of the day after a considerable sum of taxpayers' money has been spent, will not have accomplished what is needed to be accomplished.

It was clear from the very beginning with the economic statement in December that this type of situation would happen, that we would be faced with a budget that simply would not do the job. We cannot expect Conservative ideology to turn around in two months. I am sorry, but that will not happen. We cannot expect that people who have built their dogmatic behaviour around the confines of neo-conservatism would use the finances of this country to provide what Canada needs.

We in the NDP knew that. That is why we formed the coalition in December. We knew very well that in January we would not get what was needed for this economy. Today we hear the Liberals say the same thing. They supported the Conservatives last week for political reasons, but today they are saying the same thing, that the budget is not adequate, that it is not enough. We knew that before. We did not have to wait until the budget was presented. We understand the Conservatives after three years in opposition to them in Parliament.

Once again we saw the mean-spiritedness of a government that would create a budget bill designed to stimulate the economy and get the economy working full of measures that have nothing to do with that, measures that really preserve the Conservative ideological base in this country, to pander to that type of support. We see that so clearly.

Bill C-10 attacks women through its assault on pay equity. It really provides nothing for women who are out of work. We do not see any improvement in EI. We do not see a more understanding nature around child care. We do not see any of that vision that people who are going to be most disenfranchised during this downturn in the economy need to have.

It tears up collective agreements. My inbox was full of emails from RCMP officers in my riding in the Northwest Territories. They said that not only did the government cut the collective agreement for all of Canada, but it also picked on the extra money that is provided as support for the RCMP in carrying out law and order in very isolated places.

I wish the Prime Minister and his cabinet would have gone into a grocery store in Inuvik before the election and looked at the prices of goods for northerners. Perhaps then they would understand what it means when there are cutbacks for the professionals who come in to take care of our communities and provide the services which we hear the Conservatives talk about so eloquently when it comes to taking credit for anything they do.

This budget weakens control on foreign ownership, especially Air Canada. The aviation industry is so transportable. Many of the workers can be replaced by people in other countries. The maintenance work can be done in places that will provide no benefit to our country. We need to hold on to the ownership of our aviation industry. That is not happening. This budget would actually change that.

It attacks student loan recipients. How low do we want to go? How low do we take this?

Today I am going to move away from that and talk about how the bill attacks the environment through its changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I was in committee the other day when the minister took great pains to say how old this act was, that it dated from the time of our first prime minister. He seemed to have disdain for it because of its age, that this was a good reason to move on from it, to change to something different.

The fact that this law is one of the oldest on the books says to me how important the protection of Canada's waterways is. The role of a national government in protecting its waters dates well before Confederation. There were provisions in the Magna Carta protecting against the construction of fish weirs across the rivers in England. We know that from day one it is so important to look at how our rivers are being taken care of.

Despite this historic precedent as to how important the role of a national government is in protecting water systems, the government wants to eviscerate protection for Canada's waterways. Under the changes the Conservatives want to make, rivers would only be considered navigable under the sole discretion of the minister. There would be no consultation, no forewarning and no appeal, not even any limitation on the type of waterway which could be excluded.

Under these amendments, it is conceivable the minister could declare that the St. Lawrence is not a navigable waterway. What kind of power and authority are we turning over to the minister in this regard? What is this about? We would also turn over to the minister the sole discretion to determine whether any proposed work would have an impact on navigation, once again without prior consultation, no warning and no appeal. With this type of amendment, large structures, such as dams across a river, depending on where they are located and which river they are on, could be considered as not having any impact on navigation.

The amendments give the minister the authority to change at any time the criteria used in assessing whether a waterway is navigable or whether a type of work may interfere with navigation, once again without the ability of Canadians to say anything about it, without any ability to appeal these types of decisions on these waterways which so many Canadians hold sacred.

Canadians identify with their rivers. They identify with the land, the water. Nature is so important to all of us. Why would Canadians want this type of legislation put in place?

The minister said that these changes need to be made because the law has been holding up vital infrastructure projects. Can the minister name one project that has not gone ahead because of the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

Why has the Conservative government put this odious change to the laws which protect Canada's natural environment into a budget bill? Could it be because the Conservatives know Canadians will oppose these changes and will voice strong opposition? The Conservatives sneak it in through the back door knowing that the Liberals will support it in order to get the budget passed. This is how they are working.

When the Navigable Waters Protection Act was reviewed by the transport committee in the last Parliament, the committee recommended more consultations, especially with aboriginal people, recreational users, anglers, canoeists, tourist operators, cottagers, and river advocacy groups. Only one group like that was represented in the committee discussions.

The government likes to say it is here for the people, but if it does not listen to the people, it is not here for them.

Another way the government is not listening is in its approach to stimulating the economy of the Northwest Territories. For years the people and the Government of Nunavut have been calling for a deep sea port at Iqaluit. Instead, the government is pouring $17 million into a harbour in Pangnirtung, on top of the already existing contribution of $8 million last year.

After the budget was released, the Premier of Nunavut asked about the funding and was told to use it or lose it, that a port in Iqaluit would take too long. Pangnirtung needs a small craft harbour and it should get an excellent one for $25 million, but all of Nunavut needs a harbour in Iqaluit as well, and that funding could have gone toward making that a reality. Why did they not do it? The Conservatives think they know better than the people of the north.

Another example from the north is funding for an Arctic research institute.

I will sum up by saying that this budget does not work and we are not supporting it.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, aside from the environmental impact of changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, there is also a situation here. This is a question I have for the hon. member. That act was originally enacted in 1882. It is one of Canada's oldest pieces of legislation. There is no doubt that it needs a little modernization.

In the name of cutting red tape, to speed up the building of infrastructure projects and stimulate the economy, the government is introducing changes that will remove navigable status from thousands of waterways in Canada. It is one of the things that is not talked about that much. It is not a monetary item in the budget. I wonder if the hon. member would have a comment to make on that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I will certainly go back at it. Once again, we see here the minister taking on the authority for laying out different conditions under the law, for making changes to things that people hold very valuable without consulting them, without having a process of appeal. This is wrong.

This is a process that goes against our very democratic nature. It goes against the sort of strong feeling that people have for our river systems across the country. There are millions of people who use those river systems for navigation in small boats and canoes. These people have rights, too.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I with to thank the member for Western Arctic for his speech. It was brilliant as always. He is a very passionate and outspoken advocate for the north. We appreciate his presence in the House. He brings the north's voice right here to the House of Commons.

I am interested in the budget implementation bill and the fact that essentially the Conservatives pulled a fast one. They tucked a whole bunch of things into the bill that Liberals obviously did not read or did not care to take the time to understand, including allowing the opportunity for more foreign takeover of Canadian companies including in transportation sector.

I know the member is the transportation critic for the NDP. My question is simple. Does he think that this allowance for more foreign takeovers is going to be helpful to Canada, helpful to the transportation sector? My second question is, why are the Liberals voting for it and allowing these takeovers to go through?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, the ability of foreign interest to take over companies like Air Canada could mean a significant amount to the workforce that works within the aviation industry. It could mean that we will be seeing offshore maintenance supplied to the aircraft. That could be accelerated through ownership by companies that come from other places.

The only hold that we have over the aviation industry right now is that we insist that the majority ownership is Canadian. In some cases that has already been circumvented by clever legal means. Nonetheless, the principle remains. The aviation industry being an industry that can utilize services from any part of the world needs to have a significant portion of the ownership reside within Canada.

Why did the Liberals support this bill? I think it goes back to the basics of what I was talking about earlier. We simply do not trust the Conservatives to deliver on their promises. We did not trust the Conservatives to come up with a budget that was a budget that could bring Canadians together. The Liberals made a choice to support the budget for the reasons that they felt it was politically expedient. They have chosen to go into an alliance with the Conservatives to put forth their somewhat considerable connections they have within their ideological grounds as well.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak today, I think I owe the House a little bit of an explanation because as I speak members will hear my voice tremble and see my hands shake. The reason is simple. It is not that I am frightened; I am damn angry. I am angry at what is hidden in this document that is hurting the workers, the families and the seniors in my community.

In light of the times, we had a chance with this bill for a dawning of a new age. We could have joined with what is happening south of the border. Clearly, there is a new day dawning in that country. It is not without some turmoil, following two right-wing Republican governments, but times are changing. The U.S. federal government, with the lead of the new Obama administration, is very clearly with its people.

That is a role our federal government should play. It should be with the Canadian people. Day to day it should show the Canadian people where government belongs in their lives. Instead, it is trying to withdraw government from their lives. Times of turmoil such as these are the most important time for government intervention in our economy. Here in Canada our government could have chosen to join that progressive view that is coming out of Washington and out of the U.S.

The government could have had provisions which aided municipalities by addressing the huge $122 billion infrastructure deficit. The government could have recognized the need to lift municipalities in a time of crisis by paying, along with the provinces, for measures to address the significant infrastructure problems. Clearly, many municipalities simply cannot afford the one-third upfront cost of sharing in these projects.

In addition to truly missing a huge opportunity for real national leadership, Canadians once again were hit by backdoor politics. During a time of crisis, the Conservatives have moved to advance their ideology by inserting into the bill provisions that are detrimental to our environment, to women and even to students in universities.

Bill C-10, if we listened to the rhetoric, was supposed to be about stimulus. Why are there so many non-monetary provisions in this document? Why in the world are there no significant measures for seniors, the people who built our country, who are the very backbone of Canada?

I want to tell a story, which I have told before in the House but it is worthy of repeating. About two months ago, maybe three now, a man in his mid-seventies came into my office with tears in his eyes, talking about a letter he received from the government announcing a stupendous increase to his pension: 42¢ a month. That says so much about how the government and previous governments have looked at seniors as an invisible group in our country.

Today I met briefly with the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. Its members had a brief they were trying to present to the government. Where was the government when it was asked to protect seniors from poverty? These seniors cannot even get a hearing from the minister. They have a brief that outlines measures they believe from their experience would protect seniors. For instance, when a senior's husband or wife passes away, if they have no other means but OAS and CPP, why are we condemning them to poverty? Why are we doing this as a country? There must be other ways to ensure dignity for seniors in their final years. There is no time that it is acceptable in Canada for one single senior to sleep on the streets of our country.

The government can give away $60 billion in tax breaks to profitable corporations, and I stress the word “profitable”. It is not even helping the companies that are in trouble. It is giving it to the profitable corporations. By doing so it is taking billions of dollars out of the fiscal capacity of our country, money that could have gone to help our seniors and the unemployed.

It cannot even set aside a $1 billion out of that $60 billion for the seniors of our country, and I will tell the House why. The seniors of Canada are an invisible population. They are certainly invisible to the Conservatives. They are not flashy, like the friends of the Cadillac Conservatives that we see around here, but I guarantee that members will be hearing more from seniors and they will be hearing more from me as the seniors critic for the NDP.

If the House wants to hear just how removed from working people and seniors these Conservatives are just listen to the remarks of the Minister of Human Resources when she said on January 30:

We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it, not when we still have significant skill shortages in many parts of the country.

In Hamilton, this so outraged the Hamilton District Labour Council that it put out a media release calling for the minister to resign and I support that recommendation. In Hamilton, 8,000 of my friends and neighbours lost their jobs in one month alone, January, with another 17,000 last year. Households across Hamilton are reeling as our industrial sector gets hammered again and again.

Seniors on retirement incomes in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek are watching and have watched their savings disappear. They are questioning what is going to be done to protect their pensions. To show the grossness of some of the taxation policies of this country, a man came to my office who took the responsibility to bury his cousin who was single. He took that responsibility and paid for the funeral. He was not a man of means. Imagine his shock when he found that the measly death benefit from CPP was taxable. He had taken that responsibility and he had to now pay tax on it.

On the environment file the Conservatives' ideology once again rears its nasty head. They have amended Bill C-10 which, in their words, will streamline the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This should alarm anyone who is used to Conservative spin. This is code for removing many environmental safeguards at a time when Canadians want their government to move to protect the environment, not be part of its devastation.

This ideological war continues with further attacks on women's rights which follow the pattern set when they discontinued funding for the Status of Women in the last session. Now it is pay equity that is under attack.

Clearly, the budget fails students. It fails seniors. It fails the workers of Canada and that is why I will not be supporting the budget. I will do everything in my power to ensure that those people who are left behind learn about the disgraceful measures contained in the budget.

At this point my frustration level is getting to the point where I am starting to lose my place, but that never means for a minute that I will lose my passion for the workers of Hamilton, for the citizens of Hamilton, and the people who have been sold out by the government and its new partners, the Liberals.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech and ask him to talk specifically about one of the poison pills hidden in the Conservative budget, that is, the fact that they are taking away women's right to equal pay for work of equal value.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Outremont is very accurate when he calls it a poison pill. It is tucked into the budget because we know that there are some Liberals who have principles. There are some good Liberals who have fought for many years, along with the Bloc and the NDP, for human rights and for women's rights. However, by slipping this in once again it is like the last session of Parliament when forty-some times the Liberals supported aspects of the government's ideology, a plan to save their own hides. Once more the Liberals in particular are willing to join with the Conservatives to sell out women on pay equity.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, seniors tell me they do not go out because they cannot afford the bus fares. They are cutting off their cable TV because they cannot afford it. They are even thinking of cutting off their phone service because they cannot afford it. Some are on waiting lists for affordable housing that they will never get because in Toronto there is a 6 to 10 year wait list for affordable housing. These seniors are not getting any help because in the budget there is no increase to the guaranteed income supplement, no new money for the Canada pension plan, or old age security. There is nothing in it for them.

Instead, some seniors are facing property tax increases caused by unemployed workers who are unable to get employment insurance and have to go on welfare. Guess who picks up the welfare tab? Between 10% and 20% comes from municipalities which have to get it from their municipal property tax. Many of the seniors cannot afford it.

My question is for the seniors critic in the New Democratic Party. In his experience what is happening in Hamilton to seniors? What is happening to their lives because the budget does nothing for them?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, something very devastating is starting to happen across our country. The fastest-growing suicide rate in our country is that of 85-year-old males. That is because our country has let them down. This government has let them down, and it is very clear that it let down the workers of our country as well with the sellout around EI.

I am stymied and upset. Earlier, I was talking about my anger. I cannot for the life of me understand the Liberal Party. If the Liberals want to support this government, for goodness' sake, they should get something for it. They should get unemployment fixed. If they are going to support the Conservative government, they should at least get something for the workers of Canada.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, many may not know that my friend for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is not only a former president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, but the longest-serving president.

A lot of people make the argument that unions do not care much about the unemployed, because they do not pay dues. I ask the hon. member what we can expect from the Canadian labour movement in terms of standing up for these unemployed workers.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very simple. I was very proud when I was part of the Canadian labour movement because we battled Mike Harris in Ontario, and we are going to battle the Prime Minister. We are going to battle this government.

The labour movement is our partner, and it is going to be there leading right beside us.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-10, Budget Implementation Act, 2009. Addressing the House is certainly an honour for me, but I cannot say I am happy do so on this bill. It is especially appalling that the Liberals have decided to support such a flawed bill.

This bill, which was supposed to represent a new beginning for this government, instead brings it back to its roots, its Reform Party roots. It is an incredibly political measure. It really does not meet the needs of Canadians and I simply cannot support it.

The Conservatives would have Canadians believe that the NDP opposes the idea of this government helping Canadians because we do not support this budget. Nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot imagine how the Conservatives themselves can belive what they are saying when they make such scandalous statements. No sensible person would oppose something that helps our citizens. What we do oppose, however, is the way this budget, which is supposed to stimulate the economy, deceitfully targets specific political objectives: attacking women, punishing the public service, deceiving Canada's aboriginal peoples, and ignoring the needs of small communities and those in the north.

It is important to remember during this discussion that we are talking about all kinds of public servants. It is not just number crunchers or pencil pushers. It includes the people who defend us. It is the RCMP officers who put themselves in harm's way time and again so that we can feel safe in our country. It is the men and women of our armed forces who are being asked to perform very dangerous missions, such as the one in Afghanistan.

We are being asked to vote for a document that says to these proud Canadians who are putting their lives on the line that they do not deserve to earn a decent living. I think that is a shame.

What I find particularly troublesome is that these same Conservatives who extended the mission in Afghanistan, made so much political hay out of those who did not want to support this course for Canada, and accused any and all who did not agree with them of not supporting the troops now turn around and do this to those same troops they say they support. That is pure ignorance. I cannot agree with that.

In the name of economic stimulus, this bill ends pilot projects for EI that extend benefits. That is just crazy. At a time when it is clear to all, except the Liberals and the Conservatives who support this budget, that employment insurance needs to be more responsive, more flexible and more accessible to Canadians, they are closing the doors instead of opening them.

The government will point out that it has extended benefits by five weeks, and that should be enough, because it does not want to make it too lucrative. What the government should really be doing is ensuring that more people are able to make claims. Sure, they should extend benefits; it is a measure that will help people. However, it is of no use if people cannot collect the benefits. It is window dressing.

This government's only concern is to be seen to be doing something. What it is actually doing is basically either nothing or, worse, exacerbating the situation.

The problems with employment insurance are well known. Among the worst is that it takes money from people who will never be able to collect from the fund when they find themselves out of work. It is, in many instances, a tax on having a job. Most people do not mind paying the premiums and see the value of a collective response to unemployment. It would be easier for many more to accept if they were actually able to access those same benefits should they find themselves out of work. On EI, the government is really missing the boat.

The finance minister received a prebudget submission from Ian Lee, the director of the MBA program at the Sprott School of Business, just down the road at Carleton University. That submission told the minister in very clear language that the best available bang for the buck in terms of government spending for stimulus was employment insurance. He showed that EI had the best multiplier, a term to describe the value of a dollar spent by the government. The multiplier for EI was $1.64. EI is the single best choice for economic stimulus, even better than infrastructure spending. Not only does EI have the best multiplier, but it also flows quickly and is not likely to find its way into a person's saving account. It goes to those communities in need and is spent in local businesses in a way that will stimulate the economy.

The government needs to see the light on EI. This budget shows no sign of that happening, and again I have to say I cannot support it.

In the name of economic stimulus, the government has shortchanged our aboriginal communities. It has provided some money for much-needed housing and schools, but it has not responded to calls from that community for an investment in education and social infrastructure or for a repayable loan fund to help with economic development.

For economic development, they were asking for 0.5% of the $200 billion that the government put into the credit system. The government did not deliver. It seemed like a reasonable request, given that the on-reserve population makes up 2% of our population, but the government ignored their needs.

The government does have some money for infrastructure in aboriginal communities. Housing and schools are important, and the construction of them will provide some good short-term jobs.

However, the lack of actual investment in education in these communities condemns today's school-age children to a subpar education, an education with a high school graduation rate far below graduation rates in other communities across our country, and a future in which they will be fighting the same battles that their parents are fighting today.

We simply have to do something about this, and we have to do it now. The Centre for the Study of Living Standards released a report in 2007 which stated that if the high school graduation rate of aboriginal people caught up with that of non-aboriginal people by the year 2017, it would mean an increase in the country's gross domestic product of $62 billion.

It is impossible for me to conceive of a reason for the government to do anything but work with these communities and address this need. The budget does not do anything toward that, and I cannot support it.

There is so much more we could speak about, more than I could cram into this speech. I could tell the House about the 82-year-old pensioner from Elliot Lake who contacted me, furious about the way the banks are being bailed out, but the investors are left with empty accounts and nothing else. This particular man is going to have to sell his house because of the losses he took on the investments. Countless others are worried as they watch their pension funds and RRSPs underperform.

What is the government's response to these seniors? The Prime Minister told them to pick up some quick bargains while the stock market crumbled.

Those seniors built this country. We owe them much more than that. They worked hard and honestly and assumed that their hard work would be rewarded with a comfortable retirement. They deserve better from us. The bill does not address their needs.

I could talk about my constituents who live in areas where the price of gas is incredibly high, even though the price per barrel of oil has dropped to levels we have not seen in years. I could talk about how this bill will make it even harder for students to get the loans they need to pay for their education. I could give an entire speech about the problems the forest industry is facing because of the government's inaction. I could talk about the 92-year-old woman in my riding who has to travel more than 60 kilometres to see a doctor. Many seniors have to drive six hours to see a family doctor in Toronto because there are no doctors in Elliot Lake.

It is these deficiencies that define the budget bill. It is the political attacks buried inside it that will be this bill's legacy. The government will wear that legacy, and those who support it, like the Liberals, will also be responsible.