Alexa McDonough

[Iraq, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, most countries are calling for more aggressive diplomacy, not unilateral military aggression. Even General Norman Schwarzkopf says bombing will not work. A better way to gain Iraqi compliance with UN weapons inspections is to ease trade sanctions which have already killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Why does Canada not lead the way as we did with land mines? Why not intensify our efforts to work through the United Nations for a multilateral diplomatic solution?

[Iraq, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were alarmed this morning to hear the U.S. Secretary of State announce Canadian support for use of substantial military force against Iraq.

My question for the Prime Minister is, is that true? If so, why this contempt of Parliament which has not yet debated this serious matter? And if it is not true, will the Prime Minister lodge an official protest with the U.S. government for its misrepresentation of Canada's position?

[Banking, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister still insists on his pathetic strategy of waiting eight months for the task force to report. He looks like Neville Chamberlain trumpeting the virtues of waiting while his foes make busy their preparations. The minister needs to acknowledge that the world does not stand still, not even for him.

Why do we not, immediately following the budget, strike an all-party committee and allow Canadians to voice their concerns?

[Banking, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister accused the NDP of being lobbyists for the big banks. I think the minister should look in the mirror.

Meanwhile the monster merger partners are rushing to the altar having signed a prenuptial agreement imposing hefty penalties if either partner gets cold feet. By the time the minister consults Canadians, the partners will be on their honeymoon.

Why will the minister not give Canadians a real say and establish a parliamentary committee now?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for the second time this morning I actually agree with one of the positions put forward, which was the very last point the Reform member made. Let me say that whenever I think those policies are fair and just I have no hesitation in embracing them.

Yes, there should be a tax cut. There absolutely should be a tax cut for those at the lowest income levels who are paying an unfair portion of tax.

Yes, it is nice to know that the Reform Party has finally come on board in supporting the NDP position to cut the GST. It is certainly an improvement over where it was when it was advocating that we should actually increase the GST and start taxing food as well.

Let me say that policy is paltry and token compared to the other so-called tax reform policies that the Reform Party advocates. Let us look at the proposal to cut the capital gains tax in half. This is nothing but a tax break for the wealthy. By making only 37.5% of capital gains subject to income tax rather than 75%, this would give those earning $250,000 a year a tax cut of $40,000 each and every year. Is that the Reform Party's notion of tax fairness?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all that the member opposite is absolutely right to talk in terms of fiscal responsibility. Let me repeat what I know the member is well aware of.

The New Democratic Party brought forward a very clear set of priorities that would have resulted in the balancing of the budget. It would have resulted in the elimination of the deficit ahead of the deficit reduction targets of the Liberal government and the finance minister.

The difference is that it would have done so at a lower level of unemployment. In other words we would have accepted the challenge, we absolutely accept the challenge of eliminating the deficit. There is more than one way to achieve it.

The way the Liberal government chose to achieve it was to wipe out over $7 billion in social spending for health, education and for basic social support services for children and families in this society, and then congratulated itself for eliminating the deficit. But the government completely failed to recognize that there is not just a fiscal deficit to be concerned about, there is a social deficit. What that means is that we have added to the health deficit in this country. We have added to the education deficit in this country. We have added the burdens that make it all the more difficult for us to move forward in this country from a position of strength. Now those deficits have to be addressed.

The member opposite asks a perfectly fair and reasonable question. What would the New Democratic Party have done instead? Would we have said to heck with the deficit? Not at all. We put forward a program that would have eliminated the deficit ahead of the finance minister's targets, but we would have done it through growth in the economy. We would have done it by making jobs the number one priority, which is what Canadians want and what they still want, instead of saying we will continue to live with over a million and a half Canadians remaining unemployed. At least that many or more are continuing to be severely underemployed.

I do not know whether the member could think of a defence when given those two choices, either choosing in favour of reducing the deficit while unemployment remains at highly inflated levels or whether he would agree that it is a question of having different choices available and choosing the one which has done the most damage to people instead of the one which would have strengthened the economy and allowed us to move forward.

The member talks about us being bankrupt in this country. It is very hard to make a case for bankruptcy as being the lot of many Canadians when we look at the record profits which corporations have amassed over the last couple of years. The bank sector alone has made profits of over $7 billion. That is where the money is. It is not a question of there not being any money. Canada is wealthier than it has ever been in its history.

The questions are what are we doing with that wealth? How are we reinvesting that wealth for the benefit of all Canadians, not just for the benefit of a privileged few? What are we doing to make sure we strengthen the base, the foundation, on which all Canadians can move forward to share in the benefits of the new economy and to know that our country is headed in a direction which really deals with the basic needs and priorities of Canadians?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Nothing in any of the proposals put forward this morning deal with that fundamental challenge. We hear one of the Reform members say, “How about giving people a real job?” That is a good start. That might be one of the few things that has ever come from the Reform benches with which I agree. Let us look at the question of what it means to be concerned about making sure that people have jobs.

I do not hear the Reform Party saying this, but it is absolutely true that until last month individual Canadians, children and families, were living with an unemployment level above 9% for 86 consecutive months. Finally that unemployment level for the first time has come down a little bit and we have the government saying its policies are working, that it has the economic fundamentals right. We have Reform egging the Liberals on saying, “Therefore let us cut government funding even further, let us cause even more devastation”.

If the Reform Party were serious and if the government were serious about making jobs the centrepiece of its economic and social platform, for starters it would look at what it has done to erode the potential for jobs in this country because of the massive cuts to research that have taken place. Let me just zero in for a minute on the issue of medical research. This is a real challenge that we face in this country.

Over the last decade we have seen an erosion in the commitment to medical research in this country that puts Canada in the very worst position among the G-7 nations. I want to refer to an excellent paper that was presented by the associate dean of medicine at Dalhousie University in my home riding of Halifax. Dr. Dickson, the author of that paper, has put forward a very compelling set of facts and arguments why this government has to face up to the fact that it has caused a steady erosion of commitment to medical research over the last decade and what the implications of having done that are for the future prospects in this country.

There can be an argument made that there is no better way. This is an argument which in fact has been advanced by the OECD. There is no better way to advance the development of jobs in this country than to recognize the need to invest in research. In so doing we not only end up with a better educated nation, we end up with a better infrastructure and an increased capability to generate jobs, the kind of high wage jobs, the high end jobs, the value added jobs that are part of the new economy if we take it seriously and we seize that challenge.

But what do we hear from Reform? We hear advocacies that would take us in the direction of the worst kind of low paid jobs, unprotected because the marketplace is going to do it all.

I had the opportunity recently to spend five days meeting with a group of political economists, academic researchers in the Boston area from Harvard, Brandeis, Boston University and MIT. They had some warnings for Canadians with respect to where the Reform Party is trying to drive this country and the fact that the Liberal Party seems all too willing to accommodate the advocacies of the Reform Party.

What did those American political economists say to us? They said not to be too impressed by the unemployment level in the U.S. which is at 4.7% today. Frankly that surprised us because on the face of it, it looks like exactly what we would want. But that is what they said and we must heed their advice because not to heed their advice is a very short-sighted thing for us to do. They said, “If you keep pursuing the kinds of policies that the Government of Canada has been pursuing in recent years, very much advocated by the Reform Party, you will end up with jobs that are unprotected, jobs that are inadequate in their pay, jobs that have no security and no future attached to them. You want to look very carefully at what kind of country you are going to end up with”.

What kind of country we are going to end up with is exactly what those folks who were in my office wanted to talk to me today about with respect to policies affecting children and families. The kind of country we end up with when those are the kinds of new jobs we create when at the same time there is a greater amassing and concentration of wealth among the most privileged in society is a Canada that is badly divided, where the social fabric is being torn apart, where there is greater insecurity, where there are increased levels of violence and in the end where social solidarity is shattered.

Let us resist those continuing advocacies from the Reform Party. Let us persuade the Liberal government that there is a better way, that there is a fairer way for us to move forward. That means we have to recognize that investing is what a budget is about.

This party wants to only talk about spending and not recognize that what we are talking about is investing in our children, investing in our families, investing in our communities, investing in our futures. They want to always talk about taxes as if it is something that people throw out their window. Taxes are an investment and taxes are our way of sharing as a society in the burdens and the benefits.

I appreciate the opportunity to put forward some of these concerns. Let us heed the voices of those on behalf of children and families in this country. Understand the difference between spending and investing. Understand the difference between the notion of taxation as some form of punishment and the notion of taxation as a fair way, as a cost effective way for us to ensure that we have our social and economic infrastructure on a sound footing and that we are going to be in a position to move forward, to harness the benefits of the new prosperity if we have invested wisely.

We can make sure that we can offer our young people a sound future, a promising future if we recognize the need to invest in their education and in their well-being. Fundamentally that is a question of priorities.

That is what budgets are about. That is what this debate should be about. I hope that we would hear from some of the other members in the Reform Party and the Liberal Party on what their vision is for the kind of Canada we are going to create if we pursue the kind of divisive policies they keep advocating, as we heard once again from the leader of the Reform Party.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate this morning. This debate gives us a chance to talk about priorities with respect to the upcoming budget, a subject very much on the minds of Canadians across the country. We are debating a resolution introduced by the official opposition to reveal what its budget priorities would be in respect to the upcoming budget. The opposition tries to build its case for the further erosion of government spending in this country.

Reformers have been quite specific about what they see as the formula. It involves a 50% tax reduction. They argue that 50% of any dividend from the reductions in our deficit should go toward debt reduction.

I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition as he spoke in this House concerning this resolution. I heard him speak not a single word about real investment in this country, in its infrastructure or in the well-being of its citizens.

Nothing was said to acknowledge the damage and destruction that has befallen the health care system over the past three years because of the misplaced priorities of the Liberal government. Nothing was said to acknowledge that we presently have a severe access problem in Canada with respect to young people getting the education they need. Nothing was said about the crumbling infrastructure. Nothing was said to acknowledge that we as a modern nation are doing very little and less than every other OECD country with respect to research and development in Canada. This is very serious in the area of medical research, for example.

There is nothing to acknowledge that their propositions and proposals would further erode any commitment to community based economic development and any commitment to address regional inequalities in this country. Much less there is no indication whatsoever that they recognize the urgency of doing something to introduce a national child care program, a national pharmacare program and some significant infrastructure to provide home care for the people who are suffering as a result of health care cuts.

People are suffering because the population is aging and less adequate health care is available to them. There is a big burden being heaped on to families and on to communities that do not have the resources to provide that home care which is desperately needed.

Reform advocates a cut in direct spending by another $8.9 billion. Let us be clear that the bulk of these cuts would hit unemployed workers, would hit regional development, would hit equalization payments to the poorer provinces in this country and would further erode any national commitment to Canadian culture.

The Reform Party does not seem content with the federal Liberal cuts in government spending. Let us be clear that those federal Liberal cuts have brought spending in Canada to a level not seen since 1949-50. I remember when the federal finance minister introduced the budget. He congratulated himself on reducing spending to 12% of the GDP, a level not seen in this country for 45 years.

Does the Reform leader recognize that there has been some damage done in the process? Does the Reform Party leader recognize that yes, Canadians want to see responsible fiscal management but in the main, Canadians feel that the Liberal government has already gone too far and we have to do something about the damage and the devastation that has been wreaked by this recklessness. What do we see instead? We see the Reform Party arguing that we should go even further.

It occurred to me as I listened this morning first to the Reform Party leader and then the spokesman for the Liberal government that what we are hearing once again are Liberals and Reformers talking about running Canada the way a business is run. It may seem like not a bad analogy to talk about being responsible and to talk about being able to balance budgets and so on.

However, they do not seem to want to run Canada's business in the way someone would run a business if they actually expected that business to succeed, if they actually intended that business to grow and prosper. They want to run Canada like it is the target of a hostile takeover, not a flourishing business; sell off the assets, lay off the employees, take the money and run, move on.

Reform and the Liberals treat Canada like a bad investment. “Pull your money out,” they say, “the stock is worthless”. Where will Canada be in 20 years if the finance minister and the federal government keep following that Reform vision for Canada?

Where will we be if Korea has invested in the education of its children and the skills of its workers while young Canadians are marching on the streets? Where will Canada be if the U.S. and Chile invest in a modern transportation network while we allow ours to crumble further?

What will happen to the competitive advantage medicare gives us in labour costs for example, not to mention our national pride and attending to the health of the people of our nation, if we allow it to shrivel further and die on the vine?

For the past five years this country has been caught in the confines of the narrow vision and the shrivelled horizon of the right wing debate. Not content with the growing inequalities its prescriptions having engendered, Reform wants to further dismantle the ability of government to act in the public interest and turn over still more of our economic life to the whims of the free market.

When I was listening to the Reform leader's advocacies in this House this morning, I was in my office meeting with a group of Canadians who are desperately concerned about what we are doing to the lives of children and families in this country. They are very concerned about what it does both to the lives of individual children and the soul of a nation for the government to be contributing through its calculated deliberate adopted policies to the growth of poverty among our children. They are concerned about what it does to the lives of people and to the future of this nation to be fueling those policies advocated by Reform and adopted by the Liberals, to be increasing day in and day out the inequality, the gap between the super rich and everyone else in this country.

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I am going to share some of my time this evening with the member from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.

Think for a moment. It is 3 o'clock in the morning. Power went off three hours ago. The house is dark and cold, darker than dark and colder than cold. The rain won't let up. The creaking of the frozen trees and the cracking of their ice bound limbs mark the minutes of the longest night of your life.

You tell yourself everything will be all right, you will make it through. If only it would stop raining. If only it would stop freezing. If only the power would go back on. Then it does, like a miracle. The dark is banished, the warmth returns and you breathe easy again.

It is no miracle. It is not even anything but the ordinary. It is just another day and night on the job for public service workers. That is what is extraordinary. Out there in the dark, out there up some pole or down some ditch, out there scrambling over iced fence lines, out there pelted by driving rain, out there with the frayed high voltage wires, out there with the exploding transformers, they are hard at work.

They think nothing of it. It is their job and they do it. They do it night and day. They do it day and night until the power is restored and until life is normal again.

Throughout the entire ice storm and throughout the efforts to repair the damage, it was the same story. Everywhere we saw ordinary people performing extraordinary deeds, and not for money, never for the money. Not the soldiers, not the Hydro workers, not the water and sewer workers, not the neighbours helping neighbours, not the strangers helping other ordinary people, never for the money.

Extraordinary. Extraordinary because, in this time of world-wide economics, when money seems to be the great motivator, money can do anything, except magic.

But what has helped us here was not the power of money, but the power of something far more important, the power of community, the simple instinct to help each other, no questions asked. It was extraordinary.

It was something much stronger and of greater value than money. It was the power of community, the simple instinct to look out for one another whether or not you could make a buck out of it. That was extraordinary. It is extraordinary when we are told how often that kind of thing does not matter anymore in our society, how all the old values are quaint curios with no place in this age of cyber space and virtual reality. There was nothing virtual about the ice storm. It was about as real as reality gets. In the face of that ice cold reality it was the values that made the difference, the values of community, of caring and of compassion, the value of social solidarity.

We should learn something from that. We should learn that there is value in things that are not ever traded on the stock exchange and that to casually throw them away, discount and diminish them is dangerous to our well-being, our well-being as individuals and our well-being as a society.

Another clear lesson from the ice storm is that we still count on government a lot. Private enterprise may be very good at some things but when the power is out and the cold is creeping in no one calls McDonald's or Eaton's or mbanx. We call and count on the services run by our governments. We expect and trust them to get done what needs to be done when we need it, and it was done.

Some members of this House have made a career out of attacking the institution of government, the very idea of government. They complain loud and long about the supposed great injury big government does to them. They attempt to rally support with calls to get government off our backs. They want to downsize, diminish, cut, slash, generally reduce government to nothing much more than a credit bureau or a cheque clearing house. Tonight their silence is deafening. No one is saying there was too much government during the ice storm. No one wants government to turn its back now.

The point is we all know there is a place and a use for effective and efficient government and it is not just during ice storms or floods either.

We appreciate and understand that government at its best is a tangible expression of our desire to do right by each other, to make an unfair and unjust world a little more fair and a little more just. A strong, engaged and responsive government with a well trained, well equipped and well motivated public sector is necessary to create any chance for the kind of life we all want and we all work for.

Our relationship to ourselves and to our government was, is and should be much more than a cash and carry trade. That was not evident before the ice storm. It should be now.

A long time ago Jean-Jacques Rousseau set out the ideas that led us to form ourselves into democratic societies. He talked about the social covenant we all enter into when we consent to live in harmony together, each with individual rights and each with responsibilities to one another. He warned that such an arrangement could collapse into chaos when the social bond is broken in our hearts.

The ice storm showed us that social bond is not broken in our hearts, not yet anyway. It showed us how we must value and jealously protect that bond ahead of anything we could ever lock away in a bank. If we can do that we can be as certain of a bright future for ourselves and our country as any people who ever lived on this blue-green planet of ours.

Finally, I am thinking this evening of the victims of this disaster.

I would like to congratulate them on their courage and solidarity in facing up to this crisis. They have been a source of inspiration for the rest of the country, and we shall never forget their struggle. Thanks to these men and women, we have had an opportunity to witness a perfect example of the Canadian spirit, the spirit of sharing, of solidarity, of community.

[Bank Merger, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister blabbers on about jumping the cue. He dismisses the genuine concerns of Canadians as verbal diarrhoea.

If you ask Canadians should we change the existing federal policy that big banks shall not buy big banks, they would say “No way, no thanks”.

Is that why the Minister of Finance is afraid to let Canadians have their say?