David Christopherson

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think they just do not care to hear these messages today and one way to kill time is to raise points of order that are not really points of order.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives were quite prepared to support, in the original Liberal budget, $4.6 billion being spent. Tax cuts are expenditures. They are no different from program spending. Whether we are spending the money we receive on programs and services or whether we deny ourselves that revenue, it has the same impact on the budget and it is still called an expenditure.

The Conservatives were quite prepared to accept that, but not the $4.6 billion that is going to help ordinary Canadians in the things that matter to their lives and to their families, things for which they are looking to this House to provide some remedy.

There are tens of thousands of young people who are going to be affected by the fact that the NDP better balanced budget will make sure that we provide direct assistance to students who are facing enormous debt loads. We know that they are the future of this country. And since the Conservatives are so concerned about the economy, let me say that the young people of Canada are also the future engine of economic activity.

You thought, the Conservatives thought, it was more important to--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of us are slow learners. I apologize again, Sir.

The argument from the Conservatives is that the whole thing is too corrupt in terms of content, process, relationship and Gomery, and therefore under no condition should the NDP have joined in any kind of deal, yet here they are moving an amendment that amends it. It does not get rid of it. It does not kill it. It just amends it. The official opposition's arguments are specious.

My colleague has just finished pointing out that the Conservatives were in favour of a $4.6 billion corporate tax cut, which, by the way, nobody had a mandate to bring in and nobody was lobbying for except the Conservatives. That expenditure was contained in Bill C-43, the original Liberal budget. Not only did the Conservatives support that $4.6 billion, which, by the way--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate. If I may, I would like to pick up where the previous speaker left off, although obviously I will go in a different direction, because it takes me straight into most of my points.

I find it fascinating that the previous speaker and the Bloc and Conservative members who have spoken, the Conservatives in particular, have focused on this issue that the NDP really had no moral right, and these are my words, to join in this agreement to create a better balanced budget because the Liberals are too corrupt. I think I have the argument correct, do I not?

There is a problem I have with that. There are a lot of problems with that, but one is the very amendments that the Conservative Party has tabled today, and the very first one, Motion No. 1, their own amendment. Does it say that this is too corrupt a deal and a process and that therefore the bill should be killed? No. Does the amendment say it ought to be pushed back so that it has the de facto effect of killing the bill? Is it that kind of parliamentary manoeuvre? No.

All it does is say this: instead of there having to be a guaranteed $2 billion surplus as a trigger before the $4.5 billion gets spent, it moves that line from a $2 billion trigger to a $3.5 billion trigger.

I thought your argument was that the whole thing is--

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I was rather underwhelmed by the speech from the minister. I realize she is new but I did not hear about commitment. The only thing that really mattered was that the government would vote for it, and that is good. It guarantees this will pass.

There is something I would like to see. We keep dealing with these economic issues. The train wreck is coming. We know the trains are on the same track. We know that globalization, free trade, corporate downsizing, all these things, cause massive layoffs.

The federal Liberals seem to spend more time ensuring that enough ambulances are there to take people to the hospital rather than getting in behind the scene and stopping the crash in the first place. That takes us into their trade, economic and budget policies and a whole host of other issues. In addition to dealing with people who are affected by this, we ought to be doing everything we can as a nation to bloody well prevent it from happening in the first place.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member listening and taking the time to comment. I do not think it is that hard to figure out. I was hoping everybody would vote for the motion, but I was also pointing out that I do not want that to become the only thing the Conservatives are prepared to do, which is to vote for a motherhood motion.

I did not write down exactly what the member said, but it had something to do with rhetoric and shrill comments and that is fair comment. My speaking style lends itself to that kind of criticism and I accept that.

The member asks what I want. What I want is for the Conservatives not to vote for what is now simply a motherhood position, and should be a motherhood position, and that is to help older workers.

We had a motion in the House last week to improve the system so people could go from 14 weeks to the best 12 weeks. Does the member want to know what I want? I want to see more than 7 out of 99 Conservatives stand and put their precious votes on the line to do something that helps older workers and workers in general rather than just vote for a motherhood position.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in today's debate. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst.

Unless I am mishearing things, it sounds like every caucus in the House is going to be supporting the motion, which is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because it means that we are going to have the unanimous support of the House in dealing with older workers who, without assistance from their senior levels of government, are quite frankly being thrown on the social scrap heap.

This then becomes a motherhood issue. When every member votes that way, that is a powerful tool. My experience in these things is that by having unanimous consent there is no controversy and no tension. Everybody feels good about having taken the motherhood position and done something about older workers, and then everybody trots off and that is the end of it.

I wonder whether the vote would be the same if we actually had the strategy in front of us with the details included and the price tag attached to it. I would like to think so, but I have some real doubts, particularly when I look at the history of the Conservatives and the Liberals on these kinds of issues.

I want to compliment my colleagues in the Bloc once again for bringing forward matters dealing with social issues and for their understanding of individual citizens in the context of our society. We in the NDP share a lot of the same values as the Bloc and the PQ., and that is why we are supportive of the motion. We obviously disagree on the huge national issues, but nonetheless we are supportive of today's motion. Bloc members are to be complimented and commended for bringing this forward and I commend them without any reluctance.

Now let me turn to the Liberals and the Conservatives, and I will start with the Conservatives first. A member from the Conservative caucus spoke earlier. It sounded to me that the reason he did not support the improvements in EI from 14 weeks to 12 weeks was because he was concerned about mischief. If I misunderstood, I hope members will use the opportunity of questions and comments to set me right.

It is one thing for members to offer up a fig leaf for the reason why they are voting a certain way, but they should at least come up with a decent one. To suggest that members are going to vote against an improvement to EI that would help literally tens of thousands of Canadians who desperately need help because they are concerned about mischief is pretty weak.

When the Conservatives talk about these kinds of issues they say the right words. But boy, I would love to see 1/100th of the passion and commitment on this issue that they put into tax cuts or into cutting the premiums to EI. We need to take a look at their track record and see what they have said about premiums and the need to cut them, and the effect of that on competitiveness and all of the corporate arguments about why EI premiums need to be cut. I would love to see just a fraction of that kind of passion going toward what we ought to be doing. We should be building an EI system that protects workers as it is meant to do. We could use that kind of commitment.

The member who made the mischievous comment also went on to say that he found $55 million to be a rather daunting figure. That would appear to be a big number to a rookie MP. I did not hear that kind of concern when $4.6 billion in new corporate tax cuts, that nobody asked for, were in the original Liberal budget. Nor did I hear him or his colleagues say that $100 billion was a humungous number when the Liberal government a few years ago brought in tax cuts.

A Liberal caucus member is applauding that. I am sure his corporate friends are thrilled with the fact that he is so enamoured with $100 billion in corporate tax cuts or the added $4.6 billion gift the Liberals gave in their first budget. I would like to see him applauding more often when people are standing up talking about the needs of unemployed workers.

Today we are talking about older workers who are falling through the cracks, workers who have already given decades of their lives to this economy, to their families and to their communities. These are workers who have mortgages to pay and who are trying to struggle with paying tuition fees that have gone through the roof to send their kids to university, so maybe they will have a life where they would not face this kind of absolute disaster. I say to the members of the Liberal caucus to show that kind of compassion and that kind of support.

The Conservatives, to finish my comments on them, have the right words to say, but I am not at all convinced that they are committed to this in their hearts. We will see as time goes on whether or not that is the case.

For the Liberals, unfortunately, I do not have three hours, which I wish I did. That is about how long it would take just to list the examples of how they continue to talk like New Democrats when there are issues affecting communities and workers, and govern like Conservatives when they make decisions and bring in budgets.

If the House wants examples, it was just a few days ago that we voted in the House to improve EI on a motion brought forward by my colleague and EI critic from Acadie—Bathurst. The Liberals opposed it. I did not hear the minister today bragging about taking that position.

CCAA brought out something that deals with some wage protection. We may deal with that as to whether or not it is a positive step, but it does not address the issue of older workers who are facing their pension plans being ripped apart because they do not have the legislative protection that the NDP is trying to get the House to give to those workers. So far, the Liberals are not there. They have not been there for 12 years and they are still not there. It is the Liberal government that allows Wal-Mart to use economic terrorism to keep unions out of those workplaces. Is this a government that cares about workers?

What about the latest move in the last year or so that wiped out hundreds, if not thousands, of community based non-profit employment service agencies? They were wiped off the face of the map and replaced with for profit companies. The Liberals say this is a good thing, but no one in any of the communities that I know says that. Certainly, in Hamilton no one says that. We have a great history of some terrific organizations that are now wiped out.

There is a lot of concern about the ties of some of these for profit companies to the Liberal Party. Is there a connection there? Time will tell. However, the track record is one of a government that talks. The Liberals talk a great story for workers and communities. They talk like New Democrats and they campaign like New Democrats, but at the end of the day, they still govern and they still budget like Conservatives.

Yes, we need to support the motion here today. We saw Lévi Strauss removed, ripped out of the Hamilton community, out of Stoney Creek, and those jobs went over to Asia and China. There were thousands of people put out of work because of the demands of Wal-Mart to provide the lowest possible cost, even if that meant to exploit workers halfway around the world, and throw workers in Canada and the United States onto the social scrap heap.

This is a huge issue and I truly hope that the vote that happens on this is not just meant to pacify the unemployed and make it look good so that the Liberals can say that they took the motherhood position. I truly hope it is the beginning of a real strategy that does come back to this place with details in order to do something for older workers and all workers for that matter. The Liberals should put a price tag on it and then let us see who is prepared to stand up for workers and who is not.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments from the member for Peterborough. The last part of his comments was something to the effect that he took into account all the variables. I must tell members that the only variable here is that the whip came along and said that the position of the hon. member was going to change when this got to the House.

That is a totally inadequate answer to a very straightforward question. I am from Hamilton. We like to do things straight up. At committee, the hon. member felt this was a good idea. He cast his precious vote in favour. Now it is in the House a few months later and the member is voting against it. An explanation is in order.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the primary difficulty we have is that we do not agree with the premise that it is generous.

Take a look at what has happened since 1990 under Conservative and Liberal governments. In the 1990s we started with 75% of the unemployed receiving EI coverage. That means 75% of people who were unemployed qualified for some kind of EI. Even that was not ideal but it is certainly was getting a lot closer than where we are today. Thanks to the Conservatives and Liberals, they put it in reverse and put the pedal to the metal. Now only 38% of the unemployed in the country receive benefits. Put another way, two in five of Canada's unemployed receive EI benefits at any given time. It was double that in the 1990s.

When the member speaks about how generous it is and how wonderful things are, I beg to differ. I suggest with great respect that the facts put the lie to the argument that somehow the Liberals and the Conservatives care at all about the unemployed.

I will wait for my opportunity. When the member gives a speech and I will want to ask him a question. That question will be this. How can Liberals stand in this place and say that they care about the unemployed when under their regime, benefits and eligibility to the unemployed have been cut, cut, cut? Yet on the corporate side, there are millions and billions in tax gifts, gifts, gifts. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out who is important to them and who is not.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I think I am getting better, but I do not have it down just yet. However, I accept that and I will do my best to continue to stop presenting things in a way that is unacceptable to you. However, the anger I suppose is part of it and I appreciate the tenor that you took in slapping me on the wrist.

My point was we just went through an exercise of $100 billion, the biggest tax cut in the history of Canada. The Liberals had enough care about corporations that it found $100 billion. All we are asking for is $20 million to give some scared, frightened, decent Canadians a bit of a hand. Do we not owe them that? Is that not the least we can do?

I grant that this will not change the world and it is not a huge thing, but that is the whole point. We are trying to make Parliament work. We have brought in a motion that is very small and narrow. I know there are a lot of activists in the EI community and in the labour movement who are somewhat concerned that it does not contain more. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would say to them very directly to take a look at how much trouble we are having getting support for this little piece. It will give them an idea of how tough that battle is.

In trying to make the minority Parliament work, we decided we would take one chunk of these recommendations. Keep in mind that we tried to make it part of the deal, the new better balanced budget we negotiated with the Liberals, but we did not get it. That is why we are bringing it in this way.

For the life of me, I truly cannot understand how members of the Liberal Party can stand behind their colleagues who voted in committee for this very recommendation. Yet when it is time to put their money where their mouth is, they are nowhere to be seen. It is totally unacceptable.

I urge the members of the Liberal caucus, enough of them at least, to reconsider their position on this. It is not that much to ask.

What more do the unemployed have to do to get a decent shake around here? The government stands by and lets Wal-Mart use economic terrorism in Quebec to stop unionization. It seems the Liberals do not want unions to do well in Canada. Again, the Liberals talk a good story, but look at what they did or in this case did not do. They have stood by and done nothing as Wal-Mart marches across not just North America but the world now, putting hundreds of thousands of people who have small businesses out of work.

I am approaching the one minute mark and that is a shame because there is so much to be said.

Why are the smallest things always the biggest fight? We are talking about $20 million that could make the difference between someone being able to put food on the table or not, or to buy a nice dress for their daughter's prom or to ensure that their son has the fees to be involved in local sports.

We are talking about that. It is not billions and billions of dollars. We are certainly not talking about envelopes stuffed with cash, like we have seen in the sponsorship scandal. All we are asking for is a measure of decency for people who have worked hard their whole lives and who through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed.

The least we can do in one of the richest, most generous, nations on the planet is provide some modicum of support while they go through this crisis. That is not asking too much as a Canadian citizen.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

I will scream as loud as I have to get some justice for people who are looking for some kind of recognition that they are important. Damn right I will yell. If the unemployed had a chance to be here it would be deafening. Someone has to stand up and speak for them. It is a good thing that they have friends in the members from Acadie--Bathurst and Windsor West who are prepared to stand up and give voice because you are not prepared to do it.

Prior to that $4.6 billion, the government had $100 billion to give away--