David Christopherson

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Windsor West and certainly my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst who is sponsoring the motion. Both have put forward powerful, effective arguments. If people are watching at home who are either unemployed or have an unemployed family member and are lacking any hope in finding employment, I am sure they take those arguments very seriously and are probably wondering why they did not have the same kind of effect on the rest of the House. I want to compliment those members for making that kind of powerful argument. They have also laid the groundwork as to why this is so reasonable.

Let me visit a couple of the issues that I think warrant the consideration of members of the House and why they should ultimately support this motion.

There is nothing new here. This is not some wild eyed, pie in the sky, perfect utopian aspect of how the world ought to be in its perfection. It is nothing like that. This is about an issue that was recommended by one of our committees in February of this year.

There were 28 recommendations from the committee dealing with improvements to EI. The NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals supported the report in its entirety. The Conservatives supported some of the recommendations. That is the starting point and I am not going to put too much emphasis on talking to them, although I think that some of those members who actually give a damn about the unemployed ought to be concerned about this. Maybe something will happen and lightning will strike, and they will see the light and be there for their constituents.

My main focus is on the Liberals and the Bloc because together we can make this happen. We can do this; we have the votes. This is a minority government. When we join together on this or any other issue that we think important, we can make it law.

I do not understand why the Liberals are offside. If they have suddenly taken a trip down the road to Damascus, then they should please send a note over. I would love to start praising the fact that they have joined us on this. I have been advised by our whip that the minister indicated earlier that the government is not going to support this motion. Why? Why would they not support this when just a couple of months ago all of the Liberals on the committee voted for these 28 recommendations?

Is it because it was just at committee, so the Liberals could play their posturing games where they say one thing, talk like New Democrats, get passionate like New Democrats, but govern like right wingers? Is that what was going on? If it was, then it was disgusting.

This is not just some theoretical debate about some esoteric issue. As my good friend from Windsor West pointed out, we are talking about the ability of fellow Canadians to maintain their life while they go through the crisis of unemployment. We are not talking big dollars. I believe the difference between what is already in front of us and what is proposed here today is $20 million. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

The sum of $20 million is a lot of money, make no mistake about that. However, in a system where the surplus alone has generated over $50 billion, it is not a lot of money. It is certainly not enough money to justify saying to the unemployed in this country that they are not good enough to get the attention and support of the House. These are good, decent, hardworking people who just want to provide for their families like every one of us here in the House and like everybody else in this country,

We just went through the experience of seeing the Liberal government put $4.6 billion, a surprise gift, into corporate tax cuts in the last budget. It is funny how the Liberals found $4.6 billion that nobody was really asking for. They had no mandate for it. It was not part of the election campaign. All that we in the NDP have ever asked for is for the Liberals to take a good look at the difference between what they say and what they do, and this is a prime example.

Take a $4.6 billion that no one campaigned for, no one had a mandate for and no one asked for--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. My question would be with regard to the fiscal responsibility contained in the new budget.

One of the key priorities that the leader of the New Democratic Party brought to his meetings with the Prime Minister was the trade-off of taking out the $4.6 billion in corporate tax cuts, which nobody ran on or had a mandate for, and replacing that with investments in protection for the environment, affordable housing, support for student debt and important infrastructure in municipalities.

Given that those changes were made and given that one of the prerequisites of the leader of the New Democratic Party was that there was to be a balanced budget, no increase in taxes and continue to paydown on the national debt, would the member please comment on the fiscal responsibility aspect of the better budget negotiated between the leader of the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister?

[The Budget, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this week's historic budget vote is being viewed too often as simply a decision on the life or death of the government. It is so much more than that. The budget represents Parliament's best opportunity to help people.

In my hometown of Hamilton, one report found over 14,000 tenant households spending more than half of their income on rent. This budget will help those tenants.

The 28,000 students at McMaster University and 10,000 students at Mohawk College are facing possible tuition increases this fall. The budget will help those students.

Hamiltonians were faced with some of the worst air quality levels in Ontario last year. The budget will help clean our air.

We are not voting on just the life or death of a government, but on the quality of life of our seniors and our students, our sick and our poor. It is about the life or death of our vibrant cities and our green spaces.

I will not vote for the government but I will vote for the NDP improved budget and everything it means for the people of Hamilton Centre.

[Sponsorship Program, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, every day Canadians are hearing more and more evidence that their hard-earned tax dollars found their way back to Liberal Party coffers in envelopes stuffed with thousands of their taxpayer dollars. Today former Liberal executive Benoît Corbeil admitted that he too funnelled taxpayer dollars into local Liberal campaigns.

The government has apparently heard enough evidence to bring lawsuits against several of the ad companies, but when will the government respect the will of the House and put that dirty money in a trust?

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

You guys don't even want to talk about public opinion. It's shameful.

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind the heckling, but it reaches a certain point where it is a little bit much.

I was pointing out that fiscal responsibility is just as important to the New Democrats as the actual investments. We wanted to make sure that it remained a balanced budget, that there were no tax increases, and that we continued to pay down the debt. Those are priorities for us too. What we could not understand was spending $4.6 billion on tax cuts that they did not have a mandate to do.

This budget deserves to pass. This Parliament needs to stay alive long enough to get that budget through. Then we will get at the Liberals.

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, do you want to get a leash for him?

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

We got $4.6 billion more going into social services and going into the issues--

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

The member thinks I might have something else to say, and I do. I would also like to point out that one of the beauties of this improved budget is that the leader of the New Democratic Party made one of our demands the whole issue of fiscal responsibility.

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would just put the question to you and anyone watching, does anyone honestly believe that if the Conservatives, the official opposition, were at 21%, they would be fighting tooth and nail the way they are to bring down this Parliament and get us out onto the hustings? No, they would be saying that we have to make this Parliament work. They would have a completely different tune. The fact of the matter is that because they suddenly have had a bit of a bump in the poll numbers, they are all excited and are thinking, “What colour do I want the drapes in my ministerial suite? What kind of automobile am I going to buy?” They have got themselves caught up in the fine taste of victory rather than rolling up their sleeves and doing the work of the Canadian people.