David Christopherson

[Petitions, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition flowing from a demonstration in front of Hamilton City Hall a week ago in support of the citizens of Darfur, who of course are facing unimaginable tragedy. Upwards of 100,000 people have already died. The petition is calling on the Canadian government to play a role in supporting the African Union and the United Nations to do something about this and bring the obscene violence to a halt. I am very proud to present it and also very proud to add my name to this petition.

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that former Premier Rae has not yet concluded his review and has not made his recommendations. It will be quite interesting to see exactly what comes out of that.

The member said that enough money was already being spent but that we were just not spending it wisely. Government, as well as private enterprise, can always spend money more wisely. There is always room for improvement. The hon. member and his colleagues in the Conservative caucus will never get the statement by me that there is more than enough money going forward, that the total money is adequate but that it is just how we spend it.

I went through the Mike Harris years in Ontario. That is exactly what Mike Harris said about environmental protection, education, the health care system and social services in Ontario. In every one of those areas he said that there was no revenue problem in terms of money going into them, but that there was a problem with where it was being spent. By the time he left government, every one of those areas were in tatters. We are doing the best we can in Ontario to try to rebuild all the damage that was done.

The hon. member can go ahead and make those claims but, after having lived through a Conservative government that devastated and decimated all the public services that mattered, that argument will not wash over here.

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently and I appreciate the comments of the member, in particular his closing remarks when he talked, I believe quite forthrightly and from the heart, about his experience in the classroom and what that meant to him and running into the students later. I believe that. I have no doubt that it must be a very fulfilling feeling for anyone in the teaching profession. It sounds like he is playing it straight here today and I appreciate that.

But I have to say that the difficulty we have with the bill in front of us now is that we have to get there first; we have to get the students in front of the hon. member so he can do his magic. That is what this is about. It is about what vehicles society will use to ensure that students can get in front of the hon. member and benefit from his learning and his experience.

The member also said some words about just throwing money at education “willy-nilly”; for the Conservative Party, investing in education now has become throwing money “willy-nilly”. Further, the member said, and I know hon. members do not want to talk about this too much, that low income people, if they just knew about the program, would be willing and happy to make the investment. That is all it is: if they just knew. If they just knew, they would be willing and happy to make the investment. These are the low income people, the ones we are concerned about who do not have the discretionary income. The member says all they have to do is know about this.

Here is the difficulty we have with that. If the members who support this would just say that this is to benefit those who already have some discretionary income, who understand how the system works, who perhaps have parents who are university graduates or at least understand how the system works and therefore can plug right into it and “is that not a benefit?”, if they were making that argument they would get a bit of a different response from us, because at least it would be totally upfront. If it were matched with willy-nilly investments to ensure that those who do not have discretionary income could also find themselves in front of the hon. member, then maybe we would have something.

They do not want to argue that today so they try to make an argument that somehow this is going to benefit low income people. We will not let them off the dime on this issue because this is what students are telling us and this is what parents are telling us. I would like the hon. member to explain in detail, not in willy-nilly words, how this is going to benefit low income people even if they become fully aware of this wonderful program but do not have a dime because they spend every dollar they have putting food on the table for their children.

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's response, except I really do not think it answered the question. If I heard correctly, and please do correct me if I am wrong, he said that there are two components. He has acknowledged that the one component may not benefit the families, which I spoke of earlier in my question. He said that the other one would however, and I think it amounted to $2,000 plus the potential for accumulated interest, assuming if one put it into the stock market and made the right call. That is a whole different issue.

However, if the argument of the hon. member is that the second component makes this worthwhile for the target group who cannot afford to put discretionary money into a fund for the future of the children's education, then really all that second component is, having acknowledged the first one does not do the trick, is a $2,000 grant. Why not give the families $2,000 and tell them to invest it and do the best they can in the stock market. However, let us not pretend that somehow this program will accomplish the objective, which I have to believe is to ensure that everybody has access to post-secondary education. In this case we are talking about those who have modest means of income.

I am not satisfied that the question was answered.

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member. He mentioned in his comments that there was not enough participation by lower income students. Yet the whole purpose of this is where families can put disposable income. If they do not have disposable income, then they have nothing to contribute.

If the target group is those of low income, how on earth can we argue that this is helpful to those families when they do not have the discretionary funds within the family budget to put into this wonderful new program of the federal government?

[Auditor General Act, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend and compliment my colleague and friend from Repentigny. I sit with the member on the auditing committee of the House and I know of his passion for this issue.

I find it surprising that the Liberal member talked about the fact that we might impugn the motives of the chartered accountancy firms. I think they are all grown up and understand the checks and balances required in a democracy. Not only that, if we took that particular theory and applied it here we would have never had the sponsorship scandal in front of us, because who would dare impugn the motives of a minister of the Crown? This is all about checks and balances.

I was particularly intrigued by subclause 2(3), which talks about the fact that the Auditor General can determine himself or herself whether anything further needs to be done, perhaps an initial review. I would ask the member if he has had any occasion to come across a circumstance where the Auditor General would not be sent in because it is not in the best interests of Canadians.

[Canada Labour Code, December 2nd, 2004]

Hope springs eternal. It has happened before. I was there.

However, at the very least, hopefully it will be a minority situation where the kind of pressures that force the government to take the action today that it is taking will also be there to put pressure on it to actually enact the legislation. If we do not have legislation at the end of the day, all we have done is taken up a lot of time.

[Canada Labour Code, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, we in the NDP are pleased to see that minority government is working once again for the people of Canada. This review is important, timely and one that we support. We also support and applaud the appointment of Professor Arthurs. He is a well-renowned, respected individual who we believe will serve the people well.

We are dealing with the Canada Labour Code and, first and foremost, we in the NDP caucus believe that the best protection for an employee is a union and a collective agreement. This deals with those workers under federal jurisdiction who do not have the support and protection of a collective agreement and, therefore, they need minimum protections in the law. This is about reviewing that law.

The minister has indicated that the government is prepared to look at a number of areas and we are pleased to hear that. These are crucial areas, such as the hours of work, seasonal employment and ensuring there is a minimum floor of rights and protections for workers.

I have to say, however, that we were disappointed the other day to hear the Liberals indicate that they would not support the legislation proposed by the Bloc member in terms of anti-scab legislation. We see some reference in the notes to this. Hopefully this will be an opportunity for the government to have a second, sober thought and realize the importance of bringing in anti-scab legislation and that it promotes peace and harmony between the parties involved.

We also believe that the federal legislation should be the best available in the country. It ought to be the model but in many ways it is woefully inadequate to achieve that goal. We would hope that the government and the commissioner, in agreement with the Bloc, but with a little different twist, will look at all provincial legislation, not only to ensure that it becomes the bare minimum that is entrenched in the federal labour code but that we take a leadership role at this level and show Canadians, through the actions of Parliament and the laws that we pass, what the acceptable minimum standards of employment protections and rights that workers have, whether they are unionized or not, and that regardless of whether they are covered by provincial legislation or federal legislation, this would be the bare minimum and that nothing less will be acceptable for any worker anywhere in this great country.

I will close by suggesting two important things. First, we would hope that the government would be serious about implementing the results. We are giving the government the benefit of the doubt but the timeframes do raise some suspicions that the government is hoping that this will not come back until after the next election, in which case there may or may not be a minority situation, which takes me to my last point. I hope, whether it is in this Parliament or the next Parliament, that this comes back, if not with an NDP majority, then at the very least--

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, and again I stand to be corrected, it is still happening. We have had a shift in government, but it is still happening.

What perplexed us, and at that time we were the third party in the House, was the deafening silence that came from this place. No one felt any obligation at all, at the national level in government, to speak to an action that hurt kids severely. I think the government had an obligation to speak and it still does.

To answer the question from my colleague from Windsor West, I think the obligation goes beyond just verbal reaction. When something like that happens, the national government has to do something. We cannot standby and let any government turn around and attack the poor in its own jurisdiction. I do not know how we would call anything like a 21.6% cut in income as anything other than an attack. These are the people in poverty.

I remember saying at the time that the history books will show that it was one of the darkest times in our province. What made it extra dark was the acceptance by the public that this was okay and by all of us as politicians who did not do enough in our communities to ensure that one could not get elected on that kind of an agenda. It should never have happened.

The point is that it did. In this federation, there has to be room somewhere for the federal government to do something, other than stand back and wring its hands and say “We're sorry, it is not good”. It did not even say that. I hope that at least it wrung its hands.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have the answer to the question from the Bloc member. However, it certainly is the central question that needs to be asked when we are dealing with child poverty.

It is an area that I did not have time to get into, but our arguments are similar in that we are making the point that we are a rich nation. We have the dollars with the surpluses to prove it, but we chose other priorities. I cannot speak for the member opposite but speaking for myself, I would not expect that every dime and penny would go into any one particular area of government regardless of the need. We would not be able to function.

However, to merely let it go by, and now to hear that it was not even meant, that really blows me away. I hope there is some follow up by somebody somewhere who cares about this. That is what this was all about. He made the point that there were billions of dollars available through surpluses that went to debt reduction.

The point that I am making, and that I think my colleague from the Bloc is sharing, is that some of that money should have gone to another national priority goal and objective, and that was to deal with the issue of child poverty.