Denise Savoie

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government made a reference to parents' concerns about rising costs in education and made references to poverty but offered no plan at all or no steps that would help us reduce this prosperity gap.

It seems that when the government acknowledges that there is a prosperity gap it still keeps going in the wrong direction.

As the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said with reference to the increasing gap municipalities are facing in dealing with the challenges that the former Liberal government and the present government have downloaded to them, the government may have recognized the challenges but provided no additional resources to address them.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my colleague from Hamilton Mountain.

I am proud to stand in solidarity with my NDP colleagues and millions of Canadians who oppose the Conservative government's wrong-headed direction. The throne speech should be an articulation of the government's fundamental principles and yet in this document the government has reached a new level of cynical doublespeak. While claiming to be concerned about poverty, homelessness, climate change and rising costs in post-secondary education, the government has outlined steps that will make the problems worse.

The government has turned its back on communities. Our local governments are left with heavy lifting, forced to face today's complex challenges on their own while a federal seat sits vacant.

I would like to start by talking specifically about Victoria. There is a growing consensus in my community that all levels of government should focus on housing. As of this April, 953 families and 406 seniors were on the wait list for social housing. The city of Victoria's homelessness task force report released last week speaks to the urgency of acting now. Even the Victoria Downtown Business Association is asking the federal government to allocate some of the surplus to housing.

I also consistently hear about Victoria's need for affordable, quality child care. Last week the Prime Minister gave a misleading answer in response to my question. Contrary to his assertion, his failed policies have not created one child care space, in my riding at least. On the contrary, day care centres are closing and desperate parents are on mile-long wait lists. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has called for a national child care system. The business community has lamented the domino effect of federal child care cuts on its province's workforce.

To address these and other crucial issues, I have long advocated for the federal government to adopt a community focused approach. This means having the federal government act as a collaborative partner with the provinces to help municipalities implement their own local solutions. What a community approach would not do is impose unnecessary policy barriers that prevent communities from solving their local problems, like the Conservatives' resistance to the harm reduction approach and other strategies identified in communities.

For example, despite best efforts, the Conservatives still have not found their way to supplying the $150,000 in capital funding that are needed for Victoria's access health centre. This is an innovative project that provides one stop access to services needed by homeless people. It would prevent illness and save health care dollars. However, the Conservatives' shortsighted, narrow view of the federal role stands in the way of communities moving forward.

A couple of weeks ago I hosted a prebudget town hall in my riding and the messages I collected to bring back to Ottawa are unequivocal. They are to invest in our citizens, communities, housing, child care, learning and training, the environment and to build a green economy, but Victoria has been let down by a government that chooses to prioritize tax cuts over investments in our collective well-being.

The surplus and tax cuts will be important issues in this session of Parliament. The Minister of Finance says that he does not want to leave a debt for our children. I would say that the Conservative government is in the process of racking up an enormous debt that our children will have a hard time repaying. We must not forget that this massive surplus came about because of the major cuts to social programs by the Liberals in the 1990s. The national housing program was cut; tuition costs and student debt have tripled in 10 years; child poverty is worse than when Parliament promised to eradicate it; our municipalities are struggling with a $60 billion infrastructure deficit. Furthermore, the federal government refuses to commit to making our economy respectful of the environment, in order to address the imminent dangers of climate change.

The majority of Canadian families have stagnating or falling incomes and are forced to work longer hours and spend less time with their children. They need better transit and home care, more affordable housing and child care, and better protection from toxic products on the market but the government does not believe in social policy. In fact, it reduces everything to economic terms and perpetuates the myth that profits from deregulated markets will trickle down. The trickle seems to be stuck.

There is much talk about the tax burden, but what about the burden on low- and middle-income families who no longer have access to affordable housing or child care? What about the burden on people who are on long waiting lists for major surgery? What about the people struggling to repay staggering student debts? What about the burden on women who earn on average 71¢ for every dollar earned by a man? There was nothing about pay equity in the throne speech. And what about the burden on the environment?

I think that as long as these burdens continue to enlarge the hole in the social and environmental fabric, the answer for how to use the surplus will be clear.

As the NDP's literacy advocate, I have been appalled at the disinterest of the government to the needs of adult learners. A lack of functional literacy impedes an individual's ability to lead a full life and secure a better job. It also impedes Canada's ability to stay competitive. Leading economists have joined the chorus of voices critical of the government's shortsightedness on adult literacy which costs the economy tens of billions of dollars every year.

The NDP has been calling for a comprehensive, pan-Canadian strategy on literacy and lifelong learning. Tax cuts do not educate anyone, another reason that I oppose the government's direction.

In addition to tax cuts, the Conservatives are pursuing their quest to gut the capacity of the federal government through a radical agenda of privatization. The government is intent on selling out the public interest to deliver the greatest possible profit to a small minority, regardless of the cost to the rest.

From following through on the ridiculous Liberal scheme to sell federal buildings and lease them back, to the proliferation of public-private partnerships, the name of the game is spending public money for private profit.

On a similar but much broader front, the Conservatives are implementing the Liberals so-called security and prosperity partnership. Behind closed doors and away from the eyes of citizens and their elected representatives in Parliament, the government is hollowing out our country as it pursues its agenda of deep integration with U.S. corporate interests.

I take this opportunity to call on the government to bring the SPP agenda to the public scrutiny of Parliament.

Because the Conservative agenda does not reflect Victoria's priorities, I oppose the Speech from the Throne. Because these policies will incrementally convert Canada into a neo-Conservative country that we will not recognize, I stand opposed to the government's direction. It would be unconscionable not to.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I regularly hear from my constituents who are ashamed of the Conservative government's representation of Canada in the world, subverting peace to fighting in Afghanistan, refusing to meet our point seven commitment to millennium development goals, and of course, shrugging off the Kyoto objectives. It is on this last point that I would like to ask a question.

Why is it that the Conservative government refuses to bring back a piece of legislation that all parties have worked on, that by all accounts from leading experts would help us meet our goals and would help Canada transition to a green economy?

[Employment Insurance Act, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-357, which is aimed at preventing the government from stealing money from this account that should be reserved for workers. This is a fundamental element of our social safety net that is wearing thin. Yet with important transformations in our economy and with the emergence of new technologies, it is increasingly important to have this safety net, which can help workers move towards better-paying jobs.

It is true that right now, in this country, there seem to be fewer unemployed workers. The figures come from Statistics Canada and other organizations. However, there is much more poverty. It is obviously more difficult to make a decent living in Canada today.

In fact, it does not matter what kind of difficulty people are in, but the government's approach is that people should pull themselves up by the bootstraps. I am thinking of the difficulties in the manufacturing sector and the difficulties in the Maritimes for seasonal workers where hard-working people are having difficulties making the transition to other employment. There need to be other initiatives to help them. Certainly, employment insurance was one of them. It was a fund used by the current and previous governments.

This government, just like its predecessor, has been helping itself to the EI account, and this must stop. According to the new figures from the Department of Finance, there is currently $54 billion in that account, and there is every indication that the Conservative government continues to use the contributions paid by workers to increase its surplus.

Of course we know that it was the Liberals who designed this plan when they were doing their budget cuts in the 1990s. They changed the eligibility criteria in such a way that, currently, only 38% of men and 32% of women qualify for benefits. It is a shame.

First of all, these cuts made to the EI program were not aimed solely at achieving a balanced budget. The government wanted to create a flexible labour market and eliminate uncertainty among workers through a strategy favouring low-cost labour. Many workers were shortchanged by these cuts.

Of course, because of these cuts in the 1990s, several social programs--and this one in particular--became weaker. These programs were of national importance not only for those affected--and that is what concerns me the most--but also because they were an essential part of what binds us together as Canadians.

Perhaps we should take another look at the definition of insurance. When a worker is having major difficulties, when he loses his job, what happens? The government should be there for him, but it is not. There is a group of people in the government right now who do not believe in government. They prefer to go to the private sector for everything. Privatization reigns and according to those people, the market will solve all our problems.

We have to take another look at what insurance is. I just renewed my home insurance and the terms of it are clear. I read that if I pay my premiums and my house burns down, I will be reimbursed. With employment insurance, it is different. Employees contribute for years and when they need it, the funds are not there. They cannot get the help they should in these difficult times. Employment insurance should make it easier to get back to work, to get back to a good job, but that is not so.

In the Speech from the Throne, we see that the government intends to take measures to improve the governance and management of the employment insurance fund. This morning I heard the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development during oral question period say that he did not really intend to meet the needs of the workers. That is worrisome.

The government seems to be in a hurry to devolve responsibilities for workforce training and funding to provinces with no strings attached. In my area we have seen training contracts given to private American companies at the expense of well established effective community agencies that did that work.

I would like to talk for a few minutes about employability, since the Conservative government has launched a study on employability, and my comments are particularly related to the topic of employment insurance. However, I have only a faint hope of seeing the government recognize the Canadian workforce as people rather than as commodities.

The primary objective of all policies surrounding the labour market and employability, indeed the primary objective of our economy, is how the government seems to see the worker. It is time that the labour market worked for the benefit of workers rather than just for profit as it does now.

The key to our success as a democratic society is to treat hardworking people decently and to give them the opportunity to improve their lives. They need a guarantee that employment insurance will be there for them. They need a guarantee that they will be able to access it in times of need as opposed to having doors shut on them.

As we do this study on employability we should look at employment insurance and the role that it could play. We feel strongly that the government should end the clawback of EI for recipients pursuing training and education.

My last words will deal with education and literacy issues. Nine million Canadians do not have functional levels of literacy and yet the government cut literacy programs last year by $18 million. This is an example of where EI could be used for training to improve those skills. I hope that the government will review its position in this important area.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's words on the work that Canada is doing for human rights in Afghanistan. He forgot to mention that by all objective reports, violent incidents in Afghanistan have more than quadrupled this year alone.

I would like to ask him a question about other rights and whether the government is prepared to defend those rights.

Canadian airlines at the moment are being asked to turn over passenger lists to homeland security. Will the member's government stand up for Canadians and refuse to turn over those lists?

On the security and prosperity partnership on which the member's government is forging away enthusiastically and signing away our sovereignty by integrating and harmonizing our regulations in over 300 areas with those of the Americans to better mesh with and fit the needs of American companies, I am wondering if this is in the best interests of Canadians.

Would the government support having an open discussion in Parliament?

[Petitions, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition today that is particularly appropriate at this time when we hear the Minister of the Environment speaking about Canada's leadership around environmental matters.

This petition is signed by thousands of people who are asking the government to ban asbestos in all its forms and institute a just transition program. Canada continues to be one of the largest producers and exporters as my colleague said earlier.

We must end all government subsidies that continue to this day for asbestos and stop blocking the international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos such as the Rotterdam convention.

[Homelessness, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to convey the growing chorus of voices in Victoria expressing concern about homelessness during this Homelessness Awareness Week. Obviously Ottawa needs some awareness.

Twelve hundred people in my region are homeless or on the verge of being homeless. Nine hundred and fifty-three families are on wait lists for social housing.

The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce is leading a national charge for a federal housing first approach. Our downtown business association has vocally argued that part of the federal surplus should be invested in a national housing strategy.

The government this week said that its primary duty was the protection of its citizens. Well, it is time for the government to finally act on those words and show real political will to put an end to homelessness in Canada. The government must take action, not just words, but action.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am constantly hearing from parents who have to wait months and months for child care. Our child care centres are in crisis because they cannot recruit the staff to stay open. I am hearing from mothers who need to go back to work but cannot find child care and yet the Prime Minister says that the government has offered more choice to parents with the $100 a month. It is some choice, indeed.

I am wondering when the government will make a commitment to ongoing systematic funding to really give choice to parents and help out working families.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could have explained the NDP position any better. That is why we hold the position we hold. I agree that problem has not been considered.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer with a question. I suppose it is the same mechanism that has encouraged CN to implement safety measures throughout Canada, especially in B.C., where rivers have been irreparably damaged by derailment after derailment.

I am glad my hon. colleague feels safe at the back of an airplane, but I suggest that is because of the rules we have had, which the government is about to change.

I also add that if my colleague feels the government is that interested in safety, then why have the hundreds of positions for aviation inspectors, which have not been advertised but they exist, have not been filled at the moment?