Denise Savoie

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to speculate on what might have motivated the government's draconian decision to act in this way but, as I said earlier, it seems to be very difficult for recent governments, including this one, to understand the need for triple bottom line decisions, decisions that are based on meeting our economic needs, on ensuring that social rights are protected for ordinary Canadian families that are squeezed increasingly despite the high profits of these companies, and, of course, ensuring environmental rights that we owe to our children.

I think the basis of this decision is a result of a lack of wisdom and an increasing corporatism that seems to fulfill the needs of corporations. It perhaps is a misguided belief that eventually, if the corporations make enough profits, the benefits might trickle down. However, they never have. I am as puzzled by this decision as my colleague.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern and his need to act on behalf of Canadian families but the best way to act and achieve the kind of certainty of labour to which he refers is not through an imposed piece of legislation.

When the member mentioned the families he was concerned about, I would like him to think about the families who live around Cheakamus River where there was a huge derailment and there were serious safety issues. Their livelihood is impacted in a very permanent way.

We must listen to some of these workers who are talking about the very real safety concerns and allow the process and the two parties the opportunity to address those in a way that meets the needs of the economy, the needs of the worker and, I might say, the needs of the environment. I would mention the 500,000 steelhead fish that were killed, just to give one of many examples. There was no compensation for that. It is not coming back to address the needs of those families who rely on that.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for this debate, I looked to arguments that might possibly offer a rationale for this draconian legislation. For example, at cbc.ca, the president of the Canadian Industrial Transportation Association said:

Shippers serving highly competitive export markets and retailers needing to stock their shelves with seasonal imported merchandise will all be affected.

I thought is that why we were curtailing bargaining rights, to ensure shelves are stocked with seasonal imported merchandise? I thought, no, that could not be the reason we were sacrificing a fundamental right of workers to collective bargaining to negotiate conditions under which they were going to work. Given the safety issues that have been raised during this debate, I thought there must be a more important reason.

I will come back to talk about the safety issues, but I looked further for other reasons. I found a Canadian Press article in which the Conservative labour minister said, “Employers and many groups said they would like to see our government acting”. Clearly, then, is this legislation about taking sides with one party, the employer? How can that be a government that works in the public interest objectively?

We have had a lot of talk recently about the delicate balance between employer and labour. Apparently, that balance is only judged to be fair when employers get to scuttle their way around the right of workers to bargain collectively and fairly, either by using replacement workers or now by having the government do the dirty deed of curtailing the bargaining process and forcing a settlement on workers, a right that has been achieved over a very long time, democratically.

Then I read in the newspaper that the employer welcomed the news that the government would introduce back to work legislation. I do not see the balance in that. I see the government, which is after all supposed to represent the interests of Canadians, working instead on behalf of the interests of corporations, working out of the pocket of the corporate elite, bowing to corporate pressure, now twice in one month, to curtail the rights of workers to bargain collectively and fairly.

If this were sports, we would call it cheating. Since it is real life for workers, real life for Canadians who are exposed to safety risks, it is no sport, and it is not cheating, it is reprehensible.

I thought, surely, there must be an explanation that eluded me. Then I found, again in the Canadian Press article, in which the labour minister said, “The health of our economy is very important”.

The health and safety of Canadians is important. The health and safety of Canadian workers is important. The health of our environment is important. If we pass back to work legislation every time we might lose some dollars in export profits, how do we know that other safety concerns are not overridden? All Canadians workers should be afraid that safety in their workplace will not be overridden. All Canadians should be afraid when airline safety or transport truck safety is overridden because of the economy or because of a few dollars.

I finally found the reason that I think might have motivated the government. Again in the Canadian Press article, the labour minister said, “We saw what happened in February when...about $1 billion of our exports [was] lost. Now it's time to act”. If we only had this “act now” mentality about climate change, or homelessness, or mentality, or poverty, or health care, or student debt, or literacy, or a better course in Afghanistan and all the issues about which the Liberals and the Conservatives pretend to care a lot.

What is the first usage of closure in this Parliament? What is the first time the Conservatives have invoked this legislative measure designed for only the most desperate and emergency situations? It is for seasonal imported merchandise.

We hear all this talk about the social conscience of the members on the other side, the Liberals, but when do the Liberals side with the Conservatives, other than to extend the flawed Afghanistan mission? To tip the delicate balance of labour relations in favour of the employers, twice recently for the replacement worker bill and now for this draconian legislation.

Do the Liberals support an “act now” approach on climate change, homelessness or poverty as well? No, I do not see that. When they do support an “act now” approach, it is for seasonal imported merchandise.

Bill C-46 infringes on fundamental rights to collective bargaining, to negotiate the conditions under which Canadians work, when it is clear that CN is using back to work legislation as a bargaining chip to disregard the very serious concerns that have been expressed by workers.

The Conservatives have invoked this restricted back to work legislation on the pretext that it is impacting the economy.They may as well state they are against collective bargaining because most strikes have an economic impact. That is why two parties work together, work across the table from each other, deliberate and try to find a solution that meets the needs. This has not occurred.

When I get up in the House, I often say that I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. Of course I am speaking on their behalf, on behalf of Canadian constituents who I think are concerned when the rights of one group might be eroded, as they are in this case. However, this evening I am also speaking on behalf of my father, who worked for 25 years for the then Canadian National Railways, which is no longer. My colleague pointed out that name has been shortened. In his years at CN, he worked and fought for workers' rights in his union. He loved the railway and he passed on that love and passion of the railway to me.

In the time that I have been in the House, I saw some opportunities to really make rail and public transportation a centrepiece of our vision for the future of our country. Rail should really be a very central part of the future of Canada.

However, rail service will only be as good as the investments made to ensure the safety of workers, the safety of the infrastructure and the safety of our environment. Yet the government has not seen fit to develop a national transportation strategy. There has been no vision for public transportation and this is an area where the government might think of acting now.

In past decades an increasing corporate culture has led to the privatization of rail lines, to focus on profitability over safety, reduction of the number of workers, disinvestment in railway infrastructure, elimination of some rail lines, no matter that some communities have been abandoned, as long as the large salaries of CEOs continue to be possible.

I want to give an example very close to my heart on Vancouver Island where a freight service was slowly eroded over the years and was finally discontinued. A passenger service was also allowed to degrade. The rail itself became so badly maintained that the service was slow, unreliable and always late, to the point where the rail companies were going to simply abandon it. However, the community came together and said that it did not want to see that right of way abandoned and did not want to see its rail service disappear.

The communities along Vancouver Island formed what is now called the Island Corridor Foundation to protect the integrity of the right of way and renew the passenger and freight rail service. From the document on their plans, they explained some of the reasons that had led us to this point. They said that in recent years a variety of business changes had occurred which created financial challenges, like lack of investment and bad business plans. They said that it simply became apparent that there was a lack of interest to maintain a good rail service. They said that slow or inadequate responses to these changes meant that rail service was not able to maintain its market status and was at risk of failure on numerous occasions.

It is very sad that in Canada, a country that was built on rail and where we see increasingly, given environmental issues, that our future will once again be based on the strength of rail transportation, that we now consider that it is okay to forget about very serious safety issues that have been raised.

In doing a very quick Google search, I found numerous articles citing safety issues: Accident comes day after release of audit finding holes in railways' safety procedures. Again, the safety jumps the track.

Trans-Canada highway in B.C. closed in two spots. Again there was a derailment. There were derailments on March 10, March 4, March 1, February 28, January 14 and January 8, all in 2007. I could go on and on and yet this is a company we are going to reward, act on its behalf to support those interests and, in a way, give it licence to continue with this disastrous safety record.

This will not help industry in the long term. It will not help the safety of our workers. It undermines the atmosphere in a workplace to do good work. It undermines the confidence that Canadians have and that companies have in the rail service. I believe this is a very ill-advised bill that the government is proposing to introduce.

I do not know when government will begin to consider that we do not support the economy at the expense of the environment or at the expense of social rights. We cannot build a three-legged stool that is balanced when we continually tip in favour of the economy at the expense of our environment and erode the rights that workers have to collective bargaining. This, unfortunately, is what the bill does.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

I do not know if I still have the floor, Mr. Speaker, but I have obviously touched a nerve with the Minister of Finance.

However, many provinces like my own were not only absolutely excluded from being considered in the budget speech, but were absolutely ignored in this budget, which is one of the many reasons that we are opposing this budget.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the role of the federal NDP is to look after the interests of all Canadians. It seems that the Minister of Finance, in addressing this House, forgot that there was a province beyond the Rockies. In fact, my riding happens to be on the other side of the Rockies and many provinces did not receive a thing and were absolutely excluded--

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's contribution to major infrastructure is clearly lacking. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has soundly criticized this budget for its lack of support to build strong communities and to offer them the types of sustainable and long term plans to address these serious infrastructure issues to which my colleague refers.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

In this budget, the government appropriated all the right catchwords about working people but did very little to address the prosperity gap that even it does not deny exists. This budget, in fact, tries to buy Canadian votes with little handouts but it does nothing to make life more fair for middle class or working people.

Under the pretext of delineating roles and responsibilities and focusing on core federal responsibilities, the federal government abdicates its responsibility to build social equity and social cohesion in Canada. It is a vision for Canada that sees Canadians as taxpayers only instead of as citizens. It encourages us to care not about our neighbours but only about our tax bill. Social equity is not even a footnote.

The Conservatives say that this is our Canada. Well, it is not my Canada. It is not the vision of Canada held by the majority of my constituents in Victoria, Oak Bay and Saanich.

In Victoria, people look for decisions that are based on a triple bottom line, where environmental, social and economic factors are equally considered. They look for government to be a responsible steward of the economy, for sure, but they know that the economy is not an end in itself, that the GDP is not the key statistic that reflects quality of life as this budget suggests. GDP factors in how much money was made from car accidents or oil spills but not the human toll, the waste or the pollution.

Our health, literacy rates, air and water quality, affordable housing, civic involvement and the value of unpaid work are the factors that reflect quality of life and that quality of life is compromised by the prosperity gap. Even the Conservatives have not denied that this exists.

However, the prosperity gap is not reduced with a couple hundred dollars off our taxes and that is why I oppose this budget.

It was summed up well by my hometown newspaper, whose editorial concluded:

There's a striking disconnect between this week's budget and the issues seen as critical in the capital region.

They are issues that the almighty market has not, and will not, fix on its own.

I would like to speak to the issue of homelessness.

Recently, the Victoria branch of the Urban Development Institute gathered 15 representatives from the community who decided, among other things, to call the homeless “our homeless” and to acknowledge their membership in our society and our collective responsibility to them. The sentiment that is entirely lacking in this budget and in the Conservatives' vision for Canada is that we are in this together. Homelessness has been called an epidemic in Victoria.

I could hardly believe it but I searched the 2007 budget plan and the word “homeless” does not appear.

The natural resources minister is from the riding next door. On a talk show last week, he was asked why there was no funding for housing and he responded that it was a question of priorities.

In B.C.'s capital region, we have made homelessness a priority. Regional and municipal governments, community groups and agencies are working together to tackle the problem of homelessness but the federal government remains absent from the table. Meanwhile, almost 1.5 million Canadian households are in desperate need of decent, affordable housing, even though Canada has one of the most vibrant economies in the world. This is inexcusable and reason enough to oppose the Conservative budget.

Another reason is this budget's inadequate anti-drug strategy. At best, there is $300,000 in new resources for the whole capital region, which is nowhere near enough to make a dent in this problem. It is reflective of the Conservatives' tough on crime package that has been thick with punitive legislation and thin on any preventative measures.

Child care is yet another reason to oppose the 2007 budget. It continues the Conservatives' narrow ideological intransigence on child care.

A study released a couple of days ago estimates that the cost of behavioural and mental health problems triggered by problems in early childhood was at least $30 billion. According to the researchers, this could be cut in half with a more comprehensive early child care education system.

Currently, we are dead last among developed nations in spending for early childhood education, giving us “a chaotic mess” of programs. That is what we have in Canada, a chaotic mess of programs. We spend 0.25% of our GDP on early childhood education, less than the U.S. and a fraction of other developed nations.

I also want to speak to post-secondary education. This budget's shortcomings are especially clear in its half-hearted approach to the accessibility to public post-secondary education in Canada.

Obviously, we are pleased with the long-overdue funding increase for basic transportation, but if the government thinks that is enough and that the matter is now closed, then it is irresponsible and short-sighted.

Students in Canada are not asking to be spoiled. They are asking for affordable tuition and modern resources and equipment. They are asking the government to help lighten their debt burden. Their stories are heartbreaking. After five years of studies, they are $52,000 in debt, they have a job or two, they go without food and sometimes even heat, and they cannot even begin to think of starting a family. That is no way to manage a dynamic economy with a strong and flexible workforce. It is completely unfair.

The Canadian Council on Learning stated very clearly that we need a national post-secondary education strategy, a strategy that includes shared standards and goals. The federal government is not providing the leadership we need to ensure that students in all provinces and all communities have fair access to similar quality education. This goal was dropped even though there is a $9 billion surplus, the tenth enormous surplus in a row. Nevertheless, the government is refusing to invest in young people.

Moreover, the climate is changing. Conservatives have heard what Canadians have to say, but they have not listened. The environmental sector agrees that subsidies have to be directed to clean energy rather than dirty energy. They are making plans for seven years from now, but the time to act is right now. For example, we should develop a clean auto industry in Canada instead of giving $2,000 to foreign automobile manufacturers.

The point is best expressed by Genevieve, a 10-year-old citizen from Victoria. She wants the Prime Minister to take climate change seriously, not just to talk about it. In her letter to the Prime Minister, which she copied me on, she says, “Please don't send me another picture of yourself. I'd rather you put my words into action”.

I have to say that this budget has completely ruined the word “aspire” for me. To aspire is precisely the opposite of what this budget does. It does not aim high. It aims decidedly low. It could have aspired to so much: to end homelessness and child poverty in Canada; to ensure equitable access to post-secondary education, training and other learning opportunities, like a solid literacy program; to ensure full participation in a workforce full of quality jobs; and to confront climate change by putting into place extensive programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The government may use the words “caring society” but in practice it appears that it believes the only thing Canadians care about are tax cuts.

I oppose this budget because, as my local paper said, the Conservatives' choices are badly out of step with the needs of Victoria.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member concerning the fact that this budget does nothing to help ordinary working Canadians. However, the many years of empty Liberal promises were much the same, there is no doubt.

My question for the hon. member is this. When the Liberal Party had the opportunity to show its support for workers by supporting Bill C-257, an anti-scab bill, the Liberals voted against it, for the most part. Can the hon. member explain to the House the reasons behind this, if—as he says—the Liberals really want to support Canadian workers?

[Post-Secondary Education, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the future of our country lies in a well educated citizenry, yet there was nothing in the budget to help students access post-secondary education. They will continue to face mounting debts as they did during the Liberal years.

Today student debt stands at $20 billion in Canada. Why should a post-secondary education only go to those who are well off?

When will the minister strive to close the prosperity gap and honestly help working families with post-secondary education? Scholarships just do not cut it.

[Justice, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, to make our communities safer and stronger, we might consider getting smart on crime.

A more holistic approach would include restorative justice in which offender and victim meet face to face to repair the harm done. It stands up for the victims by engaging both sides to make things right.

Restorative justice is not the solution for every crime. However, it is a tool in many cases that fosters accountability and builds community instead of dividing it.

Restorative justice programs in Victoria and Oak Bay work collaboratively with the police to address select criminal cases through this constructive reconciliation process. It rarely results in reoffending. Instead, it ends in closure.

There are more solutions to crime than prison. If the government is serious about real justice, it will stop appealing to our fears, expand its approach and fund restorative justice programs.