Denise Savoie

[Housing Affordability Week, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, next week is Housing Affordability Week in Victoria. Police are now seeing twice as many people on the streets of Victoria than they did two years ago.

I agree with Victoria's police chief when he says that we cannot police our way out of homelessness, poverty and inequality. Victoria is taking action with an affordable housing trust. The Cool Aid Society, Pacifica Housing and Cornerstone project are creating local housing solutions.

Through the proposed Victoria urban development agreement, citizens and community groups agreed that housing was the number one priority for municipal, provincial and federal cooperation.

It is time for the federal government to listen to what Victoria is saying loud and clear and do its part to grant the right to safe, decent housing to every citizen in the country.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the $55 million in budget cuts to student employment programs. The number of students forced to work full time while studying tripled over the years that the Liberals were in power. That program directly affects the debt load of students.

I am wondering if the member would agree with the students who appeared this week before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities—

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I and my NDP colleagues very much respect every dollar that Canadians earn and pay in taxes, unlike the Liberals, who wasted billions of tax dollars on programs that have had absolutely no results, not to mention the sponsorship scandal, where millions of dollars disappeared, so I hope the member was not giving the NDP lessons.

Even the finance department agrees, asking how often provincial governments have balanced budgets since 1984. The NDP balanced the books 49% of the time, whereas the Liberal Party did so 23% of the time. I want to make that point.

What I was trying to say about the $13 billion surplus that the Liberal Party is boasting about is that it was amassed over the heads of ordinary Canadians and cities and provinces where services were downloaded. Canadians are now facing polluted waters, polluted air and crumbling infrastructure.

Does the member understand a triple bottom line, in that creating a surplus in one area does not balance off in creating an environmental deficit and a social deficit such as those we are facing today in Canada?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite. It is time to invest in people and the environment.

The Liberal legacy has been a $13 billion surplus, amassed on the backs of ordinary Canadians, on cities, on provinces in which services were downloaded, More than that, it has resulted in 13 years of inaction over greenhouse gas emissions, of increasing disparity between the rich and poor in Canada.

Just a couple of weeks ago Madame Gélinas indicated a $6 billion waste of money for which there were no results and no monitoring.

My question is twofold. First, is that what the member considers fiscally responsible? Second, does he consider that the social deficit and the environmental deficit that has been created in amassing this huge surplus is being fiscally responsible?

[National Peacekeepers' Day Act, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on this bill.

I will begin my comments by reminding the House of the inscription on the monument in honour of our peacekeepers in Ottawa: “Peacekeeping”. It is very short, but it says it all. This is how Canada's reputation as a peaceful country was built.

Canada's first peacekeeping mission, even before the implementation of the UN official system, occurred in 1948 in Kashmir.

Canada then took part in each of the UN peacekeeping initiatives until 1989. Over 125,000 Canadian men and women have been deployed on about 50 peacekeeping missions led by the United Nations since 1949. About 116 of them—and now several others—gave their lives to bring peace to the world.

I spent several years working with the military. Engraved in my memory is the face and the courage of each person I worked with: the rescue technician who had to jump in rough seas to pull fishermen out of the water, the young sergeant who had to leave his family to serve in Kosovo, the naval technician who was gone for months at a time on patrol in the Pacific, and many others. I always saw the same loyalty and willingness to answer the call of duty.

We cannot stress enough the importance of the work of those who serve in the armed forces, who put themselves in harm's way for Canada. There is no word to describe the magnitude of their sacrifice, nor my feeling of gratitude—which all Canadians also share, I believe—for the men and women who are ready to give their lives for a better world.

I am using my time tonight to support the bill to establish a national peacekeepers' day. I believe that it is an excellent idea to have, in addition to Remembrance Day, a day to honour Canadians who risked and sometimes even gave their lives in the quest for a durable peace, so fundamental for human beings.

The peacekeeping memorial in Ottawa reminds us of the sacrifice of Canadian peacekeepers and leaves us with an undying memory of the contribution these great Canadians made to peace and to the pride we feel about being a peaceful nation.

That sense of pride is strong and it is justified, but it must not be complacent. The Conservative government has lost its way in the pursuit of peace. It has been too quick to resort to a seek and destroy mission in southern Afghanistan and too stubborn to correct our course when our actions are working instead to the detriment of peace.

Since 1995, Canadian direct participation in UN peacekeeping efforts has greatly declined. In July 2006, Canada ranked 51st on the list of UN peacekeepers, contributing 130 peacekeepers out of a total UN deployment of over 70,000.

Since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, Canada has spent more than $4 billion on military operations in Afghanistan.

During the same period, Canada's military involvement in UN-led missions has cost a total of $215 million, the equivalent of 3% of its spending on international military operations. I would draw my colleagues' attention to the difference between $4 billion and $215 million.

While only 59 Canadian soldiers are taking part in UN missions around the world, approximately 2,300 are on duty in southern Afghanistan.

Having previously ranked among the top 10, Canada now ranks fiftieth among the 95 countries providing military personnel for UN missions.

Some people wonder if peacekeeping is still an appropriate tool to confront modern conflict. The tragedy that is unfolding in Darfur is an example of the role peacekeeping can and should play by placing a force in the middle to protect a vulnerable civilian population and combat those who would attack them.

Nearly all lasting solutions to modern day wars have come through negotiated peace settlements and with the help of middlemen to create a space between warring factions and assist them in keeping the peace. Just as the nature of peacekeeping has changed since the days of Lester Pearson, so too has the nature of armed conflict. Today's protracted civil conflicts require conflict resolution strategies that include tangible negotiated peace processes.

Civil conflicts in Angola, Sierra Leone, El Salvador and Northern Ireland have required many years and several failed peace agreements to isolate legitimate political issues and actors from illegitimate criminal ones. A viable peace alternative, not just building schools, but engaging in peace negotiation wins the hearts and minds of everyone toward peace by offering hope. Those who would violate that process are rightly identified as illegitimate actors in the peace process isolated from the majority who seek peace and then rooted out militarily.

I have no illusions about the danger inherent in peacekeeping missions. I know that despite its proud peacekeeping tradition, Canada must adapt to the reality of modern conflict, but I also know that we must not follow the American example and rush headlong into a senseless conflict. We have to understand how modern conflict works and how to reach a fair and lasting solution. To that end, we have to be staunch defenders and advocates of peace and never hesitate to take the side of peace, but we must also remain impartial, understand the grievances of the parties involved in the conflict and advocate a peaceful resolution, isolate the parties with no right to intervene and, once all these conditions are in place, be prepared to use military means to achieve peace.

I believe in peace, and I also believe that in certain extraordinary circumstances, it might be necessary to fight for peace. However, I am firmly convinced that there are many methods besides force to achieve peace.

I do not think we are exploring all the other peaceful solutions as much as we should, but I do know that every time fighting has been necessary, the men and women of our Canadian Forces have always answered their government's call.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the debate today is about unemployment and the problems we face. I was talking about the conditions that help workers address those issues, and certainly one of them is literacy.

Workers are not widgets, as some of the Conservatives would like to suggest, that one can move from one part of the country to another. As I understand it, the debate today is about older workers who are simply not able, because of the situation, to take retraining, or those who face tremendous obstacles in finding new employment at 56 or 57 years of age after a whole career--

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to the debates on both sides of this House, the more I realize that a Liberal equals a Conservative on literacy programs. What the Liberals offered was $1 per Canadian a year on literacy. In some cases, many of the literacy programs were already cut by the Liberals and the hatchet job was simply finished by the Conservatives.

The member needs to remember that it was Canadians who realized that there was some serious corruption in the Liberal government and ended that. However, he is giving the NDP a lot of power by suggesting that 19 members were able to bring down the Liberal government. I thank him for recognizing that we are all that powerful.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I am going to share my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

I congratulate the member for Chambly—Borduas on this motion. I know that this is a subject he cares a lot about. I have listened to him tell us some very disturbing stories about older workers who were laid off and did not manage to find themselves a job.

We, the New Democrats, strongly support the idea of an income support program for older workers from all regions and all realms of activity. The member is right to persist and to place pressure on the government. We all have to exert pressure so that the government will act in order to help these workers who lose their jobs as the result of factory shutdowns or slowdowns in some sector, whether forestry or fisheries. As an example, in British Columbia we are surely going to witness sawmill closures on account of this bad softwood lumber agreement.

We also believe that older workers who lose their jobs should be entitled to training and have access to courses, if appropriate. This is why the New Democrats are pushing for a lifelong learning strategy to be developed. This means having the possibility of continuing to contribute one’s talents, skills, energy and the wisdom one may have acquired at a certain age for as long as possible to Canadian society.

In my opinion, this motion does not talk about those workers who are fit for work and who could be retrained in some way or another. It must be recognized that workers aged between 55 and 64—which is the age bracket preceding retirement—have greater difficulties. It is not just a matter of taking a little course, as proposed by the Conservatives, to succeed in getting a job. What people get are casual, low-paying jobs, if they manage to get those.

As this motion proposes, older workers require a specific program that will meet their needs, providing them with extra income, rather than relegating them to welfare with all the stigmas associated with that. We are told that the economy is strong and the labour market has never been so flourishing. But even in such a context older workers who are laid off, regardless of their skills and work experience, find themselves confronted with a big challenge.

Victoria has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Canada and even at that, the food banks have never been so busy. I have had the occasion to visit the food banks and often I see workers in their fifties who are there without resources, often homeless. There is something indecent about this situation. It requires action, not more studies.

One woman came to my office in Victoria. She is 56. She has taken several retraining courses. She finds herself faced with unemployment and obliged to rely on welfare. I wonder what the government would tell that worker, that woman in Victoria.

In Canada we recognize the importance of allowing people who are aging to live in dignity. We provide the Canada pension plan, the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement.

Parliament also passed an NDP motion to protect the rights of older people. Although the motion passed, the government has not taken any action to develop legislation. We must continue pressing the government to ensure that these people are also protected.

We are speaking today about a demographic group that does not reap these benefits: older workers who were laid off but are too young to retire and face serious difficulty finding another job. What do we do? Do we just ignore them when many have paid employment insurance premiums for their entire lives?

When the Liberals were in power, they tightened the eligibility requirements for employment insurance to such an extent that now only 60% of the people who lose their jobs qualify for benefits.

Prior to 1997, of course, there was an adjustment program for older workers that was instituted in 1988 and then abolished. It was administered by the provinces but 70% of the funding came from the federal government. This program enabled older workers between 55 and 64 years of age who had lost their jobs as a result of major layoffs to receive benefits. This program no longer exists. However, we know that the governments in Ottawa and Quebec are currently working on a pilot program to support older workers affected by factory closings in various parts of Quebec. This is an example of federal-provincial cooperation that is directly related to the needs of the province. The federal government is helping to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are treated fairly.

I believe that we should do the same in other areas, such as literacy, rather than slashing these programs as the Conservative government just did. We even heard the Treasury Board president say that it was a waste of money to invest in adults and we should invest in children instead. Investing in our children is a fine idea, but setting the needs of adults against those of children is complete madness. Adults have major literacy needs, and they deserve a program and funding.

The support program that I mentioned for Ottawa-Quebec workers is supposed to be only for people 55 years of age or older working in the forest and textile sectors.

The NDP believes we need a system for all older workers of all income levels coming from any region or any industry. We need a Canada-wide strategy for older workers that reflects their right to live in dignity. They should have an opportunity to continue developing their skills. I believe that Canadian society would have much to gain from their contribution.

By neglecting older workers, by standing still on this issue and by concentrating solely on what they can contribute to the economy and not to our society as a whole, we are missing the boat.

The government has blinders on when it simply wants to focus on economic value without considering the serious poverty issues that many of these workers face at that age. Many of them have spent a lifetime working, for whatever reason, and, in some cases, have had to leave school early to support their families. Whether they were involved in the fisheries or forestry, because of the problems in those sectors they find themselves unemployed and having a difficult time finding other jobs.

In many cases, there is the possibility of upgrading and skills training, but again we see the Conservative government abandoning and cutting many of the programs, certainly in Victoria where their transitioning or re-entry was facilitated through literacy programs and CAP. These programs have simply been put aside.

I would ask the government to reconsider the case of workers between the ages of 55 and 64 and support the motion before us.

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the rights of accused persons to a trial in their own language—, in French or in English, have certainly evolved over the years. This has not always been the case. I remember a few years ago some young francophones who were charged and tried in English in Vancouver, and the only services they had were those of a single interpreter. So this is considerable progress and this bill seems to settle some technical issues.

In my opinion, the minister should acknowledge that it is often thanks to court challenges that francophones have succeeded in winning their case in many of these language issues. As for me, since I am from Manitoba, I know that court challenges have helped francophones to maintain their cultural identity.

I would ask the minister to please acknowledge the importance of court challenges for Canadians.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it is very frustrating to rise here tonight and continue this speechifying, because everyone here agrees that this is an extremely serious situation and it is time to act. Nevertheless, we are here tonight for a debate and to talk about this issue, even though this debate will not allow us to make any decisions.

I have a question for the hon. member. A little earlier, we heard the minister say in this House that no one asked us to intervene. And he seemed to congratulate himself for the action taken by Canada. Yes, we took some action, but I wonder if congratulations are really in order for what we did, if it really was enough and if we should have stopped.

I wonder if the member has any comments on this approach, this attitude?