Don Davies

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, Canada lost 129,000 jobs in January alone. British Columbia lost 18,000 manufacturing jobs alone. B.C. has lost 35,000 jobs in January in total. I want to mention that many of those workers are from the immigrant communities, where recessions tend to hit those communities hardest and first.

A New Democratic government in British Columbia would put the interests of those workers and those families first, which would be a refreshing change from the current government in British Columbia.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his astute and sensitive observations on behalf of working Canadians.

He is absolutely right about the amount of time. However, I would respectfully suggest that it is even longer than four weeks. The employment insurance administrators have a guideline, a benchmark, of trying to get cheques processed within 28 days of a claim being filed. However, I think it is well known among most Canadians and members of the House that they are having an extremely difficult time meeting that and, in fact, are not getting cheques to Canadians for even weeks after that. Therefore, my hon. colleague is absolutely right that Canadians are facing periods of five, six or seven weeks before they get cheques. Once again, that is if they get them at all because the majority of Canadians will not see any cheque at all.

I also want to talk a bit about what those people face in that five or six week period. My hon. colleague mentioned them having to live on credit cards, and that is exactly true.

I am familiar with many local organizations. The union I worked for, the Teamsters Union, Local 31, 213, 155, 464, the operating engineers, the specialized construction workers, the CAW, CUPE, HEW, all of those unions face members, and even workers who are not members of those unions, coming to them for assistance. They ask if they can have a loan or if there is a benevolent fund. Many times unions will go into their treasuries to help those workers get through the five or six weeks, without pay, to subsidize what should be a sacred right in our country, what should be a safety net that these workers have paid for and have come to expect.

I will conclude my answer to the question by saying this is an insurance program. This is not charity. Workers pay into this program. It comes off their cheque every two weeks. They have a right to receive this money. It is not a privilege.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is with some pleasure and some sadness that I rise to speak to this motion today.

The pleasure is because of the pride I feel in my party for putting forward what I think is a measure that will be of immense assistance to hundreds of thousands of Canadians and it is something that I know is desperately needed in these tough economic times.

The sadness is because this is one of those measures that we as parliamentarians are forced to consider taking. Many Canadians are facing an economic disaster and a terrible fear for the future of parents and their children and the seniors whom they often support.

This issue is somewhat personal to me for a few reasons.

This is not just an issue of numbers or an issue of theory. I worked for 16 years for a trade union. I sat in my office every day, Monday to Friday, week after week, month after month. In just about every period of time that I was in my office, people who were laid off from their jobs or fired from their positions come to talk to me about their employment prospects and the fact that they were unable to get acceptable amounts of protection from government.

I also wonder how many members of the House have been in that position. I wonder how many members have actually looked across a desk at the eyes of unemployed men or women who wonder how they will make their rent payments, or how they will buy groceries for their children or pay for their children's athletic programs or school supplies when they were faced with a two week waiting period.

I have heard many members in the House speak of the two week waiting period, calling it a deductible. What are we deducting from? We are deducting from the incomes of people. This is not a car we are talking about. This is not replacing items of property taken in a theft from one's garage. This is telling Canadians that they have no money for the next two weeks, and we do not care.

The Conservatives want to put five weeks on the end of a claim. What does that tell the people sitting across the desk from them, when they are wondering how they are going to buy groceries for the next two weeks.

I have had to explain to people why they do not qualify for benefits whatsoever. This is not a two week problem for them. Over 60% of Canadians, and almost 70% of women, seven out of ten unemployed women, will not get any benefits because of the measures the current government and previous Liberal governments put into place.

What do we say to them? Do we tell them they have to face the next six months without any income? Do we call that a deductible?

I wonder how many members in the House were ever on employment insurance. I would venture to guess that on the government's side of the benches, not many. I think if they had been on employment insurance, they might have a different perspective on this matter.

I have been on unemployment insurance, which is what it was called back in 1991. I received $409 a week. The maximum amount a person can get now is about $458 a week. We are talking an extra $30 or $40 after 18 years.

When workers come and tell us that they do not have any money for two weeks and six out of ten tell us they will not get any money at all, for the lucky 40% of workers, or 30% in the case of women, who do get benefits, they get an average of a little over $300 a week.

Many members from British Columbia in the House have spoken to this issue. In Vancouver $1,400 a month will barely pay the rent or the mortgage, yet that is the average amount we expect workers to raise their families on during this economic recession and downturn when they may be unemployed for many months. This is the reality of the issue. It is not just theory to these people.

I want to talk a bit about the motion before us. I hope all members of the House could find it in their conscience to support the motion. It takes positive measures that would help the Canadians I spoke of and it would provide effective stimulus to our economy, far beyond many of the measures currently in the budget.

New Democrats propose to eliminate the two week waiting period. We propose to reduce the reference period to a minimum of 360 hours worked, regardless of the regional unemployment rate. Our motion would allow self-employed workers to participate in the system. It would increase benefits to at least 60% of income based on the best 12 weeks in the reference period. Our motion would encourage training and retraining.

It is not that the budget does nothing in the area of employment insurance. It does some things, but the steps it takes are insufficient.

I have heard members opposite speak about consultation with Canadians. They use glowing and exaggerated claims that the consultations on the budget were the biggest consultations in Canadian history. Really?

Who did the government consult? Did the government consult one representative of employee organizations? Did it consult one trade union? Did it consult one group that represents and works with unemployed workers? I do not think so.

I saw the blue ribbon panel with which the government consulted, and it was made up exclusively of people from the business sector. Not one person of that 10 or 12 member panel represented unemployed workers or understood their realities.

If the government did consult with unemployed workers or their representatives, it would not be able to stand in the House and say that those unemployed workers wanted five weeks tacked on at the end of an unemployment claim that hardly anybody gets, that condemns them to poverty and that does not address their needs.

I want to talk a bit about the stimulus effect of our measure.

Ian Lee, the MBA director at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business, argues that employment insurance is the single best tool for the government to use as a means of providing economic stimulus. Why? Putting money into the hands of middle and working class Canadians immediately is sound economics in a time of recession because those people will spend that money. They will put it in their communities. They will patronize their local businesses. They will purchase clothing and items for their children. That money will be circulated.

Using the multiplier formula, every dollar spent on employment insurance results in $1.64 being injected into the economy. That number is just ahead of the multiplier for infrastructure dollars spent, but is a much quicker response for the economy.

I also want to talk a bit about proportionality. The government has claimed that it is putting $1 billion into training and approximately $2 billion in the budget is allocated toward employment insurance. I want to contrast that. That sounds like a lot of money and it is nothing to snivel at.

The government is proceeding with $55 billion of corporate tax cuts and has guaranteed $75 billion of bad debts and mortgage-backed securities held by banks in our country. It has allocated $125 billion to profitable corporations and has allocated $2 billion to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers. That is less than 2% for workers.

That tells a lot about the priorities of the government. It answers the questions that I hear repeatedly about why New Democrats do not support the budget. We do not support the budget because it is imbalanced, unwise and it will not help Canadians.

New Democrats want to help unemployed workers and their families. We urge all members of the House to support the motion as I am sure they want to do the same.

[Benjamin Miguel, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour and pay homage to a special person who recently passed away in my riding. Mr. Benjamin Miguel was a respected and much loved leader in the Filipino community. He met his end as he lived his life: with strength, courage and dignity.

As the New Democrat spokesperson for multiculturalism, Mr. Miguel's life allows us to reflect on the outstanding contributions of the Filipino community to Canadian society. This community is filled with hardworking and proud men and women, people who celebrate life and create culture.

Their courage, fortitude and dreams of building better lives for their families are an inspiration to us all. From the monthly birthday celebrations of the New Era Society to the community development of the Circulo Ilonggo Association to the charity work of Alpha Phi Omega, the Filipino community in British Columbia is active, creative and vibrant.

In Canada's multicultural fabric, the Filipino threads are woven deeply. I would like to convey our deepest sympathies to Mr. Miguel's family. May his life inspire the sons and daughters of the Filipino community and indeed all of us to honour his legacy and make him proud.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats believe passionately in pay equity. This budget trashes pay equity. New Democrats believe in respecting our public civil servants and the sanctity of negotiated contracts. This budget rolls back negotiated collective agreements, including rolling back pay to RCMP officers.

New Democrats believe in child care spaces. This budget does not create one child care space. New Democrats believe in a national housing plan, something that the Liberal Party promised to restore in 1993 and failed to deliver, despite being the government for 13 straight years.

What does the hon. member say to the children, the women, the affordable housing advocates and the civil servants of this country in terms of his supporting the bill?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member has difficulty speaking in the House to any issue without engaging in gratuitous insults and slurs. I would like to remind him that invective is the lowest form of argument.

He raises the question of facts in his speech. I will talk about some facts. The fact is that in November his government claimed that Canada was not in a recession and that we would be running budgetary surpluses this year and next year.

Another fact is that the government, which is led by someone who claims to be an economist, either did not see in November a recession coming, in which case I question his competence, or did see a recession coming, in which case I question his honesty with the House.

The member says that we did not send in any suggestions to the government. Our party sent in dozens and dozens of suggestions to the government. I personally sent in 15 suggestions about stimulus infrastructure spending from my own riding but the government persists in saying that the opposition has not been helpful in this regard, which is simply not true.

The Obama administration in the United States is putting every infrastructure project and federal dollar on the Internet so citizens of that country can see where their government is spending the money. I would ask the member if the government will do the same thing in Canada.

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is my pleasure to commend the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona who also, through decades of effective work in the environmental movement, is respected by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

She is absolutely dead on in pointing out that enforcement is an incredibly important component of this bill and, in fact, all environmental measures.

I also want to take this opportunity to commend the government on this bill. As we have said already, we do support the bill and we will work with the government to improve it in any respect that we can.

I want to conclude my remarks on this bill by pointing out that Canadians want effective environmental legislation. The concern about this bill is that we would be expanding our sovereignty and protecting our territory for the purpose of exploiting natural resources and minerals in the area. If that is the case, then we would be doing a disservice to Canadians because Canadians value the Arctic. What is priceless to them is to have a pristine area of our country and an incredibly important aspect of the world climate system preserved for generations to come.

We owe that debt to our children and grandchildren and to the citizens of the world, and the New Democrats will work toward that goal.

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell, I do not see it. This bill would extend the territorial waters of our north by, I believe, another 100 kilometres, which is an important development, but expanding the territorial integrity of our country without protecting and preserving the environmental, social and cultural health of what lies within those borders is folly.

One of the main failings of this budget before us is that it simply does not do enough in terms of scientific research. While there are some positive measures in the budget in that respect, we need to go much farther and much faster in this regard.

The hon. member for Western Arctic spoke about polar bears. What is most alarming about the threats to this species is that it exists at the highest level of the food chain. If we have problems at that level of higher order mammals, that is a harbinger of deep problems environmentally in the north.

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and commend him for his long work on the environmental file. He is respected among all members of this House and by the Canadian public for his diligent and long-standing effort on behalf of the environment.

It is worth reminding all Canadians that the New Democratic Party was the first party to use the words “climate change” in this House of Commons in the early 1980s. At that time, of course, many people on the other side of the House in the Liberal and Conservative Parties actually ridiculed us for that. They called us alarmists and tree-huggers. In fact, as late as 2002 the Prime Minister was still calling Kyoto a socialist plot.

I think all Canadians now know that this is no game. Climate change is here, it is real and it must be dealt with.

My hon. colleague asked about emission intensity versus hard caps. He raises an excellent point. Establishing a cap and trade system that is based on emission intensity is untried and untested. It is simply not accepted by the vast majority of respected scientists in this world. I do not even think it is accepted by the industries that are expected to implement it.

What we need in this country is a system of hard caps. If we are serious about combatting climate change and bringing down greenhouse gases, we need to set aggressive levels and bring them down in a studied and measured annual and five year allotted time zone so we can bring them down in a controlled fashion. This is the system that I understand was used successfully to deal with the acid rain problem that afflicted the Great Lakes. It was a cap and trade system that was used effectively by industry, by business and by joint cooperation between the United States and Canada to effectively tackle that problem.

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to have the opportunity to continue my comments on this important legislation.

Before I do, I want to commend the excellent work of my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic, for his incisive analysis and wonderful commitment both to the territorial integrity, our environment as well as the welfare of the people of the north.

The bill highlights a number of issues and policies of great importance to Canadians. Canadians care deeply about protecting our sovereignty, about defending the territorial integrity of our boundaries, of protecting our waters and the rich life that dwells within them.

Canadians care deeply about our pristine Arctic and the need to keep this precious part of our country preserved for generations to come.

Last but not least Canadians care profoundly about our environment and the need for prompt and effective action to combat climate change.

The bill also highlights the need for Canada to pursue a course that respects international co-operation and diplomacy, to resolve co-operatively with all the countries that have claims and interests around the Arctic and to resolve any and all territorial issues that may arise.

First and foremost on our minds and in all our relations with all other countries must be the need to protect and preserve the Arctic, not only as an important piece of our climate but also as an important piece of land that has been occupied for thousands and thousands of years by the first nations of our country.

I want to speak a little about climate change and the environment. We are seeing dramatic effects of worldwide climate change, in particular on the Arctic. We are seeing melting ice and threatened species. We are threatened on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis with rising sea levels.

Most important, and alarmingly, the effects of climate change on the Arctic is a signal of worldwide climate catastrophe. However, I want to speak a little about solutions.

In the south, where the vast majority of Canadians live, where the vast majority of people of the world live and, most important, where the problems that cause climate change are primarily created, we have the tools and means available to us to deal with this problem and help preserve the Arctic.

We need to support all development, all industry, all jobs and all technology that will help create solar power and wind power, which will start to harness the tidal forces on both coasts of our country and, in fact, in the north. We need to harness geothermal heat as an important source of heating our northern country.

The New Democrat caucus is firmly committed to pursuing a new economy that supports green technologies, green industries and green jobs. We need to find ways to reduce and to price carbon effectively. Our party campaigned very strongly and effectively on establishing a cap and trade system, a system that would have hard caps, one that would start to slow down and reverse the emission of greenhouse gases, which are such a prime cause of worldwide climate warming.

President Obama gets it. The United States is starting to control its levels of greenhouse gas emissions better than Canada is.

Therefore, I urge all members of the House to join with the New Democrats in helping to protect our Arctic, and this can only be done by protecting our environment. It is important we protect our borders and this can be only done by protecting our coastlines.

Last, it is so important that we protect Canadian sovereignty and this can only be done by acting with intelligence, co-operation and diplomacy on the world stage.

I urge all members of the House to join with New Democrats and continue to fight hard to protect our environment, to enhance Canadian sovereignty and to act strongly and fairly on behalf of all Canadians and on the world stage.