Irene Mathyssen

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Halifax.

I appreciate the opportunity to debate this motion put forward by the member for Parkdale—High Park.

It was crystal clear to those of us who were paying attention that this country was going to face an enormous downturn of profound proportions in our economy. It was clear to our cities, labour community, NGOs and institutions like those involved in health care delivery and education. The only group that seemed to be oblivious to the impending economic downturn was the Conservative Party of Canada and the government that fronts for it.

In August 2007, we watched as the American mortgage sector went into meltdown. People lost their homes, savings and hopes for the future. That meltdown sent shock waves through the American economy and real and obvious warnings to the global community, to us here in Canada and to those of us in the New Democratic Party.

We have seen over and over again that what happens in the U.S. has a significant impact on Canadians and on our economy. That is the very reason that our leader and our caucus pressed the government to address the signals in our economy that all was not well.

I would remind members of the job losses: more than 14,000 in my community in just the past few months. In fact, London has experienced a 75% increase in those seeking employment insurance in the last few weeks. These are desperate families who come to my office. They are terrified of losing their homes. They do not know how they will manage or provide for their children and dependants. These are people who have been given no recourse or hope because of the vacuous economic update that we heard from the government last November, which was an insult to all Canadians.

The equally empty 2009 budget, in turn, offers nothing to those facing unemployment. Sixty per cent of Canadians do not even qualify for EI despite the fact that they paid into the employment insurance fund.

The same government is offering $60 billion in tax cuts to the most profitable corporations, big banks and big oil. The same government took away women's human rights when it inflicted its so-called pay equity bill into the budget implementation bill and rolled back women's equality to the 1950s.

The same government gutted Status of Women Canada, abandoned veterans and their widows, undermined the Investment Canada Act and opened the door to foreign takeovers of Canadian business. It is the same government that absconded with $54 billion from the surplus in the EI fund and denied first nations their rights by rejecting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and completely ignored our obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

It is the same government that created a $3 billion slush fund and now refuses to say what it is for. This is the same government that is asking Canadians and the House of Commons to trust it when it comes to the distribution of the infrastructure dollars that we keep hearing about. I, for one, have real doubts. I have profound reservations because I do not trust it.

I do not know how the government spent its time over the past fall and early winter, other than proroguing the House when its incompetence became unbearable, but I can say that members of the New Democratic Party caucus were talking to Canadians and asking how best to defend against the coming economic storm. We talked to workers who were unemployed or about to be unemployed. We talked to seniors, educators, students, health care providers, the chambers of commerce in our cities, small businesses and NGOs. We even talked to our municipal leaders.

One of the crystal clear messages we heard from all sectors was that there was no time to waste, that we needed to act responsibly and quickly to address the economic crisis. That is the reason that my leader went to the Prime Minister on November 12 with a plan that met the needs of those with whom we had consulted. The Prime Minister, unfortunately, rejected all that support and cooperative gesture from my leader.

However, the fact remains that the advice that we took to him was the same advice that we heard in those town halls from the experts, from the people who are living with unemployment, the municipalities, the businesses, the people who deliver our services.

I met with members of the council for the city of London and they were very clear in what they had to say. Like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, they told me that the long term health of Canada's economy was closely linked to the scope and quality of municipal infrastructure investment and that municipal infrastructure deficits were a national issue requiring national leadership. They were very clear that there was no time for a top down, project by project delivery of infrastructure dollars. They needed and respectfully requested that the vehicle for delivery of the infrastructure money be on a per capita basis in the manner of the methodology used to deliver gas tax money.

As I am sure the House will recall, the transfer of money to municipalities came about in 2005 because the government adopted a policy put forward by the New Democratic Party. Since that time, municipalities have made effective use of those dollars, be it for public transit or other important kinds of infrastructure.

In my own city of London, the London Transit Commission, working closely with the members of the Amalgamated Transit Union, used gas tax money to upgrade our transit system to meet the needs of Londoners with differing physical abilities and to increase ridership. It was a very welcomed improvement for the workers, students, seniors and physically challenged ridership in London. The general manager of the London Transit Commission was very kind in his praise for NDP efforts with regard to gas tax funds for municipalities.

It has also become clear that in the past four years this money has been used wisely and well by municipalities. They know what is critical and most effective in their own jurisdictions. They are the level of government most familiar and responsive to local needs. That is the reason, among those I have already mentioned, that the method chosen by the government makes me very skeptical about the appropriate use of the promised money and, indeed, whether the money will actually flow.

Last January, my leader and I attended a town hall meeting in St. Thomas, Ontario. That community, as the House may recall, has been devastated by job losses and the exodus of the manufacturing industry is breathtaking. It is a town of about 35,000 people, with perhaps 17,000 to 18,000 families, and of those families nearly 5,000 have been affected by lay-off at Sterling Trucks, Lear, Formet and many more. It is absolutely catastrophic. We were meeting with these families, and the mayor of St. Thomas was present because this issue was at the heart of the crisis lived by the people of the St. Thomas area every day. The mayor of St. Thomas told us that while he appreciated the extra $7 billion in infrastructure money, he said that it would do no good if it was not spent.

I would like to remind the House that in budgets 2007 and 2008, $33 billion was set aside for infrastructure. We asked the mayor of St. Thomas, indeed, many of the mayors across the country, about that $33 billion and, without exception, they reported that they could not access the money. It was never spent. It was never intended to be spent because it was tied to a share put in place by the municipality and the province.

These municipalities are broke. They are stretched to the limit. They have no money for infrastructure. We need an honest vehicle for this money and we need flexibility. We need to see it flow but I do not see that in budget 2009.

[James Reaney, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this past summer our nation lost a literary icon of remarkable stature.

James Reaney, celebrated author, playwright, opera librettist, painter, poet, teacher and community activist, died at age 81. Professor Reaney was a great humanitarian and a great Canadian in the eyes of all who knew him. His contribution to Canadian art and culture was a gift to us all. He was the winner of the Chambers Award for best Canadian play, a three time winner of the Governor General's Award and in 1975 the recipient of the Order of Canada.

Among his most famous works was the trilogy dramatizing the story of the legendary Donnelly family of Lucan, Ontario.

Londoners are proud to claim James Reaney as one of our own. His was a life of great achievement and compassion. He was no less than an artistic giant. We will miss his generous spirit and dedication to telling the stories of Canada.

[Pay Equity, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government never had any intention of introducing real proactive pay equity legislation and it made that obvious last November. It intends to deny more women the right to equal pay for work of equal value, and apparently the Liberals agree.

In committee this morning legal and women's rights experts made it clear that this law would be challenged. This will slow down women's rights to justice.

Will the minister finally admit that it is time to stop this pay equity charade and give women the justice they have earned?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad my colleague mentioned Premier Danny Williams. I do not know if he knows, but in the last election Premier Williams supported me. He endorsed my candidacy. I have yet to thank him publicly and would like to take the opportunity to do so now.

With regard to the lack of consultation, it is absolute with the government. We know from what was done to Status of Women Canada, that it clearly did not talk to women across the country. Once research, advocacy, lobbying and the mandate to pursue equality for women was removed from Status of Women Canada, there was an incredible outpouring of concern.

I heard from women from across the country. They were perplexed because they could not understand how any government could come up with policy if it did not consult or make use of the research that had been conducted by women's groups across the country. They were angry because all access had been cut off in terms of their needs in the community. Consult, no—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I must disagree with the member opposite. These oblique references simply do not address the problems that face women.

I point out the chart on page 110 in the same document that she suggests I have not read. The chart makes it very clear that the changes being made to the child tax benefit will glean nothing for families that earn less than $20,000 a year. If there were any real intent on the part of the government to make a difference in the lives of women and their children, families and community, it would have provided something for families earning less than $20,000.

I would like to hear rationale in terms of what on earth the government was thinking when it excluded the poorest families in the budget, the families that struggle most in society in a time of profound economic insecurity, and did not provide any help for children and their parents.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in this new Liberal-Conservative coalition. It is a gross understatement to say that I am disappointed. The budget presented to the House and passed by this new coalition fails the people of London—Fanshawe as it fails all Canadians.

I would like to outline the problems I have with the budget and in particular how it fails to address the following: infrastructure and housing, energy and the environment, employment insurance and women.

I think it is particularly important to highlight the specific impact that this budget is going to have on my riding of London—Fanshawe and surrounding communities. Our area is particularly dependent on the manufacturing sector. We had desperately hoped this budget would give it a much needed boost. Unfortunately, the budget is a missed opportunity to implement a made in Canada procurement policy that would have benefited the area.

As we all have heard, our military is making a purchase of $250 million in trucks from Texas while the same company is laying off hundreds in Chatham, Ontario. This is an absolute insult to Canadian workers. We need to have a made in Canada policy. We need a government that is willing to have a procurement policy that accesses the goods and services provided by Canadians, and that creates and maintains jobs in our communities.

I am pleased to say that the Conservatives did not get everything wrong. In response to NDP pressure the budget commits to the creation of the southwestern Ontario regional development agency. This agency which was proposed in the 2008 NDP platform would be able to develop a focused and productive manufacturing sector in our area. Unfortunately, this was not paired with a commitment to invest in the environment and our future.

A good example of intelligent investment in the environment and jobs would be an investment in more fuel efficient cars, something that would assist the struggling auto sector and help the London area get a jump start on the new green economy.

Overall, the Prime Minister's plan lacks any real green initiative. His plan on clean energy includes clean coal which we all know is not environmentally friendly. The actual investment in clean energy is less than 1% of the total stimulus package, about four times less per person than the U.S. plan.

There is money for nuclear energy and the unproven technology of carbon capture storage. Big polluters like the oil companies once again will be receiving breaks with this budget. It brings back the accelerated capital cost writeoffs for the fossil fuel industry. While the budget does include a green infrastructure fund, it is slight on details or criteria. This fund still requires matching funds from cash strapped municipalities. For many communities around London it will be difficult to tap into the fund because the money is not there at the local level to match the federal dollars.

It is reminiscent of the 2007-2008 $33 billion building Canada fund that never flowed because municipalities could not fund their share of the projects.

The home renovation program included in the budget has no mention of energy conservation measures or savings. In particular, there is no support for renovating or retrofitting the large rental housing stock in the area.

For the many people in London who are currently out of work and struggling to find a new job, real and positive changes to employment insurance eligibility are badly needed. Sadly, this did not happen in the budget and many Londoners will have no help during this economic downturn. It really speaks to the priorities of the Conservative-Liberal coalition. The budget includes $60 billion in corporate tax cuts and only $1.15 billion for the unemployed.

Sadly, in this budget, the poorest Canadians will see no real benefit. The budget does not include any increase in the national child benefit supplement or Canada child tax benefit for children from the poorest families. It provides nothing for families with incomes under $20,000. Imagine that. It provides nothing for the poorest families. The budget provides only $36 more a month for families with incomes under $35,000. It does not include any action to improve public pensions or shore up employer pension plans. It does nothing to address skyrocketing tuition and debt loads for post-secondary students and does not include any money to create child care spaces.

Canada ranks last among developed countries for access to child care and early learning. This is just shameful and these failures have the greatest impact on women.

The budget that is supposed to stimulate the economy will only plunge the government into debt. Twenty billion dollars in personal tax reductions over the next six years will have a negligible impact on spending and will provide minimal stimulus to the economy. What we need are smart investments.

According to the government's own figures, for every dollar in corporate tax cuts we get a 20¢ improvement to the GDP. Personal tax cuts create about a 90¢ improvement to the gross domestic product. Infrastructure spending creates a $1.50 improvement to the GDP. Other measures to help low income Canadians provide a $1.50 improvement to the GDP. As we can see, investments should be made to help low income Canadians, not corporations.

Investing in much needed infrastructure will do more for the economy than personal tax cuts, particularly since personal income tax cuts to the richest Canadians end up in savings instead of supporting job creation. According to the Canadian Labour Congress:

Corporate tax cuts are a poor way to create jobs and help troubled industries because they are of no use to companies losing money, and have little or no impact on real investment.

The new Conservative-Liberal coalition is not making smart investments. Instead of investing in Canadians who need it the most, the Conservative budget is focusing on corporate handouts.

I would now like to focus on the 51% of the population that the budget ignored. Women are not mentioned once in the budget. Some of the more critical issues New Democrats have with the budget stem from the fact that it maintains the attack on pay equity that was announced in the fall economic statement. The bill would create more obstacles for women seeking equal pay for work of equal value. The most vulnerable, 68% of women, will receive little benefit from budget 2009, with 40% seeing no benefit at all.

Sixty-five per cent of women remain ineligible for employment insurance. Improving eligibility for part-time and seasonal workers is essential to women. The budget failed to do this. It failed women. There is no money in the budget to address violence against women or poverty reduction strategies. Bill C-10 attacks women's human rights. The new public sector equitable compensation act is not pay equity. In fact, it attacks pay equity and is the antithesis of the recommendations made from the 2004 pay equity task force.

This new bill does not replicate provincial bills from Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec. It is completely different. The bill does not establish a pay equity commissioner to oversee its implementation and deal with complaints. It does not require the employer to set aside funds for increases in women's salaries.

The most shocking difference between the bill and the pay equity laws of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec is that pay equity negotiations in Bill C-10 are not separate from collective bargaining.

Human rights cannot be negotiated. Pay equity negotiations in provincial legislation all occurred separately from the collective agreement bargaining process, as they should. Furthermore, this legislation is punitive and spiteful. If passed, a union could be fined $50,000 for helping one of its members file a pay equity complaint.

The bill would also remove pay equity protection from the human rights act for public sector employees. The current pay equity regime is costly and lengthy, but the current and past governments are to blame for spending millions of dollars and many years challenging pay equity cases. Women deserve better.

It is not just New Democrats who take issue with the impact the budget will have on women. The National Council of Women of Canada has voiced particular concern with access to EI. It argues that:

And women, who have traditionally earned less than men, are at greater risk of becoming a welfare or homeless “statistic”, particularly as they age, if you take into account the fact that fewer and fewer women over age 45 are qualifying for EI.

It is critical that we improve access to employment insurance, especially in this tough economic period.

I want to point out what the YWCA stated in regard to “Investment in Social Infrastructure and Social Capital”:

Community recreational facilities, hospitals, public spaces, social housing, health centres and schools comprise social infrastructure that secures the health and safety of women and their families and the viability of communities.

This is absolutely what we should be doing. It is what Bill C-10 should have been doing. It is unfortunately not contained in the bill. I do hope that members of the House will see fit to reject the budget because clearly it has rejected the welfare of most Canadians.

[Infrastructure, February 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario has been especially hard hit with over 71,000 job losses last month alone. The majority were family-supporting jobs in the manufacturing sector.

The unemployment rate is up across southern Ontario: London, 7.8%; Hamilton and Oshawa, 8%; Kitchener, 8.4%; St. Catharines, 8.8%; and Windsor, 10.9%.

Will the government take the shackles off the stimulus plan and funnel infrastructure money into municipalities for the people who need it?

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned in her intervention the recent budget and its deficiencies. Despite the fact that there has been a great deal of concern expressed, the recent budget gives $60 in tax cuts to the most profitable corporations including banks and oil companies and fails those workers who have been unemployed by only returning $1 in a pitiful lack of reform to the employment insurance program. I am wondering if the member could comment about the effects of this lack of employment insurance reform on her community, on my community, and on your community, Madam Speaker.

[Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations Act, February 4th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-284, An Act to implement the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, the right to equal pay for work of equal value is a basic human right. Although pay equity is protected in Canada by the Canadian Human Rights Act, pay equity in Canada is not a reality for Canadian women.

Proactive pay equity legislation helps to compensate women for the historic devaluation of women's work. Traditionally women have worked in undervalued and underpaid occupations, like caregiving, cleaning and nursing. Canada must implement effective pay equity legislation to advance women's equality.

Pay inequity has wide-reaching negative social and economic consequences for all women and their families. That is the reason for this legislation. We need proactive pay equity, as outlined in the 2004 pay equity report, and a pay equity commissioner to end the disparity experienced by Canadian women.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Insurance, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, since last year alone, London has seen a 47% spike in employment insurance claims. To make matters worse, Electro-Motive Diesel just announced 600 more layoffs. Workers are counting on EI, but instead they get insults from an out-of-touch minister.

This is not about paying people to sit at home; it is about ensuring they have a home. The minister's comment about EI being a lucrative incentive to stay at home is insulting to hard-working Canadians who have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own.