Mario Silva

[Human Rights, February 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the ravages of Zimbabwe to the present crisis in Sri Lanka, the Conservatives have failed to show any leadership.

The conflict in DRC has killed over 45,000 Congolese each month, with thousands of women being raped, but still the Canadian government is all too silent. We cannot allow ourselves to stand idly by and watch more innocent victims suffer.

I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, where is our moral leadership? Where is the once strong and proud Canadian voice which used to champion human rights and decry these kinds of atrocities?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good question. If the government is really serious about diversifying our trade, which I think is important for Canada to do, we would also have to look at our partners and the relationship we would have with our partners.

In particular, Brazil, India and China are very important countries. We would have to have closer relationships and much more workable relations with these countries if we are to diversify our economy. We cannot do this at the same time as attacking and not working with our partners.

We have to be there to work with them. I am pleased that the investment has been made over the years into Canada by countries like Brazil. I was just elected today as chair of the Canada-Brazil Parliamentary Association. I want to state that Brazil is an emerging market that we have ignored for too long. We need to get back into the game and to say to this very large partner in the Americas that we want be there as well. We want to participate. We want to work with them in partnership.

I think there is an opportunity to do that. We have a new parliamentary secretary for the Americas and a new minister of state for the Americas. We should use those tools and work together to make sure we diversify our economy, because it is to the benefit of all Canadians across the country.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for an excellent question. I especially admire the member for his advocacy on issues of human rights, universal health and education. These are things that he, as a long-time member of this House, has been fighting for.

I think he is absolutely right that with the new Obama administration there is an opportunity for Canada to work together with the U.S. on partnerships on issues of social justice, not just between our two countries but around the world. There are opportunities to exchange. Canada has, of course, really benefited from our universal health care. This is something the U.S. now recognizes. It is also very vital for them. President Obama also wants to move to a health plan that covers the most vulnerable in his country. I think that is a smart and wise thing to do.

There are things we can learn from each other. We should use this opportunity to work collaboratively with the new president, because he certainly wants to work with us and with partners around the world.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ajax—Pickering.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this important motion before the House today. While the spectre of protectionism in the United States has been lessened in view of the development last night in the U.S. Senate, this issue remains in more general ways a matter of concern.

The buy American provisions of the American stimulus package reflect the genuine fears held by many Americans in the context of the current economic difficulties facing their nation and the world.

However, as experience has constantly taught us, the kind of protectionism that was envisioned in the stimulus bill prior to the amendment passed last night is precisely the kind of counterproductive measure that would worsen the crisis and not contribute to a workable solution for all who are affected across the world.

We in Canada must be especially vigilant when protectionism raises its head in the United States.

It was President John F. Kennedy who said, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends”.

This is, of course, very true, and our interdependence has been for the most part mutually beneficial. However, at times like this, when fear and uncertainty are prevalent, this close relationship and interdependency can create vulnerabilities that are very challenging when protectionism is promoted.

There is little doubt that the United States remains the single most powerful economic force in the world. That which affects the United States, like a stone dropped in a pond, will ripple outward and affect those far beyond its borders. It will also disproportionately affect those who are the most interdependent and who are geographically close to the United States. Canada is one of those countries.

I am reminded of comments by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who stated that living next to the United States was like sleeping next to an elephant: one is affected by every twitch and grunt. While the Senate has indeed amended the U.S. stimulus bill, the grunt remains something of concern.

The protectionist rhetoric that has been heard within the U.S. Congress and across the country is precisely the kind of talk heard during the Great Depression of the 1920s and the 1930s.

The buy American provisions, which were fortunately mitigated last night, were eerily reminiscent of Smoot-Hawley, which was a resolution that in the minds of most economists was a major contributor to the Great Depression.

Smoot-Hawley radically increased tariffs on almost a thousand manufactured items and agricultural products, causing an even further decrease in the value of stock market indices, and it prompted retaliatory measures across the world. These measures did not resolve issues either in the United States or abroad, but actually dramatically worsened them. The government of the day had the opportunity nonetheless to lobby then-President Hoover not to pass this legislation. The president was not partial to the legislation, yet the government of the day was silent, to the detriment of both nations.

While the current stimulus package has been amended and the most egregious protectionist measures have apparently been removed, I encourage the government to remain ever-vigilant on this file. While the Senate and the new administration of President Barack Obama have pulled back from protectionism, this spirit of withdrawal and defensiveness is still very much in the minds of millions of Americans.

The Prime Minister asserts his understanding of the Great Depression and certainly argues that it was trade barriers, not a stock market crash, that caused, in part, the Great Depression of the 1930s. While I will not here dispute his assertion, it leaves me to ask why the government has not been more proactive in ensuring that protectionist provisions were not included in the initial U.S. stimulus if it was aware of the threat posed by them.

Canada has greatly benefited from its relationship with the United States, in trade in particular. We are linked through countless agreements, most notable among which are the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has revolutionized continental trade and investment and helped unlock our region's economic potential, yet at the same time the relative costs of Canadian products and services are increasing due to ongoing U.S. concerns about border security.

The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service, which expanded in 2003 under the previous Liberal government, with 40 consulates general, consulates, trade offices and honorary consuls located in major commercial centres across the United States, provides Canadian businesses with a network supplying the information, advice and support they need to advance their commercial interests, with increasing emphasis on cultivating partnership opportunities in foreign investment and in science and technology for Canadian firms to integrate into U.S.-led and other global supply chains.

All of these realities confirm what most of the U.S. already knows: our economic interests are inextricably linked with those of the United States. When we moved away from a predominance of trade with Great Britain following the Second World War, we turned to the only logical alternative, our neighbour to the south. Since then, we have arrived at a time when 60% of our imports originate from the United States and 40% of our exports flow to them.

We should consider ourselves fortunate that in prosperous times, while other countries push aggressively to establish increased and improved preferential trade links with the United States, Canada enjoys preferential access to the American market. The long-standing arrangement was at risk with the stimulus bill being considered in the United States, and while the offending measures have been removed from the bill, we must continue to monitor closely the emergence of such sentiments among Americans.

We need continued action from the government. We need it to be proactive and not, as it is in this case, reactive. We on this side of this House recognize that it is hesitant to do so, as it has been hesitant with every major economic decision since the start of the crisis. However, it is time to be vigilant and to be unafraid to assert our position in advance of protectionist measures.

In the words of the great thinker Søren Kierkegaard:

It is perfectly true, as philosophers say, that life must be understood backwards. But they forget the other proposition, that it must be lived forwards.

We cannot afford to forget the lessons of the past. Canadian livelihoods are at stake, as are the values of our natural resources and our partnerships with the United States. However, it is not simply enough to act now on information we have had for 70-odd years. We must act now to prevent this sort of reaction from occurring in the future. With the dawn of a new administration in the United States, Canada must act to establish the sort of relationship with the United States through which our position will be well known and clear in advance of any protectionist measures.

President Kennedy's words, as noted earlier, are profound. We share a common border and have much in common. While not always in agreement on many issues, United States and Canada are neighbours and friends. Our vast continent, with forests as old as time itself and resources scarcely imagined anywhere else in the world, is still very much a new frontier. There are new winds of change blowing across America. President Barack Obama is a symbol of such change. His willingness to hear our concerns and modify his position is evidence of this new reality.

Let us remember that we share so much that we must always work together for our mutual best interest and for the great benefit of all people of the world.

[Democratic Republic of the Congo, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, since 1996 war has raged almost continuously in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. With the official cessation of violence in 2002, fighting has still been a recurring and terrible facet of life in this region.

As is always the case, war takes an especially terrible toll on the innocent. Since the beginning of August of last year, some 250,000 people have been displaced, not to mention the countless murders and kidnappings, as well as reports of torture. Violence against women is especially prevalent in this war zone.

On June 19, 2008 the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution declaring rape as a weapon of war and a threat to international security, yet the violence against women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues.

I urge all members of the House and all Canadians alike to condemn the systematic use of rape as a weapon and support the Congolese women's campaign against sexual violence by signing the online petition at www.drcsexualviolence.org

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we get moving on infrastructure. Municipalities all across Canada will be looking to the budget to see what type of stimulus they will be able to get.

An evaluation has been done on the infrastructure needs of my own city of Toronto and it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 billion. Obviously, it is not realistic to expect any budget to deal with those issues, but it is a testament to the fact that cities across this country, and particularly my city of Toronto, face serious infrastructure challenges. Mayor David Miller has complained repeatedly about the fact that the building Canada fund is full of red tape and the money is not flowing to municipalities to kick-start their projects.

If we want to get the economy going and if we want to invest in infrastructure, which makes sense because it is needed and is valuable to this country, we have to make sure that there is no red tape and that the money flows to municipalities.

My leader, my party and I are committed to making sure that we are on top of these issues, that we keep after the government to make sure that the money flows to the municipalities and communities that need those infrastructure funds. That is what we will be doing. I look forward to that, because our cities and our communities will not survive unless they get money to kick-start the infrastructure projects within their communities.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague and the House that at one time there was a government that brought forward a budget which invested in housing, which invested in child care, which invested in our cities. I checked the records and it was the NDP that actually brought down that government and decided to have the Conservatives in power. Let us not rewrite history.

There was a time when we were moving on those issues. We were speaking to those issues that she is now speaking about. We were actually doing things for Canadians, but at that time, the NDP chose to have an election and that party got the House that it asked for.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

Hon. colleagues, as I stand in this House to speak to the budget presented this past week by the Minister of Finance, I cannot help but think that we could have been having this debate two months ago.

While it may be somewhat discouraging that the government would only feel motivated to act in response to a threat of its own political survival and not out of courage or concern for the millions of Canadian families, workers and business people who need assistance, at least we are now seeing some action from the government.

This situation is certainly challenging and of great concern.

Since the summer, we have watched as stock markets here at home and around the world literally lost millions of dollars in value right before our own eyes. This, of course, affects not only the companies and their employees, but also millions of people, including older Canadians who have invested in these institutions. Many Canadians look to these investments to see them through their retirement years.

In the manufacturing sector, we have seen for some time now the loss of jobs at levels not witnessed in decades. I have repeatedly joined with labour leaders and other members of the House for over two years now in calling for action to protect manufacturing jobs in this country.

Retailers across Canada are now facing unprecedented challenges just to survive and many have already cut jobs in the wake of falling sales.

We are all aware of the significant and ongoing pressures facing the automotive sector. The Canadian Auto Workers union has for several years now been warning about the dire situation in one of the largest economic engines of our economy, automobile manufacturing.

In addition to the challenges here in Canada, we are clearly affected by the circumstances confronting our neighbour to the south, the United States.

I am pleased to congratulate President Barack Obama as he begins his term leading our largest trading partner.

We in Canada do not live in a vacuum and situations south of the border impact us very directly as we conduct 80% of our trade with the United States. It is an inescapable reality that policies of the former administration contributed to the economic woes facing the U.S. and the world. The trigger to the current economic dire straits was, of course, the United States' housing market and the lack of regulations and control with respect to lending.

If there is any bright spot in terms of the financial services sectors, it is that in our country the prudent management of the previous Liberal government spared us from some of the seismic collapse we have witnessed in the U.S. and other western countries.

Despite pressures to the contrary, the government of former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin understood the need to ensure that our banking system required stringent regulatory control. It is easy to forget now the calls for bank mergers and relaxed lending regulations that the then Liberal government refused to accede to and it is also true that we are fortunate that leaders like Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin possessed such foresight and political courage.

As financial institutions around the world, in particular in the U.S., teeter on the precipice of survival, Canada's financial system, while under stress, is essentially sound.

In the weeks leading up to the return of this Parliament, the government continuously disseminated information on the content of its budget. The creation of a deficit was first among the so-called leaks. Then we saw announcements of forthcoming infrastructure spending, employment support programs, assistance to struggling industries and a variety of other initiatives. In short, those were many of the things that we in the official opposition were calling for since the beginning of the economic downturn.

In that regard, there are measures within the budget that our leader, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, our caucus and me personally find we must support at this time. Canadians simply cannot wait any longer for this support and certainly not for purely political reasons.

I must say it is distressing to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party speaking of a new coalition. I would ask him to put aside his own ambition and recognize that there is really one coalition that matters, the one between the people of Canada and those they have chosen to work on their behalf. Canadians need help, not more political games. When the opposition parties formed the coalition in November, it was about more than politics. It was about holding an irresponsible government to account for its own highly political rhetoric.

The Leader of the Opposition has shown courage and put the needs of Canadians first by announcing support for the budget. He has also shown great leadership in tempering that support with the amendment that was passed last night, an amendment that will ensure real and meaningful help is delivered to Canadians.

We simply must have economic stimulus. One of the most effective ways to deliver this kind of financial assistance is through infrastructure renewal. The budget does contain significant commitments in this regard, if indeed these funds flow in a manner that will see road construction, bridge construction and so forth. These projects are too important to come with strings attached.

The Conservative government cannot create infrastructure opportunities through the building Canada fund and then let the opportunities fall by the wayside when cities cannot afford to contribute one-third of the expenses. Toronto mayor David Miller has already made it clear that Toronto does not have the cash for the revitalization of Union Station, which the Minister of Finance referred to as a “crucial commuter hub”. The Conservatives must ensure that infrastructure funds are accessible to all and are not merely political window dressing.

The Liberal amendment is, as noted, designed to do this.

Likewise, the commitments to affordable housing are important. I would remind many in the House that it was the previous Liberal government's finance minister, the member for Wascana, who had made commitments in this area for the first time in decades. Nonetheless, this budget contains provisions for affordable housing. This is a significant improvement and an important one.

We are also encouraged by the support for low income earners through the expansion of the child tax benefits and the working income tax benefit. These also are long overdue.

The financial commitments aimed toward our educational institutions are very much needed. I am supportive of these provisions as they will deliver long-needed assistance to these institutions.

If we are to recover economically, then we need a stimulus that will create jobs, restore confidence and assist Canadians in meeting the unique challenges of this time. The so-called spin-off effect from economic stimulus ranges from the purchase of building supplies to spending undertaken by those working in the construction sector.

There are things to find encouraging in this budget. The government has included some of what we have been calling for over the past two years. Regardless of who gets the credit, it is important that we just move forward in assisting Canadians and the Canadian economy.

I would like to take a moment to point out some areas that I believe have not been addressed and which require attention.

Senior citizens in my riding and across the country are facing very difficult times. Living on fixed incomes they must contend with a multitude of challenges. For example, in my city of Toronto many older residents are facing increased property taxes at a time when they can least afford it.

While recognizing property taxes are municipal and provincial issues, the reality is that older Canadians on fixed incomes are contending with these increased costs. There is much we can do at the federal level to assist them. This can be achieved in the form of increased support through the tax system or through the guaranteed income supplement. Regardless of how it is done, we must assist those who have contributed to building our country and who now need our help.

The previous Liberal government was moving forward to meet many of the long-term challenges facing Canadians. Sustainable and stable funding was flowing to working Canadian families, our cities, our important manufacturing sectors, and the list goes on.

We also need to improve the employment insurance system to make it fairer and more responsive, create a real national child care system and deliver on employment equity to name but a few areas. While the budget contains many important items, we need to move forward in the direction we were heading under the previous Liberal government.

Now is the time when we need full cooperation between all levels of government, new and invigorated relations between various parties and a progressive approach to leading the country. The current economic realities require immediate and short-term support.

I would remind members of the words of the writer James Freeman Clarke who stated, “The difference between a politician and a statesman is: a politician thinks of the next election and a statesman thinks of the next generation.”

As we conclude debate on the budget, we need to work together and put aside partisan actions like those we witnessed last November from the government. We need to move forward with this budget.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 3rd, 2008]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, and I want to thank my hon. colleague for that question. I think he said it quite well. If we look at, for example, what was referenced by my hon. colleague, the situation with president-elect Obama, he has worked on an economic stimulus package with both the Democrats and the Republicans. He wants to bring both sides together. So, we know that he is united. This Parliament is divided, not united.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 3rd, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that our Prime Minister has lost the confidence of Parliament. It is obvious. He has lost his authority to work with all the opposition parties to improve the situation and tackle the economic crisis facing our country.

I would say this in response to my colleague’s question: there is clearly a consensus, in accordance with our country’s history, that Parliament has a responsibility to operate with the support of a majority of its members. It is therefore obviously legal and legitimate for an opposition party to form the government if it has the support of a majority of parliamentarians.