Mario Silva

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the fact that the Prime Minister just does not get it. He does not get it about the issues facing Canadians. In fact, as I have stated and many members of this House have stated all along, he has tried to change the focus of this Parliament from the real issues affecting Canadians. We had to respond and we had to act.

This is a historical time. There are historical situations affecting our economy both here and abroad, and the opposition came together in a collaborative way. This is a democratic way of doing things in a parliamentary tradition. It is the same as what happens in other countries throughout Europe.

We also know that the Prime Minister feels this way because, as my hon. colleague stated in his question, the Prime Minister, even in his own previous party, has attempted as well to have coalitions of support both from the Bloc and from other parties in past Parliaments. This is nothing new. This is something that the present government has also tried in the past and failed. I guess that is probably one of the reasons why it is so upset with us.

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

Madam Speaker, it is quite interesting how that member and his party have now decided to take on this notion of wrapping themselves around the flag, a very Republican style, when they do not want to address the real issues facing Canadians, the economic uncertainty, and the plight of Canadians. Now all they want to do is talk about this coalition with the separatists. Something which is important to keep in mind is in today's Globe and Mail by Jeffrey Simpson. He writes:

Samuel Johnson once said that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” It will be for Canadians to decide whether the Conservatives are scoundrels, but patriotism has now become their last refuge. The Conservatives survived in the last parliament with episodic and appreciated support from the Bloc. Their ministrations and supplications for Quebec nationalists of almost every hue knew few bounds. But now, in this battle for survival, the Conservative Party has grabbed a Canadian flag and sewn the Maple Leaf to its heart.

This is what is happening right now. The Conservatives are trying to change the channel from what is actually taking place. We want to talk about the economy and the issues that matter to Canadians. They want to talk about vague, supposed beliefs about patriotism.

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

Mr. Speaker, we in Canada are living in a period of unprecedented challenges to the very foundations of our democracy and parliamentary institutions. The Prime Minister has by his actions and rhetoric undermined our national traditions of fairness, dialogue and unity.

He has used tactics and strategies that are beyond confrontational. Discourse and challenge are part of our parliamentary system, but the Prime Minister has gone beyond that. He has tried to undermine the sustainability of the opposition parties. He has adopted a style of governance not before seen in Canadian history and he has nurtured a rancorous style of governing that is completely inconsistent with our Canadian values.

Canada is in a period of significant economic and political uncertainty. Across the world, nations and their citizens are contending with unprecedented economic challenges. As a result, unique political challenges require bold and innovative solutions. We are at a profoundly significant turning point in our nation's history. People in nations around the globe are looking to their governments for assistance, direction and assurance that in times of uncertainty and need, their voices will be heard.

I understand the Prime Minister has a particular historic interest in the Punic Wars. This may account for the actions he has taken in recent weeks, but we must all remember that the Punic Wars were the largest in the history of the ancient world and lasted over 100 years. They were costly and were in essence about only one issue, power between Rome and Carthage, and their goal was unchallenged dominance. Is this what the goal of the Prime Minister is, unchallenged dominance? He needs to remember that we are living in a democratic society, not in the ancient world.

We have only to look at the recent presidential election in the United States to understand the desire of people to have a better future for a change. The election of president-elect Barrack Obama was about change, as we have so often heard. It was about choosing a government that was prepared to be activist when times called for it and supportive when the people needs such assistance.

The finance minister and the Conservative government had a unique opportunity last week to embrace the goodwill of the opposition in this Parliament when the fiscal update was delivered. For weeks, opposition members posed questions and made statements in the House reflecting the voices of their constituents, calling for real, meaningful action with respect to our economy. Simply put, the Prime Minister had every opportunity, as he had promised, to take the high road and to bring a greater measure of civility to the way in which his government operated in the House.

Instead, he chose to bring forward an unseemly partisan document that was more a political testament than in instrument to address the business of Canadians.

The fiscal update was a political document that contained almost no financial measures, but rather sought to undermine the fiscal viability of the opposition parties. This is hardly a demonstration of parliamentary civility and it is certainly inconsistent with Canadians values.

In addition to this measure, there was also the attempt to remove the right to strike for three years for public servants, which was a red herring simply because the collective agreements did not expire for three more years. Add to this was the undermining of the pay equity process, which was a clear assault on equal pay for equal work within the public sector.

From these attempts to its cancellation of the court challenges program, the government has consistently taken the wrong course. Despite all the rhetoric from the Prime Minister and his government members, the reality is the current situation is absolutely of his own making.

It is still somewhat incomprehensible to any rational person that the government could be so oblivious to the needs of Canadians while pursuing its own narrow political agenda. Canada is not about that. Time Magazine, in describing Canada, once published this statement, “Canada is one of the planet's most comfortable and caring societies”. This is the kind of country we should strive to build, and it is for this reason that we on this side of the House have chosen to act.

The decisions taken by the opposition parties subsequent to the delivery of the fiscal update are the actions of those who recognize that our country is in need of help during this troubled time. Action had to be taken.

It was Winston Churchill who once said, “It is not enough that we do our best: sometimes we have to do what's required”.

What is required is directly relational to what is going on in our economy outside the walls of this Parliament. It was reported yesterday that the November employment report would likely show upwards of 40,000 lost jobs in Canada. Behind that statistic are thousands of families that will now have to determine not how they will celebrate Christmas, but how they will simply meet their bills and put food on their tables.

The automotive sector is facing unprecedented pressure. As the United States government prepares to directly assist them during this time, there is little but indirect and uncertain assurances from the government. Words will not save auto industry jobs in Canada, only action will.

We hear of the loss of jobs within the arts community, from ballet companies in British Columbia to festivals right in the nation's capital. Manufacturing jobs in a variety of industries are being lost almost every day, as employers struggle to contend with new economic realities.

The truth is Canadians and the business community are under pressure. In countries like the United Kingdom and a variety of European nations stimulus packages have already been launched with more to follow.

However, in Canada the government maintains Canadians must wait for the budget originally slated for February, or March, and now, under pressure, moved to the end of January. Clearly even this decision demonstrates the government is not prepared to act.

In the absence of clear and meaningful action, the opposition parties have done what is required of them. The agreement announced on Monday to create a coalition government was a decision taken not out of opportunity but rather of necessity.

I would also point out that the Prime Minister's position is entirely inconsistent with what he maintained only four years ago when he wrote to the Governor General stating, “We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority”.

The “we” the Prime Minister was referring to was his party, the New Democratic party and the Bloc Québécois.

In resorting to the creation of a coalition government, the opposition parties have acted in a manner that is completely consistent with history and operation of a parliamentary democracy.

We have also clearly demonstrated the fact that no election is required. We are prepared to govern.

I would point out that constitutional experts have said that the Governor General's primary responsibility is to determine, with or without a vote, whether the current government retains the confidence of the House.

Based on the documents signed on Monday, based on the public comments of members of the opposition and in the view of the conduct of the government, it is quite clear the government does not in fact enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons.

Constitutional experts further agree that should the government lose the confidence of the House of Commons in a vote, either on a confidence motion or a financial matter, that it would be inconsistent with constitutional practice for the Governor General to grant a request for dissolution.

This is based on the fact that an election took place in the country less than two months ago and therefore constitutional practice would dictate that the Governor General would invite the Leader of the Opposition to form a government if he had the confidence of the House.

Clearly, in this instance, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, has the support of the majority of the members of the House to form a government.

This is standard constitutional practice within our parliamentary system. The decision of the Prime Minister and the members of the government does not change the fact that under our system the eventuality I have just laid out is fully consistent with our laws, our precedents and our parliamentary traditions.

In the past four years I have contested three elections. I can assure the House that, like the Canadian people, I do not want or believe we need another election.

Indeed the reference we have heard mentioned around Parliament over the past few days is that of the situation in 1926 when the then Governor General of Canada refused the dissolution request of Prime Minister Mackenzie King. We need to remember that the basis of the decision was not that the government had been in power only a short number of weeks, but that the previous election was eight months prior to the request. Clearly the precedent would support the notion that calling an election now, so soon after the one we just had in October, would be inconceivable and imprudent.

This is most especially the case in view of the fact that we have an alternative government ready to assume office with the guaranteed support of the majority of the members of the House.

The government must remember that in our system we do not elect governments, we elect Parliaments from which governments are formed. Governments are required to secure the support of the majority of the members of Parliament, and clearly the government has lost the confidence of the Parliament.

It should also be remembered that it is not the role of the Governor General to determine the viability of a government, but rather to allow Parliament to make such a determination. Should the Leader of the Opposition inform the Governor General that he has the majority support of the House that should then result in an invitation to form a government.

This would then be followed by the confirmation of support in a vote of confidence in the new government in the House of Commons.

The questioning of the viability of the coalition governments nothing new. In fact, the coalition government of Prime Minister Robert Borden in 1917 met with many questions about its ability to survive. That coalition government operated for several years and was a pivotal point.

Coalition governments in Canada pre-date our nation's Confederation. From 1864 to 1867, the then province of Canada was governed by a coalition government that would ultimately lead to Confederation in 1867. It was known as “the great coalition” and it included the Conservative Party, the Clear Grits of Canada west, and the Parti Bleu of Canada east. This coalition of what we now know as the provinces of Ontario and Quebec brought together the various political parties and interests in a common cause to break the legislative deadlock that had overcome the legislature.

Similarly, from 1917 to 1920, we had the Union coalition which included the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and independents.

We have also seen multiple coalition governments at the provincial level in this country, including in my home province of Ontario in 1985.

In the United Kingdom, upon which our parliamentary system is based, coalition governments are often referred to as “national governments” and governed from 1931-40. That government had three different prime ministers from 1931-40. Coalition governments served as well during both world wars, in other words, in times of great necessity and challenges. In the case of the British coalition government of 1931, this was the direct result of the economic turmoil that had lingered since the 1929 financial crash, and the need for united and effective action by a government.

The current financial situation across the world has been described by many economists and political leaders as being even more perilous than the situation in 1929. Although the economies of the world are more complicated than in 1929, the reality is that ordinary Canadians are losing their jobs, find it hard to manage financially, and they are clearly concerned about the future.

By taking the position of waiting to see what other governments are going to do, the government is adopting a shortsighted and completely unacceptable position. Leadership is about taking action for the best interests of our citizens and if there were ever a time for decisive leadership, this would be the time.

The coalition government we are proposing to the Governor General is one that is committed to act to address the very real and pressing needs of Canadians and one that will take action where the current government was clearly unwilling.

Among other things, the coalition would commit to a $30 billion stimulus package with assistance to the auto industry and the forestry sectors, two areas of our economy under enormous pressure. The coalition agreement is reflective of a genuine desire to make Parliament work in the best interests of Canadians, and to provide them with assistance they need and deserve in these difficult times. What this proposed coalition government is committed to do is simply the same kinds of policies that governments across the world have undertaken in order to assist their citizens in these difficult economic times.

Governing is about choosing and the choices made by the current government have necessitated this action by the majority of the members of this Parliament.

The terms of our agreement mark a new spirit of co-operation and dedication to the needs of Canadians that have been absent from the Government of Canada for too long. The time to act is now and the action needed is bold and unique to the times.

As former Prime Minister Lester Pearson once said, “No other country is in a better position than Canada to go ahead with the evolution of a national purpose devoted to all that is good and noble and excellent in the human spirit”. Let us embrace this noble concept and move forward to build a better Canada.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague speaks about democracy and what is happening in Parliament.

My hon. colleague must be aware that under our Westminster parliamentary system of democracy, we do not elect governments, but parliamentarians and a parliament. In order to function, a government requires the support of the majority of parliamentarians.

The minority government has failed Canadians, has failed the democratic process, has abused the process over and over again by declaring every bill a confidence motion. The Conservatives have basically bullied the opposition into supporting their right-wing agenda. They have attacked women's rights, gay rights, and everything that is fundamental to the country in terms of human rights and respect for human dignity, yet they expect us to just roll over and do whatever they want.

We are not going to stand for that. Many constitutional experts, including Professor Errol Mendes of the University of Ottawa, with whom I spoke, have said that under our Constitution the Governor General has an obligation to see if there are other opportunities within Parliament to make it work and to see if another party has the confidence of the House. That is exactly what is before us, and that needs to be clarified.

The hon. colleague speaks about president-elect Obama. We know very well that president-elect Obama has in fact engaged Republicans--

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in this time of economic crisis, what Canada and Canadians need is a Prime Minister who will take leadership on this front and on this file. Instead the Prime Minister, who once talked about firewalls in Alberta, and who has been somewhat of a separatist himself, now is attacking the agreement that has come forward, an attack on Parliament.

In our parliamentary system, we do not elect governments. We elect parliamentarians. We elect Parliament. It is the government that has the confidence of Parliament, which is in charge and is the government of our country. I think the Prime Minister has forgotten this, that in a minority situation, he has a duty to consult, not to attack unionists and labour movements, not to attack women's rights and the Pay Equity Commission, not to attack all sorts of fundamental rights that we have gained in our country. Instead, he decided to take very partisan, cheap shots at all those minority groups across the country. This is why he has lost the confidence of the House.

I invite my hon. colleague, whom I admire quite a bit, to tell me why Canadians should trust a Prime Minister who keeps saying one thing and doing something else?

[The Economy, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's economic update, the Conservative response to the economic crisis was pitiful. One in seven women lives below the poverty line, but instead of helping Canadians, the Conservatives launched an ideological attack. Workers are worried about their jobs, yet there was no mention at all of employment insurance.

Why are the Conservatives launching partisan attacks instead of bringing in measures to help the most vulnerable members of our society?

[Seniors, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, senior citizens in my riding of Davenport are telling me how difficult they are finding it to survive financially. I am sure the situation is the same across Canada.

Due to these pressures, it is hard for them to remain in their homes. They are finding it difficult to pay property taxes, meet the costs of food and simply pay their bills. At a time when world oil prices are going down, seniors continue to pay inflated prices for their home heating fuel. Why is this?

When a previous Liberal government created the Canada pension plan, it was to help seniors in their retirement. It is time to increase the amount that seniors are receiving under this program. It is also time to increase the old age security supplement.

We need to help seniors meet their property tax burden by allowing them to deduct this amount on their income tax returns.

We need to do whatever it takes to make sure that their private pension plans are secure.

Senior citizens across Canada helped to build this country. As we face so much economic uncertainty, we must do everything possible to help our seniors meet these challenges.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his fine work and for being re-elected in the great riding of Yukon.

All of us realize there is a serious challenge going on. The question is how will the government react, and what will be its response. We are certainly waiting with great anticipation for the comments from the Minister of Finance later on today.

We know the government's record. It does not want to cooperate. Any indication from what I have been hearing as of late, is that it has again taken a very hostile attitude toward this Parliament. The Conservative government does not want to cooperate with members of Parliament.

This is the third minority Parliament in a row. We have a responsibility and a duty to work together. Unfortunately the government once again is taking an ideological bent, a reformist bent, in attacking the different parties instead of working together.

Canada is facing a crisis. We have to address that crisis. We cannot do it if the Conservative government is bashing the opposition instead of getting the opposition to work together so we can address the serious crisis facing our country.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, we all recognize the difficult situation this country is facing. In my speech I alluded not just to the fact that it is an economic situation but also to the fact that there is a lack of confidence in our parliamentary institutions. The fact that there was such low voter turnout in the last election should concern us all here in this Parliament.

As parliamentarians we have a responsibility to work together to meet the challenges ahead and to confront the government when it fails to react positively to the crisis facing the world.

We want to see a stimulus package such as those in Europe and the U.S. so that the economy can keep on going. I am afraid that the government is missing an opportunity. The Conservatives have not been good prudent managers of the economy or of our country's finances.

We have wasted the last two years by not addressing the issues of concern. Today we are facing a serious financial situation which has been brought on not just by what is happening in the world but also by the actions of the government.

We as opposition members have to make sure that the government is held to account for its actions.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the good people of Davenport for the trust they have shown in me. I congratulate all members in the House for their election or re-election as members of Parliament. In choosing us as their representatives, the people of Canada have reposed in us a sacred trust and the responsibility of a noble tradition dating back to the founding of our country.

To the members who did not return, I take this moment to thank them for their service to this country we all love. Their hard work and dedication will long be remembered.

I would also like to thank my leader for his confidence in appointing me as official opposition critic for foreign affairs with responsibility for the Americas.

Allow me to begin by quoting from the Speech from the Throne:

In Canada as in other countries of the world democracy today faces a decisive challenge. It must adapt to new circumstances and new demands or fail in its purpose. This challenge is not abstract but a confrontation which you will have to face by virtue of your election to Parliament.

If members do not recognize these words from last week's Speech from the Throne, there is good reason. They are from the Speech from the Throne delivered in Parliament on September 12, 1968. If these words reach forward across the years and carry any message, it is that all times are challenging, the world is always evolving, and every generation must lift the torch and boldly go forward into the darkness in order to light the way for those who are to follow.

In 1968, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the young and vibrant newly chosen leader of Canada. Although the world faced many perils, not unlike today, he called upon all Canadians of his generation to hear the call to work toward building a more just society where prosperity was known to the many and not just the few. Most of all, he called upon all Canadians to take up their place in the world.

John Maynard Keynes once said that Canada is a place of infinite promise. Truly, we in the House have an enormous responsibility to meet the challenges that face our country and the world.

The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, is absolutely correct in the comments he made following the Speech from the Throne. He said, “By electing a minority government, Canadians are asking Parliament to work together to see our country through the economic challenges that we now face”. With power of any kind there comes responsibility and we have a responsibility to make this Parliament work.

Clearly, Canadians across the land are facing unprecedented economic challenges. Are the two other opposition party leaders suggesting that it would be better to spend $300 million on an election for the purpose of their political agendas rather than on meeting the needs of Canadians at this difficult time in our history?

As the leader of my party has made clear, there is much lacking in the Speech from the Throne and there is much need for improvement. However, Canadians sent us here to work. They sent us here to stop the blatant partisan gamesmanship that some have repeatedly displayed and instead put the interests of Canadians first.

With one of the lowest voter turnouts in Canadian history, it must be recognized that all of us here have a profound responsibility to seek to encourage confidence in our institutions and to give to citizens across this country a message of hope, co-operation and commitment in these difficult times. We are here for the people's business, not our own business.

In a mere nine years, Canada will be 150 years old. In 1967, Canada's 100th birthday, Canada hosted Expo '67 and the world stood up to take note of the great nation we had become.

There were bold new social, economic and political changes brought forward in that time of great advancement and wonder. We need to look for that vision once again to meet the challenges of the new millennium and to tend to the flame of hope and prosperity passed from the torch of history that has come from generations past. This will require bold action, especially in times of recession.

By way of example, the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, as well as others, have for some time called for the creation of a high-speed rail link between the city of Windsor and Quebec City. It would create a rapid and environmentally sustainable transportation link across that region of Canada. It is forward thinking and long overdue. Although nine years away, if we committed now to build the high-speed rail link, it would surely be possible to achieve its completion by our country's 150th anniversary.

Likewise, our national pension plan which was created by a previous Liberal government is a bold and daring statement that recognizes our need to take care of those who have worked so hard to build our country. The throne speech was a missed opportunity to clearly commit to protect the pensions of older Canadians. This is something they deserve. We must work together to ensure that all Canadians have the quality of life that is due to them as people who have raised us, worked for us and dedicated themselves to building a better tomorrow for those who now enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Our nation's infrastructure is in desperate need of attention. A real and dedicated financial commitment in this area would help to restore infrastructure in an environmentally sustainable manner in every corner of Canada and would also generate badly needed jobs in all regions.

We need vigorous and meaningful action to protect jobs in all sectors of our economy, including our manufacturing industries.

Working families need support from their national government during difficult times. We must work to reduce poverty and also ensure that as the world's economic foundations are challenged that more Canadians do not find themselves in such circumstances.

Our young people must believe that their future is bright. Though there are clouds of uncertainty hovering overhead, behind those clouds is sunshine. Young Canadians are the future. We need to help them learn, assist them to meet the challenges of a changing world and ensure they know that we are with them regardless of the pressing challenges that surround them.

Our country needs to show leadership in meeting the challenge of climate change. We need to show the world that our commitment is meaningful and that we are prepared to lead the way as if our survival depended on it, because in actual fact it does.

The throne speech would have done well to commit our country to a greener economy and the economic and environmental benefits of cultivating such progressive and necessary policies.

As a country we must also commit to green technology in the production of automobiles. If the present challenges facing automobile manufacturers have taught us anything, it is that the future will require us to produce more environmentally friendly cars which are more appealing to the marketplace.

We need to address the ongoing needs of our first nations people and to protect our territorial integrity in the northernmost parts of our country.

In challenging times it is easy to forget that a nation's identity is in many ways defined by its culture and the artists who define it with dedication and talent. As in all economically troubled times, artists are among those who will face some of the most severe financial pressures. We must commit to support them in every way possible, for their work is important to Canada and the world.

During the tenure of the previous Liberal governments, which efficiently and progressively managed public affairs in this country from 1993 to 2006, we not only balanced our budgets but also maintained a prudent contingency fund. The current global economic crisis confirms the wisdom of such a policy. We must find a way to restore contingency funds and not unwisely adopt economic policies that look good in the short term but do not serve our country in the long term.

I would also encourage the government to continue the policies of previous Liberal administrations with respect to the banking industry. Despite great pressures at the time, the former Liberal prime minister and finance minister resisted the requests for mergers and looser banking regulations which would almost certainly have placed our financial institutions in less favourable positions than they are in now.

We all agree there is much to be done. The call today to all members of the House is that we work together to seek bold solutions to the challenges that currently face our country and the world. Now is not the time for partisan bickering. We have the people's business to tend to and they await our answer to their call.

In these seemingly dark times, let us move on in the glow of our nation's unyielding spirit. Let us show the world the way forward no matter how difficult the road so that we may be the first to reach the dawn.