Mario Silva

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of initiatives the government has brought forward, but yet we see our cities crying for infrastructure moneys and a need for more child care spaces without any support from the government.

The member opposite forgets that this is a government for the first time in the history of our country which has no elected members in any of the large major cities in this country: none in Montreal, none in Vancouver, none in Toronto. The reason for that is because Conservatives do not understand the real needs of the major cities and their concerns facing poverty, issues of homelessness, issues affecting seniors, and issues affecting infrastructure.

That is the reason the government has no support within the major cities across this country. If we look at its record, it speaks for itself. It is the record that a majority of our seniors cannot support because of the fact that the Conservative government has a dismal record when it comes to addressing issues of poverty, homelessness, and child care in our cities that is so badly needed.

I would challenge the member to go out and speak to those groups and tell them it has done exactly what he said because most cities, most municipalities, and most mayors would laugh in his face.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the government's budget and economic statement implementation act.

Although budgets often seem to be about numbers, balance sheets and allocations, the reality is they are truly about people. They are not just dollars and cents.

The decisions that are made here directly affect the lives of millions of Canadians, and this is an important and enduring responsibility. I have always believed that, in this context, budgets must be fair, balanced and responsible, not just responsible in fiscal terms but in how they treat Canadians.

I am always pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to visit with constituents and agencies within my riding of Davenport. Their insights are invaluable to me and they are truly caring and dedicated people.

During the recent break in the parliamentary calendar, I met with many of these wonderful people, who live and provide invaluable service in my riding. I visited with agencies like FoodShare, the Working Women Community Centre, St. Christopher House and Stop Community Food Centre. I also had the opportunity to meet with residents of Terra Nova Apartments, New Horizons, Rankin Apartments and St. Anne's Place.

At each location, I was deeply moved by the concerns expressed by these caring and concerned people. The concerns touched on things we should all see as priorities. They spoke about poverty in our country, the crisis facing our cities and fair taxation policies, to name but a few of the things about which they talked.

I share the concerns of my constituents on the issue of poverty and, in particular, the realities that many of our children and most vulnerable citizens must face each and every day. Only a few days ago a report was issued that indicated one in every eight Canadian children lives in poverty. This is an outrage in a country as blessed and prosperous as Canada. It is amazing when a statistic like this is released and all the government can do is speak of growth statistics and optimistic fiscal forecasts, which fail to take into account the human face of poverty.

In my city of Toronto 93,000 households live in poverty. During my meeting at the Rankin Apartments in my riding, the people spoke of the realities of poverty. In the context of the government's fiscal plan, not one economist of note, anywhere in the country, agrees that the 1% cut in the GST is a sound fiscal policy. In fact, most agree that the reduction of GST will have such minimal effect for the average family. The supposed gains would be virtually negligible.

As the Leader of the Opposition has suggested repeatedly, the funds from 1% of the GST would have been much better spent to address issues facing Canada's most vulnerable people. Can anyone imagine the investment that could be made in the fight against poverty with the billions of dollars the government is relinquishing on the GST cuts? People in my riding can. Why can the government not?

During my visits to programs like FoodShare and Stop Community Food Centre, the realities of hunger are rarely more apparent. What kind of government adopts policies for political shows while many of its most vulnerable citizens go hungry?

I am proud that the leader of my party has announced a real plan of action on this issue of poverty in Canada. The 30:50 plan would create a “making work pay benefit”, improve the child tax benefit, lift seniors out of poverty, assist first nations people and, as per its name, cut the number of people living below the poverty line by 30% within five years and reduce the number of children living below the poverty line by 50% in five years. This is a real plan of action, not just platitudes and political posturing.

The residents of St. Anne's Place, Terra Nova Apartments and New Horizons live in the heart of Toronto. They witness each day the need for investment in our cities, particularly in the areas of infrastructure and public transit.

Cities across the country require a minimum of $123 billion in infrastructure funding. Like the famous line from the movie once asked: “Where is the money?” Unfortunately, from this government there is very little to be found even in a time of unprecedented prosperity that it inherited as a result of the hard work of the previous Liberal government.

My colleague, the member for Don Valley West, who served as infrastructure minister in the previous Liberal government, welcomed cities to the table and had begun a process of supporting them with real and meaningful funding. We do not see this from the current government.

Yesterday we heard of the government's action with regard to HIV-AIDS funding and its decision to honour commitments made by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by taking money away from other programs instead of putting forward new money as agreed. This is simply wrong.

In 2005 the former Liberal government put forward a real fiscal plan of action to help seniors, assist students, address poverty, support child care, and improve the lives of millions of Canadians. That is what a budget should really be about. The reality is that the government is like the salesperson who sells a shiny new car with gleaning paint, clean windows, nice upholstery, but the car has no engine. It is all smoke and mirrors.

For Canada's most vulnerable, for those most in need including our seniors, students, the working poor, and the cities in which they live, there is nothing in this budget document that provides any hope for a better future.

I am proud to belong to a party which has a more just, more equitable, and more humane view of Canada. We on this side of the House are heirs to the legacy of Trudeau and Pearson, the party of national health care and the Canada pension plan, and we will always speak up for those who are most vulnerable as I am proud to do today.

[Justice, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is known the world over as a nation with profound respect for human rights. We stand on principles worthy of the millions of Canadians who have fought to defend them. Sadly, the government has broken with this noble vision of Canada and refuses to object to the execution of a Canadian citizen in the United States, or by turning a blind eye to torture in Afghanistan.

When will the government honour Canada's noble history and stand up not just when it suits it, but all the time?

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. In my earlier remarks I talked about when I was the vice-chair of the environment committee. My colleague should be aware that CEPA is a very important regulatory body and that this is not one of the chemicals that needs to go through a CEPA review.

Therefore, there is the relevancy of the environment committee, what we do about the environment, what action the government wants to take on the environment and its failure to show leadership on issues that affect global warming. This is all relevant to the issue of the environment. Bill C-298 is also about that. It is one piece of the larger pie on how to deal with environmental contamination and issues that affect our health.

Bill C-298 is a meaningful step forward. I am honoured to speak in support of the excellent bill introduced by the member for Beaches—East York and I encourage all members to support it as well. We are talking about our environment, our health, our future and that of our country.

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me take this opportunity, and it is an opportunity that very few of us in this House sometimes take, to congratulate, to honour and to pay homage to our colleagues who in fact do good work in this House. It is too easy for us in the House to criticize one another, but there are many of us who do good work on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of people across this country.

One of these of course is the hon. member for Beaches—East York who has an illustrious career both in defence of immigrants and refugees across the country, and of women's issues along with her care and passion about the environment.

One of these bills that she has introduced, her private member's Bill C-298, is such a bill. I would like to lend again my support and also to congratulate her and to pay homage to her for her long career of service to Canadians and to people across the country.

I am pleased once again to have this opportunity to speak on the issue of perfluorooctane use, specifically with respect to Bill C-298 introduced by my colleague, the member for Beaches—East York. This bill would add perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, to the list of chemicals on the virtual elimination list.

As I have done previously, I believe it is important to recognize the very real dangers of PFOS. The fact is that it never degrades and in fact this substance accumulates in the human body. Chemicals like PFOS are toxic to our bodies and to our environment. The government needs to take the action of supporting Bill C-298 as a necessary and prudent beginning.

Having served as the vice-chair of the environment committee, I heard a great deal of testimony on important environmental issues, including the need to expand the virtual elimination list. During my time on the committee, it was also obvious that the government will say and do anything in order to avoid taking real action on the environment.

While in opposition, the Conservatives called the Kyoto accord a socialist plot and fought against it publicly while disputing the signs of global warming. It is therefore not surprising that the Conservatives have cancelled successful and efficient environmental programs like the one tonne challenge.

The government claims that these programs were wasteful, despite the fact that the opposite position was taken by the independent Environment Commissioner. The government considers any investment in fighting global warming wasteful because it really does not consider global warming a problem. This is clearly a disconnect not only from what we on this side of the House know to be true but what the vast majority of Canadians know to be reality.

The Conservatives like to pretend that they are taking action on the environment, when in reality all they are doing is producing more hot air. In fact, they are on their third failed environmental plan since they have taken office. Moreover, when the House of Commons committee, including Conservative members, drafted a real and effective plan for the environment, the government did everything it could to obstruct the bill from becoming law.

How could it possibly get worse? Now we see the government has taken its environmental denial tour on the road. During the Commonwealth summit in Uganda, the Prime Minister was given the shameful credit for having derailed a plan that would have created binding targets.

What was his reason for this? The Prime Minister says it is because the plan did not include China or the United States. It is interesting to note that it was a Commonwealth meeting and neither of these two countries are even member states.

The Leader of the Opposition, indeed the member for Beaches—East York--

[November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the government clearly do not understand the issue. This is not about safety. It is about our moral responsibility as a society, as a country and as a nation to say no to the death penalty.

It is absurd to hear the member say that the minister will deal with this on case by case basis. That is totally wrong and against every tradition our country has ever fought for and believes in. This is totally irresponsible.

The government tries to play semantics and uses all sorts of measures to avoid accountability for what it is doing. The reality is by failing to seek clemency for Canadians and by failing to back the UN moratorium resolution, the government is taking Canada backwards with regard to the death penalty.

Recently the journal of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, the Jurist, stated unequivocally that the Canadian government action on the death penalty marked a sharp departure in Canadian foreign policy. The reality is more than clear to observers in Canada and across the world. The government is moving away from Canada's traditional opposition to the death penalty and our deep commitment to human rights.

I ask the government to acknowledge its misguided policy as a first step toward correcting itself on this most fundamental issue. Restore our country's noble and honourable position on the death penalty, and let us once again embrace the beliefs of Diefenbaker, Pearson and Trudeau and leave in the past views that should only find their home there.

[November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old proverb that most of us were taught as children. It states, “actions speak louder than words”.

The government's actions in regard to the issue of the death penalty speak much louder than its words. It says one thing on the issue of the death penalty but acts completely differently.

With respect to a Canadian citizen, Mr. Ronald Smith, who is on death row in Montana, the government breaks with long-standing traditions and policies and declares that it will not seek clemency for this man.

I have with me a letter that was sent to the governor, Brian Schweitzer, from the leader of the official opposition expressing the conviction of millions of Canadians who want to see Mr. Smith's sentence commuted.

The government also abandoned a long-standing policy by having Canada withdraw sponsorship of a United Nations Human Rights Commission resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty worldwide.

From 1998 to 2005, Canada co-sponsored the resolution each year, along with countries like Britain, France, Australia and the European Union nations, among others. One of those nations, Portugal, actually abolished the death penalty on July 1, 1867, the date on which our country was founded.

Those who opposed the resolution, and in fact intensely criticized the co-sponsors, were countries like China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the United States which, coincidentally, account for 90% of the world's executions. In Iran, for example, we know that Iranians are regularly executed for clearly political reasons and even due to their sexual orientation. Human rights in many countries like Iran are either unheard of or intolerably curtailed.

The death penalty is inhumane and incompatible with basic human rights and errors cannot be corrected. The United Nations resolution itself states, “...any miscarriage or failure of justice in [its] implementation is irreversible and irreparable”.

The Canadian government's decision spurred Canada's former Supreme Court justice and the current United Nations Human Rights commissioner, Louise Arbour, to state:

The High Commissioner believes that not seeking clemency is very troubling, and so is the fact that Canada is not among the co-sponsors of the draft resolution of the UN General Assembly on a global moratorium on capital punishment.

The government is, by its actions, indirectly accepting the death penalty as a means of punishment. I remind hon. members of the words of former prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, who stated:

Are we, as a society, so lacking in respect for ourselves, so lacking in hope for human betterment, so socially bankrupt that we are ready to accept state vengeance as our penal philosophy?

To borrow words from our former prime minister, I would maintain that we should not “accept” capital punishment anywhere in the world.

When the history of our age is written, let us be remembered as people who built a world, not upon cruel relics of the past but rather hopeful pillars of the future.

The words of Nelson Mandela are succinct in summarizing this issue when he stated, “The death sentence is a barbaric act”.

Why is the government taking Canada backwards with regard to this barbaric act?

[Income Tax Act, November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to this very important debate on education and the tools that are required by families to make sure that their children have the financial requirements needed to receive a post-secondary education.

This bill, Bill C-253, that has been put forward by my hon. colleague from Pickering—Scarborough East is a very important piece of legislation. It is, I think, worthy of this House's attention. Also, we hope that we will have it go forward, both to committee and then to the Senate.

Bill C-253 is an act to amend the Income Tax Act respecting the deductibility of registered education savings plans, RESPs, contributions.

There is nothing more important than the future prosperity of Canada's youth and having a highly educated workforce. All of us in this House, on a number of occasions, have spoken of the importance of higher education and the importance of education for our young people. It is unfortunate that so many of our young people are getting themselves into debt.

I was looking at some statistics that I would like to share with this House. The average undergraduate tuition fee has almost doubled, from $2,023 in 1993-94, to $4,025 in 2003-04. An increase in tuition fees is partly responsible for an increase in student debt.

It is a terrible shame that in a country like Canada where we have incredible wealth and resources that so many young people are in debt.

I have always compared Canada as sort of in the middle between Europe and the U.S. Many of the western European countries have almost free education. It is not the case of course for all of them because some of them do have high fees for their education. However, overall Canada is the middle ground between the European system and the American system, which is very costly.

I was speaking to a colleague of mine at Oxford, where I am taking a masters degree in international law. She told me that tuition fees for her children would be about $200,000 at the end of four years. It is an incredible amount of money to pay for one child to go to school and if a person has four children, which she does, it is an enormous burden. She said she will be working until she dies in order to help her kids pay for the outrageous tuition fees.

We are not in that situation in Canada, and I thank God for that, but we are not quite like the European model, which has a very generous education system which allows their young people to attend higher levels of education.

We have to do more as a government, as a society, as legislators, to make sure that our young people are getting the tools, the resources they need, for higher education and to make sure that it is affordable higher education as well.

Because of the soaring costs of education, more Canadians are unable to attend institutions of higher learning and that is deeply concerning, especially in a society like ours which requires highly trained individuals to meet the demands of the labour force.

It is projected that by 2010 a four-year degree program could cost in excess of $100,000. That is certainly getting more closer to the American model and that is very worrisome because that American model is one that we do not want to emulate. It is extremely costly and it is a huge burden to families for their children's education. They have many burdens and obstacles in the U.S., from health care to education and many other issues.

We cherish our friendship with our American neighbours, but there are many things they can learn from us, and on this aspect they can certainly learn a great deal.

I commend my hon. colleague from Pickering--Scarborough East for putting forward this important and valuable private member's bill to hopefully address some of these concerns. We realize that it is impossible to have all these concerns and issues addressed. We also need our provincial partners assisting us.

All of us know that Canada is one of the few members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that does not have a federal minister of education. Most countries around the world, certainly most western democracies, have a federal minister of education.

We do not have a federal minister of education because that responsibility rests in provincial hands and that is, of course, a relic of our historical past, a relic of our Constitution, which put the issue of education strictly in provincial hands. We can have arguments about whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, but at that time it was needed to probably deal with issues both linguistic and religious.

In today's society one would wonder if there should not be some type of minister at the federal level, if not a minister of education than at least somebody who would have authority and responsibility for post-secondary education. We need some coordinated efforts. We need a minister who could, in fact, deal with provincial members and his or her counterparts to address the ever rising costs of tuition in this country.

All of us in the House are deeply concerned, but we need a coordinated effort. This legislation would be one piece of the pie, a tool we could say, that would go a long way toward addressing the concerns that we have. Clearly, it is not enough. A lot more has to be done.

Rising student debt is deeply troubling. I am the official opposition's critic for the Treasury Board and I do not know if it was a pleasure, or a burden, to look through the estimates. It was quite tedious work. Going through the estimates, I noticed that the government is spending huge sums of money, in fact millions of dollars, to go after students for not paying their loans. We realize that students have to pay their loans, but it seems a bit ludicrous to spend millions of dollars when the government has not ceded to students across this country.

The millennium scholarship fund was brought in by the previous Liberal government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien. The prime minister at that time envisioned this as a great opportunity for many young people, especially those who are disadvantaged in our society, to receive this type of funding in order to assist them to attend post-secondary education.

Millions of dollars have gone into my riding of Davenport for students' post-secondary education through the millennium scholarship. I am very pleased that scholarship was put into place. I am hoping that the government will see the benefits of this scholarship program and renew it because it does need to be renewed.

Students across this country are calling for the government to renew this important fund that has helped thousands of students across this country to deal with some of the financial burden facing them in post-secondary education.

Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions) is an important piece of legislation that the House should support. I congratulate my hon. colleague from Pickering--Scarborough East for his efforts on behalf of students across this country. I hope this will pass so that future generations can benefit from this important piece of legislation.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the legislation, as my colleague was outlining, is basically to have young people held accountable, with meaningful consequences for their actions, and the legislation adds the issues of deterrence and denunciation to the sentencing principle that the courts must consider when determining the sentence for someone under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I should also mention that certainly in my city of Toronto there have been a lot of issues in dealing with youth and youth violence. At the same time, we know as a society that this act is only one small part of the equation. There are many other issues at play. Certainly my other hon. colleagues in this House have talked about the issues of marginalized youth, racism, and youths who have lost all hope in our society, yet there are no programs or assistance there for them.

It is an incomplete package when we cannot, as a society and as legislators, deal with these very complex issues in a meaningful way. Just acting tough on crime will not reduce crime, as we have seen in many ways in the United States, for example.

[Poverty, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy may be doing well, but across the country there are millions of Canadians who live in poverty. This is especially true for women and children, as has been reported across the country today.

Single female seniors are particularly challenged. One report provides the example of a single female senior who, having worked all her life to raise her three children, has had to give up her car, buy second-hand clothes and live on combined benefits of $16,000 per year.

The United Nations agency for children, UNICEF, reports that in Canada “our children are suffering from unacceptable rates of poverty”.

The levels of poverty in this country, especially for women and children, are totally unacceptable.

The Leader of the Opposition has recently outlined real and meaningful plans to deal with the issue of poverty in Canada, but from the government we hear nothing. That is an absolute shame. Canadians deserve better.