House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Points of Order September 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Minister of Human Resources, and in her response she referred to me by saying “the hon. member's hypocrisy”. The minister and I have been around here a few years. We were elected together in 2004. I am sure that she knows that this is unparliamentary language. In the spirit of co-operation, rather than make a big deal out of it, I wonder if she might want to withdraw that comment.
Government Spending September 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, we have to ask what is happening over there.
The choices that the government makes: $1 billion for G20 photo ops and $45 million over two years for people with disabilities. It cancelled the PALS disability survey and then the long form census which disability groups need desperately to serve their clients.
What kind of choice is that? That is a choice that puts ideology ahead of evidence. How can the Canadian government spend $1 billion on a photo op and then have the nerve to review spending on a program for people with disabilities?
Government Spending September 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, Canadians certainly question the decisions of the government to borrow and spend $16 billion on untendered stealth fighters and over $1 billion on a weekend photo op. It wants to spend $10 billion on prisons for unreported crimes. Now it is reviewing a program designed to improve access for people with disabilities, a fund that has almost $100 million less in it than what the government spent on government propaganda.
While this review is being conducted, will the minister promise to evaluate all the evidence, including the evidence that indicates that over 90% of this fund has gone to Conservative ridings?
D. Scott McNutt September 21st, 2010
Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the remarkable life of D. Scott McNutt ended.
It started in Digby, included stints in the British Merchant Navy and at St. F.X., a social welfare crusader, a young MLA, a busy cabinet minister, a businessman and an artist.
In Premier Gerald Regan's reforming cabinet of the 1970s, Scott led many positive changes, including the construction of the Dartmouth General Hospital where he spent his final days 35 years later.
He was a renaissance man, a visionary, a dapper, eloquent man who studied and had an innate sense of history, politics and people.
An accomplished artist, his paintings reflect those things he held dear--people, the earth and the sea.
To spend time with Scott, one learned to bring one's wit and words but to check one's ego at the door. He had no time for pretense.
He lived his life for good company and for his family, especially Jamie, Laura and Clive, who mourn him now. But they know, as do his friends, that Scott McNutt lived his life without malice or regret and he left on his own terms. He and we are proud of that.
Mr. Speaker, the member's comments just do not bear scrutiny. He talked about the Liberal cuts. It was in fact because of Liberal programs that poverty reached its low ebb of 9.5%.
The current government came into office in 2006 and within a year, we were starting to see more unemployment.
Just as an example of something that he touts, he touts an investment in the child tax benefit. His government put $5 million into the child tax benefit. It put $100 million into putting up signs all over the country to advertise their projects and $1 billion for the G8-G20. Just using his example, that means that the Conservatives value their signs 20 times more than they value vulnerable Canadians and the weekend meeting in Toronto 200 times as much as they value vulnerable Canadians.
People in Canada are suffering, people who need assistance. They are not getting it from the current government.
As a simple measure, a first measure, everybody says, “Let's have a strategy. Let's figure out the pieces, but let's agree that there should be a federal anti-poverty strategy in Canada”.
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back on Parliament Hill debating the issues of the day. One of the important issues that I have raised here before is the issue of poverty and that was the question I asked back in the spring session.
We know that poverty has risen with this recession that we have been going through and continue to go through. By how much? Well, we have not had a lot of information on that but the Citizens for Public Justice, along with their partners, released a study back in the spring that indicated that poverty in Canada had gone up from 9.2% to 11.7% overall, which is two and a half percentage points. Child poverty had gone up from 9.5% to 12% as a result of this recession. It showed that employment insurance and other social measures have failed many Canadians. Social assistance caseloads are up, the cost of food is up and the cost of shelter is up. We had the food banks' report less than a year ago showing that food bank usage had gone up 18% in Canada and that the government's response to this has been very weak.
We have no national anti-poverty strategy in Canada. We are one of the few industrialized nations that does not have an anti-poverty strategy. We do have six provinces and one territory that now have an anti-poverty strategy. They all want the same thing. They want the federal government to come to the table and say that it takes poverty seriously.
Last year, the United Nations, in its periodic review, made a very specific recommendation, which I think was number 17, which said that Canada should have and needs to have an anti-poverty strategy. Instead of that, the government turned around and said that it was not its jurisdiction. Everybody in the country, from provinces that have these strategies, to social welfare groups, to academics, all understand that it is part of the responsibility of the federal government to step up and have a strategy. We can debate what is in that strategy but there needs to be a federal anti-poverty strategy here in Canada.
Since that time things have only gotten worse. The ridiculous decision to abandon the long form census will hurt groups that deal with poverty. It specifically will hurt people with disabilities in this country. Organizations, like CCD and CACL, that deal with people who have disabilities are absolutely bewildered at how the government could possibly cancel the long form census. It will have a dramatic impact on the people who are living in poverty and people who have disabilities, many of whom live in poverty. That is the situation we have.
We can talk about the methods that we can use to improve the situation of those living in poverty and of those who are close to living in poverty, such as increasing the guaranteed income supplement and the child tax benefit. There is ongoing discussion in this country right now among many people from all parties represented in Parliament, including the Conservative Party and Senator Hugh Segal, for example, about a basic income for Canadians. What everybody seems to understand except the government is that at the very least Canada needs to have a government that is prepared to say that poverty is an issue and that poverty is again on the increase in Canada.
We did a lot to reduce poverty in the late 1990s with the child tax benefit, the guaranteed income supplement and things like that but we need to reduce poverty in Canada. We all have a role to play in that. Social agencies, provincial governments, municipal governments, everybody from Make Poverty History to the CFIB to the Chamber of Commerce understand that we need to have a national anti-poverty strategy. Why does the federal government not understand that and step forward and say that it will play its role to help those who are living in poverty, especially at time of recession?
Business of Supply June 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the greatest questions I have heard in my short time in the House. I agree with him completely and I look forward to discussing it with him when the CFL plays its first ever regular season football game in Moncton in the fall.
He is entirely right and I commend him on the questions he asked yesterday about how the government was playing politics with announcements in New Brunswick.
Business of Supply June 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House or in the gallery when that may have happened. The government said that this was always happening under the former government. However, all the constitutional experts like Nelson Wiseman have said that no Canadian prime minister has abused the prorogation power to the extent the current Prime Minister has.
We already indicated there was a prorogation in 2007, before 2008 and 2009. We had three in three years. The first though was what might be called a normal prorogation. There are certain times when the House prorogues and everyone says that makes sense. The government may need to recalibrate because it has new ministers, or maybe there is a meeting the prime minister has to attend. Those are normal in the course of events.
What happened in the last two years were attempts to divert attention away from the government or to deliberately contravene democracy in the House. That is a very different use of prorogation than has been used in the past.
Business of Supply June 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl mentioned Mr. Jaffer who was part of the government's legacy. I believe the biggest legacy will be how we have changed Canada in a way that Canadians do not want it to be changed and hopefully we will test that at the next election.
The member talked about Mr. Jaffer. Some of his former colleagues have said some interesting things. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was quoted as saying about prorogation, “As a minister, I often get more done when the House is not in session”. That tells us something about what listening is done when the government is here.
I like another quote from one of the government members who said, “If we are sitting, how do MPs get to...the Olympic games. It makes sense that we are not sitting”. If there is one thing every Canadian from coast to coast to coast can agree with, is the last thing we need at the Olympics is more politicians. We did not need to be prorogued so we could go to the Olympics or so the government could recalibrate. We needed to be prorogued so the government could shut down voices of dissent with which it disagreed.
Business of Supply June 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this issue.
Prorogation became a bit of a household word in Canada this year. It was not a term that was familiar to a great many Canadians, but this year it became familiar to them. They made a point of understanding what was going on.
My colleague, who just spoke, mentioned two prorogations in the last two years. In fact, we have had three in three years. However, the one in 2007 was what one might call a normal prorogation, where toward the end of the summer, the government decided that instead of coming back in September, we would come back in October. Oppositions do not like that, but they understand that this happens on occasion. However, this year and last year, there were two very controversial uses of this blunt instrument. Canadians were outraged. There was a positive side effect to this, which was that Canadians became engaged.
I am splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for York West.
Canadians became very outraged and that is a good thing. They became involved. We had rallies around the country. I can recall a very cold day in Halifax, being at a rally with other members of Parliament, labour unions and people who were interested. There was a huge crowd that came out to express their concerns. It generated a lot of interest and a lot of anger. This is an issue about democracy.
Canadians may not love their politicians. We know, in general, they do not, but they do expect them to go to work both at home and in Ottawa. We all know there is work to be done at home. There is no question about that, but we follow a schedule that demands that members of Parliament be in Ottawa. This is where the elected voice of Canadians have a chance to impact on public policy, on the comings and goings of the nation, and it is important.
We had heard from some people on the government's side that the prorogation was a normal course of events. We know it was not. I have already referenced Nelson Wiseman from the University of Toronto, who has said that no Canadian prime minister had abused this prorogation power to the extent that the current Prime Minister has. He quoted Senator Eugene Forsey, whom I quoted earlier, who had said:
—an unwanted and uncalled-for prorogation a usurpation of the rights of the House of Commons, a travesty of democracy and a subversion of the constitution.
Another great Canadian, whom I do not always agree with but I always read, is Jeffrey Simpson, and he wrote, on January 25:
A prime minister has his forums, of which Parliament is only one. He has cabinet, caucus, and a public platform each and every time he speaks, here and abroad. Parliament, however, is the platform of every point of view from those who have been elected, and the place where, however imperfectly, the government is held to account.
That makes a lot of sense.
There is no question of why Parliament was prorogued. It was a difficult time for the government. The issue of the Afghan detainees was to be studied in committees and the government wanted to shut it down. We know that.
Arthur Kent, who is the brother of a member of the Prime Minister's cabinet, was quoted as saying:
—there has been an unwritten fatwa maintained by the Prime Minister’s Office against discussion of any and all controversial aspects of the Afghan debacle...if [the Prime Minister] is uncomfortable with democracy, he should quit his job.
That is good advice and his brother ought to listen to him.
Tom Flanagan, a former campaign manager, said on TV, “Everybody knows that Parliament was prorogued in order to shut down the Afghan inquiry”.
The reason this was done this year was to shut down something that was uncomfortable for the government. The year before, it was to avoid a vote of non-confidence. Canadians have voiced their concerns about that.
Why does it really matter? It matters because it is about democracy. It is about a country like Canada, the traditions that make Canada great, that listens to opposition. I contend that the government not only does not want to listen to them, but does not want them to even speak, to even have a voice.
The Prime Minister has been compared on occasion to former president George Bush. I do not think that is accurate. He is more likely and favourably compared to Richard Nixon, where politics trumps everywhere and politics is all that matters. Richard Nixon had his famous enemies list. Dangerous people such as Paul Newman and Mickey Mouse were put on this enemies list and other people had their taxes audited and everything else. In Canada we have an enemies list too of the Prime Minister. I could name all the people who have been shut out by the government, but I only have 10, so I will mention a couple of them.
I want to talk about KAIROS, CCIC and CCL. KAIROS and CCIC are two great voices of international development that for many years have represented a Canadian view on international development, sometimes agreeing with governments, sometimes not.
KAIROS and the rebel organizations that are affiliated with it, like the Catholic Church and Presbyterian Church, were defunded in December, totally caught off guard for no reason whatsoever. CCIC and Gerry Barr, who was very highly regarded nationally as well as internationally, have been told they are also in peril.
The Canadian Council on Learning was set up in 2004 to be the voice of Canada when it came to evaluating how we were doing on educating our citizens, a five year program, easily renewable. The government and the Minister of Human Resources have even indicated in committee and in a letter to CCL that CCL is doing great work. The minister speaks often about the need for us to do an inventory of skills in Canada.
How are we doing on post-secondary education? How are we doing on early learning and child care? How are we doing on adult literacy and workplace training? These are very important issues. This was what CCL did. CCL did this with all of the provinces in Canada. CCL had the respect of all international partners. It had the respect of the universities, the community colleges, the students groups, the professors and the researchers in Canada. It was told its funding would not continue. It makes no sense whatsoever.
The government has said that it needs more information, yet it has shut down an organization that provides the very information it says it needs and has left nothing in its place. It said that it would get rid of CCL because it made two mistakes. It was originally funded by a Liberal government and it was doing good work, which is unacceptable to the government. It shut it down, but said that it needed the work CCL had done, but it needed a bit of time to get it going. Does that make any sense? I do not think so. It could not even continue the funding that it had.
Prime ministers leave legacies whether they want to or not. Pierre Trudeau brought us the Constitution Act of 1982. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms brought Canada to a very important place internationally. We are respected in this world and understood for the values we project abroad.
Brian Mulroney did work on apartheid in South Africa. He brought us free trade and the GST. Some may like it and some may not, but in many ways, it transformed the Canadian economy. Mr. Mulroney was a respected international leader.
Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin got the books of Canada in order after a generation or more of them being out of order. They brought Canadians together. They made commitments to Africa. The G20 exists today in large part because of Paul Martin, supported Jean Chrétien.
Those are legacies that people leave.
The current Prime Minister is working on his legacy. When we look back on the work of the government, we will say that the government took one of the world's great democracies and ripped it apart. It is dismantling our social infrastructure, shutting out dissent, shutting out voices and shutting down Parliament.
I think it was Winston Churchill who said, “Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for all the rest”. It is a messy process. When we encourage people to come in and when we listen to people, that is important and that is democracy. Governments in the past, whether it was Mr. Mulroney's or Mr. Chrétien's, had all kinds of non-governmental organizations and lots of civil society organizations who they did not agree with and who spoke out loud and clear against government policy.
We did not defund them or shut them down. Whether one agrees with a government or not, those voices need to be heard. Democracy is about those voices. This is part of the same continuum that allows the Prime Minister to shut down Parliament when it becomes inconvenient. In many ways, it is the Prime Minister's inconvenient truth that he does not like democracy. He loves power, but he hates government.
In order to have government and democracy, we need voices. We need voices outside Parliament and inside Parliament. When we shut down those voices, we shut down the ability of Canadians to have input into their government. In my view, what the government has done is wrong and it needs to be fixed.