Michael Savage

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I guarantee this is exactly what he is saying. I continue to quote:

There are surely better ways to spend that money, perhaps on economic and security projects that last longer than a few days. Perhaps these lavish armed gatherings of the alpha dogs have finally become too expensive, even for the richest pack in the world.

Today in the Halifax Chronicle Herald there was an editorial which states:

In an unprecedented move, Canada offered to piggyback the G20 on the G8. But the logistics of accommodating 12 more delegations no longer worked for Muskoka. So it stuck with the G8, while Toronto is now hosting the G20....

The opposition rightly wants federal spending watchdogs to investigate. The secrecy around security bills must change.

We have a situation where current members of the government a decade and a half ago said that $28 million was too much to spend for a meeting of this type. Now it is over $1 billion for security alone and it might go up.

What is the comparison? People are talking about things in their areas that they could spend $1 billion on. I have mentioned young disabled Canadians and the opportunities that do not exist for them. I suspect that just about every member of Parliament who has been here any length of time has met with people in their communities who do not have the workshops or opportunities to continue to learn. We are wasting the potential of young Canadians with disabilities.

Let me talk about students. I spent a lot of time talking with students about student issues in this country. What could be done with that $1 billion? I want to thank CASAA for the information on this. We could fully pay the tuition of 23,376 of the poorest Canadians for the course of their study. We could fund 28,571 Canada graduate doctoral scholarships. We could almost quadruple the funding for the Canada student grants program, the program which the government put in place after it hatcheted the millennium scholarship foundation.

We could expand the size of the Canada summer jobs program by 10 times. Let us put this in context. This is a time of incredibly high youth unemployment. Last year there were 128,000 more students unemployed than the year before. Student unemployment is double the national average. At the same time, we have all kinds of organizations in our communities, from recreational organizations such as youth soccer, child care and seniors programs, programs that work with the disabled, boys and girls clubs, all the organizations that take advantage of the Canada summer jobs program.

At a time of stimulus, the government could have done something. I have suggested in the House and in committee what it should have done was double the Canada summer jobs program. It employs approximately 40,000 students. The government chose to add fewer than 4,000 of the 128,000 fewer jobs last year.

We could have made that $100 million program 10 times bigger. We could have employed another 400,000 students. There are organizations across this country that need help, including autism groups.

Members may recall a few years ago when the government changed the Canada summer jobs program and what a disaster that was. My colleagues on all sides of the House can attest to that. They remember what a disaster that was when it happened. There are a lot of things we could have done.

At a point in time when poverty rates are rising, 2.5 points up from about 9.5% to 11% for both poverty and child poverty, we could have done more.

Canada should be involved in meetings of this type. I am very proud of the fact that Paul Martin, the former finance minister and prime minister, was at the genesis of the G20 and pushed it. We should be involved in these meetings, but there comes a point when common sense needs to take hold.

The cost of this summit is outrageous. Canadians do not accept it. The government has to understand that. The government has to evaluate and rethink this. Yes, we need to be involved, but there are too many other things that Canadians need, especially Canadians who need assistance. When they look at $1 billion going out the door on this, they say that they cannot believe it, the government should do something about it. That is why the Liberals brought this motion forward for debate today.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Malpeque.

Last Saturday I had the privilege, as many of us do on occasion, to attend the Special Olympics regional games in the Halifax area. I could not help but look at all those wonderful people at the Special Olympics who do not have the opportunities in life that many of us do. Of special concern to me are the young Canadians who, after going through high school, because of their condition, in many cases seem to fall off a cliff in terms of their opportunities. While their friends go on to college and university and jobs, a lot of Canadians with disabilities just do not have that opportunity. I was thinking of how many programs $1 billion could provide for them. A lot of people are comparing what other things could have been achieved with the over $1 billion cost for security for the upcoming summits. I am going to talk about a few others but that is what crystallized it for me.

I think a lot of Canadians are wondering why the cost of this is so outrageous and are thinking of the other things that Canada could be doing with that money. People want to know how in the world we could spend $1 billion on security alone for any kind of meeting anywhere in the world.

In 1995, the federal government, under the leadership of Jean Chrétien and the regional minister, David Dingwall, announced that the G7 would take place in Halifax. It was big news in Nova Scotia. A news article on May 4, 1995 said:

The Halifax Summit Office (HSO) confirmed today that its budget for this year's G7 Summit Meeting will be approximately $28 million....

The budget of the HSO [the Halifax Summit Office] encompasses all of the operational aspects of the Summit from staffing to printing and security.

In that article, a spokesperson for the Halifax Summit Office is quoted as saying:

“HSO estimates that fully 60% of its budget will be spent locally on goods and services ranging from accommodation to printing to the direct employment of residents”.

That G7 meeting took place just a decade and a half ago in Halifax. It was a fabulous time in Halifax-Dartmouth. There was work done. There is still legacy work from that G7 summit in Halifax. Leaders like Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and others came. It went off virtually without a hitch.

My father was the premier of Nova Scotia at the time. It was a fabulous opportunity for the people of Halifax to see world leaders up close. The total cost of that was $28 million.

I want to reference a comment that was made back then by the spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. This is from a news article dated April 30, 1995:

The federal government was wrong to put next month's G7 summit in Halifax because the city needs too many government-funded fixups, says a national taxpayers' lobby group.... The federal government “should have chosen a location which wouldn't cost that kind of money”.

The person who said that on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. He went on to say:

There are conference facilities available, I'm sure, in that part of the world as well as across Canada that could have hosted an event like this without spending several million dollars....

A decade and a half ago, the person who is now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism thought $28 million was too much for an international meeting for the G7. Now the government is suggesting that $1 billion is okay.

How have we gotten to that point? There was a point in time when members who are now on the government side would say that we should value taxpayers' money. Those days appear to be gone. Now we are in a situation where we are talking about $1 billion, $930 million on security alone, plus other costs, which is not only outrageous but is well beyond the original estimates. People are asking what is going on.

In an article in yesterday's Halifax Chronicle Herald, Dan Leger wrote:

So maybe that $1.1 billion should be taken as a very expensive sign that it’s time to do away with these inflated gabfests, especially since every function of a summit other than dinner can now be done over the Internet.

The $1.1 billion might also be a sign that someone has badly mismanaged the preparations, partly because poor planning forced the use of two venues, Muskoka for the G8 and Toronto for the G20. By comparison, the G20 summit in Britain last year cost a paltry $30 million.

The last line of his article states—

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments and I commend her on her speech. I was very pleased that she referenced poverty and specifically the recent report from Citizens for Public Justice which confirms the belief that I and her colleague from Sault Ste. Marie and many others have that the recession has been taking a toll.

The government has talked about reductions in child poverty and poverty, but both poverty and child poverty have gone up 2.5% since the beginning of the recession. It is very serious and the government has not allowed the social infrastructure to be prepared for this.

I want to ask the member if she shares my concern. The poor in Canada received very little of the stimulus benefit. It went to higher income groups instead of to those who need it. The small changes made to EI and even social housing are temporary and are going to run out. Those who need help the most are going to be hurt the most. I wonder if the member shares that view and if she has any ideas about how we could remedy that.

[Petitions, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present another petition which is mainly from post-doctoral fellows in the Montreal area. Their concern is the cancellation of the scholarship exemption for post-doctoral fellows in this budget. This tax increase will mean a significant amount, particularly to young post-doctoral students who have families to support and who do not make a lot of money. At a point in time when we are trying to encourage science and research in general, this is a negative influence on people who are thinking of doing research.

The petitioners are urging the government to engage with the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars, the research councils, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and other stakeholders in an effort to create a fair and progressive policy that will stimulate Canada's research community and make it an attractive place to recruit and retain the best talent. The point is that we should have some discussion before something like this comes forward.

[Petitions, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present two petitions from the Montreal area and from Halifax. They both pertain to the government's decision in budget 2010 to get rid of the exemption for post-doctoral fellows.

The petitioners call upon the government to engage immediately with the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars, the research councils, the Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada and other stakeholders to create a fair and progressive policy that would stimulate Canada's research capacity.

This issue is making a lot of difference in a negative way for Canadian post-doctoral fellows.

[Spinal Cord Injuries, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 65th anniversary of the Canadian Paraplegic Association.

The CPA has offered important, meaningful service and support to more than 100,000 Canadians who have adjusted to a new way of life.

I am honoured to co-host, for the third year running, CPA's Chair-Leaders Day, a day when many of my colleagues in both Houses will spend their day in a wheelchair to get a small glimpse into the lives of those who are physically disabled.

Today, three Canadians will suffer a spinal cord injury; that translates to about 1,200 new spinal cord injuries each year. Many of these new cases are the result of a car accident, sports injury or other unintended accidents.

I want to acknowledge the work of my friend, Ron Swan, who is the chair of the board of directors for the CPA of Nova Scotia. I am always inspired by his work and tireless effort to make persons with physical disabilities feel comfortable in their community.

Two years ago, I was the lone MP on the Hill in a wheelchair. Today, we have 20 parliamentarians taking part in this event. I consider it an honour to be part of this day and I commend the CPA on its fantastic work to allow persons with disabilities to be full and active participants in our country.

[Poverty, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is either ignorant or ignoring those who are hurting. There has been an increase in welfare caseloads in every province. They are up 20% in B.C., 23% in Ontario and 43% in Alberta.

The cost of living is outstripping inflation. Food costs are up. Debt load is up. Bankruptcies are up. Food bank usage increased 18% last year. Millions of Canadians have received no help from the government but may be expected to bear the brunt of the government's ballooning deficit.

How can the government pat itself on the back when more and more Canadians are living in substandard housing and lining up with their children at food banks?

[Poverty, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this recession has hurt Canadians. Now we know how bad it is, thanks to a report released by the Citizens for Public Justice and its partners, including World Vision. It is deeply troubling. The national poverty rate has increased from 9.2% to 11.7%. Child poverty has increased from 9.5% to 12%. That is an increase of 160,000 children in poverty.

One in four Canadian workers earning less than $10 an hour have lost their jobs. Almost half of those unemployed still do not get any benefits. As many as half a million have exhausted their benefits and it has not hit rock bottom yet. What does the minister say to Canadians still reeling from the recession?

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, certainly when it comes to issues of EI, and I think also issues of the men and women who serve our country, the member speaks from a strong background.

Like myself, I suspect, he meets a lot of returning veterans who need more support than they get, whether it is people who have recently come back with PTSD from serving in the gulf or Afghanistan, or perhaps it is veterans who are trying to qualify for the veterans independence program. As MPs, we can sometimes assist people like that, but it just shows that occasionally the system is not working as well as it should, in spite of the great people at Veterans Affairs.

I want to ask him this. On this specific case of employment insurance, there are other ways the government could act as well. I refer to the case of Trooper Kyle Ricketts from Newfoundland and Labrador. The member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte brought it up in the House a couple of years ago. He needed treatment and a number of surgeries in Ottawa. His family, who were laid off in Newfoundland and Labrador, were on EI and were told they could not get EI if they travelled to Ottawa to take care of this particular Canadian hero. This was brought up in the House. I think in the end he got some compensation from the hero's fund. However, could EI not be a little more flexible in dealing with people in the unique circumstance of somebody being injured and needing family support, but those family members happen to be unemployed and risk losing their benefits to travel to take care of, in this case, Kyle Ricketts?

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. Coming from the same province as I do, he knows the military history. He knows that when we have to make decisions in the House when it comes to the military, it is a little different for us. Whether it is an extension of a mission or whether it is a piece of legislation like this bill, I always go with the philosophy that we default on the side of the men and women who serve this country, and I think so far it has served us well.