Olivia Chow

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member see one penny of the new dollars that Toronto desperately needs for the city's transit plan?

The transit system plan would bring 24 million riders to the new Don Mills line, 52 million new riders on the Etobicoke-Eglinton line, 24 million on the Etobicoke-Finch line, and 19 million riders on the Jane line. Is there one new penny? I am not sure.

Is there any money for the Scarborough-Malvern light rapid transit line, which would bring in 22 million riders? What about the Sheppard East line, which would bring in 20 million riders? What about Waterfront West, with 15 million riders? If we add that all up, it would be 176 million riders.

Is there one penny in the economic statement for this kind of infrastructure, which the city of Toronto desperately needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, this economic statement is missing the child. It used to be, for instance, as in the last budget, that there would be a reference to children. This statement has nothing that would provide child care support or an increase in the child tax benefit. It seems like children have been forgotten again.

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

Mr. Speaker, seniors are worried. They are watching their retirement savings disappear because of stock crashes.

They have been saying they need a two-year moratorium on the withdrawal of RRIFs, that is, registered retirement income funds. That is not in the statement.

Some seniors are concerned that their pension funds could be in jeopardy because some of these companies may have trouble. When action is taken to support these companies, seniors want a condition to be in place to make sure that their pensions are safe. That is also not in this economic statement.

Many seniors have been working for quite a while and are facing layoffs. They want the employment insurance to which they have been contributing to actually work for them, because it is, after all, an insurance. They want to get some of that insurance back when they are unemployed. That is also not in this economic statement.

Those in desperate situations want a slight increase in the guaranteed income supplement. That is not in this statement either.

What is in the statement is that the Conservative government expects to save over $15 billion over the next five fiscal years under the new expenditure management system.

My question is twofold. First, can the member give us examples of how and where they are going to find $15 billion in cuts, and in which departments? I thought every country in this world was contributing money for an economic stimulus package, not cutting money. This is a cut of $15 billion.

Second, what is also in the statement is that the government is going to sell some real property. I would like some examples. Is it the CN Tower, or perhaps some real estate in Barrie? Which properties are going to be sold, and what kinds of programs are going to be cut as a result of the $15 billion expenditure management system review?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, our art shapes our identity as a nation and is part of the soul of a people. It inspires, heals and helps to review what brings us together and reflects on what divides us.

As a country, we must give artists better financial support, better funding and better tax relief. We must strengthen rules for Canadian content and support public broadcasting with stable funding.

Yet in the throne speech there is no restoration of funding to arts and culture. There is no financial support to artists. We know that as a country, we need a striving arts and culture industry with artists who can imagine a better world and reflect it back to us.

Just a few weeks ago, during the election, the member and his party were totally opposed to the cuts to funding for arts and culture. How could the member and his party support the Conservative government's plan to cut arts funding? How could they vote for the throne speech? I just do not understand.

[Financial Institutions, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, “it's only another 5% interest hike” said the big credit card companies. “So what if it is 5% above the 18% interest rate? It's just another increase in the interchange fees every time you use your card”.

Credit card companies sucked in more than $4.5 billion in hidden fees last year alone and increased them four times this year, yet the throne speech did nothing to address these crazy fees.

The Conservative government is happy to help banks with billions, but offers nothing to regular consumers. Canadians cannot take getting squeezed any more and neither can small businesses.

Together they started a campaign called “StopStickingItToUs.com”. They demand that government stop the credit card companies with their outrageous and unjustified charges. People cannot afford it any more.

It is time to stop credit card companies from sticking it to all of us.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about making child poverty history This is an area that New Democrats have long been pushing for.

In the throne speech there is no money to create affordable child care. There is no money to expand the child benefits up to $400 per child per month. There is no money to build new affordable housing to help the thousands of Canadians who are desperately waiting for affordable housing. There is hardly any mention of employment insurance or raising workers' living wages to $10 an hour. There are absolutely no new things in the throne speech.

Instead, we have really something of the past, the past commitment of the infrastructure funds, past commitments on the homelessness funds, and past commitments to deal with the settlement of immigrants. Given that the throne speech offers no bold solutions to the economic situation that is facing us, how can it possibly be that the Liberal Party is supporting--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians are waiting desperately for bold steps from the government. They are worried about their pensions, their savings and their jobs. and yet the throne speech contains nothing on a national public transit strategy, nothing on building affordable housing, no plan to create more child care spaces and nothing for the four out of five unemployed workers who cannot access employment insurance.

What I hear from the Leader of the Opposition is about what has occurred in past various governments. We have not heard any bold steps nor concrete suggestions. What I did hear was that the plan in the throne speech was ridiculous. If the speech is ridiculous and there is nothing bold or strategic for suffering Canadians, why is the Leader of the Opposition supporting this ridiculous plan he just spent 15 minutes saying that it is not worthy of support? I do not understand.

[Petitions, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions signed by people from Ottawa, Quebec, Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto, and other parts of Canada.

The petitioners call on the government to deal with the immigration backlog by increasing the staff in overseas visa offices and to also increase the immigration target to 1% of the Canadian population, or 330,000 new residents. Doing so would facilitate family reunification and would also meet labour needs.

The petitioners also call on the government to stop the expansion of the temporary foreign workers category. These petitioners are extremely concerned that temporary foreign workers have very limited labour rights and have an uncertain future in Canada. They feel that immigrants should be nation building rather than being used as cheap labour for big corporations.

[Nuclear Liability and compensation Act, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how we can say that we are extremely concerned about the environment, that we will shift taxes, that we will do everything we can to protect the environment, that we will tax more, move things around and give corporations at least $1.7 billion here and there and yet say to Canadians that if there is a nuclear accident, they should not worry about it, but they will be picking up the tab. I have not seen any cleanup of any nuclear accident that cost less than $1 billion. Normally if it is a big accident the cleanup costs billions of dollars. How can we say we will limit it? How could any member of Parliament of any party possibly stand here and say that they are extremely concerned about our planet, are extremely concerned about the future of our water and our air quality, and that is why they will support this bill? I do not understand it.

I want to point to one incident. On April 26, 1986, in Ukraine which was then in the U.S.S.R., there was an explosion and complete meltdown. It started with a mishandled reactor safety test, which led to an uncontrolled power excursion causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown, and release of radioactive materials at a nuclear power plant approximately 100 kilometres north-northwest of Kiev. Fifty fatalities resulted from the accident in the immediate aftermath, most of them being cleanup personnel. The people who went in to clean up died. There were nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer. Members will notice that I have been talking about thyroid cancer. Five fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and the combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe, not just in Chernobyl, but much of Europe.

How many people were evacuated? A hundred thousand people were evacuated from the area immediately surrounding Chernobyl and an additional 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine and Russia. There is an exclusion zone of 3,000 square kilometres encompassing the whole site, which has been deemed off limits for human habitation for an infinite period of time; not for one year, five years, or ten years, we are talking about forever.

We have seen studies by the government, by UN agencies and by environmentalists--

[Nuclear Liability and compensation Act, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the old days when we were debating other accident prone projects, such as Adams Mine, the home area, for one reason or another, would make a decision as to what it supported and did not support.

What I have said is clear. I said that the Liberal Party did not put forward one amendment, not one at committee. It is true. I also said that all amendments, whether they were Bloc amendments or NDP amendments, were defeated. Why? Because the Liberals and the Conservatives voted together to strike all of them down. That is what I said.

I was asked why would I stand against this bill. Had the Liberal member heard me earlier on, he would have heard that I have a particular interest in nuclear reactors. Why? Because the fastest growing rate of cancer is thyroid cancer. The number of people who have thyroid cancer is dramatically higher in places like Windsor and Sarnia, places that are close to huge amounts of pollution and degradation of the environment.

That is why I am personally interested. I know that nuclear reactors and nuclear waste cause thyroid cancer. That has been proven. That is why I am very interested in this bill. That is why in the last two days of this sitting we should not allow this bill to pass.