House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Statistics Act June 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague for his views on Bill S-18, not so much on the content and the merit of the language in Bill S-18, but on the number of the bill, Bill S-18, which indicates that the bill originated in the unelected, unequal other place. Some of us believe that legislation should originate in the elected house of Parliament, the House of Commons, and not in the other place. I would like to know if my colleague shares that view.
Employment June 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the labour minister was as surprised as we were to hear his colleague at human resources say that Canada has the lowest unemployment in the G-7. In fact, she is dead wrong. We are number four and the 1.2 million Canadians who are unemployed will verify that. Even more shocking is the fact that the unemployment statistics for aboriginal Canadians living off reserve are two and a half times higher.
There are applications for foreign workers to come in for the Vancouver Olympics. There is unemployment in certain sectors.
What is the government doing to match the atrociously high unemployment--
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 June 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Canadians are anxiously waiting for is the share of the gas tax that is to go to municipalities to help introduce things such as rapid transit to reduce emissions.
We also welcome the idea of green roofs, technologies associated with demand side management. One of the elements of this budget is to introduce an energy retrofitting program for residential homes and multi-family residential dwellings so that they will use less energy. It would eliminate waste, create jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The trading of emission credits is one small component in the environmental details that we contemplate coming out of this budgetary spending. I have worked closely with my colleagues from the Bloc on environmental issues. This time I believe the time is right to vote in favour of this spending. It is better than nothing and it does in fact address some of the issues that we consistently raise.
Municipalities need help right now with transit issues, et cetera. There is no justification for delaying and stalling the flow of this money. We should roll out this spending now without delay.
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 June 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague from Yukon this way. It is an achievement to get environmental issues into a budget. It took a learning process and an education process right across the country for us showing leadership to convince Canadians that the environment is enough of a priority that it deserves a significant place in our federal budget for this year.
I think the problem now is the inverse. There was a time when we had to drag Canadians along to the belief that the environment was a priority. Now it is Canadians who are demanding that their governments respond and do something. Canadians are waking up in the morning and finding that the smog situation is worse than ever before, even though cars are becoming cleaner, et cetera.
The real driver here is ordinary Canadians who are demanding better of their government. We have listened. When I say “we” I say the architects of this budget have listened and put significant environmental spending into this budget.
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 June 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendments to Bill C-43 and to the bill in its broader context.
For the first time in many years the NDP had an active role in the development of the budget. We take great pride in the fact that we used our minority status in this Parliament to the advantage of the greater Canadian population by trying to steer this budget process toward a spending pattern that would use our tax dollars to benefit Canadians. That is the best way to sum it up.
We cannot really speak to the amendments to Bill C-43, the main Liberal budget, in isolation without speaking in extension to the changes that the NDP negotiated.
We saw Bill C-43 as not meeting the needs of Canadians. We saw it as another typical Liberal budget with great shortcomings. The Conservatives voted for the original Liberal budget as it stands, but are now moving amendments that seek to break out the environmental provisions that would seek to improve the environment.
I do not understand their thought process. I am not sure they understand fully the logic behind their approach to Bill C-43. They voted for it at one stage and then when the NDP managed to seek amendments in a completely separate bill, they cannot see fit to support either.
I find the position of the Conservative Party on environmental issues not unusual, but difficult to understand, especially the spending to help us come in line with the Kyoto accord. I have watched an agonizing process as the Conservatives, and previously the Alliance and before that the Reform Party, tried to get their minds around the issue of global warming. I should note that they started out in complete denial.
When I first came to this place in 1997, the Reform Party members were in complete denial that global warming was a problem. They would bring up all the old yarns that cow farts were more devastating to the environment than the impact of human activity. We watched that thought process evolve. The member for Red Deer had the unenviable task of trying to represent the Reform Party's views on global warming which seemed to be evolving as fast as global warming itself.
I do not envy the public watching who are trying to get their minds around where the budget is going and where their tax dollars are going to be spent because it is in a state of flux and contradiction. The Conservative Party voted for the original Liberal budget, which contained elements for spending on meeting our Kyoto targets and fighting greenhouse gas emissions. We voted against it because that budget had no spending for social issues, and the biggest deficit that Canada has today is the social deficit left in the wake of years of budgetary cutbacks.
A flip-flop took place. As soon as the NDP successfully used its minority status in this opposition Parliament to lever its agenda onto the public domain, as a good political party would do, the Conservatives reversed their position. They are now against the Liberal budget even though it has been broken into two separate bills. The original budget that they first voted for is Bill C-43 and they seem to be opposed to that now, and by extension they are opposed to any social spending.
This contradiction is not lost on Canadians. This contradiction has been partly responsible for the absolute plummet in the public opinion polls for the Conservative Party. If Canadians ever did see that party as a grassroots party here to represent the little guy, they certainly do not see that anymore.
What Canadians see is a party that is using its significant opposition status in this minority Parliament as the Queen's official opposition to no constructive purpose at all. In fact, opposition members are holding back some very good news spending for ordinary Canadians, municipalities, post-secondary education, and social housing in the very communities that they were sent here to represent.
The contradiction is glaring in our mind, for those of us who deal with it every day. However, it is glaring in the minds of ordinary Canadians too who are tuning in and trying to figure out just what the Conservatives are doing. We almost feel like saying that if they cannot do something constructive, why do they not just stay home because they are just getting in the way of us trying to do something constructive on behalf of ordinary Canadians.
It must be terribly frustrating for the voters who sent them to Ottawa to act on their behalf. The ultimate task and duty of any member of Parliament is to bring home the bacon. Well here they have an opportunity to bring home the bacon and they are obstructing. They are stalling and opposing spending for their home communities.
In other words, they think that it is squandering taxpayer dollars to invest in things such as social housing, post-secondary education, and cleaning up the environment, the very air we breathe. As Canadians are choking on smog days to an unprecedented degree, we have a budget that actually plans on spending money to address smog days, but the Conservative Party is opposing it. It boggles the mind. The plummet in the public opinion polls can be attributed in part to this confusing message that the Conservative Party is sending to Canadians.
The NDP finds itself frustrated to one degree because it would like to send Canadians a positive message before this minority Parliament adjourns for the summer break. Our party would like to say that we have used our time well, that we have used our time constructively, and that we have used what little influence we have in these 19 seats way over in this corner of the House of Commons. Our party has managed to use its political capital to lever some good news spending for Canadians and our members are very proud of that track record. Look at what we have done with 19 seats. If we only had 99 seats like the Conservative Party of Canada has, imagine the constructive good news spending that could take place.
There is one message that I would leave people with as my time expires. It is plain to see that when voters send more New Democrats to Ottawa as members of Parliament, good things start to happen. That is self-evident and abundantly clear, and Canadians apparently have taken note.
They also know that when they send 99 Conservative members of Parliament to Ottawa, it stalls progress. They are the antithesis of progressive. Maybe that is why they took the word “progressive” out of their name because progress is stalled when 99 Conservatives are standing in the way. It is like 99 bottles of beer on the wall. We have to knock them off, so we can move forward with the agenda that we have.
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 June 10th, 2005
Better get used to it.
Income Trusts June 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, six years ago Ottawa promised to make it harder to hide money in offshore tax havens. Nothing happened.
In the meantime, a much larger tax avoidance scheme is sweeping the business community like wildfire as whole industry sectors are becoming tax fugitives by restructuring themselves as income trusts. This income trust revolution erodes tax revenue in two ways. Income trusts do not pay corporate taxes, thanks to loopholes in Canada's tax laws, and distributions paid out to unit holders can be viewed as a return on capital instead of income for the purpose of taxation.
We need to be clear with Canadians about the implications of income trusts. When corporations do not pay their taxes, citizens pick up the tab in the form of higher taxes, more service fees and cuts to social programs.
The tax loopholes that allow income trusts to avoid taxes should be eliminated. Canadian tax laws should be structured to provide revenue to government and to encourage growth and reinvestment. Income trusts do neither.
Supply June 7th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to ask my colleague from West Nova for the view of his party, the ruling government side, on the issue of cancer causing, asbestos laden Zonolite insulation.
Given that our colleague from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia has given us the opportunity to raise cancer in its broader context, I note that we have this glaring threat staring Canadians in the face. Over 350,000 homeowners have cancer causing asbestos Zonolite insulation in their homes. The government has expressed no interest at all in introducing measures to assist homeowners to test for and remove this known carcinogen.
I will ask my colleague from West Nova about this. By what reasoning can the government say it is taking steps to preclude cancer from environmental causes if it ignores the most glaring example anywhere in the country, which is in people's own homes?
Supply June 2nd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, my colleague demonstrates a good working knowledge of the whole EI program and a genuine interest. There is a report here with 28 amendments. With 99 members of Parliament, his party as the official opposition gets a great number of opposition days on which it could in fact move any one of these recommendations and substantially improve the EI program.
Can he tell me why his party does not use its political advantage and political leverage for something useful and put forward a motion to amend EI at its very next opportunity on the next opposition day?
Supply June 2nd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for recognizing the contribution that the carpenters' union makes to the well-being of the construction industry. I do not think there is a union in the country that is more engaged in apprenticeship training. They have a wonderful location in Toronto of which we are all proud. I send some of my own apprentices there for their training.
Having said that, I will note that the EI changes the government put in place began to penalize apprentices. We had apprentices dropping out because they could not afford to go through the two week penalty period when they left their jobs to go to their annual six weeks of schooling. When I was an apprentice, it was seamless. We finished on Friday, the last day of work, and on Monday the six week trade school component began. We began collecting EI right away, because we were not unemployed but in the trade school component.
These changes by the Liberal government were thoughtless in that they drove people out of apprenticeships by penalizing them as if they were unemployed and had to serve a waiting period.