Pat Martin

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that I am a trade unionist. I was a trade union leader in my former life. I know negotiations. I know enough to say that it is far better to be effective on one point than ineffective on all of one's positions, as we are seeing in the opposition parties.

I have a challenge for my colleague. There were 28 recommendations to improve EI. We are taking care of one today. My colleague's party has an opposition day tomorrow. Perhaps he would like to do something effective for a change and make a contribution around here. Perhaps he would like to bring forward an EI amendment for his party's opposition day tomorrow. We will support that one. That would leave only 26 improvements yet to make.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca might be interested to know that the changes to EI, when the government cut, hacked and slashed the provisions of EI to the point where virtually nobody qualifies anymore, cost his riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca $28.3 million per year. Every year the poorest people in his riding are denied unemployment insurance to the tune of $28.3 million a year. Let us imagine the effect that has. That has the effect of pushing the working poor into the ranks of poverty.

That was the impact in my riding. This takes people who do work, although be it intermittently or when they can, and denies them the money that used to bridge periods of employment, thus pushing them onto the welfare rolls. It has a double negative effect in my riding. Not only does it cut off the flow of federal dollars to provide income maintenance in the riding, but people then have to go on the rolls of provincial social assistance. It pushes them onto welfare, so it has a double whammy negative effect.

My colleague is parroting the old yarn about how the best social program is a job. There are two designated uses for the EI fund. One is income maintenance and the other is training. The best bridge to re-entering the workforce is training. Those guys over there used the surplus to give their corporate buddies tax breaks instead of providing training to unemployed workers.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

And Lucien Bouchard was the architect of that particular scheme, something we are still paying the price for today.

However, in actual fact the fund has only been in deficit a few times. The total accumulated deficit, if we add up all the periods that it has dipped into deficit, is $11 billion to $13 billion. The total accumulated surplus right now is $50 billion. When is an insurance fund not an insurance fund? That is the question we need to ask ourselves.

Imagine if we had to buy house insurance and it was mandatory that we participate in a house insurance scheme. Our premiums are deducted from our paycheque every week, above and beyond our control. That is a mandatory contribution. However, if our house burns down, we have less than a 40% chance of ever collecting anything, not one penny. We are told by the government that it has used that money for tax cuts for its friends on Bay Street, or to build roads or to offset our other cutbacks in social spending and that it does not have a penny for us to provide income maintenance in our so-called insurance fund.

That is not an insurance fund any more. That is another payroll tax. It ceased to be an insurance fund years ago.

I know from personal experience because I am a carpenter by trade. I am not ashamed to say that I have collected EI probably 10 to 15 times in my career. It was designed exactly for that, to provide bridge income to people like me who work either seasonally or sectorally, like in the building trades. Every day we worked, we worked toward getting laid off because were completing the job. That is the nature of a carpenter. We start a job and every day we work, we work toward a layoff. EI was there for me in the old days. It is not there any more for those who need it under the current hour bank system. It certainly is not there for the seasonal workers to whom our motion today is dedicated.

I am particularly proud of my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst because of the passionate representation he has brought to this issue and for the people affected by this policy over the years, with specific reference to people who have fallen between the cracks. Even when the Liberals have been forced to try to fix EI a bit, even when EI was exposed for the fraud that it was, the changes they made failed to thoroughly look after many of the people it should have covered. No group of people has been negatively impacted by the bill more than the fish plant workers in eastern Canada, who by design are excluded from participation in the EI fund as it stands.

The change that my colleague and the NDP are asking for today is paltry compared to the total size of the fund. It is almost insignificant when we look at the annual operating surplus of the fund. I am told that $20 million to $30 million per year could satisfy the change for which we are asking, which is to reduce the qualifying weeks from 14 to 12 for areas where unemployment is higher than 10%.

My colleague tells me the impact is under $20 million a year. In its current operational mode, the fund is showing a surplus of more than $200 million a month. At its peak it was showing a surplus of $750 million per month. Talk about a licence to print money for the government. Even with the amendments and the changes it has made, it is roughly half of that. Doing the math, it is roughly $375 million per month in surplus. We are talking about $20 million per year to include this group of workers in eastern Canada who are shut out of the program.

This group of workers in New Brunswick have a champion in the member for Acadie--Bathurst. I would point out that there is not another party here that has lifted a finger to represent its interests. The NDP is using its opposition status in this minority Parliament more effectively than any other party because we are actually extracting some measure of benefit out of this Parliament.

I hear the Bloc Québécois making noises, asking how the NDP could align itself with the crooked Liberal Party. The NDP is doing its job as an opposition party in a minority government to move our agenda forward. That is what we are supposed to do. That is what we were sent here to do.

I see other parties, with more members, that are getting exactly nothing, a big goose egg out, of this Parliament. We are getting social spending on the areas that we care about and they will be auxiliary beneficiaries of the work we are doing. I hope they enjoy the benefits that they will reap by our efforts.

Instead of using our opposition day to tear the government down, or to move a motion of non-confidence or to force an election, we are using our opposition day to help some unemployed workers in a corner of the country that has been forgotten by the Liberal Party. That is a good thing. Is there anyone here who does not think that is an appropriate thing for members of Parliament to do? This is called the House of Commons. This is where ordinary people are supposed to have a voice, where they can appeal for some relief if they suffer an injustice.

Here is a classic example of injustice. The fish plant workers in eastern Canada, who slipped between the cracks of the EI program, are a forgotten people. The government has turned its back on them. No other opposition party is advocating on their behalf. It falls to the NDP to be the spokesperson for this group of disadvantaged employees, and I am proud of that.

I heard the rant of my colleague from the Bloc a moment ago, that the NDP was in bed with a corrupt Liberal government. Our point is that before the last Liberal is led away in handcuffs, we are going to extract some level of benefit from this Parliament before it collapses.

That is our job. It is what we were sent here to do and we are doing it more effectively than even the official opposition which has 99 members. Conservatives do not seem to bring home the bacon to their constituencies. They have not managed to negotiate a single benefit. As we speak, they are putting the Atlantic accord in jeopardy at the finance committee. The benefits that we managed to get into these budget bills is standing at jeopardy because of the collaboration between the Bloc and the Conservatives whose only interest is to tear down Parliament and go to the polls.

They should reconsider for a number of reasons. First, if they went to the polls tomorrow, they would lose seats, both parties, because they have lost credibility. No one believes they can deliver any more. All they have is the empirical evidence and that evidence is a big fat goose egg. They do nothing. They just occupy space and disrupt those of us who are trying to accomplish something with the opportunity we have been given by the people of Canada.

When an opposition day does come along, we meet as a caucus and we put forward ideas of what we might do and how we might use our political leverage to our best advantage. In this case I am proud to say we chose on the side of ordinary working people whose voices are rarely heard.

How often do we hear of people who are willing to dedicate a whole day to the interests of the fish plant workers who are disadvantaged and left out of the employment insurance program? It is a rare thing. We would think that members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada would vote in favour of this opposition day motion which would benefit them. What I cannot understand is why is this not coming from them? They have more opportunities than we do.

We have 19 members of Parliament and we have an opposition day once in a blue moon. We use ours for something constructive. All we hear from them is destroy, tear it down, burn baby burn. That seems to be the motto of the Bloc of the Tories, burn baby burn. Why do they not build something for a change? Maybe the reason no one wants to vote for the Conservatives is they have never seen any evidence that they can do anything constructive. All they can do is destructive measures.

We expect that from members of the Bloc. With all due respect, it is their raison d'être to tear the government down and prove that Parliament does not work so that something, in their mind, can be built out of the ashes. I can deal with that. What I cannot understand is the party which tries to sell itself as the government in waiting using its political leverage and political capital, which is five times ours, for nothing but destructive measures. That is what is frustrating to me.

We find ourselves in a unique situation with an opportunity in the twilight dying days of this parliamentary session to do something positive for a significant group of Canadians. I am proud it is our party that is advancing it. I am proud to be here with my colleagues, the member for Churchill, the member for Windsor West and the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the sponsor of the motion and perhaps the leading champion on EI reform in the country.

The member for Acadie--Bathurst took it on himself, at his own expense, out of his own parliamentary budget, to travel the country to try to determine what was wrong with EI. We knew something had to be done and we wanted to make sure that our recommendations were grounded in fact and not in some kind of emotion, even though the frustration is palpable.

He came back with a report. What he learned is that this is not exclusive to Atlantic Canada. This is epidemic in northern Canada and in the Churchill riding. Unemployment dips below 10% in pockets throughout northern Canada. One of the most cynical things in Canadian public policy is the fact that we do not count first nations in our unemployment statistics. The unemployment rate in some of the 35 first nations communities that my colleague from Churchill represents is 95%. Those numbers are not factored into the national unemployment rate.

The measure my colleague is putting forward today is that, in areas of 10% unemployment or greater, the weeks for qualifying for unemployment benefits should be calculated on a person's best 12 weeks instead of 14. That would apply in Churchill. That would apply in Windsor West. There are pockets in all our ridings that have unemployment rates of higher than 10% and where people are disadvantaged.

I do not even have time to go into the gender inequities of the EI act as it currently stands. I hope that becomes a subject of debate. Perhaps one of the other opposition parties that has more opposition days will see fit to bring forward the gender imbalance of our current EI act, because it disproportionately discriminates against women. That is a fact. That is not some mode of spiel members are hearing from me. A gender analysis has been done. In fact, women are disproportionately impacted by the changes that the government made when it went to the hourly system instead of the weeks system. It is a proven fact.

Let us talk about an unemployed, middle-aged male. If I were still on the tools as a carpenter, I would have a less than 40% chance of collecting any EI benefits at all under the current rules. An unemployed woman would have a less than 25% chance of collecting any EI benefits. An unemployed youth would have a less than 15% chance of collecting any benefits. This is nothing but a cash cow. It is a mandatory contribution fund and an optional benefit-paying fund. That is completely contrary to the spirit and intent of the concept of unemployment insurance. As I have said, it ceased to become an insurance fund long ago.

As a tradesman and as the former head of the carpenters' union, I had over 1,100 apprentices signatory to my local when I was in charge of it. Even apprentices are discriminated against in that they have a two week waiting period now when they leave their job to go to their school component.

I am running out of time, but I wish I had more time to share with the House some of the shortcomings of the EI act. I wish there were more time to share with my colleagues the benefits and the merits of the motion put forward by my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst. We are going to be watching very carefully who votes against this motion, because it will speak volumes about the government's priorities.

I am astounded that we do not hear more practical opposition day motions put forward by the parties that have opposition days coming out of their ears. They are always engaged with self-interest or negative things that do not make any contribution to the elevation of the living standards of Canadians.

We have chosen something that is real, tangible and has a material benefit to those on whose behalf we are advocating today. I have never been more proud to be a New Democrat. It has never been more fun to be a New Democrat than it is today. I welcome the opportunity to vote in favour of my colleague's opposition day motion.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell the House how proud I am to stand to speak to the opposition day motion put forward by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. This is an issue of vital importance, not only to the residents of his riding of Acadie--Bathurst, but across the country. The issue is unemployment insurance, now called employment insurance, and the historic cash grab of this Liberal government from that social program.

Believe me, I have some strongly held views on the subject of EI. I can say without any hesitation that this is one thing I hear about more than anything else in my riding.

I have some statistics. Let me begin my presentation with some figures. When the Liberal Government of Canada chose to use EI as a cash cow, rather than an insurance fund for the unemployed, it had a profound effect on ridings in the country, such as my own riding. I have examples from across the country. I will start with my own riding of Winnipeg Centre.

When the government changed the rules so that no one qualified any more, obviously the fund would go into a surplus position. That surplus the Liberals used for everything they chose such as paying down the deficit, giving tax breaks to Bay Street.

Members will be surprised to hear that the impact in my riding alone was that $20.8 million a year, every year since the government made those changes. My riding already is a low income riding, the third poorest riding in Canada by any statistical measurement used.

Imagine the effect of sucking $20.8 million worth of revenue out of my riding every year. The impact was felt immediately. To get our minds around the effect of that, try to consider what could be done to attract a company to a riding that has a payroll of $20.8 million per year. We would pave the streets with gold to attract new businesses. I know the riding the Speaker represents would welcome the influx of jobs like that.

We were powerless to stop the flight of capital, the exodus of that money from our riding. It was a policy decision made by the Government of Canada.

I cannot imagine anyone from Quebec voting against the simple resolution my colleague has put forward today to try to reverse this trend. I have the figures here for Quebec. I will quote a couple of them.

In the riding of Champlain the effect of the cuts to EI was $59.5 million per year, every year. In the riding of Charlevoix the cuts to EI were $50.1 million per year. In the riding of Bourassa it was $42.9 million per year. That is the effect of the cuts to EI when the Liberal government changed EI so that nobody qualified any more and started to use it as a cash cow. It makes me angry just thinking about it.

This was a deliberate policy when the Liberals found themselves in a deficit situation when they took over. They realized they had a deficit of which they had to take care. Where did the government look for revenue? It was not to some kind of a growth scheme that might increase the GDP in order to increase government revenue. They took at least one-third off the backs of the unemployed.

The total cumulative surplus, from what we call this wholesale theft of our EI money, was over $50 billion. The government took in $50 billion more than it paid out.

Keep in mind that we should begin from the fact that this is not their money. Back in the 1980s, under the Brian Mulroney government, the federal government stopped paying into EI all together. All that money is contributions of the employer and the employee. Its designated use was to provide income maintenance for unemployed people should they happen to lose their jobs. That was the whole purpose of the unemployment insurance scheme.

Two changes took place. First, under Mulroney the government chose to put that money into general revenue, under the guise that if the fund ever fell into deficit, it would be the government's responsibility to make up that deficit, and that is true.

[Textile and Clothing Industries, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for the generosity of spirit that they have demonstrated today. As a personal favour from my colleague from Windsor West, I asked if I could share time with him today. The subject of the debate is an issue that is very important to me and to my riding.

I had 43 garment manufacturers in my riding, but now I have 42. Just a few weeks ago yet one more garment manufacturer succumbed to the pressures of that industry and went out of business. Therefore, we suffered another bankruptcy in this industry sector.

The reason I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue of the health and well-being of the garment and textile industry is that the government's treatment of this industry to date is difficult to understand. It has ranged from absolute neglect for many decades to meddling and unhelpful interference.

What is really frustrating is we have a long established industry that has been healthy from one end of the country to the other, from Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, southern Ontario for textiles. Somehow it just has not captured the imagination of the government or previous governments. It has always been allowed to bumble along and flounder without any help or support.

When the government does wake up and pay attention to the industry, it does things that cause more harm than good, such as this least developed nations policy that the former prime minister virtually arbitrarily pulled out of the air. This was a bad idea because least developed nations would get a duty remission or a relief on import tariffs. All that did was the multinational manufacturers shifted their work to least developed nations to exploit the cheap labour and then those goods would come into Canada without any duty or import tariff. This was a devastating move. As I say, sometimes we are almost better off with no intervention than that kind of meddling which did more harm than good.

The industry in my riding of Winnipeg Centre is in crisis. It urgently needs the intervention of the government and it needs the ear of the government. Somebody has to convince the government that this is an industry worth saving, that it is an industry of value. Maybe it is not one of the sexy, high tech industry sectors that the government seems willing to throw tons of money toward, but it is just as important to keep the jobs we have as it is to spend money to try to attract new jobs. What good does it do Canada as a whole to spend a fortune trying to attract new jobs and new industries to Canada if we are letting the old established industries slip away from us at a rate faster than the new ones are growing? That is what is happening in this important industry sector.

I only have a few minutes but I will point out how critically important these jobs are to my riding in Winnipeg Centre. In many ways they are gateway jobs. These are the first jobs many new Canadians get when they land in Canada, and they are not poorly paying jobs. They are unionized jobs. I have been to many of the garment manufacturers in my riding such as Western Glove, et cetera. They have good day care centres right in the plant and they are well lit, bright, clean and healthy working environments. People in Winnipeg at least can raise a family or buy a house with the wages they earn from these jobs. Why would we willingly stand by and watch these jobs slip away?

I will comment on one last thing. We have to be quicker to react when an industry like this tells us it is crisis. For some inexplicable reason, the Minister of Finance sat on the duty remission orders that were on his desk for nine months until the very brink of disaster. They were set to expire December 31, 2004, and right into the middle of that month, we were in the House of Commons demanding, begging and pleading with him to reapply these duty remission orders so the industry at least would have a fighting chance.

I see the value of the House of Commons being seized of the issue of protecting this important industry. We should do it for the whole country and we should pay attention to the benefits that a vibrant garment industry brings to Canada.

[Textile and Clothing Industries, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we had the unanimous consent of the parties because we checked ahead of time.

[Textile and Clothing Industries, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to have the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Windsor West.

[Symbol for the House of Commons, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to enter into the debate on Motion No. 228 put forward by my colleague from Scarborough--Rouge River.

Let me preface my remarks by saying I have great admiration for the work of my colleague from Scarborough--Rouge River and the genuine interest that he has demonstrated on issues pertaining to Parliament and the House of Commons. We should acknowledge and recognize that he is a noted and published author on this subject. Perhaps more than anyone present, at this point in time at least, he also is seen as a leading authority on the subject pertaining to the House of Commons.

I enter into the debate with that preface to demonstrate that I acknowledge, recognize and welcome his interest in trying to have us be seized with the issue of the well-being of Parliament and the House of Commons and what that means in a constitutional democracy such as ours. Some of us who have been sent here recently and some of us who have been here for a long time sometimes forget how precious the institution of Parliament and the House of Commons is and the genuine affection in which we hold this place.

I represent the riding of Winnipeg Centre, which was home to one of the greatest parliamentarians in Canadian history. I will backtrack a little and share this with members. In 1921 the Government of Canada wanted to send J.S. Woodsworth to prison for his role as a leader in the 1919 Winnipeg general strike. In fact, he was up on charges of sedition for quoting scriptures from the Holy Bible and from the Book of Isaiah at the strike meeting in downtown Winnepeg. The federal government wanted to lock him up and throw away the key for that.

The people of Winnipeg Centre sent him to Ottawa to be their member of Parliament not to send him to prison. As a man of the cloth, as a minister, they felt that he was entitled to quote the scriptures in the midst of a gathering to do with social justice as one of the architects of the social gospel. He became known in this place as one of the champions of using the House of Commons for its intended purpose, which is to give voice to those commoners who may not otherwise have a voice under less democratic systems.

The reason I raise this point of history is that J.S. Woodsworth served as a member of Parliament for my riding for 21 years, from 1921 until he passed away in 1942. However, at that time the good people of Winnipeg Centre elected another champion of Parliament and a champion of parliamentary procedure in the name of the hon. Stanley Knowles.

Stanley Knowles went on to represent my riding with great distinction for 42 years, from 1942 until 1984, until a stroke made him unable to do so. He lost his seat only once during the great Diefenbaker sweep of 1958. However, during that time he became known as very much the conscience of Parliament and also a master of parliamentary procedure. All of us here will know that he was granted the exclusive honour of being given a permanent lifelong seat at the Clerk's table in the House of Commons. Even after his stroke made it difficult for him to carry on his duties as a member of Parliament, we could see Stanley Knowles sitting by the mace, where the Clerk sits in the centre of this institution. I would put it to members that no one in recent history loved Parliament more than Stanley Knowles. No one had greater admiration and respect for the institution of Parliament than the member for Winnipeg North--Centre as it was called then, the same riding that is called Winnipeg Centre today.

When I saw the motion of my colleague, the member for Scarborough--Rouge River, I asked for the opportunity to represent our party by speaking to the motion in memory of Stanley Knowles.

Stanley Knowles passed away six days after I was elected to represent his riding of Winnipeg Centre. I did not get a chance to visit him in the hospital to tell him that we had won his seat back. His seat went to the dark side for two terms and was represented by a Liberal member of Parliament from 1988 to 1997. I am sorry I did not get a chance to tell him personally, but I know that he was aware that the election had gone in our favour.

Therefore, for most of the last hundred years that riding has been represented by two of the greatest champions of social justice our country has ever known. I am speaking of J.S. Woodsworth and Stanley Knowles.

What really stands out in the career of Mr. Knowles is his admiration and respect for Parliament. Therefore, when I saw Motion No. 228, regarding adopting an institutional symbol exclusively for the House of Commons, I was excited by the idea.

I am not a great one for pomp and ceremony or even formal traditions in the country. I have outspoken views about whether we need the Governor General any more. Frankly, I am not a big fan of the monarchy. I will confess all those things. However, even more important, if we are to steer away from the tradition of the monarchy and perhaps the office of the Governor General, I feel there is a need for us to replace that ceremony, pomp and circumstance with our own made in Canada version of formal symbols like the House of Commons and Parliament.

I am very intrigued by the idea of having our own made in Canada crest, symbol or whatever it might be, so that this institution could reflect our unique constitutional heritage, authority and our role in Parliament. I see no harm in it. I certainly do not feel threatened by it. My colleague from the Bloc seems to get really annoyed with that idea. I do not know why it would irritate someone so much. If anything, it is harmless and there is no downside.

It does open itself to ridicule. I know around our caucus table when we were toying with the idea of what that symbol might be, some rather less than kind suggestions were put forward, given the current political landscape we are enduring today.

Some people said that perhaps the symbol should be a hog trough. I do not think that is kind at all. I do not share that idea and I would not support that. Some people said that it might be a broken arrow to symbolize the broken promises made to our first nations and aboriginal people in the country. I do not support that idea either. That would be a negative thing. Some of us like to believe that within the life of this parliamentary session we may see a formal apology by the Prime Minister of Canada for the tragedy of the Indian residential schools. We may see a new fiscal relationship negotiated between first nations and the federal government. Those are positive initiatives that none of us would want to diminish in any way.

I liken my colleague's initiative to the great flag debate that took place in the mid-1960s where there were very strongly held views on both sides of the debate such as whether we should have our own domestic made in Canada symbol that did not include the Union Jack in the corner. That was a hotly contested and passionate debate across the country.

This is of a similar nature, if not quite the grand scale. Within the parliamentary precinct, I think it will awaken the same kind of interest from various members of Parliament of all political parties. We already have seen how apoplectic my colleague from the Bloc Québécois gets at the very notion of institutionalizing anything to do with the nation state of Canada. Again, I do not share his views.

I acknowledge and admire my colleague from Scarborough--Rouge River for rising above the fray of everything else that is going on in Parliament and bringing to us something that we can reflect upon and perhaps even move forward with that may be a lasting testament or a legacy issue for this 38th Parliament. Let us face it, most of the other issues we have been dealing with are divisive. This may be inclusive and something of which we can be proud.

I am voting in favour of the motion and I am urging my other colleagues and my own caucus to do the same.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes and that secrecy breeds corruption. It was in that spirit that I put forward a private member's bill to improve the access to information laws.

The biggest mistake I have ever made in my career was trusting the Liberal government when it asked me to withdraw my bill, saying it would give me a better bill within an immediate period of time. I got duped. I got sold a bill of goods. I got suckered in. I guarantee that it will never happen again because I have learned my lesson. I thank my colleague for reminding me of that because I still get mad every time I think about it. I was sucked in by those guys. It will not happen again.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member from British Columbia. It is my personal belief that the Liberal Party of Canada is institutionally psychopathic. Its members do not know the difference between right and wrong and I condemn them from the highest rooftops.

But before the last Liberal is led away in handcuffs, we want to extract some benefit from this Parliament and that means getting some of the money delivered to our ridings before this government collapses. Why can those members not see the sense in that?