Paul Dewar

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague would probably know that in 2006 it was the Conservative budget that we voted against, and I did it gladly. She might be referring to 2005. I was not in this House at the time, but what we are talking about now are things so reprehensible that I am absolutely not able to support it with the facets in it.

Today we are asking the Liberals and others to support our amendments, which take out those things that are so ill-conceived and destructive to our country. I would like the member to support us in making this budget bill a little less reprehensible through trying to amend the most destructive aspects.

Finally, on this business about getting money out the door, where is the infrastructure money from the last two budgets that the government has in the register right now and has not spent, but could spend tomorrow? The hon. member should not get caught by Tory traps. It is a trap the Tories set all the time. The hon. member should not believe them. They have money now. They did not spend it two budgets ago, and they could do it today if they wanted.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

moved:

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 399.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 65

Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to do what my party has been doing for a number of years, and most recently on this budget. As opposition members, our role in the NDP is to get involved with what we think is an extremely important project, which is the budget of this nation.

The budget of the government lays out its priorities and intentions and shows what direction it wants to take us. We saw the direction the Conservatives wanted to take last fall when they provided a forecast and road map that would have taken Canadians down a very interesting path. They told public servants that their rights were gone, that they would not have the right to strike, that their wages would be frozen, that collective bargaining would be suspended for however long, the intention I suppose being as long as they were in government. They wanted to rip up pay equity and play politics with funding to political parties, and we saw where that led.

The government claimed, like Saul on the road to Damascus, that all of a sudden it understood the role of government, that it got the fact there was a fiscal problem and that there was a crisis in which government had a role. Then it came up with the budget.

On the surface, one would think that was good, that the government actually saw the light. Quite frankly, it was my party working with other parties that forced the government to pull back from the precipice, to understand that there was a role for government and that it would mend its political errors by way of having a budget that would be there for people.

The amendments I put forward today illustrate how illiterate the government is when it comes to this fiscal crisis. We have talked about the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but the amendments we put forward to delete clauses of the bill have to do with pay equity, the provisions for students and equalization.

It is important to understand that the government is demonstrating exactly what the Mike Harris government illustrated when it first came into power. For those of our colleagues who were not in the Ontario legislature or the province of Ontario at the time, we know who the chief of staff is now to the Prime Minister. His fingerprints are all over the budget.

The idea is to put all ideological tenets and elements into a very large budget. I believe bill 26 was the ominous bill that wrecked the province. There were so many different things put in the budget that there was not time to responsibly deal with them in committee. Why? Because the Harris government changed the rules in committee so they could not be debated.

The Harris government made sure that all the things it wanted to do to change government, in fact take government out of the business of many of the things that it responsibly had a role in, were put into a very large bill. Guess what? Mike Harris is back. It is in this budget bill, to rip up pay equity and change environmental regulations. When it comes to students, one of the amendments is to take out the provisions.

Do members know what the government wants to do in this budget, a budget of so-called stimulus for students? The page I have open now tells students that if they make an error on their filing, the government will go after them. The government has given power to the minister to do that. The government is taking power and concentrating it. Everyone else around the world is looking at ways to open up government, to be more open to the public on how government works and to be transparent.

The Conservative government is going in the other direction. Instead of giving grants to students to ensure they can get a leg up, the government is coming in with retrograde legislation that basically says that it does not trust students and because of that it will put in a provision to ensure it can go after them and get them.

That is what this provision is all about. It has no business being in a budget bill that claims it is going to stimulate the economy.

Further to that, we have heard about the retrograde treatment of pay equity. That galls me, my constituents and many who have fought long and hard to see pay equity. By the way, I hope that by now the government understands the difference between pay equity and equal pay. I think there was a lesson on it yesterday, and hopefully the Conservatives came and took notes. I am not sure they did.

The President of the Treasury Board has the gall to stand in this House day after day, pointing to both the Government of Ontario and the Government of Manitoba and saying that it is exactly what the government is doing. I hope one day he will actually have to be held to account for his performance on this file.

What they did in both those jurisdictions was to give a pay equity commission the resources to make sure there was pay equity in the workplace. What this government does is say that the right to appeal for pay equity is gone; by the way, there will have to be negotiations; by the way, your contracts are frozen.

Who in their right mind would believe the government on pay equity? Who in their right mind who believes in pay equity would let this go through?

The government took away the ability for people to challenge it when it has gone wrong. The court challenge funds are gone. That was a couple of budgets ago. At the time the government said, and this applies to pay equity, that all the laws it would bring forward would be charterproof from then on. Let me say today in this House that the government will be challenged on this law. I will want to know, when this law is challenged and struck down, how much we paid through legal fees and through government justice lawyers having to defend this nonsense, and how much we lost in real dollars.

I can guarantee one thing: people will look back at this day and ask why this bill was ever let through. It is retrograde for pay equity, it is retrograde for women, and it is going to cost us more.

In a nutshell, the amendments are essentially trying to take out the worst elements of this budget. We hear the government saying it wants to get to stimulating the economy, so it brings in measures to take away pay equity and measures to have oversight over students. It won't give them grants, but it is making sure it can go after them and is cracking down on them. They are a big problem, and their tuition is so low. Every single member of this House paid less tuition than students pay today.

It is absolute hypocrisy that instead of providing grants, section 358 states that the government is going to go after students. It is making sure that if they omitted one thing in their file, the government will go after them. How much money is it going to take to go after students? Could that money have been put toward actually helping students? I do not know. It is not on the government's radar. These amendments are trying to take out the worst elements from an absolutely retrograde approach to budgeting.

In summary, I have to say to my friends in the Liberal Party that it is not too late to stand up for your principles. They should not let themselves be bullied. What is the difference between this retrograde legislation going through now and dealing with it in June?

We must remember that every single right and progressive piece of legislation that has been fought for in this country, when it is ripped away, does not come back soon. My friends from the Liberal Party should know that what the government is doing today is saying it is okay to do that because it is going to get a report card from it.

On this side of the House, we say it is not okay to rip apart pay equity, to go after students, and to rip up agreements on equalization.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

moved:

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there are many things the member stated as the priorities of her party and there are some that I would agree with. If there are things in this budget that can be changed, they should be changed. We are here today to amend what is an ill-conceived budget in many ways.

She indicated that there were many things on the fiscal update that were wrong, including the problems with the public service collective agreements and the pay equity issue. At the time, people were not supportive. We are not supportive. We want those facets taken out of the budget bill. They have no place in the budget implementation bill in terms of stimulus and helping Canadians.

I want to know why her party is not supporting us in removing the retrograde parts of this bill, such as pay equity, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the collective agreements.

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister also said on the weekend, “We are not going to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan”. This runs completely counter to what the Prime Minister has believed over the past years, even to the point where he questioned the very patriotism of Canadians who held this view.

Could the Prime Minister tell the House when he came to this conclusion and if he has discussed, personally, his new thinking with other NATO leaders? Remember “cut and run”, remember “we are not going to leave until the job is done”. What is going on?

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Prime Minister, like the leader of the Liberal Party, suggested that he was open to extending Canada's military role in Afghanistan beyond 2011. Reports stated that if the U.S. asked Canada to remain, the Prime Minister would want the U.S. to clearly state its long-term objectives and an ultimate end date.

Could the Prime Minister state unequivocally that if these two criteria were satisfied, would he seek to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011, yes or no?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, by the way, seems to be a frustrated playwright. Maybe he has another career; I do not know. “Obnoxious” might not be the word, but “noxious”, I think, is the right word.

Why will he and the Liberals not support amendments, responsible amendments like taking out the navigable waters out of this budget, support us, and quite frankly do their job?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. We are all very concerned about how this money is going to be spent, the oversight, the accountability and of course the transparency.

The NDP has a proposal, and in fact in question period today our finance critic was very clear on the proposal to the government about what should be done.

I want to ask the member if he would agree with us that this is the way to go, that every single solitary nickel and penny that is being spent in the stimulus package should be accessible on the web so that any citizen can see where the money is being spent, who is spending it, to make sure we have oversight. It is good for us to have reports every once in a while, but why not have Canadians hold our government to account as well as Parliament.

Would he agree with us to have the government do what has been done in Washington and have all moneys that are being spent on a website for all to see?

[Bashir Makhtal, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizen Bashir Makhtal continues to face harsh prison conditions in Ethiopia, unclear charges, and lack of access to legal representation.

The government's record on this file is one of inaction. It has not treated the file seriously. The best the government has come up with is to ask Ethiopia not to impose a death penalty on Mr. Makhtal. This is unacceptable.

The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Immigration declared that Mr. Makhtal is guilty of no wrongdoing.

It is time for Canada to request Ethiopia to drop all charges and to bring Mr. Makhtal home now.

[Black History Month, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last week, as part of Ottawa's celebration of Black History Month, the Ottawa International Writers Festival hosted Emmanuel Jal, a bright young artist, .

Emmanuel is a survivor of war in Sudan. He was only seven years old when his mother was killed by government soldiers. Emmanuel's story is all too familiar. In an attempt to escape the horrors of war, he joined thousands of other children in seeking refuge, but on his way, he was captured, recruited and turned into a child soldier. After spending seven years as a child soldier, he found refuge with an aid worker.

What is important about his story is Emmanuel refuses to hate. In his work he is full of hope and forgiveness. He is spreading the message of peace and reconciliation. He campaigns tirelessly against gun proliferation and the use of children in war.

Let us heed Emmanuel's call for reconciliation and support for child soldiers. In Emmanuel's own words, “I can't wait for that day when I'll see no more fears, no more tears, no cry”.