Peggy Nash

[Federal Accountability Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 90% of the world's democracies use a system of proportional representation, even those which formerly used a first past the post system. They do this because it is more respectful of the wishes of the electorate. It gives a truer picture of the desire of the people for their political representation. I thank my hon. colleague for raising this issue.

I want to give a couple of brief examples of how our current system skews the political process. In the last two general elections, the Liberals had 50% fewer seats in western Canada than they would have had under a proportional representation system. However, there are situations such as that of the previous Reform Alliance Conservatives, who were consistently underrepresented in Ontario even though they did get a number of seats. When Preston Manning was leader, he got 20% of the vote in Ontario, but how many seats? Zero. That does not seem to represent the wishes of the electorate.

Today in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois has 16 more seats than it should have under a proportional representation system. Certainly the NDP should have 48 seats in the House of Commons, not 19.

I say to my hon. colleagues that if we are truly talking about democracy and the wishes of the people of Canada to have a Parliament that represents their views and interests, then something very basic is that every vote should count. For every vote truly to count, we should have a system that includes proportional representation.

Commissions have recommended this. The Canadian law commission has recommended it. A quarter of a century ago, the Pépin-Robarts task force recommended that this system needed to be changed because it does a great disservice to Canadian people and to Canadian unity in that it skews regional representation in Canada.

Bill C-2 has failed to address this issue. That is very unfortunate, because we do not often get to deal with new bills around the issues of accountability and democracy. This is truly a missed opportunity, but I would call on my hon. colleagues to keep this in mind and keep this issue on the front burner. It is an issue that we desperately need to address.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we are elected in this House by the communities where we live, by the citizens in our ridings. We are not elected by lobbyists, by corporations or special interests. Therefore, our behaviour in the House and the actions that we take must be in the best interests of the communities that we represent.

In my community, there are many people who depend on the cultural sector for their livelihoods. We have artists, musicians, painters, film producers, television broadcasters and all kinds of people who work in the cultural sector. These are people who want to see cultural policies in Canada that defend Canadian interests, that speak about Canadian stories, that create jobs in Canada, and that help Canadians converse one with the other across our country and with all the multiplicity of cultures and peoples that we have in Canada.

If the minister is focusing her attention on the narrow needs and goals of a particular lobby group to the detriment of Canadians who depend on our government and on our regulators to defend their interests, to defend their culture, to preserve their jobs, and create new jobs in this sector, then I believe that this a grave issue that should be addressed by parliamentarians.

I know that in my community many people have contacted me about the cultural sector and want me to speak out on this. I am concerned that Bill C-2 does not go far enough in protecting us from lobbyists and I thank my hon. colleague for raising this issue again and reminding us about how we need to keep working in this area.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important Bill C-2 on accountability.

The issue of accountability gets to the heart of our democratic system. We live in a democratic country. We are proud of that. We encourage and support other democracies around the world. Surely a strong democratic system of operation is a hallmark of the best of society. It is something that we wish for all people around the world.

But democracies are imperfect, including our own. We often have political democracy without having economic democracy. We see that in many countries, including here in Canada. While there are many criticisms of democracy, the solution to the problems of democracy is not to shun democracy, not to become cynical or turn away from democracy, but in fact to have more democracy and to strengthen the democratic institutions that we all support and which we represent here in this House.

It distresses me greatly to speak with people in my community who say that they are disgusted with politicians. They are disgusted with the political process. They do not want to be involved with elections or even with voting. There is a cynicism that really undermines the democratic process.

In the last election the issue of ethics was, I believe, the dominant issue. Lack of ethics has bred into a sense of cynicism and a disregard for the democratic process. This is a fundamental erosion of our democracy which we must address. I believe it is the most basic and most important issue that confronts us as parliamentarians.

It is easy to become lazy or complacent about the democratic process, but when we are lazy or complacent, surely that is when problems develop. As we saw in the last government, whether it was laziness, complacency or other motives, there were serious legitimate issues and concerns that were undermining not only a particular political party but our entire democracy. Others have spoken about this, the culture of entitlement, the sense that we were in essence a one party country, that there was only one party of legitimacy, which breeds that undermining of our democratic system. The proof of that was in the last election when voters decided to exercise their democratic right and chose a different path.

The former leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, is known as one of the leaders of democratic thought not only in Canada but internationally. He has led the call in Canada for a stronger democracy and a more ethical democracy. When Mr. Broadbent was in this House he raised the call for a number of changes that would lead to democratic and ethical reforms. I want to briefly outline those.

He called for democratic accountability, a fundamental respect for the voters who elect us to office. That means when voters elect us to represent a political party, we cannot just disregard those voters' wishes and cross the floor and represent another political party without going to those same voters to seek their endorsement for that move.

He called for fixed election dates so that no party could skew the outcome of an election by having complete control over when an election should take place.

He called for spending limits and transparency conditions on leadership contests. It is one thing to have limits on parties, but because parties are largely financed by the public, these principles around accountability should apply to leadership contests.

He called for electoral reform and a reworking of our antiquated first past the post system, so that the true views and desires of Canadian voters would be reflected in this House with a representative number of MPs.

He called for an end to unregulated lobbying and political cronyism, the revolving door between lobbyists, government staff and political staff. He called for tougher laws on the disclosure of fees and expenditures for lobbyists.

He called for a more ethical approach to government appointments, that the thousands of officials appointed to agencies, boards, commissions and crown corporations should be more democratically chosen and subject to the scrutiny of this House.

He also called for stronger access to information rules that would allow Canadians greater information about the behaviour of their government.

The bill before us today fails to live up to many of the goals outlined by Mr. Broadbent. However, Bill C-2 does make some progress and in that sense should be supported. I want to acknowledge that there are significant amendments made by the NDP which strengthen Bill C-2 and increase the likelihood of accountability and greater democracy in our country.

One of the areas to which there has been a real strengthening of the bill due to the efforts of my party is around the public appointments commission. As the vice-chair of the government operations and estimates committee, I was the member who introduced a motion rejecting the proposed head of the government's proposed appointments commission, Mr. Gwyn Morgan.

I was supported on that motion not only by other opposition members on that committee who joined me in rejecting his candidacy but by writers in Canadian Business magazine who said, “But making a partisan Tory (and party fundraiser) head of a department designed to usher in 'more open, honest and accountable government for Canadians' just wasn't a good fit from Day 1”.

More recently, in the Globe and Mail there was an article about how this person who was hailed by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives as the best possible person in the entire country for this position has gone from hero to pariah. Clearly, that was a good move to have his appointment rejected.

What we did was beef up the public appointments commission which was the key thing. It basically means now that patronage is against the law. The bill requires that there be accountability and openness when it comes to appointing people to all of the thousands of positions in agencies, boards and crown corporations.

This is what Canadians want. Canadians want the person who is the best equipped, the best qualified person to be in that position, and not someone who happens to be in the good books of the person doing the appointing.

The important thing now is that, because of the NDP amendment, the Prime Minister will have to consult with all political leaders prior to making appointments to the commission. The appointment process itself will be much fairer. This is a very significant change with which the NDP is very happy.

In addition, the NDP introduced new and stricter rules to stop the revolving door between lobbyists and senior levels of government. People do not want someone who is one day advocating for a particular company or organization, being paid for that, and in the next moment working in a minister's office. Canadians want clear rules to stop this action.

We were able to get some improvements to Canada's access to information laws, including broadening the act substantially to include all government institutions. This is not where Canadians would like it to be in terms of full access to information, but largely, thanks to my colleagues in this section of the House we have made significant changes.

We have strengthened parts of the Canada Elections Act, including outlawing the use of trust funds and lowering donation limits to $1,000. We have tightened the conflict of interest rules allowing any Canadian to make complaints to the new conflict of interest and ethics commissioner. We have also included protection of first nations rights within the act.

Canadians expect us as parliamentarians to do our job not only to represent their interests on the issues of the day, but also to be constantly reviewing the process of how we do our work. The solution for problems to democracy is a stronger democracy with more democracy. While this accountability act does not lead us to where Mr. Broadbent and the New Democratic Party would like us to be in terms of full accountability, it takes us another step down the path.

This bill has been debated, discussed, amended and scrutinized very thoroughly. Canadians want us to pass this bill into law and get going on the kinds of changes that will improve accountability in this country and strengthen our democracy.

[Petitions, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on National Child Day I am pleased to present on behalf of my constituents three petitions that urge the government to commit to multi-year funding for child care across this country and to enshrine this in legislation with a national child care act, which should be a cornerstone of our commitment to the next generation.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-284, which would extend Canada access grants for students from low income families from the first year of study to each year of a student's first program of study.

While this bill does not address all of the problems in post-secondary education and is itself imperfect, I do support this bill. I believe it represents a more progressive and efficient approach to increasing access to post-secondary education by providing direct funds to students in need at the time when tuition is due.

In my community in Toronto I have spoken with young people who have completely written off the possibility of attending post-secondary education. They believe it is only for the wealthy. Increasingly, I think, these young people are losing hope that they can better themselves and make a constructive contribution to society. That is a terrible tragedy.

I also speak to many other young people who have gone through post-secondary education but who are now living under an incredible, crushing debt. Some of them live with a debt of tens of thousands of dollars, which is the size of a mortgage for some people in some parts of this country.

For young people trying to get a foothold in the workforce, starting out with that kind of debt is ridiculous, especially if they are living in a city like Toronto, with our housing prices. They simply cannot do it. I have young people coming to my office in tears because they are not able to meet the requirements for paying back their student debt.

This is a pressing need not only for these young people, but for our society. Post-secondary education is a public good. It is a social good. If Canada is to remain a wealthy developed country in a 21st century economy, we need to attract the best and the brightest, not only the wealthiest, to proceed with their education.

We have seen huge cuts to education over the last several years. The Liberals, when they were in power, cut over $2 billion to post-secondary education in the 1990s and slowly added a convoluted patchwork of so-called student assistance programs, tax credits and savings schemes that disproportionately benefited high income families. The Conservatives have perpetuated this system with the textbook tax credit and by raising the student debt ceiling in the budget of 2006.

I believe that all Canadians have a lifelong right to learn. While post-secondary education is important for young people, it is also a public good, and it should be accessible and of high quality for all Canadians. As we see our economy changing and evolving, people no longer expect to be in the same job over a lifetime. As a society, our best adjustment programs recognize this. They help people to keep learning throughout their lives and therefore better equip themselves for different jobs down the road.

Yet we have seen our education system, which had been relatively affordable, become one that is relatively unaffordable. It is interesting to speak to this right after my colleague from the Bloc, who described the system in Quebec. Not only does Quebec have the lowest tuition rates, it offers a universal assistance program for students. Over 70% of students identify financial barriers as the greatest reason not to pursue post-secondary education. Education has become less affordable and less accessible, more so than at any time in our history during this century, which I find astounding.

While I support the bill, I do have concerns. While assistance for the lowest income students is important, assistance for middle class students is also important. The amount being offered to low income students is insufficient when we take into account the true costs of post-secondary education. They still incur enormous debt.

Eligibility for the program is based on income instead of need. Regardless of what kind of program a student is taking, the amount is not increased. As I mentioned earlier, it is important for Canadians to have access to lifelong learning and mature students are excluded.

The program also excludes financially independent students. Even though they live on their own and are financially independent, their eligibility is linked to parental income. As the previous speaker indicated, they do not target students from rural and aboriginal backgrounds where there are particular challenges.

Nevertheless, the bill is a step in the right direction and deserves support.

However, this one bill cannot solve the problem. Canada's post-secondary education system needs an overhaul. An NDP government's first priority for post-secondary education would be to dramatically reduce student debt. We would ensure that tuition is no longer out of reach of even middle income Canadians and that debt levels are reduced. We would shift the focus of student aid to more non-repayable grants and ensure the grants are available when tuition is due.

The NDP would ultimately enact a Canada post-secondary education act that would legislate stable, core funding from the federal government for post-secondary education and enshrine the principles of accessibility, quality, academic freedom and accountability of a public, not for profit post-secondary education system.

In conclusion, while I support the bill as a long overdue first step toward helping students and their families cope with high debt and rising tuition fees, the overall national need for a comprehensive approach to post-secondary education is greater now than ever. This is fundamentally what our country needs to address in the coming months.

[Public Works and Government Services, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in August the Globe and Mail reported on a junket to the U.K. taken by two ministerial advisers who ended up cancelling their meetings with British officials. Again, we learn today that no reports have been produced.

How is it possible, at a time when over a billion dollars has been cut for programs to help our most vulnerable citizens, that government, like the Liberals before them, wastes so much of our hard-earned dollars for reports that do not even exist?

[Public Works and Government Services, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, under the previous Liberal government, A.T. Kearney received a contract to produce a report on how to save the government money on procurement policy. It said that it would cost $15 million over four years. The total cost of the contract was $24 million over nine months.

Mr. Fortier finally appeared before the estimates committee and, to my surprise, he said that no report was ever produced. That is $24 million and no report.

Could the Prime Minister explain to Canadians how he will get the money back? Where is the accountability in public works that the government promised?

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening in support of Bill C-285, an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. We believe this bill will help alleviate the housing burden placed on people, not only in my riding but right across Canada.

The bill would have CMHC profits that exceed 0.5% distributed to the provinces for social and affordable housing, to encourage the supply of quality housing at affordable prices, to increase housing choices for people, and for the creation and development of housing co-operatives.

In the city of Toronto, where I come from, there are about 65,000 households on a waiting list for assisted housing. It can take up to 12 years for a family on the list to get a three bedroom apartment. Housing is clearly in crisis.

In my own riding of Parkdale—High Park, a mere 12 affordable homes have been completed since 2001, according to a June 2006 report from the City of Toronto's Shelter, Support and Housing Administration, and another 21 are under development. But this is a riding where there are more than 24,000 people living below the poverty line and more than 10,000 very low income households, that is, households with annual incomes below $20,000.

These very low income households can afford a rent of about $500 a month based on the standard calculation that they should spend no more than 30% of their annual income on shelter. The average market rent in my riding of Parkdale—High Park for a typical two bedroom apartment is $1,085. This is double what the poorest households can actually afford.

The real culprits behind this crisis are the federal and provincial governments, which have cut funding and then downloaded housing responsibilities. The federal government cut new affordable housing funding in 1993 and Ontario followed in 1995. The federal government downloaded most federal housing programs to the provinces and territories in 1996, and Ontario followed in 1998 by downloading to the municipalities.

As homelessness and housing insecurity have grown following the housing cuts, governments have tried to respond with a patchwork of funding and programs, but the federal homelessness programs are due to sunset at the end of fiscal year 2006. Literally thousands of services that provide critical relief to tens of thousands of homeless people are at risk.

The federal government recently allocated $1.4 billion of the $1.6 billion in housing funding from Bill C-48, which was a result of the NDP's amendment to the last Liberal budget, passed in 2005, but that is nothing more than a down payment set against years of cuts, downloading and neglect.

There are some people in this country who are now recognizing that we have a housing crisis even in the province of Alberta. Retiring Alberta Premier Ralph Klein announced Tuesday that he would allocate $16 million for new affordable housing in Calgary.

He stated this week that the struggle of the homeless and working poor in places like Calgary and Fort McMurray is unfortunately more of a challenge today than ever. He said it is a great concern to see that half of Calgarians who are homeless right now have a job and are simply not making enough money to afford appropriate accommodation.

I should say that I have introduced a federal bill to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which would also help people who fall under federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Klein at least is doing a little. It is very late, but it is great to see that at least one Conservative is finally starting to get it.

We need now to deal with homelessness and housing insecurity. We need to make sure that the levels of government that have the funds to deal with housing are putting money into housing.

In May 2006 a United Nations committee of experts in Geneva released its latest review of Canada's compliance with international economic, social and cultural rights and called homelessness and affordable housing a crisis in Canada that is a national emergency. I certainly agree with that assessment.

I want to emphasize the importance of this bill, especially in light of the Conservative government's cuts to housing funding and affordable housing in general.

It is my grave concern that the money that could come as a result of this private member's bill may not amount to much because the recent changes to mortgage insurance, which opens up mortgage insurance to the market, will negatively affect the profits of CMHC.

CMHC insurance is important to people who cannot afford a full down payment on a home, but still want to have the opportunity to purchase a home.

Mortgage insurance is a good business for the government to be in. It generates money. In 2005 the net income from mortgage insurance for CMHC was nearly $1 billion. As a crown corporation, CMHC must be concerned about profits, but since the shareholder is the Government of Canada, it has the ability to address the welfare of Canadians instead of just the bottom line.

Assuming the goal is not to have CMHC removed from mortgage insurance altogether, it is very likely that new competitors will take the more profitable and stable contracts, leaving CMHC with only the higher risk and less profitable ones. This would put housing insurance at risk for lower income families as CMHC would have fewer funds to access. Any hopes that profits from CMHC mortgage insurance could be used to create affordable housing in Canada would then be greatly reduced or eliminated.

The real solution here is that we need a national housing strategy that needs all levels of government to make significant investments in affordable, supportive and co-op housing. This bill does not solve all of those problems. We do have a national crisis, a national emergency, in affordable housing in this country, but we believe that this bill is one positive step and that is why we support it.

[Canada Elections Act, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his comments on the bill. They were very thoughtful and thought provoking.

In my riding the majority of constituents are renters. As such there is a very high turnover among those renters. We also unfortunately have a number of people who are homeless and who are struggling with mental health issues.

In considering the high turnover, there are people who may not navigate systems as well as some of us do and many of whom may not be as engaged politically as we are without an enumeration system. They may not even be engaged in the voting system and may not vote at all. Given that one in every 200 Canadians is without a home, those Canadians may also be quite disengaged from the political process.

I have a question for the hon. member. What impact would the potential loss of political engagement have, the loss of potential voting activity among renters, low income people and homeless people, on our entire political process in Canada?

[Remembrance Day, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Canada's veterans. This past Sunday I laid a wreath by the cenotaph at Swansea Legion Branch 46 in Toronto. Next Saturday I will join in other ceremonies in my riding, including at the Queen's Own Rifles Branch 344 on Lakeshore Boulevard.

This latter event will be especially meaningful for me as it was here that my father, Harry Nash, applied to the Navy in 1941 at age 17. He was called up the next year and served on the corvette HMCS Kitchener K225 in the North Atlantic and later became a chief petty officer on the minesweeper HMCS Bayfield, including at Omaha Beach on D-Day.

We owe my father and his generation deep gratitude. My dad, at age 82, will celebrate Remembrance Day at Legion Branch 31 in Mount Dennis, Ontario.

I also want to thank my party for the NDP's veterans first motion, ensuring that veterans, their families and Canadian Forces personnel who fought to protect our country will not have to fight to receive a fair pension and live in dignity.