Ralph Goodale

[Points of Order, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during question period on June 10, at approximately 2:40 p.m., I used an expression in asking a question, to which the government took exception. It claimed at that time it was unparliamentary. Now I disagree with that interpretation, but that is entirely beside the point.

I do not want a dispute about language to obscure my main argument and I certainly do not want to put the Chair in a difficult position.

Therefore, I am happy to withdraw any specific word on that occasion that turns out to be unparliamentary.

[Business of the House, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House will be very anxious to know what the government House leader has in mind in terms of House business over the next number of days and weeks.

I have three specific items I would like to raise with him. As was mentioned in question period, certain amendments to the NAFO, potentially impinging upon Canadian sovereignty, have been proposed and there is a deadline for implementation which is rapidly approaching.

The minister, at an earlier stage when she tabled those amendments in June, indicated that there would be a full debate in the House. There are only days left to go before the deadline arrives. I wonder, as I asked the government House leader privately yesterday, whether he is in a position to allow a take note debate tonight on this urgent NAFO issue.

Second, with respect to Bill C-50, which is now under consideration in the House, we in the official opposition believe this legislation should be disposed of as rapidly as possible, so it does not get entangled in other issues. Earlier today we asked for unanimous consent for Bill C-50 to go through all stages speedily by the end of the day tomorrow. At that time this morning, unanimous consent was denied. I wonder if the government House leader has any progress to report with respect to that matter, so this legislation can be properly and quickly disposed of.

Third, having to do with the week after the constituency week when we come back, the week of September 28, I wonder if the government House leader is in a position to designate the day upon which the government will table its third probationary report with respect to the economy and the recession.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are scheduled under government orders today to begin dealing with Bill C-50, and I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move, “That, for the purposes of our consideration of Bill C-50, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, which will begin under government orders today, the House agrees to conclude its consideration of this bill at all stages by the normal time of adjournment tomorrow, including examination of the bill in the committee of the whole instead of a standing committee if that is necessary to meet this timetable”.

[Taxation, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the issue here is trust. Canadians simply cannot trust a government that so often fails to tell the truth.

The Prime Minister said that increasing EI premiums was dumb. He promised that he would never raise taxes on anything. Conservatives also said, “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”.

Why are they slapping a new Conservative tax on jobs? Using the Conservatives' own words, would that be a fraud because it would be a promise unkept?

[Taxation, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has violated the trust of Canadians about taxes.

First, Conservatives raised income taxes. They broke their word. Then, they slapped a brutal new Conservative tax on income trusts, ripping $25 billion from the savings of two million Canadians. Again, they broke their word. Now, they are going to slap this job-killing Conservative tax on employment through higher EI premiums.

The Prime Minister used to say that was a dumb idea. Why is he breaking his word again? How can Canadians possibly trust these people?

[Jerry Yanover, September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this summer Canadians lost a parliamentary treasure with the passing of Mr. Jerry Yanover.

For four decades, Jerry served as a trusted adviser to every Liberal leader and caucus. His expertise in the rules and traditions of the House, his encyclopedic knowledge of politics, his brilliant approach to strategy earned him not only the deep gratitude of Liberals, but also the genuine respect of all political parties, House officials, public servants, the media, academics and many others.

Jerry loved our system of government, respected its values and institutions and dedicated his life to making this place function at its best.

Always focused on the future, he built himself a living legacy in all the young people he encouraged to become engaged in the governance of their country.

An extraordinary mind, a tower of strength, Jerry Yanover is gone too soon. The Parliament of Canada will deeply miss one of its finest advocates.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the discussions this week have actually broken the logjam and a process is now in place that can lead to better results for unemployed Canadians across the country.

I am encouraged by the remarks of the representative of the NDP, because it sounds like she would like to participate in the process. Hopefully there is a broad consensus across the country that can be arrived at.

In terms of this working group, it will be able to reach out beyond its membership to receive good advice from wherever that may come.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I was not in the meeting, and neither was the hon. gentleman across the way, so perhaps we should both be a bit careful about saying what was or was not discussed in that meeting. The fact is that the topic of eligibility for unemployment insurance was expressly a part of the discussion. Both of the leaders have said that. They both agreed on a process by which to address that issue.

It is significant that before that meeting the government denied that there was any problem with eligibility for employment insurance. It said that apart from its last election campaign promise, which had to do with parental leave for the self-employed, everything else had been addressed by what the government had done with respect to the five weeks of additional benefits and that there was no point even discussing EI eligibility.

As it turns out, in his news conference following the meeting with the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said he agreed there were inequities in the rules with respect to eligibility and that he was prepared to make a good faith effort to try to address those with the Leader of the Opposition. Let us hope the process works, because that would be beneficial for unemployed people in this country.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a number of serious issues have come to the floor of this House since the sitting of Parliament, which apparently will end today, first began with the 2009 federal budget in January.

Four of the most important of those issues, the ones that have dominated Canadians' attention for the past several weeks, are: first, the unfairnesses in the employment insurance system, especially, current eligibility rules, during a time of deepening recess; second, the progress, or the lack of progress, in getting infrastructure investments actually out the door and up and running; third, the exploding federal deficit, with no clear plan yet apparent to deal with it; and, fourth, the recent failure in Canada's ability to produce medical isotopes, causing a worldwide crisis in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, heart disease and many other serious health conditions.

These were the four issues that were specifically raised by the Leader of the Opposition# this past Monday as matters requiring explicit attention this week from the Government of Canada before Parliament could allow the government's estimates to be approved today.

With respect to employment insurance, there are two key problems that had to be addressed. One was fairness to the unemployed and regional equity across the country at a time when Canadians are facing a worsening economy. We are not living in the 1990s when Canada was coming out of a recession, when the economy began generating 3.5 million net new jobs, and Canadians enjoyed the start of the most protracted growth spurt since World War II.

The circumstances of 2008-09, sadly, are the opposite, and the old rules are, unfairly, leaving too many Canadians out.

That point about fairness was made not only by us in the official opposition but also by Premiers McGuinty of Ontario, Campbell of British Columbia, Stelmach of Alberta and Wall of Saskatchewan, as well as, incidentally, the Conservative Party in Ontario, including the spouse of the federal Minister of Finance.

With respect to effectiveness and affordability, without any premium increases, I would hasten to add, independent think tanks like the Conference Board of Canada, the Toronto Dominion Bank, the C.D. Howe Institute and others, agreed with the principle that were we arguing for. If we provide better access to EI benefits for the unemployed during a recession, we will increase their disposable incomes and, therefore, their purchasing power, and all of those benefits will be pumped right back into the economy almost immediately as those jobless Canadians buy the necessities of life for their families. Those benefits, therefore, become not a cost but an immediate form of economic stimulus; perhaps more effective than anything else that the government has announced.

Until Monday of this week, the government denied all of this about employment insurance. It claimed that it had already fixed the system and there was really nothing left to do. However, now, as of this week, that view has changed. The government now agrees there is an EI eligibility problem. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the current rules in a recession “don't make a lot of sense”, to use his own words.

So, we now have a process to at least try to fix that problem, as well as, perhaps, some others related to employment insurance. That is progress. That is better than where the problem stood on Monday.

With respect to infrastructure programs to get shovels in the ground and jobs created in this construction season, the problem has been that there have been a lot of announcements and re-announcements of many projects over and over again, but so far, nearly a third of the way through the current construction season, very few tangible results have actually been obtained. It has been a lot of sizzle but very little steak. Big hat, no cattle. And that view has been shared emphatically by many mayors in municipalities across the country who have been waiting for some action.

The Minister of Finance said in his budget in January that the first 120 days following his budget would be the most critical in getting stimulus flowing this summer, but those 120 days passed three weeks ago, at a time when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was reporting a 96% shortfall in the government's actual delivery on what it had promised.

All of the PR campaigns aside, Canadians need to know what money was actually spent, not promised, not announced, not allocated, not advertised but actually spent on which projects, creating how many real jobs in those first 120 days. We now have a way to find that out faster than would otherwise have been the case.

With respect to the deficit, we know this. The government has been erratic and inaccurate in providing any reliable information. Last fall the government was telling Canadians that a recession was unlikely and that there would be emphatically no deficit. In November, it claimed four more surplus budgets. In January, that had flipped around completely to a projection of two years of deficits, $34 billion this year and $30 billion next year. In February, March and April it told us that was still completely accurate information. It was still “on track”, it said.

However, in May we learned the red ink for this year will not be $34 billion but $50 billion, a 48% increase. Deficits will follow not for two years but for at least five years and the cumulative damage will be something worse than $170 billion in new debt.

Worse still, Conservative deficit financing began not because of but before there was a recession. It destroyed Canada's fiscal security during good times long before the trouble hit with a vengeance last fall. There is to date little evidence that the spending that has been announced is having any constructive effect and there is no apparent plan, other than wishful thinking, to deal with the new mortgage that is being placed on the future of our children.

Because of the events of this week, the government will be obliged to be more forthcoming with Canadians about the actual debt and deficit situation and the government's plan to deal with it. It will also be required to produce and implement a plan to deal with the crisis in medical isotopes. Confusing snippets of information will not suffice. Neither will it be sufficient to try to pass the buck.

The government must shoulder the responsibility that comes from being in power for more than three and a half years. It inherited nuclear facilities that were in fact duly licensed. It, itself, renewed those licences.

There was no unplanned disruption in the flow of isotopes during the previous years of Liberal government. Neither was there any disruption during the Mulroney years before that, as far as anyone can remember. However, there have been two serious failures in the last 18 months.

It is time to stop the spin, stop the excuses and just produce a plan to tell worried Canadians how this crisis is going to be fixed going forward. That is what matters. That is what patients waiting for cancer treatments want to know. On Monday, the Prime Minister finally said he would comply and produce that plan.

Those are the four key issues. The vehicle for achieving some progress on them is the motion that we are considering this morning. If this motion is adopted, the estimates will pass, the House will adjourn today for the normal summer period, we will return one week earlier in September, and our sittings will avoid any direct conflict with the G20.

The government will prepare an extra probationary report on the economy, the fiscal situation and the fight against the recession. The report will provide details about infrastructure spending and the deficit, among other things. It will coincide with the advice that will be coming from a working group of MPs and others on how to fix EI eligibility. Shortly thereafter, there will be a vote scheduled in the House to test the government's performance and further opposition days for all parties will be scheduled in an even-handed manner through the fall and into December.

There is some progress on the four important issues and there is enhanced accountability in a minority Parliament. For these reasons, this motion should be passed today.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

moved:

That this House recognizes that its constitutional role of holding the government to account requires regular, orderly, timely and clearly understood procedural opportunities for doing so, while not unduly restricting the ability of the government to manage its legislative program; and therefore orders that section 10 of Standing Order 81 be amended temporarily for the balance of 2009 by adding, immediately after paragraph (c) thereof, the following:

“(d) In each of the supply periods described in paragraph (a), the first allotted day shall be no earlier than the ninth sitting day and no later than the thirteenth sitting day in that period; and no fewer than four nor more than seven sitting days shall be permitted to pass between allotted days within each period, provided that, in any case, the last allotted day in each period shall not be more than seven sitting days before the last sitting day in that period.”

provided that the Speaker shall, after consultation with the House Leaders, table in the House no later than December 1, 2009, a proposed formula for a fair and even distribution of allotted days in each of the supply periods of 2010;

and, with particular regard to proceedings in 2009 only, when the House adjourns on Friday, June 19th, 2009, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 14th, and, in order to avoid conflicts with G-20 meetings, when the House adjourns on Friday, September 18th, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 28th, provided that, for the purpose of granting Royal Assent to any bills, the House shall, during the aforementioned adjournment periods, be deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28, and provided that the supply period ending December 10th, 2009 shall be deemed to commence on September 14th;

and, in addition to the accountability reports already required by the Liberal amendment to the 2009 Budget motion, the government shall prepare a further accountability report, meeting all the requirements of that said Liberal amendment, and table it in the House during the week beginning September 28th, 2009, and an allotted day for the Official Opposition shall be designated to take place on the third sitting day following the tabling of the report, provided that for the purposes of Standing Order 81(10)(d) above, this allotted day be deemed the first allotted day in the supply period ending December 10th, 2009.