What do you know about poverty?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 49% of the vote.
Committees Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
What do you know about poverty?
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the Liberals must be down in the market talking to their imaginary friends. I do not see a quorum.
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Don't be so cynical.
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
They wouldn't do that.
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see a quorum in the House.
Canada Labour Code October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to what I said earlier.
Canada Labour Code October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-35 is to align federal minimum wage rates with the general minimum wage rates established by the provinces. The involvement of the federal government in setting minimum wages is only about 30 years old.
In 1935 Canada ratified an ILO Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery Convention which had actually been introduced in 1928. It specified that workers would be guaranteed a minimum wage mainly in cases where wages were exceptionally low. However, it was 1965 before Canada actually began setting minimum wage rates. The Canada Labour Code covered less than a million workers so the government of the day did not feel pressured to establish a federal rule.
Between 1965 and 1986 there were sporadic changes in the federal minimum wage rate but 10 years ago only one-tenth of 1 per cent, or 7,000 workers under federal jurisdiction were directly affected. While updated estimates are not available from department officials, there is a presumption on our part that very little may have changed.
The big changes for Canadian workers over the last 30 years have been the diminished opportunities and lack of security which they now endure. Today one in every four Canadians is afraid of losing his or her job.
If the government was really concerned about workers and their wages it would not be sidestepping the real issue. It would be lowering the payroll taxes that kill jobs. At a time when 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed, about 2.3 million Canadians are underemployed and 500,000 Canadians have given up looking for a job, the best the government can come up with is a plan to realign minimum wage rates with the provinces. This is not even a decent band-aid.
If the government was really concerned about helping workers make ends meet it would be launching a plan, like the Reform Party's fresh start proposal, that would give workers much needed tax relief. Canadian workers deserve a tax break because they are working harder for less money.
The Fraser Institute estimates that the average worker's income has decreased by over $3,000 since the government was elected three years ago. Why are Canadians taking home less money? The government wants to lay the blame by pointing a finger at
employers. However, the real culprit is the ever increasing tax burden.
In 1996 the average family pays a staggering 46 per cent of its income in taxes. Twenty-five years ago, when one income families were the norm, families could pay their way and even prosper. Today it takes two incomes just to scrape by. One partner works just to pay the taxes for the household.
If the government was really concerned about Canadian workers' wages it would get its greedy hands at least part way out of the workers' pockets. If the government was really interested in helping workers it would streamline its operations and relinquish jurisdiction to the provinces in those areas that the provinces are best equipped to manage.
Take Bill C-35, for instance. On one hand the government is saying that it trusts the provinces to set realistic and fair minimum wage rates. However, on the other hand it is saying that it does not trust future provincial legislatures to set realistic and fair minimum wage rates so it will retain the right to set its rates whenever it sees fit. The provinces have already proven that they are better fiscal managers than their federal counterparts. What governments in this country have succeeded in balancing their budgets? Provincial governments.
Now is the time for the federal government to show that it is serious about streamlining and delegating more power to the provinces. Instead of retaining the right to set the rate, the government should seize this opportunity to enter into agreements with its provincial counterparts to give them sole discretion over the setting of rates. The agreements could feature clauses stipulating that each province and territory retain a minimum wage rate. It would be obligatory. That would protect Canada's international commitments and the free trade agreement.
The provisions of Bill C-35 have actually been in effect since July 1996. This is not a concern for Reformers since the overall intent of the bill is positive. However, there is still time to improve the bill.
Section 178(3) gives the governor in council the option of "replacing the minimum hourly rate that has been fixed with respect to employment in a province with another rate, or fix a minimum hourly rate with respect to the employment in a province if no such hourly rate has been fixed".
An amendment has been tabled calling for the deletion of section 178(3). If the government adopts this amendment the bill will receive our support, although with certain reservations. The amendment moved by the member for Edmonton Southwest, seconded by me, is:
That Bill C-35 in clause 1 be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8 on page 2.
Committee Of The Whole October 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I would never dream of attacking the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. In fact if he does reconsider his contradictory position on this issue, we would continue to enjoy his presence on the other side of the House. If he does accept the position in the end, we will miss him terribly. He is a man who adds a little bit of spice-I might say frivolity but I will not-but I am not attacking the member for Kingston and the Islands in any guise.
Committee Of The Whole October 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, my generosity is exceeded only by my eloquence and I do appreciate the comments.
I have to accept what has been said by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. Certainly, the ideal would be to have an election, as has been suggested by several members during this debate. However I deal with realities. I know the government does not like elections for anything. In this instance, if it could make an appointment that would be more palatable on the basis of non-partisanship, it would be a compromise. Certainly, if I had my
druthers, I would like to see the position filled by an honest free election, preferably by secret ballot.
With respect to the matter of the parliamentary secretary and the request to extend debate, I hope he did that so that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will have the opportunity to stand and explain at great length and in great detail the contradictions between his position while in opposition and his current position.
Committee Of The Whole October 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the 60 seconds do not matter because I was just winding up my speech.
In all sincerity I hope the government will give some consideration to my suggestion that someone who is totally neutral be appointed to the position and that that someone be an independent. Perhaps it would be the person I suggested or perhaps someone else. If such a procedure were followed, it would at least do away with the acrimony and would give greater respect to the office of deputy chairman.