Chris Charlton

[Petitions, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Prime Minister fled to Davos, Switzerland, to announce that he would be raising the age of OAS eligibility from 65 to 67, Canadians from across the country have been signing petitions to urge the government to change its mind.

I am proud to present petitions today, signed by literally hundreds of people from my hometown of Hamilton who are joining that campaign.

The petitioners rightly point out that only 31% of Canadians have been able to contribute to RRSPs and, even then, many saw their savings evaporate in the recent market downturn. They also note that only 40% of Canadians have workplace pensions and the future of many of those pension plans is increasingly tenuous.

Since over a quarter of a million seniors are now living in poverty and public pensions provide, at most, $15,000 to the typical retiree, the petitioners are calling upon the government to drop its ill-considered change to the OAS, maintain the current age of eligibility and make the requisite investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.

[Employment Insurance, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, 500,000 good manufacturing jobs have been lost since the Conservatives came to power. Instead of building an EI system that supports those laid-off workers, the Conservatives are wasting money on an employment insurance financing board whose advice they continue to ignore.

Why have the Conservatives wasted millions of dollars on the EI board instead of using that money to improve EI benefits for hard-working Canadians who lost their jobs through no fault of their own?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the question with respect to the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement. Of course, that bill was debated in the House and we have already voted on it, so I am a bit surprised that the member would not know what the NDP position has been on that.

With respect to his second question, I believe that any trade agreement must put human rights, environmental rights and labour rights front and centre in the negotiations. That clearly has not happened in the trade agreement before us today and that is why I have been absolutely clear that I will not be supporting this trade agreement when it comes time to vote on it in this House.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I note there was not really a question at the end of that speech. However, I would remind my colleague that I, too, have looked very closely at the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and she will note that the section she was reading from with respect to labour rights is, in fact, nowhere near the main text of the free trade agreement. What she is quoting from is a side agreement. Why would a government relegate fundamental labour rights to a side agreement in the larger context of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement?

I will also ask her, because I know she will want to respond, why the Conservatives voted against two amendments that my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, moved in committee with respect to labour rights the last time we debated this issue. There were two in particular that I want to bring to her attention. The first would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering the right to collective bargaining. The second would have required the Minister of International Trade, as the principal representative of Canada on the joint Panama-Canada commission, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian labour and trade unions. Why did the government vote against those amendments if it is so adamant about being in support of labour rights?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, over the last two Parliaments, I think this is my third or fourth time speaking to the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

I have to say that this is an agreement that has not improved with age, nor has the debate on this issue, frankly. I continue to be struck by the inability of both the Conservatives and the Liberals to differentiate between free trade and fair trade. We in the NDP are not against trade. We recognize the important role trade plays in our economy, but it is not good enough to just keep bringing forward a series of bilateral trade agreements as if such agreements will somehow magically give us a coherent and smart industrial and economic strategy.

On the contrary, there has been no economic strategy, no real focused trade strategy, and the result has been that most Canadians are worse off now than they were before.

The government simply cannot keep doing these ribbon cuttings for free trade agreements and expect that the job is done. This is no small issue. When we look at the last 20 years since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, we see that the real income of most Canadian families has gone down, not up. The real incomes of the two-thirds of Canadian families who constitute the middle class and those of the poorest Canadians have gone down, right across the country.

The only people who have actually profited and seen an increase in their real income over the past 20 years since the first of these agreements was implemented have been the wealthiest of Canadians. The wealthiest 10% have seen their income skyrocket. One-fifth of Canadians, the wealthiest 20%, now take home most of the real income in this country.

For the Conservatives, that is entirely fine. In fact they are completely unapologetic for having espoused the principles of the robber barons of the 19th century. Listening to their speeches, I am surprised they have not quoted John D. Rockefeller, who said, “The disparity in income between the rich and the poor is merely the survival of the fittest. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God”.

It is certainly a sentiment that is deeply imbedded in the Conservatives' free trade agenda and in that of the Liberals before them. However, Canadians deserve better. They deserve fair trade instead of free trade. Fair trade puts an end to the race to the bottom by delivering on the promises of sustainable livelihoods and opportunities for people in the poorest countries in the world.

Poverty and hardship limit people's choices, while market forces tend to further marginalize and exclude them. This makes them vulnerable to exploitation, whether as farmers and artisans or as hired workers with larger businesses. That two billion of our fellow citizens survive on less than $2 per day despite working extremely hard makes it painfully clear that there is indeed a problem.

I want to put this into context by quoting extensively from an article from October 2010 called, “Back to the 'Good' Old Days”. It was published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Although it is focused on Asia, its observations and conclusions directly relate to the issues in Latin America. It begins with the legacy of the robber barons that I alluded to earlier. It then goes on to state that the first 60 years of the 20th century were focused on curbing the worst excesses of unfettered free enterprise through government regulations, minimum wage increases and the growth of the labour movement.

It says:

Strong unions and relatively progressive governments combined to have wealth distributed less inequitably. Social safety nets were woven to help those in need.

Corporate owners, executives, and major shareholders resisted all these moderate reforms. Their operations had to be forcibly humanized. They always resented having even a small part of their profits diverted into wages and taxes, but until the mid-1970s and '80s they couldn’t prevent it. Now they can.

Thanks to international trade agreements and the global mobility of capital, they can overcome all political and labour constraints. They are free once more, as they were in the 1800s, to maximize profits and exploit workers, to control or coerce national governments, to re-establish the survival of the fittest as the social norm.

This global resurgence of corporate power threatens to wipe out a century of social progress. We are in danger of reverting to the kind of mass poverty and deprivation that marked the Victorian era. Indeed, this kind of corporate-imposed barbarism and inequality is already rampant in many developing countries.

It is worth pausing here to reflect on the submission made by Dr. Teresa Healy, senior researcher for social and economic policy at the Canadian Labour Congress, during the Standing Committee on International Trade deliberations on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

She pointed out that Panama is a country with a population of about 3.4 million people. It is currently recording relatively high growth rates, but it is the second most unequal society in the region. Forty per cent of the population is poor and 27% is extremely poor, and the rate of extreme poverty is particularly acute in indigenous populations. Although the country has endured extensive structural adjustment, liberalization and privatization in recent years, this has not translated into economic benefits for the population.

This should give all Canadians pause to think. It was not that long ago that our forebears were mistreated in workplaces, and the prospect of a reversion to Victorian social conditions should alarm all of us. The CCPA article I was citing earlier reminds us what the conditions were like in Canadian workplaces in the 1800s. Conditions in the mines were especially bad, with most of the miners dying from accidents or black lung disease before they reached the age of 35. Hundreds of thousands of children, some as young as six, were forced to work 12 hours a day, often being whipped or beaten.

A Canadian royal commission on child labour in the late 1800s reported that the employment of children was extensive and on the increase. Boys under 12 worked all night in glassworks in Montreal. In the coal mines of Nova Scotia, it was common for 10-year-old boys to work a 60-hour week down in the pits. This royal commission found not only that were children fined for tardiness and breakages but also that in many factories they were beaten with birch rods. Many thousands of them lost fingers, hands and even entire limbs when caught in unguarded gears or pulleys. Many hundreds were killed. Their average life expectancy was 33.

As late as 1910 in Canada, more than 300,000 children under 12 were still being subjected to these brutal working conditions. It was not until the 1920s, in fact, that child labour in this country was completely stamped out.

Yes, we finally did the right thing in Canada, but somehow the government wants us to believe it is okay to simply ignore the fact that such practices are still rampant in the countries with which we are signing trade agreements. The Conservative government has completely abandoned any notion of corporate social responsibility, and through its trade agenda it is giving state sanction to the continued abuse of labour, human and environmental rights in countries such as Panama. It is completely outrageous.

Make no mistake. Already in most of the developing nations, they have brought back child labour. Conditions in most factories operated by or for the transnational corporations in Asia and parts of Latin America are not much better today than they were in North America and Europe in the 1800s. Thousands of boys and girls are being compelled to work 12 hours a day in dirty, unsafe workshops for 40¢ or 50¢ an hour.

The article went on to say that in the United States another robber baron, Frederick Townsend Martin, boasted:

We are the rich. We own this country. And we intend to keep it by throwing all the tremendous weight of our support, our influence, our money, our purchased politicians, our public-speaking demagogues, into the fight against any legislation, any political party or platform or campaign that threatens our vested interests.

If nothing else, I guess we have to appreciate his honesty. At least he was upfront about the corporate agenda in his day.

It was David Rockefeller who restated the operating principle of the corporate agenda in modern times. In 1990 he said:

We who run the transnational corporations are now in the driver’s seat of the global economic engine. We are setting government policies instead of watching from the sidelines.

That is the sentiment that guides the corporate interests who are pushing our government to enter into the bilateral free trade agreements with willing partners around the world. It is a sentiment that has been blindly accepted and adopted by successive Liberal and Conservative governments that have been only too happy to oblige in the implementation of this corporate agenda.

Surely we do not all need to submit to the notion that might is right. There is an alternative vision of our economic future that believes that no one should be left behind. That is the kind of future my NDP colleagues and I have been championing in this House. It is a future that is based on fair trade, not free trade.

If we do not amend our trade agreements to incorporate the principles of sustainable development and recognition of human and labour rights, then the trade agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. In truth, we should be hanging our heads in shame.

If Canadians were aware that we are condoning practices by our trading partners that we would never condone at home, then I am certain they would call on us to abandon such trade relations. That is why I will be voting against the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[Petitions, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, petitions also keep pouring in from my riding calling on the government to take action on the price of gasoline by adopting my bill, Bill C-336.

The petitioners know they are getting hosed at the pumps but, as it stands now, they can only complain to each other because there is no official avenue through which they can seek redress.

The petitioners are calling for the speedy passage of my bill, Bill C-336, which would establish the oil and gas ombudsman. The ombudsman would be charged with providing strong and effective consumer protection to ensure that no big business can swindle, cheat or rip off hard-working Canadians.

The petitioners are demanding a meaningful vehicle for having their complaints taken seriously, with effective mechanisms for investigation and remediation to help consumers fight the squeeze.

I just want to—

[Petitions, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today.

I am honoured to present yet another petition today from my home town of Hamilton. Canadians are noticing that the government has completely abdicated its leadership role on all environmental matters. Specifically, the petition I am tabling today is calling on the government to ban, on an urgent basis, asbestos in all its forms, and to institute a just transition program for workers in the asbestos industry.

The petitioners express their regret that Canada continues to be one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos and demand that the government stop the subsidies that continue to this day for asbestos. Moreover, they call on the government to stop blocking the international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

I am delighted that support for this ban keeps growing and I hope the government is listening to Canadians on this very important issue.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, March 16th, 2012]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that intervention.

As I was saying, I believe that my colleague, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, proposes this measure in good faith and attempts to tackle an important issue.

The bill's intention appears to be to improve support and fairness for victims of crime and their families and to ensure offenders meet their obligations to society. That is something I know all members of this House support.

Victims of crime must, of course, be treated with compassion, dignity and respect. They need and deserve the support of their community and the support of their government. The government has an obligation to listen to and respond to the needs of victims, but the Conservative government's record on that score leaves a great deal to be desired.

My colleagues opposite spin a good yarn about defending and supporting victims, but when it comes to concrete action, they obstinately, and flying in the face of all evidence, pursue policies that will increase crime levels, increase recidivism and make our streets less safe than they are today.

From its omnibus crime legislation, which experts expect will actually create many more victims of crime, to the shameful decision to end the gun registry and destroy the attendant records, the Conservative government continues to promote policies that victims of crime oppose.

In fact, it is pretty clear that the government has about as much respect for the views of crime victims as it has respect for facts and evidence in public policy-making, that is, none.

The government fails to provide adequate supports for victims of crime and fails utterly to understand and address the root causes of crime. That is a fundamental difference between our approach and the approach of members opposite.

We want to help victims recover and to offer them every support we possibly can. We want to provide the necessary resources to help them heal and to put their lives back together after enduring experiences that, in some cases, are more terrible than any of us here can imagine.

I think any victim would tell us that among the best things we can do as legislators is to work towards a more effective criminal justice system and do everything in our power to prevent criminal behaviour in the first place.

The economically and socially responsible approach is to invest in crime prevention by investing in Canadians and in our communities. We can begin by committing to develop a coherent and robust national housing strategy and put in place a sensible plan to address homelessness. This country has as many as 300,000 homeless people on our streets, yet we remain the only country in the G8 that lacks a national housing strategy.

We must ensure that all Canadians have access to primary health care, including mental health treatment facilities and addiction programs.

We must ensure that aboriginal Canadians have access to the housing, health care and education resources necessary to build strong and vibrant communities.

We must ensure that young Canadians have opportunities through early learning, post-secondary education and apprenticeship programs to participate fully in our economy and become engaged, contributing members of society.

We must build and support a functional corrections system that offers effective rehabilitation programming that reduces the risk of reoffending when prisoners leave the criminal justice system.

What we have seen instead from the government is an abdication of responsibility for providing the kinds of social supports, that is, housing, health care, education and jobs, that are the foundations of an effective crime prevention strategy. We have also seen a complete failure on the part of the Conservative government to live up to its promise to put more police on the streets.

In fact, the government has failed crime victims. It has failed the criminal justice system. It has failed communities. But that is what happens when governments pursue public policy on the basis of ideology rather than evidence.

During the Senate committee hearings on Bill C-10, the Conservatives' omnibus crime bill, the Minister of Public Safety told senators to ignore the facts when it comes to public safety. He said, “I don't know if the statistics demonstrate that crime is down. I'm focused on danger.”

This is not the first time we have been told to ignore the facts by the Conservatives. In response to questions about Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice said, “We're not governing on the basis of the latest statistics.”

Indeed, the blind pursuit of ideology, and a dogged determination to dismiss facts and evidence as inconveniences, is a deeply troubling hallmark of the Conservative government. It is unacceptable, and frankly, Canadians have had enough. Canadians deserve better and victims deserve better.

I regret that the legislation before us today is not part of the comprehensive, evidence-based, long-term view of Canada's criminal justice system that we need. However, I can broadly support the intended purpose of the bill, and it raises some issues that deserve closer examination. Victims deserve to be better supported and this bill may be one way to take a step in that direction.

I also support recommendations 12 and 13 of the Ombudsman for Victims report “Toward a Greater Respect for Victims of Crime in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act“, which calls for an amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure offenders will fulfill their court ordered sentences, including restitution and victim fine surcharges, and authorizing Correctional Services Canada to deduct from an offender's earnings reasonable amounts for restitution or victim fine surcharges orders.

I do have some concerns with the bill. It would seem there are jurisdictional issues that may prove difficult to overcome. As my colleague, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, pointed out, the bill appears to be designed to create two civil law systems, one for prisoners and another for the rest of society. However, the protection of the law applies to all citizens, including prisoners.

As well, I am unaware of any existing problems with judgments being paid. I wonder if the bill really represents a solution to a problem, or whether it is in fact an exercise in wedge politics.

If the government is genuinely interested in providing effective and meaningful support for victims of crime, why does it not reinstate federal funding for criminal injuries compensation programs? These programs have largely collapsed because of a lack of funding. There are countless victims of crime who are suffering today, with no support, with no restitution, because the offenders have no money. Why does the government continue to ignore those crime victims?

Despite these significant shortcomings, I am willing to take a closer look at the bill to see where and how the broader objectives, the better intentions, can be supported.

I want to take this opportunity to encourage the members across the way to help make all conversations that we have in this place about victims more productive. I would encourage the members across to put aside ideology and to instead pay attention to facts, to evidence, to expertise and experience when it comes to developing policies on public safety. This means supporting and promoting proven and effective crime prevention strategies, which make both financial and practical sense, so we can work together toward reducing the number of victims of crime in our country.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the same private member's bill, Bill C-350, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accountability of offenders). The bill would require that any monetary amount awarded to an offender pursuant to a legal action or proceeding be paid to victims and other designated beneficiaries.

I believe my colleague, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, proposes this measure in good faith and attempts to tackle—

[41st General Election, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's spin simply is not working. It is only the Conservatives who are under investigation. Maybe they are not taking this seriously but Elections Canada sure is.

Elections Canada is broadening its search Canada-wide, with hundreds of new tips flowing in. It is finding new evidence that it says is “gold”.

As evidence against them mounts, when will the Conservatives stop pointing fingers and evading questions, and call a public inquiry?