Chris Charlton

[The Budget, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, no caucus has been a stronger advocate of post-secondary education than the NDP caucus, both with respect to grants and, of course, extended loan programs for graduate students so that they can continue to do their work, and not just graduate students, I would point out, but undergraduates as well, who are not mentioned at all in the budget.

I find it ironic, though, that the member opposite talked about the jobs of the future. I have to say that the jobs of the future do not feed the families of today. There are 1.5 million unemployed in this country and 810,000 Canadians are going to run out of EI benefits in the coming weeks. Yes, if we have to make choices, we will stand up for those families. They deserve a job, they deserve a paycheque and the government has chosen to abandon them so that it could give tax cuts to the big banks.

[The Budget, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I know that both the member for Sudbury and the member for Nickel Belt have been tireless champions of the steelworkers' cause in their home communities, and I commend them for those efforts.

The member for Sudbury is absolutely right. That issue is not one that is just impacting Sudbury. My home town, as I said earlier in my speech, is Hamilton. Just down the road is Nanticoke, where we have a plant where first, workers were being laid off in March and then the others were locked out just a few months after that. Why?

Stelco is what people thought about when they thought about Steel-town. What happened to Stelco? It was bought out by U.S. Steel, yet another foreign takeover.

The government has said it is going to take U.S. Steel to court. The workers are still locked out. That was months ago. We are still waiting for a decision. What happens if the decision is favourable? First, it will probably be appealed and even if the appeal is denied and the court decision can go forward, we are talking about months and months of legal proceedings that at best will perhaps get the government some fines that the company will have to pay.

For me, the bottom line is not those fines. The bottom line is this. What is happening to family-sustaining jobs in communities like Hamilton, Sudbury and, indeed, in communities right across the country? Workers are losing their jobs. They are being locked out. I defy the government to demonstrate to any member in the House where the net public benefit is of such actions. It is the government's job to protect that net public benefit under the Investment Canada Act.

The government has failed to stand up for workers. It has failed to stand up for them in foreign takeovers and it is has failed to stand up for them in this budget.

[The Budget, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the Conservative government's budget.

While budgets are always important events in the life of a government, I would suggest that none in recent memory should have been as important as this one.

The Conservatives had a choice to make. Would they continue on with the failed policies of yesterday by tabling a stay the course budget that would include billions of new spending on corporate tax cuts and higher taxes for average Canadians? Or would they finally admit that their free market formula of smaller governments, cuts to social programs, fewer regulations on corporations and tax cuts for the wealthy was precisely the prescription that had brought our economy crashing down on us in the first place?

Sadly, though not surprisingly, the government decided to stay the course and in the process it abandoned hard-working Canadians and seniors. There is no doubt that the innocent victims of the global recession of 2008-09 were seniors and the middle class. A cycle ripped through Canada's job market, leaving over 1.5 million officially unemployed. Of those, 810,000 are poised to run out of employment insurance benefits in the coming months. Thousands already have. Without jobs to greet them, the majority will wind up on welfare rolls or worse.

What should Canadians have been able to expect from their government? A plan to get Canada working again. Clearly, the status quo is not good enough. Full-time job growth has been sluggish at best. Canada's unemployed are competing in an ever smaller job market. Over the past year, Canada added only 55,000 new part-time jobs and 119,000 new temporary jobs.

Without a good job, well paid, with benefits and reliable hours, life becomes harder to plan, mortgages harder to pay, loans harder to diminish and savings harder to tuck away. In short, Canada's job crisis represents a new threat to the sustainability of Canada's middle class.

It is the government's job to get serious about job protection and job creation. Instead the budget freezes public sector operations, creating new job losses in the federal public sector and thereby compromising the food we eat, the health of our environment, transportation safety and the public services on which Canadians rely. In one fell swoop the Conservatives have managed to weaken the economy and hurt Canadians.

The same is true for the government's cancellation of the home renovation tax credit. The HRTC was one instrument that worked. It could have been improved by encouraging renovations that enhance energy efficiency, but it was undeniably successful. It bolstered the crucial housing and construction sectors and it had a huge uptake by homeowners who needed the government's help to maintain their assets during this recession.

However, the Conservatives decided to cancel this program and opted instead to throw good money after bad. Nothing is more egregious in this budget than the government's policy of continuing tax cuts to the big banks and profitable corporations.

Canada's corporate tax rates are already well below those of our main competitor, namely the U.S. Yet the government will continue to enrich its corporate friends.

The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates a $19 billion structural deficit in three years. Fifteen billion dollars of that deficit will be the cost of corporate tax cuts, all of that without a shred of evidence that those tax cuts have led to private sector investments and job creation.

To add insult to injury, since Liberal and Conservative governments started cutting corporate taxes 10 years ago, individuals are carrying 61% of the cost of government programs, while corporations now only pay 15%. It is clearly time to recalibrate.

Instead of spending $6 billion on further corporate tax cuts, the government should have sustained its stimulus spending to create jobs. Both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have warned governments that withdrawing their stimulus packages too quickly could trigger another global recessionary dip. By cutting the stimulus package off too soon, the Conservatives are letting the jobless fend for themselves and letting the economy simply drift toward recovery. That is not nearly good enough.

On the contrary, the $6 billion that is currently targeted to further corporate tax cuts should be invested in improving Canada's crumbling physical infrastructure and enhancing its social infrastructure. This would be a win-win. Investments in cities, health care, child care and affordable housing would create jobs and leave our communities more functional and vibrant as well.

Imagine what a boon to the steel and construction industries with serious investment on infrastructure could be. As we replace obsolete infrastructure we can transfer, Canada's economic base to a more energy efficient platform because we would not have to choose between what is good for the economy and what is good for the environment.

To a city like my home town of Hamilton, that is absolutely crucial. The recession has hit through our community with the force of a cyclone, leaving a devastating trail of joblessness in its wake. In a city that was once known as Steel-town, only two of the city's largest 10 employers are now private sector companies.

The impact of those job losses is being felt at every level of our community. First, of course, is the high rate of unemployment, with workers increasingly run out of EI. This places an additional burden on the city's welfare rolls and the city is already cash-strapped.

The companies that are closing their doors are now no longer paying property taxes to the municipality, a loss that cannot be compensated for by the public sector because employers like hospitals and post-secondary schools are exempt from paying property taxes to municipalities. This puts the burden for the cost of municipal services squarely on the shoulders of residential property taxpayers, the very people who are losing their jobs. It is a downward spiral with no end in sight.

The only way to reverse the trend is through a positive intervention by senior levels of government. Regrettably, to date, instead of assisting through stimulus spending, they have shown a propensity to download costs instead. The budget could have redressed that balance, but shamefully, the Conservatives have failed to do so in any meaningful way.

Job creation is not the only area in which the government has failed to show leadership when it comes to transitioning from one of the worst recessions on record into a more sustainable economy that benefits all Canadians. Just ask the over 1.5 million Canadians who have lost their jobs. The Conservatives' first order of business should have been to stave off the crisis awaiting the 807,000 EI recipients who are poised to run out of benefits in the coming months.

I was proud to table a comprehension motion on EI reform in the House on behalf of our caucus over a year ago. That motion was passed by a majority vote of MPs. Yet benefits still have not been extended or expanded in a comprehensive way to help those Canadians who are struggling in this very tough job market. It is absolutely imperative that we act to protect the jobless, and there is no time to waste. The future of entire families literally hangs in the balance.

The same is true of pensioners and seniors. Let me just focus on two issues here: workplace pensions and public pensions. As companies teeter on the brink of bankruptcy, unfunded pension liabilities are being exposed that leave workers, at best, worried, and at worst, completely unprotected after years of contributing what should have been their retirement income security. We must act now to protect workplace pensions so Canadians can retire with the dignity and respect they have earned. The throne speech promised such action on Wednesday, but Thursday's budget failed to deliver. That has got to be a record by any government of breaking its promise to Canadians.

Similarly, the Canadian government failed to expand the ability of Canadians to invest in low cost, secure, predictable public pensions through an enhanced CPP. The NDP tabled a motion to that effect in the House, and like my EI motion, it too was passed. Again, anxious retirees are still waiting for action.

By definition, seniors do not have a lifetime to wait. They deserve action and they deserve action now. That is particularly true of Canada's most vulnerable seniors, those who are receiving the GIS. The rate of seniors living in poverty doubled from 3% in the mid-1990s to 6% in the mid-2000s. The maximum GIS benefit intended for the lowest income seniors was approximately $650 a month in 2009. That is only $50 more than it was in 2005. The maximum annual old age security and GIS benefits are approximately $14,000, which is $4,000 below the poverty line in most cities. We can and must lift Canadian seniors out of poverty by improving the GIS.

I know my time here is almost up, but let me just conclude with one final comment. Like most Canadians, I recognize that in the long term, we cannot spend more than we collect, but budgets are about choices. By putting an end to the corporate tax cuts, we can afford to help those who are the most vulnerable in this economic down. Hard-working Canadians and the seniors who built our country deserve nothing less.

Let me wrap up by trying to be constructive. I move a subamendment to the amendment that is before the House today:

That the amendment be amended by:

(a) adding immediately before words “the oil industry”, the words, “large banks, big corporations; and

(b) adding after the word “supplement”, the words “allow for the full protection of pensions in all cases of corporate insolvency, work for increases to the CPP and QPP”; and

(c) by adding after the word “commission”, the words “the implementation of the harmonized sales tax in Ontario and British Columbia, and eliminates all references in the budget designed to weaken our national commitments to a clean energy future”.

[Financial Institutions, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is so deep in the pockets of big business it will choke on the lint at the bottom. The billions in tax giveaways to the big banks will not help one senior in poverty and will not create a single new job. The worst part is that we are going deeper into debt to give it to them.

Why did the government help the rich get richer instead of strengthening our economy by creating jobs and supporting seniors who spend their money in our local communities?

[Financial Institutions, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, for the big banks budget day was a great day. Not only did they announce that their profits doubled over the last year, but the government handed them billions more in tax giveaways. Great day for the banks; lousy day for Canadians still trying to cope with the effects of this recession.

Why does the government keep giving money to those who do not need it while ignoring those who do?

[December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave) brought forward by my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead.

As the title suggests, this is indeed a bill that seeks to reform Canada's labour laws, but in essence it is about our society's treatment of victims of crime. I will be interested to see how members of the Conservative Party end up voting on the bill. Their rhetoric of course is all about law and order. It is all about getting tough on crime. Yet if we look back on all the bills that have been introduced in the House under the auspices of the government's crime agenda, it becomes painfully obvious that it has focused almost exclusively on the offenders and how they are treated by the criminal justice system.

As I have said elsewhere, when those bills made sense, I was proud to stand in my place to support them. Other bills I voted against because in the view of experts they constituted bad public policy. However, throughout the countless hours of debate that we have had on these bills, I do not recount the government bringing forward a single piece of legislation that spoke to the needs of the victims of crime.

Surely we need to be smart on crime and not just tough on crime. Instead of focusing solely on the enforcement side of the law a smart agenda on crime needs to incorporate policies on prevention and it needs to have a plan for assisting the victims of crime.

Historically, the criminal justice system consisted of two parties: the offender and the victim. The victim initiated and handled the prosecution of the offender. That scenario is a far cry from the scenario we have today where the only two parties involved are the offender and the state, and where the victim is at most a witness for the prosecution. Today, a crime is considered to have been committed against the state, not against the victim.

Through years of determination and hard work, the voices of victims began to be heard. Change began when victims themselves began to speak out about the system and its shortcomings. When police and others within the system began to validate what the victims were saying and supporting their message, people began to take notice.

The victims' rights movement in Canada really has its foundation in the feminist movement and the results they obtained for women victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault. In Canada since the early 1980s, victims' organizations like Victims of Violence and CAVEAT have convinced various governments that the role of the victim in the process is an important one and that it should be recognized.

Changes with regard to the Criminal Code and victims' rights legislation were a direct result of the courage displayed by victims who allowed society to benefit from their experience within the system. Their influence is not limited to ensuring that victims have their rights respected throughout the process, but as well with regard to legislation that will prevent future victims. They want to enhance services and promote justice for all victims of crime and tragedy.

It is out of this strong advocacy tradition that support for Bill C-343 has grown.

The impact of serious crimes or tragedies is not just felt by victims in the realm of the criminal justice system. It is felt in all aspects of their lives. With the vast majority of adults participating in the labour force, it is immediately felt in the competing demands of work and family.

Even in the absence of personal tragedies, it is a challenge for working Canadians to meet the demands of both their jobs and their families. According to an Ipsos Reid poll in October of 2000, balancing work with home and personal life was the greatest source of stress for 45% of Canadians. The poll also showed that 42% of Canadians said their stress had increased over the past five years, while 21% said it remained the same.

There are a whole host of reasons for that.

About 70% of women with young children are in the labour force, more than 15% of families with children are led by single parents, the vast majority of them women and 18% of Canada's population has a disability, yet there is still almost no accommodation of their work and family needs.

As the aged population grows, more and more working Canadians are faced with caring for elderly relatives. In fact, one in four Canadians now provides some form of care to an elderly relative. Clearly, balancing work and family life has become a critical problem for workers right across our country.

However, imagine how much worse those already existing pressures become during times of personal tragedy. Imagine the pressures when a child or spouse commits suicide. Put oneself in the shoes of a parent whose child has disappeared. Imagine trying to cope with the aftermath of a child being seriously injured as a result of a criminal offence. What would happen to families whose child or spouse died as a result of a criminal offence.

Thankfully for most of us, those are pressure we may never have to face. However, that does not mean we do not have an obligation to recognize, understand, and accommodate them. That is precisely what the bill before us today is all about.

Many jurisdictions in Canada have already incorporated some provisions dealing with family leave and compassionate care leave into their employment laws. In other areas it has been the labour movement that has fought for these benefits on behalf of its members at the bargaining table. Negotiated agreements often provide much better protection for organized workers than employment standards legislation offers.

However, the labour movement never rests on its laurels. It keeps alive the spirit of CCF/NDP founder, J. S. Woodsworth, by acting on the credo: what we desire for ourselves, we wish for all. In that way the labour movement fights for all workers in our country and not only its membership.

That is why the Canadian Labour Congress, representing over three million workers in Canada, supports the legislation that is before us today. Like members in this House, the congress is keenly aware that the only jurisdiction in Canada that currently has legislation to assist families who are victims of crime is the province of Quebec. That simply is not good enough. Victims' rights should be recognized from coast to coast to coast.

It is true that the Canada Labour Code only sets labour standards for employers and employees under federal jurisdiction. These include sectors, such as air and marine transportation, interprovincial and international rail, road and pipeline transportation, banking, broadcasting, telecommunications and crown corporations. However, as the federal government is often seen as setting the national standard that provinces then follow, it is imperative that these amendments to the Canada Labour Code be adopted.

I will briefly address the details of what the bill proposes. Bill C-343 is a nine clause bill that would modify the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid family leave because of (a) a serious physical injury to their minor child as a result of a serious criminal offence; (b) the disappearance of their minor child; (c) the suicide of their spouse, common-law partner or child; or (d) the death of their spouse, common-law partner or child as a result of a criminal offence.

Importantly, it would then also amend the Employment Insurance Act to allow employees on family leave to receive special benefits.

The precise wording of the bill does raise some questions. Unfortunately, debate at second reading does not allow the author of the bill to respond to concerns in this House. These are not questions for which the answers will determine my support for the bill. I support its intent unequivocally. My concerns are of a more technical nature and I am certain we will be able to work out the details once the bill gets into committee.

However, let me flag them briefly so that, as the member for Compton—Stanstead, we will be aware. Why, for example, does the bill offer 104 weeks of leave for a physical injury that prevents a child from carrying on regular activities, while the disappearance of a child only leads to a maximum of 52 weeks of leave?

Why is family leave restricted to an event that happens to a child or spouse? How about a father or mother or another family member living in the same residence?

The bill deems an injury to a child serious if it “renders the child unable to carry on regular activities”. It is not clear whether regular activities are limited to attending school.

Finally, the bill suggests that nothing prevents an employer from dismissing, suspending or reassigning an employee if the consequences of the criminal offence or the repetitive nature of the leave constitutes a just and sufficient cause. I worry this may contradict what I understood to be the essence of this bill, which is to allow employees to take an unpaid family leave in such circumstances and to be protected from dismissal for this reason.

Again, I am confident we can resolve these issues in committee.

For now I will commend the member for Compton—Stanstead for bringing this bill forward. I look forward to working with the member as we amend Canada's labour laws to support victims of crime.

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Kingsway is absolutely right. Canadian families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. The availability of decent-paying family-sustaining jobs is becoming diminished over time. Moreover, we are sending a really terrible message to our young people when they can no longer count on this place, the Parliament of Canada, to guarantee fair labour practices. They have a right to expect that.

However, despite the very real issue of 420 workers going without pay for this lengthy period of time, they are not making wage increases their primary demand. That is not at the heart of this strike. At the heart of this strike is a fundamental desire to be respected by their employers.

As I outlined earlier in my speech, some of the main issues they are concerned are not about money. It is about contracting out. It is about job security. It is about recognition of seniority. Those are the issues at stake in this dispute.

Once again, I would urge the government to please put the same pressure on the management of the museums as it was so ready to do to the management of the Canadian National Railway. Bring the strike to a fair and just end.

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because the member is absolutely right. The exhibitions, the programs, the services at these two museums are a vital part of our history and indeed by learning from our history, of our future.

I want to draw the attention of the House to this. I do not know how many people listened to CBC Radio this morning, but if I caught the story right, there was a really regrettable incident at the museum this morning. Some of the art was threatened because janitorial staff used chemicals that put the art work in danger. This strike is having a devastating impact on the workers at the museum and also on the art that is a critical part of our national heritage.

We need to end this strike. Canadians value these museums. They value fair labour practices. They stand in solidarity with the 420 men and women of the PSAC. I would urge every member of the House to do the same and support the PSAC workers. They have offered to go back to arbitration.

I urge all members of the government side to talk to management and encourage it also to agree to arbitration. I know this strike can be resolved in that way.

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in my place to speak to this motion and, more important, to stand in solidarity with the striking PSAC workers at the Canadian War Museum and the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I want to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for speaking so eloquently about the impact on our natural heritage and culture as a result of the strike. As the NDP's labour critic, I want to take a few minutes during the time I am allowed to speak this afternoon to talk about the labour issues that are at stake.

As we are aware, 420 workers at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum have been on strike since September 21. That is 80 long days, 80 days during which the union has worked tirelessly to achieve a fair and just collective agreement, 80 days during which management has stonewalled and piled up budget savings on the backs of its employees.

This impasse is not going to end on its own. The Minister of Labour has to act and she has to act now. She cannot leave for the parliamentary recess when she knows that her holidays will mean prolonged days of hell for 420 of the country's best public servants.

Let me remind the House of how we got here.

On March 19, more than eight months ago, the union representing the employees at the museum, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, served its notice to bargain. After 13 negotiating sessions, the parties were unable to come to an agreement. Major concerns regarding contracting out, job security, recognition of seniority and wage parity were all still outstanding. In fact, the parties had signed off on only two of them.

On June 24, the union filed for conciliation. The parties met in mid-August and talks broke down within a few hours. On August 27, the union voted 92% in favour of strike action. The union and the employer met again from September 15 to 18, but talks broke off and, as I said earlier, the employees have been officially on strike since September 21.

Since the strike began, numerous attempts have been made by the union to reach a settlement. Museum workers have attempted to present their concerns to the museum board, but security evicted them from the meeting and did not give them an opportunity to speak. They have approached cabinet ministers, opposition party members and bureaucrats and have held rallies and information pickets, all in an attempt to bring their concerns forward and have them addressed in a meaningful way by management.

On November 17, the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove, said in the House:

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we have been working with both parties since before the strike began and, in fact, for quite some time. This is a very difficult situation for both parties. We encourage them to come back to the table as soon as possible to find a resolution.

As I indicated, I am prepared to appoint an arbitrator, but unfortunately at this time, neither of the parties will agree to that.

Following that statement, the striking workers gave their union a mandate to seek a fair settlement through arbitration, but the employer did not agree and, instead, requested that the parties return to the bargaining table. In good faith, the union accepted.

Negotiations resumed yet again on November 20, but were suspended until November 25 at the request of the employer. On November 26, the employer tabled a without prejudice final offer and the negotiating team decided to put that offer to a vote of the membership.

On November 26, striking workers from the Museum of Civilization and the War Museum reviewed the employer's offer and voted overwhelmingly to reject the corporation's final offer. Hundreds attended the meeting, voting to reject the offer by a margin of 96%.

On November 26, John Gordon, the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, wrote to the Minister of Labour, advising that a negotiated agreement was highly unlikely. He said in his letter:

“At this stage, I believe that the only reasonable solution is to submit the outstanding issues to a third party. This is, in my opinion, a fair solution under the circumstances, but a solution the employer has to date refused to accept.

Given the union's willingness to accept your direct intervention through the appointment of an arbitrator or otherwise, and the employer's refusal to agree to same, immediate action on your and/or Parliament's part is required”.

Since the beginning of the strike, the union has made it very clear to the employer, to the mediator, to members of Parliament and to the general public that what workers at the Museum of Civilization and the War Museum seek are the same terms and conditions of employment as other federal workers doing the same work in the national capital region.

These employees are the only federal museum workers in Ottawa-Gatineau with no job security whatsoever and no recognition of the years of service in a number of critical areas, including career advancement. Their salaries are the lowest among all federal museum workers in the National Capital Region.

Workers at the two museums have little or no job security. The majority of the floor staff, guides, program animators and hosts work on temporary contracts. Most of them have been working from one contract to the other for long periods of time. Out of 55 guides at the museums, only 6 are permanent employees.

The museums do not respect employees' years of service outside of vacation scheduling. This affects layoffs and internal hiring procedures, meaning that managers can hire people or end their contracts on a whim, with no consideration of years of service. Last year, the museums laid off workers, including a woman with over 20 years of service.

I would like to remind the members of the House that women working in precarious or part-time employment are consistently at a high risk of poverty, especially women with children.

Unlike other federal museums in the region, workers at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the War Museum have no opportunity for career advancement under their collective agreement. There are no provisions that give preference to internal candidates when permanent positions become available.

One guide has worked as a “temporary” worker for over eight years. She applied for a permanent position twice, was forced to interview for it both times and ultimately the job was given to a less senior employee. In another case, an administrative worker has been temporary for 19 years.

The current practice, corroborated by the employer at the bargaining table, is to sever temporary employees immediately before they reach the threshold in the collective agreement to become permanent and rehire them under a new contract three weeks later. These employees start from the bottom in terms of salary when rehired and acquire no seniority. These practices are blatantly unfair.

Unlike most other museums in the region, the workers have no protections against contracting out. Security and cafeteria services have already been outsourced to private companies. The remaining workers wonder if their jobs could be next.

Lastly, when compared to colleagues at other museums, workers at the Museum of Civilization and the War Museum are paid the lowest salaries in the National Capital Region. Meanwhile the museums CEO, Dr. Victor Rabinovitch, makes 20% more than any museum CEO in the region, $236,000 a year plus a maximum performance award of $61,400.

It is no wonder that PSAC members are fighting above all for respect; respect from their employer, respect from members of the House and respect from the government they serve.

I urge the minister to show the same respect to museum workers that she showed to the teamsters just a week ago. I would ask her to bring the same pressure to bear on the museum as she did on the management of the Canadian National Railway. In the rail strike it took five days. Surely, after 80 days, PSAC members deserve nothing less.

[Museums Labour Dispute, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as members are no doubt aware, 420 workers at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the War Museum have been on strike since September 21. That is 80 long days; 80 days during which the union has worked tirelessly to achieve a fair and just collective agreement; 80 days during which management has stonewalled and piled up budget savings on the backs of its workers.

These employees are the only federal museum workers in Ottawa-Gatineau with no job security whatsoever and no recognition of their years of service in a number of critical areas, including career advancement. Their salaries are the lowest among all federal museum workers in the national capital region.

This is a female-dominated workplace. I would like to remind members of this House that women working in precarious or part-time employment are consistently at high risk of poverty, especially women with children.

This impasse is not going to end on its own. The Minister of Labour has to act and she has to act now. The 420 of the country's best public servants deserve nothing less.