Chris Charlton

[Petitions, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today on behalf of dozens of constituents in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. Specifically, I would like to thank Mr. Daniel Charles who brought this petition to my community office.

The petitioners have highlighted just some of the incidents of the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and indeed throughout the world. Human rights advocates have long documented discrimination against the Christian community in Pakistan and have raised serious concerns about the further marginalization of an already poor and disenfranchised community, yet the state offers virtually no protection.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

The petitioners therefore ask the Government of Canada to use its diplomatic clout with the government of Pakistan to protect Christians from persecution and make them feel safe, secure and equal. In the meantime, they ask the Government of Canada to assist Christians from Pakistan with their applications for refugee status and permanent residency in Canada.

[Canadian Heritage, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, 420 workers have been on strike for almost three weeks at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum. The impact of the strike is of national significance.

The museum has just announced the cancellation of its most important fundraising event and programs have been seriously curtailed, all because the museum's CEO will not negotiate the same job security protections that are already in place at other federal museums and institutions.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage go beyond the lip service offered earlier by the parliamentary secretary and take real action to pressure the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation to get back to the bargaining table?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, much has been said this morning about the exclusive privilege that we are trying to protect for the Canada Post Corporation. The member has given some eloquent comments about the concerns with respect to the bill.

It seems to me, though, what is most important is the link between that exclusive privilege and the protection of decent paying jobs in our communities.

The member, when asked by the Minister of State if she would vote for or against the bill. said that the Liberals would support it for now and see if they could improve it, but in the end she had no idea what the final position would be, which under most circumstances is fair enough. We often try to improve bills in the House. However, how do we improve on deregulation when we know it inevitably leads to privatization? We cannot suggest that if we improve the bill, it will make things better. We will have good deregulation as opposed to bad privatization.

It seems the member is trying to have it both ways. It is a bit like being a little bit pregnant, frankly.

I will follow up on the question asked earlier by the Minister of State. Could we get a categorical yes or no? Is the member in favour of deregulating Canada Post? Is she aware that it will lead to privatization? Does the member support that agenda?

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, it is absolutely critical for us to vote on packages as a whole because we do not have the opportunity to pick and choose.

One of the problems with the government is that it wants to choose its own winners and losers. I come from Hamilton where our steel sector is being devastated. Forestry sectors are being devastated in other parts of the country. We need a comprehensive package to fight this recession, not—

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had been here to vote against all of those things. Unfortunately, I was not elected at that time. The member appears to be going back four years before I was elected here.

However, during that particular election campaign in 2006, I remember my constituents saying that the Liberals had been in power for 13 years and had promised early child care for 13 years, had promised significant help for aboriginal communities for 13 years, and had talked about the Kyoto accord and acting on that, although not for 13 years because they were late converts to that process, but, nonetheless, for a significant amount of time before that election.

For 13 years the Liberals talked but they did not act and did not deliver. I think the representation that constituents deserve is not just MPs who talk the talk but members of Parliament who will walk the talk.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome that suggestion because it would help the hard-working families and seniors who are trying to do the right thing, not just by stimulating the economy but who rather are serious about maintaining retrofitting, greening their homes and who do want to do their bit to help us fight climate change. I think an extension of the program would absolutely be welcomed by them.

More important, we need to have a look at the people who are involved in providing the labour for those home renovations. This economic downturn is having a devastating impact on them as well. One of the things I worry about, because the HST, starting in July 2010, will be applied to the services they provide for home renovations, is that entire part of our economy will be driven underground.

By extending the home renovation tax credit, not only would it help homeowners, but it would ensure that part of our economy would not to be operating underground but would be participating as normal participants in this economy. Although the government always seems to be in a rush to support big businesses and banks, it needs to ensure it does its fair share to protect the small businesses in all of our communities.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

That is right. Canadians' federal tax dollars are hard at work buying them a big fat provincial tax increase. No wonder voter cynicism and apathy is so high. Canadians are rightly asking themselves whether anyone is committed to making Parliament work for them.

I am proud to say that New Democrats are doing just that. We are absolutely committed to making Parliament work for the seniors who built this country and for the hard-working families who need their government's help to survive this devastating recession.

I ran for public office because I wanted to fight for residents of Hamilton Mountain and to stand up for our community. Before I was elected, we had a government MP representing us for 13 years. Yet, the concerns of our riding were rarely articulated and even more seldomly acted upon by the government. While some may believe it is important to elect an MP from the government side, our experience in Hamilton Mountain suggests the opposite. Instead of electing a yes person to the Prime Minister, Hamilton Mountain residents know that it is much more likely that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I take that responsibility seriously and I am proud to stand up for my community. That is why my very first motion in the House was on comprehensive reform on seniors' issues. It dealt with everything from income security to health care to drug costs to safe and affordable housing, and for lifelong opportunities for learning and recreation. I was thrilled when that motion passed in the House. In fact, I am delighted to see that some of the principles embodied in that motion are now reflected in the bill that is before us today.

The amendments to the Canada pension plan in Bill C-51 clearly enhance the income security of seniors, particularly those who want or need to collect their CPP before the age of 65.

Similarly, I had the privilege of tabling a motion on comprehensive EI reform in the spring of this year. That motion too passed in the House. In Ontario, where the recession has hit the manufacturing sector particularly hard, the ripple effect of job losses has impacted workers in the biggest plants and in the smallest of businesses. Those workers are the truly innocent victims of this recession and they deserve the government's help.

Some say that the latest round of EI reforms brought forward by the government was not enough, and that is absolutely right. However, it will help over 180,000 laid off workers and, by extension, their families. How could I not support that?

It reminds me of the story of the man walking along a beach. The sun was shining and it was a beautiful day. Off in the distance he could see a girl going back and forth between the surf's edge and the beach. Back and forth this child went, picking up a starfish and throwing it into the water. As the man approached, he could see that there were thousands of starfish stranded on the sand as a result of the natural action of the tide. The man was struck by the apparent futility of the task. There were far too many starfish. Many of them were sure to perish.

As he approached, the girl continued the task of picking up starfish one by one and throwing them into the surf. As he came up to her he said, “You must be crazy. There are thousands of miles of beach covered with starfish. You can't possibly make a difference”. The girl looked at the man, stooped down, picked up one more starfish and threw it back into the ocean. She turned back to the man and said, “It sure made a difference to that one”.

That is what working in Parliament is like. We do not always win every fight, but we will lose them all if we are not even in them. Often, even the smallest victory makes a profoundly positive difference for thousands of Canadians. That is why, lost in all of the partisanship that drives the media coverage of this place, much of the really productive work on behalf of our constituents goes largely unnoticed.

Many observers were surprised last week that New Democrats would vote in support of a government motion. The inference was that it was unprecedented in the House. Despite the fact that I am as fiercely partisan as any other member in the House, I have actually voted with the Conservatives 37 times on government legislation and I am going to do it again on this bill. The test for me is simply whether the matter before the House is good public policy.

When we had to put an end to the Liberals' election financing run amok, I voted with the government to improve accountability after the sponsorship scandal. When we had the opportunity to deal more effectively with criminals convicted of offences involving firearms, I voted with the government.

When we established the Public Health Agency of Canada, I voted with the government. When we amended the Youth Criminal Justice Act, I voted with the government. When we protected the safety and security of Canadians with respect to human pathogens and toxins, I voted with the government and I did it again when we amended the Employment Insurance Act to increase benefits. To me, that is the essence of good representation.

Yes, it is the role of opposition parties to oppose and expose the weaknesses of government proposals in debate, but we are doing that because we are motivated by wanting to effect change that will improve the lives of our constituents. That is how we make Parliament work. It is by voting in favour of good public policy and against flawed pieces of legislation. Because no bill is ever perfect, sometimes members have to weigh the pros and cons in making their decisions.

The bill before us today is a case in point. I support the first part, as I have outlined. Some of the changes to the CPP are not just welcome but overdue. The extension of the CBC's borrowing limit is something that New Democrats have been advocating for months. The housekeeping amendments on other items in the bill are necessary, albeit not remarkable.

The only clause that gives me pause is the one relating to the Bretton Woods agreement and I want to reserve my right to speak against that at a later time. As always, the devil is in the details and when it comes to amendments proposed by the International Monetary Fund, due diligence demands closer scrutiny.

Again, we cannot pick and choose which parts of this bill we support and which we oppose. Our role in the House is to cast a straight up and down yes or no vote and, taken on the whole, I am proud to support this bill on behalf of my constituents.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-51. I will not surprise anyone in the House by saying that NDP members will be voting in favour of the bill. The entire first part of the bill implements the ways and means motion that we supported in the House just last month.

In particular, I want to highlight the inclusion in the bill of the first time home buyers' tax credit and the home renovation tax credit. Both of these measures have been well received in communities right across the country, and although it may be hard to believe inside the bubble of Ottawa, most Canadians had actually thought that the home renovation tax credit had been enacted long ago. Why else, after all, would the government be spending so many tax dollars promoting this program on television and on those big envelopes it is distributing for saving receipts?

Canadians did what their government asked of them. They stimulated their local economies by investing in home renovations, assured by their government that they would be eligible for a tax credit if they spent the money before February 1 of next year.

Let us not kid ourselves, voting against this tax credit now, after our constituents have spent their money in good faith, would be victimizing them yet again during the worst recession since the Great Depression. My constituents deserve better. All constituents deserve better. When I tell them that I am here to make Parliament work for them, I will walk that talk by voting in favour of this measure. No, it is not good enough to vote against this measure now and say we will implement it later, just look at what is ahead on the horizon.

In the 2009-10 provincial budget, the McGuinty Liberals announced that they would be harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the federal government's goods and services tax, effective July 1, 2010. This is terrible news for Ontarians because many items that we need and use every single day, from gas and electricity to newspapers and the Internet will now be subject to a full 8% tax increase at the point of purchase. It will also be charged on all labour costs incurred during home renovations. If the home renovation tax credit is delayed, any benefit from the program will largely be eaten up by the increased tax burden of the HST.

While I am on the HST, let me add this. This blatant tax grab might never have happened had the federal Conservative government not bribed its provincial Liberal counterparts to introduce it. Apparently Dalton McGuinty was reluctant to introduce such an unfair tax during this recession, so the federal finance minister urged him along by offering the Ontario government an additional $4.3 billion of federal tax money to introduce this new tax increase.

[Petitions, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table yet another petition today signed by hundreds of people from all over Quebec urging Parliament to immediately pass Bill C-378 to allow hard-working families to access their maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits without worrying that if they lose their jobs in the meantime they will lose their EI.

The petitioners note that one barrier preventing workers from accessing EI is the anti-stacking provisions found within the Employment Insurance Act. These discriminatory provisions prevent new mothers in particular who have secured the full amount of “special” benefit entitlements from accessing regular benefits if they lose their jobs during or shortly after these specially sanctioned leaves.

The petitioners are keenly aware that in the current economic downturn, layoff announcements are coming daily, and they want to ensure that these discriminatory provisions of the EI Act are eliminated.

I am pleased to say that my Bill C-378 would indeed address those concerns. I very much appreciate the support of the petitioners on this very important issue for thousands of working families.

[Petitions, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition in the House of Commons on behalf of a large number of people who are concerned about gasoline prices and the fact that the government is doing nothing to help ordinary working families who are getting hosed at the pumps.

In fact, the petitioners are keenly aware that the government is making things worse rather than better. By offering the Liberal government in Ontario $4.3 billion to implement the harmonized sales tax, the federal Conservative government has just added another 8% tax to a commodity that many of the petitioners need every single day to get to and from work, to look for new jobs, or to keep a doctor's appointment.

The petitioners no longer have faith that the government will protect their interests as consumers. They do believe, however, that my private member's bill, formerly Bill C-442, now Bill C-286, which calls for the creation of an oil and gas ombudsman, will provide strong, effective consumer protection to make sure no big business could swindle, cheat or rip off hard-working Canadians.

The petitioners therefore call upon the Parliament of Canada to give speedy passage to Bill C-442 to help consumers fight the gas price squeeze.