Chris Charlton

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the City of Hamilton, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 14th, 2009]

With respect to the Government’s agreement with the Government of Ontario to harmonize the Goods and Services Tax and Ontario Provincial Sales Tax: (a) what additional classes of goods and services will the new harmonized sales tax apply to that the GST does not; (b) what additional classes of goods and services will the new harmonized sales tax apply to that the Ontario provincial sales tax does not; (c) owing to this agreement, on an annual basis, how much sales tax revenue does the government project it will lose from (i) corporations, and (ii) consumers; and (d) owing to this agreement, on an annual basis, how much new sales tax revenue does the government project it will collect from (i) corporations, and (ii) consumers?

[Taxation, September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister wants people to believe that he had nothing to do with raising their taxes and yet he offered the McGuinty Liberals in Ontario $4.3 billion if they harmonized their sales tax. That bribe worked and Ontario families will now be paying 8% more on vitamins, transit tickets, power bills and, yes, even funerals.

Increasing the tax burden on hard-working families is simply the wrong approach. Will the finance minister stop playing Ontarians for fools and end this Liberal-Conservative tax grab?

[Petitions, June 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table yet another petition signed by hundreds more people urging Parliament to immediately pass my Bill C-378, to allow hard-working families to access the maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits without worrying that if they lose their job in the meantime, they would also lose their EI.

The petitioners note that one of the barriers preventing workers from accessing EI are 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.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if it would be in order for me to seek unanimous consent so that the other members who are also seeking to table petitions today might be able to do so even if the time provided for presenting petitions expires prior to that.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that Canada certainly is the best place to be living and raising a family, but I do have questions for him, as one might imagine, during this debate.

Last night I had the pleasure of being on a CPAC panel with him and the member for Markham—Unionville. He will recall that the member for Markham--Unionville said that he could not guarantee that out of these negotiations unemployed Canadians would get relief through better access to EI, but the member for Markham--Unionville was hopeful.

As a government member, I wonder if the member opposite might be able to help me out here. The member for Markham—Unionville and his caucus voted for the NDP motion with respect to EI that called for uniform qualifying hours, 360 hours, across the country. It called for better benefits and access for the self-employed.

I just wonder which parts of those are now negotiable for the member for Markham—Unionville, in the process of having conversations with the government, or are these still principles that are being taken to the table?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question was. I suppose the member was saying that how dare we propose a coalition but that they have the right to have a coalition, a Conservative and Liberal coalition. That one apparently is okay, but when other members of Parliament try to work in the best interests of Canadians, that is not the case.

I am not really sure I understand the question, but if he would like to tell me what it was really all about, other than an opportunity to try to perhaps bring some hyperbole into the debate, I would be happy to try to answer it again.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, particularly his profound concern about how the NDP are doing in the polls, especially since he comes from Nova Scotia. Does he remember who was just elected as premier in Nova Scotia? I could have sworn it was a majority NDP government. His concern about our polling number is a bit misplaced.

With respect to EI, the member supported the motion that the NDP put forward. The motion on EI called for four specific things: get rid of the two-week waiting period; 360 hours to qualify for EI with no regional diversion in terms of eligibility and access to employment insurance; better benefits; and access to employment insurance by the self-employed. We do not need more study. He voted for that EI motion and we need it to be implemented.

It is not negotiation when people walk away with absolutely nothing. Not a single step brings one EI recipient closer to improved benefits or one unemployed Canadian closer to having access to EI. That is what the negotiations should have produced, not more study when the solution is before the House.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on this last supply day. I can imagine viewers at home asking themselves, “What the heck is a supply day and what does it have to do with me?”. So I thought I would begin by trying to take a stab at answering both questions.

Tradition holds that Parliament does not grant supply, or the government's spending authority, until the opposition has had an opportunity to demonstrate why it should be refused. As a result, some days of debate are allocated to each opposition party and these are what we call supply days.

In this session of Parliament, the NDP had three such days and it is worth remembering that they are assigned to demonstrate why supply should be refused, not why it should be granted. Our supply days did precisely that. In drafting each of the three motions that were debated on our allotted days, we were governed by whether the government's economic action plan adequately addressed the needs of hard-working families and seniors.

In my riding of Hamilton Mountain and indeed in constituencies right across this country, Canadians are profoundly worried about their jobs, their pensions and their ability to pay their bills. They were counting on the federal government to take bold and strategic steps. They were looking to their members of Parliament to have courage in the face of adversity and so our motions addressed those very fundamental concerns.

I had the privilege of tabling a motion on comprehensive EI reform on behalf of our caucus. The second motion addressed credit card gouging and protecting Canadians from the abusive practices of credit card companies. The third motion dealt with pension reform, so that the very people who built our country can retire with the dignity and respect they deserve.

I am proud to say that all three NDP motions were passed by a majority vote in the House of Commons. In that way, we used our supply days as they were intended. We made strong cases on three of the shortcomings in the government's own economic action plan and we took our opposition role in the House of Commons seriously. Yes, it is our job to oppose, but we also believe that we can only be an effective opposition if we also propose better alternatives.

Fast forward to today. We are debating a Liberal supply day motion that does nothing but demonstrate why the government's spending authority should be granted. In fact, it might as well have been written by the government itself, oh wait, it partially was. It was the Conservative Party that first asked that the House not sit during the week of September 21 to accommodate meetings of the G20, yet here it is at the very heart of the Liberal supply day motion.

To add insult to injury for Canadians, the entire motion deals with amendments to the Standing Orders. I would bet the vast majority of Canadians do not even know what Standing Orders are. They are simply the codified rules of procedure that govern the House. Debating these rules is the ultimate expression of insider baseball. Canadians do not care about amendments to the Standing Orders. That is not what they mean when they ask us to please make Parliament work. They want us to make Parliament work for them, not for us. It is about their jobs, not ours. It is about having their concerns addressed. That is why they sent us here.

However, in their desperation to avoid a summer election, the Liberals put their needs ahead of the needs of working families. It is an absolute disgrace. Thankfully, the media are not letting them get away with it. David Akin wrote in his Hill Times blog that “NDP got billions, Libs got a working group”, cleverly reminding Canadians that when the NDP negotiated with the then minority government of Paul Martin in 2005, it turned $4.6 billion of corporate tax cuts into $1.6 billion for affordable housing, $1.5 billion for post-secondary education, $900 million for transit, $500 million for foreign aid, and $100 million for pension protection.

In 2009 the Liberal leader from Etobicoke—Lakeshore received a working group and an opposition day for supporting the minority government of the Prime Minister. After long hours at the negotiating table, the Liberal leader walked away with nothing of substance in exchange for his continued support of the Conservative government and its failed policies.

Aside from changes to the Standing Orders, all he could manage was a “blue ribbon panel” on employment insurance with limited scope that will not report back until September. That panel is cold comfort to the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians dealing with a deeply flawed EI system. As for the panel being a blue ribbon group, Canadians will be shocked to learn that it is made up solely of politicians and political staff.

However, politicians just passed an NDP motion on comprehensive EI reform in this very session of Parliament. It was endorsed by city councils and labour groups right across this country. We do not need more study. We need to start implementation and unemployed Canadians need that action now, not in September.

Instead, we get a panel that is half made up of Liberals, whose party in the mid-1990s was responsible for gutting EI in the first place, and who stole the $57 billion EI surplus from workers and used it to pay down the debt and deficit. The Conservative half of the panel includes the very cabinet minister who is on record stating that she is worried about EI becoming too lucrative.

The creation of this panel has nothing to do with protecting workers during this economic downturn and has everything to do with protecting the political aspirations of the Liberal and Conservative parties. Canadians need and deserve so much better. It is not as though there are not plenty of issues to choose from. I have already mentioned pensions, immediate EI reform and an end to credit card gouging. However, what about health care, the issue that is consistently top of mind for all Canadians?

There are three heart-wrenching words that no one ever wants to hear: “You have cancer”. However, for nearly 500 Canadians every single day, this diagnosis becomes a new fact of life. Historically, Canada has been a leader in easing that pain by producing medical isotopes used in the diagnosis and treatment of both cancer and heart disease. Now, that production is in peril. Thanks to government mismanagement and neglect, the reactor that produces these isotopes has shut down.

Cancer tests across the country are being cancelled, leaving desperate Canadians in a state of limbo during the most difficult period of their lives. Yet, the Conservative government, like the Liberal one before it, continues to drop the ball. It is too busy vying for political gain and calling cancer “sexy”, even in the face of this life-threatening national health care crisis.

Where was this issue in the so-called negotiations between the Liberal leader and the Prime Minister? Despite initial bluster, the rhetoric dissolved without any demand for real action. Where was the demand for expedited job creation? Unemployment numbers have now reached 400,000 just since the last election.

Despite a deficit that is now spiralling upward of $50 billion, money has still not reached local communities so that they can take advantage of this summer's construction season. The government says that 80% of the infrastructure money has been committed, but one cannot pave roads with press releases. The money needs to flow. Summer is here, but the living is still tough in far too many cities in Canada.

I am having a bit of déjà vu here. Members will recall that the first time I spoke in the House at the beginning of the current Parliament, I pointed out that it was the economic crisis and the government's cavalier response to the fears of Canadians in its fiscal update last fall that precipitated the political crisis of confidence and ultimately the constitutional crisis that shut down this place for two months.

Just when Canadians needed their government the most, the Prime Minister shut the doors on Parliament and effectively said that his need to protect his job was more important than the need to protect the jobs, pensions and savings of hard-working Canadians. Now, a mere six months later, it is happening again.

This time, the chief protagonist is the leader of the Liberal Party. He desperately wants to be prime minister, but he knows that he is not ready. He is having difficulty attracting credible candidates, his party's finances are not competitive, and he has still not been able to articulate what he stands for. Therefore, he has not differentiated himself from the Prime Minister we already have.

Certainly, this week's events will have even more Canadians saying to each other that they cannot see the difference and asking each other if they can. He was desperate to avoid an election at any cost, but his obligation is not to himself. In fact, I would remind all members in the House that it is not all about us. On the contrary, it is not about us at all, or at least it should not be.

We have the privileged opportunity to come to this chamber, not to fight for ourselves but to fight for our constituents. In these uncertain economic times, that means acting decisively to protect the vulnerable, safeguard today's jobs and create the jobs of tomorrow. The Liberals did not just lose the fight; they failed to even show up for it.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the House leader is about one particular part of the opposition day motion before us today, and I will talk a bit more about it later when I get the opportunity to participate in the debate.

My question focuses around the need to adjourn the House during the meeting of the G20. As I understand it, traditionally the Prime Minister and usually the Minister of Foreign Affairs would participate in those meetings. That is two people out of a House of 308 members. I also understand that the government might want to take more people along, but I am assume it would not be more than about half a dozen. That would leave more than 300 people here ready to do the business of the nation.

Could the government House leader explain to me why it is necessary to adjourn the entire House of Commons for one whole week when we are facing an unemployment crisis, a crisis with respect to isotopes and a crisis with respect to job creation? Could it be because the Little Mermaid is opening in New York theatres that week and he wants all of his members to be able to go?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the debate this morning, particularly the exchange between the Conservative member and the member for Wascana. There seems to be the first crack in this new coalition government. I think Canadians will watch what unfolds with great interest.

The question I want to ask this morning is also about EI. It pertains to the so-called blue ribbon panel. I thought this might be interesting, that there might be representatives from the CLC appointed to this panel, that there may be experts on the worker and employer sides who deal with employment insurance every single day.

What do we get? We get a panel of Liberals and Conservatives, two MPs from each party and a political staffer. I am not sure why that is necessary, because frankly all the MPs in this House have already voted on EI.

We already know what this House has decided should happen on EI. The NDP motion on EI passed by a majority vote. Canadians are simply waiting for its implementation. They do not need more study. One and half million Canadians are unemployed. They need action, not more study.