David Christopherson

[Railway Operations Legislation, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We would like to submit for your consideration that it is inappropriate and out of order for us to proceed to the vote and the point of order is predicated on the following.

The motion itself reads in part that the bill:

--shall be disposed of as follows: (a) commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown....

Mr. Speaker, our difficulty is that this motion, if passed, would have the House deal with this bill from first reading through to third with no interruption until it is concluded.

The difficulty, as we see it, is that this bill was already dealt with at first reading on February 23 and, therefore, there has already been an adjournment between what technically and formally has been the first reading and we would argue then that technically we are on second reading. Therefore, it is not possible for the House to comply with the motion given that we have already had an adjournment that has broken the process that the bill outlines.

To support that, Mr. Speaker, I would bring to your attention chapter 12 of Marleau and Montpetit at page 474 where it says in part, referring to the requirement and duty of the Speaker to ensure that everything is in order, “--and that it contains no objectionable or irregular wording”.

Given the fact that the wording not only does not work in compliance, it cannot possibly work as being actual wording that is acceptable. Basically, the wording is imperfect. Imperfect bills are not allowed to go through.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with both those things in mind and with the supporting evidence, we would ask you to consider that the bill is out of order and needs to be ruled on appropriately.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 23rd, 2007]

Yes, and it was $20 billion 10 years ago and the alarm was raised by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who said that Canada could do better. He said then that Canada had a bigger obligation than it was providing for people who find themselves without a job. Now, 10 years later, not nearly enough has happened.

As for this $50 billion, let us be clear about it right off the bat. Unlike most things that we deal with here, and notwithstanding the Speaker's ruling regarding whether this bill requires a royal recommendation or not, the fact remains that none of that $50 billion is what we would normally call taxpayers' money.

Let me say that again because it is really important: the $50 billion surplus that now exists in the EI fund is not taxpayers' money. That money is paid in premiums by workers and employers.

Obviously employees pay because they are the ones to benefit. They have an obligation to pay part of the premiums to support the fund. I have no problem with that.

Quite frankly, businesses are paying into the fund because they are in a society and an economy in Canada where they can make a lot of money. We have a great economy in this country, and if they are going to take some of that money by way of profit for their company, they have certain obligations to the rest of the country. One of those obligations is to put some money, by way of premiums, into a fund that helps deal with the catastrophe of what happens when a working family loses a job.

So what are we asking for today in Bill C-265? Is the member asking for such an enormous amount? Is this such an unreasonable, wild-eyed, lefty and kind of crazy idea? Is that what the member has in front of us? No, it is quite the contrary.

Bill C-265 seeks to do two main things. In doing these two things, the member for Acadie—Bathurst is trying to bring justice to this issue because there is a real and inherent unfairness in this chamber and, quite frankly, we have had enough of government members talking to us about the broader context, which is what I heard them talk about this morning.

They say the reason we cannot do this for workers is that we have to look at the broader context. Those members should not talk to us about the broader context when only 32% of the women who pay EI premiums qualify and when only 37% of men who pay EI premiums qualify.

Members of the government talk about 85%. Do not be snowed by them. If we look carefully, the 85% speaks to those who are eligible. We were sort of wondering where did the other 15% go because they are already eligible, but there are people who are eligible who get a job immediately, which is the usual case, or perhaps they do not apply because they know they are going to another job or are in the process of moving. There are reasons that that 15% exists. Do not for a moment let government members or Liberals who defend this also say that the 85% negates the earlier statistics. The 85% represents those who qualify. If people qualify, they are going to get it.

We are talking about people who do not qualify because the rules of eligibility are too narrow. That is why only 32% of women and only 37% of men now qualify.

Let us stand back and look at a different broader context. There is $50 billion in a fund that is there exclusively to help Canadians who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. The rules, however, are set in such a way that only 32% of all the women and 37% of all the men who pay premiums actually qualify to get the benefit.

Let us think about that. Let us think about people and their family members and how many are making those payments. They look at their pay stubs and that money is coming off every week or every two weeks, but it is insurance. It is insurance against disaster.

When that job loss notice lands on the kitchen table, there are literally millions of families who immediately go into crisis. This money is there to help them through that. Where does the government or any other government get off saying they cannot have that money because somehow it is going to wreck the national economy? The money is already there. Businesses have done what they are supposed to do. Workers have done what they are supposed to do. Why is the government not doing what it is supposed to do and making sure that much needed money gets into the hands of the families that need it?

That is why we are so proud to stand here with our colleague, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, in support of Bill C-265. It brings much needed justice to unemployed workers and their families who quite frankly are getting shafted, whether it is by the Conservatives or the Liberals, but it is time it stopped. It ought to stop with this bill. Let us bring some fairness to this place and give people what they are entitled to.

We are proud to stand united with the member. We urge everyone to please look at this. It is a minority government. We can do anything as individual parliamentarians. Members should ask themselves if it was their son or daughter, or mom or dad who was denied eligibility to a fund they paid into, how they would feel about that in terms of Canadian justice. This bill is about justice for workers. It deserves to pass.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-265.

I would first like to join other colleagues from all parties who have acknowledged the work done by the member for Acadie—Bathurst and the commitment he has to this issue and to unemployed people.

As a relative newcomer to this place, I want to say that he sets a real example and is an excellent role model. A lot of the veteran members tell us, at least they did before the minority governments, to spend the first couple of years getting to know the ropes, how the place works and what our role is, and to get things settled in our ridings, but to eventually get to the point where we focus on an area that matters, an area that matters to us, matters to our constituents and makes a difference to the country.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst has done that and I think he has done it in an exemplary way, to the point that in 1998-99 he travelled across the entire country, visited every province and one of the territories, which at that time was 50%, and came up with a report that spoke to the inadequacies of EI, then called UI, at that time.

That is almost 10 years ago. As a footnote, let me tell members what I noticed as I was going through the report. The second sentence notes that in 1998 the accumulated UI surplus, as it was called then when it was unemployment insurance, reached $20 billion.

What an enormous number that is until we compare it to the number that exists today and that happens to be $50 billion in surplus.

[The Budget, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Hamilton Centre watched this week's budget announcement closely, hoping for something, anything, that would alleviate the growing challenges they face every day, but for Hamilton and other municipalities, there was only disappointment.

There was nothing for our public transit system. Improving the HSR is a priority for my hometown of Hamilton, but the government still will not provide long term funding to municipalities and it still will not develop a national transit plan.

There was nothing to help the one-quarter of Hamilton's children who live in poverty, this from a government that only cares about wealthy oil companies and big banks.

There was nothing to meet our Kyoto targets or for the environment, even though Hamilton suffers the equivalent of three weeks of unbreathable air every year.

There was nothing to help build public housing, nothing for post-secondary student debt and nothing to help new Canadians have their professional credentials recognized, another Conservative promise broken.

It is shameful that with a $13 billion surplus, Hamiltonians woke up the day after the budget no better off than they were the day before.

[Transfer Payments, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, sending the NDP's gas tax transfer to cities is good news but the Federation of Canadian Municipalities says:

The bad news is that the Budget fails to deliver a long-term strategy to meet the challenges in our cities and communities, particularly to erase the $60-billion municipal infrastructure deficit, fix the municipal fiscal imbalance, provide Canadians with the transit options they need, or help new immigrants settle.

When will the minister start showing the same respect and commitment to our cities that he continues to show to his corporate buddies in the oil and gas sectors?

[Petitions, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present today from the Canadian Polish Congress, Hamilton Branch.

As a result of the Republic of Poland now being a successful member of the European Union since 2004 and given that Poland is an active participant in NATO, the petitioners are asking and I am pleading with the House to please consider lifting the issue of visas for those coming in from Poland.

Given the relationship that Poland has with this country and with the world, it is borderline insulting that we are asking Canadians to have their relatives use visas. This needs to be changed.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the Six Nations land claim dispute in Caledonia. This situation has caused tremendous hardship and upset for all the people involved.

The root of this problem is the chronic buck-passing between the federal and provincial governments. Even the federal fact-finder, Professor Michael Coyle, said that a solution will not be possible until the federal Conservatives and the provincial Liberals resolve their own differences over land claims.

Recently, Professor Coyle said that the existing process offers no adequate mechanisms for resolving the disagreement. Intergovernmental squabbling will not get the job done. It will not settle this claim and it will not heal this community.

The Canadian Constitution makes it clear that the federal government has the sole responsibility for dealing with land claims. A successful conclusion rests with the federal government and the Conservatives have not been up to the job. They did not get it done.

It is the lawful, moral and ethical duty of the Conservative government to end this nightmare, so that peace can return to all the people of Caledonia. One year is one year too long.

[Canada Revenue Agency, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the only example of neglect we have seen at the Canada Revenue Agency. The Auditor General reported this month that taxes on foreign incomes were not being investigated or collected either. In fact, in Toronto, which has 40% of the workload, there are no investigators with international tax expertise.

When will the revenue minister stop neglecting her duties and make corporate Canada pay up, just like they make everybody else pay up?

[Canada Revenue Agency, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, an internal audit at Canada Revenue Agency has revealed that the government is unwilling to investigate big corporations for fear of harming relations with them. That fear is costing ordinary Canadians about $1.4 billion in owed corporate taxes. That is equivalent to the income tax paid by almost 400,000 ordinary Canadians earning $40,000 a year.

Why is the government increasing the prosperity gap between the middle class and the big corporations instead of making those corporations pay their fair share?

[Committees of the House, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think if anybody was listening, they would be a little confused. To hear the debate today one would think we were talking about globalization, good or bad, or Canada's role in globalization. We are nowhere near anything quite that lofty.

We are talking about a change in the World Trade Organization rules as a result of China joining. We are asking the government right now to avail itself of a clause that would allow it to take steps to protect Canadian jobs from now until the end of 2008. How does saving Canadian jobs become controversial in this place? How does saving Canadian jobs become something other than the unanimous position of the entire House?

I want to bring this debate to its proper level and talk about the people who are being affected. They are the reason we are asking this to be done. Let us keep in mind that the Conservatives took a position prior to the last election. In a news release their international trade critic said:

A Conservative government would stand up for Canadian workers and work proactively through international trade policies to ensure Canada competes on a level playing field.

The Conservative government should do it. Why the debate? The government has the power and the support of the House. Why do we have to get on bended knee and beg for Canadian jobs when there are clauses to lawfully protect them? It is outrageous.

People are scared. They do not understand why we are not using the same clause that the European Union used to save its jobs. The United States saved its jobs. Other jurisdictions around the world availed themselves of this clause and saved their jobs. The Conservative government is prepared to say bye-bye to Canadian jobs. For what? The Conservatives folded up before they even said there was a fight.

I want to read into the record from the meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade in December of last year. Ms. Wynne Hartviksen from the National Office of UNITE HERE Canada, the union representing these workers, said:

My name is Wynne Hartviksen and I am the communications and political action director for UNITE HERE Canada. Our union represents 50,000 workers across Canada and a wide range of industries. Our members work in hotels and restaurants and social service agencies and in autoparts plants. For the past century, we have represented Canadian garment workers. It's those workers in that industry we want to talk to you about today.

At the beginning of 2002, tariffs began to be lifted on many categories of apparel and textile products from China.

This resulted, of course, from China joining the WTO. She continued:

On January 1, 2005, all WTO-sanctioned quotas on apparel imports from China were also removed. Since that time, there has been a severe market disruption in the Canadian apparel industry, with imports from China rising in some product categories by a shocking 200%. Following the elimination of the decades-old apparel-quota system, many countries, most notably the United States and the European Union, moved to impose time-limited restrictions on the growth of specific apparel imports into their domestic markets, as allowed for under article 242 of China's WTO accession agreement.

That means when it agreed to join the WTO. She went on to say:

These restrictions, which are known as safeguards, allow countries to cap the growth of imports from China in specific apparel categories to 7.5% each year, from the past year until the end of the calendar year 2008.

This combination of events--the lifting of the quotas in 2005, and the fact that the U.S. and the EU both moved to implement safeguards--has left the Canadian domestic apparel market even more vulnerable to surging imports from China, the global leader in apparel production. As the EU and the U.S. safeguard measures reduced the flow of Chinese exports to the world's two largest markets, ours has been accessed more readily to fill the void.

With all these facts, we've been left to wonder why. Why is the new Canadian government not acting to stand up for Canadian jobs? Why has the government not moved to utilize the same WTO-sanctioned safeguard measures as the U.S., the EU, Brazil, Turkey, and--just in September of this year--South Africa have all used to protect their domestic industry and their local jobs? Why is one of the bedrock manufacturing industries in this country not allowed the same chances as its counterparts in most of the developed world?

Workers in this industry like Radika are the ones paying the price for this competitive disadvantage and simply want their government to utilize the same measures—safeguards—as many of our major trading partners have already used.

Why will the government not do it?

Are we so frightened of the Chinese that we are prepared to allow ourselves to be beaten up to prove to them that we want to be their buddy? This is ridiculous.

Here is someone from my riding of Hamilton who was at that committee meeting and said:

My name is Radika Quansoon, and I live in Hamilton, Ontario. I've worked for Coppley Apparel Group for about 22 years. We manufacture men's clothing. There are about 400 people who work for Coppley, and we make high-end suits, some of which some of you guys may be wearing here.

About 90% of the Coppley staff in Hamilton are women and immigrants. Over 75% of the women there can't even read or speak English.

We have jobs that allow us to support our families. We are skilled workers who take pride in our high-end, quality products. The problem is that our industry is under serious pressure. We wonder if our jobs will be there five years from now.

Levi's closed down in Hamilton, and most of the people there came to our company, but we could only take so many.

We work at good-quality, union-wage manufacturing jobs to support our families. What I'm trying to say is that we just need to save our jobs.

If these people cannot count on their own government to stand up and save their jobs when there is a legal framework to do it, then what hope do they have? This is outrageous.

These are some of the issues that other members have talked about in terms of globalization. They are all valid arguments. Let us have that debate. We need it in this nation in a bad way. Certainly, NAFTA is not serving our needs.

When we are faced with an issue where we are given a legal process by which we can mitigate the job losses until the end of 2008, I defy anyone to stand up in this place and say why we would not do that, particularly when our major trading partners, the European Union and the United States as the best examples, have taken advantage of it for their workers.

Why are we not doing this for Canadian jobs? They are just as important as anyone else. My friends, their children are going to be just as hungry as anybody else's children when there is no money for food.

This is a matter of decency, not legislation. We owe it collectively, and the government specifically, to begin the process that mitigates the damage that will be done until the end of 2008 and that Canadian workers are entitled to.