David Christopherson

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do know what LICO is. It is “low income cut-off”. I understand how all of that works.

But before I go there, I want to talk about the member's preamble. It is worse than I thought.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I do accept the member correcting me. If the member says that is the wording, I accept that and I stand corrected.

But it is worse than I thought; do not tell me that. I was concerned that this House really cared and there was a whole lot of passion for the issue and then they just dropped the ball or went on to other things. Now the member tells me it really did not matter, that the prime minister of the day did it as a nicety to the member for Ottawa Centre who was leaving. Come along. That cannot be. That cannot be the case.

If it is, then I would say shame on those members who pretended it was something else. They should have made sure that there was something else that was meaningful. It is too bad I cannot ask a question, because I would have asked the member in return whether or not he thinks that 15 years of doing not enough, which is leading to increased poverty, is the answer.

I realize the member is having great fun with this and laughing and joking. I am glad the member finds it all so humourous and amusing. I accept the fact that he must be a world-renowned expert; he wrote a book. That is great. What I would like to see is the member standing in this place and introducing a bill, given that he is in the governing party, that really does put some substantive meat around the issue of child poverty, rather than standing up and showing off by telling us what a great academic he is.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and I very much appreciate your say in it, because as I said from the beginning and all the way through, it is directed to Bill C-22, very much so.

The speeches from the government side of the House have talked about what a wonderful benefit this is going to be to Canadians. I am making the argument that one can restructure departments all one wants, but if programs and money are not actually being put in place that are going to help people on the ground, in their homes and communities where it matters, then Bill C-22 is not worth the paper it is printed on.

That is my point and that is why I make the point that it is germane to this argument, very germane. It is not surprising that it is a government member who wants to stop me, because the government is trying to make out that this is a big deal. It is not a big deal. Children going to sleep hungry in Canada, that is a big deal. That is a huge deal.

We will probably hear somebody from the government talk about the national child care program. That is wonderful. I am glad it is happening. The government promised it often enough. It looks like it is actually going to happen. I would make the submission that it is only happening because we are in a minority government situation. That is the only reason this is on the agenda in the way that it is.

This minority House can work for Canadians. This is just another example. I believe that if we had a majority government Bill C-22 would be framed as the be-all and end-all of what this government is going to do to deal with social service issues, which means dealing with people in Canada who live in poverty and need help. But because it is a minority government, that is not going to be good enough.

It is just like bringing in the pension plan was, which by the way happened because the CCF, the predecessor to the NDP, held a minority Liberal government to account. That is how we got the Canada pension plan. That is how we got universal health care. Tommy Douglas started in Saskatchewan. It was a minority government situation where the Liberals were forced to introduce it. If we look at the history, we can see that historically the Liberals for decades have made wondrous promises many times over. This is another one.

I do not remember the Prime Minister talking about creating a new Department of Social Development as the be-all and end-all, and it is not. In fact, I am not sure it is going to make much difference at all. We are going to support it. I will be clear about that. We are not against it. There is not a lot to be for or against. It is a restructuring of a department. I would be much happier if I did not have to use parliamentary gymnastics to tie in arguments about child poverty in the bill that is in front of us. I wish we were dealing strictly and substantively with the issue of child poverty rather than clouding it with this, but this is the only opportunity we have and we are going to grab every one we can.

I am hoping that somebody from the government will help me understand during the 10 minutes of questions and comments where exactly the government thinks it is in terms of honouring the pledge of eradicating child poverty when the current national statistics are showing us going in the opposite direction. For those colleagues on the government benches who are going to speak after me and no doubt praise Bill C-22 to high heaven, I hope they will move from their prepared texts and explain to Canadians why their government failed them.

It is not just the Liberals; they have to take the primary responsibility as they are the government, but they are not the only ones who have an obligation in this. It is all of us. That was a unanimous decision of the House. That should mean something. So when the government members stand and brag about Bill C-22, I want to hear them tell us where they think we are in terms of dealing with child poverty, because I do not see it.

I do not see it. I do not see a lot of real passion on this issue. I am not here every minute of every day. I have not heard it a lot. I can name a couple of colleagues who have addressed it, but not nearly as many as I have heard talk about debt reduction or interest rates or free trade. Those are all very important, but I would like to think that in the Canadian House of Commons we at least equate with that the eradication of child poverty, if not make it a higher priority.

That is not the only area where we have serious problems as a society. It all fits together, because Bill C-22 talks about the structure of one particular department. That structure of that department within the overall context of the obligations of this government, the national Parliament, to all Canadians extends beyond just the niceties of how the department is structured.

The cutbacks to provinces by the current Prime Minister when he was the finance minister have a lot to do with this. That even has a lot to do with the statistics I read out about what is going on in Hamilton and the challenges we face, because someone like former Premier Mike Harris used the cuts of the federal government as an excuse to cut transfer payments to municipalities, to cut money for programs to support the very people this department is supposed to help.

Does the House remember that in 1995, upon receiving a majority government, the then newly elected premier, Mike Harris, cut the income of the poorest of the poor by 21.6%? They were people who were already in poverty, the majority of whom were children. They were already in poverty, the poorest of the poor. He cut their incomes by 21.6%.

Can we imagine what would happen in the House if the government House leader stood up and said that government would introduce a bill that would roll back MPs' wages by 21.6%? It would take weeks to peel the members of Parliament off the ceiling, yet I do not recall the national government or the House having too much to say at all when that was going on in the most populous province of this country.

I understand the constitutional responsibilities here, but my point is that this national House has an obligation. Where were the voices? Where were the new departments? I see my Liberal friend getting a little edgy over there. Where were the Bill C-22s of the day to stop that sort of thing? Where were they?

For that matter, I have to say that a whole lot of people have to take responsibility, because the reality is that due to the dynamics at that time there was hardly any outcry at all. There was hardly a peep because the politics of the day and the dynamics were such that the poor were to blame for their own circumstances. It was their fault. Since it was their fault, it was perfectly okay for the government to cut back their income; that will teach them. That was the feeling at the time.

I point it out not just as a historical civics lesson, but to show the climate in this nation, this very wealthy nation of such privilege, to show that something like that could happen in the most populous province with hardly a peep from anyone. Where were the grandiose speeches then, the speeches condemning a government that would do that? Where were new laws, the Bill C-22s of the day, to step in and ensure that a government could not do that or it would offset it in some way but it would for goodness' sake do something? To just stand back and let the poorest of the poor have their incomes cut by 21.6% is unfathomable but true. It happened.

That is what I thought the resolution of the House 15 years ago was about, about making sure that did not happen and that where we discovered challenges we would do something about them.

I would be a lot happier if we had a bill in front of us that would actually do something concrete for individuals and children who are in poverty. We have not even begun to talk about those who have physical disabilities, psychiatric disabilities and all kinds of other problems where programs and supports that once existed are now gone due to cuts. Boy, that is a whole debate for the House too.

I apologize to members for being as loud as I am, but it is just so frustrating when we know that we can do better. I believe that every member here cares; I really do. It is just a matter of taking that caring and making sure that it translates at least as strongly as some people feel about debt reduction and free trade into thoughts about children in poverty and families in poverty, especially as we are heading into the Christmas season.

We should think about that and recognize that we have an obligation. We have not collectively met that obligation. We have a chance now in a minority government for all of us to pull together. A little bit more than Bill C-22 is what will be needed.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

I will make it louder for the member because when it comes to child poverty, I will be heard. Every New Democrat will be as loud as they can everywhere they can. The fact of the matter is--

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. As previous government speakers have mentioned, Bill C-22 is pretty much housekeeping. We do not claim to try to characterize it as anything less than that, but it is certainly nothing more.

I spend time on the reality of the work that should be done at the national level to ensure we do not have the kinds of poverty we see in Canada. The bill is about the government's suggestion for a structure to deal with this issue.

I would be far more interested in having the House review the comments of my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie, our social services critic. He gave an outstanding speech, from his heart and from his own experience with his riding. He talked about his experience with food banks. He talked about what he did in the Ontario legislature, when he and I were there together. He fought to ensure that the issue of poverty was on the agenda. He relentlessly made sure no one would forget that children were going hungry. He has carried that passion and commitment over to this place. I am not the least bit surprised that his first formal maiden speech was on that very issue. I urge members to take a moment to review his speech. Then I think members will understand why I make these comments.

I will begin my remarks by acknowledging that in the NDP, and in our predecessor, the CCF, we like to believe our raison d'être is to deal with the issue of inequalities in society. While I will say some things that are similar to colleagues in the Bloc, there may be some parts with which they may some difficulty. We will have questions and answers at which time we can deal with those.

I want to talk about the fact that Tommy Douglas was recently chosen as the Greatest Canadian . He was known as one of the leading voices beyond his lifetime. He spoke up for the average citizen. Unfortunately, for far too many average Canadians, barely existing is far too often the reality for them, particularly children.

I know some people like to stereotype folks who are on social assistance, and we can play all the games we want. They are games and they are untrue. However, we cannot begin to put any kind of an acceptable face on child poverty.

Before I became a member and after, I watched the passions that were aroused around the issue of child pornography, and rightly so. What I and the rest of us in the NDP would like to see is that same kind of passion aroused over the issue of child poverty. Make no mistake, they are both violence against children.

Our country is one of the richest in the world. Parliament has failed in the commitment it made to its own people 15 years ago, almost to the month. The current member for Ottawa Centre, then the member for Oshawa, introduced a motion, which was passed unanimously by the House, to set a national goal of eliminating child poverty. Where are we today? A report by the National Council of Welfare states that the poverty rates among children are going up.

The House, and any member who was there at the time that motion was passed, has a responsibility to eliminate child poverty. This has not happened. Who is accountable? Who is responsible? Who cares?

I hear the Prime Minister of the day talk about his big commitment to goals around the Holy Grail, debt reduction. Fair enough, debt reduction is important. Would someone tell me why debt reduction is a bigger priority than child poverty. The House spoke unanimously to this 15 years ago. It was not just one party or the governing party, the entire House unanimously said that child poverty was a priority. It seems that right after the motion was passed it was filed away.

It seems that right after the motion was passed it was filed away. Members forget about it. They did their nice little motherhood stuff for the day. They all said wonderful things about children. However, the children have been forgotten. What really matters is business. Do not get me wrong. Business is important. Business is the generator of wealth, obviously critical to the future of the country, but it is not the only thing that matters.

I am not proud to raise this, but child poverty is increasing in Hamilton, my home town. Again, in the context of the world, Hamilton is one of the wealthiest entities. Other countries would love to have the economic dynamics of Hamilton. As an example, in Ontario lone female parents between the age of 25 and 49, with young sons age 10 to 12, receive $1,106. The monthly cost of a food basket is $212. I cannot imagine a mother and a son surviving on $212. The average rent is $737. They are left with $157 after they pay for food, assuming that covers food and rent. We wonder why food banks are on the increase and why we have more and more people living on the streets.

How does that fit the national scene? This is where I may get into some problems with my Bloc colleagues. I accept that and I am prepared to deal with it. I have a real problem with the fact that the government provides money to provincial governments for a child benefit and then allows provinces like Ontario, although I do not know about others, to claw it back. That is disgraceful. It was Harris at the time. I do not care whether it is the Tories, Liberals or NDP. The national government has identified the need to support children in poverty through this benefit. It funnels it through the provincial government which has the ability to claw that money back, rendering the positive impact on that family moot.

That is not good enough. The House is the national voice of the country. When something as important as eradicating child poverty over 15 years is unanimously adopted by the House and the government of the day, regardless of political stripe, ponies up some money that is meant to go to those children, no provincial government should have the ability to negate that in any way, shape or form. That is an obligation of the House and of the national government. I am ashamed of the fact that I live in one of the provinces where the government--

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2004]

I hear the member asking if I said that.

This is called exploitation. That is what this is about. There are people inside that bus who are just as frightened about their future and their ability to provide for their kids. All of these things are created by allowing this situation to continue.

All we are asking is that working people be given a fair opportunity to achieve a collective agreement that gives them the money, benefits and pensions that are commensurate with the work they are performing. When there is a dispute, let us find the most peaceful means of resolution. That is what the hon. member's bill does here today. It offers a peaceful means to a potentially violent situation. That is why we feel so strongly about this.

It is interesting that in B.C. and Ontario, it was the NDP governments that brought in this legislation. With due deference to the PQ, although we certainly have a very different view of Canada on the broader vision of what society should look like, who gets what and what the values are of that society, I think we share a lot of those beliefs.

Therefore, it is not surprising at all that the strongest voices here today are the Bloc and the NDP standing up for fairness for workers. It is shameful that both the Conservatives and, it would seem, the Liberals are planning to vote against what is a peaceful, progressive piece of legislation that would improve things in this country.

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today. I will begin by complimenting my Bloc Québécois colleague from Louis-Hébert on introducing Bill C-263.

As my colleague and whip from Acadie—Bathurst has said, our caucus is four-square behind this. It was not a good sign to hear from the Liberals, but I want to say to the hon. member that the NDP will be there this time, next time and every time it takes until this becomes the law of the land.

I was very fortunate to have served for a number of years in the Ontario legislature. One of my proudest moments as an MPP was to stand in my place and cast my very precious vote in favour of bill 40, which then made scabs illegal in the Province of Ontario, just as they are illegal in Quebec and B.C. Unfortunately, as a result of the 1995 election, Premier Mike Harris was elected and the law was eliminated.

I can tell the House that it is the intent of the Ontario NDP to continue that struggle to ensure that the day returns when scabs are not to be found anywhere in the Province of Ontario. However, today's debate is about Canada.

Federally, this caucus has a proud history and tradition of supporting many progressive pieces of labour legislation and, in particular, this bill when it was introduced by the member's colleague a couple of years ago.

In fact, our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, joined with the Bloc Québécois in welcoming the Videotron workers to Parliament Hill. He was there to represent our caucus and ensure that the strong feelings we have about workers' rights federally as well as provincially were understood.

I will not repeat all the good reasons why the legislation should pass because there is not enough time, but I do want tackle head on the issue that we heard from the Liberals and the Conservatives. I have to say that I would have been pleasantly shocked had the Conservatives taken any other position. I am very disappointed in the Liberals. Their main argument, as I heard it, was that if it is not broken, do not fix it. That is not sufficient. It is not even accurate.

First, it was pointed out by the sponsor of the bill that right now, in two jurisdictions in Canada, Quebec and B.C., two workers could be doing very similar work but one has the protection that when he or she goes on strike it will be a fair fight and scabs will not be allowed in, while the other worker does not have that right and faces the possibility of taking on an employer that has much deeper pockets than ordinary working people and their families and, therefore, that worker does not have a fair fight. That is what this is about. It is not trying to tip the balance one way or another. It is trying to ensure that there is a balance and that it is a real balance.

Let me say to the hon. members that when they think about this they should think about it on the individual level on that picket line. We are talking now about situations, which have existed in this country, unfortunately, far too often, where workers are on a legal strike but they do not have the protection of a law like this. After workers have been out for days and weeks and months it does not take long before every morning they see those buses going in, with the scabs inside, and the windows covered over with newspaper, or even painted, going in and taking their job, their ability to earn a living, pay the bills and put food on the table and provide for their children. Somebody is crossing that line every day. Even the most law-abiding citizens in the world can only take that for so long.

I have been on strikes. The Christmas season is coming and, regardless of one's religion, it is usually a time for exchanging gifts and it is certainly about children. I will tell members that it is really hard to look into the eyes of workers who have been on a picket line for so long that they do not know how they will provide Christmas presents for their kids. So, when that bus comes on that cold morning, it does not take much for somebody to snap. That is when we get violence.

I want to repeat something that is important, vis-à-vis what happened in Ontario. When Mike Harris looked at repealing the NDP law that banned scabs, the police associations, the union of the police, the ones out in uniform, urged Harris not to change the law. That might surprise some people if they were to think about the politics of it and some stereotypical analysis.

Think about it this way. Police officers are just working people too. They go to work every day. They do work for us. They want to go home at the end of the day and be with their families, just like the steelworkers at Stelco and Dofasco in my riding of Hamilton Centre. They know that when scabs are involved in a strike there is the potential for violence. The one thing that a police chief dislikes to do almost above anything else is to put officers in harm's way. We are allowing a situation to be created that history shows causes violence to very innocent people.

All we are trying to do with this law is to ensure that it is a fair fight. No one can tell me that it is a fair fight when a corporation or company can bring in replacement workers. The argument usually is that the workers can withhold their labour, so the company should have a right to bring someone else in to work and then it becomes a fair fight. There is no fair fight there. The corporation does not have to go home and face kids who want and need new shoes. The worker does.

If we want to make this a fair fight, then let us ensure that the corporation, the company or the government for that matter, has no more ability to generate revenue than those workers. Now we are a little closer to a fair fight. Now police do not have to move frightened, scared and angry strikers out of the way so that scabs can be brought in to do their jobs and keep them out on the picket lines even longer. We eliminate all of that and put the emphasis on negotiations and settlements.

I do not for a second believe that every single person inside that bus is what I would consider, based on my value system, to be a bad or evil person. Some of them are. They do not care about anybody else, they will take the job and too bad for everyone else. A lot of the scabs are new Canadians who do not know all of the cultures.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that after the debates we have had here today, the hon. member stands up and hands out such gibberish. I truly do not understand the point the hon. member is trying to make.

If things were as straightforward and linear as he likes to make them, we would not need laws. We would not need all of us here. The member knows very well that the issues he raises have nothing to do with the matter before us right now.

If the member wants to debate what is going on in Vancouver in terms of harm reduction, by all means, bring it on. We in the NDP would love to have that debate, just like we love having this debate because it is about health, it is about children and it is about our responsibilities to them.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a number of things. First, he talked about the lowest possible levels. Yes, I shortened that to use the word “ban”. If we read the material that has been provided, we see that the lowest possible level is de facto, a banning. Therefore, we are saying that we get as low as we possibly can. No one is trying to pass a law or regulation that is beyond the means of what can physically and practically be done.

If the member wishes to parse the words, the member is correct in recognizing that there are some minuscule amounts left at the end. That is why we have used the word “lowest” possible, but it is de facto in the material referred to as a ban, that it has the same effect.

The member talked about coordinating with business. That is why we have mentioned the fact that already major corporations have taken the steps necessary. I did not hear about any big massive job loss or any massive increase in costs. I have heard that corporations, to give them the benefit of the doubt, want to provide food that is as healthy as can be or at the very least does not contain known toxins. The whole issue of pushing this through law is to ensure that they actually go about it, because not everyone will do it voluntarily.

The last thing is on education. Seat belts have to be worn by law. Helmets in Ontario have to be worn by law. Yes, let us educate, but let us make sure that law is there and let us bloody well enforce it.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finish off my remarks today. Then my colleague will pick up with the other 10 minutes.

In my remaining time, I would like to focus on the comments made by my colleague from Churchill, which are germane to this debate. She talked about the fact that for the most part Canadians, like people in many countries, are awfully confused about what was healthy and what was not healthy. For most of us, it seems that every other day there is a new study from somewhere pointing out that something that was once thought healthy, now is not or vice versa, or counter-arguing a report that came out a few weeks ago. I think many of us in Canada reach the point where we throw our arms in the air and say that we cannot keep track any more. Then we go ahead and follow what we think is common sense.

Common sense for Canadians, and this is the point that my friend from Churchill made, is if something is known scientifically to be harmful to our children in particular, their Parliament, this place, would be responsible enough to ensure that those products are not contained in anything that are lawfully sold on the shelves of stores across this nation. We, in the NDP caucus, believe we have reached that point with trans fatty acids.

The World Health Organization does not give out alarmist messages or lightly say that something should be banned. Yet it has very clearly said that it is important to deal with the public health in a way that is effective for people. That means labelling will not do it. It means it has to be banned. That is why we have taken this stand.

We long ago passed the point where we were not sure of the science, so we would go with a label to be on the safe side. That is not the safe side any more. The safe side says, “Ban it. Do not let our children ingest these foods”. Other countries have now taken this stand.

There is the business side to this. Some of those very corporations and businesses that we might expect to hear say that this is a problem for them, that it will cost jobs or increase costs, all legitimate concerns, have already dealt with it. As has been pointed out, a number of major suppliers of the kinds of the food that have trans fats already have removed them. The entire country of Denmark has banned them. As has been pointed out, McDonald's has outlets there. There are no trans fats in the food at the McDonald's stores in Denmark. If it is good enough for the children of Denmark, does it not behoove us as Canadian parliamentarians to take the same steps to protect our children? That is what this is about. It is about public health. It is about protecting children. It is about doing the right thing.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo--Cowichan.

I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate today. A couple of my colleagues mentioned earlier that members of our caucus were not necessarily gung-ho that this should be one of our lead issues, particularly on an opposition day since we do not get that many of them. However, we have heard them say that after doing their own research and after talking to colleagues, particularly the member for Winnipeg Centre who has provided leadership on this issue within our caucus, they have become convinced of this issue's importance.

It is not usual that caucuses, particularly in the climate we are in these days where an election could be called at the drop of a hat, push key signature issues that they want to take into an election. Canadians decided they wanted a minority government and not a majority government, and our priority is to prove to Canadians that minority governments not only work, but in many ways work best for Canadians.

We want to take issues that make a difference in the lives of Canadians and move them forward. We want to get them into law. Our objective, and we make no bones about it during this minority government, is to take issues that matter to our constituents and to Canadians across the country and bring them forward. What could be more important that dealing with the health of Canadians, particularly our children?

Those who are still unsure have asked whether or not the science has been done? Do we need to do more studies? It would appear that science has reached its conclusion. We mentioned the fact that the World Health Organization, the leading organization on this planet for dealing with public health issues, crosses all party lines, national lines and continental lines, is concerned about the public health of citizens. It has said this ban is the right thing to do.

Is there a member in the House who would not consider supporting and being active in the Heart and Stroke Foundation in his or her riding? Does anybody here ever say anything negative about the Heart and Stroke Foundation, a motherhood organization? It is providing the lead on this. It is not doing it because it has a lack of issues to deal with. It is doing it because this is a priority health matter for Canadians, particularly children.

Dr. Walter Willet of the Harvard School of Public Health has said that the consumption of trans fats is a recipe for disaster. What is the Canadian context? One gram of trans fats a day increases the risk of heart disease by 20%. One of the leading causes of death in Canada is stroke. Canadians have the highest consumption of trans fats in the world. Canadians on average are ingesting about 10 grams a day. One gram increases the chance of a stroke by 20% and yet Canadians are ingesting 10 grams a day. If ever there was a health issue that required leadership, this is it.

My friend from Vancouver East raised the issue earlier about children in the context of choice and in responding to the issue of labelling. As long as there is a choice and the public is informed that is enough. In many cases it is enough.

We had this debate many years ago. This is not a new argument. When something is a poison for Canadians, we do not put a label on it and say, “Be careful, this is a poison”. We say, “You can't sell that product in Canada”. This is the same thing. Again, let us cast our minds forward. In 20 years this debate is going to seem so ancient and behind the times.

I would just mention that there are two senators, both a Conservative and a Liberal, who are cardiologists and are also trying to do something in that place on this issue. There is no question that we have an obligation to deal with this on behalf of all Canadians and in particular for the health of our children.