House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 74% of the vote.
Post-secondary Education November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, each year the Government of Canada negotiates with the Government of Quebec on alternative payments for student financial assistance. These negotiations are currently taking place and are ongoing. The students will receive those funds they need for financial assistance, which will be the project of joint negotiations.
Resumption and Continuation of Railway Operations November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the preference is always, in our labour relations system, founded on the principle that employers and unions should be allowed to work out their differences as often as possible. We do not want to put the procedure in place that we are now proposing if we do not need to.
Certainly, the government has done all it can do to help the parties along that process short of introducing legislation. Without getting involved into negotiations itself, it is something that is not the position of the government to do. But it is also interested that the parties would reach a settlement if they can. If there is no amount of mediation or support to break a deadlock, and there is a deadlock, and there is a compelling reason to act, then we must act.
This is simply a motion that sets the process in place for the debate to take place in the House, for the fullness of debate, and as the other member mentioned, with respect to the legislation itself.
As the member may know, she may have pointed questions at that point as to the essence and the substance of the bill. That is not what we are discussing today. We are not talking about that. We are talking about establishing a process in the House that will allow for that debate to take place.
Resumption and Continuation of Railway Operations November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, outside of providing mediators and conciliators facilitating the parties, we do not actually enter into the negotiation process with the parties. The member knows that.
The member knows that this motion is a procedural motion. The member knows, if she cares to read the motion, that it simply states from the first to third readings of the bill the House will not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the Crown, the bill may go through all three readings in a single sitting, and then after being read a second time the bill will be referred to a committee of the whole.
The discussions and the debates can continue for a significant period of time. It gives the opportunity for the House to debate this issue and members can speak for and against the particular bill, but the fact of the matter is it is a matter that is important. It is a matter of national interest that requires the attention of the House and when it is put on the floor of the House it must be dealt with in priority to other matters that are happening.
Certainly, given the time of year and before the House recesses, the member would have to do the responsible thing and say before the House breaks this House needs to deal with this issue in one fashion or another, and it will take a vote of the House to deal with it.
That is what should happen and what needs to happen. Given that the parties are having a difficulty and have reached an impasse we need to put the process in place, we need to put the procedure in place, so the House can do what the House is elected to do and that is to deal with the national interest and an interest that significant to Canadians.
Resumption and Continuation of Railway Operations November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, as I said, certainly in matters of labour relations and in matters of negotiations, it should be left to the parties to bargain and to settle with the processes that are available.
However, we must remember that what the parties do here does not just affect the two parties. It affects people other than the two parties. It affects business, industry, a number of businesses and sectors that are outside of the parties who have a loss or an experience to take into account when the parties are not able to agree. It is regrettable that they are not able to agree.
I think everything should be done to facilitate reaching an agreement. We have done that, everything that is possible. At the end of the day, there must be a bigger picture that the parties are held to account.
When we look at the public interest and how this would affect the public, it would affect the public in a very serious way. When this member says that the parties should be left to their own, what would he say to the automotive industry, the chemical industry, the grain and fertilizer industry, the agriculture industry, the pulp and paper industry, and the forest industry, who are directly being impacted?
At some point we have to take that interest into account. I realize it is a balance, but at some point this House, this member, will have to balance that interest.
Resumption and Continuation of Railway Operations November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, later today the Minister of Labour, as the motion indicated, will introduce a bill to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations. This legislation is critical to protecting the national economy at this time when our economy is still in a fragile state from the global economic crisis. The motion before us will allow the House to consider the Minister of Labour's bill in an expedited fashion. The motion states that from first to third readings of the bill, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the Crown, and that the bill go through all three readings in a single sitting, and that after being read a second time the bill will be referred to the committee of the whole.
I would like to advise members of the House to support the motion. The motion itself will not end the strike or impose a settlement; it will only allow us to proceed to deal with this issue as quickly as possible. The approach we are taking to this strike is obviously unusual. Normally for private disputes between private actors, we accept that it is their responsibility to come to a solution, perhaps with the help of government appointed conciliators and mediators.
I would again encourage the members to pass this procedural motion so we can at least get to the debate and continue to put pressure on both sides to come to a resolution. This motion essentially sets forward a process and procedure for a debate to take place in the House and for all members of the House to become engaged in the disposition of the matter by way of the bill that will be introduced.
The strike began at CN Rail early on Saturday after 14 months of inconclusive negotiations between the company and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference. During the last six months of negotiations, the two sides were assisted by federal conciliators and mediators. Even after the strike began, we did not give up hope for a negotiated settlement, as that is the preferred course. Not only is it the preferred course, but the parties are always encouraged to come to a form of agreement on their own. Federal mediators worked with the employer and union all weekend in an effort to find a formula that would get the trains running again and establish a fair process for resolving all outstanding differences, but the parties could still not find their way to an understanding.
The Minister of Labour became personally involved in the search for a solution. She contacted each side to encourage a negotiated agreement and offered to appoint an arbiter to resolve the matters in dispute, on which the Canada Labour Code requires both parties to concur. CN agreed but the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference did not. Unless the parties agree, that process cannot be instigated.
No one in the House likes back to work legislation. All of us prefer to see employers and unions freely bargain their collective agreements. That is certainly something that happens in the course of events, and many times there are struggles and difficulties to get there, but eventually a method is found to resolve an impasse, which is exactly how it should work if it can. But sometimes the parties are unable to reach agreement. Sometimes parties reach an impasse and a strike or lockout tends to happen and, in that case, it affects the national economy. When that happens Parliament must act in the public interest.
There are of course a number of factors in play. There is the public interest and there is the issue of the economy. As much as we want each of the parties in the process to negotiate with each other and just as each has appropriate and legitimate interests, and certainly we are respectful and mindful of the processes involved, what they do affects a bigger picture. It affects people other than them. It affects the public, the public interest, individuals and businesses. It affects the economy of Canada.
Therefore, it is important that we give due diligence to what has been placed before us, with the parties reaching the impasse they have, and, as I said, I trust and hope that they will see a way through to reach a negotiated settlement.
I would like to say a few words about the economy. As everyone in this House knows, Canada is starting to see signs of economic recovery. Statistics Canada announced this morning that the real GDP in Canada grew by 0.4% in the third quarter of 2009. While it is encouraging that Canada's economic growth has stabilized, the global economic recovery remains fragile and tentative, and that is a fact that must be taken into consideration.
As our finance minister has said, the Canadian economy is recovering but has not yet fully recovered. Too many families struggle and we may yet see more job losses before we fully turn the corner. Our government remains focused on fighting the recession and on helping Canadians, and that is obvious with the number of actions that we have taken in a variety of areas, whether it is funding for infrastructure, helping those who are unemployed by extending EI by five weeks, providing skills upgrading and training, and investing significant billions of dollars to ensure workers are prepared and equipped to be a part of our economy and ensure our economy does not stagnate but goes forward.
We remain focused on fighting the recession and helping Canadians. To protect our economy, we need to stay the course and, of course, we must continue implementing Canada's economic action plan.
Today's numbers show that Canada's economic action plan is helping fuel the recovery. Household spending has increased. thanks to our tax cuts for Canadian families. Spending on homes has rebounded, fuelled by a recession-fighting home renovation tax credit. Businesses increased their investment and productivity, improving machinery and equipment, thanks to our tax relief and tariff reductions. Infrastructure and other capital spending has increased by nearly 25% this quarter, the largest increase in nearly a decade, but our economy still remains in a fragile and tentative state.
Even though we have worked hard to implement Canada's economic action plan, we have always received enough support from this House in order to proceed. The global economic circumstances still leave Canada in a precarious position. We cannot allow a labour dispute, where the parties reach an impasse, to threaten our economic recovery.
Canadians know how central our rail system is to the economic health of Canada. It is what has connected our commerce from coast to coast to coast since the days of John A. Macdonald. Our government believes that it is the responsibility of this House to intervene in private disputes when they threaten to significantly damage the public interest.
I am sure many members will be getting letters and correspondence from various industries that will be impacted and involved by this particular strike and the impasse that has been reached. The motion we have here would allow Parliament to act quickly. It is a responsibility of the parties in this House to debate, negotiate and go forward with proposed legislation that will keep in mind the public interest and our economy.
As I have said, businesses and farmers from across Canada are expressing their concern about the economic impacts of this strike, and that is understandable. Some of them have been impacted three or four times over the last number of years and have suffered significant economic losses as a result of that.
We have had experiences with the effects of work stoppages in the past. In 2007, when trains were last slowed by a strike, Ford had to shut down production of one of its plants because parts were not getting through.
The Canadian Wheat Board incurred charges of over $300,000 per day because ships were delayed in Canadian ports.
Shifts were discontinued at lumber facilities.
When the trains stop, the economy suffers and this is no time for that to happen. When we are struggling with the effects of the global downturn, this is no time for us to gamble with the economy.
The motion before us will not force any member of this House to support the actual back to work legislation, although I certainly hope they will debate it in earnest and keep in mind the larger public interest. However, what it will do is simply permit timely consideration of the Minister of Labour's bill. It is critically important, given the timing of what is happening outside this House. It is also important to know that this House is scheduled to rise in the next short while.
Given the seriousness of this situation, I would hope we would all make the public interest our first priority. I would ask all parties to give unanimous consent to this motion. From the agricultural products in the west and the automotive products in Ontario, to the forestry products in Quebec and the petroleum, chemicals and metals in the east, Canada depends on CN Rail's 20,000 kilometres of track.
Canada is a country founded on the railway. Since 1885, rail has driven our nation's economic engine. The railway has evolved with Canada and CN now facilitates a sophisticated commercial network, transporting inventory from domestic producers and international importers to consumers in Canada, the ports and our American neighbour to the south. Canada's transportation, in Canada 2008, in its statement “An Overview”, illustrates the importance of Canada's rail network. In 2007, railways in Canada transported 66,766 tonnes in essentially six sectors, valued at more than $94 million: the automotive sector, $44 million dollars; the chemical industry, $16-plus million; grains and fertilizers; metals; petroleum products; and pulp and paper. It has a far-reaching impact and far-reaching consequences to many.
I know the Canadian pulse industry, for example, is a world leader in the production and export of peas, lentils, chickpeas and beans, servicing over 150 markets each year. A strike would certainly affect that industry and what it is doing. It would certainly incur a lot of costs that would result in thousands, in fact, millions of dollars if it were to continue for a longer period of time.
Loss of earnings of that magnitude at a time when the downturn in the global economy has produced significant challenges for Canadian businesses, indeed, all Canadians, and the customers around the world, must be avoided. We must do what we can to bridge the gap to bring the two parties together to ensure there is a resolution so the trains can continue moving.
The reason for quick action, of course, given the time of year, the fragile state of the national economy and the serious economic impacts of a work stoppage, are all factors that must be taken into consideration. Businesses from across the country have expressed their concern about this strike. The 2007 strike at CN cost the economy millions of dollars a day. This is a price we simply cannot afford at a time when recovery from the global recession is still so tentative. CN moves thousands of carloads of material across its 20,000 kilometres of tracks every week. Some clients have no other source of transportation for their goods and rely exclusively on the operation of the railway network.
Most labour disputes are basically private matters between an employer and a union. They may affect the public in modest ways but not enough for Parliament to intervene in the collective bargaining process, even when there is an impasse and even when there are work disruptions. Such is the way things work.
However, that changes when a strike or lockout has significant impacts on the national economy or the public health and safety. Then the right of employers and unions to sort out their differences through work stoppages must be balanced against the public interest. Many times, members struggle with the appropriate balance and it can be difficult to reach that balance, but a balance must be reached that takes into account these other interests. It is our responsibility to do that.
As I have said before, federal conciliators and mediators are working with the parties and have been in negotiations since June. The level of engagement has been high for many months. There have been a number of interventions. Mediators have literally been working around the clock since Friday in a last ditch effort to help find a formula that would bring an end to the work stoppage and pave the way for a new collective agreement but these efforts have not yet borne fruit.
The Minister of Labour has repeatedly offered, both publicly and in discussions with the employer and union representatives, to appoint an arbiter to resolve all matters still in dispute. This step, by law, requires the consent of both parties and, of course, this matter must be left in the hands of the parties to that extent.
The government has done all that it can do short of introducing legislation. We are always ready to help parties interested in reaching an agreement but sometimes an employer and the union are so far apart that no amount of mediation and support will break the deadlock between them or the impasse that may exist. There is always hope that will happen.
It is true that Parliament should only intervene in work stoppages where the national interest is clearly at stake. Our labour relations system is founded on the principle that employers and unions should be allowed to work out their differences as often as possible and the tool of back to work legislation should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.
Therefore, this motion is an appropriate motion that would allow this matter to be debated in the House in priority to other matters before the House recesses. It is an important issue, a national issue and an issue of national interest that must be disposed of by the House. This motion sets the framework for the House to engage in that debate in a concentrated and concerned way. It ensures that all members who wish to participate in debate on these issues of national importance are able to do so with a view to bringing the matter to a resolution because the parties are unable to do so.
This motion sets the stage for further critical debate that will in fact be launched in the time to come. It is a procedural motion. It is a motion that I would ask all parties in the House and all sides in this debate to support whether they are for or against a particular issue in the debate. It is the responsible thing to do. It is the kind of thing that Canadians would expect the House to do.
All Canadians will be watching with interest the debate that will go forward. All Canadians hope that parliamentarians will get together, notwithstanding party lines, to ensure that the framework is set through this motion to have this matter debated fully and extensively in the House and given the priority that it deserves.
Museums November 27th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, we currently agree that no one wins by this being protracted. We would encourage the parties to work as hard as they can to bring forth a settlement.
Under the law, the Minister of Labour cannot appoint an arbiter unless both parties agree. If both parties agree, an arbiter will be appointed.
Museums November 27th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, a mediator has been working with the parties from before the strike began, and we are continuing to work with them and encouraging them to come to the table to resolve this issue. Of course, if both parties agree, the minister can appoint an arbiter, but they both have to come to that agreement.
Committees of the House November 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Sault Ste. Marie has a keen interest in this area.
Of course he is speaking today about an unfortunate anniversary, one that should make us all pause and reflect that 20 years ago members of the House promised Canadians that they would end child poverty in 11 years, by the year 2000. Twenty years later we are still working toward that laudable goal.
Important steps have been taken and progress has been made. However, I am not suggesting we naively believe that we have solved the problem of child poverty. We know there is much more to be done.
Clearly, none of us should be content until the goal all parliamentarians pledged in 1989 to achieve has been achieved, the elimination of child poverty, but we should not ignore the undeniable progress being made in advancing this objective.
I encourage all parties to step up and do their respective parts to ensure that the vision of Parliament becomes a reality. Certainly it should be obvious to everyone that in order to eliminate child poverty, we must attack poverty in general and poverty within families in particular.
Lifting whole families out of poverty is what is necessary to ensure Canadian children are no longer living in poverty. While governments, federal, provincial, territorial and municipal alike, all have important roles to play, we can accomplish our goal only by working together in all aspects of our society. We cannot simply think that all solutions will come from government and that all good ideas will come from politicians. Not even the most important actions must come necessarily from governments but that is not to say that governments cannot do good work, as we are doing.
We have made progress toward the elimination of child poverty. A good deal of this progress can be traced to good economic performance and to rising incomes in good economic times, as well as to good jobs for more Canadians and hard work by Canadian parents and families.
We can also give credit to the many initiatives we have introduced over the past few years, many of them delivered collaboratively with provincial and territorial governments as well as business and community organizations. It is no coincidence that we have seen gradual but steady progress in reducing the overall low-income rate for children in Canada.
According to Statistics Canada and its low income cut-off measure, which is a relative measure, the incidence of low income among Canadian children has come down from 18.4% in 1996 to 9.5% in 2007. This is a fifty percent reduction in child low income in about a decade. Although there is still more work to do, and we are not where we want to be, we are a far cry from the days when almost one in five children lived in poverty.
We still have more hurdles to clear, to be sure, but our government is continuing to work at moving toward that goal. Our government has taken substantive action in a range of areas to support low-income Canadians and to provide vulnerable Canadian families with a hand up. These actions have produced concrete results by reducing the number of low-income Canadians. Fewer low income families means fewer low-income children.
In Canada's economic action plan we continue to make significant investments through a range of income support, tax relief and targeted support for Canadians. The working income tax benefit was introduced in 2007, commonly referred to as WITB, to make work more rewarding for low and modest income Canadians. The WITB helped over 900,000 low-income Canadians in the first year alone. In budget 2009 our government doubled its investment in the WITB resulting in increased benefits for low-income working Canadians. These improvements are in addition to the Canada employment credit to help working Canadians.
Just yesterday in the National Post Peter Shawn Taylor said:
The Working Income Tax Benefit is arguably the country's most significant housing program because it boosts income for the working poor.
With housing a significant issue, and we are talking about low income, this is another significant way we are working toward our goal.
Our government has also lowered taxes so that low-income Canadians can keep more of their money. The Canadian economic action plan included an increase in the basic personal amount, as well an increase in the upper limits of the two lowest personal income tax brackets. This means that low-income Canadians can earn more money that is not subject to federal tax.
As a result of these measures combined with previous tax cuts, close to one million low-income Canadians will not have to pay federal income taxes anymore.
In addition, we have the universal child care benefit of $100 per month for every child under six years of age. That helps lift some 22,000 families with 57,000 children out of low incomes. We have also enhanced the national child benefit that has been very popular and well received. Together we spend over $13 billion in benefits to help families with children, and that is an impressive record.
Madam Speaker, that member certainly goes wherever she might want to. She strayed quite far from her original question, so it is difficult to respond. However, I will say this. We will stand behind the men and women of our Canadian armed forces whose job it is to protect us and our society as we know it.
Everyone knows that we are doing the right thing. We are doing what Canadians think is important. Canadians believe that our government is on the right track. They support our Prime Minister, our Conservative government and the direction we are taking. They do not support the Liberal agenda.
We are interested in an agenda that puts Canadians first, not the Liberal Party or Liberal members, but Canadians. Our agenda is responsible, principled, respectful of the hard work of Canadians and mindful of the proper place of government in their lives. We are working on things that matter to Canadians, such as getting tough on crime, a principled foreign policy—
Madam Speaker, in the initial question there was not a lot of substantive content and some of it was not in the appropriate context. In trying to make something out of nothing and taking a position without regard to the big picture in what we have done as a government there was a lot of bluster there. However, I would like to clarify some things.
Our Conservative government was elected after Canadians were fed up with 13 years of arrogance, a culture of entitlement, the Liberal government in it for itself, not listening to the Canadian people, nor addressing those needs that they wanted.
The Liberals had a remarkable disdain for Canadian sensibilities with their sponsorship scandal. I would point out that some of the moneys taken from Canadians who paid their taxes and used for purposes that Canadians would not approve of, have not yet been recovered
The Liberals were soft on crime and corruption, soft on ethics and respect for Canadians, but hard on law-abiding citizens and those Canadian men and women in the armed forces who needed more support, better equipment and more funding.
Canadians elected a Conservative government because they wanted to. They are happy and pleased with the actions we have taken. We have taken actions with respect to the economy with our economic action plan. Canadians support our actions to help unemployed workers. They support our efforts to help self-employed Canadians.
The Liberal members of her party walked away and turned their backs on unemployed Canadians and when we finally put forward legislation to help long tenured workers by extending benefits from five to twenty weeks, the Liberal members voted against that provision in order to force an election that no Canadian wanted. It is an election that no one wants. They wanted it for themselves and for their own benefit.
I wonder what they might say to the 190,000 Canadians. They voted against specific benefits in a narrow bill to help long tenured workers. I do not understand how they would do that.
Canadians support our stronger, more principled foreign policies. They support our efforts to properly fund and equip our men and women in uniform. They support our efforts to get tough on crime and criminals. They appreciate our respect for hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers.
The actions of the Liberal Party have fallen flat with Canadians. Canadians are aware that the Liberals want an election only because of their self-interest and not because of those regular Canadians who look forward to legislation being passed.
Canadians wanted the Liberal Party to work with our government to come up with solutions for the unemployed over the summer but that did not happen. Thankfully, we were able to get other members of the opposition to support that legislation so we could get it through.
We are putting forward legislation for the self-employed. I cannot imagine the Liberal Party voting for that as well. They are simply out of touch with Canadians and with what Canadians need.
Our Prime Minister and our Conservative government did not need to impose any sort of agenda on Canadians. Canadians support our Prime Minister and they support the direction we are taking. They support the goods things we are doing.
On this side of the House, we intend to continue to give Canadians good government that they can support. The evidence is there. They see that we are in favour of getting things done for everyday ordinary Canadians, the hard-working Canadians who pay their taxes and who expect their government to take their interest into account and not the government's own interest.