José Nunez-Melo

[Conservative Government, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in this short statement, I wanted to talk about something positive and extraordinary in my riding of Laval. However, in seeing what has been going on in the House in recent weeks, I have been dismayed at the attitude of the Conservative caucus, which is trying to push through old bills that were not passed in previous parliaments and that are proof of its bad faith. The Conservative caucus—the government—is desperate and determined to laugh in Canadians' faces. This is a rather awkward display of what it means to have a majority government.

I remind this caucus that Canadians are not stupid. They can understand, hear and grasp what is going on. We will remember. The Conservatives should take advantage of the time they have. The NDP is a government in waiting. It will show the Conservatives the door, as it did with the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Brossard—La Prairie. First of all, I would like to mention the announcement that was made recently by the Conservative government's Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities confirming its commitment to rebuild the Champlain Bridge. It should have been announced long before we spent so long discussing such a project.

Taking all the economic parameters into account, it has been decided that this is a viable project and that building this new infrastructure would help create jobs. These investments will benefit not only those travelling between Montreal and the south shore, but also anyone who takes this bridge to return from the U.S. and other Canadian provinces.

There are also other projects, like ports. There are many projects—whether in Halifax or Newfoundland and Labrador—in fisheries. Our hon. colleague from New Brunswick once proposed such a project. On the west coast of the country, Vancouver, among other large ports, also needs new port infrastructure. Almost all of this infrastructure is aging and, as we know, maintenance alone will not suffice. We really need to create effective growth.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie very much. Indeed, that information comes from the Department of Finance, which says that investing in infrastructure creates jobs. Many Canadians get work and then a lot of investment follows. That is what wealth and economic growth are all about.

I could name some other departments and other sources such as the TD Bank Financial Group, which published a rather clear document suggesting ways the finance minister's advisors could improve the bill.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to oppose Bill C-13, introduced by the Minister of Finance.

This bill—a second version—is entitled the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. It contains a number of amendments by replacing certain measures and is broken into 22 parts that affect that many laws, from part 1 and the Income Tax Act, to the Customs Tariff Act, the Canada Education Savings Act, the Children’s Special Allowances Act, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and more.

To give hon. members an idea of why this bill does not make any sense, part 1 implements measures that pertain to the Income Tax Act but actually do very little. For example, part 1 forgives a portion of a guaranteed loan to doctors who work in the regions, introduces a family caregiver tax credit to assist informal caregivers, refunds employer premiums for SMEs, and extends to 2013 the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investment.

Indeed, these are small things that will not really help to stimulate the economy and create employment. These measures are also completely insufficient. It would be better to give refundable tax credits to taxpayers or to provide direct payments to finance investments in SMEs and foster true economic growth.

Moreover, despite the Conservatives' repeated claims that 600,000 jobs have been created, we hear all sorts of news about the unemployment rate, which is currently the same as it was in 2008. In absolute terms, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed; however, if we take into account those who have already withdrawn from the labour market because they cannot find work and those who are not considered to be looking for work because they are not receiving employment insurance benefits, there are actually 2 million unemployed Canadians.

No real stimulus plan has been proposed, save for a few small credits. Some measures are truly praiseworthy and satisfactory, as was so wonderfully stated by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. Other rather interesting measures were also mentioned by the member for Halifax.

Despite all the glowing references made to Forbes magazine by the members from other cities, economic growth is still fragile. And the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of Montreal, the TD Bank Financial Group, Scotiabank, the Conference Board of Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Toronto Board of Trade,and the Canadian Medical Association have confirmed this. Even the Minister of Finance recognizes that infrastructure investment has five times the economic impact of corporate tax cuts.

I am opposed to the bill being passed as is. I recommend that the Conservatives take another look at all of these proposals and make the necessary amendments.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

The topic of children is one that affects us all. Long ago, the ancestors of our wonderful nation of Canada built a reasonable immigration system, able to support the productive force and workers. The children of some immigrants integrate better than their parents. If the bill is implemented as it stands now, there will be some serious and unfortunately very restrictive consequences for the intellectual and physical development of the children.

The hon. members from the Conservative Party should agree to the amendments proposed by the Liberal and NDP caucuses, to ensure that we are treating children humanely and that the bill targets human smugglers more directly.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Everyone here has heard all about these unacceptable violations, specifically the violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the charter was created, Canada gained respect in the eyes of the world and all the nations around the globe. Canada set an example and many countries have drawn inspiration from it. But everyone should be questioning the true objectives of this bill, as it now stands, because it violates every international convention, specifically those related to children. Putting children in jail is unbelievable; it is unheard of, the world over. Even countries ruled by dictators would not be able to propose a similar bill.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot just explained very clearly, Bill C-4 is very restrictive, particularly when it comes to privileges and to the image that Canada has traditionally portrayed to other countries of the world.

I am somewhat troubled when I try to understand why the Conservative members want to once again introduce this bill and ignore the amendments that we, the members of the NDP and the members of the Liberal Party, are proposing. It is important to note the direct impacts of passing such a bill, such as the violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the violation of international treaties. I have difficulty imagining how anyone would want to pass this omnibus bill, which was already debated in the previous parliament as Bill C-49, if I am not mistaken. Many debates were held, many witnesses were heard and many facts were put on the table in this regard. The bill was not passed. However, the Conservatives are once again trying to pass this odious bill.

This is even more surprising since Canada will find itself in a difficult position with regard to international treaties if, in the end, this bill is passed as is. The government just wants to do what Australia did and it is very difficult to understand those objectives.

On top of all this, it is very worrisome to see that there will be fairly serious consequences if immigration officers are given more power. Many rights and liberties will be violated. One major problem involves the discrimination that people who are deemed to be designated claimants will face. They will not have any rights. What is even more worrisome is that these people will basically be put in prison for at least a year. This completely violates the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

The New Democratic caucus therefore has serious concerns about passing this bill, as introduced by the Conservatives. We stand firm. We want this bill to be amended and we want it to give some reprieve to ensure that everyone in need—everyone who is a true refugee—is treated equally. It is important to remember that our proposals are in no way meant to be weak or condescending toward criminals or those who, for political purposes, use certain methods of transportation to transport refugees. In my opinion, immigration officers are trained and are capable of determining and knowing who the real bad guys are. The problem with this bill is that, in reality, we are lumping everyone into the same category.

And that is not acceptable.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and honourable member from our side of the House.

You should know that I come from a union background and that I have some experience in this, as I lived through the imposition of a law by the provincial government of Quebec. Let me say this at the outset: when salaries are being negotiated, it is not advisable for one party to have the upper hand. We went back to work dragging our heels.

Their ultimate objective here is to put an end to the union movement, privatize the business and offer ridiculous salaries.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member across the way would be surprised to know how many emails I have received from all over Canada, from workers who are demanding that the government put an end to the lockout so that they can receive their mail. That is the only solution: if the government puts an end to the lockout, the negotiations can resume properly and everything will get settled.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by apologizing to my constituents in the riding of Laval for missing the various Saint-Jean-Baptiste festivities taking place throughout the community. I am here today to stand up for workers' rights.

On June 3, postal workers began rotating strikes. They are fighting for safer working conditions and decent wages. They offered to stop the rotating strikes if Canada Post would agree to abide by the old contract while negotiations were ongoing. Canada Post refused to do so. The employer instead decided to lock the workers out and to shut down postal service. That is why Canadians and small businesses are no longer receiving their mail.

It is important to keep in mind that this is not a workers' strike but a lockout imposed by the employer, Canada Post. Workers have the right to negotiate with their employer in good faith. But that is not the case here. The government wants to impose a labour contract on employees. What the government is doing does not give both sides an opportunity to reach an agreement. Furthermore, the government is proposing an agreement with even lower wages than Canada Post's offer.

What type of message are they sending? This debate is not only about mail, it is above all about the workers' right to negotiate a collective agreement. Who will be the next group of workers to see their rights trampled underfoot in this way?

Which leads me to ask the Conservative caucus and more precisely the Minister of Labour if the ultimate objective, the government's true objective, is not simply to create a precedent, a very dangerous one in fact, in order to destroy and annihilate the union movement in Canada.

Canada Post workers want a very simple thing: they want to deliver the mail, to work, quite simply. For the moment, they cannot provide the services they were hired to provide. This raises the following question: why can they not go to work? The answer is very simple: there is a lock on their employer's door. There are locks on all the mailboxes throughout the country.

Canada Post has a mandate to fulfill for the entire population, including people in large cities like Laval and Montreal. Laval residents are already dealing with big problems, because it is difficult these days to get around on the island of Montreal where many Laval residents work. Since the government is not investing enough in infrastructure in the greater Montreal area, the residents of both the south and north shores are suffering.

It would be possible to prevent further problems for the people of Laval, Montreal and the south shore. The government could encourage negotiations and work with the opposition to make the bill acceptable to all sides in this labour dispute.

Canada Post has decided that the Canadian population would no longer receive its mail. In addition to Canada Post preventing the letter carriers from working, the Government of Canada has decided to add insult to injury by setting lower salary levels. These workers did not need that. These workers make the economy go round. These workers are the engine of the economy. They are consumers and taxpayers. They contribute to society, as opposed to the big corporations that are always getting bigger and better gifts from the government.

The time has come to show some flexibility and withdraw the unfair provision regarding workers' salaries.

We understand that the government is in no hurry to remove the locks from the doors, because it likes locks. It locked up Parliament several times because it did not like the way things were going.

The solution to this deadlock is simple. We are asking the government to work with us to encourage negotiation in good faith between the parties in this conflict. We are asking the government to withdraw the clause that sets the salaries for postal workers, and to put an immediate end to the lockout so that mail carriers can resume delivering the mail and providing service to the population. That is what they were hired to do. We are also asking the government to allow the negotiations to continue until a new collective agreement has been signed.

Canada Post is not bankrupt. No urgent restructuring is required. Canada Post is a profitable undertaking with a responsibility to negotiate with its workers. The time has come to put an end to the lockout.