House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Government Buildings November 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, this government owns 50,000 buildings, many of which are outdated, expensive to operate and waste energy. Yet today, unbelievably, the government postponed an energy retrofit program that would create thousands of jobs, save a fortune in operating costs and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
On the eve of Kyoto can the Minister of the Environment please explain why in the world she would postpone an idea as good as job creation through energy conservation.
Canada Post November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is not supposed to be a cash cow to be milked by the federal government. The government's demand for profits and dividends from Canada Post has all the earmarks of getting the corporation ready for the auction block. It is like fattening up a calf before bringing it to market.
Will the minister of public works withdraw the demand for dividends from Canada Post and assure the House today that the government will never sell off and privatize this valuable asset?
Canada Post November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were in opposition they wrote a report that said Canada Post should not pay income tax and should only generate enough profits to pay for its operating costs and to improve services to Canadians.
Today the Liberal government is demanding that Canada Post pay dividends of $294 million over five years and $131 million in income tax. This strike could be settled today if the government withdrew its unreasonable demand for profits.
Will the minister of government services direct Canada Post to return to the table without the demand for dividends that is the root cause of this strike?
Canada Post November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the biggest single obstacle in this round of bargaining stems from the Liberal government demanding that Canada Post pay dividends of over $200 million over the next five years. Canada Post wants to meet those demands by eliminating jobs.
Since when is Canada Post supposed to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in profits when its mandate is to put revenues into better service for Canadians?
Will the minister and his government withdraw this unreasonable demand for profits, take away the need to eliminate jobs and thereby move us toward a speedy settlement in this round of bargaining?
Canada Post November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works angrily condemned the Canadian Union of Postal Workers for refusing to allow Canada Post to eliminate 4,000 jobs. His comments indicated a clear bias in favour of the corporation and an open hostility toward the working Canadians who are fighting for their jobs.
Will the minister withdraw his damaging statements of yesterday and let the parties conclude a new agreement free of interference and free of the kind of threats that we heard yesterday?
Canada Post November 17th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post continues to try to negotiate through the media using fearmongering and misinformation to hide the real issues surrounding this round of bargaining.
Those real issues are the protection of thousands of good full time jobs and the struggle to make poor paying part-time jobs into real jobs that Canadians can live on.
This round of bargaining could be settled if the government would stop threatening to throw 4,000 Canadians out on the street. Will the Minister of Public Works speak out on behalf of Canadian workers and direct Canada Post to withdraw its proposals which would eliminate Canadian jobs?
Criminal Code November 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Oslo conference on child labour reflects a growing and worldwide concern about child labour, particularly the urgent need to eliminate its most extreme and intolerable forms.
All the delegates at the Oslo conference agreed that the countries of the world must take every step possible to suppress such atrocities as the sale and trafficking of children, forced and compulsory labour, debt bondage and child slavery, and the use of children for any type of work that is likely to jeopardize their health, their safety or their moral and social development. The use of child soldiers in recent armed conflicts was identified as an issue that requires immediate and specific attention. There was less than consensus opinion, however, on how to best address the larger issue of the 250 million child labourers between the ages of 5 and 14 who are forced to work to survive.
Everyone everywhere agrees that poverty is both the root cause and a major consequence of child labour. In that light strategies to fight poverty are central to any serious efforts to alleviate child labour. Canada falls short in this regard. The international community has targeted 0.7% of GDP as the level of industrial development aid. Canada now stands at 0.34%, a drop of $780 million. Both Norway and Great Britain have announced increases to a full 1% of gross domestic product.
Canada falls short in other tangibles as well. The Canadian government says that it does not support the use of boycotts or labelling programs. It does not agree that projects like the Rugmart labelling system will end the exploitation of children in the carpet industry even though there is broad support for that program in many parts of the world. The government does not believe in legislation such as the Harken bill in the United States which bans the importation of goods made by bonded child labour. It has refused for over 25 years to sign International Labour Organization convention No. 138 which deals with the minimum age of workers entering the workforce.
The government does not agree that international trade agreements must include labour standards in spite of the fact that speaker after speaker at the Oslo conference cited liberalized trade agreements as a key cause in the escalation of the use of child labour in the world.
Consumers and governments in developed nations can and must use their purchasing power and any other instruments at their disposal to put pressure on those who participate in the economic exploitation of children. Voluntary compliance with codes of conduct will not help the child who sits chained to a loom as we speak.
Do we know that consumer boycotts and non-tariff trade barriers work? The garment manufacturers of Bangladesh at the merest hint of a boycott by the United States cleared their workplaces of child labour within three years and now use the fact that they are child labour free as a marketing tool.
Critics would say that boycotts result in these children being thrown out of the workplace and winding up in the streets or some worse form of exploitation. My point is that there are 50 million child labourers in India and over 100 million heads of households who do not have meaningful work. It is simple. We take the children out of the workplace. We put their parents in the workplace. We put the children in schools where they belong.
The government has not done enough. When questioned on October 3, the Minister of Foreign Affairs again repeated he was not willing to engage legislation and tools such as the Harken bill in the United States and he was not willing to sign convention No. 138 of the ILO.
Rights Of Children November 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Oslo conference on child labour reflects a growing concern about the urgent need to end the economic exploitation of children.
Speaker after speaker at this conference identified the liberalization of trade agreements as a key cause of the escalation of this worldwide problem. Statistics show there are 250 million child labourers in the world. Many work in conditions that jeopardize their health, their safety and their social and moral development.
Our party believes that governments and consumers in developed nations can and should use their influence to put pressure on those who exploit child labour. We believe the Canadian government should pass legislation similar to the Harken bill in the United States which would ban the importation of goods made by child labour.
Canada should join the other nations of the world in signing ILO convention No. 138 which limits the minimum age of workers entering the workforce. Canada should not enter into any international trade agreements that do not clearly outline acceptable labour standards.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act November 3rd, 1997
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of my party in support of Bill C-12, an act to amend the RCMP superannuation act. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
It is our position that this legislation, which gives members of the RCMP serving abroad as peacekeepers the same benefits as their counterparts in the armed forces in the event of illness, injury and death, has been far too long in coming.
While we welcome the introduction of this bill and we urge its speedy passage, we hope that in future, when we ask our young men and women to place their lives on the line for their country, they will not have to worry about their benefits and about our commitment to them.
We must recognize that when our peacekeepers are serving abroad in war zones or areas of civil strife or natural disaster, they do not work eight hour shifts. On the contrary, they are on duty around the clock, putting their lives at risk for their country 24 hours a day. Bill C-12 recognizes the unique nature of this job and takes the necessary steps to remedy the unfairness of the current situation.
Canada is respected around the world for its commitment to peace and as a leader in peacekeeping nations. We, as representatives of the people, must ensure that every measure is taken to give full support to our peacekeepers and their families both at home and abroad.
This legislation that is intended to provide RCMP members who serve as peacekeepers the same health benefits as their counterparts in the armed forces is a step in the right direction and it is only fair. More must be done to recognize the service of our peacekeepers and the sacrifices they and their families make in the name of peace on behalf of all Canadians.
The issue of equity for all of those who serve Canada must be addressed both at home and abroad, particularly with respect to the RCMP who currently do not have the same collective bargaining rights as their brothers and sisters in other law enforcement agencies across the country.
They do not have the same opportunity to advocate on their own behalf through free collective bargaining. I hope we get an opportunity to address that issue in this House before long.
We hear stories of members of the Canadian armed forces and their families having to use food banks to sustain themselves. Why is it that men and women who put their lives on the line for their country and for peace around the world are forced to live in near poverty conditions when they return home to Canada?
There is something fundamentally wrong when long expected pay increases for service men and women have been put on hold for five, six and going on seven years when just last month the Treasury Board approved huge bonuses for an executive group of the public service, bonuses of $4,500, even reaching $12,000 per individual.
Believe me, the significance of this was not lost on the hard working public service employees. It is hard not to be jaded when they witness such a clear government bias in favour of the executive ranks while denying longstanding legally required pay settlements to the lowest paid workers.
RCMP members of the Canadian peacekeeping forces deserve equal pay for work of equal value, but so do all public sector employees.
We can only hope that this spirit of generosity and this new found sense of fairness on the part of the solicitor general can be extended to the Treasury Board. Public sector workers have been waiting for a decade for the federal government to make good on its obligation to pay equity and they are still waiting. They are waiting for fairness, they are waiting for equal pay for work of equal value regardless of their gender. They are a patient and long suffering group and they have come to realize that when you are waiting for a fair shake from this government you had better pack a lunch.
It is timely to address these issues, particularly as this week is veterans week, a time when all Canadians are encouraged to reflect on the great sacrifices made by all our members of the armed forces on behalf of Canada and on behalf of peace around the world.
We support the government's introduction of Bill C-12 and we hope that this is the beginning of a renewed commitment to our peacekeepers and indeed to all Canadians, for this government has a very long way to go to restore equity and fairness to Canadians. We in the New Democratic Party on behalf of working people everywhere will continue to ensure that it does.
Multilateral Agreement On Investment October 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, for two years the Canadian government has been engaged in secret negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment, an agreement which goes well beyond the provisions of NAFTA in ceding power to multinationals and threatens to diminish even further the rights of nations to direct their own economies, provide safe and decent working conditions and protect the environment for future generations.
This Liberal government promised not to sign NAFTA unless it could get adequate protection for labour and environmental standards in 1993 and then it signed on to an inadequate and toothless side agreement designed to convince Canadians that they were standing up for Canadian interests.
This government should not proceed in any further trade negotiations without first constructing an international legal framework to protect human rights, the rights of labour and the rights of communities to regulate in the interest of sustainable development.