Peggy Nash

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not buy the argument that we cannot afford to pay $10 an hour. As I said, the majority of low wage jobs are with large employers, most of whom are extremely profitable. In fact, profits have never been higher. In small businesses, it is not like one small business will be disadvantaged versus another, it will be the same floor for everyone.

I believe it is a question of basic respect for people. We cannot have a minimum wage today worth 20% less than it was 30 years ago, and believe that somehow we live in a fair and democratic society.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the low income cutoff is one measure that, today, is generally accepted as a measure of determining poverty levels.

I am always concerned when people want to study definitions, and I am sure this is not what the hon. member means by this, but there is always the danger that then there is a delay in actually taking action because there is a delay in establishing a definition.

I think we see the definition by the numbers of people in all our communities who, by anyone's measure, are living in poverty. Certainly, in Mr. Arthurs' report on part III of the Labour Code, he referred to the low income cutoff level. That was a standard that he took.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that there are about 700,000 workers who would be covered by this legislation. That says to me that there are 700,000 individuals with families who deserve the basic standard of a decent minimum wage.

As I said earlier, about 10% of the workforce falls under federal jurisdiction. He is right, many of these workers are covered by collective agreements. However, certainly, there are some people who fall below the federal minimum wage.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that it is not doable and, on the other hand, say that nobody is going to be affected.

I believe that, in fact, it is absolutely achievable and that while the numbers are not astronomical of those who work below $10 a hour, certainly there will be people who will be helped by this. I think our federal government should show leadership on this issue and lead the way and, hopefully, many of the provinces will follow.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to second the motion by my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie. He has very eloquently described the terribly desperate situation that so many Canadians across the country find themselves in. Many of us have read the statistics, often published in the newspapers, about how almost five million Canadians are living in poverty, 1.2 million children are living in poverty, and one in seven full time workers is working for less than $10 an hour.

As my colleague described, the real impact is on the day to day lives of so many Canadians. I see it in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. I see it in the community kitchens, the breakfast programs and the Sunday dinner programs, where so many people are so desperate and so grateful for the smallest of generosities from their communities. What hits especially hard is to see the children with their parents. I wonder what kind of hopes and dreams those kids have when they live in such desperate circumstances.

We live in a time when our economy is doing very well. Our corporations are earning profits at an all time high. Our CEOs are earning wildly extravagant wages. A report came out first thing at the beginning of 2007 and stated that the average CEO of one of the major companies has earned, by 9:45 in the morning on new year's day, the equivalent of the annual salary of a person working at minimum wage. That gives us some comparison and an idea of the extremes and the growing gap in our society. We clearly have a lot of money in our society. The issue that we are struggling with, I think, is the equitable distribution of this money so that we do not have such extremes of wealth and poverty.

I have a private member's bill on the issue of reinstating the federal minimum wage at $10 an hour. We know that most low wage workers are women. Many of them are newcomers to Canada. I see that in my community because it is one where many people settle when they first arrive in Canada.

Average minimum wages across Canada have declined in their real value by about 20% since 1976. Over the last 30 years, the value of our average minimum wage across the country has declined by 20%. I think that has contributed enormously to the problems of hopelessness and desperation for people living in poverty.

For a government that places such a high priority on a law and order agenda, one of the best ways to prevent crime is to pay people a decent income so they do not feel that desperation and hopelessness, so they do not feel that nothing matters and they have nothing to lose.

We used to have a federal minimum wage. It had not been increased since 1986 and was abolished by the Chrétien government in 1996. We now have no federal minimum wage. I believe that the federal government has really abandoned its leadership role in setting a standard for a minimum wage for Canadians.

Only about 10% of workers in Canada fall under the federal minimum wage. Most workers in the country fall under provincial legislation, but the federal government has the ability to set a standard, to set a goal for the rest of the country, and certainly having a federal minimum wage is very important for people who work under the federal jurisdiction.

There are those who ask, “What about the economy?” People say that doing this will be terrible for the economy. They say that whether something is done federally or the provinces take up the issue of the minimum wage it will have a negative impact on the economy.

I challenge that notion. There is a report by 80 economists in Ontario that states the contrary. Rather than undermining jobs or undermining the economy it states that increasing the minimum wage has a positive impact. It increases labour market participation. More people are able to spend money, unlike the very wealthy who when they get fabulous salaries can salt them away in a trust in the Bahamas or some place. Low income people spend what they get and if they get an increase in pay it goes for food on the table, it goes to rent, it goes to their kids' clothes and school books. It also means that people are paying more in taxes and we have less in social spending, so there is a positive impact all around.

We know that in places where there has been a significant increase in the minimum wage in cities like San Francisco, Washington, and in the U.K., there was a positive impact, not a negative impact, on the economy.

Some people say this is going to be detrimental to small business. Again, most small businesses fall under provincial jurisdiction, but only about 29% of low wage jobs are in the small business sector. There are many small business owners who pay decent wages because they know they get what they pay for. They want people who are going to be loyal. When they train them, they are going to stay there. They are going to be good with the customers. They believe it is an investment that pays off in the long run. Those who overwhelmingly are paying low wages are the major businesses in fast foods, the retail giants and the temporary agencies. These are the ones that overwhelmingly are keeping low wages in their workplaces.

There is a federal study that did not receive a lot of attention when it was released, but on October 30 there was a study by Harry Arthurs, the former dean of Osgoode Law School, called “Fairness at Work: Federal Labour Standards for the 21st Century” which was reporting on part III of the Labour Code. He made the point that no one should work full time all year and have to live in poverty. That is fundamental and it is a study that the government should heed.

I believe that this is a challenge we can meet. So many Canadians are disaffected by politics. They disengage from the political process because they do not believe their politicians are speaking out for them. If we want to show people that truly we are listening to those who today feel they have no voice, then I believe this is an issue whose time has come. The federal government can show leadership by reinstituting the minimum wage as part of an overall national anti-poverty strategy.

My caucus and I are not alone on this. There are many organizations which have been campaigning on this issue. Campaign 2000, most notably, took up the challenge from the motion that this House passed unanimously in 1989 introduced by my colleague, Ed Broadbent, who said that by the year 2000 we should eliminate child poverty, and of course the opposite happened. More children are living in poverty.

Campaign 2000 believes in this as do the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Labour Congress, Make Poverty History, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Toronto Star, the Community Social Planning Council, and KAIROS, which is an interfaith organization. Many thousands of Canadians all believe as well that working men and women deserve a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

I want to close with a quote from Dr. Charles Hastings. He was Toronto's first medical officer of health. Almost 100 years ago, in 1918, he wrote the following:

Every nation that permits people to remain under the fetters of preventable disease and permits social conditions to exist that make it impossible for them to be properly fed, clothed and housed so as to maintain a high degree of resistance and physical fitness; and, who endorses a wage that does not afford sufficient revenue for the home, a revenue that will make possible the development of a sound mind and body, is trampling on a primary principle of democracy.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that under the previous government it was unfortunate and terrible that there was a missed opportunity, because after signing the Kyoto agreement, in fact our environmental record deteriorated. Our record is now worse than that of the United States. It was a phenomenal embarrassment and a betrayal of the confidence of Canadians.

Everyone is concerned about the environment. All political parties say they want to take action. The challenge for us as elected members of Parliament is to see how we can come together and take advantage of the opportunity of a minority government to finally get some concrete measures in place to deal with the environmental challenges that we are facing.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when the government introduced its program, I stood in the House and predicted that no child care spaces would be created. We had the experience in Ontario with a Conservative premier who promised a very similar program and the result was that not one child care space was created.

I absolutely do condemn the government on that, just as I am highly critical of the previous government, which had majority after majority, surplus budgets and had the money to bring in a sound, national early learning and child care program but wasted the opportunity.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I need to ask the hon. member what he means by supporting the government. On every confidence vote in the House, the NDP has voted against the government. I personally took on the Prime Minister and challenged his choice of a representative to head up the appointments commission and led the motion to have that appointment defeated.

Certainly I and my caucus have been challenging the government. What is the matter with your party?

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who may be watching this debate must be very frustrated listening to members of each party criticizing members of other parties. We have a blame game going on. I think the experience of life for many Canadians is one of a deterioration of their standard of living and a nervousness about their future and their children's future.

However, I do not want anyone to get me wrong. There is certainly lots of blame to go around and much of that has been put on the table this morning.

Canadians have real concerns about their day to day lives that they want to see their government address. I want to touch on a few of the issues that have been brought to me by my constituents in Parkdale—High Park in Toronto.

The first concern is on the issue of child care. I have been campaigning for a national child care program since before my children were born. My youngest son is 21 years old and we still do not have a national child care program. However, during that time we have seen a generational change where in the 1970s only about one-third of mothers with children under the age of five were in the paid workforce and now we see almost three-quarters of mothers with children under five in the paid workforce. We have seen a massive social change during this period.

Successive federal governments have failed to address this change. Canada is one of the few developed, industrialized democracies that does not have a national early learning and development program for its children.

I have campaigned for many years in my community on the need for a national, not for profit, good quality child care program that puts the needs of our kids front and centre. It would not replace the role of parents. It would embrace the role that parents play and try to help them in every way possible.

Unfortunately, governments after governments have squandered the opportunity. Even when we had successive balanced budgets and successive majority governments, especially by the previous Liberal government, there was too little too late. There was a kind of deathbed conversion to the issue of child care that, unfortunately, squandered the opportunity.

To now see the current government roll back the baby steps taken by the previous government in terms of provincial agreements on early childhood development is, quite frankly, shocking. For the government to replace that with a kind of taxable baby bonus and to tie that up in a bow and pretend it is child care, people do not buy it.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague here.

For the government to pretend that what is being offered to parents is a baby bonus, is quite a dissimilation. We need to recognize that the majority of parents are facing a difficult reality today. I know that in my riding the child care fees go anywhere from $800 up to $1,400 for a child and yet the waiting lists are long. In some child care centres hundreds of kids are on the waiting lists. Parents are at their wits end trying to deal with the situation.

Child care is an urgent crisis and I do not think Canadians care which party deals with it, they just want it dealt with. They want the blame game to stop and they want parties to get on with representing them here in the House of Commons and make progress on the things that affect their daily lives.

In my community there has been a real deterioration and a growing poverty. Studies have called it the growing gap. We see people who increasingly are working for very low wages. Housing costs are skyrocketing. The average cost of renting an apartment in my riding is about $1,000. People simply cannot afford this. Transit costs a lot. People need to travel great distances to get to work.

We know that in the 1990s there were massive cuts to social spending and most of that money was never restored. Welfare rates were cut, the national housing strategy was cut and people with disabilities and mental illness were left to fend for themselves.

Many university students in my riding have massive student loans and incredible debt that weighs on their shoulders when they finish university. Many graduates start out really terrified because many of them cannot get a job. Even after they graduate, it could take a number of years to find a job with a sufficient income to pay down their incredible debt.

Our cities, where 80% of the Canadian population lives, are stretched to the limit. The cost of services are being downloaded onto our cities. They have a $60 billion infrastructure deficit. They lack a national urban transit strategy, which is something for which I have been calling for some time. They are struggling to pay for things through property taxes, things that ought to be paid for through our income taxes. This has had the inevitable impact of a deterioration in our quality of life, especially our environment with the growing smog in our urban centres, and the deterioration of our water systems. My riding borders on Lake Ontario.

I think what Canadians need to judge all representatives by, especially governments now and past, is not what they say, especially when they are in opposition, but what they do when they are in power.

The challenge for the current government is to use this opportunity today to make, what I think has been a deteriorating situation in our country, it better, certainly not to make it worse.

One of the very bad decisions being made by the government is around politicizing judicial appointments. This is very dangerous. We have seen south of the border what happens when judicial appointments are politicized and how very dangerous that situation can be.

Last night, I joined a number of members from this House to celebrate the successful outcome of the Maher Arar and Monia Mazigh situations, who, unfortunately, were the victims of a climate of fear created after the September 11 attacks and the casting of a net so wide that it began to undermine our democratic rights and freedoms. It was, in part, because of a courageous judge who spoke the truth and cleared Mr. Arar's name, that ultimately led to his exoneration and finally to a public apology by the Prime Minister. Hopefully, the family will now be able to get their lives back on track.

However, that case hit home once again the importance of an independent judiciary and the importance of having our fundamental human rights and our democratic rights protected at all costs.

We also have great concern with the government cancelling the court challenges program. It is a very small amount of money in a multi-billion dollar government. It is only $5 million to ensure that those whose rights are supposed to be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually have access to the necessary legal processes to have those rights defended.

When a francophone, a woman, a lesbian, a gay, a bisexual or a transgendered person, a person with a disability, a first nations person, whoever a person is, does not have access to the halls of power, to have the court challenges program as a safety measure to ensure their rights are protected is fundamental. I see no justification for the complete elimination of this program. I find that very troubling. Because so many disadvantaged people have had to seek their rights through the courts, I believe this is a provision that must be enshrined.

I have spoken out many times against the cuts to women's programs and literacy programs. It is important that these programs be restored and that opposition voices be guaranteed in our country. It is a sign of maturity and security on the part of a government when it not only allows opposition voices but in fact encourages and fosters opposition voices. That is a sign of a healthy democracy.

As Canadians listen to these debates, they expect us all, whatever party we are in, to do better and to act on behalf of the good of all Canadians.

[China-Tibet Dialogue, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: urge the Government of the People's Republic of China and the representatives of Tibet's government in exile, notwithstanding their differences on Tibet's historical relationship with China, to continue their dialogue in a forward-looking manner that will lead to pragmatic solutions that respect the Chinese constitutional framework, the territorial integrity of China and fulfill the aspirations of the Tibetan people for a unified and genuinely autonomous Tibet.

[China-Tibet Dialogue, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent from the House for the following motion. I move: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should urge the government of the People's Republic of China and representatives of Tibet's government in exile, notwithstanding their differences on Tibet's historical relationship with China, to continue their dialogue in a forward looking manner that will lead to pragmatic solutions that respect the Chinese constitutional framework, the territorial integrity of China and fulfill the aspirations of the Tibetan people for a unified and genuinely autonomous Tibet.