Pierre Dionne Labelle

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 5th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, before addressing some aspects of this bill, I would like to congratulate my NDP colleagues for their clear and pertinent suggestions in response to the government's empty proposals.

In my presentation, I will be using some words that the Conservative government hates, such as “tax”, “poverty” and “social programs”. Canada is not far behind the U.S. when it comes to the dubious distinction of having the largest gap between rich and poor, and the provisions of this bill will make no difference. This trend is the result of changes in both markets and government policy. It is worrisome not only in terms of intergenerational equity and equality among people, but also because of the quality of life and economic development issues.

Income disparity between rich and poor has increased more quickly in Canada than in the United States over the past 15 years and, with the arrival of this Conservative government, became even more noticeable. Among developed nations, the American society is the most unequal, more so than the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia and Japan. Canada comes next, in fifth position, where the richest get 40% of revenues and the poorest 20% of the population only gets 7% of the income.

This growth in income disparity is not unique to Canada. It is prevalent among countries that have adopted neo-conservative policies over the past few years. Experts say that this phenomenon is related to the set of factors at play in market forces and to the institutional framework. Some of the market forces involved are globalization of the economy, which leads to low-skilled workers in rich countries competing against those in poor countries. The initial result is that, in the case of the former, there are job losses and salary reductions. I will come back to salary reductions and the loss of purchasing power by Canada's middle class. Technological change also contributes to this trend. However, I would like to focus on the nature of neo-conservative policies.

One of the most frequently cited factors related to the institutional framework is the weakening of unions. The balance of power between workers and employers has been eroded in recent years. We need better unions to ensure better social justice in Canada. Mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth—such as taxation—that ensure that all wealth does not flow into the same pockets, have been weakened. Social programs are another means of redistributing wealth.

I will speak about unemployment and give a few statistics. I know that our friends across the way like to pat themselves on the back. I know that they live in a bubble and see everything through rose-coloured glasses. There is a crisis all around us in western economies. The United States has an astounding amount of debt and is almost unable to pay it back. Every day, Europe is on the brink of a crisis and here in Canada, they are boasting, saying that everything is going well, saying that the economy is humming. But their bubble could burst at any moment. The Conservatives' illusions are very fragile.

I want to come back to the issue of unemployment. If we were to ask the Conservative members how many people in Canada are unemployed, I am not sure that many of them would be able to give the exact number. But here it is: 1.5 million people in Canada are unemployed. There was a significant increase in July. If we count all the people who are looking for work and those who are receiving employment insurance benefits, the unemployment rate is 11.1%. In July, that rate was 9.4%. But they are saying that everything is fine, so nothing is being done about it.

They say that cutting corporate taxes will create jobs. That is not true. It is entirely untrue. The facts complete disprove such claims.

Just look at the example of Ontario, where the combined federal-provincial corporate tax rate was cut by 45% between 1999 and 2010. During this same period, investments in equipment and machinery dropped from 8% to 5%. The money these companies saved in taxes was not reinvested in the economy, did not create jobs, and was not used to buy machinery. Where did this money go? It went into hedge funds. It went into speculative bubbles. And what happens to bubbles? Sooner or later, they burst.

I want to come back to the issue of unemployment. The Conservative government keeps repeating that we have recovered from the recession. The official employment rate in 2011 was 61.9% and 63.4% in 2007. We have not yet reached the pre-recession employment rate. It is clear that the Conservative strategy of doing nothing is not exactly helping kick-start the economy.

“Inequality, poverty and the middle class”—that is the title of this part of my speech which, I am sure, our friends across the way are extremely interested in. I see one who seems quite interested.

Inequality has increased in Canada because the income of the wealthy—and, even more so, of the very wealthy—has increased faster than all other groups. The gap between the average of the richest 20% and the poorest 20% in Canada also grew from $92,300 in 1976 to $117,500 in 2009.

The gap between the rich and poor does not speak to the situation of middle-income Canadians. It appears that this group did not fare much better over that time, according to the Conference Board of Canada [an organization that is generally well respected by the government]. The median income of Canadian households increased from $45,800 in 1976 to $48,300 in 2009, which represents a very modest increase of only 5.5% over 33 years.

The middle class is what drives our economy. Middle-class Canadians from Montreal's south shore were told today that, not only would their purchasing power not increase, but they would have to pay a toll every day when they cross the bridge to go to work. What an excellent way to encourage the middle class and to help Canadians get out of debt. I have not mentioned it yet, but household debt is skyrocketing; we have one of the highest rates of the OECD. Instead of coming up with solutions to increase the purchasing power of middle-class households, the government is putting tolls on bridges.

If I were in their shoes, I would be very discouraged by today's announcement. It will cost them $50, $60 or $100 a week just to go to work. That is unbelievable. Why were things simpler in the past? We built a bridge and people crossed it. Now the government is coming up with all kinds of stories. It is trying to convince Montrealers that it is paying for a bridge for them. The federal government will not be paying for this bridge. It is the people of Montreal and of the south shore who will end up paying for it.

This brings me to the end of my speech, as I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member believe that the purchase of fighter jets without a competitive bidding process constitutes standard practice? Would the member describe it as something that is likely to reassure Canadians regarding this government's management abilities?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for the memorable presentation she made about Canada's situation. I know that the other side of the House has the impression that everything is going well. I would like to ask the hon. member a question. Reports by the OECD and the International Monetary Fund say that everything is going well. So, how do we explain the fact that the number of people going to food banks has not stopped increasing since the Conservatives took office? I do not understand.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my Conservative colleague.

At no point did he mention the debt levels of Canadian families, which are among the highest in the OECD. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

Are there any measures planned to help families increase their purchasing power? I know that there is talk of a toll bridge, but these measures will not really help people increase their purchasing power.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's thoughts on the war on drugs. In the United States, cracking down on the traffickers is a total failure: there have never been more drugs around.

How can the hon. member claim that the way to deal with the traffickers is to impose harsher sentences, when that approach has failed everywhere else? I do not understand his logic.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is obvious that withdrawing this immoral and unjust bill would be the best solution. Postal workers have told us that if the government withdrew the bill and the Canada Post Corporation ended its lockout, the workers would return to work today. What are they waiting for to withdraw this bill? What are they waiting for to end the lockout? What are they waiting for to negotiate in good faith instead of pursuing a hidden right-wing political agenda? That is what we are wondering.

Canadians are wondering the same thing. Where is the government headed when it comes to workers? What does it intend to do about our rights and our existing social benefits?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, in what a demagogic way my words have been twisted. I never said that Canadians must join unions. I said that we hope that there will be as many unions as possible. In fact, in modern western countries where unions exist and wealth is distributed, life expectancy is higher, there is less illness, and social services are well supported. Those countries have the most vibrant economies. We need only look to Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

This is the basis for my comment about the need for unions. In countries where there are no unions, people work for 10¢ an hour and have no services—no health services or social security. That is the logic behind my comments.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the members opposite are all in fine form this morning. I am also pleased to see so many ministers here. It is comforting to know that the government truly wants to end this crisis in an honourable way.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say that he went to his riding and that people support him. Oddly enough, I just read in the newspapers that 53% of Quebeckers support the NDP. Our popularity is up again in the polls. With these polling numbers, not a single Conservative member would be elected if there were an election tomorrow.

I am here to defend the rights of postal workers and indeed of all workers. They government wants to dictate the collective agreement for postal workers. The government is not even giving the two parties the chance to negotiate.

It is odd that this government—which wants to redefine the role of government and wants a government that does not intervene as much in public affairs—has used this sledgehammer to meddle in the first labour dispute involving a crown corporation. It did not use this level of intervention to prevent the devastating crisis we were forced to endure because of all kinds of speculators in 2008. The government did not intervene then. But when postal workers want to preserve the gains of past generations, maintain their buying power, it quickly intervenes to keep them in line.

Perhaps the Conservatives are telling themselves that their actions will disrupt the labour movement, that they will scare the postal workers and other workers who are fighting to maintain their buying power. But they are wrong.

I know that many members on the government side hate unions, and they candidly admit it. They do not like our country's labour laws. They do not like the right to freedom of association; they do not like health and safety laws; they do not like minimum wage legislation. I know that some members opposite firmly believe in the invisible hand that guides the economy, the one that pushed us into the 2008 crisis and that is currently pushing countries like Greece, Spain and Iceland towards bankruptcy.

It is up to the general public and us to repair the damage that this hand, insensitive and unqualified to make society more fair, has wrought on the savings of small investors and families. The people are the ones suffering from the financial sector's lust, those small investors who lost $40,000 billion during the crisis. But the government did not intervene then.

Canada Post is telling its young employees that it can no longer ensure that the current pension plan will be available for future generations. That is strange, is it not, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary? Canada Post can no longer guarantee pensions for future generations. Yet, our companies are making record profits year after year. Our banks are making record profits year after year. Canada Post Corporation is also making profits. So why reduce benefits for young workers?

I feel that if we cannot understand the Conservatives' objective, the objective of these ideologues, we cannot understand the situation. It is incomprehensible that a crown corporation making $281 million in profits is asking young workers to accept lower wages and no guarantees in terms of pension plans. Where is the logic in that?

On this side of the House, we believe that pension plans are essential and that all Canadian workers should be able to have a pension plan to help them to live their later years in dignity and get out of poverty. The mere $1.68 a day that this government is offering is not going to help our seniors get out of poverty.

On this side of the House, we do not believe that the unions are too big. On the contrary, we believe that they should continue to grow and that more unions are needed. More unions should be created in our businesses and throughout the world to provide balance and ensure that the wealth that is generated benefits everyone, that it is redistributed.

A recent study showed that the purchasing power of the average Canadian worker increased by $1 a week over the past 25 years. People are not idiots or fools. They know that, today, it takes two salaries to support a small family. Even with those two salaries, they have difficulty buying essential commodities and paying for heating and electricity. Meanwhile, billionaires in Canada and throughout the world are growing richer. It is not normal to live in such a society. Our role, as members of the NDP, is not only to tell the government that we do not agree with Bill C-6 and the hypocritical role that it is playing in this dispute, but also to help all workers maintain and improve their working conditions.

On this side of the House, we do not believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand. We also do not believe that Canada Post negotiated honestly and in good faith. It negotiated in such a way that the government was able to introduce Bill C-6. Coming out of the election, the Conservative Prime Minister said that he was satisfied with the result because, finally, the debate would be clear. For once, I agree with him. It is true. The debate is very, very clear.

On this side of the House, it is clear. The NDP wants postal workers to maintain and improve their purchasing power, working conditions and pension fund, and it wants the young people who are hired by Canada Post to have the same conditions and benefits that have been negotiated over the years.

On this side, we want Canadian workers to have access to job security, and real protection against unemployment and illness. Clearly, our objective is not to produce more billionaires, but to increase the number of families that do not live in poverty. That is our vision for the future of Canada, and each time the government attempts, by various means, as it is doing with Bill C-6, to weaken the work world, we will be there.

Soon, we will have third reading of the bill and we will introduce amendments. I hope that the hours we have just spent here will lead the government, in good conscience, to find an honourable solution to this crisis. Each amendment could be discussed endlessly, but we will be here. We must find a solution to this crisis. I encourage the members opposite to reflect, in good conscience, and to find solutions.

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

Madam Speaker, this desire for privatization has been expressed for years in the neo-conservative discourse in Ottawa and in Quebec City. That is their vision of the market. The NDP wants to keep public services universal and free for the population, so that the wealth is shared and we live in a society of social justice. The government should not forget that. In four years, we will still be here to remind the government that social justice will climb its way to power in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, what was the question?