Raymond Côté

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her heartfelt speech, which described what people in her riding are actually experiencing.

I wanted to base my speech today on facts. The Bank of Canada's most recent report, dated January 2015, is very clear. It indicates that the proportion of involuntary part-time workers continues to be elevated. That was said in 2014, before the price of oil dropped. This is the result of the measures taken by the government.

My colleague spoke about the difficulty of entering the workforce. Long-term, full-time jobs that can support a family are becoming increasingly rare. People often have unstable jobs and sometimes have to work more than one job.

I would like my colleague to tell us if that is what is happening in her riding.

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her speech. She talked about increasing productivity and our ability to take advantage of lower energy costs, and the Bank of Canada report reflects that too. It is very clear to me that businesses do not have enough confidence to hire people for the long term in order to benefit from improved export conditions.

The Bank of Canada stated very clearly that long-term unemployment is still near its post-crisis peak. It has been five years; that is a long time. That hints at how business people are feeling and the fact that they are not ready to invest in human capital or in upgrading their equipment to take advantage of the economic recovery. Very clearly, that is because of the decisions made by this government, which put all of its eggs in the oil basket instead of supporting diversity in our economy as a way of preparing for the kind of transition we are seeing now. I would like my colleague to talk about this long-term unemployment problem and the fact that people are being shut out of economic opportunities.

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which focused on her constituents.

In my speech, I talked about the Bank of Canada monetary policy report. It indicated that the participation rate of workers between 24 and 54, the largest and most active age group on the labour market, fell sharply in 2014. In fact, everything in the report indicates that the labour market is becoming increasingly unstable. I agree with my colleague that people are concerned and, contrary to what it claims, the Conservative government is not responding to those concerns whatsoever. This is a critical situation.

I would like my colleague to comment on the facts established by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, facts that the government refuses to acknowledge, as we have heard in the debates since this morning.

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment.

As the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I experience that same lack of transparency when trying to deal with my constituents' issues with the dust coming from the Port of Québec. Unfortunately, this is a trend we have been seeing for decades from our governments in Canada. They care less and less about transparency. This trend has become more prevalent and has really picked up steam under the Conservatives' rule these last nine years. This trend is so strong that it has become quite worrisome. There is a lot that will have to change so that the books can be opened back up and people can know where they stand for the future and are aware of topics that should be public.

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He is right: income splitting is a very bad idea.

I would simply say that over the past 20 years Liberal and Conservative governments have practically been in lockstep as they have benefited the wealthiest by lowering their taxes and especially by eliminating some tax brackets. Furthermore, large corporations have had their taxes cut in half.

For 20 years we have been promised a brighter future and forced to wear rose-coloured glasses. That brighter future has not materialized. In fact, the record of the Liberal and Conservative governments is clear. According to the Bank of Canada's Monetary Policy Report, the current labour market is very precarious. In fact, the future of our workers is uncertain at this time. With the pending turbulence, people will suffer a great deal. What hope is there for our young people who want to enter the labour market, given the conditions created over 20 years by the Liberal and Conservative governments? That is my question.

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that my esteemed colleague missed part of my speech. My presentation was about the labour market. I did not give my own estimates or assessments, but the facts presented by the Bank of Canada.

I invite my colleague to consult the Bank of Canada's January 2015 Monetary Policy Report, where she will find the quotes and data pertaining to the precarious labour market that I described. It is not even a question of opinion. She can refuse to accept reality if she so wishes and if those are the instructions from the PMO. However, the reality has been laid out by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. That is not debatable.

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague saying that is false. He is therefore saying that the findings of the Bank of Canada's Monetary Policy Report are false. I would ask him to read that report and then tell me the facts are false. I am not making this up. I am just quoting the Bank of Canada report.

The job market has not been this unstable since the end of the economic crisis. I would describe it as a sink-or-swim job market, which is really too bad for a country as wealthy as ours.

Canada is well positioned with its natural resources, its human resources, its expertise, and its extraordinary and renowned industries with a number of a leading-edge sectors. There is also the tourism industry, which made Canada a leader. That leadership has been lost because we are in the middle of the pack with truly dismal tourism growth rates. Despite all these assets, we have been falling behind for years now.

Now the context has changed drastically, since there has been a massive drop in oil prices. Indeed, the price per barrel on global markets has dropped by 50%, and in just a few months' time, which is really brutal. There is no other way to describe it. I do not think anyone in this House would challenge me on that.

With that in mind, it is clear that the government has basically abandoned the middle class, and we are going to have to change course completely. This change in course should come from the Government of Canada, which is in the best position to do it, as it has the best tools to fix the situation and ensure that the middle class can reclaim its rightful place. This means getting back to real prosperity, the long-term security it no longer has because of the precarious nature of the labour market, and to conditions that allow middle-class Canadians to hope for the same for their children, since this is no longer a sure thing.

Over the holiday break, many of my colleagues probably had an opportunity not only to take a few days or weeks of vacation, but also to talk to people who are still very worried for their children. They worry about what will happen to them, even when their children are getting an advanced education. The labour market is not very strong; in fact, it can no longer really accommodate most young people after they finish their studies.

Furthermore, the monetary policy report was very clear on that. The situation did improve somewhat for young people, but only a little. We are lagging so far behind that we cannot actually talk about good opportunities for young people entering the workforce. These observations apply to the situation right now, which is already distressing, so what are we passing on to future generations?

Right now, the House has the wonderful opportunity to discuss and debate the legacy that we are going to build and pass on to future generations. However, no such legacy exists. The only legacy that we are passing on is a legacy of liabilities or a social debt on the labour market that is going to haunt us long after the budget is balanced. Even a balanced budget is rather unlikely given that the ministers have made contradictory statements on the issue and we have no idea whether the budget will be balanced within the timeframe that the government set for itself. The government is seeking to balance the budget, but we do not know whether it will do so in these conditions, which are even more terrible than what we have been living through over the past 10 years.

The reality—and this is why the NDP is positioning itself to become the next Government of Canada—is that we already need to be sending strong signals in order to improve the situation and build this legacy. As my esteemed colleague said, we can do this by implementing rather simple, but strong and practical, measures, such as a $15 minimum wage. Obviously, this will be implemented gradually so as to not disrupt the market, but we will set an ambitious, yet realistic, timeline.

Clearly, setting up $15-a-day child care is important. Canadian families are struggling to make ends meet with low incomes and part-time jobs, and yet they still have to pay astronomical child care costs, which vary across the country from hundreds of dollars to even a thousand dollars a month. That is truly ridiculous. It is absolutely unacceptable, and the government is not doing anything to stop it.

However, the most serious problem—and likely the most important point in the debate about our economic future—is that the Bank of Canada has taken action to address the upheaval we are experiencing but has been left to fight alone because the government has not given any indication that it is prepared to support the Bank of Canada's plan. That is completely unacceptable because the Bank of Canada should not have to bear the burden of trying to remedy the situation. On the contrary, we need direct action from the government in order to weather this storm while ensuring that people have better living conditions and get through this difficult situation under reasonable conditions.

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for sharing his precious speaking time with me because I am sure he could have made good use of his 20 minutes to touch on other subjects. There is so much to say about our motion.

My colleague read the motion, so I will not reread it. However, I will begin my speech by saying that the Conservative government has been setting Canadians up for some hard times for quite a while now. I am not just saying that. That statement is based on well-established, well-documented facts. I can point to a source that I hope my Conservative colleagues will not dispute: the Bank of Canada's “Monetary Policy Report”, which was released a few days ago. This is the January 2015 report.

I am going to focus on issues that directly affect the middle class, specifically, labour market issues. In this report the Bank of Canada indicates that the labour market index has been held back by other developments, such as long-term unemployment, which is still close to its post-crisis peak. Not pre-crisis; post-crisis. The situation has clearly not improved.

In addition, the number of hours worked remains low, and the proportion of involuntary part-time workers continues to be elevated. The government needs to face this distressing fact. It has nothing to do with the present circumstances, which are related to plummeting oil prices. This situation is the direct result of the current Conservative government's policies. It cannot hide from that fact. The Governor of the Bank of Canada wrote it right there in black and white.

To that I will add another very troubling bit of information. I think it is probably the most troubling part of all and what makes our debate today so urgent and important. The participation rate is low relative to what would be suggested by purely demographic forces. The report indicates that the participation rate of prime-age workers, those aged 25-54, fell substantially in 2014, suggesting that at least some of the decrease in labour force attachment is unrelated to demographic forces. It is therefore not related to the normal changes we might expect in the labour market or to the changes in Canadian demographics. This is the result of the conditions created by the measures adopted by the Conservative government. The Conservative government is to blame for the current state of affairs, for putting us on the brink, perhaps not of a perfect storm, but of a very worrisome turbulent situation where Canadians, families and the middle class will pay a high price in various parts of the country.

[Health, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his response. However, all he did was repeat what I have been hearing for two years. His answer was completely unsatisfactory. My colleague, the Minister of Transport and the parliamentary secretary are all incapable of addressing the public's concerns.

Where is the proof that the measures taken have resulted in a real reduction in dust emissions? Where is the proof that the air has been cleaned and that the Port of Québec and Quebec Stevedoring were successful? We are still in the dark, and not just because of the dust cloud over Quebec City's lower town. We are in the dark because the Conservative government, along with the Port of Québec and Quebec Stevedoring, have done absolutely nothing and refuse to do anything.

Where is the proof that these wonderful measures have had a positive impact on the public? I have yet to see any evidence, and I am sure that I will not see any this evening.

[Health, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit a subject I have raised many times in the House over the past two years. Ever since the famous red dust episode at the Port of Québec in October 2012, nothing has been done. I have received at best cursory answers from the government, first from the transport minister at the time, who is now the Minister of Infrastructure, but those answers were not enough for Canadians.

Last fall, Véronique Lalande, the leader of the citizen movement denouncing the pollution problems caused by dust from the Port of Québec, appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance to describe how serious the consequences have been for the community.

Another very troubling aspect of this matter is the government's attitude, as well as Transport Canada's vagueness about its involvement. Government officials do not even seem to know whether they bear some responsibility for this matter or whether Transport Canada has nothing to do with it and the Quebec Port Authority must bear full responsibility.

To illustrate this vagueness, I will quote the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport on December 5, 2014:

I understand that the Quebec Port Authority has been working with tenants to reduce those dust emissions.

This response from just a few weeks ago is far from satisfactory two years after this affair began, when there is ample evidence of the extent of the contamination from the nickel dust and the dust from the Port of Québec. I want to remind hon. members that the government admitted that Quebec Stevedoring was responsible for the high level of contamination from the nickel dust that falls on Limoilou and Quebec City's lower town in general.

Just today, I received certain documents following an access to information request. I have not had the chance to go over them, but other documents were provided to me after more than a year and a half of waiting. They show that, in the three months following the red dust incident, Transport Canada consistently followed the lead of the Port of Québec. In fact, Transport Canada officials seemed to be overwhelmed by the events and did not seem to have any guidance or instruction on to how to deal with the situation. Everything was based on what the CEO of the Port of Québec reported and what the Port of Québec was willing to provide to Transport Canada; Transport Canada did nothing to get to the bottom of the problem and actually become involved in the case.

I have often questioned the Conservative government about its failure to act in this case. Such inaction has tremendous and direct consequences for public health and quality of life. This causes concern.

I want to know what it is going to take for the government to be a real player alongside the Port of Québec and Quebec Stevedoring in coming up with a solution to this problem.