OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 110 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, September 16, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES September 16, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 110 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 110 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 110 (Version officielle) 147 110 16 09 2014 2014/09/16 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1000) [ Translation ] Privacy Commissioner of Canada The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2013-14 annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. [ English ] These documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[ Translation ] Interparliamentary Delegations Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings, held in Normandy, France, from June 5 to 7, 2014.

Petitions Canada Post Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed over the summer by several hundred of my constituents. The petition is about cuts at Canada Post and their impact on our seniors, people with reduced mobility and businesses. It is a follow-up to public consultations held in Chambly with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie .

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Business of Supply [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) Motion moved: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should reinstate the federal minimum wage and increase it incrementally to $15 per hour over five years. He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will have the genuine honour of sharing my time with my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek . I would also like to say hello to all of the British Columbians who have woken up to listen to this memorable speech.

I am honoured to rise in the House as the first to speak in favour of raising the federal minimum wage. Actually, we are talking about restoring the federal minimum wage, which, sadly, was abolished by the Liberals in 1996. That was one of the factors that led to increasing inequality in Canada and Quebec over the past 20 years. There is currently no federal minimum wage. All we have is a mechanism to ensure that people working in federally regulated jobs get paid the provincial minimum wage, which is now between $9 and $11 per hour. The highest minimum wage is in Ontario.

This explains the absurd and tragic situation we find ourselves in, where some Canadians can get up every morning and work 40 hours a week, yet still live below the poverty line. This is unbelievable and unacceptable in a society as rich as ours, in a G7 country. For people to have to work full time and still live below the poverty line is an affront to human dignity and to the efforts made by these men and women every day in going to work.

We in the NDP have come up with this concrete proposal to help people get out of poverty and ensure that no one who works full time ever has to live in poverty or be forced to go to a food bank to put food on the table. Under the LIberals and Conservatives, the number of people forced to turn to food banks to put food on the table has skyrocketed. The unemployed are not the only ones turning to social assistance; people who work are also doing so. In fact, working full time no longer automatically means being able to feed your family and your children.

We have people in Canada who work and still go without food themselves in order to feed their children so they do not go to school in the morning on an empty stomach. There are pockets of poverty in some areas of our cities and towns that need to be addressed. Those people deserve our help. (1005) [ English ] We are seeing, in the last couple of years in Canada, a downward spiral of wages and revenues.

We in the NDP believe that we should lift up everybody, lift up our communities and make better lives for everybody in Canada. [ Translation ] We have to put an end to the continuing downward spiral of people's purchasing power and salaries. The Conservative government has pushed hard to reduce the salaries and incomes of Canadians and Quebeckers. Consider the temporary foreign worker program, which allows employers to import cheap labour year after year. Under the Conservatives, the number of temporary foreign workers has increased from some 100,000 per year to approximately 400,000.

These people are working at Tim Hortons and McDonald's. Then there are the cuts to employment insurance. People are being forced to accept lower and lower salaries, perhaps 90% or 80% of their former salary. According to the Conservatives, if people have received too much help from this program, they must accept 70% of their former salary. We feel that is unacceptable. The measure we are proposing today is reasonable. The majority of studies demonstrate that a gradual, reasonable and moderate increase in the minimum wage would not result in job losses. The studies and documentation are clear on this.

It will help the fight against inequality but will not adversely impact job creation. This course of action is fully justified. Of course, it will be said that this will affect only federally regulated employees. There are nearly 820,000 federally regulated workers in the private sector, and approximately 100,000 of them earn less than $15 an hour. This measure will therefore provide tangible help to 100,000 families in Canada. That is not insignificant. It will have a considerable impact on our communities.

It will set the bar and send a message to the provinces that they must increase their minimum wages and follow the federal government's lead so that workers can live in dignity. That is very important to us. A total of 80% of the poorest Canadians have seen their incomes stagnate. Take away the richest 20%, and the remaining 80% of the poorest Canadians have seen their incomes stagnate over the past 35 years. If we compare the average minimum wages from 1975 and 2013, there was a 1¢ real increase in the average minimum wage, and that is in constant dollars, not current dollars. We find that unacceptable.

We need to take action to correct the situation. One thing is not well known: Canada is perceived as having a more egalitarian society than our neighbours to the south, the Americans, who live in a society fraught with rampant, unbridled capitalism. In Canada we are proud of our social safety net. Our system is different from the American system. We have a public health system—which was created by the NDP, and we are very proud of it-—that means there is less inequality in Canada than in the United States. However, we are noticing that the gap is now growing faster here than in the United States.

An hon. member: That is a fact. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a fact and it is alarming. We also have a government that just does not care. There is something called the Gini coefficient. I am going to seem smart, but I only learned abut it two years ago. It is a number between 0 and 1. If everyone in Canada has the same income, the Gini coefficient is 0. If someone has all the wealth in Canada, the Gini coefficient is 1. For the first time, the Gini coefficient in Canada is greater than 0.3. We have reached 0.32. At 0.4 we become a society where there is great inequality.

We are headed in that direction very quickly. Never before in Canada's history have we had a Gini coefficient greater than 0.3. Thanks to the Conservatives, we can say that we have now achieved that not very commendable objective. We believe that we must turn things around. We have to reverse the trend because it is not acceptable for the richest people in our society to continue getting richer while others watch as their income stagnates or decreases. A study by the Broadbent Institute indicates that since 1999, the top 10% of wealthiest Canadians have accounted for half the wealth in our country.

The top 10% own half of all the wealth in Canada. The bottom 50% control less than 6% of the wealth in Canada. This creates dangerous situations. It is not good for the social climate. This creates social tension and problems because people are being left behind. We are failing some people in our society as though they no longer count. It is as though all the policies were written so that the top 1% or 10% can get richer. It is as though the government does not care about the middle class or the least fortunate in our society. The NDP has a different vision.

It is a vision of social justice, progress and sharing wealth so that everyone here in Canada can live in dignity. Reinstating the federal minimum wage and increasing it incrementally to $15 per hour over five years is a start. It is what the NDP is proposing. We are extremely proud of that. I invite all my House of Commons colleagues in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party to support this NDP motion. (1010) [ English ] That way, finally, in Canada, no one is left behind and everybody can live in dignity. Mrs.

Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are certainly a number of concerns and flaws in the argument put forward by my hon. colleague. He talks about how many families this would impact. To be quite frank, the federally regulated workforce is what it will impact, and by most recent estimates, 0.05% of it or 416 people earn minimum wage. Compared to 35 million people in the country of Canada, this would not have nearly the impact that he is putting forward.

I would challenge him in terms of how much impact this would actually have. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, let me see if I understand my colleague correctly. She is saying that if there are no consequences for millions of people, then the government does not care and it is not worth the effort. Let those people remain in poverty. Let them earn a minimum wage that does not allow them to pay the rent, go on vacation or buy clothes for their children. It is no big deal. Ultimately, if she said that this affects only 50 people, I would still want to help them.

Are my arguments really so flawed? I think instead that the Conservatives across the way lack compassion. (1015) [ English ] Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, what we are tasked with here today is to get to the essence of it. My colleague made a number of comments that I fully agree with. There is a gap growing between the haves and the have-nots. I also agree that the government is more focused on the haves and the have-mores. The parliamentary secretary posed an absolutely legitimate question.

The answer was “can they not be compassionate?” According to the 2008 Stats Can report, this would impact fewer than 500 Canadians. Could the member speak to that, if in fact those are the numbers the NDP is working with? [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I accept my colleague's question. It is a legitimate one. I simply want to remind the member that 94% of the income inequality among Canadians over the last 35 years occurred when Liberal governments were in power. The member should be careful about making implications. If the member is looking at 2008 figures, he is behind.

If he is looking at a lower minimum wage—less than $12 an hour—then we are not comparing the same things. We are talking numbers today, and we are talking about a $15 minimum wage. Nearly 100,000 workers would be covered and affected by a decision of this kind made by the federal government. My colleague's figures are unfortunately outdated. We are setting the bar at $15 an hour. This would ensure that tens of thousands of federally regulated employees would see an increased standard of living. [ English ] Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into this debate.

I will mention that I was in Vancouver when our leader made the announcement on this particular aspect of our policy going forward. I had an interesting conversation with a fellow who works at the Vancouver airport, under the wing, taking care of the business we all rely on: moving our baggage, ensuring that the planes come into the docks in a correct fashion, making sure that no damage occurs to these planes that we fly on, and making sure that everything is taken care of. He was earning $10 an hour in that very regulated area.

It is simply unacceptable that today someone in that type of responsible position earns $10 an hour. No one can live in Vancouver, in a decent fashion, on $10 an hour. That is an extremely expensive place. Let us think about that worker having to make his way to the Vancouver airport, probably from some outlying district like Surrey, to work, to serve the people of Canada in a good, responsible, safe fashion doing extraordinary work. This is not acceptable. Does the member agree? Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. This is a very important point.

People cannot make a living or have a family living in Canada on $10 an hour. It is completely irresponsible. An increased minimum wage will help those workers, especially young workers, women, and immigrants in our country. This is a very important measure the NDP proposes today. Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . That is as close as my French will come. He has made some excellent points we need to really consider. My friend from the north just asked a question about people working at airlines.

Imagine earning $10 an hour, having four children at home, being the sole provider, working in a technical job that requires one's complete attention, and sitting there worrying about how to pay the bills at the end of the month. It strikes me as so sad that people from the other side cannot seem to see this. Even if it was solely 400 people, if this was improving their lives, why in the world would they not want to improve their lives? It does not make sense. I will repeat a phrase my friend used: New Democrats believe Canadians who work hard and play by the rules should be able to make a decent living.

Since the 1980s, I have watched the income disparity grow in this country. It got worse in 1996, when our friends down here in the Liberal Party cut out the federal minimum wage. It is about leadership at the federal level, not about dollars and cents. Coming back to my friend's proposition, if the federal government takes the lead in increasing the minimum wage, then it is guidance for the provinces to do the same. You might have noticed during your speech that I was writing around the corners of my speech. I tend to do that, because you prompted some good ideas—

(1020) The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. This is the second time this has happened this morning. The comments should be directed to the Chair, not to other members of the chamber. Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, I am so in the habit of talking to my good friend here. Thank you for the guidance. I appreciate it. The other thing is that people who are working for $10 an hour are not getting benefits, so they have other things they are paying for over and above. It is so disgusting to think about where we are leading Canadians. This should be a country of equals, at least to the point of living in dignity.

Over the summer I heard from Canadians, as I am sure others did, who said that they are not earning enough, that the country has been turned upside down. I am sure that they would agree with an increase in the minimum wage federally and across the board. I can assure the House, and Canadian workers who might be listening today, that the next federal government, an NDP government, will make this happen. I would add again that our friends, the Liberals, most assuredly erred when they cancelled the federal minimum wage. Now it is up to the NDP to start to undo the damage that was started with the Liberal Party. Mr.

Rodger Cuzner: You guys voted for it. Mr. Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, it is a well-understood economic fact that improving the minimum wage is a key step in reducing income inequality and building a fair economy. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: You voted for it. Mr. Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I hear noise from the Liberal side of the House. I guess they cannot get enough attention these days. Over the summer, we saw fast food workers protesting across the United States. That is an example Canadian workers could follow. It is a shame that workers have to go to that extent to just get a decent wage.

Tens of thousands of low-wage American workers took to the streets with strikes and rallies. I was going to say it was to push for higher salaries but I should really say that it was for at least fair salaries. Organizations like the Service Employees International Union called on the U.S. government to raise the federal minimum wage to $15. It did so because it is even worse in the U.S. The U.S. minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour. Think about that. How far will that get someone? How far will it take a family? Income inequality around the world has started to generate a similar debate in other countries.

It has actually led to some governments making change. Germany introduced its first minimum wage. It is slated to start in 2015. German companies are the economic powerhouse, really, of the world today, especially in Europe. In Switzerland, people are asking that a Swiss adult earn a basic income. Members will recall that NDP policy for years talked about a guaranteed annual income. In Switzerland it works out to $2,800 on a monthly basis. Compare that to $10 an hour and we would understand how much more people could do for their families if they had that.

Australia has one of the highest minimum wages in the world at $17.45 an hour. People who are under 18 years of age earn somewhat less than that. New Democrats, along with workers across Canada, believe that federal workers in Canada should have their own minimum wage. The Liberals, when in government, removed the federal minimum wage, as we have said repeatedly. Hopefully they have seen the error of that decision and will support the motion here today, although with the noise we hear from that end it is hard to decide which way they are going on this.

Experts believe that Canada's income inequality is at an all-time high, with approximately three million Canadians living below the low-income cut-off. There about one million Canadians earning minimum wage, 28% of whom are over the age of 35. They build their lives and into their 40s or 50s are still earning that. Also, 3.8 million workers in the U.S. earn wages at or below the federal minimum. What we are seeing in North America is a trend to drive workers' wages low or to keep them low.

(1025) The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has in the past suggested that Ontario's minimum wage drags people into poverty. In fairness to the Government of Ontario, it just made a modest increase to $11 an hour, but the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has suggested that should have been $14.50 an hour in order to even begin to address poverty. Our friends on the other side have an opportunity to reinstate a federal minimum wage. Our suggestion is to do it incrementally, to achieve it by 2015. They have the opportunity to do this, so why wait for an NDP government? Why not do it now?

The Conservatives have their views about law and order and people doing things right and following the rules. Canadians have followed the rules and they continue to do so, but when the rules hold them back in the manner that this does, we have to shake our heads. We have to ask why in the world the federal government would not institute at least a reasonable minimum wage of $15 an hour. What possible justification does it have for not doing that? Commerce tells us that if the minimum wage is increased and people are given more disposable income they will spend it, which causes the economy to grow.

The rest of us may have to pay a bit more in order to ensure that our fellow citizens live in dignity, but I am sure that if members on the other side stop to really consider that, they would be prepared to do that. They are not totally unreasonable people, although at times I wonder. More than 94% of the increase in income inequity over the past 35 years occurred under the Liberal government. The reality is that statistics do not matter. What matters is what is happening in people's lives. We can argue statistics, and we heard that from the government side when it asked how many people this would affect.

The government's figure is extremely low and some may find ours a bit high. The reality is that some Canadians are living in poverty, unable to raise their children, unable to get their children educated in university or anywhere else. They have no chance in life to move ahead and they are looking to the federal government to give them a decent wage and $15 would just be the beginning. More has to be done for Canadians. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, today I hope to have the opportunity to correct some of the misinformation out there in terms of the living wage. We heard about 1996, when we moved away from aligning with the provincial standard, and I understand the NDP supported that at that time. Those members seem to have had a significant shift in terms of their philosophy. Many experts in this area are saying the provinces are in the best position. Obviously, it is much more expensive to live in Vancouver, British Columbia, than it is in some other communities.

Some experts are saying we should have more microcosms in terms of minimum wage and that the provinces should be looking within themselves with respect to smaller numbers. I find it a little strange that the NDP would look at the federal government minimum wage and suggest that everyone should go in that direction, when really it was agreed to be moved to the provincial level. A lot of experts recognize the different issues in communities throughout the country and we need to be sensitive to those issues.

(1030) Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The NDP did support that motion at the time and we did it— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Wayne Marston: Excuse me. I am getting tired of that, Mr. Speaker. Every time we speak those members interrupt. The reason we chose to support the motion was because the Liberals had held it back for so long that by cancelling it and moving it to the provinces, the provinces were actually ahead of us. That is why we did that. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the official opposition for putting forward a motion that allows us to review the question of the minimum wage for federal workers. I have two questions. First, I would like clarification as to whether the NDP motion intends to extend a $15 an hour minimum wage to all classes of workers who are under federal jurisdiction, which would include rail workers, airline personnel, and so on, or just those workers directly employed, which I understand would be a small number.

Second, in putting the motion forward has the NDP considered whether this is the most strategic place to put pressure on the provinces to raise the minimum wage, or whether the labour skewing effects of the temporary foreign worker program in depressing wages might have had a larger impact on skewing the wages currently being paid across Canada? Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, since the member is getting a two for one today, I would be glad to answer. Yes, it would be intended for all in the federal jurisdiction. Considering the question around the temporary foreign workers, they are not mutually exclusive.

There is the fact that the temporary foreign worker program has succeeded in driving down wages in Canada. We should be addressing that as a separate issue, but of course the $15 is directed at Canadians. The temporary foreign workers are allowed to be paid 15% lower than Canadian wages, so that is an even worse distortion. I thank the member for the question. Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I largely agree with most of the sentiments he expressed therein, but it is hard to vote and to debate rationally without some facts on the table.

The first question I would have is this. Has he or has his party done a study on the inflationary effects, or not, of his proposal? Second, has the member considered what potential job losses may accrue, or not, as the case may be, by virtue of raising the minimum wage rate? Third, has he considered the effect on unpaid internships, whether in fact those people who are possibly laid off by virtue of $15 an hour now get turned into unpaid internships? Fourth, has he considered the regional distribution? There is a hot labour market in Alberta and in a lot of other places there is not.

I would be interested in his thoughts on any one or all of the above in 15 seconds or less. Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, my response is that it was a very nice speech from the member. Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked the House to agree to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Let me begin by asking this. Is this really the best way to help low-income Canadians? There are a number of reasons why the government does not support the motion and I welcome the opportunity to set some of them out.

At first glance, the motion may seem like a great idea, but as we look at it very carefully, we see that it actually is not. As I am sure the hon. member knows, the minimum wage applicable to employees who are in the federally regulated industries is the same as the minimum wage in the provinces where the individuals are usually employed. This is because for years now the Canada Labour Code has set minimum wages to replicate those of the provinces, provincial labour markets having an idea of where wages should be focused. This has been the case since 1996. We know that we need to focus on some important tasks.

Those are tasks like creating jobs, balancing our budget, helping seniors and people with disabilities, supporting skills training, and generally establishing the conditions to ensure that Canada's long-term prosperity is reached. However, for some reason we are obliged to debate federal minimum wages today. (1035) [ Translation ] Let us look at the actual situation. [ English ] First, according to the federal jurisdiction workplace survey, only 416 federally regulated employees were earning just the minimum wage in 2008. Let me put this in perspective.

These people represent 0.05% of all the employees in the federal jurisdiction, and that was in 2008. I wonder if this is actually what we should be using our debate time for. After all, the vast majority of federally regulated employees have higher-income jobs. Why are we spending an entire day talking about this wage rate, which the provinces have been focused on in their direct labour markets?

There is nothing unusual or unfair about federal minimum wage rates. [ Translation ] For nearly 20 years, the federal minimum wage has varied, in accordance with the provincial minimum wage. [ English ] In fact, for nearly the last two decades the federal minimum wage has moved in lockstep with the applicable provincial minimum wages. It is still the best way to set the federal minimum wage. Let us keep in mind that labour markets vary across the country. We have a very large country, and thus we see variability.

Our government believes that the provinces and territories are best placed to assess and respond to the needs in their local labour markets. [ Translation ] The provinces and territories are free to establish an appropriate minimum wage that takes their economic situation into account. [ English ] Some people have expressed concerns that some provinces are slow to adjust their minimum wage rates to match inflation and increase the average wages, but that is simply not true. Let us look at the facts. Provincial minimum wage rates have evolved rapidly in recent years to reflect changing labour market conditions.

The existing system is fair and well adapted to provincial needs when it comes to labour market assessments. Provincial governments carefully analyze the labour markets and their economic conditions before they make adjustments to their minimum wage rates. Several provinces have legislation stipulating that their minimum wage rates must be reviewed on a yearly or bi-yearly basis. Even those that do not have legislative requirements tend to adjust their minimum wage rates regularly.

Another point is that the motion asks us to make a significant change without appropriate reflection on what the effects might be on the job markets. [ Translation ] For example, it would make sense to look at the effects such a change would have on small businesses. [ English ] The current system is fair. It ensures that employees under federal jurisdiction are never paid less than their provincial counterparts. The way that we help low-income Canadians is not by hiking the minimum wage, but by bringing in measures that foster a strong economy and the creation of well-paying jobs.

Economic growth and job creation are priorities of this government and we are leading the way in the G7, doing much more and, in that regard, focusing and making sure that we are ahead of our trading partners. Since the economic downturn we have had a steady increase in employment, low interest rates, and the kind of economic growth that makes us the envy of the world. We believe that getting the economic essentials rights will keep us on the right track for greater levels of prosperity.

For example, the Minister of Finance recently announced the small business job credit that will lower EI premiums for small businesses by 15%. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that the credit will create 25,000 person-years of employment over the next two to three years. The minister also confirmed that in 2017, EI premiums will be cut from the current $1.88 per $100 of earnings to $1.47.

Employers will have more money to invest in training and increased wages, and workers will have more money in their wallets at the end of the day so they can afford things like hockey and other items their families would like them to invest in. (1040) [ Translation ] It is clear that we are on the right track. [ English ] Evidence alone is that more than 1.1 million jobs have been created since July 2009 and more than 80% of these jobs have been full-time positions.

The vast majority of these jobs are in the private sector in high-wage industries and Canada is currently the only country in the world with tariff-free access to the American market. This represents over 300 million individuals. We have also signed an agreement in principle with the European Union that will give us access to markets of over 500 million people. What about our recent free trade agreement in principle with South Korea, which again opens up additional Asian markets to Canadian products? It is another significant market for Canadian firms.

We have also had a series of major resource projects on our economic agenda that will ensure Canada's prosperity for the next decade. At the same time, the government will continue to take concrete steps to support Canadian workers at all income levels and that means, for example, making sure that workers in the federal jurisdiction have healthy and safe work environments. Since our government was elected we have increased occupational health and safety protections for employees in federally regulated industries. It means making sure that we have equal opportunities for hiring and for advancement.

It means investing in preventive mediation to help workplace parties resolve their differences and create collective agreements that benefit both workers and employers.

It also means implementing the wage earner protection program, which protects the wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination owed to workers who lose their jobs when their employers go bankrupt or into receivership. [ Translation ] We all know that Canadian workers often experience significant challenges when their employers go bankrupt. [ English ] It is hard enough to lose a job for reasons beyond our control, but it is quite unfair to be deprived of wages that were worked for and that were counted on. It is especially distressing when we see other creditors being paid off first.

That is why, in the interests in fairness, we brought in the wage earner protection program, which makes the payment of wages owed to workers in this situation a superpriority. What does the program do and how does it work? The trustee or receiver assigned to manage the bankruptcy or receivership is required to provide information to the workers on any amounts that they are owed. Workers can then file a proof of claim with the trustee or receiver, and the next step is to submit the application for payment to Service Canada.

The eligibility period starts six months before restructuring and ends on the day of bankruptcy or receivership. Under the rules of the program, these workers can receive an amount equal to four weeks of maximum insurable earnings as defined by the Employment Insurance Act. The government has expanded the WEPP twice. It was expanded in 2009 to include unpaid termination and severance pay as eligible wages and in 2011 to improve coverage under the program in cases where the employer undergoes restructuring before going bankrupt or entering receivership.

Workers in this situation can apply, as I said before, to Service Canada online. If they have all of the relevant information, they can usually get their payments within a few weeks. The WEPP was established in July 2008. Between that date and July 31, 2014, more than 74,000 Canadians received payments that total $174.8 million, with an average WEPP payment to a worker for wages owed by employers who are bankrupt or subject to receivership of just over $2,500. This is a very successful and needed program, and for this fiscal year, our government has budgeted just over $49 million for it.

We have also amended the Canada Labour Code to ensure that employees who lose their jobs cannot be deprived of severance just because they happen to be entitled to a pension. That is not all. We have also adopted the Helping Families in Need Act, which gives federally regulated employees the right to take unpaid leave in special circumstances. It allows for up to 37 weeks of leave for an employee whose child under the age of 18 is critically ill. I can tell members from personal experience that this is something that families need.

Having been a physician, I have witnessed situations in which a parent was unable to be at a child's bedside to make sure that care was managed appropriately. As a physician, I know that having a parent there to help organize care for the child and provide emotional support for the child and the family is essential, and we moved forward with this measure last year. The act also provides up to 104 weeks of leave for an employee whose child has died because of a probable Criminal Code offence. It also offers up to 52 weeks of leave for an employee whose child is missing as a result of a crime.

Canadians who take these leaves can now count on benefits through the federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children grant, as well as the employment insurance program. We extended the duration of sick leave to 17 weeks. This gives a lot more flexibility to parents who must, for various reasons, put an end to their maternity or paternity leave.

(1045) This government is supporting Canadian families in many ways. Most significantly among them, Canadian families have seen an increase of about 10% of their real after-tax incomes under our administration. For a family of four, on average we are putting over $3,400 back in their pockets so that they can make decisions on where they would like to invest it in the things that matter to them, whether it is a family vacation or making sure that their child can attend hockey or ballet.

These are just some of the host of reasonable and well-thought-out measures that the government is taking every day to support and protect workers in our country. However, if we want to continue improving the standard of living of Canadian families, we need to continue acting responsibly. The motion before us is political grandstanding by the NDP. Our Conservative government is proud of the initiatives that it has brought forward to lower taxes and put more money in the pockets of hard-working families. With sound fiscal policy, we worked hand in glove with employers, employees, and the provinces.

Reckless changes to the Canada Labour Code create disruption, as has been very clearly outlined by many of our stakeholders. We know that the Canada Labour Code is something that everyone respects. I would encourage the opposition not to focus on making reckless changes to sound fiscal policy but to focus on what matters, which is making sure that Canadians have opportunities for great jobs. While it is important that workers earn decent wages and while the sponsor of the motion may have good intentions, I hope that my hon. colleague will recognize that the proposal as it reads simply cannot be supported. Mr.

Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is pathetic that the government is giving tax credits to people who do not earn enough to pay taxes. It does not change a thing in their lives. I have two questions. First, is the number of women in Canada who are working full time, yet living under the poverty line, acceptable to the Conservative government? The second question is this. The government's own federal labour standards review recommended in 2006 that the federal government reinstate the federal minimum wage and benchmark it to Statistics Canada's low-income cut-off.

Does the minister agree with her own federal labour standards review? Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, I think it is very clear that the provincial labour ministers and provincial governments know their provincial labour markets. The system, as it is right now and as it has been for almost two decades, creates opportunities whereby Canadians in the provinces where they work are treated fairly and the same.

I think it is also important to outline to the members here that the number of Canadians living below the low-income cut-off is actually at its lowest level ever because of this government. Why is that? It is because we are creating jobs. We are providing opportunities for Canadians. We are making sure that Canadians have pride in their work and are also in high-income jobs, many of which are in the private sector. When Canadians have jobs, they are proud of themselves, but they also invest in their families.

I would encourage the member opposite to focus on supporting the initiatives through which this government is moving forward in creating jobs—in fact, we have created 1.1 million of them since the downturn of the recession—as opposed to opposing every single measure we have taken in our recent budgets to make sure Canadians can be employed. The member should step up to that. We should not be focused on small issues that we know affect a very small subset of Canadians. We need to make sure that every Canadian has a high-paying job that provides great opportunities for families.

That is what this government is focused on: making sure Canadians are employed in well-paid jobs.

(1050) Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I agree somewhat with the minister that we are trying to vet out how many people this measure would affect and what impact it would have, but as we go forward in the debate today, we have an opportunity to ask a question. She made reference to the government being seized on developing high-paying jobs. The reality is that under the government, the number of Canadians who are working for minimum wage has increased by 66%. We now have one million Canadians who are working for minimum wage in this country.

I ask her, as Minister of Labour , what are the signs? Why is this happening? Why has the number of Canadians in this situation increased by 66%? Why has this number grown so egregiously under the reign of this government? Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that is categorically false. Of the jobs that have been created since 2009, as a mentioned before, over 1.1 million, 80% of them, are in the private sector and over 65% of them are well-paying jobs. Those jobs have been created by Canadian industry because we have created the opportunity, the stimulus, for job creation in Canada.

Whether that be through free trade agreements and increasing opportunities for Canadians to export abroad, whether that be by making sure that Canadians are well skilled, whether that be through the Canada job grant or through internship programs for literally thousands of young Canadians or through the Canada summer jobs program that provides essential opportunities for skills for those young Canadians to move to their next step in employment, these are new things we have been focused on to create good, well-paying jobs for Canadians so that they can move forward.

I think the member opposite would agree that the provinces are in the best position to make decisions with respect to their local labour markets. That is why the minimum wage in the Canada Labour Code is actually set to match those, province by province. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the minister very articulately spoke to the provinces being in the best position to set the minimum wage guidelines. Today we are debating a motion that seems somewhat arbitrary.

It seems as though the NDP has picked a number and moved forward with it. I wonder if she could talk a bit more about the provinces and the fact that they have an ongoing process, which she alluded to in her remarks. It is important to understand why the provinces are ideally suited to actually determine minimum wage. Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question. The parliamentary secretary is doing outstanding work, both in the area where she supports me, labour, and also in western diversification.

As I mentioned before, the provincial labour ministers and markets are seeing the reflection of what is changing on the ground. Canada is an enormous country, the second-largest land mass in the world. I do not think everyone in British Columbia has the same types of occupations as those in the maritime provinces, and that is actually a strength of our country. Because of that, having provincial labour markets determine their minimum wage and the direction of their local labour markets is essential.

That is why, in 1996, the minimum wage that was set in the Canada Labour Code was changed in order to marry what was happening in the provinces, and so that Canadian neighbours understood that their wage rates were the same. We want fairness and equity and in such an enormous country, and making sure that happens on a province-by-province basis is extremely important. Therefore, I would encourage the member opposite to consider that. We want Canadians to be treated fairly and equitably.

That is exactly what the Canada Labour Code reflects right now, and that is why it was changed in 1996. (1055) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am flabbergasted by the reasons that government representatives are giving us. They are telling us that the provinces are in a better position to set the minimum wage. The provinces are doing a good job, but this is a chance for us to make things even better.

Could my colleague opposite tell us why the government did not negotiate as equals with the provinces on health transfers if the provinces have sole jurisdiction over health care services and they know very well what to do? [ English ] Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, going hand in glove and in a fashion similar to how we are being respectful of the provinces, health transfers currently are on an escalator of 6% per year, and that will be transferred over to GDP. However, the decisions on health care remain in the hands of the provinces. They understand exactly what their patients need.

Having been a physician in the province of Ontario and having worked at several hospitals at various times, I can say that the chief of surgery or the CEO probably had a better sense of what the health care needs were in the local community than someone here in the House. That is why the transfer payments escalate. It is to support the provinces in what they are doing. Hopefully the provinces are innovating to make sure they provide the best care possible. Hence, we have the same analogy in the Canada Labour Code.

It is matching what is going on in the provinces, because the provinces have a good sense of exactly what is happening in their local labour markets. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister was speaking of the equitable treatment of Canadians. With reference to the transfers to provinces, ever since the cuts made to defeat the deficit in the early 1990s, the cuts in transfers have led to less money for education, which has meant fewer available school grounds and fewer easily organizable events that are accessible to all kids.

While the member talks about boutique tax cuts to enable kids to go to ballet and hockey, would she not agree that it would be much better to ensure recreation is accessible to children whose parents are not earning enough money to pay taxes or to enter into somewhat more expensive sports? We need to make play available to all kids, regardless of their parents' incomes. Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, first, to set the record straight, the social transfer is also on an escalator and has been for several years. It was established by one of Hon. Jim Flaherty 's budgets.

I want to be very clear that this social transfer continues, it is on an escalator and it will meet GDP as well. One of the most substantive investments this government has made, and I am very proud of it, is the RInC fund. It made a huge impact in many local communities in ensuring that local recreational infrastructure was upgraded or created so young families could participate in as many activities as possible across the country. It has been overwhelmingly successful. Communities across the country are seeing improvements in infrastructure. I am proud of our record on infrastructure.

I am proud that we are moving forward with transfers to the provinces so they can invest, whether that be in social services or education. Obviously it is their choice how they allocate it. I am looking forward to seeing as many kids as possible in my riding heading out to the rink so they can play hockey in Thornton. We invested in the hockey arena, ensuring it had the best roof ever. Now they do not have the challenges faced with the snow inside the arena while playing hockey.

Business of the House Business of the House Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: Motion That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, during the debate tonight pursuant to Standing Order 52, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair. The Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage

Business of Supply The House resumed consideration of the motion. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North . We are trying to get him on his feet early in the session today. He is a little nervous, but with the support of his colleagues and the entire chamber, maybe we will get him up to say a few words. As I said in my question for the minister, this debate gives us the opportunity to speak to the broader question, which is the continued growth in the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Since the Conservatives have taken over, we have seen a 66% increase in the number of Canadians who work for minimum wage. One million Canadians now work for minimum wage. This should be of great concern to all of us. The quality of life for Canadians who go to work day in day out for the entire year and still live close to the poverty line should be of great concern to us as legislators, as members of Parliament. To speak specifically about the motion brought forward by the NDP today, when we boil down the numbers, it does not really represent or impact a great number of people.

It is more symbolic than substantive, and I would like to make a couple of comments around that. According to the 2010 Statistics Canada survey of employees in federal jurisdictions, there are about 820,000 federal employees out of the 17 million who work in our country. According to that study, just 416 employees within federal jurisdiction earn the legal minimum wage, with 44% of these employees in companies with 100 or more employees. With 416 Canadians out of a workforce of 17 million, when we put that in perspective, again, the motion is a symbolic gesture more so than substantive.

I think we could engage in a debate that would impact more Canadians, because a number of Canadians continue to struggle from day to day, from paycheque to paycheque. This is a reality in a lot of kitchens across the country. There was an all-committee study both in the House of Commons and the Senate. When we look at the recommendations those committees put forward on how to deal with and address poverty, some of them would have impacted a far greater number of Canadians, and probably would have helped a greater number of Canadians and Canadian families.

We should be looking at why the government has not been able to invest in developing the high-quality jobs and training opportunities, and why we continue to see that increase of people working in low-wage, precarious jobs. After being home all summer, and I am sure many of the members in the House here would have heard the same story, I heard from seniors and those getting close to their senior years. They had seen the change in the OAS. Those who have worked their entire life in low-wage precarious jobs see the increase in the eligibility age for OAS from 65 to 67 as significant.

(1100) The opportunity to expand the reach and benefit of the levels of the working income tax benefit would go a far greater distance in helping a greater number of people. However, I see this as somewhat of a symbolic gesture. There has to be some type of balance in policy that upholds a societal benefit. I agree that we need some kind of balance. I thought the proposal that was put forward by our leader yesterday on the hiring benefit that would allow us $1,280 for every hire, which for $225 million could produce 176,000 new jobs, would benefit business and Canadian workers.

Those are more substantive issues that could be brought forward and could have a greater impact. What we try to strive for, certainly within our party, is balance in labour relations. I do not think there has been any government in the history of the country that has thrown the balance between labour and management out of whack more so than the current government, from the excessive use of back to work legislation through changes to the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are pretty much outright attacks on organized labour.

One of the keys to balancing labour relations is to have a fair process both by labour and management to have an opportunity to work out issues. For over 30 years, a tripartite approach has been in place. In 2004, when we were still in government, the Liberal government used such a process for the review of

part III of the Canada Labour Code undertaken by Harry Arthurs. His consultation process included direct input from labour and management representatives, cross-country public meetings, hearing from 171 different presentations and 154 formal briefings. He talked with management, with organized labour and community-based organizations. He talked to labour standard administrators and practitioners. That process resulted in Mr. Arthurs making a number of recommendations that maybe everyone might not have agreed on but at least they respected a balanced process.

One such recommendation, and the one that we are talking about today, was the reinstatement of the federal minimum wage rate. On the basis of his consultations with all stakeholders and the research, Mr. Arthurs believed that a federal minimum wage was justified. He captured the essence of a federal minimum wage in this comment, which I will read into the record. He stated: —the argument over a national minimum wage is not about politics or economics. It is about decency.

Just as we reject most forms of child labour on ethical grounds, whatever their economic attractions, we recoil from the notion that in an affluent society like ours good, hard-working people should have to live in abject poverty.

This motion deals only with federal workers and workers in federal industries. Therefore, those who are watching at home should know that this does not apply to those who work in the service industry flipping burgers or making beds, those in one of the million minimum wage jobs in our country. This applies to a very specific sector. Let us ensure that we temper the excitement and expectation for this motion with respect to an increase in the minimum wage. What Mr. Arthurs said in his comments stand true. Under the work that he has done and put forward, this motion, although humble, is worthwhile supporting.

(1105) Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that I had the great privilege of doing some travelling this summer. I was in Cape Breton, a beautiful area of the country, and Vancouver, of course another beautiful area of the country. However, what became very clear to me is that in every province the living conditions are very different in terms of the cost of living, the cost of housing and how the businesses are actually doing, and within each province there are even microcosms of communities.

Clearly the provinces are in a very good position, so I find it strange how the Liberals would support this motion, when really aligning the federal government workers with the provincial rate is a very sensible and important thing to do. Is the member telling us that the provinces are not in a good position to pick minimum wages for employees?

(1110) Mr. Rodger Cuzner : Mr. Speaker, first I want to recognize that my friend and colleague did send me a note when she was in my riding. I thought that was very kind and gracious of her. I know she had an opportunity to golf on one of the greatest courses in this country, Cabot Links. Out of respect for my colleague, I will not let it be known what she scored. As modest as this motion is—and it does have impact—this would just impact on those who work in federally regulated industries. When we look at those particular industries, we see they are probably some of the bigger industries.

They are for the most part highly unionized. We are not talking about entry-level jobs. We are talking about employees who come with specific skill sets. When we weigh that in and we look at the work Mr. Arthurs has done on this particular issue and we look at the process he pursued, I am very comfortable in supporting his recommendation, that being the reinstatement of a federal minimum wage. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I just want to get into this federal-provincial argument a bit here. What is happening in this country is that there is a race to the bottom.

Businesses pick up on that. They move to provinces where the corporate tax rate is lower, and they put their head office there. When it comes to employees, the people who work for us in this country, they are the ones who suffer when provinces play the game of keeping the low minimum wage so they can attract industry into that particular province. The federal government wants to take down the barriers for trade in this country, and make us all uniform. At the same time it will not do anything for the workers in this country.

It will not recognize that the workers have a right to a decent living and a decent wage wherever they live in this country. Does the Liberal Party agree with that? Mr. Rodger Cuzner : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Northwest Territories for what was a comment, more than a question. The answer to the question is obvious. We belive that workers in this country deserve to make a fair wage. That good, hard, honest worker is only trying to raise his or her family.

They show up at work every day, get paid a wage, but depending on what area of the country they are in, continue to struggle with making house payments. It impacts on health. It impacts on the justice system. The studies are many and deep on how living so close to the poverty line impacts on citizens. Certainly our party does believe that the growth in precarious employment in this country over the last eight years is frightful, and certainly we are committed to trying to address that. This is a small measure to help address that. It is one tool to address it, but certainly so much more has to be done. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso for allowing me to follow him. This is an interesting debate this morning and throughout the day. I like the idea of the contrast between the leadership of the Liberal Party versus that of the New Democratic Party on this particular issue. Ever since the leader of the Liberal Party took the position as leader, we have seen a lot more attention in the House of Commons on the issue to the middle class. Finally, the House of Commons wants to give more attention to the issue of the middle class.

This is something we believe is very important. It affects us all. If we can somehow improve the living conditions of the middle class in Canada, we would all benefit as a society. That is something we need to achieve. Yesterday, we had a good, very tangible example. It was an idea that would make a difference. My colleague from Cape Breton made reference to it in his comments when he said that the leader of the Liberal Party followed it up through questions.

It is an idea that would generate in excess of a hundred thousand jobs for Canadians—that is, to look at the EI premiums and give refunds to employers who hire Canadians. This is something that would actually generate jobs. A week ago, the Conservatives came out with a somewhat different plan that in essence would provide a disincentive for employers of more than 12 to actually hire someone. Therefore, it is nice to provide a bit of contrast. The Liberal Party is more focused on the economy, assisting the middle class and creating jobs.

Out of the blue, last week the New Democrats proposed a federal minimum wage of $15. It is hard to go against that. Jack Layton, an NDP member of Parliament and leader of the New Democratic Party, supported getting rid of the federal minimum wage back in the 90s. However, things have changed, and we recognize that. It is important to look at minimum wage in terms of how it can lift Canadians as a whole to earning better living wages. One of the ways to do that is to encourage our provinces. As has been pointed out, they are more in tune with the local labour markets.

I remember as an MLA posing questions to the New Democratic Party, which is in government in Manitoba. I asked it to increase minimum wage. It has been in power since 1999, yet the minimum wage is still, I think, $10.30 or $10.40. One of the greatest needs for increasing minimum wage is in the province of Manitoba. That is why, if we want to increase the minimum wage at the grassroots level, we need to get the provinces on board, because when a province increases minimum wage it affects hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It is somewhat admirable that the NDP wants to reinstitute the federal minimum wage.

It will no doubt have an effect, but in actual numbers, it would affect less than a thousand people. In reality, if we really want to increase the living wage for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we need to look at provincial minimum wages and what role the federal government can take in terms of sitting down, working with the them and articulating where they might be able to increase it, depending quite possibly on regions and so forth.

(1115) We are very concerned about how Canada's economy is performing. We want to maximize the economy and the number of jobs being created. Members saw that with the first question that our leader asked yesterday in question period. We want to see jobs being created, because that is a priority for Canadians. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want jobs. They want good quality jobs.They want the economy to do better. Obviously they want good paying jobs, and the Liberal Party is committed to doing just that, wherever possible. The Liberal Party is committed to creating an atmosphere for job creation.

During the summer break, I and my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso toured a hog processing plant in Brandon. There is incompetence at both the provincial and federal government levels, but I want to comment in particular on the federal government's incompetence because it is preventing this plant from hiring. There are jobs there, and the plant is unable to hire people because of the federal government. Capital machinery has been set aside and is not being used because there are no people to run the machinery.

The demand for Manitoba pork is very real, but the plant cannot get enough pigs into the processing system to meet that demand. Those are lost job opportunities that affect everyone. Jobs are available, whether it is selling coffee at Tim Hortons or selling a car. Government can play a more significant role in encouraging and providing incentives. In this particular situation, there are two things that come to mind for me. One is the temporary foreign worker program. What a mess the Conservative government has made of that program.

The government is destroying small businesses across the Prairies and other regions of Canada because of its total incompetence with respect to that particular program. That is a direct way of taking jobs away from Canada's economy, and that is affecting each and every one of us. Shame on the government for not addressing the issue of the temporary foreign worker program. Then we take a look in terms of ideas that come out. I made reference already to what the leader of the Liberal Party stated yesterday, and I will do it again.

Why not provide all employers with the break on employment insurance, thereby giving them an incentive to hire? Let them be allowed to forego the cost of those premiums on any new hire. This is no more of a cost than what the Conservatives committed to just last week, yet it would create jobs. It has been estimated that more than 150,000 jobs would be created. Why do the Conservatives not recognize their mistakes and take the necessary action to improve upon them? They owe that to all Canadians.

During the summer, all MPs have the opportunity to canvass with our constituents, many of whom have told us that the economy does matter. New Democrats wave this particular change in policy from the nineties when they originally supported getting rid of the federal minimum wage. We can have that discussion today. We in the Liberal Party are open-minded. What really matters is that we want good quality jobs for all Canadians. We want to ensure that the opportunity to excel, the opportunity to have hope, is there. Over the next number of months we will continue to hold the government accountable for this.

We will all win if we can provide good quality paying jobs for Canadians. The middle class needs to be considered a higher priority inside the House of Commons, and the Liberal Party of Canada is committed to doing that.

(1120) Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with great interest. I think there are a few important notes to look at. Our record is very significant. We agree that creating jobs is important and that creating well-paying jobs is very important, but I would like to contrast the Conservative government with the Liberal government. Single families have gone from 43% to 23% and children living in a two-person home has gone from 8.4% to 5.9%.

The number of Canadians living under the low-income level is 8.8%, and of course, we again have had significant and phenomenal success in terms of raising the bar for everyone. Does my hon. colleague believe that raising the federal minimum wage to $15, removing it from aligning with the provinces, is really going to have a significant impact on those very favourable numbers that have come about since our government took office?

(1125) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would love to see where she draws those numbers from. What I can say is that people actually recognize as fact is that Canada has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, and those are good-paying jobs, which the government has done very little to protect. When we go to places like Winnipeg Harvest, we find that the lineups for food banks and so forth continue to grow under the Conservative majority government. There is a whole lot of room for improvement.

Yes, they can pull some numbers from here and there and try to make it look good, but at the end of the day, what really matters are the quality jobs. We have seen hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs and others lost because of the incompetence of the government. [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would not want to dampen the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Winnipeg North . I agree with him about the government's incompetence. However, I find his solution somewhat laughable.

As party leader, he belongs to the most privileged class in Canada you can imagine, and he is bragging because he hit a home run, but he did not mention that he was born on third base. Furthermore, the collective impoverishment that Canadians have been experiencing for decades happened mainly under the Liberals. Can my colleague explain what advantage his leader may have over an Irishman from a large family who became a lawyer while working as a roofer? [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, the real advantage my leader has is that he is in touch with what Canadians really and truly believe and think.

The leader of the Liberal Party constantly goes out and is communicating with everyday Canadians. I would challenge the member or any other member in terms of the degree to which the leader of the Liberal Party has actually been able to make connections with the working class and the middle class in Canada by constantly going out. I have had the opportunity over 20-plus years as a parliamentarian to work with many different leaders, both at the provincial and federal levels, and never before have I seen a leader so proactively engaged with the common person in Canada.

That is what Canadians want and what they are responding to. That is why I believe that the leader of the Liberal Party is in such high demand. [ Translation ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou . [ English ] I am very happy to speak to this very important motion put forward by New Democrats on the minimum wage. What this motion would do, of course, is increase the minimum wage over time to $15 an hour as a measure to combat inequality and to boost the standards for workers in the federal jurisdiction.

It is a very important motion we are debating here today, something that really gets to the heart of what so many Canadians are experiencing, which is growing poverty across the country and certainly a real squeeze on the middle class in Canada. This motion would also correct the terrible injustice created by the Liberals in 1996 when they eliminated the federal minimum wage, much to their shame. However, even before that, for a decade, the minimum wage had been stagnating in Canada. It had been languishing at just $4 an hour.

When they eliminated the minimum wage, some people actually benefited, because some provinces had a higher minimum wage, but that does not let them off the hook, because what they did was start a downward spiral. In fact, under their watch, inequality increased dramatically. More than 94% of the increase in inequality over the last 35 years has been not under Conservative governments but under Liberal governments. That is shocking. New Democrats are here to help correct that. We are here to reinstate a minimum wage. The current government has not been a particular friend of working people.

Back in 2006, the federal labour standards review recommended that the federal government reinstate a federal minimum wage and benchmark it to the Statistics Canada low-income cut-off. Of course, that was not done at the time. I introduced a private member's bill at that time calling for the reintroduction of a federal minimum wage but was not successful in getting the support of my colleagues. I know something about the federal minimum wage. I began my working life in the federal jurisdiction, working for a crown corporation, and I was very fortunate as a young person starting out in the workforce.

It is very different for many young people starting today. I went into a workplace that was a crown corporation represented by a union, so I was very privileged to start with a collective agreement, where everyone made the same wage. We had benefits. We had strong working conditions. That is not the case for far too many working people today. In fact, what we often see is that the global economy, in many cases, relies on low wages as a way to boost profits around the world.

We see far too many, young people especially, who are suffering because they are getting contract temporary work and work at low wages with no benefits. That is no way to start out in life, especially for young people who are getting into the workplace already saddled with high student debt because of the dramatic increase in tuition costs in post-secondary education.

If we were to ask young people if they think they are going to have pension plans when they retire, overwhelmingly they are going to say no, because they are only temporary and they do not get any benefits, or the employer got rid of the pension plan, or it has become a defined contribution and not a defined benefit pension plan. Far too many people are losing confidence in the ability of the marketplace to offer them a decent standard of living, and this is at a time when profits are rising, when the top 1%, thanks very much, is doing extremely well here in Canada and around the world.

Yet the average family is being squeezed and too many people are living in poverty.

(1130) There is a constituent of mine in Toronto, Professor David Hulchanski, from the University of Toronto, who has written a report called “The 3 Cities within Toronto, Income Polarization”. What he talks about in that report is that other cities, not just the city of Toronto, are increasingly becoming three cities. The people at the top are increasing their wealth and doing better. There is a shrinking number of people in the middle, and their incomes are pretty much stagnating.

Then there is a growing number of people at the bottom who are losing their ability to make ends meet and who cannot keep their heads above poverty. This House, back in 1989, voted to eliminate child poverty. I wonder if people here today know how many kids in Canada are living below the Statistics Canada level for low income. It is close to one million children in Canada. These children are poor because their parents are poor, and far too many of those parents are working. They are trying to make ends meet. They go to work every day, and they cannot get their heads above poverty. Canada needs a pay increase.

This particular motion would not do everything. It would not solve all of the problems, but it would be a very positive step. I salute my colleague who introduced this motion, and I salute the House for having this debate today. It is extremely important that we talk about the pay levels people are getting. We talk about CEO paycheques and how they are spiralling out of control. They are getting many millions of dollars, sometimes for seeing the business they run decline.

Sometimes we see huge payouts for people who work for a company for just a very short couple of years, yet we have a growing number of bankruptcies, where working people who have spent their lives building their company are then thrown out of work. We need to send the signal that it is not right to pay people rock bottom wages. If people work full time and they contribute to the economy, they deserve to get a decent level of pay.

It is not just the labour movement that is supporting this kind of change, although I will quote from Jerry Dias, the president of Unifor, who said: Minimum wage jobs are not only for the after-school crowd of kids looking for spending money, but also an entry into the workforce for immigrants, recent graduates and many others who can only find part-time work and need to hold down two or three jobs to survive. He certainly supports an increase in the minimum wage. I will also quote from the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Paul Meinema.

He said that a $15 minimum wage would be a bold step towards establishing the principle that no full-time worker in Canada should live in poverty. He said that he was delighted to see the NDP taking a leadership role in advancing this important tool for combatting poverty and rising inequality. This clearly makes sense for working people and for people who represent working people, but it is not just labour that supports this. Let me quote from a very recent editorial in the New York Times . They were commenting on the German increase in minimum wage, which is going up to $11.60, or 8.5 euros, next year.

This is what the New York Times said: In Germany, as in the United States, business lobbyists and some economists have warned that a robust minimum wage will lead to job losses and higher prices, but that has not been the historical experience. Rather, higher wages for low-wage workers are generally offset by lower labor turnover, while the boost in consumer spending from higher wages is good for the economy. Boosting consumer demand is especially important in Germany, whose economy is overly reliant on exports. I submit that it is also essential here in Canada.

I urge every one of my colleagues to support this call for a higher minimum wage. Let us get Canadians an increase. Let us give them a pay boost.

(1135) Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously I find the debate very interesting today because it is an important debate. Our government believes that the best way to move people above the low-income cut-off is through measures such as creating jobs. The NDP has put forward a motion that will affect 0.05% of the workforce. That is a very small number. That is the federally regulated workforce. This is not impacting the provinces.

The NDP provincial governments have not taken it upon themselves to move up, because they recognize there are some issues with the plan. What we have is a plan to create well-paying jobs. I would like to note, again, that the number of Canadians living below the low-income cut-off is at its lowest in history. We have a plan. Our plan is working. Does the member see that this affects 0.05% of the federal workforce, approximately 400 families. It is going to have an impact in terms of the important things that we need to do to create good jobs across Canada.

(1140) Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, of course we have to create good quality jobs. Of course. We are completely, unanimously in support of creating good quality jobs. However, a good quality job also means a decent level of pay. It means not working for poverty level wages. Surely to goodness we can all agree on that. We can quibble about how many workers are going to be affected by this. We happen to believe that in fact many tens of thousands of workers in the federal jurisdiction are now earning less than $15 an hour and would benefit from this change.

There are lots of very low-paying jobs created in Canada today by companies that are making multi-million or sometimes billion-dollar profits. It is about sharing a bit of the prosperity, creating good jobs, and making sure that everybody benefits from that. I will also say that the provinces have a key role to play. Most workers in Canada are under provincial jurisdiction. However, reinstating the federal minimum wage and setting it at a decent level will have the impact of spurring on the provinces.

People will point to that and say that if the federal minimum wage is $15 an hour, something is wrong with my province. They will want to know why they cannot earn that wage in their part of the country. This would be a good thing for all Canadians. Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very instructive discussion here today. It is important for all members of the House to hear what is happening out in the communities. One of the things my colleague mentioned was this quibbling about numbers.

There has been a lot of quibbling and a lack of looking at the big picture. I am the critic for seniors issues. In my dialogue with the community, I have discovered that not only is there a quarter of a million seniors living below the poverty level, but that poverty began because of low-paying jobs and a lack of opportunity. If we are going to address the reality of senior poverty and health in the future, as well as the health of the entire community, we have to start looking at the minimum wage. My concern has to do with the cost of poverty to the economy.

I have heard a figure as high as $30 billion in terms of health care costs and children going without. I wonder if my colleague would care to comment on that. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, poverty has a huge cost to our society. One of the other terrible things that the Liberals did was abolish our national housing strategy. The cost of housing has been a huge factor in the increase in poverty. It costs all of us. Health care costs rise the more a society is unequal.

Giving individuals and families the wherewithal to keep a roof over their heads and put healthy food on the table, does not just benefit those individuals, it benefits us all as a society. We understand the social determinants of health, and we are determined that no Canadian should be left behind. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise to speak to this very important matter: reinstating a minimum wage for businesses under federal jurisdiction. It is something I feel very strongly about.

As the member of Parliament for the riding of Beauport—Limoilou, in the Quebec City area, I see that the riding has quite a lot of disadvantaged individuals and even people living in poverty and exclusion.

As the representative for my constituents who struggle daily and as a long-term resident in the area—because I have lived in various parts of Limoilou in the past 20 years and it was there that I raised my son, who recently turned 24—I can tell you I was a worker earning a relatively low income, and as such I have experienced close up the challenges associated with the living conditions and fairly limited incomes in a rapidly changing market. When I moved to Limoilou in the early 1990s, rent was a lot lower than it is now. You could rent a two-bedroom apartment for less than half of what it costs now per month.

There has been a major change in that regard. It is a change that has prompted many families to turn to food banks. I am not just talking about families who rely on welfare, but workers too. I have seen this over the past three years. In a few months, on Christmas Eve, I will go on my fourth food bank tour. As I did last year, I will no doubt hear that needs are growing, that the food banks have fewer and fewer resources and, above all, that people who make an honest living in a one- or two-income family are no longer able to put enough food on the table.

This is not surprising given that successive Conservative and Liberal governments have been going in the wrong direction for over 30 years. We are all elected to represent the people in our ridings. All of us, without exception, are MPs who represent all of the people in our ridings. The reality is that over 80% of my constituents are no longer on the winning team that is benefiting from the economic activity and community life here in Canada. Frankly, that is disappointing.

In Quebec, we have a very simple expression that means that a person is born into a lower class with very few opportunities for the future and that he is resigned to the fact that he and his children will remain in that state. As an individual and especially as an MP, I refuse to accept that state. If my Conservative and Liberal colleagues want to impose that resignation on Canadians at any price, then they are free to do so, but I will not. That is why I have been a committed member of the NDP for nearly 10 years.

My active commitment to the party began when I agreed to run as a candidate for the first time in 2005. That is why I will continue to be a member of the NDP for a long time so that I can fight in order to give most people in this country a chance to improve their lot. I will fight so that they have real opportunities, not opportunities that are tied to partisan political marketing schemes. I am talking about real, measurable, tangible opportunities.

(1145) Our proposal is to reinstate the federal minimum wage and ultimately bring it up to $15 an hour. There is no denying that this is one particular measure, but also one specific measure of a set of measures, seeking to encourage income sharing among as many people as possible and especially the sharing of wealth. It is also meant to encourage the return to jobs that are much more stable and to a work and entrepreneurship environment that is much more predictable and robust. I have had the privilege of sitting on four different committees.

Right now, I am on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and I am very happy about that. Having had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on International Trade and the Standing Committee on Finance, I was truly able to see how ignorant my colleagues in the other parties are when it comes to the competitiveness issues facing the vast majority of Canadian businesses.

Regardless of our entrepreneurs' level of activity, whether they are sole business owners or they own businesses with 100 or 200 employees, they have a strong case for needing long-term projections and a certain degree of stability to be able to grow and pay all their employees. Our measure provides this stable environment for the entire Canadian business community. Notwithstanding the fact that we will set a standard for businesses under federal jurisdiction, there is another purpose: the provinces are expected to follow suit and raise the minimum wage in their own legislation.

Let me go back to the dust contamination caused by the Port of Québec, because my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou are very concerned about it. Over the past decades, the Conservatives and the Liberals have shown us that they are at the beck and call of big business. For instance, four or five senior executives from Quebec Stevedoring, the company at fault in the dust contamination in Limoilou, have made political contributions totalling nearly $20,000 to the Conservative Party in the last 10 years. That is perfectly legal.

However, it speaks volumes about the Conservatives' inaction and paralysis in terms of their refusal to take action, whether to address a public health issue such as the issue facing the people of Limoilou or to address the rapid deterioration of the living conditions of Canadian families. Having sat for one year on the Standing Committee on Finance, I would like to quote from the brief submitted by the Canadian Medical Association. I hope this will give my Liberal and Conservative colleagues some food for thought, especially if they take the time to listen.

Recently, my leader, the leader of the official opposition and future prime minister of Canada, gave a speech to the Canadian Medical Association. He talked about the problem and the importance of the social determinants of health. According to a report by the Canadian Medical Association, the 20% of the population with the highest income lives an average of three years longer than the 20% with the lowest income. Suicide rates are two times higher for the poorest 20% of the population than for the richest 20%.

Cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes are much more prevalent in the poorest 20% of families than in the richest 20% of families. That is what I am seeing in Beauport—Limoilou , and that is why I support this measure. I am pleased to do so and I am looking forward to my colleagues' questions and comments. (1150) [ English ] Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, an unidentified economist wrote, “rent controls are the best way to destroy a city other than bombing”.

In the same way, it is what minimum wages can do to destroy an economy. We know that employers, the people who are the business owners, are going to have to pass these costs on to the goods and services they produce, so we are looking at increased inflation. Right now we have young people who are looking to get into jobs, and there are a finite number of jobs for these young people to undertake.

Could the member give us any information from the work the NDP has done on finding out how this kind of motion, if passed, would influence and impact the number of jobs available for our young people who are so anxious to get into the workforce now? (1155) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It was funny how she started with a quote from an unidentified economist. Maybe it was an economist in the Prime Minister's Office. Who knows?

To answer her question, I think that the government displayed its ignorance about the economic impact and the importance of making decisions that benefit as many people as possible in the federal pension file. I would like to point out that we proposed increasing benefits by adjusting contributions, which is the most efficient savings vehicle because the management fees are lower. The government handily displayed its ignorance by talking about taxes when what we really need to do is encourage people to save money. Households have a major debt problem. People have to save money.

The government does not even understand this basic fact. It needs to be replaced. [ English ] Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is pathetic that the Minister of Labour quoted 2008 statistics as justification for her argument about the labour rates in Canada. That speaks volumes about the Conservative government which has cut back on Statistics Canada finding out what is actually happening with Canadians. When we look at the 2008 statistics, we find that the minimum wage at the time was around $8 across the country.

Yes, perhaps there were a few people in the federal system who were earning $8, but we are talking about $15. The difference in those statistics means that there were tens of thousands of people in 2008 who were not earning $15 working for the federal government, and we have not seen that much wage inflation in those six years since 2008. We know darn well that right now many Canadians who work under federal jurisdiction do not earn $15 an hour and could benefit from this program.

Does my colleague not agree that this shows the terrible situation we have when the federal Minister of Labour has to rely on 2008 statistics and to misinterpret them in presenting them to Parliament? [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Northwest Territories for his question and his enlightening comments. We get the feeling that big business and spin doctors are dominating Conservative thought. Yesterday, the CBC aired an interesting report stating that the Prime Minister was both right and wrong about employment.

It is true that there have never been more jobs, but in relative terms, the situation is disastrous. In no way have we caught up to where we were before 2008. The government is refusing to admit that. Many of the backbenchers are refusing to understand that or are incapable of understanding it. Families are suffocating and they need air. It is time to do something about it. [ English ] Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today.

Canada's economic well-being and ability to harness the benefits of its ambitious trade agenda depend absolutely on our labour force. It is unusual for us to be debating an issue about raising the minimum wage. The NDP consistently votes against things like WITB, the working income tax benefit, and the decrease in the GST. Our government has taken many measures to support people with low-income cut-off levels, and indeed they are working. We have the lowest number, I believe 8.8%, of people who are working at the low-income cut-off level.

That is still not good enough and we continue to support jobs and opportunity. Again, consistently the NDP members vote against them. Whether it is natural resource projects and development, we see a consistent pattern of the NDP voting against things that truly would help people near that low-income cut-off level. We are debating a motion that strictly looks at the workers in federally regulated workforce. We know the vast majority of them are well above the minimum wage or the planned $15.

We have a small number of families that would be impacted, but again the NDP consistently votes against the millions and millions of people who would have been supported with items like the working income tax benefit. However, we are here to discuss minimum wage. What my hon. colleague is suggesting with the motion is that the federal government should unilaterally push ahead with a substantial increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. The logic is that the provinces would have no choice but to follow along.

The provinces have very specific systems in place where they look at a number of different measures. They review them regularly. To suggest that the provinces are just going to follow along is perhaps a little naive because the provinces look very carefully and very hard at what they are doing and where we are going. As all hon. members know, in 1996 the Government of Canada got out of the business of setting a separate minimum wage for workers under the federal jurisdiction.

Instead, we pegged the minimum wage for workers under the federal jurisdiction to the provincial minimum wage of the province in which the person worked. Since we have been office, we have seen no reason to change that, and the motion of the hon. member or the debate has not convinced me that we should change it. We need to remember that it is only a small percentage of the Canadian workforce and enterprises under federal jurisdiction. Most of them are higher income jobs and minimum wages are not very common in federally regulated workplaces.

To go back to the federal jurisdiction workplace survey 2008, it was 416 employees. We could argue about how things might have changed a little over time, but it is important to think it probably will be relatively similar. We are talking about 0.05% of all employees under federal jurisdiction. The provincial governments are much better suited, especially considering the millions of workers under their jurisdiction, to set a minimum wage for them and for the very small percentage of the federally regulated workers. Again, we changed the system 1996. The provinces have not been asking for any changes.

We have a system that in past years virtually all provinces and territories have increased the minimum wage rates in many cases after reviews by minimum wage boards or independent experts. Rather than rewording the Labour Code and encroaching on provincial decisions, our government is taking a better route to ensure the well-being of Canadian workers and their families. We are focusing on what we consider may be the single biggest challenge to our economic health: ensuring that we have people to fill the jobs our growing economy requires both now and into the future.

The measures we are taking fit into Canada's economic landscape right now. Canada's economy is performing soundly in the context of a global economic recovery. We have had 1.1 million jobs created since July 2009 and over 80% of these jobs have been in full-time positions, nearly 80% are in the private sector and over 65% are in high wage industries.

(1200) Canada is now the only country in the world to have tariff-free access to the American market of 300 million people and the European market of 500 million people. I love the quote of the B.C. cattlemen when they heard about the Canada-European free trade agreement and the was access to 500 million hungry customers. They are seeing absolute opportunity in these free trade agreements. After going through many years of very difficult times since the BSE crisis, they are happy to see the support our government has provided.

We are seeing a resurgence in industry like mining and oil and gas in Canada, which helps to drive the construction sector. If one were to drive up Highway 5, one would see significant piping heading up to Alberta. With hundreds of resource projects scheduled to come on stream over the next decade, there are a myriad of economic opportunities for Canadians now and in the upcoming years. We have some challenges, and the problem is that there are not enough people with the skills required for the jobs which are in demand now and into the future.

These will be real and potentially dire consequences on our economy and the well-being of Canadians if we do not adequately address this challenge. Many regions and sectors across the country can attest to that. The mining industry, for instance, says that it will need 145,000 more workers by the year 2020. The petroleum sector estimates it will need up to 150,000 workers by 2022. Others might suggest that if the opposition wants to support better jobs, it can support the high-wage unionized jobs provided in Canada's oil sands.

BuildForce says that we will need 300,000 workers in the construction trade alone over the next 10 years. At the same time, there will be 550,000 unskilled workers who will be unable to find work by 2016, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. That number could be well over a million by 2021. It really becomes very clear when the question is asked where we as a government should focus. We have to ensure that the employees will have the right skill sets for both the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. We are looking at employer-driven solutions, such as the Canada job grant.

The foundation of the grant, as we know, is a Canada job grant, an employer-driven approach to help Canadians gain the skills and training they will need to fill available jobs. We are finalizing agreements with all the provinces and territories, and several of them are now accepting applications from employers with a plan to train people for the jobs. It is a critical step in ensuring Canadians are equipped and prepared for the jobs out there, but it is not enough considering the high demand for skilled trades in the years to come, particularly in the mining and energy sectors.

Over the years, we have had a real focus in the area of skills, trades and apprenticeships and have helped six million young people get the skills and experience needed to find better jobs through different programs. Our youth unemployment is still stubbornly high and it has nearly doubled the national unemployment rate. Everyone can see why we needed to change our approach. We need to give a message to students that entering a trade is a good move forward. Having a university degree is great, but we need to also look at other opportunities. The trades present enormous opportunities for young people.

The opportunities are there if they choose to pursue them. We have partnered with several colleges and training institutions to try to turn this around and get more businesses directly involved in the process so there is a better match with skills taught and skills needed. I have to give a quick example. The riding I represent, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, has a partnership with the university and the local home builders' association. Every year, they have students build a house that ultimately gets auctioned off by the YMCA. The home builders' association gives the students real-life experience.

It is an absolutely phenomenal program. Then the YMCA has the benefit of using that home as a major fundraiser.

(1205) In addition to the apprenticeship grants, of which we have issued more than 500,000 to help apprentices pursue and complete their training, we have also provided tax credits to the apprentices and the apprentice employers. The new Canada apprentice loan will also be available in January 2015. That was well received at Thompson Rivers University. This loan would provide apprentices in a Red Seal trade with interest-free loans of up to $4,000 to complete their training.

The Minister of Employment also received strong agreement from the provincial and territorial governments at the meeting of labour market ministers this summer to move forward aggressively to harmonize apprenticeship training. We want to encourage labour mobility, not to restrict it. New Canadians, people with disabilities and aboriginal people represent a real untapped potential, and we cannot afford to let any qualified people sit on the sidelines. We need all our talent at work to guarantee our prosperity. That is why we are investing in initiatives that will help underrepresented groups join the workforce.

For example, we have this tremendous opportunity to improve economic opportunities for aboriginal people because of the large-scale natural resource projects on the horizons, which are situated where they live. If we work with partners in the first nations communities, we can help many unemployed aboriginal people realize their potential and participate in our country's prosperity. As members can see, our government is heavily investing in job skills and training of all Canadians so they can secure a better future.

This is how we plan to ensure the well-being of families and ultimately the economic health of our country. Our government is committed to ensuring that workplaces are also fair, safe and productive. We have stuck to our commitment and have taken important steps to improve labour market standards for the protection of employees. A program that comes to mind is the wage earner protection program. Since its coming into force in July 2008, more than 74,000 Canadians have received $174.8 million in WEPP payments.

This program was enacted to protect the wages, vacation pay, severance and termination pay owed to workers if their employers go bankrupt or into receivership. Another important initiative by this government was the Helping Families in Need Act. This act allows employees under federal jurisdiction to take unpaid leave under various circumstances in order to care for their families. For this reason, it is clear that the government has acted in the best interests of Canadians to protect them in their workplace.

Another example of how we are working to improve economic prospects and create more jobs was announced last week by the Minister of Finance . That is the small business job credit, which was very well received by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Over the next two years this would save job creators $550 million, which they can use to hire more Canadians. The plan would effectively lower the EI premiums for small business by 15%. According to the CFIB, this would create 25,000 person-years of employment. That is great news.

Therefore, we are strongly supporting Canadian families with these important measures. Under our government, Canadian families at all income levels have seen increases of about 10% in their real after-tax income. The lowest income Canadians have seen a 14% increase. I mentioned this earlier in some of my questions, noting the number of Canadians living below the low income cut-off is now at its lowest level ever, 8.8%, according to Statistics Canada. Our low income rates have dropped dramatically under the government.

For example, children in female single-parent homes have dropped from 43% of low income families in 2002 to 23% in 2011. Therefore, the measures we have taken are having a huge and important impact on these children and families. Children in two-parent families have dropped from 8.4% of low income families in 2004 to 5.9% in 2011. In other words, we are making steady progress and moving more people up the economic ladder, out of poverty and into better paying jobs and better futures for themselves and their children.

For this reason, we do not think that the motion put forward by the opposition would add to our steady progress, and we urge all members not to support it.

(1210) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, where do I begin, with the government completely blind to the economic realities that are taking place, with the outpacing of the Canadian economy now by the U.S. economy by, perhaps, three or four times? Parts of Europe and others among our competitors are outpacing Canada.

This is so reminiscent of when the great recession first hit, when the Conservatives said, “What recession?” In fact, as the rest of the world was bringing in budgets to augment their economies, the Conservatives brought in a budget that was an austerity budget that would have made the length and depth of the recession so much worse. I have a specific question for my friend, because what we are talking about is a moderate and gradual increase of the federal minimum wage from where it is presently to $15 an hour in five years' time.

I hardly think she would go to her constituents and say they deserve to earn far less than $15 an hour. I do not think, with the cost of living in Kamloops or other parts of British Columbia, that people working 40 hours a week at $10 an hour can afford to put food on the table for their family. Perhaps she does know a way to do that, but I suspect she would not enjoy that quality of life. I am just guessing.

Therefore, if it is good enough for her, her colleagues and her friends, then certainly it is good enough for working Canadians who are saying they work hard, pay their fair share and certainly should have a reasonable income. She talks about all these high-paying jobs. We have lost 350,000 manufacturing jobs in Canada since the recession started. Would this not go some way to help those who are struggling along at the lower ends to achieve some modicum of decency and respect in our society?

(1215) Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, things like our working income tax benefit have had an enormous impact across the country. The NDP voted in 1996 to align with the provinces. Our government respects the provinces. We believe they are in a good position to look at the local market conditions and the minimum wages. Every single province and territory has comprehensive systems in place. As with the decision that was made in 1996, we very appropriately believe in having the federally regulated workforce aligned with the provinces in which they work.

We have had a number of NDP governments making decisions about minimum wages. They have been making those decisions based on the local conditions. What we are saying is that we do not need to make this change. However, I sure would like to see the NDP support the development of our natural resources and support things like our working income tax benefit. Mr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour for her contribution to the debate. I basically have two questions for her.

First, before the government concludes that it will not be supporting the motion before the House, what studies has it done to conclude that the federal minimum wage should not be raised? Second, she noted that we are supporting high-paying jobs in the oil sands. Would she also be supportive of the same for the Ring of Fire in Ontario? Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague to the House. We look forward to many opportunities to debate issues over the upcoming year. What we have talked about is really jurisdiction and impact.

What we have consistently said is that it is appropriate for provincial governments to have systems in place, with the flexibility and agility that really relates to their local market conditions, and therefore, as a federal government with a small federally regulated workforce, we believe it is most appropriate to align with the decisions that are made in the provinces. In actual fact it was his government that introduced that change, and we continue to support the mechanism that was made at that time. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the parliamentary secretary on this important debate. She characterized the position of the opposition moving the motion as saying that the provinces have “no choice but to follow along”. Would not guidance by the federal government in this domain have a positive impact on provinces and territories that are paying—as perhaps in the province we both represent—only $10.25 an hour? This is a wage that, really, for most people in our province would be impossible to live on; yet that is the minimum wage.

Even if it affected only a few federal workers at this moment, would this initiative not have a positive impact in providing guidance to the provinces and territories? Also, if the government is in favour of business regulation, such as the idea of a national securities regulator and pushing that to the provinces, why would it not likewise support this for workers?

(1220) Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that labour is predominantly in the provincial jurisdiction. The majority of workers are in the provincial jurisdiction. To be quite frank, we have a government that respects jurisdiction. It respects jurisdiction for health care. We believe that sometimes the federal government is the most important group to provide guidance—in areas such as national security—but we think that in determining labour market wages, the provinces are really well positioned.

They have the structures and mechanisms in place, and we support continuing with the system we have in place. Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my hon. colleague very closely. In a nutshell, she pointed out in her speech that in the next five to seven years in Canada, we will be requiring in the neighbourhood of 700,000 to a million to 1.1 million new qualified workers for very high-paying, good jobs in this country. That is a huge challenge.

Had New Democrats taken their time and effort to talk about that challenge, I think we could have a much more vigorous debate. Instead, they picked a very narrow, very small segment of the federal civil service, some 396 or so individuals whom they think should be paid a couple more bucks an hour. Not that it is not important, but is that what we should be talking about today? We have some really huge issues facing this country, which we really do need to work together to try to solve. Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency . I think we did clearly articulate what the upcoming labour needs will be across this country. My children are in their twenties; I had thought the world would totally be their oyster because the baby boomers would have moved on, although the baby boomers are a little slower in moving on. We have some enormous challenges ahead of us in terms of our labour workforce, and that is where our government is focused.

I would like to bring up the working income tax benefit and a number of important initiatives that we have introduced to help people with lower incomes: the average family of four now saves $3,500; we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%; we have introduced measures in terms of supporting families; seniors' pension splitting is another measure that has really supported families. It is an important debate to be really focused on what the upcoming labour needs will be in this country, and we have some huge challenges ahead. [ Translation ] Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for moving this motion today. It is a very simple, very specific and very fair motion for Canadian workers. This proposal will help the workers of this country, especially the younger generation of workers, whose salary has not increased, as well as the middle class and the poor. The statistics are also very clear. There is a very serious problem for the government, society and the economy when the poorest workers' wages have gone up by only 1¢ over the past 40 years.

That is unbelievable to anyone who thinks that a society should be more fair and that there should not be such a large gap between the very rich and the poor. [ English ] This is a proposal the Conservatives have been arguing all day is not important because it would not impact many people but is terrible and must be opposed because it would have such an enormous impact on our economy. Never to let contradiction get in the way of a Conservative argument, it has to be one or the other.

If they are going to get back to their talking points, I suggest that they pick one of those criticisms and then go with that, because they have offered up both. The Conservatives say that it would only apply to a couple of people but if it were to actually exist in reality it would destroy the economy. It is quite incredible that so few workers could affect so many millions of people. Of course, it is neither of those things. This is a very moderate proposal to reinstate the minimum wage that was taken out after it had been stagnant for many years at $4 an hour.

It is to reinstate that federal minimum wage and to gradually, over five years, increase it to a level that, at $15 an hour, most Canadians, with the cost of living today, in 2014, would suggest is not getting anyone rich. We are seeking to apply this to those who fall under federal jurisdiction and is absolutely respecting provincial jurisdiction, another criticism; for some reason the Conservatives suddenly are new-found lovers of the provinces' rights and jurisdiction.

This is an amazing moment for me to watch Conservatives who have imposed so much on our provincial cousins, mostly in downloading many of the health and transfer costs onto the backs of the provinces, which then download it onto the backs of our cities and municipalities. Take that other contradiction aside.

What this proposal suggests we do in 2014, in a modern society and a progressive economy, which is what New Democrats will be proposing come the next election and now, is to very moderately increase that minimum wage, reinstate that federal condition, and bring it from where it is presently, which is ridiculously ineffectual and non-existent at $4 an hour, up to $15 an hour.

This might not immediately impact more than 40,000 or upwards of 100,000 workers in Canada, but for someone on the Conservative benches to say that this is meaningless is to suggest that those 100,000-plus workers and their families are of no meaning to them. That is insulting, and I hope that is not what my Conservative colleagues mean. If we can start to suggest it for those employees who are regulated in the banking and transportation sectors, jurisdictions regulated by the federal government, we have some leadership role to play.

We have seen the stagnation of the middle class and the lower economic classes in Canadian society, even as our economy overall has grown in the last 30 to 40 years. If we see that it is not being shared at all equally and has in fact been concentrating up in that higher 5% and 1% of income earners, with the haves having more, then we should take a step back and understand that there may be some role for government and business to play in this. As a former small business owner myself, one of the things I know small business owners need is not a government obsessed with one tool in the tool box.

Whether their taxation level is this or is that, they need fairness, but they also need customers. One thing we know about measures like this, and it has been studied extensively across academia and by those who work in the business community, is that a slight raise in the minimum wage often offers enormous economic benefits to small and medium businesses. It just makes common sense that those who are earning $12, $14, and $15 an hour are much more likely to spend those dollars locally than those making $150 and $200 an hour.

That only makes sense for those small and medium businesses that exist within Canada. (1225) [ Translation ] Mr. Speaker, as an aside, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Joliette . I apologize for not mentioning it earlier. [ English ] This can help small and medium local economies, something that is of great interest to New Democrats. We have put forward a number of proposals. We put forward a proposal in the last election that the Conservatives lambasted then picked up and put into their budget.

That proposal was to connect a tax credit for people who are doing the hiring to an actual hire. This is a radical notion, I know. It suggests that the government is going to give small or medium businesses a break on their taxes when they hire someone as opposed to the largesse that has been showered on some of the wealthiest corporations in Canada for the last 25 years, and I am talking in the order of tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts with no strings attached whatsoever.

The Conservatives and before them the Liberal government simply trusted the largest companies, the banks, and the oil and gas companies, those companies that were making the most profit and that stood to gain the most from those corporate tax cuts. The idea was that they would reinvest and hire more, but that was not the case.

We know that was not the case, because our dear friend, the former finance minister, Jim Flaherty, stood in front of that same business community not a year and a half ago and chastised them, as did the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, for all of this “dead money” that was sitting in corporate Canada's coffers. All of the tax cuts that had been given to the largest companies in corporate Canada had not been reinvested in research and development or in hiring more employees, for various reasons. Corporate Canada can answer those questions.

We as New Democrats feel that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If we are going to aid individual businesses in certain sectors, that should be somehow a quid pro quo with the larger society and they are going to hire someone with that help. What we are offering today is a very clear and concise proposal that would not only help working families but would help those small and medium businesses that are, as the parliamentary secretary said, the job creators of today. There is also, of course, a ripple effect.

Some provinces are lagging behind and are racing to the bottom to try to attract business by suggesting that there is no opportunity or duty on behalf of business to pay taxes for all those schools and bridges that we are constantly referencing in our taxes and tax policy. Those provinces that have lagged behind and have said that $8, $9, or $10 an hour is fine for people to make a living on feel that Canadians can fe