Bonnie Crombie

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2011]

With regard to Canada Revenue Agency, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2009, to the present?

[Democratic Representation Act, December 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, but I would like to make a few comments first.

The foundation of our democracy is the principle of one person, one vote. All Canadians should expect to have fair, effective representation regardless of where they live.

In Ontario, our vote is worth less than half, in some instances, of other less populated provinces. In my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville there are 130,000 constituents, about 90,000 voters. In rural and less populated provinces there is fewer than half of that in each of those ridings.

We need fairness, transparency and a government that is willing to act to address this issue.

The bill was introduced on April 1. We thought perhaps it was some sort of April Fool's joke. It has gone nowhere in eight months on the order paper since then. Instead, the government leaked to the press that there was a deal among parties that it not proceed. That is just a bald-faced lie. It is a complete utter inaccuracy to justify its inaction.

Why does the government wait eight months to return to this very important issue? Why discriminate against provinces like Ontario?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 15th, 2010]

With regard to all e-mail correspondence between ministers’ exempt staff and staff at the Department of Public Works and Government Services which occurred between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, excluding all matters which are in their nature secret, for each e-mail: (a) what are its contents; (b) what are the names of the (i) sender, (ii) recipients; and (c) on what date was it sent?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-509.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, for his numerous introductions of this bill and his commitment to the cause.

I commend my colleague for putting forward a valuable modernization of the Canada Post Corporation Act. I also want to thank the member for accepting my amendments in committee.

As my party's crown corporations critic, I continue to support this bill because it is good government policy, and I have suggested that my caucus do the same.

My party does support greater service for, and more affordable access to, library materials for Canadians in rural and remote areas, seniors, new Canadians and those with disabilities. We support a reduced postal rate for all library materials and we support the new definition of library materials to include all forms of modern media.

I participated in the debate at the committee stage of the bill. We amended the definition of library materials in clause 1 to include a more comprehensive list of new modern media, books, magazines, records, CDs, CD-ROMs, audio cassettes, video cassettes, DVDs and other audiovisual materials.

This is a valuable expansion of the definition and takes into account the current reality of choices among consumers both young and old. It leaves the door open for the quickly changing and ever-evolving modern media environment.

Also, in clause 3, we required Canada Post Corporation to come before Parliament to request an increase in the library rate.

Finally, through my amendment, the committee added in section 21.2 a review of the definition of library materials to be considered at least every 10 years to keep the legislation and the always varying list of new media as current as possible.

This bill and its amendments will protect the library rate for many years to come.

Canada Post offers libraries, both public and university, a reduced rate to move books not only back and forth across the province, but the country as well. Bill C-509 will put this discounted postal rate into legislation and keep it there. The original intent was to allow libraries to feel confident they were not going to wake up one morning without any consultation and find that the rates had either been increased to full retail or to some other amount.

Canadians rely on the book rate for transferring materials across the country. Libraries have become dependent on the book rate. It allows them to transfer materials around the country.

It is imperative that our libraries continue to be well stocked. There was a concern that larger metropolitan libraries would stockpile or hoard some of the more modern media that is available without the ability to transfer them affordably. The bill will assist in a very cost-effective way of transferring these materials and hopefully put a stop to the stockpiling.

On maintaining the library book rate, the Canadian Library Association, CLA, lends its full support to the bill, and rightly so. It explained that over 2,000 libraries across Canada rely on the library book rate for transferring materials back and forth. Canadians from coast to coast to coast, especially students, new citizens, the disabled and those living in rural and remote communities, are able to take full advantage of the system.

Quite simply, the fact that libraries can share hard copy materials with one another at an affordable rate allows people to obtain information on a regular basis.

As we know, information is king, knowledge is eternal and we in the Liberal Party stand for lifelong learning. By implementing Bill C-509, libraries would be able to ship all forms of modern media across the country at a reduced postal rate.

As the CLA pointed out, it is imperative that we retain the preferred library book rate for many reasons. Without a sustainable library book rate, the CLA stated the following concerns:

First, it would create a two-tiered service for Canadians: simply those who could afford to borrow materials and those who cannot.

Second, material would be difficult to obtain if it is not regularly transferred between libraries. This would make things very difficult for the elderly, students, the disabled and rural residents.

Third, it would put added pressure on libraries to recoup costs and remain viable due to a lower supply and ultimately fewer visitors.

Fourth, it would strain smaller libraries. Their ability to loan would be in jeopardy due to a lower supply and would lead to diminished lending.

As the member for Brandon—Souris pointed out in his speech back in May, the library book rate has been in existence since 1939. Libraries have become dependent on the rate and it has allowed them to transfer material affordably across the country. Although Canada Post has kept the rates at reasonable levels throughout the years, it has periodically increased them in order to keep up with inflation and other economic factors. Bill C-509 would put an end to that.

The bill addresses the concern that Canada Post could ad hoc increase the library rate by requiring it to obtain a mandate from Parliament prior to doing so. We achieved this in clause 3 as amended in committee.

By expanding the definition of which materials can be sent at a reduced postal rate, we are better serving Canadians from coast to coast to coast and especially in remote and rural communities. I am in full agreement that as technology advances, Canadians have a desire to keep up with the trends and the need for advanced information as it grows. It is imperative that our libraries are well stocked with modern media and that they share it with as many libraries as possible. Without such measures, there is a growing concern of stockpiling material and not sharing it with the smaller rural libraries. They simply could not afford to transfer the material and smaller libraries would definitely suffer as a result.

In this modern day of Internet, speedy file transfers, email, social media and large broadband, it is refreshing to know that I can still walk into a library and borrow a tangible item like a book, a newspaper, a music CD, a movie, a DVD and even an e-book. I know that the residents of Mississauga—Streetsville feel the same way. For this reason and for those that I have raised earlier, we have a responsibility in this place to maintain this fundamental right for all Canadians.

Once again, my colleague from Brandon—Souris has my full support. I will be voting in favour of Bill C-509. I encourage my caucus members to do the same and I encourage all members to follow suit.

[Mark Dailey, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Toronto watched Citytv change the pace and the face of the news in Toronto. No journalist is more closely associated with the brash and bold presence of that station than Mark Dailey.

Always the steady anchor in the newsroom with a keen sense of the changing life of the city, we shall associate his name always with the simple expression “Citytv, everywhere”.

Mark Dailey was a reporter who was happiest when he was at the centre of the action. He had no ideological or political axe to grind, only to report the news as he saw it.

Tragically, Mark lost his battle with cancer this week at the age of 57, and all of Toronto is the poorer for his loss and the better for his strong character and presence.

All members of Parliament join together in saluting Mark's memory and wishing the best to his family and saying, well done, true and trusty servant of the people, well done. May he rest in peace.

[Government Spending, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the $7,000 refreshment tab is bad enough, but the decision to spend $42,000 on a meeting at a hotel directly across the street from the government's conference centre is baffling.

The PCO staff who attended the town hall walked right by the government building on their way to the private town hall. The same type of meeting could have been held in the government building at a fraction of the cost.

When will the Conservatives practise what they preach, or explain to Canadians the hypocrisy of their do as they say, not do as they do policy?

[Government Spending, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ought to take his minister's advice on reckless spending. Earlier this year, $42,000 was spent so that PCO staff who work directly for the Prime Minister could hold a town hall meeting for public servants.

The average annual income in Ontario is $42,000. The Prime Minister himself signed off on a $7,000 tab for refreshments just two weeks after the President of the Treasury Board scolded bureaucrats for their expenses and then froze spending.

Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he said he makes the rules so he can spend what he likes?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age), as introduced by my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles.

I will begin with some background on why this legislation is important. I will also discuss how the bill deals directly with the Canadian Human Rights Act, how it affects the federally regulated private sector, some safety concerns with the bill, and arguments against banning mandatory retirement. I will also address concerns of one of my constituents who could benefit from the bill.

The bill is designed to prohibit federally regulated employers from setting a mandatory retirement age. Let me begin by providing a bit of background. Currently there are no laws in Canada that require a person to retire at a specific age. As we know, federal civil servants are not obliged to retire when they reach age 65. However, there is an exemption for non-civil servants in the federally regulated sector such as AECL, Air Canada, CN, CMHC, Petro-Canada, et cetera, where mandatory retirement can be a condition of an employment contract, collective agreement or workplace policy.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, CHRA, is designed to protect Canadians from discrimination in many different areas, including age. The act applies to all federally regulated industries employing nearly one million Canadians. The act needs clarity.

Subsection 15(1)(b) protects the employer against allegations of discrimination based on age and years of service. Then subsection 15(1)(c) protects the individual based on age of retirement established for employees working in a similar position. The validity of this provision was challenged by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision in Vilven and Kelly v. Air Canada. As hon. colleagues know, these two employees were reinstated with full pay and seniority.

Bill C-481 seeks to clarify the provisions in the act that do not allow an individual to file a complaint based on age. This undoubtedly would impact mandatory retirement in collective agreements and in workplace policy.

The bill also amends the Canada Labour Code to provide for payment of severance even if the terminated employee is entitled to a pension. There are no changes to the regulations for public servants as mandatory retirement was removed in 1986.

I realize the issue of safety is important and must be addressed for particular industries. I understand that mandatory testing would need to be conducted to ensure that the individual is still capable of doing the job. For pilots travelling on international routes, there are provisions in place for the countries they land in; however, in most cases it refers only to the captain. For example, there is no reason that the captain could not be the copilot for some of the flights using larger aircraft.

Some would argue that mandatory retirement creates opportunities and job promotions for younger workers. Some unions argue efforts to have benefits between the ages of 60 and 65 would be undermined.

In particular, I would like to address the concerns of a constituent of mine. This constituent contacted my office in August and we have been corresponding with her ever since. This legislation is something that could help her directly. Joan works for a federally regulated company. As she reached, and has passed, the age of 65, unfortunately, her job came under review. The company she works for agreed to extend her employment on a yearly basis subject to one rule, that she not receive sick pay. She has been told that her last day of work will be October 31, 2011. She is not ready to retire and she will be searching for temporary work after that date. She feels vulnerable, and quite frankly, who would not?

The current legislation discriminates against the needs of women who opt out of the workforce to raise their children or those who need to take care of aging parents and have not accumulated enough pension benefits to do so. These are the everyday problems Canadians want us to address with Bill C-481.

While there are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed by eliminating mandatory retirement, we must face some of the realities that affect our labour force, such as retirement savings, pensions, skills and labour shortages.

We all know that the baby boom generation is beginning to retire. This will lead to a lack of qualified labour. Often women and immigrants need to work longer because they may not have accumulated enough pension or savings to retire with dignity. People are living longer and healthier and want to continue to work.

The United States, New Zealand and Australia have eliminated mandatory retirement with no major consequences. It also allows some older workers with seniority to work part-time or to work flexible schedules. The provinces have eliminated mandatory retirement; however, there are provisions for mandatory retirement in jobs where physical ability is a requirement, such as in firefighting and policing. We should also take into account mental ability, particularly as it relates to airline pilots.

It is imperative that we do the right thing for the right reasons in this place. More importantly, it is our responsibility to keep our laws current, effective and adaptable with the times. What was acceptable and commonplace 20 years ago no longer is today.

I would like to reference a specific court case from 1990. I am sure most hon. members are familiar with it.

The case dealt with a professor at the University of Guelph. It was felt that even though the Ontario Human Rights Code violated section 15 of the charter, the code was saved as a result of section 1 of the charter because of the law at the time. In writing for the majority, Justice La Forest pointed out that mandatory retirement does involve a complex balancing of competing interests on which expert opinion is divided. In this regard, the courts should accord legislatures considerable room to manoeuvre in striking a balance. This balance is what the hon. member for Laval—Les Îles seeks to obtain with the passage of her bill.

Research shows and the available workforce evidence suggests that abolition of mandatory retirement is unlikely to have a major impact on the average retirement age or years of work in Canada. Further research shows that two-thirds of elderly workers choose to retire before the age of 65, and that 43% retire before age 60. The average age of retirement for all workers was 61 years in 1999. Of the Canadian population 65 to 69 years of age, 11.8% were active in the labour force in 2001. Immigrants and newcomers can spend more time in the workforce, and need to spend more time in the workforce, to build up their pensions. Employers are better able to plan for their workforce skills replacement. Elementary economic principles show that job displacement only takes place for a short period of time. The average is nine months to a year.

I support this bill. It is something on which we must move forward. Obviously, there are some concerns around safety and labour force impacts that need to be addressed, but I believe they can all be reviewed in committee. I thank the member for her hard work on this file. I will be voting in favour of this bill and I encourage all hon. members to do the same.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 3rd, 2010]

With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Settlement Agencies: (a) how many agencies were opened per calendar year since January 1, 2006 to present; (b) what was the total amount of transfer funding provided for the opening of agencies per calendar year from February 7, 2006 to present; (c) how many agencies have been opened since February 7, 2006; (d) what is the location of each new agency since February 7, 2006; (e) how many agencies have had their funding reduced or abolished since February 7, 2006; (f) how many agencies have had to close because of reduced or abolished federal funding; (g) what is the exact location of each closure since February 7, 2006; (h) what is the amount of funding provided to agencies in the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, broken down by province, per calendar year from February 7, 2006 to present; and (i) has CIC begun negotiating a new Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement as promised and, if not, why not and when will it begin these negotiations?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 3rd, 2010]

With regard to the government's Economic Action Plan, for each of the project announcements in the electoral district of Mississauga—Streetsville: (a) what was (i) the date of the announcement, (ii) the amount of stimulus spending announced, (iii) the department which made the announcement; (b) was there a public event associated with the announcement and, if so, what was the cost of that event; (c) how many projects submitted by the City of Mississauga did not qualify for or were denied infrastructure or Recreational Infrastructure Canada program funding; (d) what were the details and locations of the projects that did not qualify or were denied funding; and (e) for each project that was denied funding, what is the detailed explanation of the reasons for the denial?