Chris Charlton

[Petitions, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am pleased to table today is one that arises out of my national campaign to fight for fairness for ordinary Canadians, and in particular for seniors who were shortchanged by their government as a result of an error in calculating the rate of inflation.

The government has acknowledged the mistake made by Statistics Canada, but is refusing to take any remedial action.

Petitioners from all over the country are paying attention to this issue. At this time I have received hundreds of signatures from Kelowna, Coquitlam, Langley, Victoria, Abbotsford, St-Bruno, Chatham, Oakville, Burlington, Peterborough, Beaverton, North York, Etobicoke and Milton. All the petitioners are asking for is some fairness.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to take full responsibility for this error which negatively impacted the incomes of seniors from 2001 to 2006 and take the required steps to repay every Canadian who has been shortchanged by a government program because of the miscalculation of the CPI.

I am proud to table that petition on their behalf today.

[Petitions, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions.

The first petition I am pleased to table is an important petition signed by people from my riding of Hamilton Mountain, as well as residents of Brantford.

The petitioners request Parliament call upon the government to amend the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include IBI and ABA therapy as medically necessary for children with autism, and that all provinces be required to fund this essential treatment for autism.

The petitioners also call upon the government to create an academic chair at a university in each province to teach IBI and ABA treatments to undergraduates and doctoral level students, so that Canadian professionals will no longer be forced to leave the country to receive academic training in the field, and Canada will be able to develop the capacity to provide every Canadian with autism with the best IBI and ABA treatment available.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question because I do not think anyone in the House doubts that one of the most passionate advocates not just for the reduction of poverty but rather for the eradication of poverty is the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

I welcome his comments and in particular I want to focus on child poverty. The reality is that there is no such thing as a poor child in Canada. It is that child's parents who are poor. Yet, we are putting kids further and further behind the eight ball precisely because of the kinds of things that my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie was just mentioning. We do not have safe and affordable housing. We do not have adequate health care. We do not give kids the benefit of education and literacy training, skills training or youth employment.

I want to say to the member for Sault Ste. Marie, whom the members for Hamilton Centre, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and I had the privilege of hosting in Hamilton, that his message was taken to heart there. Our community has adopted the motto that Hamilton should be the best place to raise a child. I want to give kudos to him for taking a leadership role right across the country in fighting poverty.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was really interested in my colleague's comments, because of course when we are looking at a surplus of $14.2 billion, that is not actually the government's money that is being given away here. It is revenue that has been generated by the hard-working families of this country. Over the years, many of them, of course, are the exact same hard-working families who are now living in and heading up seniors' households.

I want to talk about seniors specifically because I have had the opportunity, as the NDP seniors critic, to talk to seniors right across the country. What they are telling me and what they are looking for is some investment in safe, affordable housing and public transportation, and of course my colleague just touched on that.

They want to have access to doctors. We have all probably heard the stories about the long waiting lists in communities like mine in Hamilton. They want pharmacare, adequate nursing home standards and adequate long term care.

They want lifelong learning opportunities. We almost caricature seniors as being beyond their prime when so many of them can play really important roles, for example in intergenerational learning.

Above all, what seniors are looking for is some help with their income supports. They need increases to the OAS, CPP and GIS so they can make ends meet. They have played by the rules all their lives. They have worked hard. Now all they want to be able to do is pay the bills that are arriving at their doors.

While the government has chosen to give truckloads of cash to the oil and gas industry, we are leaving seniors at a point where they have to choose between heating and eating.

I would like to ask my colleague from Trinity—Spadina if she would agree that what we really need to do in the House is start to undertake a review of income supports for seniors and make sure that we look ahead for 10 years so that seniors will have the money they need to live in retirement with dignity and respect.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in my colleague's comments, particularly as he was describing having lived through this once through former premier, Gordon Campbell, in British Columbia, and indicating what the net effect of those tax cuts and the tax cut agenda had on constituents in British Columbia.

I come from Ontario and we all remember very well the record of the Mike Harris government there. Mike Harris was the self-proclaimed tax fighter. That agenda not only took millions and millions of dollars out of communities and impoverished families in our communities, but the downloading side and the impact of those tax cuts on our municipalities left our community, the city of Hamilton, in desperate need of money for infrastructure reinvestments.

We have had a number of water and sewer main breaks and our roads are in terrible shape. The government says that it is not in the business of dealing with potholes. The government ought to be because it is the senior level of government and our municipalities need our help to deal with those fundamental infrastructure deficits.

I wonder whether my colleague could reflect on whether the same experience is true in B.C. I am not as familiar with what is happening to municipalities out there but from my perspective as an Ontarian, and, first and foremost, as a Hamiltonian, I had hoped that this mini budget would actually reinvest in our cities and give places like Hamilton an opportunity to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.

[Trade, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, like so many communities across our country, Hamilton is being devastated by unfair trade and rampant globalization. The government's trade policies are killing good paying domestic jobs, exploiting cheap labour overseas, and putting the health of our families at risk.

Toxic imports from countries like China are making their way into Canada at breakneck speed. These countries have low or no health and environmental standards, and Canada's broken trade and regulatory system is failing to protect our families.

Children are paying a high price for cheap imports. Lead painted wooden trains, tainted toothpaste, toxic teethers, and lead laced vinyl bibs are putting our children at risk. Mattel alone has had to recall over 10 million toys.

Our trade policies should prevent these problems, not invite them. Contrary to the Conservative agenda, this is not the time to expand trade with countries like Colombia and South Korea. This is the time to toughen our trade laws and bring into force meaningful product safety regulations.

Kudos to the steelworkers for urging the Prime Minister to get the lead out.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when I talk to people in my home town about this crime agenda, they are not so much motivated by a sense of vengeance or wanting to seek retribution. Primarily, they are really concerned about ensuring that we do not have more victims in our communities. They are more interested on the prevention end than the hard-nosed, get tough on crime approach that we are seeing from the government.

I am sure the member has heard, as a member of the committee, many people bring forward positive suggestions for crime prevention measures. I heard the member talk about restorative justice and initiatives such as those. Could the member elaborate on those to create a more balanced picture of how we in this chamber should be dealing with crime?

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to make some comments about the bill that is before us and to thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh who, as we know, was recently voted the most knowledgeable member of Parliament. Therefore, I take his comments on the bill very seriously and I want to congratulate him on that distinct honour.

I notice that the Minister of the Environment is applauding the member and I really appreciate that.

I know the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is one of the hardest working members. If we look at the number of crime bills that have gone through the House since the last election, the number is absolutely phenomenal. It is because of the member's diligence that we have been able to make some of the amendments that have made some of the crime bills palatable to those of us in the NDP caucus.

When I think about the kinds of issues that are raised with me by my constituents, yes, they are concerned about crime but they are not really looking for a law and order response to those. What they are looking for is a response that is based on some fundamental principles of justice.

As the member for Windsor—Tecumseh just said, four out of the five bills that are part of the omnibus bill, after his tremendous work and the amendments that he has brought forward, I was comfortable supporting on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton Mountain.

However, the reverse onus provision is really troubling for me. I think it offends the fundamental sense of justice. It is a law and order approach. It does not really speak to the way that my constituents of Hamilton Mountain would want us to deal with these very serious crime bills.

I am wondering if the member for Windsor—Tecumseh could tell me whether my concerns are right. I am hoping that the reverse onus provision will be struck down by the courts and that it will actually not meet a charter challenge and therefore I can feel just a little better about having supported Bill C-2 yesterday at second reading. I did that because I agreed with four out of the five bills, but the fifth bill is troubling to me. I would like the member's assurances, as the most knowledgeable member, that that provision will be struck down.

[Poverty, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the House of Commons unanimously supported Ed Broadbent's motion to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000.

Eighteen years later, far from eradicating poverty, we have not even made progress. In Hamilton, one in four children is living in poverty. That is enough to fill Copps Coliseum one and a half times over.

Yesterday's Campaign 2000 report indicates that the poverty rate is essentially unchanged. UNICEF Canada concluded last week that Canada is failing to meet its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We had a budget surplus of over $14 billion. When is the government going to--

[Old Age Security Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to participate in the debate on Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement). I want to be clear that I will be supporting the bill.

It has often been said that in politics, all politics are local. While much of what we do in the House is of national importance, most of us elected to this chamber take our responsibilities seriously to give voice to the concerns expressed to us in our ridings.

That is the yardstick against which I measure my parliamentary work. I simply ask myself if I am saying in Parliament what those who sent me here as their representative would like to say themselves if they had this privileged opportunity. Therefore, every time I participate in the deliberations of the House, I reflect on what is happening back at home.

In a discussion on old age security, like the one that is before us today, I begin by noting that in Hamilton the percentage of seniors living in poverty is 24%. That is one in four seniors. It increases to 36% for women over the age of 75. Shocking as those statistics are, the risk of living in poverty is even greater for recent immigrants.

What does that tell us? In broadest terms, it says clearly that seniors do not have the income security that they need to retire with the dignity and respect they deserve.

At the very lowest end of the income scale are those seniors who live on nothing more than the OAS and GIS and, shamefully, those income supports do not suffice to lift them above the poverty line. That is a disgrace in a country that posted a budget surplus of $40 billion in the last year alone.

Instead of giving more tax cuts to the oil and gas industry, the Conservative government should have spent that money on lifting seniors out of poverty, the very seniors who built the country whose coffers are now overflowing.

Under those financial circumstances, I cannot wait to hear the government's excuse for not supporting the bill that is before us today, a bill that addresses the needs of seniors who are not even receiving the basic income support of the OAS. It is those seniors who are at the centre of the legislation that is before the House today.

When one of the NDP forefathers, Stanley Knowles, began the fight for public pensions in this very chamber, he was motivated by a sense of social justice. He was motivated by a genuine concern for the needs and welfare of Canadian citizens.

When the Old Age Security Act was finally adopted in Parliament in 1951, it reflected that motivation in the very way it was set up. It was established as a universal benefit funded out of general tax revenue. Indeed, it is the OAS's universality that gives expression to its social justice roots. When that universality is compromised, it is incumbent upon us to right that wrong. That is what the motion tabled in the House by my colleague from Surrey North is proposing and that is essentially what Bill C-362 purports to do.

When the Liberal government brought forward the Old Age Security Act, it excluded persons from receiving the benefit if they had not lived in Canada for 10 years. Although the OAS was intended to be the cornerstone of Canada's retirement income system, it forced a large number of Canadian citizens to go entirely without benefits for many years.

Contrary to its roots of ensuring universality, the residency requirement actually ended up creating two different classes of Canadian citizens: those who qualify at age 65 and those who do not because they have not lived in Canada for the requisite 10 years.

I fundamentally believe that citizenship must entail the same rights and responsibilities for all Canadians and any act that does otherwise offends that sense of social justice.

The Liberals, of course, had many opportunities to fix that problem while they were in government between 1951 and the present day. It saddens me that they failed to seize those opportunities, especially since they are now so eager to scold the Conservatives for their inaction. I am certain that the double standard will not escape the many Canadians who are watching these deliberations on television.

It makes me wonder why the Liberals did not vote with me in committee to support a Bloc motion on Bill C-36 that would have solved this problem once and for all. In fact, it would have gone even further. It would have lifted the restriction on new citizens' access to the OAS on the basis of the sponsor's obligations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Between the votes of the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP, we would have been able to out-vote the government and fix Bill C-36 right then and there. However, the Liberals chose not to vote with us and, as a result, while Bill C-36 has long since passed into law, tens of thousands of Canadians are still not receiving the OAS.

That is a curious position for a party whose leader was recently in Hamilton and said that poverty was his priority. I would suggest that actions speak louder than words.

Organizations that work very closely with immigrant populations have been watching our work here closely. The Seniors Network BC, the Seniors Summit, Women Elders in Action, the Alternative Planning Group, Immigrant Seniors Advocacy Network representing the African Canadian Social Development Council, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Hispanic Development Council and the Council of Agencies Servicing South Asians have all been advocating for changes to the residency requirement for a very long time. They no longer want to see immigrant seniors condemned to a life poverty. They want to move beyond the patchwork quilt of policies that was the legacy of the Liberal government.

As members of the House will know, some seniors who are newcomers can qualify for old age security even if they have not met the 10-year residency requirement. That is because the Government of Canada has signed reciprocal social security agreements with about 50 countries that make the benefits portable between Canada and that other country. They normally exist because both countries provide social security plans with similar benefits.

The reason for not having secured a reciprocal agreement is because the other country is unwilling or unable to provide comparable social security. This would include some of the most impoverished nations in the world and our government is, therefore, targeting the very people who may need the OAS the most.

If we want to be serious about ensuring that seniors can retire with the dignity and respect they deserve, then we must take every opportunity to walk the talk. That is why I will be supporting Bill C-362. I hope that then collectively we will turn our minds to look once again at the larger picture. We must remember that in Canada today we still have two million seniors living in poverty.

The Liberals and Conservatives supported my seniors charter, which I had the privilege of tabling in the House on behalf of the NDP caucus last year. One of the expressed rights in that charter is the right to income security for all seniors. Just as workers deserve a living wage, so seniors must be lifted out of poverty.

We need to take a holistic approach to this issue, which is why I tabled a motion in the House to undertake a comprehensive review of senior's income security. I would remind members of what that motion says. For those members who are eager to look it up, it is Motion No. 136. It reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should guarantee to all seniors a stable and secure income by: (a) linking the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Program to standard of living levels; (b) looking forward ten years to determine the adequacy of income support programs; (c) performing reviews of all income support planning for seniors; and (d) reporting all the above annually to Parliament.

We know that a major demographic shift is just around the corner. In fact, Statistics Canada suggests that between 2006 and 2026 the number of seniors is projected to increase from 4.3 million to 8 million. Their share of the population is expected to increase from 13.2% to 21.1%. A shift of that magnitude requires planning, and both the seniors of today and the seniors of tomorrow are looking to us to take leadership.

As my motion suggests, we need to begin that planning now. If we want to continue to espouse the sense of social justice that Stanley Knowles brought to this House when he worked to ensure that no senior should live in poverty, then we need to recommit ourselves to his vision starting today.

Yes, Bill C-362 is one piece of that puzzle, and I am proud to support it with my vote, but there is so much more yet left to be done. I want to encourage all members of the House to put partisanship aside and work together to ensure that promising a senior the right to retirement with dignity and respect is more than just empty rhetoric.