Chris Charlton

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members are voting yes.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, could you just clarify what happened to Motion No. 80?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 30th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting: I listened to the answer that the minister gave to the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and instead of talking about what is before the House, which is a guillotine motion, a motion to kill further debate in this House, he responded on substance.

In fact, I would agree with him. He wants to talk about substance; we also want to talk about the substance of the bill. That is precisely the issue that is bringing us to this point here today.

I want to remind the minister of this quote:

We have closure today precisely because there is no deadline and there are no plans. Instead of having deadlines, plans and goals, we must insist on moving forward because the government is simply increasingly embarrassed by the state of the debate and it needs to move on.

Who said that? It was the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, on December 9, 2002.

I would agree with the Prime Minister. As he then said, the government is embarrassed, and it ought to be embarrassed, because in fact the government itself moved six further amendments to the bill. We should be debating the bill, because clearly there are flaws and the government has agreed there are flaws. The bill merits further study.

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, November 30th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-372, An Act to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (members’ staff).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to reintroduce my bill to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. I hope that all members representing all caucuses in the House of Commons will support what is a matter of simple justice.

My bill proposes to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to ensure that staff of senators and members of the House of Commons who serve in the capacity of member, leader, House leader, or whip, would enjoy the benefit of being permitted, if they so choose, to organize a union, to belong to a union, and to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining.

I do not need to tell members that this is a set of rights and privileges that is considered fundamental in a modern democratic society such as Canada. In fact, we work long and hard to ensure that those rights are protected and advanced for all working people.

I must say that I was astonished when I arrived on Parliament Hill to discover that only the NDP caucus had voluntarily recognized the organization of its staff on Parliament Hill. In spite of that, they still do not enjoy the full benefits of collective bargaining. It remains true to this day that neither the employer nor the employee enjoys the full recognition of a union or an employer that is engaged in a collective bargaining process, and has obligations that go with that under the current legislation that governs this House.

As I said, this is a matter of fundamental justice, and for that reason, I hope that all members of the House will support my bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Holidays Harmonization Act, November 29th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-364, An Act respecting the harmonization of holidays.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to introduce a bill respecting the harmonization of holidays. This proposed enactment would entitle employees under federal jurisdiction to all the general holidays observed in the province in which they work.

A few years ago, the Ontario government created a new holiday known as Family Day. Employees in federally regulated workplaces in Ontario, however, are not currently entitled to that provincial holiday. As a result, we find ourselves in the curious situation where a worker in the federally regulated courier sector, for example, is forced to try to deliver packages to retail businesses that are closed because of the provincial holiday. Moreover, these workers are not able to share the holiday with their family and friends despite the fact that they, too, work in Ontario. My bill would end this unintended disconnect between federal and provincial laws by entitling employees in federally regulated workplaces to all of the general holidays that are recognized in the province in which they work.

I will conclude by thanking Shaun Flannery from my riding of Hamilton Mountain for first bringing this issue to my attention. I met him while I was knocking on doors in his neighbourhood and I am delighted to be able to table this bill for him and for all the workers under federal jurisdiction who would benefit from this enactment.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Insurance Act, November 28th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (increase of maximum number of weeks: combined weeks of benefits).

Mr. Speaker, all too often the government pays lip service to supporting women without taking any concrete steps to improve the lives of women and girls. Offering posters and platitudes simply is not good enough.

We need to take action now. That is why I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would make the employment insurance system fair for working mothers. One of the many barriers that prevent women from accessing EI entitlements is the anti-stacking provisions in the Employment Insurance Act. For example, these provisions prevent mothers who have secured maternity and parental benefits from accessing regular EI benefits in the event that they lose their jobs during these officially sanctioned leaves.

With layoff announcements still coming daily, new mothers often find that their workplaces are closing during their maternity leave, or they return to work but lose their jobs soon after. Shamefully, they find that they no longer qualify for the employment insurance benefits for which they have paid.

My bill would bring fairness to working mothers by eliminating the 50-week cap and changing the qualifying period so individuals could access their maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits without worrying that if they lost their jobs in the interim they would be left without EI.

Working moms deserve the support of this House. I urge all members to give unanimous consent to pass this bill now.

Finally, I want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for seconding this bill and for her continuing support of this initiative. I know that when that bill comes before her committee, she will lead the fight for fairness for working mothers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Labour Code, November 28th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-361, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum age of employment).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which complements the incredible work of young members in the trade union movement who are raising awareness about Canada's inadequate minimum age laws and to advocate for Canada to ratify International Labour Organisation convention 138.

My bill would bring federal labour legislation into compliance with ILO convention 138 by ensuring that the age of employment shall not be less than the age of completion of compulsory schooling, which in Canada is age 16.

This threshold is set to protect the health and well-being of young people, and to ensure that they have the proper means to develop as individuals and citizens through sufficient education.

Just to be clear, my bill is not targeted at teens who work at Timmies after school. I fully appreciate that many students need part-time work to save for post-secondary education, help their families survive in these difficult economic times or to gain valuable working experience.

My bill would make an explicit exception for the light work of persons between 13 and 15 years of age. It states that such work may be permitted if it is not likely to be harmful to their health or development and is not such as to prejudice their attendance at school, their participation in vocational orientation or training programs.

However, there is an urgent need for Canada to act on adopting a minimum age law. We need to be clear that we do not condone child labour and we need to reverse the trend of increasing young people injured on the job. We have a duty to protect young Canadians.

It is shameful that all the existing minimum age laws under Canada's federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions currently contravene convention 138. In some cases, as with the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, official minimum age laws have actually weakened in recent years, dropping to as low as 12 years of age.

I hope that passage of my bill will be the impetus the government needs to finally sign on to ILO convention 138. Canada should be a leader in the fight to defeat child labour globally, but instead we remain passively complicit in, if not active proponents of, child labour here at home. If Canadians were aware of this fact, I am sure they would wholeheartedly agree that the time to act is now.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points of Order, November 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with the member for Churchill about the incident and I am absolutely certain about the following facts.

She did give passes to at least eight people for the members' gallery west. This is a common practice for all members when we are welcoming visitors to the parliamentary buildings. She had no knowledge that a single person within the group to whom she gave a pass would misbehave in any way. Like most members, she believes that people are generally nice and well-behaved, and the government has no evidence of any foreknowledge because such foreknowledge does not exist.

The member for Churchill is no more responsible for the behaviour of the person in the gallery than the Speaker of the Senate was responsible for the protest from the Senate page which took place during the Speech from the Throne. Interestingly, the government has yet to bring forward that debate. Just because someone helps people to be in their place does not imply any knowledge of their plans.

The member for Churchill regrets the disruption in the gallery. None of us condone it. We are pleased with the actions taken by our security services.

Mr. Speaker, should you find that this behaviour constitutes a prima facie case of privilege, she will be happy to address the chamber on the frustrations that all Canadians feel stemming from the anti-democratic approaches the government takes to governing. How people react to a government that h denies debate on public policy is certainly worthy of debate in this chamber.

[Stelco Inc. Acquisition Act, November 24th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-358, An Act respecting the acquisition of Stelco Inc. by the United States Steel Corporation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a bill regarding the acquisition of Stelco Inc. by the United States Steel Corporation.

U.S. Steel acquired Stelco in 2007, but it was not long after that the Government of Canada had to take U.S. Steel to court for failing to live up to the employment and production commitments made by the company under the Investment Canada Act.

I have raised issues related to U.S. Steel on numerous occasions in this House. I have raised the lockout of members of USW Local 1005, the denial of pension indexation for Stelco retirees, access to EI benefits for the locked out workers, and of course the inadequacy of the Investment Canada Act in protecting Canadian interests in this foreign takeover.

Sadly, it has been impossible to get full accountability because the agreement signed between U.S. Steel and the Government of Canada has never been made available publicly.

It is for that reason I am introducing this bill today. It would require the Government of Canada to publish all written undertakings given in the right of Canada under the Investment Canada Act in respect to the acquisition of U.S. Steel.

Furthermore, it would require the publication of all correspondence between the minister and the company regarding the enforcement of this agreement.

The Investment Canada Act demands that a foreign takeover have a net public benefit, but the public is being kept in the dark. That is simply not good enough. That is why my bill would finally bring accountability into the light of day.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Pension Plan, November 24th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (arrears of benefits).

Madam Speaker, these last few years have been incredibly difficult for seniors. They have worked hard all their lives and played by the rules. However, now their retirement savings are threatened through no fault of their own by downturns in the economy and employers who are trying to avoid their pension obligations.

The least we can do as legislators is to ensure that the money to which seniors are entitled through government pensions will be there for them in their retirement. That is why I am introducing legislation today that would allow for full retroactive benefits plus interest when someone applies late for benefits under the Canada pension plan.

The CPP is a pay-as-you-go contribution-based program that is funded solely by employers and employees. It is absurd that a person who is late in applying for his or her pension under the CPP is only entitled to 11 months of retroactive benefits. It is not the government's money.

This bill would put an end to this insufficient and unfair period of retroactivity, and would do the same for disability pensions or a survivor's pension and a disabled contributor's child benefit. This is something that should and could have been corrected long ago.

I urge all members to support this important bill today. By definition, seniors do not have a lifetime to wait.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)