Joe Daniel

[The Economy, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is squarely focused on what matters to Canadians: supporting jobs and economic growth.

We are working hard to implement Canada's economic action plan and its job creating measures as we also prepare for the economic action plan for 2012. In my riding, people are happy to see our Conservative government working on the priorities of GTA families and all Canadians.

Recently, the International Monetary Fund forecasted Canada's economy will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 in the years ahead and Canada has created 610,000 net new jobs since July 2009, the best job growth in the G7.

However, the global recovery is fragile and Canada is not immune. There are still far too many Canadians out of work.

We are staying focused on the economy and supporting long-term economic growth, job creation and prosperity for Canadian families.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our priorities are quite clear. We have done a significant amount for seniors. The level of poverty among seniors is one of the lowest in all of the countries in the west. There are great things that need to be done. We need to secure the future of the OAS system, which needs to be adapted. It cannot just stay as it was in the past. That is what is under review.

Clearly what is happening is the fearmongering is coming from the opposite side, not from our side.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague acknowledging the great work the government has done to help seniors so far.

As I have mentioned, there have been increases in GIS and the levels of qualification before taxes are paid, et cetera. Great things have been done. As members can tell, the reduction in the number of people who are actually in the low-income bracket has been reduced dramatically. In fact, it is the best among some of these countries.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my honoured colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville.

I appreciate being invited to participate in the debate regarding the old age security program, or the OAS, as it is commonly known. This discussion provides the perfect context to clear up some of the confusion, the miscommunication and misinformation that surrounds the issue of seniors' poverty.

I would like to start by assuring everybody that the Government of Canada recognizes financial security as a factor that has an obvious impact on our seniors' quality of life. As the Prime Minister has said, any seniors currently receiving benefits as well as those nearing retirement will not be affected.

Our government is vigilant on this issue and we truly appreciate the contribution seniors have made and continue to make in building our communities in Canada.

A key priority for the Government of Canada is to help Canadians prepare for and achieve financial security in their later years. We know that seniors are concerned about the economy and maintaining their standard of living in retirement. That is understood. This is an issue that has come into even greater focus in light of the demographic shift that we are experiencing.

It is no secret the Canadian population is aging. Events around the world and our aging population make it clear that the government needs to make responsible decisions to ensure that social programs are sustainable.

In 2011 the first baby boomers reached the milestone of turning 65. At the same time, Canadians are living much longer than ever before. Canadians can enjoy one of the longest life expectancies in the world at close to 81 years old. Taken together, these phenomena are profoundly affecting our country. The result is that the age structure of the population is changing so that there is a higher proportion of senior citizens.

There is a demographic projection we will hear quoted many times today that in less than two decades, close to one in four Canadians will be over age 65. To put it into some context, the proportion of seniors in Canada currently stands at one in seven.

There are obvious financial implications to living longer, as more seniors begin to rely on retirement income for longer periods. As a government we have done a great deal to ensure that Canadians have financial security in their later years. As I stated before, it is one of our key priorities.

The most important financial support we provide to seniors is through the public pension system. This system is highly regarded internationally, and for good reason. It has played a very significant role in reducing lower income rates among seniors. In fact, the incidence of poverty among seniors in Canada has dropped from a rate of 21% in 1980 to 5.2% in 2009. This is one of the lowest rates in the world.

We describe Canada's retirement income system as being made up of three pillars. The first pillar is one that dominates our discussion today, the OAS. The Canada pension plan, CPP, is the second pillar. The third pillar consists of personal savings, including employee pensions, registered retirement savings plans, tax-free savings accounts, as well as other savings and investments.

As members are likely aware, the government is seeking to build on the third pillar. To do this we recently introduced Bill C-25 to create the legislative framework for the establishment of pooled registered pension plans, PRPPs. PRPPs would provide the majority of Canadians who do not have workplace pensions with access to well-registered, low-cost, private sector pension coverage.

Let me revisit the first two pillars, OAS and CPP. Together these two public pillars are designed to provide a modest base upon which to build additional retirement income. This year Canadians will receive close to $72 billion in benefits through the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, GIS.

It is true that these benefits do not come automatically. All Canadians have to apply for them. That is why we have taken steps to inform Canadians about their eligibility for these benefits and to help them through the application process.

Through HRSDC and Service Canada, our government is using direct mail, information campaigns, partnerships and community organizations to reach seniors who may be eligible for OAS and GIS.

Some of these efforts are aimed at seniors who are particularly hard to reach, such as those who are homeless, those who live in remote communities, immigrant seniors, aboriginal seniors, seniors with disabilities and those who do not speak either English or French.

We issue more than 600,000 application forms to Canadian seniors who are not yet receiving their CPP or OAS to encourage them to apply. Every year, we mail out thousands of pre-filled applications to people we think may qualify for GIS and the target group changes every year. Most GIS recipients now only need to apply once in their lifetime and have their benefits automatically renewed simply by filling out their annual tax return. As members can see, we are making great efforts to reach out to low-income seniors and to inform them about their benefits.

Speaking of benefits, I will speak a little more on the GIS.

As I said, the GIS provides extra support for seniors with little to no income and has a great success in reducing poverty among seniors. Our efforts to combat senior poverty does not stop there. In our last Speech from the Throne, we pledged that the government's low tax plan would permanently enhance benefits for Canada's most vulnerable seniors. We honoured that pledge last year by providing the largest GIS increase in 25 years. This measure will help Canada's lowest income seniors out of poverty. More than 680,000 low-income seniors are benefiting from this increase. These seniors are now receiving additional GIS of up to $600 for a single senior and up to $840 for couples.

In 2008 we increased the GIS exemption from $500 to $3,500. The earnings exemption allows low-income working seniors to keep more of their hard-earned money. This year we are providing more tax relief for seniors and pensioners, saving them $2.3 billion.

The measures I have just outlined demonstrate that the Government of Canada is taking concrete steps for seniors. We are actively helping Canadians prepare for and achieve financial security in their latter years. This is an ongoing effort for us because it is a key priority.

[Religious Freedom, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I commend individuals like Nguyen Van Ly, Gao Zhisheng, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun and others who continue to struggle to promote freedom.

As Canadians, we should bear in mind that the rights we enjoy are not always shared by others around the world. Criminalization for apostasy and blasphemy disproportionately affects the religious minorities.

Regrettably, egregious violations of the right to religious freedom against individuals continue. Some examples include Baha'is and Sufis facing mistreatment in Iran, Christians being forced out of Iraq, Copts facing attacks by extremists in Egypt, and Ahmadis continuing to face discrimination in Pakistan.

Sadly, places of worship, including churches, mosques, synagogues, shrines and monasteries, have been attacked or vandalized.

Our government will continue to promote freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the bigger ridings have a much bigger workload. In Ontario and in the Toronto riding that I represent with nearly 60% to 70% of first generation Canadians, there is a lot of work in terms of immigration issues, et cetera. To have better representation would mean a more even workload throughout these different ridings.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many ways of looking at how we will distribute the seats. Quebec is well represented with the allocation that is shown for 23% of the population. All of the provinces actually have a big contribution.

Another way of doing the allocation of seats could have been by the contribution by each of the provinces, which I think we would see as completely unfair.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many ways of skinning the cat, and this is the one that is being proposed by our government. I believe it is fair to all Canadians. It is not picking winners and losers or pitting Canadians against Canadians.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak about Bill C-20, the fair representation act.

The significant and increasing under-representation of Canadians in the fast growing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario is a serious problem that requires an immediate solution. Something must be done. This problem is only going to get worse if we keep the status quo. Our government is committed to addressing this problem with the fair representation act.

Bill C-20 provides a principled update to the formula allocating House of Commons seats that is fair to all provinces. This is an important point. Increasing representation for the faster growing provinces should not be done at the cost of pitting region against region, or even Canadian against Canadian.

That is why we made three distinct promises on House of Commons representation in the last election to ensure that any update to the formula would be fair to all Canadians in all provinces.

First, we would increase the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect the population growth in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Second, we would protect the number of seats for the smaller provinces. Third, we would protect the proportional representation of Quebec according to its population.

Our government received a strong mandate to deliver these commitments. We are doing exactly that with the fair representation act.

It is important that these three commitments be taken together. When taken together, the update to the formula allocating House of Commons seats will be fair across the country.

The practical result of Bill C-20 would be that every single Canadian would move closer to representation by population.

First, I will underline the importance of introducing a seat allocation formula that is more responsive to population size and trends.

This legislation would move the House closer to fair representation for Canadians living in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. It would maintain the number of seats for slower growing provinces and ensure Quebec's representation is equal to its population.

The electoral quotient for 2011 readjustment will be set at 111,166, reflecting the average riding population prior to the last seat readjustment in 2001, increased by the simple average of provincial population growth rates.

For the 2021 readjustment and each subsequent readjustment, the electoral quotient will be increased by the simple average of provincial population growth rates since the preceding readjustment.

What is important is that the electoral quotient is not static. Under the status quo formula, the electoral quotient was set and did not move to accommodate population growth. This contributed to the faster growing provinces becoming increasingly and significantly under-represented.

Population growth within those provinces has been even higher in large urban and suburban areas. Canada's new and visible minority population is increasing, largely through immigration. These immigrants tend to settle in fast growing ridings such as mine of Don Valley East.

These three factors, high immigration to fast growing regions of the fastest growing provinces, combine to magnify the representation gap of these areas. This situation inadvertently causes Canadians in large urban centres, new Canadians and visible minorities to be even more under-represented than the average.

It is clear for all to see that this situation undermines the principle of representation by population in our country.

By introducing a seat allocation formula that is more responsive to population size and trends, the fair representation act would move the House closer to representation by population now and in the future. The practical effect is that Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta will be entitled to new seats under the fair representation act.

This is the best formula to move all provinces toward representation by population in a principled manner without creating divisions between regions by increasing representation in high growth areas and by taking it away from Canadians in other parts of the country.

Second, I would note that our government is addressing under-representation in a way that respects the representation of smaller provinces. This is a long-standing commitment of our government and our party. Canadians have given us a strong mandate to deliver in this regard.

Simply shuffling the deck is not as easy as it sounds. Canadians living in smaller provinces currently benefit from two long-standing constitutional provisions guaranteeing their seat counts. Repealing those guarantees, aside from the practical implications, would mean significant seat losses in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

We make no apology for addressing these significant and increasing under-representations of ordinary Canadians, but this should not be done by picking winners and losers or pitting region against region, Canadian against Canadian.

The fair representation act is fair to all Canadians, not just some provinces. In fact, it is a measured investment that brings every Canadian closer to representation by population.

Finally, the fair representation act also provides that the seat allocation formula apply as in the representation rule. If provinces become under-represented as a result of the application of the updated formula, additional seats would be allocated to that province so that its representation would equal its share of the population.

Based on population estimates, Quebec would be the first province to receive new seats in order not to become under-represented by the application of the updated formula. Quebec has 23% of the population and would have 23% of the provincial seats in the House of Commons, though the representation rule is nationally applied and applies to all provinces that enter this scenario.

The representation rule is a principled measure and ensures that smaller and slow growth provinces do not become under-represented in the future, that they will maintain representation that is in line with their share of the population, and this is fair. The serious and increasing under-representation of our faster growing provinces, Ontario among them, is a serious problem that requires an immediate solution.

The Chief Electoral Officer told the procedures and House affairs committee that passing this bill before the new year is the best scenario. That is why we are moving quickly to meet the deadlines we face in the new year to best facilitate the process that will bring these changes into place for Canadians. We will ensure parity for Canadians and it will avoid needless and costly repetition by an independent boundary commission set up to draw these new boundaries.

In conclusion, this bill, the fair representation act, is the best formula to address the under-representation of Canadians living in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario without picking winners and losers, pitting Canadians against Canadians or region against region. It is reasonable, principled, nationally applicable and fair to all Canadians. It would achieve better representation for Canadians living in fast-growing provinces while maintaining representation for smaller and slower growing provinces.

It would bring every Canadian closer to representation by population. It delivers on the government's long-standing commitment to move toward fairer representation in the House of Commons. I note that Parliament has the authority to pass this amendment under section 44 of the Constitution Act of 1982. This was the same authority used to pass the current formula in 1995, which was subsequently upheld as constitutional by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The fair representation act is principled, reasonable legislation that needs to be passed as quickly as possible. I encourage the opposition to work with us on this important legislation.

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières is proposing that the Canada Labour Code be amended to introduce requirements for the use of French in federally regulated enterprises that carry out activities in Quebec.

What would that really mean in practice?

There are currently two distinct language regimes in Quebec. First is the federal Official Languages Act, which applies to all federal institutions, and prescribes English and French as the language of work. This act covers 46,000 employees in the core of the federal public service and a further 30,000 employees in the crown corporations and certain private sector companies in Quebec.

Second, we have the Quebec French language charter that designates French as the official language in the province. The charter covers approximately 3.8 million employees in the province's public and private sectors. That leaves about 130,000 private sector employees in federally regulated firms in Quebec who are not currently covered by either federal or provincial language of work legislation.

The bill before us today would change that by amending the Canada Labour Code to place new requirements on federally regulated employers operating in Quebec. This would mean that these employers would need to: use French in their communications with the Government of Quebec and with corporations established in Quebec; give their employees the right to carry on their activities in French; draw up communications for their employees in French; prepare and publish French offers of employment at the same time as any offers published in a language other than French; prepare collective agreements and their schedules in French; and translate arbitration awards into either English or French upon request of one of the parties.

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that our government understands the importance of language in preserving culture and heritage. Our two official languages are not just part of our history, they are an integral part of our Canadian identity. This is clearly reflected in the Official Languages Act and in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which both state that English and French are the official languages of Canada. The role of the federal government and the federal language legislation is to promote the use of both French and English across the country and not to favour one over the other.

At the same time, this government has made a commitment to take steps to strengthen further Canadian francophone identity. I assure members that we fully appreciate the importance of the issue before us today.

However, we also feel an equal responsibility to undertake a full and fair evaluation of the issue before us today and it is important to consider the context.

I want to underscore that, in looking at all the issues, we have so far found little documented evidence that francophones face difficulty working in French in federally regulated private sector enterprises in Quebec. In fact, in the 2006 census, close to 96% of all francophone Quebeckers reported that they used French at work most often and a further 3.4% said that they used French at work regularly. To date, the labour program has yet to receive a single complaint from a federally regulated private sector employee in Quebec claiming that he or she could not work in French.

Second, the adoption of the bill would represent a departure from past practices in that it would extend the scope of language requirements to the private sector.

From an economic perspective, we need to consider the potential negative implications for the businesses that would be affected by the bill. These businesses need to compete with their counterparts outside of Quebec where other provincial and territorial governments do not regulate the language of work in the private sector firms. As we know, many private sector employers in the federal sector voluntarily conform to provincial language of work legislation. It just makes good business sense to do so.

We need to ask ourselves: Is this really an area where the government should be intervening? Is this the best time to consider imposing additional regulatory burdens on employers?

As members know, our government's first priority is the economic recovery. We are focused on jobs and growth. To that end, we are trying to reduce red tape, keep taxes low and give Canadian businesses more freedom to succeed. Surely, the member for Trois-Rivières would not want to disadvantage the businesses that operate in the province of Quebec.

Do we really need to hurry to impose new laws and red tape on businesses in Quebec in the absence of concrete evidence of a genuine problem?

The Minister of Labour understands the language of work is an important issue in Quebec. That is why the government intends to name an advisory committee to examine the situation and determine whether the working and private sector federal jurisdiction establishments in Quebec are fully able to work in French and will provide its observations in that regard to the government.

As with any important issue before us, we will strive for a clear and comprehensive understanding of the situation and, in turn, make informed decisions on the best way forward. That is what Canadians expect us to do, that is what we intend to do and that is why our government must say no to this bill.