John Rafferty

[Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, September 20th, 2010]

I welcome you back to this session, Madam Speaker.

I would like to thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for introducing this legislation and for his general concern for citizens in developing countries. I would also like to thank him for seeing it through committee and for working with other MPs to improve it. I thank the member, while noting that corporate accountability for Canadian resource extraction companies operating abroad is long overdue. I also thank other members and groups who have worked so hard to put this issue on the public agenda, including the member for Ottawa Centre.

Many players in the extractive industries have taken advantage of political cultures in developing countries that cannot or do not accept or respect our domestic principles of democratic accountability and transparency. We also know that such companies will continue to act unethically so long as there is no requirement, penalty, or incentive to encourage them to act in a different, more responsible manner.

Nearly every witness who testified at committee in regard to this bill acknowledged that there is a problem in the extractive resource sector in developing countries, and many agreed that our federal government has the right, the responsibility, and the power to right this wrong.

I am sure that all members, past and present, would agree that legislation that enforces international rights standards and environmental best practices among Canadian companies operating abroad is long overdue. I do, however, have a significant problem with the conduct of some members of the foreign affairs committee that examined this bill.

I stated that I assume that all members, past and present, feel a need to protect human rights, labour rights, and the environment and to stop reckless and unfettered business practices, no matter where they occur. Why did these members deliberately and forcefully stall progress and prevent amendments from being introduced and debated and put forward? I will let their actions speak for themselves, but I hope that they will come on board and make a constructive contribution to the debate and legislative process at this time so that the bill can pass in some form in this Parliament.

Support from the New Democrat caucus for legislation that would enforce ethical behaviour by Canadian companies, including those operating abroad, has never been difficult to attain. This bill, however, like most that enter this place, is an imperfect piece of legislation.

I will repeat my concerns from this past March about this bill. I believe that it is too narrow in scope and application and too weak in its enforcement for my liking. As such, and given that this bill would merely encourage such ethical and morally responsible behaviour in the extractive resource industry sector rather than enforce it, I can only offer my qualified support. Along with my New Democrat colleagues, I remain hopeful that it can still be amended to resolve some of these difficulties and problems.

Obviously, an amendment to the bill that would see it apply to all corporations in Canada with operations abroad, not just to those receiving government assistance that are operating in the extractive industries, such as mining and oil and gas, would be most welcome.

In addition, it would be helpful if there were a clause in the legislation that would ensure that the principles contained in it related to environmental best practices and international human rights standards could be enforced rather than merely encouraged.

Equally helpful would be the creation of an independent ombudsman's office to help ensure that the principles in the bill are respected and to investigate any claims that may be brought against companies with respect to the provisions in the bill.

I am pleased to see an amendment put forth that would put an incentive in place to encourage companies with poor corporate accountability histories or that violate standards to change their practices to re-earn the support of the government. I thank the member for that amendment.

I thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for taking such a bold step and for tabling amendments, if that is still possible at this late stage, and for tabling them regardless of what the outcome will be, beyond the reach of the destructive and corrosive behaviour of some MPs who sit on the foreign affairs committee.

This bill, for all its imperfections, is progress on the issue. I thank the member again for using his private member's spot to table a substantive legislative measure that can make a real difference in this world.

[World Junior Baseball Championships, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the world will be gathering in Thunder Bay from July 23 to August 1 for the World Junior Baseball Championships.

I want to thank and congratulate executive director Warren Philip and the membership of the Thunder Bay International Baseball Association for their winning bid to host these championships.

These championships are an opportunity for people from around the world to experience all that Thunder Bay offers. I know that the people of our great city and the Thunder Bay International Baseball Association will be welcoming hospitable and generous guests.

I urge all members, their constituents and baseball fans across Canada to share our pride and make the short trip to Thunder Bay to attend a world-class tournament that is being hosted by a world-class city.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I hung on to every word of my friend the parliamentary secretary, as I do every time he speaks in the House. Most of the words he spoke seemed to indicate that he was most concerned about protecting Canadians. I think that was the gist of his speech.

I remind him that New Democrats have been calling on the federal government for some time to get tough on white-collar crime. He mentioned the former member of the House, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, our member from Winnipeg. What he did not say is that she put forward a very detailed plan, when she was the finance critic, to effectively fight corporate crime in Canada. A single regulator is a solution to really no known problem in Canada. It is simply an attempt to impose Ottawa's will on the provinces to better serve its friends on Bay Street.

If we want to protect Canadians, it seems to me that Canada already has tough laws to combat fraud and unfair practices. I suggest we need to enforce the laws we already have, for example, including strengthening the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the integrated market enforcement teams.

[Food and Drugs Act, June 10th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-532, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to introduce my Bill C-532, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol).

I thank the many constituents who came to me regarding this issue. They want something done about it. In particular, I would like to recognize Dave and Margie Fulton, who are the founders of the fetal alcohol support and information network in Thunder Bay, and foster parent and FASD educator, Marilyn Leiterman.

The Parliament of Canada recognizes that alcohol abuse is a serious health and social problem in Canadian society and that a comprehensive national strategy must be developed and implemented by the Government of Canada in concert with provincial governments to combat this problem. There is also a recognition that labelling alcoholic beverages with a warning to consumers about the dangers of the misuse of alcohol represents an important step in combatting this problem.

I am specifically asking for a message from the Minister of Health warning the consumer that the Public Health Agency of Canada advises that there is no safe amount of alcohol to drink during pregnancy.

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

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Thunder Bay—Rainy River and I know very well the value of procuring things from people in the area who make them. I have always been of the belief that if Ontario taxpayers, for example, are going to be paying for a product to be used in Ontario and it can be built in Ontario, it seems to me that there should be a procurement policy to make sure that happens. I am thinking in particular right now of Bombardier streetcars, which are made right in Thunder Bay. If they are intended to go to Toronto, it seems to me that we should be doing everything in our power to make that happen. This is far from being protectionist.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. In light of Spain's comments today that procurement is one of the problems it is having now with the Canada-EU trade agreement, I wonder if our member would be interested in commenting on why it is so difficult to convince people that we need to procure things that are going to help the most people in the most communities.

[Forestry Industry, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the forestry sector has seen more than 70,000 job losses under the current government's watch, the latest at AbitibiBowater in Gatineau.

In this year's budget, the government has offered just $25 million in new money to the $70-billion forestry sector. Coming from northwestern Ontario, how can the government spend $75 million an hour for security at G8 but just $25 million a year to help Canada's forestry sector?

[Points of Order, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to respond to the government concerns about Bill C-501.

The week before last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Bill C-501 required a royal recommendation. The basis of his argument was that clause 6 of the bill imposed an additional financial responsibility on the Crown. This particular clause would mandate the Minister of Labour to appoint an adjudicator to hear a claim made by a former employee of a company against a director of the same company.

The basis of my bill moves workers' pensions to secured status after a bankruptcy. It gives the pension so-called super-preferred status, meaning workers receive their pensions before shareholders and other creditors receive their money. In the event of a dispute or should a former employee bring a claim against the director of a company, the bill would mandate the minister to appoint a arbitrator to hear the claim.

The parliamentary secretary's arguments fell into two parts, the first being that the appointment of an arbitrator was a new purpose or created a new mandate for the minister. The second argument was that the payment of an arbitrator would increase government spending.

I reject these arguments and do not believe the bill requires a royal recommendation. First, it is already within the mandate of the Minister of Labour to appoint an adjudicator. The Minister of Labour regularly appoints adjudicators, conciliators, mediators and referees often under the powers of the Canada Labour Code. The minister's mandate to resolve disputes, adjudicate claims and protect workers' rights is broad and encompasses the intent of the bill. No new responsibilities or duties are being imposed on the Crown by this bill.

In previous cases stated by the parliamentary secretary to support his argument, all involved bills where new commissions or committees were being created by the minister and where the minister had neither a previous role in appointing such committees nor a mandate to involvement himself or herself in the issue being studied for resolve by that said committee.

In the case of Bill C-501, the minister regularly appoints adjudicators to hear claims concerning workers' rights, labour issues, grievances. In addition, the minister has a clear mandate to involve himself or herself in labour disputes and bankruptcies.

When an adjudicator, mediator or referee is selected to assist with claims or grievances, they are often employees of the federal mediation and conciliation service. These are Government of Canada employees. In this case, no royal recommendation is needed as the staff already carries out very similar tasks. The bill would not change their roles, their duties or their responsibilities nor the cost of their employment.

Should the minister decide to appoint a third party adjudicator, as happens in some cases, the common practice is for the parties involved to pay the costs of the arbitrator. Nothing, and I want to make this perfectly clear, nothing in Bill C-501 makes the Crown responsible for the costs of an arbitrator. In fact, the bill does not even state that there will be a cost.

The parent act to the Canada Business Corporations Act also does not provide for any compensation for an arbitrator. While the minister certainly has the power to pay, the bill does not mandate any payment. In fact, the minister could ask for an eminent Canadian to take the case and discuss and decide in the particular case. Therefore, no money actually has to be spent according to this clause.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary secretary is wrong in suggesting that Bill C-501 requires a royal recommendation. These are my arguments for it. I hope you will take them under consideration.

[Fairness at the Pumps Act, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the price of gasoline in northern Ontario remains a huge issue. This past weekend it was $1.08 a litre. With HST coming shortly, it is going to increase even more.

There is one thing missing in this bill and I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on it. There is no refund or restitution on the taxes that have been collected on so-called phantom gasoline purchases. I wonder if he would like to comment on that.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to close debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-501, and thank the House for the opportunity to do so.

The legislative process at times can be messy. We know this and we have seen it with other business presently before the House. However, we also know that sometimes, when there is a common interest and a shared commitment among parties, such as between the Liberals and Conservatives on HST, we know that legislation can pass through this place and the other place in as little as four days.

Bearing that in mind, on June 16, less than a year ago, every member of every party in the House passed a motion that said they fundamentally shared a desire with the NDP to:

—ensuring that workers’ pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings...

The Liberal block and, yes, the members who sit with the Conservative government agreed that pension funds must go to the front of the line when a company entered bankruptcy.

Bill C-501 is a simple bill, straightforward, that respects and fulfills the unanimous desire of all parliamentarians in this place to put pension funds at the front of the line when the company enters bankruptcy. If members support this objective, then they will support my bill and vote to send it to committee. If a party opposes the bill, then it is going back on its word and misleading Canadians. It is really that simple.

Today the Conservative government appears to be sliding back on its word or on its commitment to more than 4.7 million Canadian families who worry every day about their retirement income. The Conservative government and its members, who are planning to vote against Bill C-501 or who are trying to stop the bill by other frivolous means, are slaves to an outdated ideology that says we must put the vultures and the shadowy backroom financiers, like those who used to work at Lehman Brothers and those who still work at Goldman Sachs, ahead of hard-working Canadian men and women who have earned their wages, who have earned their pensions and who have earned a dignified retirement.

The Bloc Québécois members have stood by the commitment they made to working Canadians last June and have indicated they will support the bill. I thank them for their support and I hope they will prove to be reliable supporters throughout the legislative process.

The Liberals have made similar noises, but in the past have proven to be unreliable when it comes to supporting workers' rights or progressive bills or motions for that matter. I remind the Liberal caucus that in finance committee on March 25, the Liberal finance critic, the member for Markham—Unionville, said:

—the pensions critic for the Liberals, and myself as finance critic, will be recommending that the Liberal Party support the NDP private member's bill on amendments to the BIA, as and when it comes to the House of Commons.

I thanked the hon. member at that time for his remarks. I remind him and his Liberal colleagues today that words mean nothing if they are not accompanied by deeds.

However, the Liberals do appear to have come around to the New Democrat position that pension security must be among the highest priorities in Parliament. I thank Liberals for their support, if it is forthcoming for the bill, but I remind them that in the end they will be held accountable by the voters for their actions.

It must be said again that each and every member of this place must live up to the commitment that they made to millions of Canadians on June 16, 2009 and that they must vote now to send Bill C-501 to committee, where it can be properly examined, debated and perhaps even amended as need be.

I thank the members of the House who have shared their thoughts, concerns and support for Bill C-501 during this debate. I urge them to live up to their commitment on pension security and pass this bill unanimously.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-501, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (pension protection), a deferred recorded division be deemed requested, and the vote deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business on Wednesday, May 26th, 2010.