John Rafferty

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the member that those two weeks are in fact very critical, regardless of whether someone is being laid off from work or has lost that job either permanently or for a short period of time.

Those two weeks are critical because we are talking about families who need help. In the case of those two weeks, perhaps they can have a little less to worry about as they begin their job search and continue to look at other options for themselves and their families.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Along with all the problems that someone faces when he or she loses his or her job, it is a horrible situation for the person's family as well. When the major bread earner loses his or her employment, it can be devastating for the family. The last thing a person needs to worry about is where those two weeks of employment insurance will come from and how he or she will continue to feed, clothe and house the children and try to carry on at least in a normal sense until the he or she can begin searching for other work. It makes much more sense to eliminate the two week waiting period.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

We are in the midst of a major economic crisis and the livelihood of millions of Canadians is at risk. Hundreds of thousands of people with jobs in forestry, general and automotive manufacturing, media, information technology and the service industry have felt the pain of being laid off or losing their jobs in the last few months. Sadly, the finance minister has said this will continue for quite some time. Yet for the last decade we have seen assistance for these workers become harder to obtain, to the point that only about 30% of the workers who pay into the employment insurance fund can draw from it when they need to. With an EI fund surplus in the tens of billions of dollars, this injustice must stop.

The government, among its many unprincipled and wrong-headed decisions, has chosen to give $60 billion in tax cuts to Canada's most profitable companies instead of giving a few hundred dollars to struggling families. It claims to want to help the economy by putting money into Canadians' pockets, but it does absolutely everything in its power to ensure that it does the opposite for Canadians who need the money the most. The government feels no shame.

All working Canadians and every company that employs them must pay into the EI fund. This money is there for workers. It is insurance in case they lose their employment. It is there to help families keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. However, the money is not being used in this manner. It is sitting there in a fund gathering dust as working families suffer.

The government has a moral obligation to make these funds flow into the pockets of hard-working Canadians who put it there but who now need it in this time of crisis. This money could help forestry workers, the tens of thousands of whom have been laid off from their jobs. More than a million Canadian jobs are linked to the forestry industry. In the last five years the forestry sector has lost 40,000 jobs. More than 4,000 forestry workers were laid off in the last month alone. Today another 500 have been laid off in Nova Scotia, and they have to wait two weeks without income to get employment insurance, if they are among the lucky 30% or so who even qualify. Mills have closed or shut down on a temporary basis right across the country, even in Prince Edward Island.

The forestry crisis is a national crisis and the government has ignored the difficulties for far too long. Now is the time to eliminate the two week waiting period. Now is the time to reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work regardless of any regional rate of unemployment. Now is the time to allow self-employed workers to participate in this plan. Now is the time to raise the benefits to 60% and base benefit rates on the best 12 weeks in the qualifying period. Now is the time to encourage training and retraining.

There are more ominous signs on the horizon for my riding. The government says it is the champion of small business, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I am going to talk about a couple of examples where the government is hindering employment and employment opportunities and potentially creating unemployment.

Of the two most recent examples in my riding, the first is a manufacturing company that has been in business for 40 years and is ready to expand. Yes, in this time of recession, it is ready to expand. That company could hire 35 more workers, highly skilled workers who live right in my riding and who are unemployed right now. They could be working if credit were freed up.

I received a notice in the mail the other day that the interest rate is going up at my bank, and the Bank of Canada rate is sitting at half of one percentage point. There is a real disconnect there. This is something the government could do something about.

The second is a company that distributes a product right across North America, but the product is not manufactured anywhere in North America. In fact, this company holds the North American patent on this product. Last month the company was told by the government that it now has to pay duties of 170% on this product. This is a product, I will emphasize again, that is made nowhere in North America and this distribution company holds the patent on it. Now the company has to pay 170%.

I talked to the owner of the company. When this business closes or when it moves to Minnesota, 18 people in that company will be looking for work. It is an export company. Most of its exports go to the United States. This is a good solid company in my riding, and now it is in danger of closing or having to move to another country.

Let me go back to forestry for one second to show how dire the circumstances are for the workers in my riding and, I would suggest, right across the entire country.

The word the other day from Northern Hardwoods in Thunder Bay was that it will turn off the heat and lights. There are two stages when a company decides to close its business. The first stage is the company shuts down, either temporarily or for a longer indefinite period of time. The second stage is when the company makes a decision to turn off the heat and electricity. The reason that is such a drastic step is it will cost tens of millions of dollars to get that mill back up and running. Sensitive computer equipment and all sorts of other equipment and the structure itself begin to deteriorate when the heat and the electricity are turned off. That is what the company announced a couple of days ago. There are more and more companies right across Canada and indeed North America that are facing the same situation.

I ask the government to heed the call of this motion very carefully. In my riding, in fact right across northern Ontario, we have been in a recession for three or four years now. This is nothing new to us. We are a strong bunch. We will struggle and we will continue. However, when we have a situation where people who have paid into an insurance fund are unable to access it, or have to wait two weeks, or there is no plan for training or retraining, it is disastrous for the smaller communities in my riding.

[Canada Labour Code, March 5th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-335, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (illness or injury).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will extend the allowable period of absence for illness and ensure that a worker cannot be dismissed, suspended, laid off, demoted or disciplined by an employer if the worker misses work due to serious illness for a period of up to 52 weeks. I believe this bill is fair and will protect seriously ill workers while ensuring that businesses remain viable.

This bill, if passed, will make a tremendous difference in the lives of many families right across Canada. I hope it receives the support of all the members.

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

[Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for introducing this legislation and for his general concern for the citizens in developing countries.

I thank the member while I note, and I am sure with his agreement, that corporate accountability for Canadian resource extraction companies operating abroad is long overdue. We know extractive industries are often able to take advantage of political cultures in developing countries that do not accept or respect our domestic principles of democratic accountability and transparency. Centralized decision-making at the executive level that can offer extraction rights in exchange for capital in many developing companies can greatly infringe upon human rights and environmental sustainability of localized populations.

Canadian companies, like those from other modern industrialized states, have at times taken advantage of political circumstances in their quest for new sources of revenue to the gross detriment of workers and local communities, which have and will suffer the devastating environmental consequences for generations.

I was sad to see that just this week a lawsuit was filed against a company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange for its alleged involvement in human rights abuses at a mining concession site in Ecuador.

I am sure all members, current and past, from the House will agree that legislation that enforces international rights standards and environmental best practices upon Canadian companies operating abroad is long overdue.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood will know that New Democrats have long stood in the House in support of corporate accountability as a principle of international trade and economic activity among and between nations. He will also know that it was the former hon. member for Ottawa Centre who first sought to enforce this principle with Bill C-369 in the 38th Parliament.

Support from the New Democrat caucus on legislation that enforces ethical behaviour upon Canadian companies, including those operating abroad, has never been difficult to attain. As such and given that this bill merely seeks to encourage such behaviour rather than enforce it, I can only offer my qualified support for it at this stage.

The bill is imperfect legislation. It is too narrow in its scope and application and too weak in its enforcement. If the member is truly interested in ensuring that companies apply environmental best practices and the protection of international human rights standards abroad, he will promote or surely encourage three very important amendments to the bill.

First, the member should encourage an amendment to the bill that would see it apply to all corporations in Canada with operations abroad, and not just those receiving government assistance and that are operating in extractive industries, like mining and oil and gas. It is true that the very nature of extractive industries makes violations of these principles all too profitable and tempting for many, but violations are also likely to occur and be reported in manufacturing, agriculture and other labour-intensive and environmentally taxing industries. This would be a very important amendment.

Second, the member should encourage an amendment to the bill that would ensure the principles contained in it related to environmental best practices and international human rights standards would be enforced rather than simply encouraged. This could be achieved by adding a provision that amends the Criminal Code to punish the same undesirable behaviour abroad as it does at home. Such a provision was contained in Bill C-369 from the 38th Parliament, if members wish to explore this possibility.

Finally, the member should encourage an amendment to the bill that would create an ombudsman's office to help ensure the principles of it would be respected and to investigate any claims that may be brought against companies with respect to the provisions of the bill. An independent ombudsman would help ensure that our domestic and international politics would not interfere in the promotion and protection of environmental best practices and international human rights by Canadian companies operating abroad. It would also assist the minister, as well intentioned as Conservatives may be, so he or she would not be exclusively burdened with monitoring and enforcement of these measures.

It is important to note that this last amendment was called for in the Advisory Group Report in 2007, entitled “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries”. I would like to thank all members of the advisory group and all participants of the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility for their hard work. I encourage each and every member of the House to read the report and strongly consider its recommendations when deliberating on this legislation.

I also encourage the member for Scarborough—Guildwood to take a bold step by pushing for these three amendments, including the creation of an independent ombudsman, to be attached to this bill at the committee stage.

Parliament represents a rare chance for real change on a number of fronts, if only members could muster the political will and courage to stand in support of the principles they claim to respect and wish to uphold. The bill, for all its imperfections, is progress on the issue of corporate responsibility for Canadian companies operating abroad.

Given that the bill can be amended in committee, I offer my support to it at this stage and thank the member for tabling it.

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his invitation to ask him a few questions.

This bill certainly supports the NDP position on Arctic sovereignty by increasing the level of environmental protection in the Arctic. it increases Canada's claim to the Arctic waters through peaceful means. Further, Canadian law will protect the Arctic more than international law will and what is allowed now under UNCLOS.

Is the minister prepared to ensure that the appropriate funding is in place for increased enforcement?

Some nations, I am assuming, will dispute this bill and the subsequent Canadian action to enforce it. Is there a plan to deal with this on an international scale?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on behalf of a group of aboriginal students from my riding. These students are deeply concerned about their future and the futures of all aboriginal students. INAC is currently reviewing programs that provide funding to aboriginal students, and my constituents are worried that their voices are not being heard.

Aboriginal students have made tremendous gains in recent years. They are a growing presence on college and university campuses. Such INAC programs as the post-secondary student support program, which provides grants to aboriginal students, have played an important role in these gains. It is vital that such programs continue to grow.

Today I am calling on the government to ensure that the concerns of aboriginal students are heard and that support for aboriginal students, in particular funding in the form of grants, is maintained and improved.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very straightforward. Since the weekend, I have heard from a number of constituents who do not understand one thing. It seems to them, and it certainly seems to me, that there are lot of non-monetary, non-money, parts to the bill.

Would the member like to make comment about why that would be? It is supposed to be a budget bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the Liberals continue to rage against the machine, but then ask for reports. It is unfortunate that they are supporting the budget, be that as it may.

Call me a cynic, but with infrastructure projects not flowing in the past two years, and not likely to flow at any great pace because of the way things are set up with communities and provinces having to put in their shares, things will be held up for a long period of time, and I think that is most unfortunate.

Maybe I am a cynic, but it seems to me that if there is a $34 billion deficit projected for the year, then when it comes around to the next budget cycle the government is able to stand and say, “Gee, look at this. We actually are not $34 billion in deficit; we're only $14 in deficit”. That may be the plan. Perhaps the money does not flow and the government ends up looking good in the eyes of the public, or at least it thinks it looks look good in the eyes of the public.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this act is one of the oldest pieces of legislation we have in this country. It was 1882, I believe, when this act was first enacted. There is no doubt that this act needs some modernization. I would agree with the member in that regard.

What I am concerned about is that it would give increased powers to the minister to go around the environmental assessment of certain projects. Now I also know that the minister has always had that authority but it is not a new authority. However, this would increase what he is able to do.

As far as infrastructure projects go, I do not think it is in the best interests of Canadians, in any situation, to see environmental assessments put aside so infrastructure projects can go further. This stimulus package should be for projects that are ready to go right now. The projects that need an environmental assessment should indeed have an environmental assessment.