Lisa Raitt

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I very much appreciate the parliamentary secretary giving me what is almost like a slow fastball in terms of a question tonight. I am the mother of two young sons, nine and six, and had this issue happen on the weekend.

We were at a charity event for the Hospital Foundation in Milton. One of my sons won, as the prize, a bank account with one of our chartered banks. It allowed us to have the conversation about financial responsibility, the importance of saving and the importance of thinking about the future.

As Minister of Labour, I have the opportunity to talk to youth groups because we are very much focused on the safety of our children and the first workers out there. One of the opportunities I take is to talk about what their plans are for the future and what their plans are fiscally in terms of where they want to be in the future and what kinds of things they want to have. I certainly do not want our generation to be the last one that does better than our parents. I want my children to do better than me, moving forward.

I very much appreciate the focus that the consultations have had on financial literacy. I hope we all do our part to ensure that our children understand the importance of the money they earn, the taxes they pay and the respect for the taxpayer, which we have on our side of the House.

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I truly appreciate where the member is coming from. I was raised by senior citizens on Cape Breton Island and am very well aware of the issues surrounding the cutoffs and the amounts of pension and old age supplement that are available when trying to raise a family.

I am very proud that this government has taken action by taking 950,000 people off the tax rolls by dealing with those things. That is really going to the heart in a lot of cases of the poverty issue.

With respect to the broader question on what we plan to do on taxation of corporations, the fundamental truism is that we need corporations in order to generate jobs. One way to ensure we have employers generating jobs and creating growth is by having the most competitive tax regime we possibly can in the world. That is what is going to create jobs for us and drive our economy.

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I am quite pleased to answer that question in the context of what I have done as Minister of Labour.

As the member knows, in labour we have a very privileged perch in that we get to speak to both employers and organized labour employees. They come together around the same table. In fact, tonight there was a meeting of the ministerial advisory committee on labour relations and there was a discussion of pension issues. People gave me their feedback and points of view on the matters.

There is no question that employers, employees with organized unions and non-unionized employees all share the concern about the future of pensions. They understand and respect that there is a process around what we are trying to accomplish and that we have but one chance to get it right. That is why we are taking more time in order to get the job done correctly.

The other aspect of discussing it from a labour point of view is we look at some of the other programs we have put in place that have helped in the same vein. We introduced the wage earner protection, for example, which dealt with certain aspects that we did not expect to encounter with respect to bankruptcies of companies. It has been a very successful program. I appreciate the member giving credit where credit is due in terms of that, the TFSA and what we have done with respect to income splitting.

The process I laid out in my remarks is important to think about as well. I appreciate the fact the member acknowledges it is not always easy to collaborate with all of the provinces. However, we are moving in the right direction and are going to get to the right spot.

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, today I rise to speak on a subject that is personally important to me and equally important to all Canadians, which is their retirement. After many years spent in the Canadian workforce building the Canada that we have today and caring for their families, Canadian seniors deserve to have the benefit of a top notch retirement system that will support them through their retirement. One of the best ways to support our seniors is by cutting taxes and leaving money in their pockets. I am proud to say that our Conservative government has delivered on lowering taxes.

Now there are many examples that I can provide on what this government has accomplished for retirees over the past four years. We have increased the age credit amount by $2,000, saving seniors hundreds of dollars. We doubled the pension income credit, the first time it was ever increased. We increased the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs from age 69 to 71, allowing seniors to save longer for their retirement. We introduced the tax-free savings account, the most important savings tool to be introduced since the RRSP. Seniors benefit immensely from this account. It provides them with a savings vehicle after they must withdraw their money from their RRSPs and RRIFs.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, we introduced pension income splitting, one of the most important tax changes for seniors ever instituted and one that seniors of Halton indicate to me over and over again has been incredibly important to them, because for many seniors this means thousands of dollars off their taxes every year. Clearly, we are getting things done for seniors, and the seniors in my region of Halton, as I indicated, are telling me this.

Our Conservative government also has a strong record when it comes to retirement income. The global recession exacerbated the fears of many Canadians about the adequacy of their retirement savings. As markets plummeted around the world, so did the savings of many Canadians. But our government listened to the concerns of Canadians and we granted special one-time relief to help them get through this time. We reduced the mandatory minimum RRIF withdrawal by 25% so that Canadians could hold onto their savings for better times.

Our government continues to listen to the concerns of seniors and Canadians across this country. As Canada's labour minister, I am concerned as well with the aging workforce in Canada, so I am listening to older workers who are calling for elimination of the mandatory retirement age. These are issues that are of concern to Canadians. As an elected official and a minister of the Crown, I also regard them as a concern.

Seniors make up nearly 15% of the population of Canada. Canadians are living longer, and increasingly they are becoming more concerned about their retirement incomes and their financial stability past the age of 60 or 65. Not only is an aging workforce concerned with pension but workers are also asking to continue in the workforce longer and employers are benefiting from the years of experience and the knowledge that these older workers bring to the table. These are all important issues for me as Minister of Labour and as well for this government on the whole.

That is why this government is also working toward providing a more permanent solution to the retirement income system, and we begin this by doing what our government has always done. We listen. I know some opposition parties want us to act recklessly and without the proper research, but our government is not going to make changes that will affect generations of Canadians without careful consideration and thorough review. The file is too important to too many Canadians to do otherwise.

In that vein, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance criss-crossed this country and listened to the concerns of pensioners and consulted widely on the proposed solutions to federally regulated pensions. Based on what he heard from Canadians of all walks of life, our government came up with new regulations for federally regulated pensions last October. These regulations and these reforms struck an important balance. They provide the necessary improvements while not harming the current system.

Specifically, our government put in place a regulatory framework to enhance the protections for plan members, to reduce that funding volatility for defined benefit plans, make it easier for participants to negotiate changes to their pension arrangements, improve the framework for defined and negotiated contribution plans and modernize the rules for investments.

These reforms were well received by seniors across Canada. In fact, Susan Eng from Canada's Association for the 50Plus praised them and said, “I'm happy...when you look at something like this you see a lot of positives... we're looking at some of the changes that they've proposed, they sound great”.

The National Association of Federal Retirees said they were “pleased to hear that the Government of Canada is taking action to strengthen the pension framework and enhance benefit security for some workers and retirees”.

Dan Braniff of the Common Front for Retirement Security joined the choir and said, “I wish to congratulate... [your government] for the proposed reforms to the Canada Pension Act. This is an important milestone for creating greater security for many pensioners and plan members...We also wish to show our appreciation for the excellent work of your [Parliamentary Secretary]...who travelled across Canada and obviously listened to the voices of pensioners... Thank you for taking this very important step for better retirement security at this very critical time”.

I know everyone in the House joins Dan Braniff and others in their praise for the parliamentary secretary who, quite frankly, did an amazing job on behalf of all Canadians.

Our government also acknowledges the fact that less than 10% of Canadian pension plans are regulated by the federal government. This is clearly an area of joint responsibility that requires the support, consideration and co-operation of the other provinces. This is a fact that opposition members should keep in mind when they propose measures. We need to support the engagement of the provinces. Indeed, our Conservative government is working collaboratively with the provinces to bring forward realistic and effective solutions.

The first thing we did was put together a joint federal-provincial-territorial working group on pensions to examine the issues. To ensure we got expert advice, we created a research working group with the well-respected academic, Jack Mintz, as chair. After reviewing the research, all federal and provincial governments agreed to examine options to improve Canada's retirement system.

Our government and provincial governments across Canada consulted with Canadians on ways to improve our pan-Canadian retirement income system. Last June we met with Canadians and brought forward innovative proposals for our indepth review. We continue to work with the provinces with these proposals collaboratively. Let me be clear. We will not impose unilateral solutions on the provinces.

Our Conservative government has accomplished much on the pension front. We reduced taxes for seniors and pensioners. We performed the first review of federally-regulated pensions since 1985. We have smart solutions to strengthen our federal pension framework.

Instead of resting on our laurels, we are actively and constructively working with the provinces to propose pan-Canadian solutions. Going forward, we will continue to work with the provinces to move forward on pension reform.

Canadians can rest assured that we will continue to work in their best interest to improve our retirement income system.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Code clearly imposes restrictions on the disclosure by officials of the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada’s labour program of information collected by occupational health and safety officers in the performance of their duties under part II, see in particular subsections 144(4) to (5.1). For that reason, it is not possible to provide an answer to all of the questions. However, the following is what can be offered in the circumstances:

In response to (a), 17 complaints were received in the reference period.

In response to (b), five of those complaints related to occupational health and safety.

In response to (c), 10 inspections took place. Inspections can occur during various labour program activities, including complaint investigations.

In response to (d), this is not applicable, subsection 144 (5).

In response to (e), this is not applicable, subsection 144 (5).

In response to (f), the labour program remains active on this file and continues to monitor compliance.

According to the labour program compliance policy, employers are required to inform health and safety officers that they have taken action necessary to correct the infractions mentioned in an AVC. In addition, health and safety officers may verify compliance.

Generally, the accepted time frame for compliance will be 15 calendar days for all corrective action. Failure to complete the corrective actions following an AVC will lead to the issuance of a direction.

In both scenarios, it is possible that some infractions will take the employer longer than 15 calendar days to correct. In such cases, the health and safety officer may accept an employer's written plan of action, including projected completion dates as being in compliance with the AVC.

[Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, October 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak in strong opposition to Bill C-300.

Bill C-300 is entitled “An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries”. Without actually looking at the content and implications of the bill, in other words, just looking at the substance of the bill, it sounds good. It has good optics. It is laudable. We all support corporate social responsibility. Every Canadian wants to see our companies follow the highest standards when it comes to the environment and human rights, especially if the company is representing Canada abroad.

My past is rooted in the mining culture in Cape Breton, and I believe this country's future truly depends upon prosperity in the great resources we have, especially in the north. I strongly support CSR, or corporate social responsibility, but the substance of the bill will not help the issue of corporate social responsibility.

Bill C-300 is more than just a nice title, and as parliamentarians, we are called to carefully consider the implication of legislation. So I implore parliamentarians that we cannot vote in favour of the bill simply because we agree with the title of the bill. We need to look at the text. We need to look at the implications of the bill. We need to consider the substance of the bill and we need to listen to experts if they warn us about the shortcomings in the legislation.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood is attempting to create an international political circus around his bill. His witnesses are well meaning and they all speak in favour of the optics of corporate social responsibility in general, but he refuses to address the specific concerns that have been raised on the substance of the legislation.

Also heard as witnesses in opposition to the substance of the bill are Canadians with expertise in the area: Export Development Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Canadian Bar Association and the entire mining industry.

All these people, all these groups, believe in corporate social responsibility, but the bill is a clear example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is imperative to give context to the mining, the oil and the gas sectors in Canada, because it is so important. Canada's extractive industries have been, continue to be, and will be a hugely important factor in Canada's economic growth and its recovery.

Domestically, we have the vast resources of the north and we have responsible people there who will develop it. Internationally, we are a world leader in exploration and mining. In fact, Canada is home to over three-quarters of the world's exploration and mining companies. We lead the world. We are respected. Indeed, we are revered, and this is a crucial sector of the Canadian economy. In substance, Bill C-300 guts our competitiveness for this crucial sector and it is done all for optics.

I will speak to two reasons that Bill C-300 should be defeated here in this chamber. One, essentially and fundamentally it is a badly drafted piece of legislation and it has extremely poor implementation mechanisms. Two, it has a very politicized complaints process, and that is the one I will focus on right now.

One witness testified before the committee that all it takes is one person writing a single letter to initiate a ministerial investigation, which puts a political official as the police in charge of the investigation, as the judge weighing the evidence, as the jury making the decision and maybe even the executioner in meting out the punishment.

When the National Roundtable on Corporate Social Responsibility came forward with recommendations on this issue of implementation and on the issue of a complaints process, it was adamant that the complaints mechanism must be independent. So the government responded by establishing the independent Canadian corporate social responsibility counsellor, who was appointed in October of last year and whose mandate is to review corporate social responsibility practices of Canadian companies that are operating outside of Canada.

Dr. Marketa Evans is available to receive complaints regarding the conduct of Canadian companies, and in contrast to what Bill C-300 proposes, Dr. Evans is at arm's length from political interference.

While the author of Bill C-300 claims that his bill would increase accountability for corporate social responsibility, the complaints process that he is actually proposing is a partisan political mechanism that is fraught with difficulties associated with ministerial investigation in a foreign jurisdiction, when Canada already has in place an independent process.

The fact that it is a political complaint process is a major red flag, but the problems with Bill C-300 continue.

The complaints process itself in the bill is irresponsible because it would offer no protection for responsible Canadian companies that are faced with false allegations. I will say it is completely disingenuous to suggest that there is no risk of false claims and I will tell members why.

CIBC has indicated that it believes that Canadian mining companies deal with thousands of stakeholders on an ongoing basis across almost 10,000 different projects in 100 countries. It is more likely that several thousand complaints would happen per year.

Throughout the world, there are offices that investigate allegations of corporate abuse. The World Bank's investigator throws out countless false allegations every year.

However, Bill C-300 has no filter for false allegations. As soon as an allegation is received, the bill would require that the allegation be made public and for a Canadian minister of the Crown to investigate the allegation in a foreign jurisdiction. During the investigation, until the cabinet minister concludes that the claim was actually false, the claim would have undeserved credibility and could damage the international reputation of our responsible companies.

However, under international complaint mechanisms and in the current Canadian system, false claims are filtered and the reputations of responsible companies are not attacked.

In Bill C-300, this issue is so obvious that even several prominent Liberals have put partisan politics aside to voice concern about this bill, stating that foreign governments could end up withholding or actually taking away permits from Canadian firms, citing the minister's ongoing investigations of allegations, investigations that ultimately conclude that the allegation was completely false but still render the permit being taken away.

Both Jim Peterson and Raymond Chrétien provided expert testimony against this bill.

One of the facts about Canadian mining companies that I am very proud of and that I have been witness to is their track record on cleaning up mines they have bought from other companies. I am talking about mines that were owned by people who did not respect the environment, abused local populations, did not hold to the same high standards as Canadian companies and were dangerous.

Currently, Canadian companies are able to purchase these mines, and in the process they bring Canadian principles of labour safety, environment protection and human rights to the local community. There are countless examples of Canadian companies doing that around the world. I was very lucky to be able to witness this first-hand in South America, travelling and speaking with both local officials and union groups who assured me that Canadian investment and Canadian leadership is hugely important.

If Bill C-300 passes, many of these Canadian companies would have to think twice about investing in countries like this. We cannot jeopardize our Canadian extractive sector and allow them to shy away from investing in a particular region because of the potential for false allegations.

This bill ignores Canada's current system on corporate social responsibility and our great work on labour co-operation agreements.

In conclusion, there is a big difference between supporting the optics of the bill and supporting the substance of the bill. The optics of the bill try to make things look good and the author claims it would force Canadian companies to follow acceptable rules and standards.

I would say that respecting our mining sector and the work it does in the world and support for the sector as we come out of this economic recession means that we vote against Bill C-300, because I can tell members that, as was said by the CIBC, I believe the only remedy that responds to the passage of Bill C-300 is for companies in mining and oil and gas to relocate to any other jurisdiction in the world so that they can remain competitive.

[Employment Equity Act, October 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Employment Equity Act, chapter 44, section 20, I have the honour to table the annual report of the Employment Equity Act for 2009, in both official languages.

[Workplace Safety, October 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge and extend my sympathy not only to the family of Mr. Kennedy, but to all Canadian families and friends who have lost loved ones on the job, especially since no words can take away the sorrow that they feel.

It is true that my officials have conducted a thorough investigation of the matter to which the member referred, and charges have been laid against Public Works and Government Services Canada for health and safety violations under the Canada Labour Code. That is because we are committed to safe and healthy workplaces. We will continue our efforts to ensure that is the case.

[CN Railway, October 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our economy remains fragile and the stability of it depends upon the productivity of our industries. That is why I am very happy to say that a tentative agreement has been reached between CN and the Teamsters union.

I congratulate both parties that, with our mediator at the table, reached this settlement, because the best solution is an agreement reached by the parties, and it is always in the best interests of the Canadian public that we do not have a work stoppage.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 29th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am happy the hon. member is actually listening and paying attention. After what I have been hearing in terms of the inaccuracies and absolute untruths he has been indicating with respect to some of the accusations against Colombia, I do believe it is important for us to listen to what we have to say to one another.

Of course, everything I do say today applies now. It is even more important to ensure we have something like this in place between Canada and Panama currently and, going forward for more than six months, would make absolutely no sense in terms of labour co-operation agreements, specifically for the reasons I will be enumerating here.

As I said, the labour co-operation agreement with Panama goes even further than the International Labour Organization's 1998 declaration. That is why it is important to deal with it now and not deal with something in six months. We should take the opportunity to deal with these things as they appear before us and as they are meant to be.

This agreement commits both countries to protect workers by providing acceptable protections for occupational health and safety. I am sure the House would agree that it is something that should happen immediately and not six months from now. Allowing for compensation in cases of injuries and illnesses is important for workers and that should happen now, not six months from now.

Providing for acceptable minimum employment standards, such as minimum wage and hours of work, on which I assume the opposition would agree, is something that should happen sooner rather than later, not through a delay of six months.

Further, the labour co-operation agreement would ensure that migrant workers would be given the same legal protections as nationals in respect of working conditions.

In order to ensure that Canada and Panama comply with their labour obligations, this agreement does include a strong dispute resolution mechanism that is transparent, robust and easy to use. The model is in line with Canada's other parallel labour co-operation agreements with Colombia, Peru and, of course, with Jordan.

As part of this settlement process, members of the public can submit complaints to either government concerning any of the obligations contained in the labour co-operation agreement. These complaints can bring to light any concerns from the public that domestic labour laws or their implementation by Canada or Panama do not comply with the terms of the labour co-operation agreement. If the complaint is deemed valid, then either country can request ministerial level consultations with the other country to resolve the issue.

If the countries are unable to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement and the matter concerns a perceived failure to respect obligations related to the 1998 International Labour Organization's declaration or even the enforcement of domestic laws, the country that requested the ministerial consultations can request that a review panel be convened. If the matter cannot be resolved, the independent review panel may require that the offending country may face financial penalties. These penalties would be placed into a co-operation fund in order to resolve the matter identified, as well as to help ensure compliance with and respect for domestic and international labour obligations.

Moneys placed in the co-operation fund would be disbursed according to an agreed upon action plan, which would ensure that the matters under dispute are effectively resolved

As we can see, under the labour co-operation agreement, both Canada and Panama will have an important tool to protect and improve the rights of workers, which, of course, would make more sense for them to have this now rather than six months from now at the very earliest.

That being said, it must be noted that this agreement also respects provincial jurisdiction on labour matters. At the same time, however, the federal government would have the ability to immediately use the dispute resolution process, if necessary, regardless of the level of provincial participation in the labour co-operation agreement.

In looking beyond the provinces, it is important to remember that this government is re-engaging with our partners across the Americas. An important part of this re-engagement is the promotion of the principles of sound governance, security and prosperity. A vital component of this strategy is the protection of labour rights, and this includes Panama. That is why Canada negotiated a robust and comprehensive labour co-operation agreement with Panama.

Our efforts to protect labour rights do not stop there. During the free trade negotiations with Panama, Canada requested that a principles based chapter on labour be inserted into the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Panama agreed to this request and, as such, there is now a much stronger and much more direct reference to labour rights in the free trade agreement.

That is important because the chapter on labour reaffirms both countries obligations under the labour co-operation agreement. By inserting a labour chapter into the free trade agreement text, Canada has provided an additional confirmation of that vital link between economic growth, prosperity and the respect for labour rights.

In closing, I would like to emphasize this government's view that free trade can play a positive role in a country's economic and social life, but this positive role does not have to come at the expense of labour rights. In fact, as the labour co-operation agreement demonstrates, it is possible to liberalize trade while protecting the rights of workers.

The push to protect labour rights is also an important component of Canada's active engagement in the Americas. Under this labour co-operation agreement, Canada would be able to help support Panama in its efforts to respect both its domestic labour laws and its international labour obligations. These efforts in turn will benefit Panamanian workers.

For those reasons, I ask all hon. members for their support of the agreement in total and the parallel agreement on labour co-operation and implore that this happen sooner rather than later.