Betty Hinton

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed by the member and I need an explanation on a couple of things or perhaps she could correct the information she just put forward.

The government has honoured the one year arrangement that the previous Liberal government put in place for child care. We honoured that up front and we gave one year's notice to be certain that no one would be unaware of it.

As to the other statement that she made, I happen to know it is completely incorrect. Having spoken to the MLAs in my area, there has been no clawback in B.C. funding. In terms of people in low income families, the B.C. government will not claw back again now. Therefore, it will not make any difference to low income Canadian families who are living in British Columbia.

Regardless of what the letter may say, the woman who wrote the letter has every right to express her opinion but if she is basing it on misinformation that could have been given to her by this particular member of Parliament, the member has an obligation to make certain that the lady who wrote to her understands that there was no clawback in B.C. and that the new program that will begin in March will be the perfect opportunity to create 25,000 new child care spaces every year for the next five years, for a total of 125,000 spaces.

I would urge the member opposite to encourage the people in her riding to spend the kind of time and energy in cooperating with businesses and corporations to create these new child care spaces, rather than doing the kinds of things that they are doing now, which is not helping children, parents or existing child care centres.

[Textile Industry, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Motion No. 158, and specifically, speak to the challenges and opportunities facing older workers in Canada. I underscore two key words from that preceding statement: challenges and opportunities.

With the inevitable passage of time, we are faced or challenged with a natural transformation, physically, mentally and emotionally, that will alter, to one degree or another, oneself. As the Swiss philosopher Henri-Frédéric Amiel once wrote:

To know how to grow old is the masterwork of wisdom, and one of the most difficult chapters in the great art of living.

This difficult chapter of life, already brimming with challenges, can be compounded with additional anxieties related to an unanticipated change in one's professional life. Such has been the lamentable case for many working Canadians in the forestry, apparel and textile industries facing sudden layoffs, with industries themselves undergoing difficult transformations.

Regardless of what the Bloc would have us believe, I wish to assure Canadians that the Conservative government recognizes the challenges confronting older workers. Moreover, we also realize that such challenges also present opportunities.

As Canada's labour shortage becomes more pronounced, we must seize on this moment to ensure older workers have ample opportunity to contribute their immense knowledge and skills to our national workforce. As Judy Cutler, of Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, so succinctly put it:

There's a shortage of workers, and as more and more people retire, there will be a greater shortage....We have older workers who want to work. Why not embrace their expertise?

Why not, indeed?

I am proud to report that Canada's new government has taken tangible action in pursuit of this objective. For instance, last fall we announced a $70 million targeted initiative for older workers. Working with our provincial and territorial partners, we will help ensure older workers between the ages of 55 and 64 in vulnerable communities, such as those affected by transformations in the forestry, textile and apparel industries, remain active participants in the labour force.

Furthermore, participating provinces and territories will have significant latitude in identifying such communities and in the design and delivery of the projects. Support will particularly assist those workers who have exhausted their EI benefits and may require further assistance to stay active in the workforce.

For the interest of the member opposite, the province of Quebec has already signed on to this initiative and will receive $19 million in federal funding for older workers, $19 million more than the Bloc Québécois has ever managed to deliver for older workers.

Canada's new government is not content to end there. Building on our budget 2006 commitment, we have recently announced the appointment of an expert panel to study the labour market conditions affecting older workers. The panel, which eminent membership includes Ms. Diane Bellemare, the senior vice-president and chief economist of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, has a mandate to look at a range of potential measures to help older workers, such as improved training and enhanced income support such as early retirement benefits.

Additionally, the panel will engage in extensive consultations with provincial and territorial governments as well as with employers, labour representatives, academics and other stakeholders.

Unlike the Bloc, many Canadians have acknowledged that the striking of this panel is a positive and important step as we seek to address the issues facing older workers. Gabriel Bouchard of the Montreal-based Monster Canada, a leading human resources agency, has remarked that this very positive move by the government is:

—a much needed step in the right direction...Many Canadian businesses are already feeling the dramatic impact of our shrinking labour pool and it is crucial that we look for answers now, including new ways to capitalize on the excellent experience and qualifications that older workers bring to organizations...

These two important measures undertaken by Canada's new government in just the past year alone underline our commitment and, more fundamental, our belief that older workers still have the ability to make vital contributions to our labour force.

Let us contrast that with the Bloc's pessimistic assessment of older workers. For example, let us listen to the words the Bloc member for Drummond uttered when assessing an older worker's ability to perhaps learn a new skill. She said:

Let us be logical: that is impossible at 58. What is more, employers are hesitant to hire older workers, and the only way they can manage is to go on welfare.

I am proud to state that our Conservative government rejects such an assessment and instead has chosen to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts to advance solutions promoting the continued labour force involvement of older workers, especially those in the forestry, textile and apparel industries.

I would also like to highlight for the House other federal support measures provided, although indirectly, to older workers.

Chief among them is the employment insurance program. The first line of assistance for eligible unemployed Canadians, EI provides eligible older workers active re-employment benefits and measures to help them find and regain employment.

In 2004-05, unemployed Canadians aged 55 and over received nearly $1.4 billion in benefits. An additional 80,000 workers aged 50 or older also participated in retraining programs that helped them prepare for new employment under EI part II programming.

With reference to Quebec, the Government of Canada transfers nearly $600 million in EI funding to the province, under the labour market development agreement, for employment programming geared to eligible unemployed workers. Under this agreement, Quebec has the latitude to design and deliver initiatives that respond to eligible unemployed workers' needs.

While Canada's new government is actively pursuing measures to ensure the continued engagement of older workers, we are cognizant of the increasingly crucial need to build a larger transformative framework that will produce the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce to compete in the global marketplace.

This past November, the finance minister unveiled an ambitious and long term economic road map entitled Advantage Canada. One component of that road map was the plan to build a knowledge advantage.

What do we mean by a knowledge advantage? First, it is about quantity: increasing the participation of all Canadians in the workforce to meet future labour needs. Second, it is about quality: enhancing the quality of education and skills in Canada. Finally, it is about efficiency: facilitating worker mobility and giving Canadians the information they need to make informed labour market choices.

Canada's new government has made a pledge to make significant and sustained progress on each of these fronts.

On quantity, we are taking steps to encourage the increased participation of Canadians in the labour force. We have improved the foreign workers program service delivery. We are working toward the creation of a Canadian agency on foreign credentials to allow more new Canadians an opportunity to fully contribute their skills. We are also striving to eliminate the barriers preventing under-represented groups, such as Canadians with disabilities and aboriginals, from greater participation.

On quality, we are utilizing a multi-faceted approach to foster an improved environment of learning for Canadians. We are working to provide stable and predictable federal funding to the provinces and territories to ensure the quality of the post-secondary education system. Furthermore, to encourage the skilled trades, Canada's new government introduced apprenticeship and tools tax incentives in budget 2006.

On efficiency, we are following through to ensure Canada has the most efficient and effective labour market possible to succeed in the highly competitive global economy. We firmly believe that workers, older and otherwise, must have the option to pursue opportunities and practice their occupations wherever and whenever they choose, free of interprovincial barriers. Similarly, Canadians also need relevant and accessible labour market information in order to know what job opportunities are available, what skills are likely to be in demand, and where those jobs will be.

Not surprisingly, Advantage Canada, especially the knowledge advantage component, was well received. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce's Nancy Hughes Anthony called it a “great road map”, saying that “it's got all the elements of things we need to do”. The Canadian Council on Learning stated that the measures supporting post-secondary education are “welcome and positive initiatives”.

Clearly, despite the Bloc's empty rhetoric, Canada's new government is already building the foundations for a strengthened workforce, one in which older workers will form an integral element.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the words of my hon. colleague across the way. He stated many times that yesterday he asked the Prime Minister 18 times in the House of Commons if he agreed that there was climate change. Actions speak louder than words.

The Conservatives have made very meaningful strides in the first year of government to improve the environment. That is opposed to the record of the former Liberal government, which saw an increase of 35% in emissions, showed no plan and had no regulations. Its plan was to send $5 billion to Russia for hot air credits and not change a thing environmentally.

I do not know how the member opposite thinks that sending money to Russia for plants that have already been closed down and allowing Canadian plants to continue to pollute is helping the environment. This may be Liberal thinking, but I certainly cannot follow it. It does not make any sense at all to me.

The Conservatives have actually made a difference. Look up the kinds of things that have happened. It is very clear that we made mandatory rules rather than voluntary rules. We have taken mercury out of the air. We have gone as far as banning items found in any Canadian household that are causing diseases. We have looked after the cancer issue or are well on our way to doing that. We have received support from the Canadian Medical Association. We have a thumbs up from environmental groups that actually care about what is happening in Canada.

Doing nothing for 13 years is what has given Canada its black eye internationally, as the member referred to it.

[Human Rights, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Nazanin Afshin-Jam, an exceptional young Canadian woman, led an international campaign to free Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi, the Iranian teenager who was condemned to death for defending herself and her niece from attempted rape by three men.

Ms. Afshin-Jam's efforts included public rallies and speeches, international media and a worldwide petition signed by over 354,000 people.

Yesterday, thanks in large part to this international pressure, Ms. Fatehi was released from Evin prison in Iran and reunited with her family.

To quote Ms. Afshin-Jam:

Action can be taken, and the power of the individual is so strong that you can make a difference, so much so that you can have influence in saving a human life.

I hope that all colleagues join with me in congratulating Nazanin for her efforts, and that we not forget the 23 other youths currently on death row in Iran.

[Afghanistan, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity today on the first anniversary of the signing of the Afghanistan Compact to recognize all the Canadian women and men working in Afghanistan. The military, diplomats, police, including the RCMP, development and aid workers continue the noble Canadian tradition of taking an active role in bringing stability and peace to areas that have seen turmoil and upheaval.

We are there with 36 other nations at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan and as part of a UN sanctioned and NATO led mission to help build a stable democratic and self-sufficient society.

Canada's overall objectives are being achieved on three fronts: security, development and governance.

Our troops and all Canadians in Afghanistan deserve our support as they work to bring security and democracy to that country.

I know that members of the House join me in saluting them.

[Salvation Army Kettle, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, next Saturday, I will do my annual shift for the Salvation Army Kettle. I invite all Canadians to honour the true meaning of Christmas through the charity of their choice.

There are many children right here in Canada who need our help over this time of year. These children will not share in the joy of waking up on Christmas morning to a gift under the tree without our help. Whether we add one more gift to our shopping list or donate an extra $5 to the Salvation Army Kettle, it will mean so much to a child. Please give generously to our less fortunate children.

Let me also take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and all members in the House a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[Ian Roberts, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to inform the House of the passing of Ian Roberts. Ian was my riding office assistant. His short battle with cancer ended peacefully a few short days ago.

Ian touched the lives and hearts of numerous constituents. He leaves behind a legacy of hope and honour to those of us who were his teammates.

This teddy bear in the form of a man always had a smile in his voice, a hug for those who needed it and a determination in his heart to leave this world in better condition than he found it. We are all better off for his time among us.

Ian and his wife, Kathy, have given their time generously to support the less fortunate, prevent teenage suicide and to raise thousands of dollars for cancer research. It was a privilege to know him and an honour to work with him. The gift of his friendship and support cannot be measured.

If he is listening today, and I am judged worthy, I ask him to do what he has done so often in our time together: save me a seat right next to him until we meet again.

[Veterans Affairs, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for all his hard work on the veterans affairs committee.

In the past eight months we have implemented the new veterans charter and we have a health care review under way as we speak. The new government continues to be committed to veterans by examining the implementation of an ombudsman, the veterans independence program, and the veterans bill of rights. The new government takes the time for our veterans, and we hold each and every one of them dear.

[November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in today's debate. The Bloc Québécois, through Bill C-269, is calling for what, in effect, would be a radical alteration to the employment insurance program, fundamentally altering the way the program is managed by the government and accessed by Canadians.

As we consider such radical changes, it is important to keep in mind that on balance the existing EI program appears to be working very well. Ongoing reviews of the program have concluded that, by and large, EI is meeting the needs of those for whom it was designed.

While it is true that changes have been made to specific aspects of the program from time to time, these changes have been to respond to particular circumstances. Changes like these can help ensure the program will continue to meet the legitimate needs of those it was set up to serve.

This government is open to looking at proposals that will improve the existing EI system but those proposals must be consistent with the program's basic objectives and based on sound evidence.

It might be useful to take a moment to remind the House what those basic objectives are. The first, of course, is that EI is to provide financial assistance by replacing a portion of employment income lost in times of temporary unemployment. It is an insurance program. Premiums are paid and coverage is provided.

The second is that the program seeks to promote a positive attachment to the labour market. We do not want to create a culture of dependency on EI. Employment is the ultimate objective and our new government's priority continues to be to help Canadians participate in the labour market.

The third is that EI must be run on a financially responsible and sustainable basis. Any proposals for change must be looked at in the context of these three principles.

Let us look at what that means for Bill C-269. For example, let us take the bill's proposal to reduce the eligibility requirements for EI to a flat 360 hours of work in all parts of the country. That is approximately 45 days. There are two problems with this proposal. The first has to do with encouraging attachment to the labour market. Research shows that our EI system already has some of the most accessible entrance requirements among OECD countries for unemployment benefits.

The annual EI monitoring and assessment report for 2005 found that 80% of the unemployed in Canada who had paid into the program and who had a qualifying job separation were eligible to receive benefits.

Members may recall that more than one of the members opposite who spoke to Bill C-269 during the first hour of debate mentioned a figure of between one-third and 40% of the unemployed being able to access EI.

Let me say what these figures really represent. The 40% figure is called the beneficiary to unemployment ratio or BU ratio and it is not a good measure of EI access. First, it includes many unemployed individuals who have not paid premiums, such as those who have never worked, who have not worked in the past year or who have been self-employed.

Second, the beneficiary to unemployment ratio includes individuals who paid premiums but are eligible for EI benefits because they voluntarily quit their job or were unemployed for two weeks or less, which is the length of the waiting period.

In fact, the number of individuals included in the BU ratio who were not eligible for EI benefits because they have worked too few hours is quite small. Again, if we consider people in situations for which the program is designed, access is very high, 80%. These people who have been laid off due to restructuring or shortage of work, people who have found themselves in a situation where their only choice is to leave their job due to illness or injury or because, after exploring all other options, they quit with just cause due to something such as harassment.

The question is: At a time of skills and labour shortages, as we are now experiencing in Canada, will we encourage a more positive attachment to the labour market by making it even easier to obtain EI benefits?

Reducing entrance requirements may create disincentives to work, since research indicates that some workers may choose not to work beyond the minimum hours required. It would also have only a marginal impact on the number of additional individuals who would be eligible for EI.

Because of regional labour market differences in this country, the existing EI system is based on a variable entrance requirement for eligibility. Variable entrance requirements are adjusted monthly to reflect unemployments rates by region. As unemployment rates increase, entrance requirements are lowered and the duration of benefits increases. This means that unemployed workers in areas of high unemployment are not disadvantaged when it comes to qualifying for EI.

Adopting a flat entrance requirement, such as Bill C-269 proposes, would disproportionately benefit those living in regions with lower unemployment rates or those in high unemployment regions where access may be more difficult due to limited work opportunities.

The member Laurentides—Labelle mentioned that she was on a tour with colleagues to discuss the daily realities of the EI program in several regions of Quebec, such as Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Saguenay, Gaspésie-Îles de la Madeleine, Bas-Saint-Laurent and Laurentides.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight recent actions our government has taken to assist areas such as the ones the member recently visited.

In June of this year, our new government announced the extended EI benefits pilot project. This project provides up to five additional weeks of EI benefits, to a maximum of 45 weeks, to EI claimants in high unemployment regions. This pilot project is intended to help seasonal workers whose combined annual weeks of work and EI benefits are not sufficient income each week of the year and who, as a result, experience an income gap when their EI claim runs out before they return to their seasonal job. This pilot project will test whether providing additional benefits will address this income gap and, at the same time, whether it has an adverse labour market effect on other EI claimants.

Our new government has also extended the transitional measures in the EI economic regions of Madawaska--Charlotte in New Brunswick and Lower St. Lawrence and North Shore in Quebec until the conclusion of the national review of EI boundaries which is currently underway.

These measures mean that claimants in the two regions require fewer hours to qualify for EI and receive benefits for a longer period than would be the case without the transitional measures. Another three pilot projects are underway in these regions and other regions of high unemployment, such as the best 14 weeks, working while on claim and the new re-entrant pilots.

All of these changes are evidence of the government's recognition that the EI program needs to be flexible in order to adapt to the changing realities of these regions.

What about the proposal in Bill C-269 to eliminate the two week waiting period for EI benefits? Since 1971, the waiting period has been fixed at two weeks. The two week waiting period represents a basic co-insurance feature of the program that is similar to the deductible for other insurance plans. It eliminates very short claims which individuals should be able to cover on their own. It will also allow verification of claims as it would otherwise be difficult to verify whether people had really become unemployed or laid off for just a few days.

The waiting period also provides time in which claims can be set up and payments started. It is important to note, however, that the EI waiting period can be waved in response to certain circumstances. For example, to help Canadians acquire skills, multiple waiting periods have been eliminated for claimants participating in apprenticeship programs. Also, when parents share EI parental benefits only one waiting period must be served.

I have outlined just a few of the reasons the House should not support the bill but there are many others. The government is not against making changes to the EI Act when warranted but we do not see the changes proposed in Bill C-269 as either timely or necessary.

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member opposite had to say on this issue and I clearly heard him say that he had very strong feelings about arsonists, that they should go to jail and that we should throw away the key. Those are pretty strong sentiments. Part of what this amendment does is eliminate the possibility of doing exactly what he is talking about.

He also referred to an 18 year old who makes a mistake and goes on a joyride. I do not believe an 18 year old who makes his first mistake will be captured by the original legislation. What will happen with that 18 year old is, if he does this four or five times a year, then he is a habitual criminal and he needs to be dealt with strongly.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice gave a very good presentation earlier this morning but perhaps the member missed it. He made it very clear that judges would have the discretion for first time offenders, such as the joyrider, to be exempted. I would be interested to hear his comments on that.