Debates of March 25th, 2013

Employment Insurance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the municipalities of Quebec are united in their opposition to the government's employment insurance reform.

The UMQ sees the changes as, quite simply, an attack on regional economies that harms both workers and employers. Instead of tackling the problem of unemployment and recognizing the diversity of the Canadian economy, the Conservatives would rather attack unemployed workers and small businesses.

Here I am, once again, talking about something that is making a lot of people in the country unhappy, and that is employment insurance reform.

Over the past few months and weeks, the major unions in Quebec, groups that advocate on behalf of workers and citizens, and municipal and rural organizations have come together to protest the changes that have been made to employment insurance. This is a testament to broad consensus in Quebec against this reform, a consensus that is also found outside the province.

On February 15, the executive committee of the Union des municipalités du Québec, the UMQ, adopted a resolution calling on the federal government to suspend EI reforms until economic impact studies have been completed. We know full well, such studies were not conducted before the reform was implemented.

In short, we might as well say that the government is putting policies in place without having any idea about where it is going or about the potential consequences on the daily lives of Canadians.

All these Canadian organizations, which condemn the reform and now form a true coalition, are already trying to reason with the federal government so that it will suspend the implementation of this reform's ridiculous and arbitrary measures.

The government must immediately conduct impact studies on the changes it wants to bring about, it must release the results of those studies, and it must hold public consultations on the subject. These measures target workers and the most vulnerable sectors, and will most certainly have a negative impact on future generations.

According to Éric Forest, president of the UMQ and mayor of Rimouski, a beautiful region in the Gaspé Peninsula, this reform will affect the social and economic fabric of the regions. Seasonal workers and their families will have to move away from the regions to work. These regions will therefore lose skilled workers, and entire families will have to leave. Years of effort to boost the regions' vitality through policies and programs will be wasted.

The UMQ also pointed out that seasonal employment is part of the economic reality of many regions and contributes to the development of a number of sectors that are essential to the economy of Quebec, including agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism and even film.

By impoverishing and emptying the regions of their skilled workers, employment insurance reform will lead to labour shortages for many businesses, which will have a devastating impact on all regions of Quebec.

The regions feel that these changes are a direct attack—pure and simple—on regional economies. It is bad for workers and employees. In what way is this reform positive? It is bad for the unemployed and their families. The government should address job creation issues and recognize the diversity of our country's economy instead of going after the unemployed and small businesses.

I will repeat my question. Why is the minister not listening to Canadians? Why is it not cancelling the devastating employment insurance reform?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of confusion concerning the updated employment insurance regulations. The opposition parties have been recklessly misleading Canadians.

My colleague should rest assured that it is not our intention to punish employment insurance claimants or to harm regional economies. On the contrary, as we have said from the beginning, we want all Canadians who want to work to be able to work.

Our aim is to connect EI claimants with available jobs in their local labour markets. We need to ensure that Canadians have access to and are skilled enough for the jobs that are being created.

Full-time jobs have been increasing across all occupations and in many industries. In fact, since July 2009, employment has grown by more than 950,000 jobs. This represents the strongest growth by far among G7 countries. Of those 950,000 jobs, most of them are full-time positions.

Let me be clear. We want to make sure all Canadian regions prosper.

We empathize with Canadians who have lost their jobs and who are making the effort to find work in their area, but who have not succeeded. These Canadians can rest assured that they will continue to receive employment insurance.

Rest assured these changes will be administered using common sense and will take everything into account among local labour market conditions.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it may not be the government's intention to create problems for the regions, but that is what is happening, and we are starting to see major consequences.

It is fair to say that this reform was not created in the interest of unemployed workers or the regions, and the proof is that people are upset about it.

The Conservatives have failed to carry out their duty and should listen to what Canadians have to say. This reform is not working. It is a blow to our economy and our job seekers.

Last Friday, a number of people came to my riding office because their employment insurance benefits were unfairly and arbitrarily cut off. We had to take steps to set things right. This reform is an outright attack on Canadians.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times before in this House, for those who are unable to find work, EI will continue to be there for them as it always has been.

EI recipients have always had the responsibility of undertaking a reasonable job search by preparing resumes, attending job workshops and contacting prospective employers. There has always been a requirement to accept a suitable job.

The new definitions of “reasonable job search” and “suitable employment” clarify these responsibilities. At the same time, the new definition of “suitable employment” takes into account people's personal circumstances, working conditions, the time it takes to commute to work, the type of work they are qualified to do and the rate of pay.

The purpose of EI is to provide temporary assistance to those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Our top priority is job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. When will the opposition finally support our plan, which has already created 950,000 net new jobs?

Public Safety

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in adjournment proceedings to pursue a question that I initially asked on February 4 of this year. It relates to the mysterious case of Dr. Arthur Porter, as I referred to it at the time. I have asked questions on previous occasions, and on that occasion I asked the Prime Minister a question and the response came from the Minister of Public Safety. I asked why Dr. Porter is still a member of Privy Council, which is the highest level of trust within the government, an individual who is able to access all government secrets.

At the time I did not realize there was more to this story than I knew on February 4. For instance, my question to the Prime Minister included the question as to whether normal background checks were suspended. I asked how Dr. Porter was approved for these very sensitive positions.

What I have learned since then, through a number of access to information requests, is that although the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act requires that all leaders of parties with more than 12 members in the House get to review appointments, my assumption was that leaders of other parties had not raised an objection. They, like the Prime Minister, were unaware there was anything suspicious in Dr. Porter's background and that somehow the background checks fell apart.

What I was surprised to discover is that one of the leaders of one of the official parties in the House at the time, not once but twice, objected to Dr. Porter. The member objected, when in 2008 he was made a member of the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee, and in 2010 objected when Dr. Porter was named chairman of the very important Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee.

How could this have happened? Who was that member? Now that he no longer sits in the House, I can use his proper name. It was the leader of the Bloc Québécois, Gilles Duceppe. Gilles Duceppe, in his first letter dated February 2, 2008, to the Prime Minister, which I am going to repeat in English, said “Regarding the appointment of Arthur T. Porter...I wish to draw the following to your attention...”.

He proceeded to draw to the Prime Minister's attention the problems that occurred when Dr. Porter was at the Detroit Medical Center. Mr. Duceppe lists them as conflicts of interest, mismanagement, financial crises, threats of bankruptcy, and so forth, and refers the Prime Minister to an article in Le Devoir. He also mentioned that it had been reported that Dr. Porter regarded himself as a close friend of former U.S. president George Bush and former vice president Cheney. Mr. Duceppe thought that such a close relationship with foreign powers, previous leaders, would represent a conflict of interest in his loyalties to Canada by being in such a sensitive post. In 2010, when the Prime Minister sought to elevate Dr. Porter to chair of the committee, Monsieur Duceppe repeated his concerns.

Again, I remain baffled. In every answer from Conservative members of Parliament to questions about Dr. Porter, we are told only two things: he is now basically escaping prosecution for his transgressions by hiding out in the Caribbean, and that these allegations had nothing to do with the fact that he is a Privy Council officer nor that he was chairman of the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee.

My questions are very simple. Is Dr. Porter still a Privy Council officer? Our information is that he is. Where were the background checks? More specifically, why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore very clear and specific warnings from the leader of the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Duceppe, who raised these very issues. We now see that Dr. Porter was a spectacularly poor choice to be in possession of this country's secrets.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her interest in this. I want to assure the member that the allegations relating to Mr. Porter have absolutely nothing to do with the work he did as a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. There has been no suggestion whatsoever of any improper handling or disclosure of confidential information.

Prior to his appointment, Mr. Porter was subject to a series of security background checks coordinated by officials from the Privy Council Office. These checks were robust and included police, security and financial records. The government consulted with both the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Liberal Party. As the member is aware, Mr. Porter offered his resignation in 2011 and the government accepted it.

The allegations that Mr. Porter is currently facing do not have anything to do with his former responsibilities. The government has taken this opportunity, however, to strengthen the screening process as we feel that is important. Prospective Security Intelligence Review Committee members are now vetted in the same way as all other government officials who require access to highly-sensitive information through a clearance conducted by CSIS, in addition to a pre-appointment background check. This includes consideration of people with whom the prospective members are closely associated and connected with.

Importantly, CSIS does not assess individuals' qualifications to serve as members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, also called SIRC, only their loyalty to Canada and their reliability. In addition, as part of new procedures, CSIS provides the results of its checks to the Privy Council Office, which, in consultation with the government, retains responsibility for deciding whether to appoint the individual. In this way, the independence of SIRC is preserved, which is incredibly important for all of us.

As the hon. member may know, in June 2012 the government appointed Chuck Strahl to replace Mr. Porter as chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Mr. Strahl was subject to these new security measures.

We believe the steps we have taken in this matter have strengthened the screening process. They ensure the continued robustness and integrity of the process, as well as the protection of confidential government information.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I lament on the parliamentary secretary's behalf because I have great empathy for people who have to read talking points that I have just pointed out were not really answering the question I had last time.

I do not know if she will be able to answer this, but I really think Canadians want to know.

First, is Dr. Porter still a Privy Council officer? I know it is fairly theoretical because he is not in Ottawa, where would he get access to our secrets, but it is certainly not appropriate for him to remain a Privy Council officer.

My second question is this. Why was it that these very clear concerns put forward by Gilles Duceppe were ignored in the process that occurred in appointing Dr. Porter first as a member of SIRC and then as a chairperson of it? I think Canadians want to know.

I am glad to see that Chuck Strahl has taken the reins. I do not think there is anyone I respect more than Chuck Strahl. However, how on earth did Dr. Porter, who professes his allegiance to Sierra Leone, ever end up in that sensitive position?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, armchair quarterbacks are usually not the best quarterbacks, but it is easy after the fact to make these observations.

I want to assure the hon. member that whatever the allegations against Mr. Porter, they do not relate to his work as a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Nevertheless, the government has taken steps to strengthen the screening process. That is an important part of the work the government has done and continues to do. The measures we have taken and put in place are further safeguards to ensure the continued protection of confidential government information.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments with regard to Chuck Strahl. I agree with her. He is and will continue to be a great leader of that organization.

I appreciate the hon. member's contributions in so many ways. As a government, we need to look at what we have done and will continue to do to build on our strengths and ensure that anything we have missed continues to be accounted for.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:07 p.m.)