Debates of June 10th, 2013

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I will not get into those kinds of cheap shots that the member does.

I may not have been blessed with the same intelligence she has, but I try to make up for it with hard work. I try to work with my colleagues in the House. We have brought good legislation forward that would transform the RCMP.

Unfortunately, that member and her party have consistently stood in the way of meaningful reform for the RCMP.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that in the House, our Conservative government stands alone in the fight against tax evasion.

The NDP allows tax evaders to sit in its caucus and the Liberals have senators who refuse to answer questions about money hidden offshore.

By contrast, our government is committed to cracking down on tax evasion. Despite receiving no support from the opposition, we have developed an outstanding working relationship with our partners abroad.

Could the minister please tell the House how today these relationships have paid off?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been working with partners abroad to crack down on tax cheats. Today, we are seeing the benefit of Canada's close collaboration with our international partners.

I am pleased to announce that Canada is now in the possession of extensive data on Canadians with offshore assets. CRA experts are reviewing the information on a priority basis and will undertake compliance actions where warranted.

This is, once again, a great day for hard-working taxpayers and a bad day for tax evaders.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, hospitals are now paying for the Minister of Immigration's heartless decision to cut off health care for refugee claimants.

Already overburdened Toronto hospitals are being forced to spend over $800,000 this year to cover the cost of emergency care for refugee claimants. Other refugees are being forced to pay for things like cancer treatment.

Will the minister listen to hospitals and to the provinces and have compassion for those less fortunate and reverse his reckless decision to cut refugee health care?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to Canadians and I have not cut refugee health care.

We have ended gold-plated health benefits to false, rejected asylum claimants who have no legal right to be in Canada.

Most Canadians think that universal health care means health coverage for Canadians and permanent residents. Apparently the NDP thinks universal health coverage means universal, for everyone, including illegal migrants in Canada. It could not be more wrong.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, whether the minister admits it or not, hospitals and the provinces are bearing the financial burden of the changes to the refugee health care program. If the minister really believes that sick children are abusing the system, he is either completely heartless or completely blinded by his ideology. Medical expenses will not magically disappear simply because his government wants to balance the budget.

When will the Conservatives stop making the provinces pay for costs associated with refugee health care?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Is it the NDP's position that Canadian taxpayers should pay for the medical expenses of illegal migrants and failed asylum claimants who have no right to be in Canada? While that might be the NDP's position, that is not the position of any government in the world. Medicare falls under provincial jurisdiction. If the provinces want to provide medicare to illegal migrants, that is their prerogative.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is just as good at spewing nonsense as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the federal government's official apology for residential schools—five years to promote a reconciliation that has resulted in little more than budget cuts and legal battles against aboriginal peoples.

The minister said this weekend that the cuts would not affect essential services. Which supposedly non-essential services does the department plan to eliminate?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that project funding for aboriginal organizations is focused on the delivery of essential services and programs in key areas such as education, economic development and community infrastructure. I would also remind the member opposite and the House that these priorities were determined through close collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations on a number of occasions.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we hoped the minister would mark the fifth anniversary of the residential school apology in a more meaningful way than cuts to organizations.

Aboriginal organizations are looking for stable, long-term funding. In response, the minister accuses them of entitlement. Without stable funding, these organizations, which often provide front-line services, cannot make long-term program plans.

How can the minister justify funding cuts while at the same time admitting these organizations do important work?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member intimates, no cuts will prevent the delivery of essential services by bands or tribal councils or any organizations that deliver essential services.

National Defence

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, injured Afghan vet, Corporal Kirkland offered dramatic testimony to the national defence committee. Prior to his testimony, his commanding officer urged him to be cautious. Corporal Kirkland felt that he was being intimidated.

Last Thursday, the minister offered his protection to Corporal Kirkland. Does that offer of protection still stand? Will he encourage his colleagues to support my privilege motion at committee?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. When I heard about the testimony of Corporal Kirkland, I was out of the country doing business on behalf of the Department of National Defence and the country. As a result, I sought assurances from the department that there would be no negative inference as a result of his testimony. If there has been, I certainly would like to hear about it.

If the member has further information, specific to this individual's case, I would be happy to receive it.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleasantly surprised to hear the minister's response, because on Friday Corporal Kirkland was given his discharge papers, effectively ending his career in the military.

Again, does the minister's offer of protection still stand? Will he preserve Corporal Kirkland's career in the military for as long as Corporal Kirkland thinks it is plausible?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have been quite clear with respect to this individual, Corporal Kirkland. Any Afghan vet injured in combat will not be released as a result of those injuries.

Rather than trying to score political points on the floor of the House of Commons, everyone would be better off had the hon. member chosen to contact my office on behalf of this individual and we could work productively with him, which I am very anxious to do on behalf of Corporal Kirkland.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, today, Le Devoir reported that if an employment insurance claim is rejected, the review process does not allow for claimants to provide new information.

The Conservatives do not want additional information, for fear that they will have to pay benefits. Reviews will now be conducted with only the documents that were originally provided.

Job seekers who apply for EI benefits deserve the opportunity to present all the documentation that supports their claim.

Why do the Conservatives not want to hear them?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is making common sense changes to better connect unemployed Canadians with available jobs in their local areas that match their skills.

Let us be very clear. What we have put forward with respect to EI is something that is working. We now have one million net new jobs since 2009, meaning fewer Canadians actually require employment insurance.

We are moving forward and ensuring jobs are available to Canadians. We encourage the opposition to get on board.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives stacked the Social Security Tribunal with their cronies and turned their backs on out-of-work Canadians. The Conservatives cut benefits, dismantled a fair and independent appeal system, and now will not even give people access to documents about their case before they appeal.

If Canadians are denied the EI benefits they paid for, they at least deserve to know why. Why is the minister denying Canadians this basic right?

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

Mr. Speaker, the current appeals process for employment insurance is expensive and slow. Fewer than one in three claims is actually heard in 30 days. The new Social Security Tribunal will continue to provide a fair, fast and accessible appeals process for Canadians by eliminating duplication.

We are focused on ensuring Canadians have an opportunity for a fair and fast hearing, unlike the opposition that wants to create inefficiencies.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last year our Conservative government passed legislation that would provide a new EI benefit to parents of critically ill children. This was a big milestone for a constituent of mine, Sharon Ruth. Sharon worked tirelessly for years to see this new benefit become a reality to provide support for families when they needed it the most.

Would the parliamentary secretary to the minister of HRSDC please update the House on the status of this new benefit?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Leeds—Grenville's private member's bill was an important step in the process to create this new EI benefit.

I am pleased to report that the new special benefit was available as of Sunday. In fact, the first applications have already been received. This will provide up to 35 weeks of EI to parents so they can focus on the care of their critically ill or injured children. Our government understands the important role that parents play in the health of their children and it is another important way we are putting families first.

Radio-Canada

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada officials are reversing their decision and are bringing “Radio-Canada” back to television, the Première Chaîne and its website. I congratulate them on that decision.

We would like to encourage them, through the minister responsible, to go even further by adding the same catchphrase to regional television stations, which would become, for example, “Ici Radio-Canada Acadie” or “Ici Radio-Canada Windsor”. This would help francophones across the country to identify with the new structure of Radio-Canada.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle behind the question from my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier.

One of CBC/Radio-Canada's purposes is to be present in every region of the country in French as well. However, the member should communicate his idea directly to Hubert Lacroix and to the board of directors of Radio-Canada.

I know that Radio-Canada will be having a meeting this Tuesday or next. The opposition's suggestion is one that Radio-Canada should hear. He should talk to them about it. I want to be clear: this is a national Canadian broadcasting corporation.

Privacy

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not denying having access to PRISM, or being in possession of a secret $90,000 cheque, or that the PMO-controlled funds were used in this process. While Canadians deserve answers, the Minister of National Defence repeatedly failed to answer the three questions today about snooping.

Did the Canadian government have access to PRISM, yes or no?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have been crystal clear. This program does not target Canadians. Mega-data is collected only on international, not domestic, communications. It is only targeting foreign threats, unless, of course, there is a request from an accompanying department under warrant, so the answer is no.