Lucienne Robillard

[Transportation Safety Board, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this individual was appointed because he had the skills required for the job. We have since learned that he attended partisan meetings. One can question such conduct. Our understanding is that the matter was referred to the Ethics Commissioner to clarify the code regarding any person appointed by the governor in council.

[Parental Leave, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think the statement by my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party is totally unfounded.

Once again she is confusing the two issues. Just because we are before the Supreme Court does not prevent us from reaching an agreement with Quebec on parental leave. We are negotiating with Quebec as we speak. We have agreed on most issues. We still have to settle the first year of the system and that is what we are working on today.

[Parental Leave, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, to make a distinction between the two issues, the Prime Minister said very clearly that the appeal to the Supreme Court was done in an entirely different context, since the impact is much broader on government programs as a whole.

He also said that with respect to parental leave, regardless of the outcome at the Supreme Court, we were determined to negotiate the transfer of authority over parental leave with Quebec. That is what we are in the process of doing right now.

[Parental Leave, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec parents are well aware that we are determined to sign an agreement with the Government of Quebec that is totally fair and in keeping with the legislation.

This is why I am personally continuing discussions with my Quebec counterpart, Claude Béchard. Both of us still hope an agreement is possible.

[Parental Leave, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we support Quebec's plan to broaden the parental leave program currently available at the federal level. We support it to such an extent that we are prepared to transfer to Quebec the funds usually paid to Quebeckers, and are currently doing so. We are still holding discussions with representatives of Quebec, and both governments wish to reach an agreement.

[Parental Leave, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc may get all worked up, but in concrete terms, we are still in intensive negotiations with the Government of Quebec. I spoke to my counterpart last night and again before question period. Discussions are continuing. Together we are working for the well-being of Quebec's families.

[Question No. 49, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the conditions surrounding the payment of an education assistance payment EAP, from a registered education savings plan RESP, which contains Canada education savings grant CESG, is governed by the Income Tax Act and is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. One of the conditions for payment of an EAP is that the post-secondary institution be “designated”. Domestic institutions listed for designation purposes are identified by the provinces and maintained by the Canada student loans program for student loan purposes. These lists are sent to CRA for use in administering both Section 118.5, Tuition Credits and Section 146.1, RESPs of the Income Tax Act. Foreign institutions qualifying for tax credits are identified and listed as designated by the international tax office in CRA.

Neither CRA nor the Canada student loans program is aware of any delisting of foreign education institutions. Foreign institutions are normally only delisted if there have been no Canadian students attending the institutions for a specific number of years. Furthermore, though delisting of a foreign institution may affect a students ability to claim their education related expenses on their tax return under S. 118.5 of the ITA, it usually will not necessarily impact eligibility for an EAP as the rules surrounding designation for EAP are different.

If a previously accredited educational institution becomes delisted then a student will not be able to withdraw the money that they have in their RESP to pay their education costs while the institution remains delisted. A student can request that the institution become part of the list designated institutions for EAP purposes.

[Employment Insurance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently conducting an in-depth review of each of the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee. If I am not mistaken, we have 150 days to respond to a report from a parliamentary committee. So, we will examine this issue.

In the short term, we are also taking a close look at the impact of seasonal work on the various economies of this country and on workers. We will try to make adjustments.

[Employment Insurance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we intend to follow up on the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne to evaluate the employment insurance program, so that it reflects the needs of the labour market and, therefore, those of employers and workers.

In addition to the report of the parliamentary committee, we have also received suggestions from several members on this side of the House, from our caucus. We are currently looking at these suggestions and we intend to make the necessary adjustments to the program.

[Employment Insurance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have received this report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I think it contains eight recommendations concerning the employment insurance program. These recommendations are currently under consideration. We will respond to them, as required under the standing orders of this House, in due course.