Andrew Cash

[Labour, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, taxi drivers, office cleaners, clerks, support workers, artists and many other hard-working Canadians have no access to a workplace pension or benefits, and more and more young people are working for free as unpaid interns.

This afternoon, I will submitting a bill calling for a national urban workers' strategy that would reflect the reality of precarious work today. Work has changed. Will Conservatives support this initiative to fix EI and strengthen pensions, or will they remain stuck in a century that has long passed?

[Employment, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time ever, almost 50% of workers in Toronto cannot find stable, full-time jobs. What does this mean for urban workers and, in fact, for all workers across the country who are among this growing sector? It means part-time work, split shifts, serial contracts, self-employment and, increasingly, it means unpaid internships.

There are many excellent internship programs out there, but their reputation is being tarnished by companies that wish to exploit young workers. Indeed, more and more young people who are recent graduates, carrying on average $28,000 in student debt, are told that they must work for free first before being able to get a paying job in their field. It is tantamount to being bribed with the possibility of a job in exchange for free labour. Indeed, too often unpaid internships are being misused while the current government turns a blind eye.

This inaction is one of the many reasons that I will be tabling an urban worker bill in the House that will, among other things, call on the government to crack down on the misuse of unpaid internships. I urge the government to finally take this issue seriously, to take the issue of youth unemployment seriously and to support my bill.

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on that subject, there is a 2011 report from Transparency International that ranked Canada as the worst of all G7 countries with regard to international bribery, with no little or no enforcement of the scant legislation that does exist.

We are playing a lot of catch-up on this front. Could my hon. colleague comment on why it is that the government needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming at all levels, in order to present transparency and accountability?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a number of issues around international corruption that we need to take seriously. He talked a bit about the context, which is that we are facing scandal upon scandal in this very country in our political establishments, in the Senate and here in the House.

Could my colleague comment on the importance for Canada to show leadership abroad? We on our side of the House believe the government should show leadership and claim the place that we have always held in the international dialogue. Could the member comment on the importance of cleaning up the scandals that beset the government here at home first, or as well?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague underlines the importance of Canada playing a leading role on the international stage in leading by example. Of course, we are mired in bad examples in the House of Commons and in the Senate.

Will my colleague like to comment on the ways in which Canada needs to shift focus to play that leading role, a role of an important example to the world community about how good governance on the international stage is achieved?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has said that no substantive amendments were brought forward, but in fact there were two very substantive amendments. He is mistaking substantive with simple. They were simple and substantive at the same time. Those members over there have a problem with some of this stuff. The amendment was around research and posterity. It was a motion that included bringing research and posterity back into the language. This is important because we heard witness testimony from the former head of the museum stating that, time and time again, he and his staff referred to the mandate of the museum as a way of guiding them in their internal decisions. That is why we thought this amendment was so crucial.

There was another amendment that included just adding the word “civilization” back into the title of the museum.

Both of these amendments were simple and substantive, and the government voted them down. Those members are mischaracterizing the debate that went on in committee. They allowed only one day for witnesses to come forward for this study. Also, earlier this afternoon we heard another motion for time allocation.

Why does the member opposite have such a hard time parsing simple and substantive, when both of those measures were simple and substantive?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, having watched and participated in the debate over these many months, I know how much this means to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages. In fact, it means so much to him that he mistakes approaching members from our caucus in back hallways for consultation with Canadians.

He wants it so badly that he gets the process of consultation backwards. He had the plan. He announced the plan. He announced how much money he would spend, and then he embarked on a bogus consultation with Canadians. He has already made the decision. Now he is asking Canadians to give him some cover on that decision.

He has spent an extra $1 million on the consultation on the name change. Only the Conservatives would call this an inconsequential, non-controversial move. Only the Conservatives would call $26 million they plucked out of thin air a non-controversial move, because of course, this is the government that has lost $3.1 billion and cannot seem to find it. This is a minister who hired a staffer who is now under a cloud of indictment in Montreal. We do not need a lecture on leadership from this minister on this file or on any others, for that matter.

I would ask the minister how he got the process so wrong. Why was he so blinded by his own ambition on this?

[Canadian Heritage, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Museum of Civilization spent $70,000 to cancel a historical undergarment exhibit, but reports say this was due to the mandate change. However, in truth, the decision was made before the government announced any changes to the museum.

I know Conservatives do not like to reveal a lot, and I suppose we should not be surprised that prudishness is now part of the new mandate, but can the minister tell us whether he or any of his staff had conversations about this international exhibit with museum staff before it was cancelled?

[Library and Archives Canada, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this week, Canadians learned of the Conservative plan to contract out the digitization of content at Library and Archives Canada. This follows layoffs of employees who were responsible for digitizing content. Then there is the online portal, where Canadians will now have to pay to access the archives.

The archives belong to all Canadians. Will the minister now confirm whether or not Canadians will be charged to access our national archives?

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to some of the government members' positions and many of the speeches we have heard tonight on different bills, Canadians might start asking what the government is trying to tell first nations about good governance. Currently it has two members in court trying to keep their seats in the House because they have improperly filed elections receipts. In other words, many of the issues we are debating tonight are about the trust that Canadians have, or do not have, in the government. I am wondering if my colleague would like to comment on the issue of public trust as it pertains to the bill.