Candice Bergen

[Housing, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the question. It has taken a very long time to get a question on housing from that new member.

I am very proud of what we have been able to accomplish in terms of supporting the provinces. That member might not realize, but there is life outside of Toronto.

Across Canada, provinces are investing in housing with the funds that we have provided. I have just made announcements across the country. We are very proud of our investments.

We will continue to support the provinces and cities across the country that know how to address their housing needs.

[Housing, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that question, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about what our government has been doing to help the housing crunch and to work with our partners.

I have been travelling across the country over the summer, signing investment in affordable housing agreements: $801 million in Ontario alone; $1.25 billion across the country.

Whether it is our homelessness partnering strategy to help those who are homeless, our investment in affordable housing, or retrofitting and renovating social housing, we are helping provinces and municipalities with their housing needs.

[Employment Insurance, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the EI system is designed to help Canadians who are out of work through no fault of their own. In this system, though, people who are working and pay into the system then qualify for that EI program. Eight-two per cent of those who are unemployed have qualified for it.

The suggestion from the opposition that those who have not actually paid into the system should somehow collect EI is preposterous.

[Employment Insurance, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member has the facts absolutely wrong. The facts are that those who are unemployed and have paid into the EI system are collecting. Eighty-two per cent of those are collecting EI and are eligible.

I do not know if the opposition is suggesting that individuals who have never paid into EI, never been part of the program, should collect EI. I do not think that is how Canadian taxpayers want their dollars spent.

[Social Development, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest concerns facing families that have children with disabilities is what will happen to those children when they are gone. That is why our government created the registered disability savings plan. It is a great savings vehicle as well as a very generous program that our government has created under the leadership of our Prime Minister.

Sadly, the opposition never supports these great initiatives, but families that have children with disabilities can count on us to do the right thing for them.

[Employment, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that investigations are ongoing and we will ensure that anyone who has abused the temporary foreign worker program is held to the fullest extent of the law and accountability.

The irony is the majority of letters and contacts we get from the opposition on temporary foreign workers ask for more temporary foreign workers in their ridings.

[Employment, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the majority of temporary foreign workers did require an LMO. That has been replaced by the more rigorous LMIA.

I am not sure if the New Democrats are suggesting that we make major changes to the agricultural stream, which is working very well. Instead, we made rigorous changes to the part of the temporary foreign worker program whereby Canadians were not getting jobs or Canadians were being fired to be replaced with temporary foreign workers.

We made those changes June 20, we are implementing them, and we are looking forward to good results.

[Employment, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if the member has any information regarding specific employers that have laid off Canadians to replace them with temporary foreign workers, we would like that to be reported.

Here are some of the changes we have made. On top of a major fee increase from $250 to $1,000 per application, we have ensured that employers, for example, with 10 or more employees applying for a new LMIA are subject to a cap of 10% on the proportion of their workforce.

There are a number of changes that we have made. The New Democrats do not support the changes. They are all over the map when it comes to temporary foreign workers. We will not trust them on this one.

[Employment, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we have made substantive changes to the temporary foreign worker program because we believe Canadians should always have first crack at those jobs.

That member could ask the business community how these changes have affected it and the fact that it has had to revamp how it will fill those positions. Instead, the opposition continues to ask us for more temporary foreign workers.

[Housing, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues that I would like to clarify for the member. First of all, the pyrrhotite issue falls directly under provincial jurisdiction. Building codes fall under provincial jurisdiction. Secondly, the recent court ruling did rule that industry was entirely responsible. In fact, it was 100% responsible. About 70% of it was SNC-Lavalin.

The member needs to become familiar with the case and with what is under provincial jurisdiction.