Chris Charlton

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech on the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which, indeed, is Canada's most popular museum. I welcome the opportunity to make just a few brief comments.

One of the things that always strikes me about the Conservatives is that they claim to be interested in history, but they have already gutted Canada's knowledge and research communities throughout the government and all over Canada. It has fired and muzzled archeologists, archivists and librarians. It has gutted the national historic sites, Parks Canada and our national archives. If the Conservatives were truly interested in Canadian history, cuts, mismanagement and interference would stop now.

I am really concerned about the direction we are taking with this bill, and I want to ask the member specifically about women.

This is the history of the government. When I was first elected in 2006, they started with taking equality out of the mandate of Status of Women and cut the funding. They now have also blocked efforts, most recently at the UN, to address sexual violence against women. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has pointed out that a history narrated by the classic heroes risks relegating women to a secondary rank.

I wonder if the member would tell us whether he thinks it would be more appropriate that the content of the museum be defined by museology professionals, such as historians, anthropologists, archivists, and librarians, than of by politicians?

[Ethics, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, senators knew for a year and a half but no one thought to tell the boss. Seriously?

Senator Tkachuk knew there was an issue with Pamela Wallin's expenses at the end of 2011, but Senator Stewart Olsen knew there was an issue in the fall of 2012. But it took until the spring of 2013 for an audit to finally be conducted.

Senior Conservative senators knew about these problems. Why did they cover them up? Why did they not say anything?

[Ethics, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate subcommittee that is reviewing expenses has known for a year and a half about problems with Pamela Wallin's travel claims, yet the Conservatives and Liberals ganged up to keep it a secret. Only now is Senator Wallin being fully audited.

If the Senate first learned about these suspicious claims at the end of 2011, when did the Prime Minister or anyone in his office first learn about problems with Senator Wallin's expenses?

[Employment Insurance, June 10th, 2013]

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?

[Government Appointments, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is pretty simple.

People like Margot Ballagh, Claude Durand and Neil Nawaz broke donation rules by giving money to the Conservative Party after their first patronage appointment. However, instead of being punished, they are being rewarded by the Conservatives with yet another plum patronage appointment.

What is it about these Conservatives that makes them believe that the rules do not apply to them? Is it really possible that they still do not understand that they are not above the law?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, June 3rd, 2013]

With regard to the Employment Insurance Stewardship Pilot program: (a) what is the rationale for this program; (b) when was the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development first made aware of this pilot program in any form (concept, draft or final); (c) did this program have Ministerial approval at any stage; (d) if yes to (c), when did the Minister provide approval in any form (concept, draft or final); (e) what is the total cost of this program, including the total cost for all travel for each employee; (f) what is the total number of Full-Time Equivalent employees required for this program; (g) what is the total number of Full-Time Equivalent employees required as investigators for this program; (h) what was the total amount of overtime to date; (i) what is the total number of reviews for Employment Insurance (El) benefits claims under this pilot program that occurred at the claimants’ residence; (j) what is the total number of reviews for El benefits claims under this pilot program broken down by (i) geographic area, (ii) province, (ii) previous employment industry, (iii) any other grouping or criteria used for processing; (k) what is the total number of reviews for EI benefits claims under this pilot program made on the self-employed, broken down by (i) geographic area, (ii) province, (iii) previous employment industry, (iv) any other grouping or criteria used for processing; (l) what is the total number of “last employer or relevant third parties” contacted for verification of reviews for EI benefits claims; (m) what is the total number of on-site visits to employers to view and verify Record of Employment information for reviews for EI benefits claims; (n) who are the members of the Program Stewardship and Analysis team; (o) how many analysis reports did the Program Stewardship and Analysis team produce, including dates and internal unique identifying or tracking numbers for each report; (p) who designed the Detailed Investigative Technique Tool; (q) who approved the Detailed Investigative Technique Tool; (r) what were the phases of approval of the Detailed Investigative Technique Tool; (s) when was the Minister first made aware of the Detailed Investigative Technique Tool in any form (concept, draft or final); (t) who are the members of the EI Stewardship Review (EISR) Working Group; (u) how were the members of the EISR Working Group chosen or appointed; (v) who selected the members of the EISR Working Group; (w) how often did the members of the EISR Working Group meet (include dates and locations for each meeting); (x) what was the total cost of the members of the EISR Working Group (broken down by travel type, accommodations, meals, and other expense categories available); (y) who did the members of the EISR Working Group report to; (z) what are the dates of the conference calls undertaken by the EISR Working Group; (aa) what was the StreetSweeper software date of utilization; (bb) who approved StreetSweeper software for this pilot program; (cc) who were the Business Expertise Consultants listed by region; (dd) as a result of the reviews under this pilot program, how many were finalized as a Case in Order; (ee) as a result of the reviews under this pilot program, how many were finalized as a prepared Report of Investigation for Processing and Payment Services Branch adjudication; (ff) why were the timelines for Planning, Pilot, Finalization of Reviews and Review/Analysis chosen; (gg) why was the March, 2013, deadline chosen for the Finalization of Reviews; (hh) why was the November, 2012, to February 2013, timeline chose for the “pilot” section of this program; (ii) who designed the EI Stewardship Review Survey list of Client Interview review points/questions; (jj) who approved the EI Stewardship Review Survey list of Client Interview review points/questions; (kk) who designed the EI Stewardship Review Survey list of Employer/Third Party review points/questions; (ll) who approved the EI Stewardship Review Survey list of Employer/Third Party review points/questions; (mm) what is the policy and recommended procedure for inspectors regarding entering the residence of a claimant for the purposes of interviewing regarding the review for El Benefits claims; (nn) what is the policy and recommended procedure of inspectors regarding verifying proof of a child’s identity and parentage for a claimant for the purposes of interviewing regarding the review for El Benefits claims; (oo) what is the policy and recommended procedure for inspectors regarding verifying proof of hospitalization of a claimant for the purposes of interviewing regarding the review for El Benefits claims; and (pp) what is the total number of times employer or third party payroll records were observed under this pilot program?

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the minister try to rationalize why the government has to move closure for the 34th time in this very short Parliament and so far I have not found anything persuasive. Frankly, I am not sure whether she has been following the debate on this bill at all. On this side of the House, we are supporting the bill. We are not trying to hold it up unreasonably. We, like she purports to, believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, but it is a 1,000-page bill.

Whatever happened to the way this place used to run? It is not that I have been here forever, but this is my third term and there were times when House leaders would come to the table, ask each other how much time they needed to debate the bill, what they thought due diligence would look like on a bill and they would negotiate. That is why we did not have these massive numbers of time allocation motions because Parliament worked like it was supposed to. There is a bit of give and take, some bills members pass very quickly, they agree to do that and other bills merit more debate.

Frankly, government members sometimes wanted more debate because they thought the content of their bills was so good, they wanted to ensure every Canadian knew about them. They wanted to have consultations in committee and extensive committee hearings so their supporters could tell everybody that the government was doing a bang-up job. I guess not very many Canadians think the current government is doing a bang-up job because it is sure afraid of hearing from Canadians.

There is nothing wrong with giving a bill good, detailed scrutiny. That is what our job is as parliamentarians. Could the minister explain to the House why her government is so afraid of detailed scrutiny of their bills? What it is trying to hide? What does it not want Canadians to know about?

[Committees of the House, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I come from Hamilton and our community is blessed with a very rich and diverse newcomer community. However, one of the jokes that goes around Hamilton, and sadly it is not very funny, is that the best place for women to have a baby in Hamilton is in a taxi cab because we have so many doctors in our community who are driving cabs instead of doing the job for which they have been trained.

I listened to the member's speech with great interest. She is very eloquent and right in her analysis of what needs to be done to make it possible for foreign trained professionals to succeed in Canada. The loss of their skills is a loss to our whole community. Certainly, it is to them and their families, but it is also a lost to our community and indeed to our whole country.

Canada kind of engages in false advertising when it comes to the recognition of credentials. We give people extra points because of their academic qualifications and because of their language skills. We encourage them to come here with their families and once they get here, we point the finger at the provincial governments and say that they have not done enough and it is their fault that folks are unable to get jobs here.

Could the member comment, once again, on how important it is that we do not engage in that kind of false advertising and that we provide real and meaningful support to newcomers so they can excel and help us build the Canadian economy?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, respecting their participation at, one, the 126th IPU Assembly and related meetings in Kampala, Uganda, from March 31 to April 5, 2012; two, the meeting of the Steering Committee of the Twelve Plus Group in Paris, France, on February 25, 2013; three, the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York City, on March 5, 2013; four, the 128th IPU Assembly and related meetings in Quito, Ecuador, from March 22 to 27, 2013.

[Government Appointments, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again: “Who you know in the PMO is not merit”.

Despite clear rules that board chairs are not supposed to engage in political activities, it is reported that at least $37,000 was donated to the Conservative Party from members of the soon-to-be defunct EI board of referees. Instead of punishing their appointees for breaking the rules, the Conservatives rewarded some of them with yet another plum patronage appointment to the Social Security Tribunal.

When will the government do the right thing, instruct the Conservative Party to pay back the illegal donations and stop the gravy train?