Chris Charlton

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent to see the calendar as Friday.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the vote be deferred to Tuesday, May 28 at 9:30 p.m.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech on the bill. I thought it was very well thought out. I was particularly interested in his opening comments in which he talked about the power of the executive, the power of the cabinet to make decisions that troubles even the government's own backbenchers, frankly, as we have read in the media in recent days and weeks. That is troubling, especially when we reflect on the things that have happened in the media in the last couple of weeks. Accountability really is at the core of what we are trying to establish, and the bill again tries to undermine some of that accountability.

Conservative Senator Linda Frum said: “Incorporation by reference is a widely used drafting technique currently, but this bill would legitimize it...”. This is really important. She is saying they are doing it already on the government side, but what they are trying to do now is cover themselves after the fact by bringing in legislation that would validate what they have been doing 170 times already.

I am not sure we want to provide that kind of cover retroactively. I wonder if my colleague could comment on whether he thinks it is appropriate to use a Senate bill to cover the government's butt—it is not Hamilton language, but it is probably as parliamentary as I can get here—whether that is an appropriate use of this kind of legislation to cover something that the executive has been doing without, frankly, the requisite authority.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member on her speech. It was an excellent speech. I want to commend her in particular for the way she has been answering the questions put by both the Conservatives and her Liberal colleagues.

My question for the member is about the fact that we are sitting in a House facing a government whose members constantly say their government is all about law and order. If the Conservatives are serious about their law and order agenda, and if ignorance of the law is no excuse, then the law has to be accessible to Canadians.

One of the things I am profoundly worried about when I look at incorporation by open reference is that Canadians will not have access to the law. In some instances, if the regulation is done by a private corporation, Canadians may even have to pay to get access to those regulations. How can we ask Canadians to be responsible under our laws and regulations if we do not give them access to those laws?

Can the member comment as to whether she is equally concerned? Does she not think there is a bit of hypocrisy here when this kind of bill comes forward from a law and order government?

[Government Appointments, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, just days after the government's EI board appointees were caught giving improper donations to the Conservative Party, which have not been paid back, it is clear that the minister is on yet another partisan appointment binge. The new Social Security Tribunal is being stacked with failed federal and provincial Conservative candidates, members of Tory riding associations and even a former provincial Tory cabinet minister.

What will it take for the government to get the message that “who you know in the PMO” is not merit?

[Government Appointments, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, insiders are allowed to play by different rules than the rest of us. The Conservative appointees to EI boards clearly violated government guidelines when they donated money to the Conservative Party.

Now, we learn that the Conservatives are repeating their mistakes. They recently appointed 10 more failed Conservative candidates and party operatives to the new Social Security Tribunal.

When is the minister going to stop these patronage binges and when is the government going to make the Conservative Party return these donations?

[Youth Unemployment, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives lament a skills shortage in Canada and see temporary foreign workers as the only solution. What they refuse to see is the potential of our country's unemployed youth.

Canada-wide, the youth unemployment rate now stands two points higher than it did seven years ago. That is a net loss of 50,000 youth jobs.

In my hometown of Hamilton, youth unemployment is double the national average. For those who do find work, a Social Planning & Research Council study shows that the reality is very different from what it was in the 1970s. Many youth now face lower wages, fewer hours, decreasing access to permanent jobs and more time unemployed between contracts. TD Economics has said that the spike in youth unemployment will cost our economy over $10 billion. Maclean's magazine is referring to young Canadians as the new underclass. Everyone is seized with the problem except the government.

Canada's youth deserve better. They are the most educated and skilled generation in Canada's history. It is time to help them reach their full potential. It is time for the Conservative government to develop a comprehensive youth employment strategy.

[Committees of the House, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Prime Minister should not have left the country. I think this may be the first time that two Conservatives are not on the same page with respect to their talking points. I asked the member for Calgary Northeast about the details of the Canada jobs grant and he said that he was still out there consulting, yet the Minister of Labour just said that she was really excited about this program. She must know some details that the member for Calgary Northeast does not. However, I want to ask her about something more specific today.

She will know that one of the ways to fill a skills shortage in the country is by assisting people with labour mobility. We have people in some parts of the country who are unable to access employment whereas we have skills shortages in other parts of the country and there is an opportunity for us to do the right thing and bring people together.

The minister knows, because she has been lobbied by people in my riding, including Joe Beattie from the Hamilton-Brantford Building Trades Council, about my Bill C-201, which would facilitate such labour mobility for people who are working more than 80 kilometres away from home to be eligible for a tax credit for accommodation and travel expenses. The bill was actually supported in the HUMA committee recommendations. Could the Minister of Labour tell the House today whether she also supports the bill?

[Committees of the House, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I followed the member's speech with great interest. We serve on the committee together, so I know his perspective on many of these issues quite well.

I want to ask him specifically, though, about the part of his speech in which he talked at length about the Canada job grant. He talked about it in much the same way that the TV ads do. He lauded it as a great program, as the next best thing for Canadians who are looking to upgrade their skills, yet the program does not actually exist.

What we know about the job grant is that there is an ad campaign running in the middle of NHL hockey games, I think to the tune of $90,000 per ad, about a program that advertises the Canada job grant, which does not exist.

I wonder if the member, because he talked about it in his speech, knows more about it than the rest of us in this House do. If he does, I wonder whether he would share those details with the rest of us.

I would ask him quite directly here, since he raised it, to give members of this House the details of the Canada job grant and how it would help people in my community of Hamilton Mountain and, indeed, people right across this country.

[Committees of the House, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the member that our committee has also conducted a comprehensive study of apprenticeship programs and the need for serious investments in apprenticeships. It is something Canada has not taken very seriously in the past. We should follow the path of countries like Germany, which have invested in youth, in that country in particular, and have made sure that they have the skills their labour force needs, not just now but into the future. That is the kind of progressive planning Canada needs to do. It is a positive investment in our youth and is also a positive investment in our economy and in our future.