Chris Charlton

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate all day, with great interest. I want to follow up a bit on the events of last night and relate them to what is happening in the House today.

Yesterday, the NDP brought forward a very important motion in the House calling for the abolition of the Senate. We had a very interesting vote. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals voted to maintain the Senate, and only the New Democrats voted to abolish it.

Today we are faced in the House with a debate on a bill that is entitled Bill S-9, as opposed to C-9, indicating that the bill originated in the Senate. I would suggest that when it comes to nuclear safety and we are talking about keeping citizens of our country safe, that this might be something worthy of talking about first in the democratically elected body, which would be the House of Commons. Yet, clearly that did not happen here. Once again, the parliamentary process has been turned on its head. It used to be that we thought of the Senate as the chamber of sober second thought. I am pleased to see that clearly the Conservatives do not think it fills that role either because, in fact, they are now getting the Senate to introduce the bills, not to act as a check. We have been saying all along that the Senate should not, nor does it, fulfill the role of being a check on what happens in the House of Commons.

Since my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party actually voted in favour of supporting the Senate last night, I wonder whether he might explain why he thinks it is appropriate that a bill as important as one that is entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to nuclear terrorism should originate in the Senate as opposed to in the House of Commons.

[Employment Insurance, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives are not cutting the transfer, why will they not reassure Canadians that they still have access to the training programs they have paid for?

The government has put forward no justification for this latest move. These investments train tens of thousands of Canadians every year and help get unemployed Canadians back to work.

At a time when so many are still struggling to get back on their feet, the government is cutting the legs out from under their provincial partners. What is its justification for this outrageous money grab?

[Employment Insurance, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are playing fast and loose with the rules, and now they are playing fast and loose with training dollars.

This money comes out of the EI fund, out of the pockets of workers and employers. This is not the government's money. The government is removing training dollars, making substantial changes to the training program, all without proper consultation.

Since the government is spending millions sending investigators to the doorsteps of EI claimants, why does it not take the opportunity to start consulting them instead of interrogating them like criminals?

[Employment Insurance, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is more interested in intimidating Canadians than she is in helping them get the services they need. The government's own documents show a $36 million cut to citizen-centred services, but its infamous pogey police are getting a whopping $35 million budget increase.

Just like her talking points, the minister's priorities are all wrong. If she is serious about weeding out ineligible claims, why will she not reinvest in the services that help Canadians and support the front-line workers who help Canadians fill out the forms correctly in the first place?

[Employment Insurance, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we just cannot get a straight answer out of the minister.

After denying it for weeks, the HRSDC minister finally admitted that bureaucrats are given targets for cutting people off EI. This is the same as a quota. Staff reviewing claims are given quotas and are paid bonuses for rejecting EI claims. How can out-of-work Canadians expect their claims to be judged in a fair and impartial way when the Conservatives have already decided that they are guilty until proven innocent?

[Employment Insurance, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today seasonal workers showed up at the minister's door to tell her exactly what they think of her short-sighted cuts to EI.

When I look out at them in Ottawa here today, I do not see fraudsters and cheats. I see honest, hard-working seasonal workers who want the minister to explain why she is coming after them. I see workers from seasonal industries threatened by politically driven Conservative cuts.

When will the minister call off her witch hunt, cancel her unfair cuts and finally start listening to the industries, provinces and people affected?

[Employment Insurance, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives accept no ministerial accountability, no Senate accountability and have no respect for the unemployed. Yesterday, the minister would not even use the word “unemployed”. She called it “transitioning to another job”. She did not call them “quotas”. She called them “performance objectives”. All this from the same minister who called the EI program “lucrative”. Playing semantic games does not answer the legitimate concerns of Canadians.

When will she take accountability for her department's quotas, targets and objectives and finally admit that she misled the House?

[Workplace Safety, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, no one should leave their home in the morning wondering whether today is the day that they die at work, but in our country three people are killed on the job every working day. Tragically, left behind are families and friends who are devastated by the loss of their loved one.

Thankfully, since 2003, they have been able to turn to Threads of Life, a national charity that is dedicated to helping Canadians who have been affected by a workplace fatality, life-altering injury or occupational disease. Threads of Life provides a network of hope and healing to more than 1,200 families and champions of workplace health and safety.

On May 5, in more than 30 communities across Canada, people will walk in Steps for Life to support Threads of Life families. I am thrilled to be the honorary chair of the 2013 Steps for Life walk in Hamilton. My hope is that soon such walks will not be necessary. We all know there is no such thing as a workplace accident. Every single occupational fatality and disease is preventable.

What we need is labour legislation with teeth. I urge the Conservatives to act on that now. I hope all MPs will visit stepsforlife.ca to see how they can help. It is a matter of life and death.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debate all day, and I certainly know that the courts have established new parameters for the protection of privacy. We and all Canadians would expect the House to follow those parameters.

Most Canadians who were here for the debate on Bill C-30 have good reason to be concerned about the Conservatives' privacy legislation, and their record in this regard is far less than encouraging. The member started to talk about that in some detail, but for folks in my community of Hamilton Mountain that is probably the number one concern: How can we be assured that our privacy is protected, even though we understand there may be times when law enforcement officials need to be able to access some of that information? There has to be accountability. There has to be oversight. How can we make sure we are actually living within the spirit of what the courts are demanding of us?

I wonder if the member might want to take a couple more minutes, because I know his time here was brief, to talk about those issues in more detail.

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, instead of going after unemployed Canadians, the government should be going after their unaccountable senators.

On February 1, the minister stood in the House and claimed, “Departmental employees do not have individual quotas”, yet today, the media are reporting that she cancelled those quotas.

Could she explain to the House how she can cancel something that did not exist?