Chris Charlton

[Employment Insurance, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians questioned Conservative legislation on privacy concerns, we were accused of standing with child pornographers. Now the Conservatives are resorting to name-calling again, accusing anyone who opposes their EI cuts and quotas of defending fraudsters. Canadians who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, deserve better than a minister who calls EI too lucrative and who guts it at every turn.

When will the minister stop demonizing the EI recipients and admit that the vast majority are hard-working people who simply want to access the benefits that they themselves paid for?

[Employment Insurance, February 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, instead of calling EI recipients bad guys, this minister needs to be honest with Canadians.

The Conservatives are forcing hard-working Canadians to travel farther and accept less pay for their work. They cut benefits and reduce eligibility. They fail to create jobs, but take absolutely no responsibility. Instead, they set quotas for cutting more people off EI and quotas for reducing benefits.

Service Canada staff should be rewarded for helping people in need, not receive bonuses for cutting people off EI. Why are the Conservatives adding insult to injury for out of work Canadians?

[Employment Insurance, February 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives turning a blind eye to all those being thrown out of work, they have now set quotas for more cuts.

It does not matter that people have paid into EI their whole life, the Conservatives have now set quotas for EI investigators to further reduce EI benefits. In fact, they are required to save almost $150 million through those quotas.

After failing to create jobs, why are they reducing EI eligibility and instituting quotas for further gutting of EI?

[Employment Insurance, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the government's talking points clearly do not fit the reality that Canadians are facing. There are five unemployed Canadians for every vacant job. It is even worse in the regions that have most to lose from the government's heartless changes.

The minister does not seem to care. If one cannot find a job, one loses one's EI. Will the minister at least admit that this is the exact opposite of what the system is meant to do for workers who have paid for this insurance?

[Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, lost jobs, lost private sector information. I did not think it was possible for the government's record to get even worse.

Over half a million Canadians had their names, social insurance numbers, dates of birth, contact information and loan balances all lost, but it took pressure and several class action lawsuits for the Conservatives to react at all. Now, piece by piece, they are making announcements that frankly are not good enough.

When will the Conservatives properly help these victims and when will they take privacy protection seriously?

[Employment Insurance, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that her EI changes will force out-of-work Canadians to accept a pay cut of up to 30% in their next job, driving down wages and likely pushing some people into poverty.

The minister wants unemployed workers to simply accept low skill, low wage jobs or risk losing their benefits altogether. These are benefits that the workers paid for, not the government.

Jobs are scarce in many parts of our country. Why are the Conservatives punishing Canadians for the government's failure to manage the economy and create decent jobs?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2013]

With regard to the Review of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) that was announced in November 2012: (a) which department is the lead for the review and which departments are involved; (b) what are the Terms of Reference for the Review; (c) what is the scope of the Review; (d) who is the lead conducting the Review, including, (i) their name, (ii) their position and department or organization, (iii) their duties in relation to the Terms of Reference for the Review, (iv) any other responsibilities or duties they may have with respect to the Review; (e) how was it determined which department would be the lead in the Review; (f) when did the Review begin; (g) what are the titles of any reports or studies being used to conduct the Review and who are the authors; (h) for any consultations that are part of the Review, what third party groups and stakeholders are being consulted as part of the Review, broken down by employers and employer groups representatives, labour unions and employee representative groups, non-profit groups, provinces and territories, and other groups; (i) when and how will consultations happen; (j) when are the results of the Review expected; (k) will the results of the Review be made publically available and, if so, when and how; (l) what are the findings of the Review to date; (m) with respect to the cost of the Review, (i) what is the cost of the Review, (ii) which departments are allocating resources toward the Review, (iii) what is each department allocating to the Review, including staff resources; (n) what concerns were identified within Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) and Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) that led to the Review; (o) when did HRSDC first become aware of the concerns that led to the Review; (p) when did CIC first become aware of the concerns that led to the Review; (q) what specific concerns does HRSDC have about HD Mining Ltd following the rules under the TFWP and when did CIC first become aware of these concerns; (r) what specific concerns does CIC have about HD Mining Ltd following the rules under the TFWP and when did CIC first become aware of these concerns; (s) what communications has HRSDC or CIC had with the Government of British Columbia with respect to any concerns about HD Mining Ltd following the rules under the TFWP; (t) with respect to the Labour Market Opinions (LMOs) that are subject to the Review, (i) how many LMOs will be subject to the Review and for which employers, (ii) what will the Review of each of those LMOs entail, (iii) what impact will the Review have on the status of these LMOs during the Review, (iv) what are the possible impacts of the Review on the status of these LMOs once the review is complete; and (u) for the CIC work permits that are subject to the Review, (i) how many work permits will be subject to the Review and for which employers, (ii) what will the review of each of those work permits entail, (iii) what impact will the Review have on the status of these work permits during the Review, (iv) what are the possible impacts of the Review on the status of these work permits once the review is complete?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2013]

With regard to Employment Insurance (EI), for each of the past seven fiscal years as well as the year-to-date: (a) what was Service Canada's overall budget for EI; (b) what was Service Canada's budget for processing EI applications; (c) what was Service Canada's budget for EI call centres; (d) what was Service Canada's budget for reviewing EI appeals before they reached a hearing; (e) what was Service Canada's budget for investigating fraud; (f) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to EI overall; (g) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to processing EI applications; (h) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to EI call centres; (i) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to reviewing EI appeals before they reached a hearing; (j) how many staff did Service Canada allocate to investigating fraud; and (k) how many members of the Board of Referees were there, broken down by region and position?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2013]

With regard to Labour Market Opinions issued by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) how many staff are allocated to process applications, broken down by region or province; (b) how many staff are allocated to monitor compliance, broken down by region or province; (c) how many processing positions will be cut as a result of the 2012 staffing reductions, broken down by region or province; (d) how many compliance monitoring positions will be cut as a result of the 2012 staffing reductions, broken down by region or province; (e) in 2012, how many applications have there been for regular Labour Market Opinions, broken down by (i) region or province, (ii) month, (iii) positive and negative decisions; (f) in 2012, how many applications have there been for Accelerated Labour Market Opinions, broken down by (i) region or province, (ii) month, (iii) positive and negative decisions; (g) between 2006 and 2012-to-date, what percentage of companies applying for a regular Labour Market Opinion have been monitored for compliance, broken down by (i) region or province, (ii) year; (h) what percentage of companies applying for an Accelerated Labour Market Opinion have been monitored for compliance in 2012, broken down by (i) region or province, (ii) month; (i) between 2006 and 2012-to-date, how many companies have been found to be in non-compliance with the terms of their Labour Market Opinion; (j) what is the formula or methodology used for determining prevailing wage; (k) what changes have been made to the formula or methodology for determining prevailing wage over the last ten years; and (l) who were the participants in the Labour Advisory Group, what was its mandate, and what changes were made to its mandate over the course of its work?

[Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, January 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is the minister's department is an absolute mess. The loss of personal information for over half a million Canadians has left people wondering if they can trust the government at all. Victims are now on the hook for over $100 million a year to buy back the protection the government so recklessly squandered.

When will the Conservatives take responsibility instead of re-victimizing innocent Canadians?