House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2011, with 47% of the vote.
Employment Insurance December 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, this week we learned that only one in three people who appeal EI decisions get a hearing within 30 days. Currently, the board of referees collectively spends almost 20,000 days a year hearing appeals. The Conservatives' new tribunal will spend less than half that time. The minister wants us to believe that this will speed up the process. Their actions defy common sense.
Why is the minister refusing to give unemployed Canadians the benefits that they have paid for?
Employment Insurance December 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the new social security tribunal is part of the Conservative agenda to gut services to unemployed Canadians.
Let us do the math. There used to be 700 board members and now there will only be 39. Delays will get worse. The system will be less fair.
Instead of demonizing the unemployed, why will the minister not do the right thing and give people the benefits that they themselves have paid for.
Employment Insurance December 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the minister will say anything to distract people from the mess that she has made of EI.
Her department is not even meeting its own service standards. One in four unemployed are not getting their EI application processed in 28 days. Two out of three calls to EI call centres are not being answered on time. Now we learn that two out of three workers who appeal do not get a hearing within 30 days.
When will the minister take responsibility and fix the problem that she created?
Employment Insurance December 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, a fair process is precisely what they are not getting from the government. The Conservatives tell the unemployed to take any job at any salary or lose their benefits. They claw back benefits from part-time workers who find just a day or two of work each week and they introduce an appeals process that is twice as long and takes away a person's right to defend themself.
Why are the Conservatives denying benefits to the very people who have paid for them? Why are they targeting the unemployed?
Employment Insurance December 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the minister could write an entire manual on how not to reform a government program. Instead of a simpler, fairer process, we get a more complex and less transparent EI appeals process. The Conservatives' new social security tribunal will now have the power to summarily dismiss appeals.
How can one fairly rule on an appeal before one has even heard from the person? Why is the minister turning the EI appeals process into a kangaroo court?
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 November 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, though, I am consistently struck by the fact that the government's spin on the budget bill does not match reality.
I want to remind the member that while the Conservatives have claimed their budget is about job creation, the reality is that even they had to admit it would lead to 19,200 lost jobs in the public sector alone, and the PBO projected a total of 102,000 jobs lost.
Multiple witnesses before the finance committee said that Bill C-45's proposed changes to business R and D support, for example, would kill jobs and hinder innovation, which is a key factor to economic growth. Contrary to the spin, the austerity measures in the bill would be a further drag on the economy.
Would the member want to comment on the supreme irony that we find in the sense of humour of the Minister of Finance when he called this act the “jobs and growth act”.
Petitions November 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, ever since the Prime Minister fled the country last January to announce that he would be raising the age of OAS eligibility from 65 to 67, petitions continue to flood in from the people in my riding of Hamilton Mountain who are opposed to that change.
Since over one-quarter of a million seniors are now living in poverty and public pensions provide, at most, $15,000 to the typical retiree, the petitioners are calling on the government to drop its ill-considered change to the OAS, maintain the current age of eligibility and make the requisite investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.
Human Resources and Skills Development November 22nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago in a statement about the 200 B.C. mining jobs that went to temporary foreign workers, the minister said that she was not satisfied with the process. The company said it followed the rules and would now like to know what she meant, and so would Canadians.
Is she saying that the company was dishonest in its application or is she admitting that she did not apply her own rules appropriately?
Petitions November 19th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Oshawa Port Authority has given permission to FarmTech Energy to build an ethanol-producing facility at the Oshawa harbourfront on Crown land adjacent to a sensitive wetland, which is home to species at risk, a wildlife preserve and a provincial park. However, there was no public consultation and no complete environmental assessment.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to divest the federal port authority to the City of Oshawa, halt the construction of the ethanol facility, instruct that public hearings be held and that a complete environmental assessment be conducted at the site and surrounding areas.
Helping Families in Need Act November 19th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of working with the member on the committee and on the bill. Like him, we too will be supporting the legislation. Like him, we too believe that it is an important first step; but it is just that, a first step in doing right, in particular for parents of murdered and missing children.
I brought up at committee the fact that the government is asking parents to have earned at least $6,500 before they can qualify for a grant supporting them in their time of bereavement. I do not really understand why it should be $6,500, when clearly, if someone is making $10 an hour, they have to work 650 hours to qualify. If the person is making $100 an hour, he or she only has to work 65 hours. Why should that matter if their child is missing or murdered? Surely any parent who is going through that ordeal deserves the government's support without being means tested in such a bizarre way.
My colleague and I from the Liberal Party explored that issue at committee. I think we both agree, but I wonder whether he heard from the minister any explanation at all during the course of this debate about why this kind of means testing is essential in the bill?