House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 48% of the vote.
Afghanistan February 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the international panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan.
I urge all members to read this document carefully. It is critical to the future of the country of Afghanistan and its people, and it is highly significant to the future of Canada as well.
Afghanistan February 6th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the same question. I would point out again that we have a supplementary arrangement that is working very well, which is why this one case that has come to light has been dealt with by the Afghan authorities. They have taken action against the individual involved.
The authority for detaining or not detaining, or transferring or not transferring rests with the Canadian Forces. We trust General Hillier to make the right decisions. We trust his people on the ground to make the right decisions. We will always back them up. We will not override their authority as the other parties would have us do.
Afghanistan February 6th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked and answered many times but the answer remains the same. What I would really like to hear discussed is not potential crime or alleged crime in Afghanistan, but perhaps the Liberals could get their Senate colleagues to do something serious about tackling violent crime and do something serious for crime in Canada.
Department of National Defence February 5th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the contamination in the House, frankly, is from some of the questions across the way.
National Defence follows procedures that are laid down by Canada Post and other people responsible for safety measures. I can assure him of that. If anything comes to our attention that does not follow those procedures, it will be corrected.
Department of National Defence February 5th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence, as do other departments, handles a lot of mail. It handles it safely and according to the regulations put out by Canada Post and other people who are responsible for the safety of those kinds of operations.
I can assure the hon. member that all safety precautions are taken. If anything is amiss, it will be corrected.
Afghanistan January 31st, 2008
Mr. Speaker, for the second year in a row, I celebrated Christmas in Afghanistan. I spoke with our troops, visited development projects and met some of the Afghan people.
One little girl has stayed in my thoughts. She was about six years old, with her whole life before her. That little girl can go to school, drink clean water, have access to health care, grow up and have a job because Canada is in Afghanistan.
I cannot imagine leaving that little girl to the mercies of the Taliban. If we leave Afghanistan now, the Taliban will return and the gains the Afghan people have made will be lost.
The Manley report has clearly stated that a stable and better governed Afghanistan with a growing economy is an achievable Canadian objective.
We do need help and we are calling on our NATO allies to step up to the plate. We are also calling on the Liberal Party to remember its own proud heritage of standing up for oppressed people, even when the job is tough. It was the former Liberal prime minister who coined the phrase “responsibility to protect at the United Nations”. Those cannot be mere words.
I know our troops will rise to the challenge and I am confident that the Canadian people and my colleagues here in the House will do the same.
Evan's Game November 27th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I had the honour to participate in an event that converted the pain of a senseless tragedy into something positive.
Evan's Game was held in honour of Evan Grykuliak who was brutally murdered while celebrating his 17th birthday with family and friends, leaving the whole community in a state of shock.
A soccer game was held between the Edmonton Police Service and the under 18 team that Evan used to captain. The event commemorated Evan's short life, raised public awareness of youth violence and raised funds to support school based violence prevention programs.
EVAN is not just the young man's name. It also stands for End Violence Act Now.
We are acting now, with the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is the number one issue for a great many Edmontonians and other Canadians.
We owe it to Evan. We owe it to his family and friends. We owe it to our communities.
I want to pay tribute to a fine young man whom I will never meet, his family and all of his friends and members of a community with the fortitude to take positive action in the face of a tragedy. Their efforts raised over $25,000 and youth and exuberance triumphed over old age and cunning as the under 18s topped the police team by a score of 5 to 2. That one was for Evan.
Employment Insurance Act November 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-357, presented by the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. This bill proposes significant changes to the financing and governance of the employment insurance program.
Allow me to begin with a brief overview of Canada's current employment situation.
As the House has heard on many occasions recently, the Canadian labour market is continuing to perform exceptionally well. In fact, according to Statistics Canada data, the unemployment rate reached the lowest level in 33 years in October, hitting the 5.8% mark.
During the first quarter of 2007, employment grew by an estimated 158,000 and the good news is that these jobs are paying more than ever. The hourly wage rose by 6% between August 2006 and August 2007.
The economy is booming. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have created winning conditions so that more jobs, better wages and a brighter future can be enjoyed by all Canadians, and we are beginning to see the results.
Even given our strong current labour market, Canada's EI program continues to help Canadian workers adjust to labour market changes, and balance work and family responsibilities. I can assure the House that this government is committed to ensuring that the EI program continues to serve Canadians in an effective and efficient manner.
We have clear evidence to this effect from the Employment Insurance Commission's 2006 EI monitoring and assessment report tabled in the House last April. That report demonstrated and confirmed that EI income support and employment assistance is there for Canadians who experience periods of temporary unemployment. It also demonstrated that the EI program is effective in meeting most claimants' needs in terms of both the amount and duration of benefits.
We recognize that the best solution to unemployment is economic growth, a priority that this government is dedicated to pursuing through our economic plan, “Advantage Canada”.
That said, our government has not hesitated to take action on issues specific to the EI program by doing several things: further reducing the EI premium rate in this fall's economic update; expanding eligibility for compassionate care benefits; launching a pilot project to examine the effects of providing additional weeks of benefits to those in high unemployment regions; and extending EI transitional measures for two regions in New Brunswick and Quebec until the conclusion of the national review of EI boundaries.
The 2007 EI tracking survey, which asked Canadians across the country for their views on the EI program, indicates the majority of Canadians agree that the EI program is working well, which shows that Canadians support this government's approach to managing the EI program.
In addition to EI income support, our government continues to invest over $2 billion per year in active employment measures funded under part II of the Employment Insurance Act, and in partnership with provinces and territories to support the transition to skills training and new jobs for Canadian workers experiencing unemployment. What I have just highlighted is the overview of a program that is without doubt serving Canadians extremely well and responding to new and pressing issues as needed.
Bill C-357's proposals would result in a fundamental shift in how the EI program is managed. For example, the bill proposes significant modifications to the size, composition and mandate of the Employment Insurance Commission.
Under Bill C-357 the commission would increase from four members to 17. The expanded roles and responsibilities of these members, as proposed by the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, would not only become costly and unwieldy, they would also hinder the government's ability to manage and maintain the EI program and make the kinds of improvements that I listed a moment ago.
Moreover, Bill C-357 would result in a broad change to the balance of responsibilities for setting direction on changes to the EI program. Essentially, the bill would place decisions regarding a critical support program for Canadians in the hands of individuals outside government.
If the balance of decision making authority were in the hands of independently appointed commission members, the government's ability to make timely changes to the EI program as needed would be greatly reduced. This shift in the balance of decision making authority could have important consequences for a program that all evidence indicates serves Canadians quite well and, of course, matters would be made more complex given the difficulty of achieving consensus among as many as 17 individuals.
Allow me to remind the House that the current four member commission is composed of two senior public officials, along with one member representing employers and another who represents employees. I should add that only one of the two senior public officials gets a vote. This mechanism provides balanced representation among the EI Commission's members.
The two commissioners for employers and workers also establish and maintain consultations and working relationships with a variety of private sector organizations and individuals who are clients of, or affected by, HRSDC programs and services, particularly in regard to EI.
These relationships fulfill the representational responsibilities of the commissioners and enable them to reflect the concerns and positions of workers and employers regarding the administration, as well as program implementation and delivery.
Bill C-357 also proposes changes to how the EI premium rate is set. In essence, the hon. member's proposals would return the rate setting mechanism to a former process judged by a wide variety of stakeholders to be vague, unsustainable, and the cause of the EI surplus in the first place.
The current rate setting mechanism gives the commission full authority to set the rate and it incorporates a consultation process with employers and labour.
One of the main objectives of this government, when it called for the implementation of the new rate setting mechanism, was to ensure that revenues and expenditures are closely matched. I believe that it is important to give this new rate setting mechanism some time to see if it is working.
I want to emphasize that the EI commission has set the 2007 rate at $1.80, which will save employers and employees $420 million when combined with the increase in the maximum insurable earnings. This is the lowest rate in more than 14 years, while benefits have been maintained and even expanded in many areas.
In determining the rate under the new measure, the EI commission takes into account three factors: the principle that the premium rate should generate just enough premium revenue during the year to cover the payments expected to be made during the year; the chief actuary's report; and, any public input, including results of the consultation session with representatives of business and labour.
Any change to EI financing would of course need to take into account the impacts on employees and employers, beneficiaries, the economy and the EI program itself. These are obviously major considerations on which the health of our economy and our society depends.
That is why our government is committed to ensuring that all EI program changes are founded on sound analysis of evidence, with careful consideration of potential labour market impacts and the cost to individuals.
As I have demonstrated, the changes proposed by Bill C-357 could have very important consequences for our economy and the well-being of Canadians who expect the EI program to serve them in a timely and effective manner when they need it.
For all these reasons, the Government of Canada cannot support Bill C-357 at this time, but we look forward to meaningful study of this bill at the committee stage. Perhaps there are aspects of this bill that can be implemented when this government continues its improvements to the EI program that were committed to in the Speech from the Throne.
Youth Criminal Justice Act November 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist saying that this is just right out of Days of our Lives. Does the hon. member really think that we are going to go down the streets rounding up children, throwing them in jail and giving them 200 lashes each because they are naughty? For crying out loud, this is absolutely outrageous.
Let me ask the member a simple question. Does she think that a curfew for a year is a just penalty for someone who gets three friends together, goes home, gets baseball bats and golf clubs and then knocks on another juvenile's door and, in a premeditated way, beats him to death? Is curfew for a year a just penalty?
Youth Criminal Justice Act November 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague and again I would challenge him on a couple of things.
He talked about the Statistics Canada statistics for crime saying that crime was down. That is true if we talk about all crime, including petty crime. The fact is that petty crime is not reported anymore because nothing is done about it.
The fact is that violent crime and youth crime are up, and we are talking about Bill C-25, the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
He talked about deterrence and prevention. I agree that if someone has already been sentenced that will not deter the person because it is too late. However, it might deter somebody else who looks at somebody actually being caught and actually being held to account for what he or she has done.
If we want to talk statistics, statistically an habitual offender, if he is in jail, will not commit the 15 crimes in the next year that he would have committed had he been on the street. Therefore, we are talking about deterrence, not necessarily of that person but of somebody else. We are talking about the prevention of crimes and, while that person is in jail, whether it is a youth or an adult offender is immaterial, the person will not be committing crimes.
Why does my hon. colleague ignore some statistics and selectively picks others.