Paul Szabo

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a point that has come up several times during debate concerning the determination of premiums for Quebec residents who, under the Quebec system, have substitutes for some of the benefits that are being provided. The parliamentary secretary had indicated that the rate has been set lower than the private insurance rates that would otherwise be available.

This seems like a sloppy way to do it. Indeed, it seems to me that in a number of ways the committee did not have the opportunity to look at the calculations and to receive the information from the proper officials. I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether or not she feels strongly enough that there should be a total review and reassessment of the prescribed rates.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right with regard to the surplus that was accumulated under the EI system. Indeed, it still is owed to workers and to employers. In fact, under the rules guiding it, it has to be disposed of by either lowering premiums or by expanding benefits, and the member is well aware of that.

Does the member realize that under the last budget, the government will set up a separate commission where it will get $2 billion as seed money and then subsequent to that, all premiums will go into the separate commission and all benefits will come out, but the balance of the $50 billion will never be accounted for ever again. This is where the stealing is happening.

Why did the auditor general tell the Government of Canada, Brian Mulroney of the day, to put the EI operations in the government as an indication of its operations, but the current government has not done that and has put it outside again so it can seize the surplus moneys?

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I had asked a question of the parliamentary secretary with regard to the Quebec rates. The parliamentary secretary's response concerned me a little bit. He indicated that it was set at a rate that was lower than private rates available in Quebec.

Considering the range of benefits that are being provided under this bill, I would think it would be extremely difficult to do a very accurate assessment of what a group rate might be. I also understand there were questions about the rate at committee, yet I notice there have been no changes to the legislation to speak of.

If this matter is serious enough, should there not be an undertaking by the government to do an immediate review of the proposed rates to determine whether or not there is a necessity to bring forward an amendment, either in the Senate or subsequently given review of other aspects of the bill?

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for giving us a refresher on this bill.

I know that most hon. members support this bill. I note that very few changes were made at committee. I was hoping that there would be further clarification with regard to the transitioning of workers from full-time employment to self-employment. I can only hope that the system will be sympathetic to those who find themselves transitioning to self-employment by personal choice.

With regard to Quebec, though, there are a couple of different scenarios because of the different benefit availabilities there. I understand that a concern was raised at committee with regard to the calculation of the benefits to be payable. An amendment on that was considered at committee but defeated. I understand there is still some question about whether or not the computation of the benefits available in Quebec is in fact correct in the bill as it stands now.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could assure the House that the questions raised with regard to the formula for Quebec benefits has been checked by officials and is indeed correct.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to present another petition from constituents in my riding of Mississauga South who are Nortel retirees, pensioners or those who receive benefits under that plan for a long-term disability. It is a very serious situation.

The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of Parliament that they wish to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect the rights of all Canadian employees to ensure that employees laid off by a company, who receive a pension or a long-term disability benefit during bankruptcy proceedings, obtain preferred creditor status over other secured creditors. They also ask that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be amended to ensure that employee-related claims are paid from the proceeds of Canadian asset sales before funds are permitted to leave the country.

It is a very serious situation. I hope the government will heed these petitioners.

[December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the issue here is that the minister has responsibility for the Toronto Port Authority separate and apart from the issues related to the Minister of Natural Resources.

When there are allegations of wrongdoing, when there is improper use of government-funded resources for political fundraising, when there are doctored board minutes, when there is lavish spending on steak dinners for 50 people at a cost of $9,000, the board has an obligation to protect the assets and to act responsibly. Clearly, this is not the case.

This is now a matter between the Minister of Transport and the board of directors of the Toronto Port Authority. He has that responsibility. He must look into it. If he does not, then he is doing so wilfully to cover-up.

[December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on October 5 I posed a question to the government regarding the ethical conduct of the Minister of Natural Resources.

In response to my question on October 5, the Minister of Transport said:

We have brought in the toughest accountability rules in the history of this great country. We are committed to running a clean, open and transparent government....

However, this is obviously not the case, as the Ethics Commissioner has now called for a full inquiry into the ethical conduct of the minister, based on the evidence obtained by her in a preliminary inquiry.

There are a number of questions to be asked and the government continues to stonewall by saying it wants to wait until the Ethics Commissioner finishes her job.

However, the fact remains that under subsection 41(1) of the Canada Marine Act, the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the port authority, has the authority to ask for a special review. It is his own authority and it can happen as often as he wishes.

There are questions to ask of the port authority board. The central questions include the following. Why was so much money spent on luxurious meals? Some $50,000 was spent by the Minister of Natural Resources in her role as the president and CEO of the Toronto Port Authority at the time and by other senior managers at the plush Harbour Sixty Steakhouse located downstairs in their office building over the eight months of 2008. That was $50,000, including one $9,000 lunch for 50 people on one particular day. Just exactly what costs so much? Who was present? What was discussed? What port authority business was conducted at those meals to possibly justify those expenses? What was the expense approval policy in force at the time? What evidence is there that the policy was honoured?

Why did the chair of the board of directors, Mr. McQueen, cast the deciding vote in January 2009 to suppress an inquiry into another $65,000 spent by the Toronto Port Authority to give legal advice to him and to the Minister of Natural Resources in her prior role as president and CEO of the port authority? The inquiry was supposed to determine whether the advice was personal to them and, therefore, improperly paid for by the Toronto Port Authority, or to the benefit of the port authority and, therefore, properly disclosed to the port authority board.

Finally, there also is the question of why were the board minutes doctored by the chairman, Mr. Mark McQueen, last December, six months after they had been approved by the then board of directors when he was not even the chair? I am pretty sure approved minutes should not be altered. It appears that it is meant to cover up political interference and improprieties, and the government is co-operating.

If the government does not call a special review, which the Minister of Transport is authorized to do, notwithstanding the conclusions of the Commissioner of Ethics, clearly the government is not part of the solution but part of the problem and is participating in a cover-up.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that one of the more fundamental issues through this whole debate and in the call for the inquiry has to do with the accessibility of documents. There are some questions about why they were redacted and whether or not the Canada Evidence Act is sufficient justification for not making those available.

However, the issue really is that the government has withheld this information for some time. It is clear from those documents that have been obtained from public sources that it was virtually impossible to fully understand the import of these documents. There appears to be a reason why the government wants to hide something, simply because it is saying that the generals have indicated that there is nothing in these letters that mention torture or indicate any allegations of torture.

If that is the case, why would the government not take all reasonable steps to ensure that the committee members were apprised and had access to that to verify that there is what the generals say there is not?

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government is on the defensive and has tried to switch the channel time and time again. I do not want to get into a pissing match, as it were, with the government, but I want to encourage the committee members to push the envelope with regard to the powers available to committees.

The committee has already said that if it can get those documents, witnesses such as Colvin, Hillier and the other two generals could be called back. I believe that once they have had the opportunity to examine the documents, those witnesses should be called back before committee. We should demonstrate to Canadians that we can do this.

However, if it is frustrated again by the government stonewalling, clearly the case would have been made for the necessity of a public inquiry. Having to call for one, simply is an admission that Parliament cannot do its job if this is not successful. If the government does not call a public inquiry, I hope the committee will dig in its heels and exercise the full authority it has to get the truth.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time to answer the question fully but I understand it.

I do not want to speculate on what the government's motivation is. However, I know, after the time I have been in this place, what the powers of committees are and the delegated authority from the House to committees. The issue has to do with those documents, without which the committee members could not possibly ask the very best questions they would be capable of if they had access to them.

The question is the accessibility of documents. I believe there are two ways to deal with it.

The first is to get the ruling from the Speaker with regard to the minister's statement in this place that he has been relying on the Canada Evidence Act to say that is why only redacted documents are going to be available to the committee. Let us assume there is a legal reason why the committee in its public forum could only get redacted documents.

Another opportunity for the committee would be to have those members of the committee who are not already privy councillors to be sworn into the Privy Council and then to meet in camera to examine the documents to satisfy themselves that the representations made by the government, that there are no torture references, et cetera, could be resolved at least for the benefit of all the committee.

We have the tools. Let us use them.