Philip Toone

[Helping Families in Need Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations. Hon. members will recall that some aspects of this bill are very beneficial. I am very happy to say that we, on this side of the House, are prepared to support this bill.

For example, this bill will allow parents to extend their maternity and parental leave by the number of weeks that their child was hospitalized, which is an improvement over the existing provisions of the Employment Insurance Act. This will make it possible for parents to extend their parental leave by the number of sick days taken during that period. The same goes for time spent serving in the Canadian Forces Reserves. This and many other aspects of the bill are quite worthwhile.

We have heard many times, particularly from the government side, that 6,000 claimants will benefit from this amendment to the Employment Insurance Act. There are well over a million unemployed workers in Canada, 870,000 of whom are not eligible for employment insurance benefits. Only 4 out of 10 unemployed workers are eligible for employment insurance benefits; 6 out of 10 ten are not eligible.

I am very pleased that the government is giving benefits to 6,000 claimants in Canada for very worthwhile reasons, and we certainly support that. However, this helps only 0.27% of all unemployed workers in Canada: those who are eligible for employment insurance benefits. There is a great deal of work to be done with regard to employment insurance. We are far from meeting the real needs of Canadians.

Allowing families to collect employment insurance benefits in difficult situations, particularly those involving their children, is certainly a good thing. We completely agree. We must help these people. The health of a child is at risk, as is the mental health of parents, children and the community in a broader sense. For all of these reasons, it is important to support this bill.

However, what is missing here is support for communities that depend on employment insurance benefits. We have not really talked about the terrible hardship that will be created by the other employment insurance bills proposed by the Conservatives. For example, let us remember that, under Bill C-38, which was passed in the spring, thousands of unemployed workers will not be eligible for employment insurance benefits next year and even this fall because of changes that the Conservatives made to the Employment Insurance Act and the pilot projects that they did away with by amending the act.

It is very troubling. I definitely want to help families in situations where they need more support. However, I also want to help communities, especially those in the regions that depend on a seasonal economy. They depend on employment insurance. In order for the economy to keep going during the summer, these people need to be compensated during the winter months.

I encourage the Conservatives not only to help families who are having difficulties because they have a child with health problems, but also to start treating other claimants and unemployed workers with the same respect. The 6,000 claimants who will benefit from this change include parents of abducted children who will qualify for employment insurance.

The Canadian Police Information Centre reported that, in 2011, 25 kidnappings were committed by strangers and 145 were committed by parents. That is very troubling. Clearly, that is 170 too many abducted children.

Once again, I would like to point out that there are many other needs in Canada. I would remind the House that 870,000 unemployed workers are not eligible for employment insurance. Are we also going to abandon the women who lost their jobs when they went back to work after their parental leave?

The bill does not go far enough. It does not permit special and regular benefits to be combined. It gives the impression of helping people, but if we look at this bill more carefully, we quickly see that many parents will not be able to benefit from the bill's generosity.

The Conservatives ignored the promises they made in their 2011 platform. Indeed, during the 2011 election campaign, they said that they would offer enhanced EI benefits to the parents of murdered or missing children and to the parents of critically ill children. However, they said the funding for this measure would come from general revenues. They seem to have ignored their promises. Most of the funding for this will not come from general revenues, but rather from the EI fund.

Governments have a hard time resisting dipping into the employment insurance fund to pay for their bills. I can see why, since it is a healthy fund, but still, the government has to be consistent. If it promises money from general revenues, then it should come from general revenues.

I would like the Conservatives to note that with this bill, they are finally agreeing with the official opposition on changes to employment insurance. During the 40th Parliament, Bill C-343 would have provided employment insurance benefits to allow parents of missing children to take leave. The Conservatives twice voted against that bill. Then there was an election. We never found out what would have happened at third reading, but we can assume that the Conservatives would have continued to categorically say no. What made them change their minds?

I am very glad that they changed their minds in 2011 and that they made a promise. The bill before us is not exactly what they promised, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, some good opportunities were missed in the past to address some of the problems in our society. Once again, and probably mostly for lack of consultation, the Conservatives have not really identified the other problems faced by our communities. If they had held real consultations, they would have understood that allowing extensions and access to benefits for dependent children under 18 might not be enough.

We should be discussing a bill that meets the needs of parents with dependant children or simply dependants. Often, adults have to look after people older than 18 who have mental health problems. Canada also has an aging population. More and more people have to work in addition to caring for their parents. In situations where dependants have health problems or in potentially more serious situations such as kidnappings, why not give them more benefits and support as well?

In Canada, one in 30 people who are 45 or older look after people who are 65 or older. It is estimated that by 2056, one in 10 will have that responsibility. Thus, more and more people will need more and more help. And yet, it seems that it is difficult getting them this help. The bill before us is a step in the right direction. But, quite frankly, the government could have done much more to lend a helping hand to people in need. It is about time that the Conservatives learned that when you consult people you have to take their needs into account. The Conservatives must listen and get out into our communities. I hope that the other bills they introduce will provide more support than the one we are debating.

[Helping Families in Need Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we definitely always have questions for the member because her speeches are always very interesting, even though they sometimes lack substance.

With regard to the bill before us, did the Conservatives go to communities and did they hear what changes should be made for children with special needs, which is certainly commendable?

What else did the member hear from Canadian communities as to the changes that must be made to the Employment Insurance Act?

[Employment Insurance, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is making it up as she goes along.

This weekend, in the Magdalen Islands, 2,000 people protested against these reforms, which directly target the regions that depend on seasonal work. This is 2,000 people out of a total population of 12,000. Can the minister begin to understand? In all, it is over 800,000 unemployed workers that the Conservatives are letting down. Statistics Canada recently announced that access to employment insurance was at its lowest level in 10 years.

Why reduce access to the employment insurance fund, which belongs to workers and employers?

[Natural Resources, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have mastered the art of incompetence. They are refusing to assume their responsibilities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Last year, the minister flatly refused to hold environmental consultations on Old Harry, despite requests from the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board to do so. Since this affects five provinces, the board does not have the resources it needs to fill the void created by the federal government's disengagement.

When can we expect a real public consultation process?

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Cohen commission revealed serious and persistent Conservative mismanagement of Canada's fishery.

From the feckless Conservative changes to the Fisheries Act that devastated habitat protection to the failure to fund essential fishery sciences and the laying off of countless scientists, Conservative incompetence is putting fisheries at risk.

Will the minister prove he is capable of protecting our fishery and implement the Cohen commission recommendations?

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

I am very interested in seeing where COOGER will take us. I am sure it will be an old story that may be hunting new ideas and I am looking forward to seeing how that will turn out.

I question why we need to create new structures when previous structures were already in place. We already had a number of organizations such as the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which did much of the work that he just described, and it has been cut, to be replaced by new advisory groups that have undefined mandates and memberships.

How will these advisory groups be consulting the population, who will be members and when will we be hearing from them?

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for being present this evening.

The government is cutting budgets for science and research. Over the past year, there have been budget cuts to an unbelievable number of programs and organizations conducting research in a wide variety of fields.

The Experimental Lakes Area program has been eliminated. This internationally recognized program with huge spinoffs for Canada will cost more to close and move than the $2 million that the government hopes to save. Can the Minister explain the logic behind this decision?

At Fisheries and Oceans Canada, there have been a number of budget cuts and layoffs in fields relating to research and science. For instance, the ocean pollution monitoring program has been eliminated, along with its 75 scientist positions.

The Conservatives are eliminating scientist positions at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute. The positions that have been eliminated are all related to the program that studies the effect of contaminants on water and aquatic life. How can the Minister cut programs that have the potential to protect our fisheries and our water?

The Conservatives have closed the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. The FRCC was science-based and assessed the total allowable catches every year. Its objective was to protect the viability of fish stocks. The council protected our fisheries over the long term.

These kinds of budget cuts have dramatic consequences. In the 1990s, nearly 50% of jobs in the fishing economy were lost because the stocks of groundfish, such as cod and redfish, collapsed. This is one example that clearly shows the role that science can and must play.

How can Fisheries and Oceans Canada protect our fisheries over the long term without access to the necessary information? It seems that the only information the Conservatives find acceptable is information that comes from the Prime Minister's Office. If science contradicts what they want to do, they cut budgets.

This is not how a country is supposed to be governed. Information is not supposed to be hidden. Information is supposed to be distributed. The Conservatives must not forget that they are there to serve Canadians, not to control them by preventing science from providing them with information. The Conservatives would know this if they were in the habit of consulting the people before making hasty decisions. It is essential to consult the people on issues that affect them directly.

In Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, we are well aware of this. The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board lacks the resources to consult the people of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The government has decided to withdraw from oil exploration in the Gulf. However, if a catastrophe were to occur, the fishing economy in the Gulf would suffer enormously. If the Conservatives consulted with the scientists, they would know that this is a significant risk. This is a perfect example of information that has not been effectively distributed. How can the government make decisions if it does not have all the information?

Why do the Conservatives not do everything they can to make enlightened decisions? Canadians want to know the facts. The Conservatives do not want to know the facts and seem to prefer working in the dark.

[Employment Insurance, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, more than 2,000 people demonstrated against the changes to employment insurance in Pointe-à-la-Croix and Campbellton. This Saturday, people in the Magdalen Islands will have their turn to speak out against these changes. These people are sending a clear message to the government to stop ravaging their employment insurance. The Conservatives must listen to these people and back down. The changes to EI have serious consequences in my region, where seasonal work represents 80% of the economy. Workers who will not have access to EI will have to leave the region.

Instead of making cuts to the employment insurance program that workers need, the government should try to boost the economy in the regions, such as the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands. It is simple: we must invest in economic development projects to create permanent jobs in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands. The economy will not recover if the government is scrapping Canada Economic Development projects.

The Conservative government must remember that it promised to give power to the regions; not clean them out. It is amazing how the eastern regions stand together. We will not give up.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her very informative and well-thought-out speech. I would like to talk more about the consultation that did take place.

One of the flaws in the bill before us is that there is a lack of consultation, particularly consultation of aboriginal communities. I remind the House that in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Haida Nation v. British Columbia, pointed out there are criteria for effective consultations. There must be a mutual commitment, based on mutual respect, to ensure that the consultation results in sound decisions, and that the consultation process is transparent.

We have heard aboriginal communities tell us many times that the consultation was insufficient—especially in light of the criteria set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. Could my colleague speak to the ineffectiveness of the consultation?

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that they will understand my question better than they did the previous one.

The monster budget bill will have a major impact on fish habitat, and the gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act will affect the lives of thousands of fishers across the country.

The government must listen to fishers. Will the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans commit to studying Bill C-45 in committee, or will he break the Minister of Finance's promise?