Philip Toone

[Food Safety, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, people simply no longer have confidence in this government that refuses to take responsibility.

The tainted meat crisis stretches from coast to coast. The number of people infected keeps growing. Public health officials in Alberta, Saskatchewan and other provinces are currently investigating numerous cases of E. coli.

Could the minister tell us how many cases are currently under investigation and how many have been reported since September 13?

[Food Safety, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is acting as though there were no crisis. Two days ago, he told people to follow his lead and eat beef. But in the meantime, producers and consumers are worried.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued a corrective action request on September 5. People in the Magdalen Islands learned just yesterday that they were sold tainted meat. That is unacceptable. These delays were caused by the lack of front-line inspectors.

Why did the agency not react more quickly to the crisis?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time believing that the Conservatives actually believe in welcoming all immigrants to our country. They seem to have a lot of reserve for an awful lot of them.

In some sense, I totally agree with the member. I hope the member from Winnipeg will be as full of vim and vigour through question period.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the member's interest in criminal matters. I hope he will present a lot of amendments to this bill, as well as all other crime bills the government brings forward. They can all benefit from more debate at second reading.

When bills go too far, we are here to ensure that bills address the real problems of our country, not the fabricated ones the Conservatives keep throwing at us.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her interest in this issue. I am in favour of referring this bill to committee so that we can review it.

This bill gives rise to a lot of discussion and questions. Once again, the Conservatives have introduced a tough-on-crime bill. They are saying that there is a crime problem in this country and that it has to be solved. Statistically, it is quite the opposite; there is less and less crime in this country.

What is the purpose of this bill? Instead of addressing the challenges facing immigrants in this country, this bill comes down hard on crime committed by immigrants. As an hon. member said earlier, the crime rate among immigrants is statistically lower than that among Canadian citizens. In addition, the crime rate is going down.

I will ask this question again: what public policy considerations justify this bill? We have to ask ourselves that question, because this is a very important aspect of the bill. Ministerial discretion has been created for the definition of public policy considerations. Under the bill, the minister can now declare, for a maximum period of 36 months, that a foreign national is inadmissible based on public policy considerations. But the concept of public policy considerations is not defined. The minister has total discretion. We do not understand why the minister should have more power, when a number of immigration tribunals are already hearing immigrants' cases and the reasons why they came to Canada. There are currently enough tribunals to allow immigrants to present their evidence and to justify their place in Canada. There is no need to create another bill that will make the burden of proof heavier on immigrants, when that is not the case for ordinary citizens. Once again, this bill does a poor job of defining the concept of public policy considerations.

Why give the minister so much discretionary power in so many bills? This does not concern just this bill on criminalization in immigration. Almost all the bills that the Conservatives have introduced in the past year broaden ministerial discretion, which decreases the possibility for people to be heard by the tribunals.

Historically, the purpose of democracy was to take discretionary powers away from kings and ministers and to define the powers they have. For the past year in the House, the exact opposite has been happening. This is not normal. A living, breathing democracy should clearly define the government's power. But here, the government is in the process of broadening it.

Bill C-38 creates ministerial discretion with respect to the assessment of environmental projects. From now on, the minister has the right to decide whether or not a project will have to undergo an environmental impact assessment. Previously, certain factors would be used to determine whether or not an assessment would be done, but now it is left up to the minister. With this bill, ministerial discretion is once again being broadened, which I think is unacceptable.

A debate in committee could be useful. That is why, even with the huge reservations I have about ministerial discretion, I will continue to support the bill at second reading.

I also want to point out some inherent problems with the bill, problems that I find really very serious. In the past, in accordance with the act, an immigrant who had been sentenced to two years or more would have his permanent resident status revoked immediately. That is how it still is today. The bill we are looking at proposes reducing that sentence to six months or more. Any permanent resident who is convicted and sentenced to six months or more would lose his or her permanent resident status.

My Conservative colleague pointed out a few minutes ago that we are talking about foreigners and asked why the opposition did not support cracking down on foreign criminals in this country. Right now we are talking about permanent residents; they are not foreign. They have been allowed to enter Canada. We know them. They work here and, for the most part, they are contributing members of society and yet the Conservatives are saying that if they make a mistake, no matter what it is, a six-month prison term will strip them of their citizenship and their permanent resident status. That is it; they will be deported. That is very harsh, extremely harsh. I would like to expand on this in committee. A debate on this would be worthwhile.

Several laws in Canada impose a jail term of six months or more. I can give examples of people I know who have not paid their parking tickets. If too many parking tickets accumulate, a person can be sentenced to six months or more. If someone fails to pay their parking tickets, does that really justify deporting them out of the country? I find that a little much, to be honest.

It is extremely important that this bill be the subject of testimony by expert witnesses. Unfortunately, the people who draft the Conservatives' bill tend to go too far, perhaps because this government has a majority. Sometimes they cannot help themselves. That tends to be the Conservative way. They often appear incapable of seeing the fact that their bills benefit only a very small percentage of Canadians—perhaps those who give more money to the Conservative Party. I do not know, but maybe that it is.

It is very important for these bills to reflect the Canadian reality. I want to point out once again that crime rates are going down in Canada. I know that a few years ago the Conservatives were saying that they wanted to crack down on crime because a lot of crimes are not reported to the police. I am not going to chase shadows here; I am going after real criminals. I want to find a happy medium between protecting Canadian citizenship and an immigrant's right to a fair and equitable process. There is a fundamental right in Canadian law: everyone has the right to be heard. The minister's authority continues to grow. His discretionary powers are looking more and more like the powers of a king. That runs counter to legal tradition in Canada and all Commonwealth countries. The right to be heard is a fundamental right that the government would violate with this bill. This bill must absolutely be sent to committee to be examined carefully.

I hope that all members of the House will be open enough to allow amendments to this bill. Expert testimony will help with this. Many parts of this bill must be broken down, clarified, and debated so that the bill can truly benefit the Canadian public. Ultimately, immigrants must feel that Canada is a welcoming country. Historically, we have always been very open to immigrants, and I hope that we will continue to be.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, October 3rd, 2012]

From fiscal year 2010-2011 to the current fiscal year, what is the total amount of funding that the government had provided, each year, in the riding of Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine, by department or agency, initiative and amount?

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and I truly appreciate his comments.

It is obvious that the members opposite do not understand the people from our regions at all. These people resort to employment insurance not because they do not want to work, but because they are proud of their region, and want to continue living there and contributing to the economy. It is our duty to help them.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his comments.

Definitely, everyone should be taking part in this debate. It is a crucial program—perhaps even one of the two most important federal programs.

There is a clear lack of attention on the part of the members opposite. It is truly disappointing to see how little they are doing to support Canadians, especially those Canadians who need it most.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain why I oppose her tabling that document in the House.

Her comments are already recorded in Hansard. Once again, I would point out that I did not make up what I said. I quoted exactly what she said last Thursday in the House of Commons. It is quite clear.

I invite people to consult the adjournment proceedings in last Thursday's Hansard to read what I just quoted. I think what it says is very enlightening: by all accounts, the government wants to empty the regions.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my presentation today by congratulating the member opposite, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

I too represent a rural region. We certainly do not have any iron smelting plants back home. The mines closed a long time ago, but we still have primary industry, such as the fishery. We have fish processing plants. Our colleague across the way said that employment insurance will ensure that those people can continue to work all year long.

I can assure you that if people were to fish all year long back home, the fishing industry would not be around for very long. It would not take very long before the resource was depleted. A seasonal industry cannot magically be converted into a permanent industry that lasts all year. That is certain. There is no mistaking that many regions in Canada depend on seasonal industries.

Employment insurance has always been there to support these industries, and that is not for nothing. It is not because people do not want to work during the winter or because they are not interested in working. The inescapable reality in Canada is that we have a winter season to contend with. In the winter, a number of industries slow down drastically. There is nothing anyone can do about it. The hon. member from the third party told us about a snowplow operator who might remove snow only one day out of four. A person like that cannot make up work.

I should have mentioned that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I am telling you now, because I will be stopping in about 10 minutes.

To come back to the issue of seasonal work, I would add that the nature of the industry in our regions is such that we cannot just magically create an industry that operates year-round. Employment insurance has a very important role to play in our regions. It is wrong to think that people are not interested in going to work. EI allows our industries, our small and medium-sized enterprises to work to their fullest during the summer and to operate effectively during that time. EI allows regions with a seasonal economy to enjoy a smooth-running, profitable economy during the summer months.

I can tell you that, in the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and a number of regions in Canada with seasonal industries, the summer industries—often tourism, as is the case in my area—are profitable not just for small and medium-sized companies, but also for the government, which collects taxes. These industries create employment and wealth and unfortunately require support.

We can do nothing about the fact that tourists do not visit our area in the winter. There is very little in the Gaspé of interest to tourists in the winter. Naturally, if my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette can find a magic solution to make winter profitable, we will listen. However, until we find a solution, all we can do is find a means of keeping workers in the winter. Then, at the start of the tourist season, in the summer, the trained workers who are familiar with our region are available for work and can start right at the beginning. They are trained workers.

If we lose these workers because of reforms to employment insurance, if they are forced to move to other parts of Canada because they do not have the support of employment insurance, we will not be able to train other employees. It is very expensive for small and medium-sized firms. They do not have the money.

If there is no money for employment insurance, we will have to find other programs to support small and medium-sized firms in the regions. Quite frankly, it will cost much more than the employment insurance program.

I would just like to make a small comment. We are told that everyone who wants to work will find a job and that this reform will not impoverish these people. That was mentioned, but I want to mention it again.

In the past three years, the pilot project to support people working while on claim cost $130 million. This year, it is estimated that it will cost $74 million. If this amount is reduced by almost 50%, how can the government say that it will not affect the income of these people?

The people most affected by this reform will be those who make the least amount of money. If we do the math, it is not the people who work three, four or even five days while on EI who will be most affected by the government's proposed pilot project. The people who work only one or two days stand to lose the most with this reform.

In my riding, those who benefited from the pilot project in the past while they were receiving benefits were only working one or two days a week, not four or five. They were filling in at certain processing plants. From time to time, fish arrives and workers are needed for a day or two to process the stock. There is not enough work for the week, just for a day or two. These people will be affected by the reform because they will earn 50% less than they did in the past. Half the money they earn for a day of work will be deducted from their benefits. They will not make as much money as they did in the past. They will have to spend a lot of money to commute and to pay for child care. It is very expensive to work just for one day and it must be cost-effective.

The reform will do exactly the opposite. It will encourage people to refuse the work they are offered. This will have a negative impact on the region's labour force and on small and medium-sized businesses and processing plants. These plants will have difficulty finding workers and will be unable to operate. This will harm the seasonal economy. A certain kind of economy exists in our region in the winter. This will make the situation even more difficult because there will be a shortage of workers.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, who spoke just before me, said that we are not here to force anyone to work in other regions. I would like to quote his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, who made the following comment in the House last Thursday:

EI recipients will now get job postings twice a day for those chosen occupations within their community, as well as postings for jobs in related occupations in other geographic regions. This will enable them to make more informed decisions about how to conduct their job search.

When I read that, I do not think that claimants in seasonal work areas will benefit from the fact that they can stay at home. The government is really offering them an incentive to leave the region.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour said that claimants would be sent job postings for jobs in other regions.

I will give an example of how this translates in my region. A woman in the Magdalen Islands received a written notice indicating that four jobs were available in her region. Her region is defined as extending from Chandler to the town of Gaspé. To get from the Magdalen Islands to either Chandler or Gaspé, it takes a five-hour ferry ride and about 10 hours of driving. I do not understand how this could be profitable for this claimant, or for the small business that would have hired her. Of course there would be absences every now and then if one had to commute 15 hours each way every day. It would take 30 hours of commuting in a 24-hour day. It makes no sense.

With this reform, the definition of one's region is incomprehensible. What does it mean to offer a claimant employment in another region? The region has nothing to do with where one lives. Claimants will feel so harassed with the new system that they might give up on EI altogether.

Will these people have to leave their region? Will they be forced to turn to social assistance? In that case, it will not cost the federal government anything, since that is a provincial program.

My colleague just said that they do not want to take money away from claimants. Frankly, the government should be consulting claimants, because that money belongs to us, to claimants and employers.

In closing, there has been a serious lack of consultation and that is—