House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2008, with 40% of the vote.
Court Challenges Program May 8th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, today, the Standing Committee on Official Languages was supposed to begin studying the Conservative government's outrageous elimination of the court challenges program, but the Conservatives cancelled the meeting mere minutes before it was to begin, offering no explanation.
Will the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages condemn her colleagues' actions, or is she involved in their attempt to hide the truth?
Regional Economic Development May 4th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Biotechnology Innovation Centre is critical to the economic development of Laval and Quebec. Unfortunately, this organization could lose some of its federal funding. On April 28, the newspaper Le Quotidien reported that the Economic Development Agency of Canada would no longer provide operating funding for non-profit organizations.
Can the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec confirm that the centre's operating budget will not be cut?
Afghanistan May 3rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, this government shows no initiative at all. It is not trying to correct the situation or ensure that transferred detainees are safe and sound. This agreement simply asks Afghan authorities to correct their own mistakes.
How will that agreement end the abuse, once and for all?
Afghanistan May 3rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear: this government is unable to deal with the crisis relating to Afghan detainees. For over a week now, the Conservatives have been unable to determine who is responsible for this situation. If the government does not want to assume its responsibilities, perhaps the courts will do it in its place.
Why do we have to bring issues before the courts to get this government to act?
Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised by the answer from the parliamentary secretary because I was not aware that she was parliamentary secretary for citizenship and immigration.
However, the insults I heard were totally irrelevant. They were just partisan attacks.
I would like to say that the government has now been governing for 18 months. It seems to me that 18 months is plenty of time for a government to show its colour and to tell Canadians what it intends to do for them.
The Conservatives have shown what they are doing. The member's speech was full of platitudes. I will reply by saying that the former Liberal government announced a $500 million plan to reduce the processing backlog, as well as the creation of the new, in Canada economic stream to allow applicants with experience in Canada's labour market or educational institutions to remain in Canada. I know all about it--
Mr. Speaker, during question period on February 20, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the following question:
Mr. Speaker, it costs $45 a day for a government member to rent a car. However, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration preferred to spend $6,200 for a limousine with a uniformed driver.
When will the minister stop her excessive spending of taxpayers' money? And above all, when will she restore the $20 million she slashed from our immigration system?
In his answer, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform completely ignored my question.
The government's mantra has always been to slash and burn to the detriment of Canadians on fixed incomes and to the detriment of seniors.
Often, it is to the detriment of new arrivals whose credentials are not recognized in Canada. As a result, they cannot begin their lives in our country because this government reneged on its promise to allocate $18 million in the 2007 budget to look after foreign credential recognition.
Although this government would like us to think that it is helping seniors, that is not the case. Let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who tried to de-index old age pensions.
The government refuses to listen to information from Canada's own census data which shows that about 115,000 people living in Canada who thought they were Canadians, it turns out that they may not be after all. For example, we are talking about the children of military personnel born abroad.
When demographer, Barry Edmondston, a sociologist at the University of Victoria, appeared before the standing committee he said that the problem touches more than a few dozen Canadians, although the minister would have us believe it is only a mere 450 people. According to Edmondston, there may even be about 85,000 people in other countries who may not know they have lost their Canadian citizenship.
Instead of taking a holistic and proactive approach to resolving these issues and preventing any future problems or occurrences, the minister has said that she prefers to deal with cases on an individual basis. Unfortunately, a reactionary approach will not resolve this issue.
Instead of putting the money back in the budget to review the legislation and overhaul the act, the minister insists that her department must apply the law as it is written and will not envisage a revision of the legislation.
During her recent testimony at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the minister said:
Overhauling the Act is a major, major effort and quite frankly, it's more than we could take on to help these people at this point in time.
This is just not acceptable. Today, I am asking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—who I see is absent—to start by implementing a communications strategy with ads and public service announcements in print and electronic media to inform Canadians that they could lose their citizenship. The strategy should include a major campaign about the toll-free information line so that more people can get the information. This telephone communications strategy must be made available to people both in Canada and abroad.
Once again, I am asking the minister, who is not here tonight, to put the $20 million back into her budget to update the Citizenship Act and take proactive measures to find—
Employment Insurance Act March 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, which seeks to bring down to 360 hours the number of hours of work required to qualify for EI benefits. I have had the pleasure of working very closely with my NDP colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who sponsored Bill C-265.
During the last Parliament, as the chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I tabled a report on employment insurance funds in February 2005.
At the time, the subcommittee examined the use made of employment insurance funds and the surpluses that were accumulated, surpluses that continue to be accumulated and keep growing. The EI fund is one that is not benefiting those paying into it. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult for workers to take advantage of a program they have been contributing to.
It has been pointed out by previous speakers that only 32% of women who contributed to the EI plan currently qualify for benefits and that only 37% of men who have employment qualify for employment insurance benefits even if they contributed to the plan.
What is the use of a fund, which now stands at close to $50 billion, if that fund is not doing what it is supposed to do, which is to help the very people that it was designed to help?
At this point, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, for his hard work on this file and for his single-minded determination.
Recommendation 10 of the standing committee's report states:
The Committee recommends that the government implement a uniform 360 hours qualification requirement, irrespective of regional unemployment rates or the type of benefit. This would establish a qualification requirement based on a 30-hour week over a 12-week period.
This was a key recommendation we made to the minister at the time, because it applies not only to workers in urban areas but also to those in the regions. Ours is a country with very clear-cut seasons. Our society relies heavily on seasonal workers, be it in the fisheries industry or in other industries where one can only work at certain times of the year.
In 2006, close to 15,123 foreign seasonal workers came to Ontario from Mexico and the Caribbean. Under the seasonal workers program, the SAWP, agricultural workers from Mexico and the Caribbean come here every year to help in harvesting our crops. For the past 10 years, workers coming to Canada under this program have been overwhelming male, accounting for 97% of the total in 2004.
Our country cannot function without this supplementary source of reliable and qualified seasonal labour to ensure our crops are planted and harvested before the winter. Canada has even moved to increase the number of workers from Guatemala over the past two or three years, even though they are not formally included in the program.
In the past 10 years, Mexico and Jamaica have become the two leading source countries for agricultural workers. These countries accounted for 53%, or 10,780 people, and 28%, or 5,736 people, in 2004. Mexico, however, has seen its participation rise from around 5,000 workers a year in the early 1990s to over 10,000 in each of the past four years, both on a stock and flow basis. Other notable source countries are Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados.
Hon. members probably wonder why I am referring to these workers in today's debate. While we depend on their work for food, while we require them to contribute to the employment insurance fund, these workers are another group that cannot benefit from the EI program, because they are temporary foreign workers. Our system is organized in such a way that they are forced to contribute to the employment insurance fund, but they cannot benefit from it.
Is it fair? Perhaps these people should be exempted from having to contribute to the program, or else their money should be used to set up training programs to allow them to develop their skills and their knowledge of the industry. This way, their country would benefit more from their experience, and not just from their financial contribution.
After a lot of pressure by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union-Canada, the UFCW, these workers finally became eligible for family allowances, in 2001. The UFCW sees this progress as a first step in its fight for equality. In its June 2006 report, it reiterated that migrant workers should not be forced to make employment insurance contributions if they do not have full access to benefits.
This issue could be challenged in court under section 15 of the Charter, which provides that every individual has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. If the union wins its case, foreign seasonal workers will have full access to employment insurance benefits.
We are talking about respect and dignity for our workers who pay into the employment insurance fund. I think all parties in this House, perhaps with the exception of the party across from me, agree on this.
I agree with some of the members who have spoken before me when they say that the entire EI system and the act need to be reviewed and overhauled to reflect the changing needs of our society and the Canadian workplace.
We, as leaders who were elected to govern, cannot afford to consistently ignore the needs of our electorate. Our population is aging. We will be even more dependent on all types of foreign workers and we will always be dependent on seasonal agricultural workers. Either that or we ourselves will need to help the farmers harvest our own food.
Our society is also moving toward increased part time work.
Are we going to continue to behave in this fashion with workers in our country, that is by ignoring their needs?
I hope that, regardless of the flaws that this bill may have, we will ignore them and we will adopt it at second reading, so that it can be referred to a standing committee for a more in-depth review.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss this issue.
International Day for Commemoration March 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, this coming Sunday is a significant date in history. I therefore ask you to seek unanimous consent in the House for the following motion. I move:
That the House recognize the importance of March 25, 2007, as the International Day for the Commemoration of the 200th Anniversary of the Act to Abolish the African Slave Trade in the British Empire.
Canadian Heritage March 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good to say that others will help the Canada Council and our artists. The former Liberal government was committed to doubling the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts in order to help the cultural sector and to stabilize funding. This Conservative budget ignores our museums, our artists, our television industry and our film industry.
How can the minister explain the meagre results for those she says she defends?
Canadian Heritage March 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the curtain has been drawn on our artists and creators. There is nothing in this budget that provides stable and predictable funding for artists. The Canada Council plays a major role in the cultural sector. It should not have make do with crumbs.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women commit to giving the Canada Council the necessary funding to help the artists who so desperately need it?