Todd Russell

[Petitions, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table a certified petition from residents of my riding who live in Port Hope Simpson, Mary's Harbour, Lodge Bay and St. Lewis, on the south coast of Labrador.

The petitioners call for changes to employment insurance, including the elimination of the two week waiting period and an increase in benefits to 50 weeks. They also call for improvements to work-sharing provisions to keep people employed.

The petitioners understand that people need help and they ask the Conservative government to respond with real EI improvements to help them and their families.

[Petitions, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a certified petition signed by people in Paradise River, Mary's Harbour, Charlottetown, Postville, Lodge Bay and other communities in Labrador.

The petition concerns the unfair differential tax treatment of those taxpayers who received lump sum payments under the Atlantic groundfish licence retirement program.

The petitioners call for a full review by the Minister of National Revenue, with a view toward ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all those who were affected by this tax interpretation mistake.

The 850 fishers impacted, many of whom are seniors, have been wronged and they seek fairness and justice. They ask the Minister of Revenue for action.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I certainly will use my six minutes after question period.

I want to thank the member for bringing forward this motion and spurring debate on what is an important program, a needed program. It is a program that helps many families, individuals and communities within our country. I also want to thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who has been a strong advocate for EI reform. I also want to thank the Liberal caucus which has been supportive of EI reform not only today but in past years. From 2000 to 2005 the Liberal government made major overhauls of the EI system to help Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Many people in my riding, which is primarily a rural riding, depend on EI to pay their bills, to send their kids to school, to heat their homes and to buy food. This is a reality in the riding of Labrador. Many people in my riding are disappointed in the Conservatives' approach to EI reform, if it can be called reform. All they have done is tacked on five weeks. Some would say that is a move in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It does not meet the needs of Canadians who are in more trouble today than they have been in a generation.

We have to remind people of the attitude of the Conservatives in the past. They called EI nothing but a welfare system. They said that EI was only a handout to people. We have to remind Canadians of what the minister said not too long ago, that the EI program was too lucrative. I think the attitude of the Conservative government permeates the fact that they have taken so little action on EI reform. Many groups and communities across the country say that EI reform is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy.

When the minister talks about EI being too lucrative, I would like her to go to the communities in Labrador where the average EI payment in many places is $350 every two weeks. Can that be called too lucrative? Is that meeting the needs of Canadians? Not one person in this House would dare stand up and say that was too lucrative. I know hundreds of families and individuals who are in that particular situation and it is not good.

This program is an insurance program. People pay into it and they expect help when times are tough. That is why I and the Liberal Party are supporting this particular motion.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could ask the minister to join me on the ice floes which I have done for the last two springs. I am going there again this spring. He should join me.

According to the minister's own internal documents, the changes he is proposing to come into force would not be optional. At the same time as the first nations communities are being stripped of their options, they are being denied input and access to the decision making process.

It is pretty rich to hear the minister talk about accountability when he does not apply it to himself. Will he open the doors and let the first nations in?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister's answer. He tries to play first nations like a fiddle but he is only step dancing around the whole damn issue.

The Conservatives have slashed the budget for consultation and they keep their communications “low profile”. Those are his words from his own documents.

Why is he excluding first nations from meaningful consultation? Why is it that he said one thing in June about the apology and did another thing through his actions? Why will he not come clean with the first nations people of this country?

[Petitions, February 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have here a petition signed by a large number of my constituents from Red Bay and Forteau in the Labrador Straits and from Charlottetown on the south coast. Their petition concerns the unfair differential tax treatment of those taxpayers who received lump sum payments under the Atlantic groundfish licence retirement program. This is a long-standing issue, and the petitioners call for a full review by the Minister of National Revenue, with a view toward ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all those affected by this tax interpretation mistake.

This petition affects some 800 fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador and 50 in Quebec and, sadly, some of them have passed away.

[Petitions, February 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I have two petitions to table.

First, I rise to present a petition calling for changes to employment insurance, including the elimination of the two-week waiting period and an increase in benefits to 50 weeks. This petition is signed by a large number of my constituents in Port Hope Simpson, Charlottetown and Pinsent's Arm on the south coast of Labrador.

These individuals understand that the EI changes are necessary to help them and their families cope with the economic downturn and the lack of employment opportunities. They petition the government for this help.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I to thank the parliamentary secretary for his less than insightful remarks. There is a saying back in Labrador, “It's no good to have education if you've got no common sense”.

I come from Labrador where communities range from a population of 10,000 down to around 35. They are in dire need of infrastructure. The turmoil across the country is affecting Labrador just like it is other Canadians.

The parliamentary secretary's minister has said that he will vote for a budget even though he has made mistakes. One of those mistakes is the methodology by which the government will transfer infrastructure money. All municipalities across the country agree the gas tax method is the best way to flow the funds.

Why not adopt this common sense approach to get more money into the hands of municipalities, communities like Pinware and Black Tickle that need water and sewer or places like Williams Harbour that need road connections? Why not flow the money down this avenue?

[Indian Oil and Gas Act, February 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, as I said earlier, that the issue of consultation is one that arises many times, but it has not arisen as an issue today or in the past with regard this bill.

[Indian Oil and Gas Act, February 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the duty to consult, the entire House knows that the government has a legal duty to consult with first nations. A consultative framework has been adopted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Some would argue whether that framework is adequate or whether it fully addresses the issue of consultation with first nations.

I cannot say whether first nations that are impacted by the bill have been adequately consulted. They will have to speak for themselves on whether they feel adequate consultation has taken place. However, the stakeholders I have met with feel the legislation is long overdue, that it has come about as a result of many talks, much information sharing between the various stakeholders, and they would like to see it expedited.