Wayne Easter

[Petitions, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the appropriate number of Prince Edward Islanders, under Standing Order 36. They believe there is a gap in the Criminal Code of Canada, under which there is no separate offence of torture by a non-state actor. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to include torture committed by non-state actors, private individuals, and organizations as a specific and distinct criminal offence.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I question how Conservative members can say that our private information is protected, because they do not know either. I asked the minister at committee the other day whether CSIS, the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency were involved in the 1.9 million requests for information. He said yes. We do not know if they all had warrants. We are the only country in the Five Eyes, so-called, that does not have parliamentary oversight.

The Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, in his findings and recommendations, stated:

However, a small number of records suggested the possibility that some activities may have been directed at Canadians, contrary to law....

After in-depth and lengthy review, I was unable to reach a definitive conclusion about compliance or non-compliance with the law.

It is this simple. I do not know why members on the government side are accepting the word of the bureaucracy. It does not know either. Why not have the review for which this motion asks? That just makes sense in the interests of Canadians.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 2nd, 2014]

With regard to advertising by the government during the broadcast of the Academy Awards on March 2, 2014: (a) what was the total cost for advertising; and (b) what was the cost for each advertisement shown?

[Employment Insurance, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely shocked that a member from Atlantic Canada would stand in this place and give that kind of a response. It is unbelievable. He failed to answer the question on clawback. The clawback is where one works while on claim and the government claws back 50¢ on the dollar. It creates a disincentive to work. It leaves businesses short of workers. It jeopardizes workers coming back into the workforce for next year's seasonal economy.

The member talked about numbers. The pilot project destruction by the Government of Canada cost the economy $11 million. This clawback is costing the economy $3 million next year and the changes made will only add $1 million. It is a net loss to islanders. It is a net loss to seasonal workers.

Why is the government attacking seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada?

[Employment Insurance, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on January 30, I raised a question to the Minister of Employment and Social Development concerning the destructive impact the Conservative attack on rural and regional unemployed was having on Prince Edward Island.

The question I asked was direct and it was specific:

—government policy should enhance job growth and improve income. However, in the P.E.I. seasonal economy EI is having the opposite impact. Take a farmer's seasonal employee for example, who is needed only a day and a half a week at this time of year and paid $16 an hour. After deductions and the EI clawback of 50¢ on every dollar, the employee is left with less than $6 an hour. The employee is poorer and the farmer has trouble attracting employees. It is starting an underground economy. Will the minister stop inflicting this economic hardship and reconsider the policy?

Rather than respond to the concerns that were raised, concerns which come from my constituents and Islanders generally, the minister actually told the House that employment insurance contributed to neither economic growth or to higher standards of living.

That kind of arrogance would be unbelievable, but indeed that was the response I received from a minister of the Conservative government. EI does contribute to the economic growth in many of the rural communities on Prince Edward Island, throughout Atlantic Canada and indeed across the whole of Canada.

Those receiving EI benefits do not transfer that money to offshore accounts. They spend that money on food, utility bills, and children's clothing, and retailers benefit from their business.

The question remains, how does the minister respond to the reality that the clawback provisions that he and his government have instituted actually take money directly out of the pockets of those finding work while on employment insurance claims. That is what is happening. It is taking money directly out of the pockets of the seasonally employed.

The example I have stated is not an academic exercise. Workers throughout the region are having their monies clawed back, leaving them in serious financial difficulty. They are skilled seasonal workers who are important to our seasonal businesses and our seasonal economy.

The government's response to set up two EI regions within Prince Edward Island has hurt those seasonal workers even more seriously.

In total, the government's decision on just the clawback alone takes $2.4 million out of the pockets of seasonal workers this year, and about a little over $3 million next year. That is the estimate. That is the impact on the total economy, and the impact on workers is very serious.

Therefore, my question remains, is the government prepared to eliminate the clawback provisions in order to ensure that not only are those seeking work but those seeking available local workers can achieve their goals?

[Business of the House, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, as solicitor general, I named Hezbollah and Hamas and had them listed as terrorist entities. My question of privilege relates to statements that impact on my character as an MP and as a former minister.

Yesterday, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, in a prepared standing order, stated, “public safety spokesman, the member for Malpeque, opposed listing Hezbollah as a terrorist entity”.

The decision to name Hezbollah and Hamas was based on extensive research and evidence prepared by the department and agencies under my authority and was approved by the cabinet of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. They were registered on the list of terrorist entities on 10 December, 2002.

The remarks by the Conservative member for Winnipeg South Centre are an absolute falsehood and an attempt at character assassination, used, in my view, with malicious intent. I would ask that the member withdraw her remarks and cease and desist from providing such false and misleading information in prepared statements in this House.

[Privacy, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, what the government will not do to avoid giving an answer.

Let us get to the specifics. Canadians feel they cannot trust the Conservative government and they know their personal data is being spied upon.

Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness inform Canadians which of the agencies he is responsible for—RCMP, CSIS, the Canada Border Services Agency—issued warrants? How many were issued and how many were spied upon without warrants?

[Privacy, May 1st, 2014]

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to take immediate action on this serious matter.

The Privacy Commissioner's report clearly shows that there is massive surveillance being imposed on Canadians by agencies of the current government. Canadians' privacy is certainly being compromised.

Yesterday the Prime Minister basically said take it or leave it. His parliamentary secretary said that he was willing to work with opposition parties. Could we get a clear answer? Will the government support our motion for transparency?

[Privacy, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with 1.2 million requests for personal data on Canadians, the minister fails to take immediate action.

[Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question on the amendment.

I am wondering if the mover of the amendment can tell me. The amendment seems quite narrow and there are other shortcomings that are clear in the bill that have been asked for by producers. One was, as I mentioned in my question, the assurance that the rail companies would have to move grain into the domestic market in B.C., where producers are already paying about $100 more as a result of having to truck grain in. Will that be allowed to be reincorporated into this bill?

How will this amendment deal with the fact that under the act, the grain companies are determined to be the shippers? As I said earlier, the grain companies are the ones making excessive profits right now at the expense of primary producers. Is there any way of ensuring that the penalties go to producers when the grain companies are determined to be the shippers under the act? Does this amendment deal with that particular point?

The last question is this: how can there be assurances that this is drawing grain from the total region and not just where the railways think they can gain the best volume at the lowest cost?