Wayne Easter

[Employment Insurance, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my question of November 6 related to the fact that the Conservative government, without a minute of study, with no economic analysis, with absolutely no consultations and without so much as a discussion at committee, changed the employment insurance system such that the government is stealing five weeks of income from seasonal workers. I ask members in this place what would happen to them, with the good salaries of the people in here or the bureaucracy in this town, if all of a sudden, five weeks of that income were gone, cut, just like that, without any consultation. That is what happened here. Worse, these are people in seasonal industries who do not have the high salaries of people in this place.

Cutting employment insurance is a very serious matter, and it affects individuals who are hardworking and dedicated to their communities and their families. I would go so far as to suggest that to make a change of this magnitude without any economic analysis of the impact on families, on the communities and on the regional economies is absolutely cruel and unbecoming. This action is something we would expect to see in a third world dictatorship. It is certainly not one we would expect to see in an industrialized country like Canada.

Regardless of the government's spin, and we will get it in a moment, the government's decision will drive some seasonal workers onto provincial welfare rolls, will force some people to leave the region, will cause an increase in stress and will lead to family and social unrest.

For a government that likes to talk about the importance of the economy, this decision is, in fact, seriously undermining the regional economies. Seasonal industries contribute 17% to our GDP. They are important, and this attack on the EI system undermines their ability in the seasonal industries to maintain skilled workers.

As an example, Premier Alward of New Brunswick was given a briefing note on June 28, and it said this in part:

Forcing workers into alternative employment during off-seasons may create an unstable business environment if they are unavailable to seasonal enterprises on resumption of production.

It went on to say:

The resulting erosion of economic returns may induce a further exodus from rural areas.

The premier was advised that if seasonal workers are forced to leave their home communities to find work because of the EI changes, it could be even harder for the remaining companies to find workers. Quoting from the report further:

The potential loss of employees to other sectors or jurisdictions would pose a significant challenge for the long-term viability and growth of business and industries and disrupt supply chains.

Seriously, this is an attack on not only seasonal workers but on seasonal industries. The government talks about the importance of the economy. This is undermining seasonal industries that contribute 17% to GDP, that require the skilled workers who come back every year to those seasonal industries, and that are important to the country as a whole.

I ask the government to rethink what it has done, to consult with the communities and to reinstate those five weeks of employment insurance.

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it would be awfully nice if the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development would tell the truth to Canadians. The fact of the matter under the new system is that the Canada pension plan is clawed back 50¢ on the dollar. For seasonal workers who are earning little enough to begin with, waiting for those pensions so they would be able to supplement their family to get by, these changes are now clawing half the money back of their initial dollar. That did not happen before.

How can the Prime Minister condone this incompetence from this minister and this theft of pensions?

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for three days now the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has failed to answer direct questions on the clawback of pensions for seasonal workers. Does she not know how the system works? Human Resources takes the annual Canada pension plan of individuals and divides by 52, which gives it the weekly calculation. Then when they apply for EI and they are out of work, the department claws back 50¢ on the dollar of their pensions. How can Conservatives accept this theft of people's pensions?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I asked questions on this earlier, and as I said in my own remarks yesterday, I have concerns about the balance of power given to the Commissioner of the RCMP. I have been there as solicitor general, so I am well aware of that position.

I am even more concerned about what I have heard in this discussion about amendments proposed at committee, and I am not a member of the committee, all being rejected out of hand by the government. This is happening in committee after committee. I really think we need a serious discussion, not just on this legislation but on all of it, about the way this place is working.

Today, in the Winnipeg Free Press, there is a story that states that the Auditor General's information was actually edited out of the final version of a parliamentary investigation on the F-35s. That is a serious issue. Evidence is evidence. Just because government members do not like the evidence, they should not be able to edit it out. That did not happen in this place years ago. I think it is becoming the custom around here for the department and the PMO to be running what Conservative members are allowed to do in committee.

The rules are that parliamentary reports, committee reports, are not supposed to be seen by a minister. They are not supposed to be seen by the PMO. Those are the rules.

Conservative members have been run by ministries and the PMO. That is affecting how this place is working. It is affecting why amendments are not even really being discussed. They are being rejected out of hand. That is a damper on our democracy.

I wonder if the member has anything to say.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it was talked about a fair bit yesterday, the increasing of the power and authority of the commissioner of the RCMP. That has to be done with some balance, certainly. Yes, the commissioner needs more authority to deal with the bad apples, as some have said. However, that power could be abused in the office of the commissioner as well.

I am not a member of the committee, and quite a number of us here are not, but I was told yesterday there were a number of amendments to try to redress that imbalance. I do not mind admitting that I have a concern when opposition parties propose amendments and the government rejects them out of hand even though they make sense.

Is this what happened in this committee? Are we to the point that anything the representatives of the people on this side of the House propose, which would improve legislation, is opposed by the government because it is almighty and all powerful? That is not the way this place is supposed to work. My question for the member is: Were there amendments put forward to try to balance the power of the commissioner of the RCMP in a positive way, and what happened to them if there were?

[Employment Insurance, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple, and it is directed toward the Prime Minister.

Why is the Conservative government essentially stealing early Canada pension plan payments from seasonal workers who are on employment insurance? Not only are the crippling changes made to employment insurance affecting those who are fortunate to gain a day's work, with a clawback of 50¢ on the dollar; EI changes also claw back early pensions, pensions that seasonal workers paid for.

Will the Prime Minister fix the problem so seasonal workers' pensions are protected from this legal theft?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, the bill does give the commissioner the ability to deal with disciplinary issues. That is a big issue facing the force at the moment, especially as it relates to some of the incidents of individual rank and file members who are impacting the image of the force and how we think the RCMP should effectively operate. Therefore, the fact that the ability is there is a step in the right direction.

I did state in my remarks that we have to be watchful of that and ensure the new powers given to the Commissioner of the RCMP are used in the way they are intended. It is our job to do that.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg is speaking to a broader issuer than this piece of legislation, Bill C-42. I mentioned that in my remarks. Increasingly I am concerned with how committees function, or rather how they are not allowed to function, in that amendments are hardly ever carried, even though they make a lot of sense.

At one point in time the Senate would take issues seriously. It would fix mistakes that we might have overlooked in this place. In my view, that is not happening now. The big whip comes down and we get it through. If this kind of process continues, such as passing legislation that is not the best it can be, the courts will start to rule on some of the flaws we have made. Therefore, I think my colleague is speaking to the broader issue of how this place works, which I have laid out in my remarks.

I am very concerned. I believe that Bill C-42 is an example. Some amendments had been proposed and not accepted because of where they came from, not because of what they contain. That is a concern that Canadians should increasingly be worried about.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think I made it very clear. That is what this place is all about. It is a place of debate. It is a place of different positions. It is a place to make decisions. When we go back to the remarks that were made at previous times in this House, the Liberal Party has made it very clear where we stand. We see the bill as an improvement upon the current situation. However, we recognize the bill could always be improved.

As the member would be aware, we did support some amendments that the official opposition made. We did not support all of them because in our view not all of its amendments were good ones. That is our opinion, and that differs from the member who just spoke.

However, on balance, we looked at this and asked whether it would move us a step forward, and we, as a party, believe it would .

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have recognized that improvements are needed. I agree with the member's remarks. He has been in the RCMP.

As Commissioner Paulson said, he needs the authority to get rid of some bad apples. That is true. It only takes one person to create a terrible image of the whole organization. The bill would give that authority.

In my remarks, I also weighed in on some concerns. We have to recognize that power can be taken too far, from the commissioner to the rank and file, in terms of somebody who has perhaps not been a bad apple. We have to recognize that as well.

I believe, and our party believes, it is a step forward. It is a move in the right direction. However, we have be to vigilant in terms of the implementation of the bill and how this bill would work with respect to the RCMP.