Yasmin Ratansi

[May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need a government that takes action, not a government that hides its head in the sand like an ostrich hoping that the problem will go away.

Too many people are suffering needlessly because of the inaction of the government. The member still has not given me an answer to my most pressing question, so I will give him another opportunity. Knowing that allowing more laid-off workers to collect EI rather than go on welfare will bring an almost immediate boost to the economy, knowing that the so-called stimulus package has not put a single person back to work yet and knowing that fairness needs to be applied country-wide to the rules, action must be taken immediately to avoid further economic retraction.

When will the government change EI hours to 360, or does it just not care?

[May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on February 3, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a question with regard to helping unemployed Canadians.

Since that time, the situation for many has only become worse. My office has been inundated with more and more cases of constituents who, through no fault of their own, have been laid off. The problem is further made difficult by the fact that there is unequal treatment.

Those unemployed Canadians who live in Toronto must work twice as many hours as Canadians who are laid off, for example, in the Maritimes, Quebec or other regions of the country. This unequal treatment is unfair, not only to my constituents of Don Valley East, but to those in the GTA.

The current system, which was introduced by the previous Liberal governments, worked well during the economic good times. However, with the current economic crisis, circumstances are different and Canadians coast to coast to coast are suffering. It is imperative that the current government do what it was elected to do, and that is govern and help the people by ensuring changes to the EI that we Liberals have been asking for.

According to the latest release from the Statistics Canada labour force survey of April 9, unemployment in Ontario this year rose by 11,000 in March. Since October, it has risen to 171,000, and mostly in full time work. That is 171,000 people out of work. The unemployment rate has risen two percentage points, and that has devastated Canadians.

Many workers in these uncertain times are only managing to find short term, sometimes part time employment at very low levels of pay. Therefore, it is necessary that to get over this difficult period there be changes to the EI. It is difficult for these people to get enough qualifying hours and that creates a double whammy. Many of these workers have paid into the EI for many years without making a claim and they are now being forced onto the municipal welfare rolls.

Would the parliamentary secretary to the minister explain why people who lose their job in my riding of Don Valley East should not be entitled to the same benefits as people in another area of our country? Why does the government refuse to take the urgent action requested by my leader, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, that proposes a temporary across-the-country reduction in the time needed to qualify for EI benefits to 360 hours? Reducing the amount of hours would directly pump approximately $1 billion a year into the economy and act as an immediate stimulus.

Also, the thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs due to the recession now face another hurdle when applying for EI benefits. With a higher volume of applicants, my constituents are telling me that it is virtually impossible for people to reach their EI call centre for vital information. When will the government expand the number of people operating the EI call centres? Is it just a matter of the government not knowing what to do or is it the fact that the Conservative government just does not care?

[Employment Insurance, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the country is plunging headfirst into a major recession and yet the government seems to have its head stuck in the sand with regard to those workers who are losing their jobs.

I have a constituent I shall refer to as “Sam”. Sam, unfortunately, lost his job and is informed by EI authorities that he is only entitled to 32 weeks of benefits, but if he lived in other areas outside of Toronto, he would be eligible for a much greater period of benefits.

The government says that the eligibility rules will change with regional unemployment numbers, but that answer does nothing for those caught in the middle.

When will the government take concrete measures, on top of the five-week extension, to help hard-working Canadians survive this economic turmoil? Or is it a matter of the Conservatives just do not care?

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard myths from the government side about the very good relations it has had with our partner to the south, the United States government, and that it was cozy with the Bush administration. If the Conservatives were so cozy, why was there so much protectionism under that government?

I will quote something that was said by the current Minister of International Trade when he was the minister of public safety. He said, “We know that Canada is seen as a soft spot...of undesirable people, possibly criminal elements, being able to gain access to our country”.

If the senior ministers in the Conservative government are fearmongering and making Canada look like a porous border, how can Canadians trust the government to take the necessary action to prevent trade sanctions, travelling, et cetera?

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government has failed to take all necessary steps to ensure that the U.S. administration and the U.S. Congress fully understand the critical importance of our shared border....

I have heard the speeches from the government side. In fact, I heard the intervention from the member for Essex. I think the government is living in la-la land.

It claims to have had a good relationship. The Prime Minister was called Bush lite. The government has increased paper screenings, surveillance and protectionism. It failed on softwood lumber and in seeking an extension on the western hemisphere travel initiative. How can Canadians be confident that the government will do anything to help in trade or in the Olympics?

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has eloquently explained, the motion is about the lack of communication between the Conservative government and the U.S., our largest trading partner.

Because of the integration of economies, it is important to keep this relationship vibrant and alive. According to a Toronto Star report today, the U.S. thinks that the weakest flank of the relationship and the one with the most leaks is Canada, and that the flow of people from Canada is three times more suspicious than the flow of people from Mexico.

Former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin moved effectively to create a smart border. I would like the member's opinion on where the Conservative government has moved with the smart border.

[Canada Revenue Agency, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, an affidavit sworn by the Conservative member for Cariboo—Prince George, on March 31 of this year, states that Mr. Leroux initiated his claim solely on the advice that he was given by the minister's office.

Could the Prime Minister advise the House what remedy he has for taxpayers who are misled by his minister and thus face financial ruin?

[Canada Revenue Agency, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue refuses to discuss the plight of Mr. Leroux because, on the advice of the previous Conservative minister, it is before the courts. Perhaps I could take a different tack.

Is it common practice for either the present minister or the previous minister to advise Canadians to sue Revenue Canada to trigger a political payment as settlement?

[Tobacco, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of contraband tobacco is continuing to grow across the country. Unfortunately, the government is doing nothing to address the problem.

Contraband tobacco is generally smuggled into Canada as a low-cost alternative to legal tobacco products. After years of doing nothing, the only thing the government has decided to do is launch an advertising campaign. Canadians want and need real measures taken to protect both those who smoke from potentially dangerous, unregulated products and the tax revenues that ultimately pay for much of the health costs incurred by smokers.

The other victims of the government's inaction are the convenience store operators, who are in some cases losing 30% of their revenues. Convenience store operators ensure that tobacco products are only sold to those who are of legal age. On the other hand, smuggled tobacco is sold to anyone.

Contraband tobacco represents a significant threat to the health and safety of Canadians. I call on the minister responsible to finally take the issue seriously and enact measures immediately to protect the incomes of legitimate producers.

[Canada Revenue Agency, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leroux and his family have lost everything because of the interference of the government. He was successful at the tax court. However, due to the interference of the former minister of revenue, he is now facing major legal expenses.

Can the government explain exactly what it plans to do to get Mr. Leroux out of the financial mess it created for him?