Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 180 of 217
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-04-16 12:59 [p.15478]
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues will agree that my colleague from Winnipeg North has done a terrific job as the spokesperson for our party with respect to citizenship and immigration issues.
The member's speech highlighted a number of concerns that our party has with respect to the temporary foreign worker program. However, my question for my colleague is very simple. Does he agree with me that there is considerable merit in having a well run, balanced temporary foreign worker program? For example, in my constituency in the seafood processing sector, many businesses depend on temporary foreign workers who come and live in small rural coastal communities in Atlantic Canada. They contribute a lot to the communities themselves and a great deal to the businesses in which they work.
It is important to have a labour market opinion that is an accurate reflection of the labour market and companies need to be prevented from abusing this program. However, does the member agree with me that done properly, particularly in rural and remote communities and some sectors like tourism and seafood processing, there is a real role for a temporary foreign worker program in assisting these businesses?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-04-15 14:39 [p.15408]
Mr. Speaker, although the income of average Canadian families is just not increasing, the Conservatives have decided to increase the price of more than 1,200 products used by these families.
For example, a new child's bicycle will cost 5% more, and a wig for a cancer patient will cost 15% more.
Why are the Conservatives increasing the cost of living for average Canadian families, which are already paying their fair share?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-18 14:14 [p.14835]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Roger Smith, who is retiring from CTV after a distinguished career as a respected and much liked journalist. He first joined the National Press Gallery in 1977, when you were not even born, Mr. Speaker, and I was nine years old.
Roger went on to have an extensive career in foreign capitals. From his front-row seat, he interpreted complex and fast-moving world events in a way that Canadians trusted and very much admired.
His recent assignment was to cover federal politics from Ottawa. He travelled with party leaders in six different national elections and easily made friends in all political parties. His warm sense of humour made him fun to travel with.
I met Roger when I was a young assistant in Mr. Chrétien's office 15 years ago, and I have considered him a friend ever since.
We wish Roger and his wife Denise Chong and their family well as Roger says goodbye to the National Press Gallery, where he has left a distinguished record and mark that will be remembered for a long time.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-18 15:02 [p.14844]
Mr. Speaker, last Friday I met Maurice Martin, a fisherman from Aldouane, in my riding of Beauséjour. Mr. Martin has been on a hunger strike for 12 days to oppose the unfair changes made under the Conservatives' EI reform. He is doing what the Conservatives refuse to do: he is proudly standing up for—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-18 15:03 [p.14844]
Mr. Speaker, he is doing what the Conservatives will not do: he is standing up for seasonal workers.
Here is what Mr. Martin wants to ask the Prime Minister: why is the government punishing people who work very hard? Why do the Conservatives want to kill communities in Kent County and elsewhere in Canada with their EI reform?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-18 15:20 [p.14847]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition today signed by over 100 residents from all over New Brunswick condemning the government's changes to employment insurance. The petitioners maintain that the changes will have a very negative effect on seasonal industries and their employees. They are asking the government to reverse this reckless and unfair course.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-07 14:55 [p.14732]
Mr. Speaker, the five additional weeks of employment insurance were so good for the regions with high unemployment rates that the Conservatives themselves renewed the program three times.
In just a few days, the people who would have had the additional five weeks are going to have their claims rejected and will have to rely on food banks and provincial social assistance.
Because of the Conservatives' poor decisions, areas like Kent County, New Brunswick, and the Gaspé are going to suffer.
Why are the Conservatives determined to impoverish regions that are already struggling?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-05 15:58 [p.14638]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Charlottetown, so people can stay tuned and look forward to his comments.
I am happy to speak to the motion today from my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the member for Toronto—Danforth. I and my colleagues in the Liberal caucus will be voting against the motion when it comes up for a vote. In our view, not only is this motion constitutionally very naive, it may in fact even be a cynical attempt on the part of the New Democrats to change the channel on what will be a difficult evening for them tomorrow night when they are forced to get up and vote on a Bloc Québécois private member's bill, Bill C-457, with respect to the Clarity Act.
It is constitutionally naive because, although some NDP members in their comments have suggested otherwise, most constitutional experts acknowledge that not changing the character of the Senate but abolishing the Senate would require the unanimity of the provinces, and that is for a very important reason. At Confederation, the Senate was, as members will know, designed to offer the smaller provinces in our federation a chance to have some regional balance that would not necessarily be found in this chamber, which reflected the population of different provinces and different constituencies. The New Democrats realize that unanimity with respect to abolition of the Senate would be impossible and, if we are being generous, we might even say it would be very hard to achieve.
The member for Vancouver Kingsway offered examples of premiers who had been in favour of the abolition of the Senate, but they are from Canada's most populous provinces. That the premier of Ontario or the premier of British Columbia may favour the abolition of the Senate should not surprise many Canadians. It would surprise me if the premiers of small provinces such as the premier of Manitoba, the premier of my own province of New Brunswick or the New Democratic premier of Nova Scotia were in favour. These premiers correctly recognize that the Senate offers the smaller provinces in our federation a chance in the Canadian Parliament to have some balance.
The opening of the Constitution, as my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville so properly pointed out this morning, would offer a constitutional swamp that would see no end. There is the idea that we could have the partners in our federation come to a constitutional meeting. We know the Prime Minister certainly is averse to any meetings that would involve all first ministers in the federation, so we should not hold our breath for that ever to happen. It has not happened on issues as important as the economy, so I find it hard to imagine it would happen on an issue as complicated as abolishing the Senate. However, at that meeting, we know very well that first nations people would want to talk, correctly so, about self-government and aboriginal rights. Certainly the current separatist Government of Quebec would arrive with a laundry list, which would take up a two or three week meeting, of ridiculous grievances and complaints that it would fabricate to try to hijack the meeting.
As for the idea that we could ever get to a point, Canadians are not interested because we have been at that point. In the 1980s, under the leadership of a Progressive Conservative prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, Canadians remember Meech Lake and they remember the Charlottetown accord process. Canadians are correctly asking their elected parliamentarians to focus on issues that affect their daily lives, like the economy, youth unemployment and the environment. Those are the calls I get in my constituency office in Shediac. I have not had numerous people say to me that we need to convene a first ministers conference to discuss the issue of abolishing the Senate.
I understand why the NDP tried, somewhat cynically, to take advantage of some of the problems the Senate is having right now.
We have seen in reports from various media outlets that expenses have been called into question and that some senators seem to be having difficulty determining their place of residence.
Obviously, we are not in any way minimizing the importance of settling and resolving the situation and holding accountable anyone who acted inappropriately.
That is why the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decided, on its own initiative, to refer certain cases to a major external audit that will be made public, and some cases involve certain senators appointed by the current Prime Minister. I have no doubt that if the external audit indicates potentially fraudulent circumstances, the senators will do the right thing and refer everything to the appropriate authorities. The Senate takes its financial responsibility seriously.
We are in no way minimizing the concerns of Canadian taxpayers about circumstances that are of significant concern to us. I must say that no one in the Liberal caucus will object to having people who may have done something inappropriate face serious consequences, including prosecution, if so required.
However, we cannot pretend that we need an endless constitutional discussion because there is currently an issue with residency or expenses. This problem may be resolved severely, appropriately and quickly, as the Senate itself has said. I think this is an attempt by the NDP to change the subject. Perhaps the NDP is thinking that tomorrow evening, with the vote on Bill C-457 , put forward by the Bloc Québécois, will be difficult for them. We know very well that the NDP opposed the Clarity Act. The NDP will have to be absent en masse tomorrow evening when we, the Liberals, will vote against this Bloc bill that makes no sense. Sort of along those same lines, the NDP is pretending that another constitutional crisis needs our attention.
The Senate at its very inception, as I said at the beginning of my comments, offers the regions of the country a chance to balance the obvious demographic weight of some of the larger provinces in this chamber. An unelected Senate will certainly never be able to play the effective and, I hope, regionally equal role that the Fathers of Confederation, almost 150 ago, thought this model might achieve.
We need to be clear. The Liberal Party has supported and continues to support the notion of an elected, effective and equal Senate. For us, that would be an appropriate Senate reform measure.
In our view the country is not ready to proceed to a constitutional conference to discuss that at this moment. However, if we were to accept that the abolition of the Senate was in fact the alternative, then smaller provinces like mine in New Brunswick, like Manitoba, where my colleague from Winnipeg North sits as a member of the House, would not have an opportunity to work with the other partners of the federation and hopefully a prime minister who would interested at some point in having a discussion, when the moment was right, on how we could achieve an elected, effective and equal Senate.
My colleague from Toronto—Danforth, a member for whom I have considerable respect, also has on the order paper his own private member's bill, Bill C-470, which seeks itself to abolish the Clarity Act and substitute this bizarre 50% plus one formula, which shocks many Canadians, as a threshold to break up the country.
I think some NDP MPs would also have difficulty voting, and I am thinking of my friend from Acadie—Bathurst, who represents so well francophone minorities outside Quebec. For him to get up and have to vote for a bill by the member for Toronto—Danforth would obviously be difficult. That is probably why it is so low on the order of precedence, with no possible hope of ever actually coming before the House to be debated.
It is a cynical attempt, from our perspective, to change the channel at a time when Canadians think we should be referring and discussing issues a lot more important to the daily lives of Canadians than a pipe dream that somehow we could convene a constitutional conference to abolish the Canadian Senate.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-05 16:10 [p.14640]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his comments and his question.
If he wishes to talk about dead ends, then he will have to speak about the bill introduced by his own colleague from Toronto—Danforth, Bill C-470, to abolish the Clarity Act and thereby lead Canadians and francophones outside Quebec to think that our country could be split by a simple 50%+1 majority.
If he wants to talk about dead ends, then he should talk about his own motion—the NDP motion—which we have been discussing all day, about abolishing the Senate. The NDP, which claims to care so deeply about unemployment, young people and the environment, has decided to talk constitutional nonsense today. The motion may be welcomed by some, but New Democrats know very well that it will never see the light of day. The NDP might think that it could happen, but it is constitutionally impossible.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-05 16:12 [p.14640]
Mr. Speaker, the member for Essex can perhaps imagine all kinds of scary scenarios from 2008, but I have no reason to think any of his musings are accurate.
If he is asking if we support the government's decision to refer to the Supreme Court the whole issue of the constitutionality of some of the supposed Senate reform bills that it leaves on the order paper and does not bring up for debate, the answer is yes. In fact, we were urging the government to put the question to the Supreme Court even before it left a number of its alleged Senate reform bills languishing on the order paper, and more importantly, we were urging the government to ask its partners in the federation what kind of Senate reform would be appropriate. The Government of Quebec had already taken a reference case to the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Province of New Brunswick was preparing to take a reference case to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.
The government's sudden conversion to some respect for the Supreme Court and its decision to take its cynical, piecemeal, ineffective Senate reform measures to the Supreme Court for an opinion hide what it is unable to get it from its own Senate caucus, which supposedly agreed with these Senate reform measures. I see no evidence that Senator Duffy is ready to send in a resignation letter because he suddenly had a conversion over getting himself elected to the Senate from the province of Prince Edward Island.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-05 17:49 [p.14652]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I want to tell my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex at the outset that I intend to vote in favour of this motion. I listened carefully to the member's comments, as well as the comments from my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. From my perspective, there is considerable merit in the motion advanced by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
As members know, the Liberal Party and my colleagues in caucus have always supported and been very much in favour of the freedom of religion and conscience. However, we have some concerns about the implication that one particular right or freedom, in this case, the freedom of religion and conscience, would be promoted above another basic human right or freedom that our country has always defended and stood up for abroad.
Our perspective tells us that our foreign policy should include the promotion of all freedoms and rights, for example, the rights of women, homosexuals and different groups around the world, who at various times have faced terrible oppression. They also deserve a robust defence in Canada's foreign policy. Our foreign policy and our diplomats should not shy away from speaking out against many of these abuses and practices which appall and shock millions of Canadians. The Liberal Party has always promoted and defended freedom of religion and conscience as a fundamental human right, not only under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also as a matter of international law.
We strongly belive that we must defend and promote all human rights, including rights that go against certain religious beliefs, including equality for women and equality for the LGBT community.
One right or freedom should not be promoted as more important than other rights or freedoms. The government must guarantee that it will not encourage any interpretation that would give precedence to religious rights over other rights and freedoms, as fundamental as the right to religious freedom is, and it must tell us how it will do so.
We have also spoken about some concerns we have with regard to the Office of Religious Freedom. After considerably and consistently diminishing Canada's international presence and engagement, cutting democratic development programs focused on human rights, and ignoring or marginalizing Canada's knowledgeable and experienced diplomatic corps, the Conservatives have established an office with limited scope and resources to do what many of these very diplomats and programs did so effectively in the past.
The promotion of freedom of religion as an objective of our foreign policy obviously has very considerable merit. However, again, it should not and cannot replace a broader engagement of Canada on the international stage in the promotion of other rights and freedoms with the same vigour and enthusiasm that the government wants to promote religious freedoms. Rather than pursuing substantive results in the areas of religious freedoms alongside other human rights, the government's approach often prefers to resort to symbolism or posturing, often focused on a domestic political audience. The government must demonstrate to Canadians that it is focused on a constructive engagement for Canada in foreign policy, not simply easy symbols or gestures, which have considerable merit in and of themselves, but should not replace a more broad and robust engagement for Canada abroad.
We must ensure that the creation of the Office of Religious Freedom does not create a hierarchy among religious rights and other rights to equality, that it is not used for partisan or political purposes and that its conception of religious freedom is truly pluralistic.
We feel it is very important to ensure that the Office of Religious Freedom, which we believe has merit, is never used to exclude certain religions or forms of religious expression.
For example, Canada should be investing a national endowment in a centre for democracy to establish a framework for the protection and promotion of democratic rights as basic human rights as well. Since 2008, the Conservatives have promised to set up a non-partisan office for democratic development but have failed to do so.
We see the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, an independent professional public service and an effective, truly transparent electoral mechanism as essential parts of Canada's foreign policy, as well as the promotion of human rights and religious freedoms.
Members will remember that the Conservatives dismantled, in a rather dramatic and unfair way, an organization known as Rights and Democracy. Until the Conservatives sabotaged it, it had previously played an effective role in promoting Canadian foreign policy in terms of our participation in helping fledgling democracies implant basic institutions of democratic rule and electoral transparency.
The Liberals will always work with the government in supporting and promoting matters as important as the protection of religious freedoms and the promotion of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Clearly, for a long time this has been an essential part of Canada's engagement abroad.
However, we have real concerns that we are increasingly limiting the face of Canada's foreign policy to a more narrow range of issues, instead of accepting that Canadian NGOs and a professional and competent diplomatic corps that has served this country for generations with honour should be allowed to also express, in a very robust way, our support for other freedoms and other human rights as extensively as the government would propose with respect to this Office of Religious Freedom.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-04 15:10 [p.14559]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present two petitions signed by residents of the province of New Brunswick from my constituency and from a number of others. The petitions express serious concerns about the government's changes to employment insurance. These changes would be very negative for those who work in seasonal industries, and they are calling on the government to change these regressive measures immediately.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-15 11:23 [p.14199]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' mismanagement of the economy is having a real impact on all Canadians. Whether it be the closing of immigration and Service Canada offices or unacceptably long telephone wait times to discuss income taxes, all Canadians are being hurt by these Conservative decisions. Now we hear that regional post offices may be closing. Even more Canadians will be paying the price.
Why must so many people suffer because of the Conservatives' financial incompetence?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-15 11:24 [p.14199]
Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to mention rural post offices. Whether it is the closing of immigration offices, Service Canada offices, or unacceptable wait times people face to try to talk to someone on the phone at Revenue Canada, Canadians are being punished by Conservative economic mismanagement.
We now learn that rural post offices in communities like Bayfield, New Brunswick, which I represent—the minister would know it well; it is close to the Confederation Bridge, which goes from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island—are now threatened by further cuts from the Conservative government.
Will the minister stand and say that they will maintain Jean Chrétien's moratorium of 1994—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-14 14:26 [p.14154]
Mr. Speaker, if non-aboriginal women went missing at the same rate as aboriginal women in Canada, there would be 20,000 missing or murdered women. The police find the culprit in 84% of murder cases in Canada, but when the victim is aboriginal, this rate drops to 50%.
Serious allegations have been made against the police, but the government still refuses to take action. Why not hold a judicial inquiry immediately?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-13 15:15 [p.14088]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.
The first petition is signed by a number of residents from the beautiful city of Dieppe, Memramcook and Kent County, who are calling on the government to increase funding for a very important NGO, Development and Peace, that does essential work.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-13 15:16 [p.14088]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by hundreds and hundreds of residents from my riding, calls on the government to stop the very negative changes to employment insurance that will hurt so many thousands of people in seasonal industries
The petitioners ask Parliament and the government to ensure that seasonal industries, their employers and employees, are treated fairly by stopping these changes to employment insurance.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-07 14:27 [p.13860]
Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, mortgage debt has increased by 77% and other debt has exploded by 56%. At the same time, the Conservatives have added $750 million to workers' tax burden with three consecutive increases in employment insurance contributions.
Can the minister explain how these tax increases will help Canadian families pay off their debts?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-05 14:51 [p.13705]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' unjust changes to employment insurance do not just penalize workers, they penalize employers too.
Whether for agriculture on the Prairies, for tourism in the Niagara region, for the education system in Quebec or for the Atlantic oil industry, employers need a trained, local workforce at times of the year when they do not offer regular work. If they do not have access to those workers, they will be forced to close their doors.
Why do the Conservatives insist on making changes to employment insurance that will eliminate jobs and penalize employers all across Canada?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-05 20:32 [p.13749]
Mr. Chair, I hope our colleague from Ottawa Centre might expand on his assertion, which he touched on briefly in his comments, with respect to the government's overall approach with respect to the African continent.
The Liberal Party believes the government has by and large turned its back on Africa. It is not interested in developments socially, economically or culturally that have taken place in Africa. We have closed consulates and embassies. We have reduced Canada's presence on the African continent. Obviously now we are dealing with a very difficult and real threat posed by the extremists in Mali and with the possibility of spreading to other regions of that continent.
Could the member for Ottawa Centre, who has considerable experience in foreign affairs, share with the House and Canadians his view on the government's failure to engage in a broad dialogue with partners in Africa in a way that we would have much more influence than we do arriving at the last minute when, as he said, the house is on fire, trying to work with others to help put out the fire?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-05 22:54 [p.13767]
Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech.
My question is as follows: would she agree with us, with the comments made by our colleague from Toronto Centre, our interim leader, when he asked the government to look a little further ahead than just a week or a month when it comes to Canada's commitment?
There are many ways Canada can make commitments. I agree with my colleague regarding the fact that, financially, we could be doing a lot more. We could contribute more to the United Nations, although this government often hesitates. There are so many ways we can participate.
But would my colleague agree that this should be an open commitment, in the sense that we say to our allies, our African allies, the African Union, the European community, that Canada is fundamentally interested in solutions that will help Mali, that will make this African region more secure? We will not make any decisions based on the schedule of one plane for a week or a month, but we will support the people of Africa and our allies in order to come up with a lasting, long-term, regional solution, and not just in a conflict zone that we desert at the first sign of improvement, as my colleague said.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-05 23:16 [p.13770]
Mr. Chair, I congratulate my colleague on his remarks and note his service in the Canadian armed forces and his experience in Afghanistan. Perhaps because of that experience, I wonder if he would share with the House his view on whether Canada could, as some of my colleagues have asked, adopt a more robust role militarily in supporting allies.
I agree entirely with his assessment of the importance of pushing back the extremist and terrorist threat. I think he correctly highlighted that success. I do not disagree necessarily with his view that a direct combat role for Canadian Forces at this point is not something the government should look at. The Prime Minister has been clear on that.
However, is there another role than providing this airplane for five weeks? Could it be training or logistic support, perhaps in an office in Bamako? Are there other ways that the military could provide non-combat support other than the plane simply going between Bamako and Paris?
The member's experience in Afghanistan would show that this is invaluable and I wonder if he would share his thoughts on that with the House.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-05 23:34 [p.13772]
Mr. Chair, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know he was a little pressed for time, since he had only five minutes left. I would like to give him an opportunity to speak more about the role Canada can play in supporting the return to democracy to Mali.
It is a failure, a difficult situation. The government mentioned a road map to democracy a number of times. I think everyone agrees that the status quo cannot last and that Mali needs a stable, open and transparent democracy again, like the one that Canada bragged about helping to establish in the past. It was obviously more fragile than we thought.
Does my colleague have any specific ideas? He mentioned Elections Canada and other provinces. But what can Canada do to steer the Malian government back towards a real democracy? What does he see Canada's role to be in this?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-12-12 19:25 [p.13251]
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I would like to wish you and your family a very merry Christmas and a holiday season with your family that enables you to experience some moments that are perhaps a little quieter than those of the last few months.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I join my two colleagues who have just spoken and wish happy holidays to the many people who support the work we do in Parliament and in the House of Commons. Some of them are visible. Madame O'Brien and the clerks who work at the table have done a terrific job.
I share the comments made regarding the professional, helpful work done by the pages who come from every region of Canada to spend a year with us in the House of Commons. I too wish them luck in exams and a peaceful, pleasant holiday season. I look forward to seeing them in the new year.
On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to send wishes for a happy holiday to all the members of the House of Commons, to all the staff who work behind the scenes and support our work, such as the interpreters who do such a remarkable job, security staff and housekeeping staff, as well as all those who do important work so that we can represent our constituents.
We look forward to seeing everyone in good health in 2013.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-12-06 14:40 [p.12973]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' financial incompetence has resulted in record debt of $600 billion. Consequently, the Conservatives are now slashing services that are important to Canadians.
Service Canada cuts are causing significant delays for the most vulnerable, while immigration cuts are making wait times for family reunifications even longer.
Why must Canadians pay for the financial incompetence of the Conservative government?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-12-05 14:41 [p.12900]
Mr. Speaker, long after the Conservatives are no longer in power, people will remember that the Conservatives created the largest deficit in Canada's history. They will also remember that, because of the Conservatives' financial incompetence, our veterans lost the right to a proper burial, people who lost their jobs were unable to access employment insurance, and the safety of the food we eat was compromised.
Why do all these people have to pay the price for the Conservatives' financial incompetence?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-12-05 14:42 [p.12900]
Mr. Speaker, irresponsible Conservative financial management has led to a record $600 billion debt and now vulnerable Canadians are paying the price. Cuts to front-line services at immigration offices, Veterans Affairs and Service Canada mean that real people with real problems cannot get real help. A single parent searching for information on a child tax benefit cannot wait on hold for three hours on a 1-800 number.
Why are vulnerable Canadians being punished by this irresponsible Conservative financial management?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-12-03 12:41 [p.12745]
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday evening, in Bouctouche, New Brunswick, I was at a large public meeting with over 600 people who were very concerned about the changes that the government is making to employment insurance, particularly with respect to employers in seasonal industries and those who work for those employers.
The government has decided to shut down debate on this budget implementation bill. That will do nothing to reassure these 600-plus people who are concerned about the changes that the government is making. Many people live in small rural communities where there is no other employment and forcing them to drive perhaps an hour to accept a minimum wage job would not be economically possible.
I am wondering what the Minister of State for Finance could say to these people who are worried that these last minute changes, which his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, is making, will make the situation much worse and will lead to real anxiety on the part of employers and employees.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-11-26 15:17 [p.12449]
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions today in the House of Commons. One is from a group of three students I met at Mount Allison University last Friday in Sackville, New Brunswick. Jennifer, John and Jamie have collected hundreds of signatures from students at Mount Allison and the University of Moncton and others who are urging the House to support Bill C-398 to do more to ensure that people in sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, have access to life-saving medications. I found them to be impressive young people and I would urge the government to listen carefully to what these petitioners are saying.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-11-26 15:18 [p.12449]
Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a petition signed by a number of residents of Bass River, New Brunswick, in Kent County. They are very concerned about the future of their post office. Their postmaster is retiring and there seems to be some confusion about whether this rural post office will remain open. They are urging the government to ensure that postal service remains for these residents of Kent County.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-11-19 14:55 [p.12164]
Mr. Speaker, when the minister defends her unfair changes to employment insurance, she seems to be saying that people in Atlantic Canada are too lazy to find jobs themselves.
What the minister does not understand is that often there are no jobs in the regions. The people know this and protested by the thousands against these changes in New Brunswick this past weekend.
Why are the Conservatives refusing to solve the real problem: the lack of stable, long-term, full-time jobs in Atlantic Canada? Why are they punishing workers?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-11-08 11:57 [p.12113]
Mr. Speaker, I received petitions signed by thousands of people who are against the Conservatives' proposed changes to employment insurance. These people understand very well that there are no jobs in the middle of the winter where we come from and that the Prime Minister is punishing them because he thinks that these people might just be lazy.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to meet with these workers and why does the government refuse to change its plan that will punish both the people working in seasonal industries and their employers?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-11-05 15:14 [p.11922]
Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present two petitions. Stella Cormier, one of my constituents, circulated these petitions. She has done a great job of expressing people's concerns about the changes to employment insurance that this government intends to make. Like me, she is very concerned about the future of seasonal industries, employees and employers. She circulated these petitions and had hundreds of people sign them. These people are very worried and are asking the government to change this policy, which will penalize them.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-11-01 14:12 [p.11800]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the remarkable work of local economic development agencies in my riding.
In particular, I would like to thank Enterprise Kent, its staff, board of directors and especially its executive director, Guy Léger.
After 24 years of outstanding service, dedication and impressive economic results, Guy Léger will be leaving Enterprise Kent when the agency closes its doors as a result of the very bad decision by the Conservatives to make cuts to all Atlantic regional economic development agencies.
Guy Léger has contributed to hundreds of economic and community successes over his quarter century of service. He will be missed by entrepreneurs and community leaders and I will miss his advice and support.
I salute Guy, his spouse, Kathy, and his family, and extend a special thank you to him on behalf of the people of my region.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-11-01 14:58 [p.11809]
Mr. Speaker, two former high-ranking Afghan officials have been invited to Canada to speak at a university conference in Ottawa. Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials told them they had to travel to Pakistan to get their visas, which could be akin to imposing a death sentence on them.
Can the minister explain why this would not be qualified as a special circumstance and authorize visas to be issued in Kabul so that their lives would not be put in jeopardy? Why is the government effectively denying entry to Afghans who some years and months ago were allies of Canada?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-31 15:40 [p.11728]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today and present two petitions.
The first petition is signed by a great number of residents from New Brunswick and some from Nova Scotia. They are petitioning this House and the government to change the proposals made by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development with respect to employment insurance. It will greatly disadvantage those in small rural communities and seasonal industries.
The petitioners call upon the government to change its course.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-31 15:41 [p.11728]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a group of grandmothers, advocacy groups and others from the Tantramar area of my riding from Sackville, New Brunswick. They call upon the government and the House to adopt Bill C-398 to ensure that generic medicines are available to those most in need, particularly in African countries.
I think it is important that the House consider this petition favourably.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-22 15:13 [p.11295]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present two petitions. The first has to do with employment insurance and the government's proposed changes, which will be very harmful to the seasonal workers in my riding. These workers will have to travel for about an hour to find a job that often does not exist. The people of my riding are calling on this government to reconsider those changes.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-22 15:14 [p.11295]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a group of grandmothers and others from the Tantramar area of my constituency, around Sackville, who are very concerned about access to life-saving generic medicines in Africa and other developing countries.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to support Bill C-398 which, in my view, would do a great deal to encourage Canadians to support these people in very difficult circumstances.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-17 15:43 [p.11106]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present two petitions.
The first comes to us from a group in the Sackville area, which is in my riding, Tantramar.
It is a group of grandmothers and others who are petitioning this House with respect to the access to medicines regime and the private member's bill that was introduced, Bill C-398.
The petitioners are calling on the House to support this legislation, and it is certainly something I intend to do at the appropriate moment.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-17 15:44 [p.11107]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes mostly from the people of Bouctouche, in my riding. These farmers, producers and others are worried about the government's bad move to close down the Hervé J. Michaud Experimental Farm in the Bouctouche area. This is a tremendously important facility for the agricultural industry; the petitioners all hail from the greater Bouctouche area. It is with pleasure that I present these petitions to the House.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-15 15:10 [p.10982]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today and present a petition given to me by a group of grandmothers and others from New Brunswick, the Sackville and Tantramar area of my constituency. These people have done a lot of work in bringing the issue of access to medicines, particularly in Africa, to the attention of parliamentarians. They are calling upon Parliament to support Bill C-398, which would improve access to many of these medications. It is legislation I have always supported.
I am happy to present this petition on behalf of a group of great people from my constituency who have collected signatures from all over the Maritimes in support of this important bill.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-15 15:17 [p.10983]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to rise again to present a petition that is very important in southeastern New Brunswick, particularly in the agricultural community.
Senator Hervé J. Michaud Experimental Farm is facing closure. The government has announced the closure of this experimental farm, a federal institution that has a lot of support from the community. Hundreds of farmers in the Bouctouche region, in Kent County, have signed a petition. They are calling on the government to reverse its decision and preserve this very important institution.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-03 18:24 [p.10787]
moved that Bill C-424, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (contestation of election and punishment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today to private member's Bill C-424, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
The bill would strengthen the federal electoral system to ensure all citizens would have access to due process in the case of contested elections as well as prevent, we hope, the repeat of the potential electoral fraud on a wide scale, which has marred Canadians' confidence in the last general election.
This bill accomplishes two very important things.
First, it would add the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada as somebody eligible under the law to contest an electoral result. Under the current law, and based upon the prescribed grounds in the act, an electoral district result can only be contested by an elector who was eligible to vote in that district or a candidate who ran as a candidate in that district as well.
As we have recently seen, contesting an election is a very expensive proposition and something many Canadians simply cannot afford. By adding the Chief Electoral Officer to the list of people who can contest an electoral result, we are making it possible for Canadians who cannot afford this process to have access themselves to the courts.
We are in no way seeking to alter the burden of proof in contesting a result or changing any other evidentiary requirement. We are simply giving the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada standing to bring an action before the courts, as could any eligible elector or candidate.
In addition, in circumstances where electoral fraud is suspected in more than one riding, this bill will permit the Chief Electoral Officer to better investigate the allegations.
Under the current system, if centralized fraud that affects a number of ridings is committed, Canadians in each individual riding must challenge the election before the courts, still as individuals.
While the act itself may be centralized, the only means available to these people to address the crime is limited to the electoral boundaries.
If the Chief Electoral Officer can challenge all of the electoral results, he or she will be able to ensure that no person or group can hide behind this technical detail.
This approach is entirely consistent with other electoral systems in Canada such as in British Columbia, Ontario and Nunavut, where the chief electoral officers are able to contest the election result in a particular electoral district.
Second, the bill would simply increase the fines for obstruction of the electoral process, for example, on a summary conviction from currently not more than $2,000 to not more than $20,000. For conviction by indictment, as members well know, the current legislation prescribes a fine of not more than $5,000. This bill would increase that to $50,000.
Canadians need to trust our electoral system and its integrity. Anyone who tries to undermine that trust and cheat the system must know that the consequences will be significant. The intent of this clause is to provide an even stronger deterrent to people who might think about cheating our electoral system.
Therefore, two very simple changes are being proposed.
The first aspect is the Chief Electoral Officer will have the ability at law to contest an electoral result in a district. Obviously, this will be done following a thorough analysis by Elections Canada, which is very conscious of the legal requirements of such a contestation.
The second aspect of the legislation we are proposing would simply increase the existing penalties. It would not change the nature of the offences. It would not add new offences. It would simply say that if someone is convicted on a summary conviction of election fraud, we think $2,000 is not the right sanction as a maximum penalty. It should be increased to $20,000 and the same thing on indictment, from $5,000 to $50,000. There is no mandatory minimum prescribed in our changes and our proposals, we are simply increasing the existing penalties for existing offences.
I believe the changes in the bill will strengthen our democracy and help rebuild some of the trust that perhaps has been lost in recent months. The last federal election cast a shadow over a number of electoral districts. Investigations are ongoing in a number of different electoral districts. We think that these changes will ensure that the respect for our electoral system is maintained and that those who seek to violate it would face consequences commensurate with the nature of the offence, that being the undermining of the basic democratic rights of Canadians.
I hope all members of all parties in the House will ultimately support the bill when it comes to a vote. Obviously, should it be sent to committee, I would be willing to entertain amendments or suggestions from all sides of the House in an effort to strengthen the legislation. If there are technical aspects that perhaps can be improved, I would remain very open to the suggestions of my colleagues.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-03 18:31 [p.10788]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Toronto—Danforth raises a very appropriate question. All we would be seeking to do is give the Chief Electoral Officer the legal standing to contest a result or number of results when he feels an action should be brought before the courts. It is my understanding that in their legislation, Ontario, Nunavut and British Columbia have that authority in the hands of their respective chief electoral officers. Obviously, the discretion would be entirely in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer should he choose in a particular case to contest a result before the appropriate board or tribunal.
If my colleagues support the legislation and we send it to committee, I would hope the committee would see fit to ask Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer to give us their views of the legislation in committee. If the committee saw fit to make some suggestions following evidence from the Chief Electoral Officer, I would hope that we could all collectively improve the legislation.
However, I think the answer to my colleague's question is quite simple. In no way would this change the spirit or substance of the act. It simply adds one more person as having the legal grounds, the standing in law, to bring an application before the courts.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-03 18:34 [p.10788]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kitchener Centre makes a valid point. In no way would we seek to diminish the neutrality and the confidence that the Chief Electoral Officer has in the eyes of Canadians and in the eyes of the House.
I would remind my colleague from Kitchener Centre that it was the Conservative Party that voted no confidence at one point on another election scandal it was involved in, and that was the in and out scandal. The Conservatives are the ones who voted no confidence in Elections Canada and its Chief Electoral Officer. It certainly was not people on this side of the House.
At the end of the day, Elections Canada has an investigatory responsibility. The Commissioner of Canada Elections himself can make recommendations to the director of public prosecutions around quasi criminal prosecutions for fraud.
The Chief Electoral Officer has an essential role to uphold the integrity of our election system and cannot be simply a silent observer when he feels, in his wisdom, that the courts should decide. He would not decide. The courts would decide ultimately if there has been a fraud. He would simply have the opportunity to bring that case before the appropriate tribunals.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-01 13:18 [p.10624]
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to indicate my enthusiastic support for the motion introduced by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
I would also like to congratulate the Liberal human resources critic, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, for all his work on the employment insurance file.
Ever since the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development made her announcement in August—without ever having discussed it in Parliament—we have heard many times during question period and in debates in the House that the changes she proposed have had the opposite effect to what the government claimed.
Many times over, my colleagues in the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party have shown the government some very specific examples. They have explained how the changes the minister has proposed to the former pilot project, created by the Liberal government in 2003, were going to cause problems and discourage people from accepting additional hours of work or part-time work during the part of the year they receive EI benefits.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso said, when we saw the budget in the spring and the changes described in the working while on claim pilot project, our first reaction was to commend the government. The government talked about improving the changes that had already helped employers a great deal, in my region, in New Brunswick, and across Canada. Those changes had helped workers, both men and women, to accept available work during times when a business is closed down for part of the year, or the workers’ usual employment is not available, or they are on parental leave. We commended the government because at the time, we thought that it was going to increase to 50% the amount that a person could earn without suffering a dollar-for-dollar reduction in EI benefits. In August we found out we were mistaken.
In fact, what the budget said was not entirely truthful. In her announcement, the minister changed the 40% base for calculations. Previously, under the old pilot project, a person was entitled to earn up to 40% of EI benefits without any reduction. The government said it was going to increase that to 50%, but in fact, that 50% of earned income will not be deducted, dollar for dollar, from EI benefits.
As we have seen with many other policies brought in by this government, it is more likely to benefit high income earners and, in a very limited number of cases, people who earn a lot of money during a period in which they are receiving the maximum employment insurance benefit.
In my home province of New Brunswick, like in many rural areas of Canada, people do not have the opportunity to receive the maximum amount of benefits or to work full time and earn $600, $700 or $800 during a week in which they are receiving maximum EI benefits. The examples the government used to claim that it would benefit everyone really relate to people with higher earnings, who receive the maximum EI benefits and the highest incomes from part-time employment.
Here is a very specific example. In my riding, there is a seafood processing plant located in the town of Bouctouche. A woman called my constituency office in Shediac to explain her situation. She was stunned to learn that she was being penalized for agreeing to work half a shift. It was the only work available in Bouctouche and she was penalized as a result of the changes to the EI program.
That woman's entire income so far this year is $7,868. Clearly, she is not a high income earner. She probably earns just a little more than minimum wage. As we all know, employment insurance is 50% of one's weekly earnings. Her weekly income, when she was working, was $562. Since she was getting 55% of that amount, she got $309 in EI every week when she was forced to turn to EI benefits.
This time, she was asked to work six hours and earned $62. Under the former system, as my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso explained, she would have been allowed to earn up to 40% of her benefits—40% of $309—or $123.60. She could earn $123 in wages without causing a reduction in her employment insurance benefits. Unfortunately, under the new system, the $62 she earned by working six hours were reduced to $31 because 50% of the $62 was deducted from her EI. Instead of finishing up the week with $371—her EI benefits plus the $62 she earned—she took in $340. As my college from Malpeque said, the idea of working six hours for $31 does not make sense. These workers are often women, who have to have someone look after their children. They have daycare expenses. The cost of gasoline in my riding and throughout Canada is very high. These people travel 30 to 60 minutes to get to work.
With these changes, the government is discouraging this woman from going to work when the only work available in her area is a six-hour shift per week.
This also puts employers in my region and across Canada at a disadvantage. This does not penalize only those who receive employment insurance benefits. In fact, employers, such as Mills Seafood in Bouctouche, will have a very hard time finding employees when they have work available for a day or a day and a half a week.
It is the same thing in the tourism industry, where, back home, companies operate a few weekends in November and December, to organize Christmas celebrations, for example. In this case, employees will hesitate to go work because they will be punished as a result of the harmful changes made by the current government.
The solution is simple. Instead of punishing a nurse who decides to work eight to 12 hours in a week while she is receiving parental leave benefits, the government should reinstate the old system that encouraged people to work and that helped employers find workers during certain periods of the year when it is often difficult. The changes brought in by the government will have the opposite effect of what they keep claiming. They do not understand the challenges faced by real families and small- and medium-sized businesses across Canada.
We are opposed to these changes. Other proposed changes to employment insurance worry us. We are pleased to vote in favour of this motion, because we believe that the government must do better for Canadian workers.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-01 13:29 [p.10625]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North is absolutely right.
The minister gets up during question period time and time again. Her parliamentary secretary provides equally sad performances. They continually regurgitate talking points written by bureaucrats in an office tower in Gatineau, Quebec.
They do not understand the reality of everyday living in small town and rural communities across the country, or even in larger urban centres like Winnipeg, represented so ably by my colleague from Winnipeg North. People may be encouraged to take part-time work during the year when perhaps there is no work available when they find themselves laid-off through no fault of their own or while they are receiving the parental or compassionate leave benefit.
The minister clearly does not understand the changes she has made. She consistently reverts back to the high-income earner examples, the people receiving maximum EI benefits and working part-time for $600 and $700 a week. That is not the reality in many communities across this country and the minister should do better for those people than simply regurgitate lame talking points.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-01 13:32 [p.10625]
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, initially I thought that the changes, which were vaguely described in the budget document, were intended to increase to 50% the previous pilot project. As has been said many times, the previous pilot project allowed someone receiving EI benefits to earn the greater of either $75 or 40% of their EI benefit, without the earnings being clawed back dollar for dollar. In the example I gave of someone making $309 a week on employment insurance in my riding, that person would have been able to work up to 40% of that EI benefit for $123 without a clawback.
However, that example no longer exists. The government was very deceitful in talking about an increase to 50%. It did not say that it was changing the base on which that percentage was calculated. It is not based on the amount of one's EI benefit; the government changed it to the amount of income one earned separately and apart from the EI benefit.
Therefore, if the base of the calculation is changed and the government starts clawing back earnings dollar for dollar, it perversely and severely punishes low-income earners and, of course, continues the Conservative way of benefiting the highest income earners among us. That is what they like. That is not what we like on this side of the House.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-01 14:52 [p.10639]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives showed their true colours when they eliminated funding for the Afghan Canadian Community Centre in Kandahar, a school for young Afghan women. Last year they were saying wonderful things about the school; now they are abandoning this initiative, which has reduced poverty and offered hope to young Afghan women. The United States government, which is more enlightened than the Conservatives, is keeping its school open.
How can the Conservatives abandon young Afghan women after all our soldiers' work and sacrifices?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-27 14:41 [p.10538]
Mr. Speaker, let us try this again. A woman in my riding who works in a seafood plant receives employment insurance benefits when the plant is closed. She managed to find a minimum wage job in Bouctouche, where an employer is looking for someone to work just one night a week. Let us be clear: there are no other jobs in Bouctouche and, no matter what the minister believes, this woman is not lazy.
Why does the minister want to take away half of this woman's earnings?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-19 14:29 [p.10141]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once said that providing for the poor is not a federal responsibility. He does not think it is his job to help those people. The Prime Minister was clearly having a Mitt Romney moment.
EI recipients are worse off if they try to work. The government has failed to improve CPP while rolling back OAS. There are crippling mortgage rates on social housing. The Prime Minister does not care about those people.
Why is the Prime Minister trying to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable Canadians?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-19 14:30 [p.10142]
Mr. Speaker, economic inequality in Canada is continuing to grow, and the Conservatives' solution is to punish people who are receiving employment insurance benefits and who are looking for part-time work. What is more, the unemployment rate among young people has reached 15% and the Conservatives' solution is to close the employment centres that help them to find jobs.
When will this government realize that it must govern on behalf of all Canadians and not just on behalf of those it thinks voted for the Conservatives?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-19 14:31 [p.10142]
Mr. Speaker, the minister can continue, but the reality is 165,000 young people have simply given up looking for work. EI recipients who want to work while on claim are worse off financially. They suffer from a secret clawback. Millions of Canadians are without a pension plan and the government is rolling back the OAS.
For our economy to thrive, all Canadians must be the object of federal government policy. When will it reverse these destructive policies and begin to govern for all Canadians, every one of them?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-18 14:54 [p.10112]
Mr. Speaker, all of the fishers of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are very worried about the future of their industry because of the minister's refusal to drop his plan to destroy coastal fisheries and the communities that depend on them.
Will the minister rise here today and promise that he will not change the fleet separation policy and the owner-operator principle?
He did not do so in response to my colleague's question. His refusal to do so here today makes this a very sad day for our coastal fisheries.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-18 16:29 [p.10124]
Mr. Speaker, let me begin, as many others have done, by congratulating you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I am very proud to see you in the Chair and I congratulate you.
In his remarks, my colleague from Hamilton Centre correctly referred to the tendency the government has to remove judicial discretion in much of Canada's criminal law.
From my perspective, victim surcharges are often very appropriate, and certainly supporting victims and initiatives that support victims of crime has a lot of merit in our justice system.
Does he agree that the knee-jerk reaction of the government is always to tie judges' hands by imposing mandatory minimum sentences, pretending that somehow that is getting tough on crime, often creating unintended consequences? Does he agree that the solution in the case of a judicial sentence that appears inappropriate or does not respect the principles of sentencing is to go to the court of appeal to seek to have that sentence changed instead of consistently taking away judicial discretion, as it is seeking to do in this bill?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-18 16:44 [p.10126]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île on her speech. I agree that the government is often uninterested in parliamentary debates. However, it may be interested in the question I have for my colleague or my suggestion for her.
In her speech she referred to some of the failures of the Republican policy on criminal justice. I share her concerns about the fact that the government is basing programs, policies and bills on ones that have proven to be failures in certain U.S. states, such as California and Texas.
Could my colleague elaborate, for the benefit of everyone, on her concerns that the government seems to be inspired by policies that have failed in certain U.S. states?
What are her concerns for the future of the Canadian justice system in light of the Conservative government's blind faith in its American idols?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-17 14:56 [p.10001]
Mr. Speaker, RMG is a company that contacts voters at the Conservative Party's behest. Former RMG employees signed affidavits stating that they were forced to call non-Conservative voters and direct them to the wrong polling station. The company says that it has recordings proving its innocence, but it is refusing to turn those recordings over to a Federal Court investigation. The integrity of our voting system is at stake.
What will the government do to ensure that RMG and the Conservative Party obey the law?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-05-31 11:11 [p.8613]
Madam Speaker, I certainly would not want to cut off my colleague for Cape Breton—Canso, but I am sure he will be up later this afternoon for an important intervention.
I was hoping to ask the parliamentary secretary about this notion of commuting one hour to find a job that, in some parts of the country, would not exist one hour away. However, let us say that there is this magical year-round job that is well-paying and is one hour away.
For a person living in rural New Brunswick, there is no public transit. As I have said before, the closest subway to my riding is in Boston. The idea is that somehow a person could commute 100 kilometres, which would be a one-hour commute in New Brunswick, might not have a car or a second car, to accept a job that pays 70% of what their previous job paid. If they worked for $11 or $12 an hour in New Brunswick, they would commute effectively for a minimum wage job. How does she think that is fair to a single parent in my riding who, economically, would not be able to make that work?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-05-31 11:14 [p.8614]
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I plan on sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Random—Burin—St. George's.
First, I would like to thank our NDP colleagues and particularly the member for Hamilton Mountain for bringing this discussion before the House. I would also like to say that we plan on enthusiastically supporting the NDP motion because we think that this issue affects a large number of people and has raised a lot of concerns, particularly among people who work in seasonal industries.
My colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, in a question to the minister, said something important. One element of the budget, which we thought was positive, was the idea that the pilot projects that were established in 2005 to calculate weekly earnings based on the best 14 weeks, if that is what the divisor is in the economic region where one resides, was an important improvement. Previously, it had been calculated on the most recent weeks and not best weeks, so there was an unintended consequence of actually discouraging people from taking available work if it were for a day, two days or three days because it had a perverse effect the year after of diminishing the employment insurance benefits people may need at a time of year when they have no work. That was an important step. I am glad that was renewed and that it will be rolled out nationally. That will help Canadians seeking work across the country.
The other important element is the working-while-on-claim provision. It will only be a two year pilot project. I hope that becomes a permanent part of the Employment Insurance Act, especially for people who run a bed and breakfast in rural New Brunswick or an auberge. After the tourist season is over, they often cannot remain open beyond certain months in the fall. They may want to stay open on weekends in November and December, have Christmas parties or host families coming together at that time of year but they cannot find employees. If they do show up for work when work is available, they would be punished at some future time in their employment insurance benefits. I am glad those changes were recognized as having been positive.
A group of workers and employers in my riding, specifically in the Cap-Pelé and Bouctouche areas, worked together to bring these changes before Parliament and before the Liberal government at the time. Rodrigue Landry, co-chair of this committee, and an employee of a fish processing plant in the Cap-Pelé area in my riding, were part of it. There was also an employee from Westmorland Fisheries, who worked with Ronald LeBlanc, and other employers. Aline Landry was also involved. I am pleased to see that this is continuing.
However, I must say that there is an enormous amount of concern across Canada regarding the employment insurance reforms that this government is proposing.
This is a national concern. It is not a concern in rural New Brunswick only. It is not only a concern in eastern Quebec or northern Ontario. These regions will be among the hardest hit by the changes the Conservatives are proposing.
Right here on Parliament Hill there are workers who are in seasonal employment. The people who work in the food service sector, in the cafeterias and the restaurant in this very building, find themselves facing layoffs at times of the year when the food service operation scales down. The government has inadvertently, I hope, ended up punishing people who work very hard on Parliament Hill every day that we are here and have done so, in numerous cases, for many years. These employees will be hurt by these changes.
So, too, will be a lot of very vulnerable persons, often single parents or women, who work in various seasonal sectors of the economy. It is important to remind ourselves that it is not the workers who are seasonal, it is the jobs in sectors of the economy. Up to 25% of Canada's GDP comes from seasonal industries, and it is not only fish processing in my riding, tourism operations or agricultural operations. I am talking about people who work for municipal governments, school boards and sectors of the economy from coast to coast to coast. In every community, there are people who will be hurt by these proposed changes.
There is no doubt: the people who will be hit the hardest by the cuts are the people who work in seasonal industries.
I received an email from a woman named Patricia Fraser who operates a mid-sized landscaping company on the outskirts of Moncton in a community called Indian Mountain. She hires 8 to 12 people every year. The company has been in business for almost 30 years. She does not see, with these proposed changes, how she will be able to keep these very hard-working women and men who year after year do a great job for her company and her clients. She will lose these workers. Her business is threatened. These very changes, Patricia Fraser tells me, will have a direct impact on a very important employer in an area of my riding where there, frankly, are not great employment opportunities.
As I mentioned in a question for the parliamentary secretary, it is a ridiculous idea that people can commute one hour to go to a job and one hour to return home from a place in rural New Brunswick.
Basically, we are going to tell someone living in Richibouctou or in Saint-Louis-de-Kent, an hour from Moncton, that he will have to travel 105 km twice a day, on roads that are exceedingly dangerous in the winter, in order to take a job at a very modest wage, at minimum wage.
Many of the workers in my riding are making $10, $11 or $12 an hour right now. They are not very well paid. If people do not to take a job at 70% of their wages or a job one hour away in Moncton, they will be punished and cut off employment insurance. For them, economically, they would be better off on provincial income assistance programs.
The government is effectively telling people that they will not have access to employment insurance because it will send them an email a couple of times a day about jobs. However, as my colleague from the NDP correctly noted, 20% to 30% of residents in rural Canada do not have access to the Internet or email capacity in their homes. The government is also cutting the community access centres where many people have been able to have access to the Internet. The failure of people to respond to an email about a job in a retail sector an hour away from where they live would lead to their employment insurance benefits being cut off. The consequences of that will be to empty communities in rural Canada.
One of my good friends, Dr. Donald Savoie, an expert in regional development and a professor with a Canada research chair at the Université de Moncton, clearly said that several rural and remote communities will die as a result of these changes.
Maybe the real objective of the government is to make life more difficult and complicated for the people in rural Nova Scotia, or on the outskirts of Newfoundland and Labrador or in rural New Brunswick, in my riding. Maybe it wants to complicate people's lives and the lives of their employers, the people who pay their wages, build businesses and hire people in very tentative and difficult economic circumstances. Maybe the government is telling these people that it is not worth it any more so they should pack up and leave.
The social consequences of those changes will be far-reaching and devastating.
In the small communities that I represent, most of the people who work as volunteer firefighters tend to be younger people, often with families, many of whom work in seasonal industries.These people will be forced to get an apartment in Halifax or move to other parts of the country. The government will say that it is not forcing people to move, but in employment law there is a notion of constructive dismissal. An employer does not actually need to tell an employee that he or she is fired. Rather, the employer can change the person's working circumstances, conditions of work or workplace climate to make it so toxic and so unacceptable that the person must leave his or her job. In law, that is the same as calling the employee in and firing him or her. It is called constructive dismissal.
What the government is doing is constructive relocation. It will say that it is not forcing people to leave, but if people cannot find employment that allows them to pay their bills and look after their family, or if the small business they work for cannot get access to a qualified labour pool and, therefore, shuts down, the economic reality is that constructive relocation will take place and those people will leave those communities. We will not have volunteer firefighters who do fantastic work, not only fighting fires but in performing rescues in these communities.
Results: 121 - 180 of 217 | Page: 3 of 4

|<
<
1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data