Rodger Cuzner

[Petitions, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Inverness South Fishermen's Association. These are fishermen who ply their trade from Inverness, Mabou Mines, down through Baxters Cove and Murphys Pond and along the west coast of Cape Breton, Little Judique Harbour. Sixty-five fishermen have signed this petition.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to investigate whether there has been an unreasonable and inequitable fettering of discretion with respect to the Government of Canada's allotment of snow crab fishing licenses in area 12 among the fishermen of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Nova Scotia. They call for a 3% annual assignment of annual total quota for area 12 to the association.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you will find consent for the following motion.

I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Opposition Motion in the name of the Member for Westmount--Ville-Marie, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to the end of government orders on Tuesday, March 10, 2009.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes there are consequences that we just do not bargain for when we pass legislation in the House.

I see the merit in dropping the two week waiting period. I agree with that. People in my riding used to wait four or five weeks for their first cheque, but that has increased to six and sometimes seven weeks. The waiting period is getting longer as a result of the number of jobs being lost.

If the two week waiting period is dropped, we anticipate increased activity at Service Canada offices. Would one of the unintended consequences be an even greater delay in the processing of claims? Did the NDP think about that when it put this motion forward.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I commend the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, our critic for HRDC, who does a tremendous job on the EI file and on his whole critic portfolio. This is an issue and a subject on which he has done a great deal of work. I have a great deal of respect for all he has accomplished.

On this particular issue of the two week waiting period, the position of our critic and the position of our party will be to support this bill as we did in the last Parliament. A similar bill was brought forward in the last Parliament and we supported that as well.

I and many Canadians are very concerned with what has gone on in the economy of late with 129,000 jobs being lost just in the month of January. Many people are facing the great dilemma of whether to fill their oil tank, their prescriptions or their fridge.

I am concerned when I hear the parliamentary secretary state that David Dodge figures this is the best way to do this. I bet it has been quite some time since David Dodge had to walk in the back door, look at his wife, who is trying to feed four kids, and wonder where the next quart of milk is coming from. It is something he probably has not had to experience.

The unemployed are the most vulnerable and they need help and they need it now.

In reference to the five weeks, this is something the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has come back with in many of her answers to the question about the extension. The reality is that the five weeks applies only to those who quality for maximum benefits. If people qualify for 30 weeks they do not get 35 weeks. If they qualify for 32 weeks they do not get 37 weeks. People need to qualify for maximum benefits in order to qualify for those five weeks. This is something the government has been stating but we have not received clarification on this. I would hope the government takes the proper steps to ensure those five weeks are extended to all claimants through these very difficult and trying times.

The reference was made to a former minister, Jane Stewart, who handled the HRDC file a number of years back in past Liberal governments, and to the changes that were made through 1990s. We know that the EI system had been bankrupt coming into the early 1990s. We know that the Auditor General did not want EI revenues and the EI program run through an arm's length or a separate account but through general accounts. However, with inflation and an unemployment rate at 12% through the Mulroney days, our economy was in turmoil.

In order to salvage the EI program in the mid-1990, unprecedented steps were taken. Maybe those steps were necessary. I know the government likes to refer back and say that the Liberals made these cuts when they were in control but it forgets the second part of that where it was saying that the cuts did not go deep enough, that the cuts should have been greater.

The Liberals did make cuts and some of the changes that were made in the mid-1990s did alter the system and put disincentives in the system that hurt many people. I think we could probably get consensus on that on this side of the chamber.

As unemployment came down, more people were working and paying into the fund and with fewer people drawing out we all know the success story that was the EI surplus.

Changes were made in mid-2000, 2003 and 2004, including the doing away of the divisor rule and a number of changes that took some disincentives out. We know that every change in the system has a cost and that there is an accounting for every change and adaptation that is made. Coming into the debate late, I am not sure what the costing is on this or whether or not my colleague had put that forward.

Members of our caucus have put forward a number of pieces of EI legislation through private members' bills. My colleague for Sydney—Victoria has a private members' bill on extending sick benefits to those receiving benefits who have catastrophic health concerns. If one is battling a catastrophic disease or receiving cancer treatment, there should be an extension of health benefits paid through EI because we want those people to be totally focused on getting healthy.

One of the greatest concerns about any change in the system now is with what the government has done in establishing the arm's length agency to administer it. As we go into these trying times, we do not know if it will be able to stand up to a recession. We hope it will. When witnesses appeared before the HRDC committee, the actuaries were very concerned about the $2 billion limit that was put on the establishment of this arm's length agency. They thought the figure should have been closer to $10 billion or $12 billion. I guess we will see. If we continue to bleed the jobs that we are losing of late in this economy, the system will certainly be tested.

I think that those who lose their jobs are the most vulnerable people in our society. They should not go without a paycheque for a week or two weeks. We see that the increase in the time to turn around those benefits has increased over the last two years. I believe it is wise. I commend the member for putting this bill forward and I look forward to supporting this when it comes to the floor for a vote.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have been on the floor during debate with the member for Halifax. As a fellow Nova Scotian, I would like to welcome her to the chamber.

Communities within my constituency see opportunity in the stimulus package and the infrastructure package, but some of them are facing great challenges. Some of the smaller communities have extended themselves and accepted a fair amount of debt over the years, and they are challenged to get involved. They do not have the 30% of the dollars to get involved in the program.

Does the hon. member see this motion as a measure that would at least provide some hope and opportunity for these communities, and not necessarily smaller communities, that are carrying a fair amount of debt at this time?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate on this side of the House to have members in our caucus who have vast experience with municipal administration, like my hon. colleague. He has made a huge contribution toward past legislation developed by this caucus.

That is an idea that merits investigation. I would hope the government would seize on that potential suggestion.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I totally concur with my colleague for Timmins—James Bay in his concern that size should not matter. Smaller communities should certainly qualify. That was the fairness in the gas tax plan. That is why we thought all communities would benefit from the initiative put forward by the previous government, and it has proven successful.

This is why we would like to see the government move in that direction. It would be much to the benefit of all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our amendment to the budget made perfect sense to most Canadians. We wanted to ensure that the moneys was being spent, that the stimulus package was getting out the door and having some kind of impact. Through the distribution of the gas tax, we have seen a template that has been effective, that has worked, that has brought benefit to many communities. It was one that was brought forward by the previous Liberal government.

All we are saying is put more money into that template, into that program. That is where we will get the benefit, not just for those communities but for the economy. That is how to get this economy going again.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand and debate the motion today. What concerns us most about the budget is that many small municipalities throughout the country are unable to get involved in the infrastructure program because they do not have the entry level dollars with which to play.

As far as a stimulus package goes, we see infrastructure as a very important and worthwhile investment to help the economy get going, to help with our environment, to deal with water, sewage treatment problems and whatnot across the land. We know that construction jobs and projects that are shovel-ready will provide benefits to many communities and contractors within smaller communities. Therefore, we see it as a very worthwhile stimulus package.

However, what we have trouble with and what we have heard from various communities over the last number of months is that some communities are so stretched currently they cannot come up with those 30¢ dollars to play in this market. If the federal government is there, that is great. If the provincial governments are there, that is great.

I look at my own constituency. The regional municipality of Cape Breton, which has a population of about 116,000 people, is currently carrying a debt load of about $115 million, and that is of great concern. Unless we make this amendment and change the way the money is delivered, it is not certain it can seize those opportunities.

That is probably one of the greatest concerns and is probably the greatest rationale for advancing the opposition motion today.

I should also identify the fact, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

Another municipal unit within my riding is the town of Canso. Many members in the House have heard a fair amount about Canso over the last number of years. The community has been very much challenged since the closure in the offshore fishery and the depletion of its cod stocks. We have not seen any kind of resurgence in the cod stocks. People have left the community and moved on and industries have left. When that happens, the tax base shrinks and with the shrinking tax base, we see fewer revenues. When we handcuff communities like that, each year it gets tougher, debt is accrued and it becomes more of a challenge for them to get by.

As well, these communities are further burdened by constraints and by regulations that are put forward by provincial governments. We want to move to greener, more sustainable communities. However, when these regulations are placed on these communities, we know there is a greater degree of burden.

We know that towns, villages and municipal units are really the children of the provinces. They are created by the provinces and serve the functions delegated by each province. We all understand that. The provincial governments have various programs from province to province to help out. I believe, as do most people who are involved in the administration of municipal affairs, that the federal government has a role. Through the development of the infrastructure program, there are some benefits, and we support those benefits and the opportunities for the municipalities that can take part in this program. However, there still remains a group of municipalities, towns and cities that are unable to seize these opportunities.

This is the essence and thrust of our motion today.

I am willing to take some questions on this. I am sure the members of the government would like to know more about this.

[February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and respect the reply from the parliamentary secretary, but the measures that have been taken by the government are trying to address some of the backlog that has accrued over the last months. However, at the rapid rate at which Canadians are losing their jobs, I fear that the problem will worsen.

My supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary, if I might: Are there further resources? Is the government willing to take further steps to address this problem and to help Canadians if the problem worsens, as we very much suspect it will?