Judy Foote

[Petitions, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, In rise to present a petition again. This is from people on the Burin Peninsula in the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's.

The petitioners really object to the government's intention to raise the age of OAS from 65 to 67. It would be a hardship on those who work in demanding and physically strenuous environments.

The petitioners say that this is not the right way to go. They ask the government to please reconsider.

[Employment Insurance, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister responsible for EI continues to be evasive and refuses to say what the changes to EI will mean, Canadians are afraid of what will happen to them if they should suddenly lose their job in this fragile economy. She claims:

Canadians will be expected to take jobs appropriate to their skill level in their area.

However, she is deleting those very provisions from the current EI act. Can the minister reveal what specific criteria will be used to determine what she defines as their “local area” and “skill level” before the legislation is voted on?

[Employment Insurance, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, recent comments by the Minister of Finance reinforces the government's attitude toward those who are unemployed through no fault of their own.

Clearly, it is the government's intention to force anyone looking for work to pack their bags and take whatever job is available, regardless of his or her circumstances. This would mean having to leave families behind for low paying jobs, which would make it impossible for people to make ends meet.

Why is the Prime Minister, whose prejudice against Atlantic Canadians is well-known, forcing them to take jobs that would make them financially worse off?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 14th, 2012]

With regard to the closure of the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John’s: (a) what are the dates of all communication on this subject between any official of the federal government and any official of the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador; (b) what was the medium of such communication; (c) who initiated the communication; (d) who was the recipient or intended recipient; and (e) what are the associated file or reference numbers associated with any such communication?

[Petitions, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people from Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly people from my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's in the Coast of Bays area of the riding, who take great exception to the government's decision to raise the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67. In particular, they are upset with the impact this will have on people who work in physically demanding environments, such as in construction and fish plants, as well as those who work in mentally challenging environments.

The petitioners call upon the government to reconsider this decision in light of the impact it will have on those particular individuals.

[Royal Canadian Navy, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize three individuals on the Burin Peninsula in the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's.

The Royal Canadian Navy has a total of 32 commissioned ships with commanding officers in its fleet, three of whom are from rural communities on the Burin Peninsula.

Lieutenant Commander Sid Green is commanding officer of HMCS Shawinigan, while Lieutenant Commander Michele Tessier is commanding officer of HMCS Nanaimo. Both were born and raised on the Burin Peninsula in the town of Grand Bank, renowned for its connection to the sea.

In addition to Lieutenant Commanders Green and Tessier, there is a third commanding officer from the Burin Peninsula. Commander Arthur Wamback from Marystown is commanding officer of HMCS Fredericton.

All three are shining examples of the fine men and women from Newfoundland and Labrador who serve in all branches of the Canadian military.

The residents of the Burin Peninsula are justifiably proud of these wonderful individuals. I ask all members to join me in showing appreciation for their service to our country.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, what we are seeing is a reflection of the thinking behind the government and absolutely no respect for people who work in seasonal industries in particular. The government is suggesting that people will have to find suitable employment right away but they do not even get to decide what suitable employment is. The fact is, the minister will decide.

Absolutely no consideration is being given to Canadians who need and want work but for whatever reason are not able to avail themselves of work. They are being forced to take whatever is available. If this legislation is going to leave it up to the minister to define suitable work, then we have a problem in this country.

With respect to foreign workers, I too am concerned that we are going to end up driving down the wages of Canadians by going down this path.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, obviously my hon. colleague is being very defensive, and rightly so, but it is impossible to defend what the government has done. The Conservative government spent a $13 billion surplus. It ran the country into the highest deficit position ever and now it is trying to take it out on the backs of Canadians. Yes, slash and burn, because the decisions the government is making are hurting Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Why is the government increasing the number of seats in the House of Commons? I would like my colleague to explain that to Canadians. The government wants to increase the House of Commons by 30 additional seats. That is totally unacceptable.

Why is the government looking at spending billions on--

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the first implementation bill of budget 2012, an omnibus bill that should never have been.

If we want to talk about the budget that is one thing, but when everything is thrown into this bill, it makes it impossible for Canadians to have a real handle on exactly what it is that is in this budget, which causes a problem not only for me as a member of Parliament representing the people of Random—Burin—St. George's, but, I would expect, for all MPs who take great exception to what the government has done here.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast anxiously awaited this budget as they continued to struggle to make ends meet. I know that from first-hand experience as there are difficult times in my own riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, particularly when we are talking about seasonable industries, which is another issue that we need to deal with.

With sporadic job growth in the last six months and thousands of full-time jobs being replaced with part-time jobs, Canadians expected the budget to focus on jobs. Unfortunately, the government let Canadians down once again. Rather than focusing on much-needed job creation, the government has chosen to focus on dividing Canadians.

Since 2006, the government has sought to divide Canadians. It is obvious that budget 2012 is no different. Given the damage that will be done by this budget, it is impossible for anyone concerned about the future of our country to support its implementation.

As the government irresponsibly pits generation against generation, and we see that with the OAS changes, region against region, economy against environment, and when we consider that over 120 pages of the budget deal with the environment, it is reckless. In its reckless quest to divide and conquer, the government has done all of these things.

Canadians stand united in opposition to the government's dangerous politics and policies. The Liberals have never shied away from ensuring that government is run efficiently.

As members debate the implementation of this austerity budget, it is important to remember how Canada's economy reached this stage. The last Liberal government left the Conservatives with a $13 billion surplus and the Conservatives promptly spent the Liberal surplus into a Conservative deficit well before the recession. In fact, the Conservatives have the distinction of being the highest spending, largest deficit creating government in Canadian history, and now they are trying to have Canadians take responsibility for that. The Conservatives are taking it out on the backs of Canadians.

Had the Conservatives not spent so much irresponsibly before the recession, Canada's deficit would be nowhere as high as it is today.

Bill C-38 is the first in a series that will attempt to implement the Conservative's slash-and-burn agenda and cause havoc in Atlantic Canada in particular as federal jobs and services are cut.

The Conservative government began its slash-and-burn agenda in the 2010 strategic review that saw $32 million in cuts over three years to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, with an additional $17.9 million in new permanent cuts. These new cuts in budget 2012 represent nearly 20% of ACOA's entire operating budget. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rely on ACOA to create opportunities for economic growth in their region, just as the rest of Atlantic Canada does.

Now is hardly a time to cut programs that stimulate the economy, help create jobs and increase federal tax revenue in the process.

Adding to the $6.6 million in cuts over three years to Marine Atlantic, which occurred in the last budget, budget 2012 cuts an additional $10.9 million in new permanent cuts. These cuts are especially difficult for my constituents when we consider that the Marine Atlantic ferry service is our connection to the rest of the country.

These cuts also include the closing of vitally important washing stations in Channel-Port aux Basques and Argentia. Some vehicles need to be washed off because they have picked up contaminated soil that is prevalent in Newfoundland and Labrador that carries the potato wart and the potato cyst nematode infected soil. Washing the vehicles ensures that the contaminated soil is not exported to other Canadian provinces where it could do irreparable harm, particularly in P.E.I. and New Brunswick, to the multi-billion dollar potato industry in this country.

History shows even a minor infestation in a potato-producing area can have serious consequences. In 2000, when a small area, a mere 24 hectares, of Prince Edward Island soil was found to have been contaminated by the potato wart fungus, the United States moved immediately to close its borders to P.E.I. potatoes for months. This resulted in a $22 billion loss to P.E.I. potato farmers.

For a province such as Prince Edward Island where the potato industry is a major contributor to its economy, the loss of this industry would be as devastating as the cod moratorium is to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I can only explain how devastating that was when today that cod moratorium is still in existence. The cod has not returned and I can only imagine how it would be in P.E.I. if the contaminated soil were to impact the potato industry there to the extent that the cod moratorium has impacted Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of particular concern to my constituents in Random—Burin—St. George's and to the many coastal communities in Canada is the dangerous approach the government has taken to the fishery.

Last year's budget cut the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by $84.8 million over three years, while this budget goes further, permanently cutting an additional $79.3 million from the DFO budget. Worse, the government is rolling the dice when it comes to fish management strategy by cutting the financial capacity for evidence-based fish monitoring and protection of fish habitats and removing the protection of many freshwater fish species.

Even the Conservatives are upset with this attack on the fishery. Former Conservative fisheries minister, Tom Siddon, said, “This is a covert attempt to gut the Fisheries Act, and it’s appalling that they should be attempting to do this under the radar”.

In addition to the Conservatives' cuts to the fishery, they are considering sweeping changes to the fleet separation and owner operated policies, which would directly affect 30,000 jobs and destroy small rural fishing communities. If DFO were to cancel the fleet separation policy, allowing large processors to engage in the inshore fishery, the traditional harvester would eventually be squeezed out of the industry. Clearly, the Conservatives have no interest in seeing the fishery survive.

As I mentioned earlier, I also have concerns with the proposed changes to employment insurance in Bill C-38. While not all changes are negative, we know already from budget 2012 that instead of working to help create more jobs, the government is increasing a direct tax on employment by hiking the employment insurance premiums by $600 million. EI recipients must apply for suitable employee vacancies to qualify for benefits. Bill C-38 would delete the provisions that deem employment opportunities to be unsuitable whether or not the opportunity is in the claimant's usual occupation and offers a lower rate of pay or working conditions that are less favourable than the claimant has a right to expect, only something that we would all expect.

This bill also would unduly grant the minister the power to make changes to the EI Act without legislation and parliamentary approval by giving the minister the power to change the definition of “suitable employment”. What is suitable employment? There was no consultation whatsoever with either employers or employees with respect to these proposed changes to the EI. The Conservatives have yet to announce details of what they will consider suitable employment and yet they expect Parliament to grant them unrestricted power to do so. People are nervous and naturally scared not knowing what to expect.

One has to wonder if the government's end game is to force Atlantic Canadians to relocate permanently to Alberta for work or to accept jobs outside of their skill area. There is no discussion about appropriate training for people and, of course, when they get to the age of 55 or 60, particularly if they have been working in a fish plant all of their life and, in a lot of cases, in the seasonal industry in the fish plant, what are they going to retrain for? What other skill will they retrain for at that age in their life? It is a time when they would like to retire and they would like to retire at 65, as has always been the case. However, the government has seen fit to move that age of eligibility from 65 to 67, making it even more difficult on people who work in demanding environments.

In contrast to the government's attempt to implement its austerity budget is the government's shockingly expensive advertising campaign to try to convince Canadians that the government is not failing Canada, not as badly as it seems anyway.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, with respect to the government's decision to move the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67. This petition asks the government to reconsider that decision and not go down this path in light of the impact it will have on those who work in really challenging environments, particularly those who work in fish plants. Working on a hard concrete surface for 40 or 50 years takes its toll on the body.

The petitioners are asking the government to look at the situation and reconsider this decision, which the petitioners think is not compassionate at all but one that would pose undue hardship on many of those who work in that type of environment.