Rodger Cuzner

[October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we know the situation with the industry and we know the challenges it has gone through. My point today is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood in the House, as an opposition member, and set himself up as a champion for older fish plant workers. Now he has the opportunity. He is in cabinet and he has the power of a cabinet position to sit down with his colleague, the Minister of HRDC. Let us take that to the cabinet table.

Many of these workers, as was said by the parliamentary secretary, do not have the confidence nor the transferrable skills to move forward. We need a program that can accommodate them so they can retire with dignity within their communities with their families.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to do his job, to do as he proposed to do on the opposition bench, to take that forward to cabinet and let us get this done for the older workers in the fishery.

[October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on June 12 I asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That question concerned the plight of older workers within the fishery. When he was on the opposition bench the minister was a member who showed a great deal of concern for this issue and he brought it up a number of times.

When I posed the question, the response that came back from the minister was very disappointing. What he shared with me was that as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans he had nothing to do with any kind of program for older workers within that fishery. I will not use the blues, but to paraphrase he said, “It is not my file. That issue is up to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development”.

We saw the stark clarity of how the minister perceives older workers in this country. We have just seen it executed here in a vote on a motion that was put forward that could have supported older workers across the country. It was not supported by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, it was not supported by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and it was not supported by the government.

Fish plant workers in this country, certainly on the Atlantic coast, are experiencing some very tough times. Some people in the industry say they are the toughest times since the cod closure in 1992. There are a number of factors and they certainly are beyond the control of the workers in this industry. These factors include the value of the Canadian dollar, the competition from the Chinese markets, and tariffs placed by European nations. The lion's share of that burden has been taken up by the older workers in the industry.

In the former government, we made provisions for retraining workers in this industry. There have been some success stories. People have gone into other trades and have gone on with their lives.

It is certainly understood on this side of the House that not all can take advantage of those training opportunities. Many of those people have worked in this industry for their entire lives. The fishery is a tough industry. People often work in cold, damp and very inclement conditions. There is heavy lifting. It takes a toll on one's body. It is an industry that is meant for younger workers. For the good of the industry, some type of adaptive program for older workers is much needed.

I want to talk about the workers. There are people who are 57, 58 and 60 years old who have worked their entire lives in the industry. For what should they be retrained? They are tied to that industry. They are tied to their communities. They want to retire with some dignity.

That is what the motion we voted on this evening was about. That is why this side of the House supported the motion.

When I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about this, his response was, “It is not my file”. He hid behind the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. He was nowhere to be found on this file.

That is not the first time the minister has responded in that way. When that group across the way cut a billion dollars out of social programs, when it made cuts to adult literacy and CAP site investments, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, when questioned on DFO cuts, turned it over to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

The parliamentary secretary will be answering on behalf of the minister. I ask the parliamentary secretary, when will the government move to implement a retirement program for older fish plant workers?

[National Peacekeepers' Day Act, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend my colleague's long service to the veterans affairs committee and really to the veterans in this country. I know he has brought forward private members' legislation in the past and I want to commend him for Vimy Ridge day which he put forward in 2000.

I certainly recognize the contribution that our peacekeepers have performed for this country and, indeed, the global neighbourhood. Our peacekeepers have established themselves as some of the best in the world and therefore our peacekeepers are held in high esteem by all nations of the world. This recognition is due and it is important.

As more of a comment, when this legislation comes forward, I want the member to know that I will be standing to support it. I want to thank him for bringing this forward to the House.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the motion and the debate going forward in the House today. I sat with the member for Chambly—Borduas on several committees in regard to this issue. I fully expected the Bloc to put forward a motion on this. My intention is to support it.

I come from a coastal area of Nova Scotia. There are a great number of fishing communities within my constituency. The fishery in communities like Canso, Louisbourg and Cheticamp has gone through a tremendous amount of change over the last number of years. Some older workers have grown up in the fishery. They have the need, the want and the ability to move forward and receive training. Others feel fear, despair and have very little hope. The older workers pilot project in the past provided older workers with extra training and they went on to other opportunities. I see merit in this motion going forward today.

It will come down to one thing however. I am very disappointed with the position of the government on this. The cancellation of the literacy program and others are of great concern to older workers. I am coming in late on this debate, but I would like to know this. I know what it costs to do nothing for these workers, but has a costing been done on this initiative?

[Access to Information, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would never want to use an unparliamentary word in the House, but if the parliamentary secretary would check, perhaps his pants are on fire.

Two days ago, the deputy information commissioner warned that the accountability act would make corruption harder, not easier, to discover. The Prime Minister broke his promise to implement the Information Commissioner's report.

Accountability starts at the top. Where is it?

[Access to Information, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was forced to admit that he misled this House when it came to a Privy Council memo on access to information. However, the fundamental issue is that the Prime Minister's director of communications, Sandra Buckler, had the name of a journalist who made a private information request.

When did the Prime Minister find out about this breach of law and why has no one been disciplined yet?

[Literacy, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, an informed and caring government understands that it holds a responsibility to unlock the full potential of the citizens it represents, but in the case of Canadians who struggle with literacy skills, this government has in fact closed the door and thrown away the key.

Years of progress have been made in this area, progress that has been obtained through the efforts of committed staff and community volunteers supported by past federal governments. Now they find themselves in jeopardy because of the recent round of harsh and unnecessary cuts.

My wife Lynn is an adult educator, and what inspires and motivates her each day are the stories of students who have seized the opportunity to improve their literacy skills and further advance their education and in turn enhance their quality of life.

These devastating cuts made by an uninformed government that believes literacy initiatives are a waste of money clearly shows that Canadians with literacy challenges just do not matter.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it would have been good to keep the member going. I share his concerns. I did not catch the first part of my colleague's intervention, but I share his concerns about the loss of article 19, the dispute resolution mechanism that I think was held in high esteem by all free trading nations. It was seen as a premier mechanism.

Let us bring this down to the grassroots. In the value added sector in the riding of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, how does this equate to jobs lost, to jobs missed in that sector?

[National Defence, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Newkirk and Kinch would not be surprised by that answer.

Denial is not support for the military. Neither is designing sole source contracts to curry U.S. favour or please the minister's lobbyist friends.

I will ask the question again, and instead of insulting the intelligence of Canadians, I would like to have an answer. Why is the minister supporting an airlift contract that will curtail Canadian sovereignty?

[National Defence, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it has become more and more obvious that Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes is preparing the briefing books for the defence minister: “I know nothing”.

Sovereignty is an issue in a new airlift capacity for the Canadian armed forces. The minister must tell the House, will new planes be based in Canada? Will the repair and maintenance be done by Canadians? Will Canadians control where the planes go and what they can do? Yes or no?