Rodger Cuzner

[Abandoned Vessels, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing this motion forward.

Shortly after she was elected, the member was seized by this issue. I represent an area that in its most recent history has seen the MV Miner cast upon the shores of Scaterie Island, which is a provincially protected area. The issue has revolved around the lack of federal responsibility.

Not to speak ill of a defeated member, but Olivia Chow was the transport critic at the time, and she jumped up and down and waved her hands, saying that the federal government had to clean it up. The fact was that there was no legislation. It is good to get emotional about something, but that does not really fix the situation. The rules have to be in place. I spoke to Steven Fletcher, who was the parliamentary secretary at the time. We had several discussions, but the legislation just was not there.

How does the member believe that her bill is going to address those shortcomings in what is not there now and protect those small provinces, like Nova Scotia, from having to deal with a $12-million cleanup, like that for the MV Miner?

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was so graciously interrupted, the last Parliament certainly did not serve us well. There was no real attempt to make it right. When we make it right at committee and make it right for stakeholders on particular issues, we make it right for Canadians. That is what is ahead of us here. That is the opportunity we have, and we heard that over the course of the election.

I think this is something we can live with. We should all encourage our colleagues from all parties to go out and engage and hopefully come out with good quality recommendations to move forward. I heard over the course of the last election that Canadians wanted that change and wanted an adult conversation about it. That is what today's motion allows us to do, and that is why I look forward to supporting it.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I was not here for the entire speech, but I did get portions of it. I got the good parts for sure.

If I could share with some of the new members in the House, this is significant. This would not be unique in past Parliaments. This is my sixth Parliament. In earlier Parliaments, committees at least were able to work together to find results to present to a minister and make recommendations.

I remember sitting on fisheries and oceans with the NDP, my colleague and friend Peter Stoffer, and John Cummins, Reform or Canadian Alliance and Conservative. John is a great friend of mine. There would be the right, the far right, and the extreme far right, and John would be just a little bit further than that. He was a great guy with the fishery. He understood the fishery. Out of 18 reports that we had done on that committee over the course of time, 16 of them would have been unanimous. Somewhere in the middle, Peter Stoffer and John Cummins would come together for the benefit of stakeholders in the industry, in the fishery, for the environment, and come forward with recommendations.

It was not until the last Parliament that the well was poisoned, and committees morphed into this thing that was just nothing more than a day care for MPs. The Department of Environment had greenhouse gases and global warming, yet we were studying the impacts of hunting and fishing on the environment. I think their time could probably have been better—

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Chair, during the minister's speech he had made reference several times to the fact that as a new government we did implement the initial budget, but we are really just setting the table. I know he has worked closely with several other ministers, in particular the Minister of Innovation, in coming forward and investing in Canadian innovation. I would like to give the minister the opportunity to elaborate somewhat on the plan going forward, or at least where the discussions are now with the Minister of Innovation as to when we could expect those investments to roll out and what Canadians can expect from them.

[Temporary Foreign Workers, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I share the concerns with the questioner, as does the minister. Certainly the temporary foreign worker program has been a concern. We talked about it in our platform, as did the NDP talk about undertaking a review.

We know that committees are masters of their own destiny. That is why I was surprised as a parliamentary secretary to see that the member, when she had an opportunity to convince the committee to undertake a study, led with EI and not with temporary foreign workers. I suggest that the study go back and encourage those—

[Labour, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, again, for my colleague and everybody else in the House, the government is pledging to keep Canadian workplaces safe, fair, and productive, certainly in federal jurisdictions. Our intention is to work with all stakeholders, employers, employees, organized labour, the provinces, and the territories to ensure our labour code reflects today's workforce and the necessity to be safe, fair, and productive.

Let me be clear. We believe all Canadians should have, and deserve, the right to work in a safe workplace. Certainly our intention is to work toward that. We believe we are off to a pretty good start and we hope to continue on to ensure we earn the confidence of Canadian workers not only in federal jurisdictions, but all Canadian workers. We are committed to that as a government, and that is what we will do.

[Labour, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Saskatoon West on her speech and of course her great interest in labour and labour issues. I would like to share with the rest of the House as well that we share a similar view on what transpired over the past 10 years and with the former Conservative government.

Canadians were not fooled. They understood fully that it was organized labour that was under attack under the last government. We saw that through many manifestations, through various pieces of legislation. We saw it in unprecedented use of back-to-work legislation. The legislation for Canada Post and for Air Canada come to mind. Even before those organizations were in a strike position and those unions were in a position that they could go out on strike, there was back-to-work legislation coming off the shelf to be presented in the House.

We saw that, and absolutely Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were directed at organized labour. With Bill C-377 we saw that constitutional experts said it was unconstitutional. We saw privacy experts say that it compromised the privacy of millions of Canadians. We saw provinces and territories say that it infringed on an area of their purview, that constitutionally it was their area of responsibility.

That was what we saw. That was the table that was set in the last Parliament by the last government.

Certainly what we have tried to do since October 19 and since the new minister came in on November 4 was to set a different atmosphere around work and labour. Certainly the current Bill C-4, not the old Conservative Bill C-4, was the first piece of legislation our minister presented. It was to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, within Bill C-4. I was very happy that it was the first piece of legislation the minister tabled.

Over the course of my experience over the last four years dealing with both employers and employees, one thing that has been consistent and that has been clear coming from both areas is that any changes to the Labour Code have to be done through a tripartite approach with labour, employers, employees, stakeholders, the provinces and territories—everybody involved.

They said that clearly with Bill C-377 and they said it with Bill C-525. We believe that the 2004 definition that was brought in by past Liberal governments is the right way to go, but that any change in the code has to be undertaken with a tripartite approach. I hope my colleague from Saskatoon West will understand that is the approach this government would take in changing the Labour Code. It would be under a tripartite approach.

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in the supplementary question, my colleague jogged my memory with regard to access. One thing we promised in the platform throughout the campaign was to increase access. The minister has already moved to ensure that access is according to the NERE principle, new entrants and re-entrants, and the hours have been dropped from 920 down to regional qualification. We know that young Canadians, especially, who are entering the workforce for the first time, or those who were displaced from the workforce and are re-entering, are going to benefit from these changes.

As well, as the member said, regarding the weeks that people have to wait, the review will certainly address those issues and I am looking forward to getting started on that.

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member.

Obviously, having been the critic over the last four years, many of the concerns that she has raised since coming to the House were issues I have been fighting for in my past role.

That is why I am so pleased that, as one of the priorities that has been identified by the government, and indeed by the current minister responsible for the employment insurance program, the announcement in the budget was for $2.5 billion in additional benefits for the employment insurance program.

The member should know that the people she represents will all benefit from some of the changes that we have made to the employment insurance program. When we look at going from a two-week waiting period to a one-week waiting period, that is going to benefit 90% of the people who receive EI benefits.

We can look at changes to working while on claim. I come from a very similar riding where seasonal work is pretty much the foundation of the regional GDP. When we look at what took place under the previous federal government, we saw that changes to working while on claim really drove the economy underground. It hurt many workers. Many workers would not take work because there was a clawback of 50% if they worked at a low-wage job.

The minister took immediate action on that, and has made it so that a worker can now either apply for the rules that applied before the 2011 changes or the current rules. If a worker is able to work three, four or five days, the new program is enhanced and is a benefit to those workers who are able to gain that much work.

In many instances, they are only able to get one day's work. The old system was much better there. The changes the minister has now made allow a worker to make that decision, to make that choice, back and forth.

There is another thing of which I am really proud. I am sure my colleague gets the same calls of concern. We have seen changes over the last number of years to wait times for EI benefits. When I was first elected back in 2000, a typical turnaround time was two to three weeks. We have seen those wait times go to five, six, seven, and even eight weeks, which is not uncommon now.

The minister, through her mandate letter, under the direction of the Prime Minister, has ordered a review of service standards. We are very much looking forward to that. All the past government did was continue to reduce the standards.

At one time, 90% of the calls were being returned and picked up in three minutes at call centres. They were not able to do that, so it was dropped to 80% as the new standard. Then it went to 80% in 10 minutes. The government kept dropping the standards and they were only hitting that 45% of the time. It kept dropping the standards.

We are committed as a government to fixing that. We are committed to ensure those Canadians who deserve those benefits get the benefits they need. That is what we are committed to and we will deliver on that.

[National Maternity Assistance Program Strategy Act, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House and make a contribution to the debate on my colleague's private member's bill.

As has been said already in the House, my colleague and new best friend from Louis-Saint-Laurent has indicated that not all private members' bills are created equal or come from the same place. Over the 16 years I have been here, I have had an opportunity to speak to a fairly wide range of private members' bills, some which were somewhat suspect.

In the last Parliament, there was a trend of thought that ran from coast to coast that maybe Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 may have had the PMO fingerprints on it. I can neither confirm nor deny that, but I have heard that before.

I have had an opportunity stand to speak on a number of occasions on private members' bills that have been presented and have been born from that relationship between a member of Parliament and one of the constituents that he or she represents, and that was the genesis of that private member's bill.

It is said that if leaders are to be successful, they have to earn the trust of the people they want to lead. One thing we know is that if we want to earn that respect, people have to understand that we care. People want to know how much we care before they care how much we know.

By taking an issue as important as the one addressed in this private member's bill, and investing the time and energy to develop private member's legislation around it, the member for Kingston and the Islands has to be commended. That happens in the House on occasion, and it is a great thing. All parties have members who have brought forward legislation that has come from the grassroots. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to commend the member for Kingston and the Islands for bringing this forward.

I have watched, with great nervousness and the collective knot we get in our stomach, what is going in Fort McMurray. I spent 10 years in Fort Mac. I worked at the GCOS, the Suncor plant on site for a number of years when I first went out there. Anybody who has ever had the opportunity to work in an industrial shop where welding is going on, where tradespeople are using cutting torches, or gouging torches or even just running a welding bead, has an appreciation for that whole environment.

There absolutely are labour laws around that, and about air quality, but people cannot help but know they are in a place where if they do not take precautions or if a piece of apparatus is not up to snuff, then it becomes a workplace of concern.

I have some comments specifically about the legislation before us today.

The health and safety of pregnant workers is an important issue with the government, and through Canada's employment insurance system, we continue to explore ways to support Canadians, including pregnant workers, when they need it most. Under the current EI Act, pregnant women are eligible for a total of 15 weeks of maternity benefits. Maternity benefits are specifically intended to support a woman's income when she is out of the workforce to recover from the physical or emotional effects of pregnancy or childbirth.

Maternity benefits can start as early as 8 weeks before the birth, and must end no later than 17 weeks after the child is born. Depending on what suits the mother's situation, benefits can be spread out before and after the child is born.

Outside of Quebec, which administers its own parental insurance plan, EI maternity benefits are a key policy and income support tool for mothers across Canada. In 2014-15, the EI program paid over $1 billion in maternity benefits to nearly 170,000 claimants.

I should also point out that in addition to the EI maternity benefits that are available, only the federal jurisdiction and the Province of Quebec specifically offer preventative withdrawal job protection for pregnant and/or nursing women.

Federally regulated employees under the Canada Labour Code may request a reassignment based on medical advice. Once the request is made, the woman can take a leave with pay until the employer either accommodates her request for a reassignment or confirms that it would not be possible to do so. If a reassignment is not possible, the woman may take a leave of absence for the duration of the risk.

The Province of Quebec, as I indicated earlier, offers a similar provision for pregnant or nursing women, providing them the right to request reassignment to other duties, or if that is not possible, to take leave if their working conditions may be physically dangerous to their health or that of their unborn or nursing child.

Other provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Canada have workplace health and safety standards. However, the Canada Labour Code job protection for maternity leave varies across the country. The intent of the bill aligns well with our own intentions to make EI more flexible, and consequently more helpful to all workers who face a period of unemployment, for whatever reason.

The bill also brings forward several other issues that remain to be examined, issues such as health and safety and gender equality in the workforce, as well as the notion that a woman's pregnancy could act as a barrier to full participation in the workplace and an impediment to career development.

These are some of the issues we intend to discuss in our upcoming consultations with members of the House, provincial and territorial governments, and other stakeholders, with the primary intention of developing more flexible parental benefits to meet the unique needs of current Canadian families. It is important to note that amending the EI Act is a complex endeavour, and we want to ensure that we do it the proper way. Any changes to EI deserve the benefit of further study and consultations with key partners to ensure that the program better responds to the needs of hard-working Canadian families.

At the same time, this is also a government that wants to act as fast as possible to bring real change to Canadians, and a great deal of that work has already begun. For example, we have introduced the new Canada child benefit that will give Canadian families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children. With a maximum benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six and up to $5,400 per child for those aged six through 17, it will be simpler, more generous, and better targeted to those who need the help. The child disability benefit is an additional $2,730.

We have made changes to the EI system, going from a two-week waiting period to one week. We have made changes to the working-while-on-claim provisions within the EI system. We have enhanced the work-sharing agreements, doubling them to a maximum of 76 weeks, which most Canadians recognize as being very family friendly.

These are changes that we believe reflect the needs and demands of today's workforce and changes that Canadians have been asking for.

We have removed barriers to full gender equality in the workforce and have made progress in this regard. However, it is well-recognized that we have to do more. As announced yesterday, we will also amend the Canada Labour Code to allow men and women in the workplace to formally request flexible working arrangements.

I know that my time is running out. I would reiterate the fact that I am pleased to stand and speak to the bill today. I want to commend my colleague from Kingston for his work on this piece of legislation. We look forward to debating it further and working as a government to try to enhance the opportunity for all Canadians to play a fuller, richer, and more rewarding role in this country's workforce.