Rodger Cuzner

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of statements the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour had that I fully agree with, and certainly access is one I fully agree with. We have to do a better job as a nation in looking after those who find themselves out of work right now.

However, specifically on the EI premium rate, could I get his opinion on this? If we go back to 1993, employers and employees were paying $3.02 per $100 earned in EI premiums. The unemployment rate was 12.5%. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives had proposed to go to $3.20. Twelve times since 1993, that rate has come down by a nickel, a dime, or whatever it may have been, to about $1.78. I think that is what it was when we left power in 2006, so it did come down considerably. Also, the unemployment rate came down from 12.5% to 6.5%.

I have two questions. Does my colleague see that we have to be fair both to employers who create jobs and to employees? Is it at a rate now where we should not go lower? That is what I am hearing in this context. It should be about keeping that fund the same and improving access. I think we agree on that point.

[Public Service of Canada, June 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board knows that the $900 million is phony.

The minister likes to talk about fair and reasonable. Is if fair and reasonable to trample on bargaining rights? Is it fair and reasonable just to prop up his $900-million phony budget application? Is it fair and reasonable to steal away from workers something that was negotiated at the bargaining table? Is it fair and reasonable to try to mislead this House and Canadians about the integrity and character of our public service?

We see nothing fair nor reasonable about the actions of this minister.

[Public Service of Canada, June 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want a government that respects their tax dollars but also respects the public service. The government is doing neither by making a joke of the collective bargaining process and refusing to provide any evidence that this will make employees healthier or save the taxpayer money.

Will the minister start respecting the collective bargaining process so that the public service can feel confident that any deal reached on sick leave will be fair and honest?

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, June 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question posed by my colleague from Chicoutimi. I do not think he was suggesting that the current government is breaking the rules, but that the Conservatives manipulate the rules. They stretch and they bend, and we have seen that time and time again.

Somebody made a reference the other day to the NHL playoffs in 2009 when Sean Avery, who played for the New York Rangers, stood in front of Martin Brodeur, world-class Hall of Fame goaltender, and screened him. However, he faced the goaltender, contrary to how everybody else screened the goaltender. He stood in front of Brodeur, waved his arms around, shook his stick at him and all of that. The referee did not know what the heck to do. The referee would call a penalty, but there were no rules. It was clearly against the spirit of the game. Therefore, the rules committee for the NHL met the next day and came up with a rule called the “Sean Avery rule”.

The sad part is that the current government makes the rules and abuses the rules. This is just another example of how the Conservatives have abused this chamber, imposing closure 98 times. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[ALS Awareness Month, June 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my voice to ALS Awareness Month.

ALS is a disease where the living wire that connects one's brain to one's muscles degenerates, leaving Canadians affected with this disease in a state of progressive paralysis, which will eventually impact their ability to breathe. The outcome, of course, is death. As of today, there is no treatment.

All members in the House have family, friends, or acquaintances who have been impacted. In September 2009, my former chief of staff in the Liberal whip's office, Richard Wackid, lost his battle with the disease. The incredibly talented and respected young man was struck down in the prime of his life.

Many of us would have met Brian Parsons, a former political staffer, who today not only fights his own personal battle with ALS but continues to be a champion for the cause.

Last year, 260,000 Canadians participated in the ice bucket challenge, donating $17 million for ALS. The money went toward research and equipment support services to maintain a patient's quality of life.

We must continue this momentum in the fight to find a treatment. I ask all members to join me in support by wearing a cornflower today and donating to this important cause.

[Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, May 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the comments made by my colleague. I had the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when my colleague, the member for Malpeque, chaired that committee. I think the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore sat on it over that period of time as well. In six years, we did something like 16 or 18 studies, and almost all of them were unanimous. I think there was one with a dissenting report. However, that was back when committees actually functioned and committees worked together for the benefit of those the studies would have the greatest impact on. We do not see that today.

I know that the recommendation from my colleague is to support the legislation. However, I know, particularly in the fisheries, that the current government has brought forward legislation and made announcements in the past, to much fanfare, only for us to find that there was really nothing behind it. I think back in particular to when the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada had such a tough year three years ago. The government came forward and made a big announcement about $50 million in support for the lobster fishery. When it came, I think it was $8 million that was disbursed. The criteria set up were so stringent that it helped very few. Another one was the big deal with China on seal products. Our sealing industry was going to get such a big shot in the arm, only to see nothing happen with the deal with China.

Especially with the limited amount of time the committee had with this bill, what gives my colleague the assurance that this time is going to be different?

[Public Service of Canada, May 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should know that for the vast majority of public servants who take a sick day, their position is not backfilled. That means that the cost of that sick day is already covered in their annual salary. Yet the government, in its phony attempt to show a balanced budget, claims it is saving $900 million by eliminating a sick bank that costs the government squat.

Will the government stop misrepresenting this fake, bogus savings and quit misleading Canadians about the character and integrity of our public servants for its own political gain?

[National Urban Workers Strategy, May 14th, 2015]

They have a great run going here, Mr. Speaker.

I want to comment on what my colleague from Davenport said during his speech. He said that putting together this group would allow for a comprehensive debate, or debate in a comprehensive way. I want to seize on that point, because I think anyone who has been in the chamber for any period of time would understand that in the last number of years, that has evaporated. The opportunity to really look at real issues that are impacting Canadians in any kind of real way has disappeared in the last number of years.

I think back to when I first came here. In my first six years, I sat on the fisheries and oceans committee with John Cummins. On the other side we have the right, the far right, and the extreme far right, and John was a little further right of that. He was a hard-working committee member who did his homework, came to committee, and offered his insights. My friend and colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore was a long-standing member of the fisheries and oceans committee. Over that six years, we did something like 18 different studies, everything from Pacific salmon to the east coast fishery to the seal hunt. Sixteen of the 18 studies were passed unanimously. Only twice were there dissenting reports. All members of the committee would see their issues reflected in the final presentation of those committee reports.

I believe that when a government is armed with unanimous reports like that, it has a chance of moving forward in some kind of positive way. We have all these moving parts, and to get it right, the chorus of opinions has to be brought in and synthesized, a decision has to be made as to what is going to work, and it needs to be brought forward. That needs to be a main function of the House. Anyone who has been here would have to agree that this has been lost in the last number of years.

On the human resources and skills development committee we have tried on four different occasions to look at temporary foreign workers and the temporary foreign worker program to get it right for Canadian workers and businesses that need access to the workforce. My colleague from the NDP brought motions forward twice and I brought two forward myself. However, the government said no, it was going to make the changes that had to be made, and it made the changes. It took the shackles off and it was wide open. There was a big influx of temporary foreign workers, a couple of headlines in the paper, and then it slammed the door shut. Rather than get it right, the Conservatives responded to headlines.

We know that committees have not been able to do their work.

Another aspect that my colleague from Davenport talked about, which is fairly novel, is consulting with the provinces. What an idea that is. We saw what took place with the Canada jobs grant. The government said, “Here is the program. We have it all set, so let us buy a couple of million bucks worth of advertising”. It never even spoke to the provinces. The people who were supposed to deliver the program never spoke to the provinces.

I think consultation is good. I think consultation is proper, and on that merit alone, I will encourage my caucus colleagues to support the bill.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the issues they raised.

Obviously, as my colleague from Edmonton Centre said, it is broad, but when we look at something in isolation, I do not think we give it a fair hearing and we probably do not get it as right as we could. I think it makes sense to have a task force thinking at 38,000 feet.

The rise in precarious employment has a huge impact not only on the social programs put forward by the provinces but on federal programs as well, including employment insurance and pension programs. Temporary employment has accounted for more than 75% of the jobs created in Canada in 2014. We know the government likes to pat itself on the back. The Conservatives almost separate their shoulders patting themselves on the back for jobs creation, but 75% of the jobs created in 2014 were part-time jobs.

The rate of employed Canadians working part-time has risen from 12.5% in 1976 to 19.3% in 2014. Since 1976, the number of people working multiple jobs has increased by 150%. Self-employment has increased by 29%. I do not see that as necessarily a bad thing, but I think a task force like this would at least be able to go in and measure why these people are going into businesses. Is it because of opportunity, necessity, or what? I see the merit in learning why.

We see more Canadians trying to run their lives on precarious employment. Since the government took over, there has been an increase of 66% in the number of people working for minimum wage. It is now over a million Canadians. When there is a 66% increase in the number of Canadians who are working for minimum wage, that should be frightening.

In other aspects of the bill, he is talking about EI and access to EI, and we know that access to EI is at a 70-year low right now.

With regard to processing and wait times, 600 processing agents and call centre agents have been carved out of the call centres. It is great that computers can do certain things; that is all well and fine and wonderful, but we have seen processing times go from typically three weeks to five, six, and seven weeks. When the square pegs go in the square holes and the round pegs go in the round holes, an individual can get an EI cheque within 28 days, but if there is anything out of whack at all, we see that dragged out to six, seven, and eight weeks. I think all Canadians understand that people cannot go that long without some type of income.

Finally, if I could close on this, the other aspect is pension provisions and changing the age of eligibility for OAS. That is another one we could have studied at the human resources and skills development committee, but they said no.

We know for a fact that it is low-income Canadians, Canadians who live their lives with disabilities, who will be hurt most by this change, and that has to be looked at. I am sure any task force in its right mind would say that there is no need for this change. It should be put back for the good of all Canadians.

I want to tell the member for Davenport that I will strongly encourage my colleagues to support his motion.

[National Urban Workers Strategy, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to join the debate today. I have been here 15 years now. My friend and colleague from Edmonton Centre identified the fact that his inability to support this bill was based on the fact that it is an urban workers bill and is not for all workers. After what we have seen come from the government side since the Conservatives took power—what is their batting record at the Supreme Court of Canada? I think it is zero for nine years. They pass legislation that does not stand up to charter challenges—if that is the only flaw, we are in pretty good shape with this particular bill.

[Public Service of Canada, May 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, those in the current Conservative government have become masters at coming up with solutions for problems that do not exist, especially when it comes to attacking organized labour. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 sort of come to mind.

These are benefits that have been fought for at the bargaining table and won.

It is obvious that the minister has come to the table with public servants to dictate, not to negotiate. Will the minister restore fairness into the process and show a little bit of respect for public servants?