Rodger Cuzner

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 26th, 2015]

With regard to the ineligibility for Employment Insurance (EI) Sickness Benefits for parents (claimants) who fell ill or became injured while receiving parental benefits because they were not considered to be otherwise available for work under the Employment Insurance Act: for fiscal years 2003-2004 to 2013-2014: (a) how many claimants (i) were denied their initial application for EI sickness benefits by the government because they were deemed to otherwise be not available for work, (ii) appealed their denial of sickness benefits to the Board of Referees, broken down by each fiscal year; (b) how many claimants on parental leave were denied sickness benefits after the Canadian Umpire Benefit (CUB) 77039 decision on March 24, 2013; (c) did Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) appeal CUB 77039, and if not, why not; (d) if HRSDC did not appeal the decision, did it accept the ruling, and if not, why not; (e) is a CUB ruling that is not successfully appealed final and binding on the government; (f) what were the policy implications for HRSDC in the interpretation of the Employment Insurance Act after the significant CUB decision; (g) what process was HRSDC supposed to have followed after the CUB decision (or appeal of said decision) to change implementation of relevant EI policy; (h) what was the specific impact of CUB 77039 on HRSDC policy concerning eligibility of claimants on parental leave accessing sickness benefits; (i) as a result of the CUB 77039 decision, what specific policy directives were made by HRSDC and, if none were made, why not; (j) did the government undertake any analysis or studies concerning the impact of CUB 77039 and, if so, what are the titles, files numbers, and results of any such analysis or studies; (k) did HRSDC deny sickness benefits to claimants post CUB 77039 up to March 24, 2013, and, if so, what is the justification; (l) how many Claimants had active appeals outstanding with the Board of Referees and EI Umpire regarding their denial by the government of sickness benefits while on parental leave as of March 24, 2013; (m) how many of the claimants in (l) did the government subsequently settle with, (i) what was the average settlement cost per claimant, (ii) what were the total legal fees associated with the settlement with the claimants, (iii) what was the total cost of the settlement; (n) what was the rationale for settling with claimants in (m); (o) when did the government decide to settle and when did it settle with claimants described in (m); (p) was the enhanced access to EI sickness benefits announced in Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, the direct result of the CUB 77039 decision; (q) was the CUB 77039 decision disclosed to parliamentarians in either the technical briefing provided by the government to parliamentarians on September 26, 2012, or during the legislative process for Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, if not, why; (r) when did the government realize that the 2002 legislative changes to EI stacking provisions by Bill C-49, Budget Implementation Act 2001, were intended to make sickness benefits available to women who become ill during receipt of parental benefits and what was done about it; (s) what is the total cost of legal services to date to defend against the McCrea v. Canada - Federal Court file number T-210-12; (t) what are the HRSDC reference details of all documents related to CUB 77039 prepared for the Minister or his staff, including, but not limited to, briefings, analysis, and reports, broken down by (i) dates, (ii) titles or subject matter, (iii) department’s internal tracking number; and (u) after both the CUB 77039 and CUB 79390A decisions determined that sickness benefits were to be paid to Natalya Rougas and Jane Kittmer, why did the government issue news releases concerning Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act, dated September 20, 2012, October 2, 2012, November 20, 2012, December 12, 2012, and March 10, 2013, with the statement “currently, people receiving parental benefits under the EI program do not qualify for sickness benefits because they are not considered to be otherwise available for work”?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 26th, 2015]

With regard to the Prime Minister's trips to Northern Canada in or about August 2006, August 2007, August 2008, August 2009, August 2010, August 2011, August 2012, and August 2013: what are the details concerning the costs of these trips, including those costs of federal personnel already on the ground in Northern Canada tasked with support, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) department or agency, (iv) purpose or nature of the expenditure?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 26th, 2015]

With respect to fines and penalties issued or imposed for violations of the Do Not Call List since January 1, 2010: (a) what is the total number and dollar value of Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) that have been imposed; (b) what is the total number and dollar value of AMPs that have been paid to date; (c) what is the total number of negotiated settlements that have been reached to date; (d) what is the total number and dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been paid to date; (e) what is the number of companies that have refused to either pay an AMP or reach a negotiated settlement; (f) for Pecon Software Ltd., (i) did the company seek a review of the fine, (ii) what was the total dollar value of the fine after a review, if any, was completed, (iii) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine, (iv) was a negotiated settlement reached, (v) if a negotiated settlement was reached, what was its total value (vi) what is the total dollar value of the fine, if any, that has been paid to date, (vii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement; and (g) for Avaneesh Software, (i) what was the finding of the Violation and Review Panel, (ii) what was the total dollar value of the fine after the review, if any, (iii) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine, (iv) was a negotiated settlement reached, (v) what was the total value of the negotiated settlement, if any, (vi) what is the total dollar value of the fine, if any, that has been paid to date, (vii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement?

[Petitions, December 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I stand to present a petition signed by almost 800 people from my riding—including Broad Cove, Blues Mills, Glencoe, Glencoe Station, and Lake Ainslie—in support of permanent residency for Kurt Andresen and Leaf Kraft, two Americans who have been living in Whycocomagh since 2002.

Marilyn MacDonald has taken it upon herself to rally the community behind them. They are fabulous people, highly motivated and educated, who love to be part of this community, which loves them for being part of it. The petitioners are hoping that permanent residency is a dream that is fulfilled. I present the petition in that spirit.

[Christmas, December 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker,'Twas the week before Christmas and Canadians were keen,
To witness a parliamentary nativity scene.

There are lots of bad actors in this political fray,
So I took up the task of casting this play.

The Prime Minister thought there may be a chance,
But said, “First let me check with the boys in short pants”.

The kids all agreed, “All our ministers are in”,
But when you look at the lineup, the talent's quite thin.

I said, “Not to be mean or even unkind,
But I don't think three wise men will be easy to find”.

And the gifts they would bear, frankincense, myrrh, and gold,
Will take 50 years to deliver, I'm told.

I then got an email from the PMO lads,
“We're going to promote it with action plan ads”.

So Joseph was a carpenter, a fixer of note,
Our honourable Speaker would garner my vote.

The cranky innkeeper who showed little heart,
The government House leader might like that part.

The good shepherd should be played by a brave and strong voice,
Our Sergeant-at-Arms is the obvious choice.

But who'll play the Saviour, God's only son?
How 'bout someone born Christmas Day, 1971.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments shared on the record by my friend and colleague. He did reference the tax credit for sport. When we look at the statistics of the participation rates in Canada in sport by young Canadians, we see that the numbers taking part in sport are pretty similar year after year. In 2003, there was a significant spike. Of course, that was because our girls won the gold medal in Salt Lake City. All of a sudden, there were new heroes and idols. The Cassie Campbells and the Jennifer Botterills inspired young female hockey players in this country. However, after the Conservatives brought in the tax credit in 2007, in subsequent years there was no discernible increase in participation in sport. If that was the intent, then it failed.

Perhaps the member could share his thoughts with me. By doubling this, by taking more money out of the treasury for this specific initiative, what is the hope? Is he hoping to double the amount of non-response this measure got in the first place?

[Social Development, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, two mothers, already fighting cancer, had to fight the government in the courts for EI sick benefits that they were rightfully owed while on parental leave. Now, the government is fighting to prevent thousands of other women from claiming compensation for the same sickness benefits they have been wrongfully denied since 2002.

What is so appalling is that the government knows the women are right, and the minister knows that Rougas and Kittmer proved that. That is why he quietly settled with hundreds of other women.

Conservatives do not mind paying lawyers, but they do not like to pay sick mothers. Why is that?

[Veterans Affairs, December 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the government members should be appalled, not applauding, especially in light of the scathing Auditor General's report that showed some veterans waited months, if not years, for access to mental health services.

There is the lapsing of well over $1 billion promised for veterans services and now the rewarding of officials for denying services to our brave veterans.

Are they still prepared to clap for a minister whose sole legacy is the shafting of Canadian veterans? When will the Prime Minister take action and punt the minister?

[Veterans Affairs, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this has played out like a bad movie, and this minister has been the star in each of those scenes.

We have seen the video clips of him being chased down the hall by the wife of an injured veteran. We have seen him walk into a room full of decorated veterans—veterans bent over at the waist because of the weight of the medals on their chests—and lecture them.

We have seen 3,500 people marching on the streets of Sydney, Nova Scotia, veterans among them. These are men and women who marched into Europe, marched across Bosnia, marched into Afghanistan, and now they feel obliged to march for what is theirs.

When will the Prime Minister remove this minister?

[National Fiddling Day Act, November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Rodney is our former premier and great friend who runs the Gaelic College, and his buddy, Glenn Graham. His name is Rodney MacDonald. In Cape Breton, it is just Rodney. It is like Elvis; we do not even need the last name.

I am happy to speak to this, and I want to commend the senator for bringing this bill forward.