Rodger Cuzner

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the House for allowing unanimous consent so that I could take part in this debate, which was noted by my friend and colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He was not sure whether it was because the House had anticipated my comments so much and were so looking forward to what I had to say, or more so that they liked to limit my friend and colleague from Kings—Hants to 10 minutes. Whatever the rationale was, I appreciate the House allowing me to go forward.

I want to speak about the principles behind some aspects of the legislation. One of the comments that the parliamentary secretary mentioned when he led off the debate today was that it was not strange to have a bill of this size with so many components in it. It is 321 pages, but he said the last four bills have been of similar size.

The last four bills have been presented by the same government and concerns have been raised. Certainly the opposition parties voiced their disapproval with such a practice on those four occasions, but he was able to justify the bill by saying the last four were presented in a very similar manner. That would be like an NHL coach saying, “I didn't make the playoffs the last four years, but now you decide to fire me in my fifth year”. The unfortunate part is that maybe we do not get an opportunity to fire the government for another couple of years, but that day too shall come.

I want to talk about what was mentioned by my colleague from Kings—Hants with regard to some of the aspects of this piece of legislation as it deals with changing labour relationships in this country. I will read these into the record.

I want to talk about principles that a government must respect in creating legislation, such as what we are debating today, that affects millions of Canadians. In particular, it affects over 1.2 million hard-working Canadians who work in federal industries and the public service.

For Canadians, the affected workers in particular, to believe in these laws, they must have faith and trust in their government. However, trust and respect does not come with some gun pointed to their heads. Governing is about striking balance, a balance between things such as the environment and the economy, between one part of the country and the other, between social and economic values, and between the interests of the employer and the employee. Part of figuring out that balance is listening to people who may not agree with us and respecting the principles of fairness and due process when creating laws that fundamentally affect them. I do not believe there has been a government in recent history that has thrown so many things out of balance and replaced due process and fairness with political expediency than the current Conservative government.

The amendments to labour legislation in the bill are just another example of this. The government is using this omnibus budget bill as a back door to making major changes to the rules affecting collective bargaining in the public service. These changes, without doubt, are being made to weaken the public service unions by stacking the deck in favour of the employer and in this case, the employer is the government.

This type of behaviour only breeds mistrust and disrespect. It is not how we as individuals would expect to be treated and it simply lessens the institution of government when it continues out of control as we have seen under the current government. In order for our employees to prosper, whether it is in private industry or in government or workers in society or the economy at large, we need to have good labour relations. That is fundamental. We need labour relations that respect the interests of the workers and the employer in a fair and balanced manner, respecting due process and developed through real consultation.

Everything the government has done concerning labour relations since getting its majority has not been about striking balance. Instead, it has been about weakening the labour movement as much as possible in both the public and private sectors, from record use and methods used to impose back-to-work legislation to using—and one could say abusing—the private member legislation process as a backdoor way to introduce anti-labour legislation.

Bill C-377 was an obvious example. As we went through the testimony and the witnesses on that particular bill, we saw experts raise concerns about privacy and about the costs incurred, and not just by unions. The government tried to say that Bill C-377 was about union transparency by posting their actuals online. That would be a cost to not just the unions but also to administer it. This is the party of small government. The burden this would have placed on the CRA to administer such a mammoth undertaking would be significant to the treasury.

The government said it was all about openness and transparency. We threw a poison pill in there. We brought an amendment requesting it take the same rules it is asking of organized labour and ensure that our professional organizations play by them as well. Therefore, lawyers, doctors and chambers of commerce would have to post in the same manner as it is asking organized labour to. The Conservatives voted against that. It was not about openness and transparency. It was a poison pill. We did not think those organizations should have to post either. However, we knew that the Conservative government would vote against it because this was an attack on organized labour in this country.

Bill C-525 is now the second example. I expect we will see many more examples soon to come.

Never mind due process. Never mind fairness and balance. These terms mean nothing to the government. Political expediency at all costs is the motto across the aisle. Its fight with labour is based on an ideology that Canadians do not fundamentally believe in, an ideology that believes that if Canada is to prosper, the rights and benefits of workers must be sacrificed.

As a Liberal, I can say that I do not always agree with the labour issues. In past governments we fought with unions and we brought forward back-to-work legislation. However, we have always tried to respect due process. We know that the number one enemy for the Conservative government is labour. There is nothing in this bill that changes my mind. Giving federal employers the power to unilaterally declare parts of the public service an essential service, taking away its right to strike, and removing the option of unions to seek arbitration and settle a dispute to avoid disruption, stacks the deck unequally in the government's favour.

Balance in governing is an ideal every government should strive for, fostering trust and mutual respect as a goal. Labour relations are no different.

We have heard from FETCO, the organization that represents federally regulated industries. We heard from the CLC, which represents the people in those industries. They are both saying that the way to get this right is through consultation and consensus. They want the government to keep its nose out of their business. Instead, it continues to get engaged through private member legislation and aspects of these omnibus bills that continue to tip the scales. It is not just the unions or those workers who are saying this is unfair. The companies themselves see this as being unfair.

That is one of the problems we have with this omnibus approach to presenting legislation. If the government were confident about it, why would it not bring that forward to the House? It has a majority anyway. All we have to do is count. It will pass it anyway. Let us have the debate so it can tell us why it is doing that.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate.

I think most Canadians, and anyone watching this debate, understand that the member's integrity and opinions are beyond reproach. One thing that he garnered a lot of recognition for, and justifiably so, was the work he did as the minister of intergovernmental affairs in past governments. He certainly worked hard at gaining an understanding of all the provinces and their positions on the Senate.

I fully appreciate his comments on accountability, and in this motion I think it is fair to point the guns at the NDP and ask why the New Democrats have not been more accountable.

However, we are concerned and confused about other aspects of the motion. Would these issues have come forward during his days as the minister for intergovernmental affairs? Would the issues around the Senate and Senate reform have been issues that premiers would have come to him with?

[Business of the House and its Committees, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think for Canadians this was probably the least offensive of the Conservative prorogations.

However, I think Canadians would have been very comfortable with it had Conservatives come with a throne speech that had a little bit of direction.

In a throne speech after one of those prorogations of the government of former prime minister Chrétien, there was a surplus to deal with. One third of the surplus would go toward tax relief, one third would go to reinvestment in programs, and one third would go to paying down the debt.

I guess the good old days are long gone now. It will be a long time, at least three years anyway, before we see another day like that.

[Business of the House and its Committees, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I looked at some of the comments posted by pundits on the throne speech yesterday. They said that it was timid, tepid and unambitious.

I remember in 1999, as we came into the new millennium, there was a lot of hype around the Y2K bug and about how it was going to devastate the country and, if we were not careful, the world was going to end. There was all this anticipation and anxiety around Y2K, and nothing happened.

That is sort of like the throne speech yesterday. There was a great deal of hoopla and anticipation, but it was pretty thin gruel. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague that anything that was announced yesterday could have easily been addressed through a ministerial statement.

Maybe in a later question I can address the jobs grant.

[Business of the House and its Committees, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg North as we enter into this debate.

If I could be allowed a bit of latitude outside of the realm of the motion, I want to do something that is not that common in the House and pay a compliment to the government.

Upon assuming his new duties as the Minister of Justice, my colleague from Nova Scotia announced that the government would be undertaking a review of the federal action on the Fenwick MacIntosh issue, which many in the House are familiar with. It devastated a number of constituents in my riding. The Minister of Justice was very much aware of this case long before he took on this responsibility. One of the first times I had an opportunity to talk about the case was with the minister, who was in opposition at the time. This was the first file that he asked for upon coming to his new portfolio as justice minister. After a review of that file, he directed the department to go forward with the review of the federal responsibility in the case. I want to acknowledge him here on the floor of the House for that, and that is where I will stop flattering the government.

The essence of the motion is really about trying to split off aspects of the omnibus bill and unbundling some of the bill as it goes forward. The government announced in the throne speech yesterday that it was going to move forward to unbundle cable packages, and it is only fair that it come into the chamber with that same kind of spirit and unbundle some of the aspects of this omnibus bill.

We hoped that the Speech from the Throne yesterday would articulate a clear vision of what the government wants to accomplish over the next couple of years. We thought the vision would be obvious, but it would really only allow us the opportunity to maybe delete Vision television from our cable package. What we witnessed here yesterday with the Speech from the Throne was a really strange undertaking.

We in the Liberal Party are comfortable and supportive of many aspects identified in the motion. Our leader has gone on record on a number of occasions, speaking in favour of aspects of the motion: the oversight on the economy and the portion of the motion that identifies the oversight we want to see. We have taken initiatives already, and our leader has led the charge on that with full disclosure and proactive disclosure. We are comfortable with the aspects of the motion that identify that and we think they are worthy of going forward.

With respect to the initiative on the study of murdered or missing first nations women, we had hoped the throne speech would be the occasion to call for a full public enquiry. It is something with which we would be comfortable.

My former colleague from Winnipeg, Anita Neville, has long been an advocate and has on numerous occasions spoken passionately on the issue in this chamber. I was always inspired by how passionate she was when she would speak on the issue. Unfortunately, we have not seen any action on that particular issue from the government. That is an obvious disappointment, and this is one aspect of the motion that our leader and our entire party support.

Having listened to Shawn Atleo speak recently about this, I know it is an issue that grips not only first nations communities. All Canadians are aware of the horror of the issue. Therefore, I hope the government will go forward with a full inquiry. As the motion is written here, we are very supportive of that aspect.

With regard to the reconstitution of the committees, one of the most frustrating aspects since coming to the chamber and serving as an opposition member in a majority government is that I am only one member on a committee. What happens a lot of times is that a committee will embark on a particular project with the greatest of intentions, but we really do not get to a lot of the tough, core issues that are of most concern to Canadians in many of the 18 committees that grow from the House, because anything that could reflect in a somewhat negative light on the government is not allowed to go forward. Therefore, we are doing work that, yes, has purpose and is of benefit, but there are other things we could do that would be more beneficial for a greater number of Canadians and for Canadians who are really finding it difficult out there.

In my own human resources and skills development committee, certainly the issues around employment insurance and the changes that have been made would have been very worthwhile. However, we are not getting the opportunity. Then when we do undertake a study and witnesses come forward and offer testimony that is brought forward and reaffirmed by witness after witness, if it does not fit into the government's narrative we do not see it in the final report. I talk to people on other committees, and they say time after time that when they get to the essence of an issue that testimony is missing from the final report. We can put in a dissenting report, but if we want to move forward and do the best we can for Canadians, we need to come together and work around the political stripes and the ideologies. That is when this place functions at its best.

Therefore, in reconstituting the committees, unless there is that spirit of doing the best work we can to represent the greatest number of Canadians—those Canadians who are facing hardship, those who do not have a voice—then we should be compelled as lawmakers to do just that. There are many Canadians out there who are having a tough time of it. When we see the unemployment rate for young Canadians at twice the level of the national average, that has to be of concern. When we see the underemployment rate of young Canadians at almost 25%, that has to be of concern.

If I could, I will wrap up with this. The most recent statistics state that the number of Canadians working for minimum wage has doubled since the Prime Minister has taken over. We see more and more Canadians who have become a whole new category of the working poor. I think that is troubling.

I would hope that, once we get the committees reconstituted, we can look at some of these important issues. There are many aspects of this motion that we are very excited about and want to support.

[International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Though we consider ourselves a rich country, Canada's poverty rate ranks 24th out of 34 in the OECD countries. More than 3.5 million Canadians and more than 1 in 7 children live in poverty everyday, a fact that no Canadian can be proud of.

Poverty has real effects on Canadian lives. Canadians living in poverty suffer from much worse health and are less able to find stable employment. Children unlucky enough to be born into poverty are much more likely to end up in the criminal justice system, more so than their wealthier friends.

It used to be that a job would lift people out of poverty or provide a guarantee against it. Unfortunately, more working Canadians are now joining the ranks of the working poor. Poverty is a cycle that can and must be broken.

Today, I call on the government to develop a national anti-poverty strategy as recommended by all-party committees of both the House of Commons and the Senate so we can put an end to poverty in Canada.

[Canadian Economy, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my leader on the job he has done, not only on his speech but certainly on connecting with and listening to Canadians over the last number of months, because obviously we saw none of that reflected in the Speech from the Throne.

My good friend from Acadie—Bathurst made a comment about cuts to employment insurance. One thing we did during that time was take down the unemployment rate. When the Liberals took over in 1993, the unemployment rate was at 12.5%. The inflation rate was in the double digits. Interest rates were in the double digits. It was a mess.

We see that the number of Canadians who are working for minimum wage has doubled under the tenure of the current Prime Minister, and we see that the Canada jobs grant is being laughed at by seven out of ten provinces. Did the leader think that at least there would be some kind of mention in the throne speech as to how the Conservatives could fix the mess they created with the Canada jobs grant?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are putting forward closure for the 50th time, but there is reason to celebrate. We saw the money that the Conservatives spent on 1812, and I think celebrating this is at least worthy of the same type of budget.

The Montreal Canadiens have won 25 Stanley Cups and have pennants hanging from the ceiling. The New York Yankees have 40 World Series championships, and pennants hang from their rafters. Are the Conservatives contemplating action plan signs hanging from the roof of the chamber? They should take a great deal of pride in their abuse of the democratic process in this House.

[Conversation on the Hill Last Week, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Reflections of a Conversation on the Hill Last Week:

“Don't you know who I am?” in a tone forced and feared.
“You're the lead-footed driver with a grey suit and beard”.
“I'm the big shot in O'Town; I'm a really big deal”.
“I'm certain you are sir; now take your hands off the wheel”.
“I'm the NDP leader; I can show you the proof”.
“Step out of the car, sir; put your hands on the roof”.
“I'll talk to your boss; you will sure change your tune”.
“Well...it didn't seem to work for Reese Witherspoon”.
“I'm going to be late for anger management class”.
“Well, you should have pulled over and not been such a...bad driver”.
“Lady, you're in big trouble; your job's on the line”.
“You enjoy question period; I'll be just fine”.
The moral of this story is, by chance or by plan, never start a conversation with...
“Don't you know who I am?”

[Employment, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are on board a sinking ship. The flagship hit an iceberg and is sinking.

The most offensive part is that Conservatives continue to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars advertising this program. Every commercial Canadians see during the Stanley Cup final costs $140,000 a spot for a program that does not exist and will never exist. It is incompetence and mismanagement of titanic proportions.

While young Canadians find themselves drowning in student debt, the Conservative band plays on. When will they change the music on this program?