Rodger Cuzner

[Points of Order, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order while the House leader is busy going about his business.

Two weeks ago I rose on a point of order with regard to a letter referred to by the minister of human resources that she said I wrote in support of a temporary foreign worker application. Having had an opportunity to go back and check my files twice now, I can find no such letter.

When I rose on the point of order, the House leader had assured the House that he would address the situation and bring an answer back to the House. It has been two weeks since I rose on this point. I would ask that he update the House on this or present the letter.

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I noted today that Warden Steve Sampson from the Municipality of the County of Richmond was in attendance in the House today. We had an opportunity to speak about the impacts of these changes on his community.

I was in Guysborough over the weekend and spoke with Warden Lloyd Hines. This community has an unemployment rate around 17% right now and is facing considerable challenges.

People see these changes as the government throwing gasoline on the fire. They believe these changes will accelerate out-migration and accelerate hardship. Many of these people who have worked in seasonal industries for generations are going to find themselves on the welfare rolls. Their families will face a great deal of hardship.

If the government had thought these changes through, it would understand the far-reaching impacts they will have.

I would ask again that my colleague heed the call from the Atlantic premiers and from the Premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois, and put a moratorium on these changes.

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pick up on the same topic of employment insurance cuts, or the changes to the program.

This is fairly timely in light of the fact that, over the last couple of days, the four Atlantic premiers have come together to voice their concerns about the changes that have been made and to approach the Conservative government to try to impart on it the impact that these changes are going to have throughout their provinces. When we look at it, two of the four premiers are Conservative premiers.

I know David Alward, in New Brunswick, was pretty apprehensive at first. He did not want to do anything to make waves with the boss, but he is getting it loud and clear from the people of New Brunswick now just how these changes are going to impact them.

It speaks to a broader question here. It speaks to the attitude that has been taken by the government, particularly about the people of Atlantic Canada. The infamous words of the Prime Minister say that the people of Atlantic Canada have this culture of defeat.

We are very much aware of the letter that was written by Senator Stephen Greene. It borders on repugnant, the malice that he holds for the people of Atlantic Canada. He talks about this culture of dependency. Maybe if he got out of his office and went to these communities and saw the honesty, the sincerity and the hard work of these people in these rural communities, which really contribute to the regional GDP of the area, he would understand that these regions contribute considerably to the well-being of the country. Over half of the regional GDP is generated through seasonal industries.

When I hear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refer to the fishery as an EI fishery, and when I know that the government was headed toward the cancellation of owner-operator and fleet separation policies, it just underlines the approach the government has taken to people not only in Atlantic Canada and Quebec but in rural communities across the country. The changes that are being made to EI are only going to hurt the people in those rural communities even more.

I would ask the government to reconsider and pay attention to the premiers of Quebec and Atlantic Canada now and put a moratorium on these changes.

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an embarrassing day for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Not only did she have to reverse the changes to the temporary foreign worker program that she put in just a year prior, but then four more provincial premiers lined up against the changes that are being made to the EI program.

She said that she has consulted. I think it is more like she has insulted. She has insulted seasonal workers. She has insulted business owners in seasonal industries. She has insulted municipal leaders who know the impact that these changes are going to have on their communities. Why does she not start consulting?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will host a party back at my office if anybody ever gets an amendment passed in committee, because we are being force-fed. I know that the member is a new member, but unlike anything I have seen in my 13 years, the impact of amendments now being brought forward at committee is, for the most part, laughable.

When there is testimony on the record, presented by such respected Canadians, I think it is worthwhile. It is never too late to bring it forward.

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is bringing forward amendments. We will certainly look at those and take them into consideration to see if they can improve the legislation.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his opinion.

As we know, in every piece of legislation, a number of items will be impacted and a number of items will be changed. Our caucus, and I am sure the House, can agree that probably two-thirds of this bill are worthwhile and well founded.

As a matter of fact, we have seen other aspects of this bill brought before the House in the past. Bill C-7 was here in 2006, and Bill C-41 was in 2008. Both died on the order paper, but many of the components of this bill were brought forward at that time.

There are aspects of this bill we have absolutely no problem with. However, the concerns we have raised through the debate today are real, and I hope that the government is taking note.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to join in the debate. It has been informative. Being neither a lawyer with a legal background or a member of the Canadian Armed Forces with a military background, I have certainly learned quite a bit from the debate here today. It has been worthwhile.

That being said, our caucus is blessed with a great depth of legal knowledge. My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, and my colleague from down the road in Halifax West have addressed many of the rights issues woven throughout this piece of legislation. I am certainly respectful of their opinion on it.

As well, our caucus boasts a number of people who have served our country in military service. The member for Winnipeg North is a former member of the Canadian air force. He was posted in Edmonton for a number of years. Our colleague, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, is a former naval officer, a colonel, in the Canadian navy. He went on to become involved in the space program and was Canada's first astronaut. He is a man whose opinion is widely respected across the country.

Then, of course, from the red chamber, there is Senator Romeo Dallaire. His vast experience and understanding of all issues military has a great deal of equity in his opinion. When people of that calibre bring forward concerns on a particular piece of legislation, such as Bill C-15, obviously it is worth taking note.

One of the key provisions brought forward today is the provision for security of tenure for military justices until they reach the retirement age of 60, resign or are removed for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee. The outlining of sentences, objectives and principles is another provision. The legislation would also amend the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused. The bill also changes the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee. One of the other key components is that it allows certain service offences to carry a criminal record.

In our party, we understand the need to reform the Canadian court martial system and to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. However, we also believe that Canadian citizens who make that career decision, that life choice, to join the Canadian Forces should not lose some of their rights before the courts.

We believe and understand that rights and equality are universal. Without an effective means for appeal, and no recorded proceedings, which was mentioned by my colleague from Halifax West, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not respect the basic rights of Canadian Forces members. Our party does not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain service offences is fair and just, as the means of pardoning offences has been recently removed by the government.

Finally, we find it problematic that the VCDS can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the code of service discipline.

Obviously, there are a number of disparities between the military and civil justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. While we recognize that updates to the military justice system must be made, the government is missing an opportunity to make these changes properly.

Many aspects of the MJS inexplicably remain unimproved or provide unnecessary powers. For example, Bill C-15 enshrines in law a list of military offences that will now carry a criminal record, and some are hardly necessary. Without a pardon system, which was recently revoked by the Conservatives, and summary trials set up with no records and no meaningful appeal, a Canadian Forces member would be left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

I would think it would have twigged on the government that many Canadians, after they finish their military service, have challenges securing that first job out of the service. Many times, the skills an individual acquires, even the technical skills, do not align with accepted or traditional construction trade skills.

The Helmets to Hardhats program, which works with members who try to seek employment after having left the military, is recognition of that. The Conservatives take a great deal of credit for it, but they have put only $150,000 into the program. The program is really run by Canadian building trades and a number of corporate sponsors. That being said, it is a program that recognizes some of the challenges members of the Canadian Forces face upon release. It would be nice if the government would play a more significant role.

That being said, if the Conservatives were attuned to the challenges of departing members, one would think they would understand that coming out of the military with a criminal record because of an offence that in our own court system would not be recognized as a criminal act becomes a burden in itself. That is yet another challenge that has to be overcome by an individual. It is truly unfortunate and unnecessary.

My colleague from Ajax—Pickering said that the testimony given by a couple of witnesses was somewhat extreme. Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau is a respected Canadian with a very distinguished military career. I will read into the record his quote from the testimony presented:

I find it very odd that those who put their lives at risk to protect the rights of Canadians are themselves deprived of some of these charter rights when facing a quasi-criminal process with the possibility of loss of liberty through detention in military barracks.

We cannot dismiss testimony from individuals whose opinions we greatly respect. We should take that into consideration. Certainly the testimony of both Retired Colonel Drapeau and M. Létourneau was very compelling and should be reflected going forward.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments shared by my colleague from Winnipeg North, who has distinguished himself with military service in our country.

His reference to the testimony that was cited through the committee hearings is important because the witnesses who gave testimony brought a great deal of credibility to the issue. In particular, I refer to comments by retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who had identified the fact that without a pardon system, which was recently revoked by the Conservatives, and the summary trial being set up as it was, with no record and no means of meaningful appeal, Canadian Forces members were left haunted by a record and unable to find employment upon release.

In his experience, would he see the same? It is tough getting work after someone finishes a career, I do not see that—

[Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we know is that when we posed these questions to the government a number of months ago, the standard lines were, number one, “We are very concerned”, and, number two, “We take this very seriously”. If it was very concerned and took it very seriously, then it would pay attention to the advice of both of the federal agencies.

Let me read from the Privacy Commissioner's website, under “Frequently Asked Questions”, which states:

What should I do if my personal information is compromised by a data breach?

The answer is simple:

Contact the fraud departments of the two major credit bureaus. Request that a "fraud alert" be placed in your files. Order copies of your credit report, and repeat this step in six months.

If the Conservatives are concerned and take it seriously, why would they not contract TransUnion to protect the security of these individuals?

[Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, April 25th, 2013]

They want to be inspired over there.

Mr. Speaker, the issue we are talking about today in this adjournment proceeding is one that has created a great deal of concern among a great number of Canadians.

As the human resources and skills development critic, once the revelation came forward, I was inundated with notes of concern from Canadians who had their security breached in what has been referred to as the single largest security breach in the history of this country. As my colleague would know, almost 1 in 60 Canadians were impacted by this security breach. It is fairly significant.

We will not get into the technical aspects of the actual breach or what the government is going to do around that breach, because we know there has been a significant breach since. I think what I would like to focus on here with my question is those who are impacted and who are exposed.

When a Canadian has his or her identity stolen, we know the complications that brings. It has an impact on banking accounts, credit ratings and a whole variety of issues in how we go about living life from day to day. It certainly exposes people to a great deal of risk. The nub of my concern is about what the government has done, or what it has not done, to make sure Canadians' information is protected.

Back on February 14, when department officials appeared at the human resources committee, I asked why the government was not following the recommendations of its own agency, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. As a minimum, whenever Canadians have their security breached and are exposed to identity theft, both organizations recommend that people should place a fraud alert on their credit file.

There are two agencies that provide that service in Canada: Equifax and TransUnion. The government itself accessed Equifax. It secured the services of Equifax. However, both of its own agencies identify, even on their websites, that the services of both Equifax and TransUnion should be secured going forward.

We are not even certain if all the people who have had their security and privacy breached were made aware of it. I think it was up to about 85,000 people who had been contacted and notified. The government indicated at the time that it was going to embark on a campaign of contacting Canadians. As well, the agencies would also be in contact with Canadians.

My question is simple. Why are we not using TransUnion, the other company, as advised by those two agencies? Why are we not securing its services to protect those who had their security breached?