Rodger Cuzner

[Employment Insurance, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the human resources minister said that “we recognize that services are not what we want them to be”. That would be like Gary Bettman saying, “Boys, we're having a little trouble getting the season started”.

When she took over, 21 days was the time limit to get cheques out, 80% of the time in 21 days. Now people are waiting five and six weeks. She has gutted her department because of the fiscal incompetence of the government, but the problem is that she does not care. Just like Bettman does not care about the fans, she does not care about vulnerable Canadians.

When is she going to wake up and realize that Canadians are being hurt?

[Residential School Survivors, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the honour to join Grand Chief Ben Silliboy and Chief Rod Googoo for a special ceremony in Waycobah First Nation. A monument and exhibit were unveiled to commemorate those who were forced to leave their community to attend the Shubenacadie Indian Residential School, where many of them suffered unnecessary and unspeakable abuse.

The chair of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Justice Murray Sinclair, travelled to Waycobah for the ceremony. He spoke movingly to the survivors who brought this project to life so that the children of the community could understand and learn from their stories. Justice Sinclair also spoke of the power of forgiveness and reconciliation.

Inscribed on the monument outside Waycobah school are these words by the late revered Mi'kmaq poet Rita Joe:

I lost my talk
The talk you took away....
Let me find my talk
So i can teach you about me.

On behalf of the entire House, I commend the residential school survivors from Waycobah for finding their talk so that they can help teach us, as a nation, the power of forgiveness and reconciliation.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 10th, 2012]

With regard to the government's Working While on Claim Pilot Project (Pilot Project 18), announced in Budget 2012 and which took effect August 5, 2012, the adjustment made to it on October 5, 2012, (Pilot Project 18 Adjustment), and the previous Working While on Claim Pilot that was in effect from December 11, 2005, to August 4, 2012, (Pilot Project 17): (a) for Pilot Project 17, during fiscal years 2008 to 2012, what are the average and median part-time weekly wages earned while receiving Employment Insurance (EI), broken down by (i) geographic area, (ii) industry, (iii) the following wage earning levels: $1-50 per week, $51-100, $101-150, $151-200, $201-250, $251-300, $300 and up, etc.; (b) what is the justification, including supporting data, for the elimination of the Allowable Earning Provision in Pilot Project 18 that allowed EI claimants to earn without claw-back the greater of 40% of their weekly employment insurance benefit or $75, which was present in Pilot Project 17; (c) did the government analyze how many people were anticipated to receive less under Pilot Project 18 than under Pilot Project 17 as a result of the elimination of the Allowable Earnings Provision in Pilot Project 18 and, if so, what is the analysis, broken down by geography and industry; (d) what is the expected cost saving to the government by removing the Allowable Earnings Provision in Pilot Project 18; (e) does removing the Allowable Earnings Provision create a new claw-back for low wage earners on EI; (f) is the removal of the Allowable Earnings Provision a disincentive to work for low weekly wage EI recipients and, if not, why not, and if so, why was the provision eliminated and what new measures will be implemented to create incentives for low income earners to work; (g) was any analysis completed on what impact removing the Allowable Earnings Provision would have on seasonal workers and, if so, what is the reason for the analysis and the details of the analysis, including internal file numbers and reference numbers associated with them; (h) what data statistics have been collected on Pilot Project 17, by fiscal year, since the start of the project in 2005, including a description of the statistic and reasons for its calculation; (i) will EI recipients lose their benefits if they refuse to accept part-time work that would result in a financial loss to the claimant as a result of having 50% of their earnings clawed back; (j) what are the expected cost savings to eliminating the Allowable Earnings Provision in Pilot Project 18 compared to Pilot Project 17; (k) what have been the budgeted and actual costs for Pilot Project 17 for fiscal years 2008 to 2012, explaining any deviations; (l) what is the expected budget for Pilot Project 18 for fiscal years 2013 to 2015, explaining any reduction in budget for Pilot Project 18 compared to Pilot Project 17; (m) what internal and external studies has the government undertaken to analyze both Pilot Project 17 and Pilot Project 18 since 2005, providing (i) their names, (ii) who undertook them, (iii) the cost, (iv) the years undertaken; (n) how many EI claimants receiving the Family Benefit worked in fiscal year 2012, and what is their (i) median weekly income, (ii) average weekly income, (iii) average hours worked per week; (o) how will Pilot Project 18 promote workforce mobility across the country; (p) what are the statistics from fiscal years 2010 to 2012 detailing how people working part-time while on claim transition to full-time work; (q) how many people are anticipated to be eligible for Pilot Project 18 Adjustment; (r) how many individuals who are eligible for the Pilot Project 18 Adjustment are anticipated to revert to Pilot Project 17 rules; (s) how will individuals who qualify for the Pilot Project 18 Adjustment be notified of their eligibility and provided the relevant information; (t) how were individuals who were eligible for Pilot Project 18 notified about their eligibility and provided the relevant information; (u) why are individuals who qualify under the Pilot Project 18 Adjustment who chose to revert to Pilot Project 17 rules required to file their bi-weekly reports manually and not electronically; (v) what is the expected number of employment insurance applications to be processed in January, 2013, based on normal historical volumes; (w) what is the anticipated volume of application files related to people who revert back to Pilot Project 17 who are eligible for the Pilot Project Adjustment; (x) is additional staffing planned to deal with the increased processing volume for January, 2013, as a result of the file requests from individuals opting to revert to Pilot Project 17 rules; and (y) are regular claimants who received at least one week of regular benefits between August 7, 2011, and August 4, 2012, ineligible for the Pilot Project 18 Adjustment if they work more than one or two days per week part-time and, if so, what is the rationale?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 10th, 2012]

With regard to staffing at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) since 2006: (a) what job positions were externally posted, including (i) the group and level classification, (ii) the job title, (iii) the language requirement, (iv) the office location, (v) the duration of the job posting, (vi) if the position was to be located in a bilingual region, (vii) whether the position was a new or existing position; (b) what externally advertised job positions were advertised for five days or less, including (i) the job title, (ii) the job description; (c) what were the employment positions at the end of fiscal years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, including (i) the group and level classification, (ii) the job title, (iii) the office location, (iv) the language requirement, (v) the total number of employees; (d) what job positions were eliminated in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, including (i) the group and level classification, (ii) the job title, (iii) the office location; (e) what are the projected job positions to be eliminated in fiscal years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015; (f) is Kevin MacAdam still employed in the position of Director General, Operations Prince Edward Island, since his appointment was revoked by the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) on August 8, 2012, (i) is he still receiving full-time French language training education, (ii) is the ACOA paying any legal costs of Mr. MacAdam's judicial review of the PSC August 8, 2012 decision; and (g) what is the ACOA’s policy when the PSC rules it is required to revoke an appointment made and the appointee files for a judicial review of the PSC decision to revoke their appointment, including (i) the effects on revoked appointment's employment contract with the ACOA, (ii) the funding the revoked appointment's legal expenses related to any legal action taken by the appointee to have the PSC decision overturned?

[Income Tax Act, December 7th, 2012]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-377, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 1 with the following:

“labour organization is a signatory and also includes activities associated with advice, commentary or advocacy provided by an employer organization in respect of labour relations activities, collective bargaining, employment standards, occupational health and safety, the regulation of trades, apprenticeship, the organization of work or any other workplace matter.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-377, in Clause 1, be amended

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:

““labour organization”

includes (a) a labour society

(b) by replacing line 14 on page 1 with the following:

“committee or joint board of such organizations; and

(b) an employer organization, whether or not it has responsibilities related to collective bargaining, such as a federation of employers, a contractors’ organization, a group that provides benefits to the employees of a member employer, a research agency involved in any type of research related to labour relations activities and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a corporate vehicle such as a society, corporation, foundation, joint council or board.”

[Points of Order, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, further to my point of order on Wednesday regarding Bill C-377, I would like to include another document for consideration, in addition to the ones I mentioned before.

There is a letter from the building trades and construction trades. If I could include this and two other documents, I will forward this to your office.

[Employment Insurance, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the only outfit I can think of that has spent more and delivered less would be the Toronto Maple Leafs, and that is coming from a Toronto Maple Leafs fan.

However, I am certainly no fan of the government. Canadians are out there having to decide if they should fill their fridge, fill their oil tank or fill their prescription. Those are the hard choices Canadians are facing.

When will the Conservatives realize that they have a real problem and are hurting real Canadians?

[Employment Insurance, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is taking 40 days to get a cheque kicked out. Noah did better than that, but we do not have to go back to the Great Flood. We can go back to 2005 when EI recipients were getting their cheques in half the time.

Again, the Conservatives continue to spend money, but the services continue to go down. I would think that would be the definition of fiscal incompetence. How on earth is that possible?

[Employment Insurance, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the actual facts of how Canadians are being hurt by the government's financial incompetence are compelling. After the government slashed staff at EI processing centres, people are now waiting five weeks for the first payments. Last year, over three-quarters of a million people waited more than 40 days for their first cheques, while 14 million applicants were hung up on.

The debt continues to go up, services to Canadians continue to go down. Why are the most vulnerable Canadians paying the price for the government's fiscal incompetence?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is something I am just not seeing in this particular bill's numbers. Therefore, could my colleague from Wetaskiwin show me what the costs would be?

The changes that have been made to the EI Act would result in the federal government losing a fair amount of capacity in some of the departments that use seasonal workers. We know that during tax season the Canada Revenue Agency staffs up. We see that after Christmas with EI processing, when that department also hires more staff. A lot of the time they are term positions, but with the new changes to EI those people will not be sustained, and all of those departments will have to bring in new staff. I would think there would be a considerable amount of training required. I believe it was the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that has a fairly fluid staff, because I have heard that it costs $15,000 per employee to staff up during peak times.

Where are we seeing that dollar value? If there is a dollar value affixed to this, could the member point to that in the budget?