Rodger Cuzner

[Helping Families in Need Act, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech did an excellent job of summarizing the ascent of the bill, where we are today and maybe the opportunity that was missed. The Liberal Party wholeheartedly supports the spirit and intent of the bill, but there were some opportunities missed along the way.

Stephen Moreau was the lawyer who represented Natalya Rougas in the case that was presented to the Supreme Court and was ruled on. One thing that was brought out during the debate was the stacking provisions. The court ruling in 2011 said that those provisions on receiving maternity leave and then sick leave were already in legislation, as intended by parliamentarians who passed the law in 2002.

I would like the member's comments on Mr. Moreau's testimony during the hearings.

[Employment Insurance, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we know all good comedians have what they call a shtick. Yesterday's performance by the human resources minister was a huge laugher, though.

In 2004, when she was first elected, HRDC's annual report showed that 80% of the time people were receiving their EI cheque in 21 days, compared to today, when even after she stretched the standard to 28 days she is still only successful 30% of the time.

Obviously, the minister remains short on facts but chock full of shtick.

[Service Canada, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, she is not doing a very good job, as a matter of fact. Fourteen million times, Canadians phoned Service Canada to get an update on their EI and 14 million times they were hung up on. That is 14 million times Canadians were hung up on, not to mention the three-quarters of a million Canadians who waited almost six weeks to get their first EI cheques.

The only thing the Conservatives have been good at is taking the service out of Service Canada because they gutted the jobs of the people who provided the service. This is not a game. People are hurting. When is she going to fix this?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is more pretending than defending. What he knows and what Canadians know is that the only party that has been convicted under the Elections Act is the Conservative Party and it has paid back a $52,000 settlement. I am not sure if the member for Labrador will avoid such a conviction.

Yesterday, Tom Flanagan, the former chief of staff for the Prime Minister, said that the minister had no choice but to step out of cabinet for so clearly breaking the laws. With over 20% in overspending that we know of, and now the corporate cheque scandal, when will that minister step down?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, “We will put an end to the influence of big money in federal political parties by banning corporate contributions”. Do members know who said that? The Prime Minister said that. Do members know who brazenly broke that rule? The member for Labrador broke the rule. Not only did he take a corporate gift of $17,000 in free air travel, but he took a corporate cheque of $5,500 from Pennecon.

After this slap in the face to the Prime Minister's own law, why is that minister still in cabinet?

[Jobs and Growth, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I love the opportunity to speak about the foundation that was laid by the Jean Chrétien-Paul Martin years, and John Manley and the member for Wascana in their stewardship of the Department of Finance.

When we talk about statistics, the unemployment rate has actually increased under the Conservative crew. They say that they have created 800,000 jobs, but those jobs have been created in Alberta, Saskatchewan and a few in Newfoundland. The Conservatives can separate their shoulders patting themselves on the back, but it is the resource sector that is creating those jobs.

Let us talk about the statistics. Let us talk about the record debt in the history of our country that the Conservatives continue to accrue.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs stood today to say that the Liberals used to present three budgets and that the Conservatives only presented one. However, our three budgets were balanced at least. Those guys have not been able to do that and I do not really see anything in the future that would show they might be able to balance it either.

[Jobs and Growth, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. We have to be careful how we address the issue of temporary foreign workers and I do not think we have it right yet. Temporary foreign workers are an important part of our economy, especially rural economies. If people go to the agricultural sector, some of the best workers are temporary foreign workers. A group of temporary foreign workers may come in every harvest. Those temporary workers are able to work and sustain other seasonal workers within that industry. That is where the crops are grown and the fish are harvested. That is where a lot of the wealth from the country is realized.

If there are 20 people working the fields, there is probably an infrastructure of another 10 or 15 that are being supported by those workers in the field. They have to be treated with respect. They get that money and go back to their own communities. It is almost an indirect form of foreign aid. It is of benefit to them, it is of benefit to the workers in that industry and it is of benefit to the businesses and communities.

We are hearing it not just from people that receive EI benefits, we are hearing it from municipal and community leaders who know that these changes are going to have a negative impact on their communities. That is why we stand and represent them today.

[Jobs and Growth, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, that is a very fair and just ruling, which I appreciate.

I will be quizzed by the other side on why I do not support this budget implementation bill because of the EI credit for new hires. Every bundle of thorns may have a couple of roses in it. Actually, that is not a bad measure. That is a good measure and I support it, but it is the other measures around that.

The other problem around this are the employers in rural communities that operate seasonal industries. They will not have employees to hire if families are unable to sustain themselves in rural communities. That is the essence of how I would tie this together. The credit will be no good to them if there are no skilled workers in those communities left to support those industries.

[Jobs and Growth, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if I could, on the same point of order, I would say it is the budget implementation bill and the budget included changes to the working while on claim program that will devastate local economies. It did away with the five-week extension that is going to hurt areas of high unemployment in this country. I think those points are relevant.

The Conservatives are talking about jobs, and there are some people who want jobs but are not able to access those jobs. The relevance is obvious.

[Jobs and Growth, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this debate. Certainly, there have been some valid arguments brought up, especially with respect to the size of the bill. I want to speak particularly about one aspect of the bill and that is the changes to EI. However, certainly the size of the bill is worth noting off the top of my comments.

We look at the vast impact it has on so many different government departments and pieces of legislation. To lump them all into one omnibus bill was a practice that was very much frowned upon when our current Prime Minister was a member of Parliament back through the mid-nineties and was the leader of the opposition. He spoke passionately in the chamber about his opposition to omnibus legislation. Probably one of the most interesting debates we could have would be between the current Prime Minister and himself circa 1993, because I think we are looking at two different people with respect to what he said then and how he practises the administration of his duties currently as Prime Minister.

Between the years of 1993 and 2001, the total number of pages in the budgets presented by the then Liberal governments still would not add up to the number of pages in this particular budget and the impact that it has on the various departments.

As I indicated earlier, the Minister of Finance appeared before the finance committee and could not answer two-thirds of the questions because they fell under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Transport. To lump all of these into one bill, I think it is a huge injustice. We have heard that from group after group. Certainly, we in the Liberal Party do not support a budget of this size and the approach that the government has taken.

I want to speak specifically about the changes to EI but, even more importantly, about the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor that has gone on since the government has taken power. Today there was a study released citing an increase of 31% in the use of food banks since 2006. In a perfect world we would not have food banks. Unfortunately, there are some people who slip through the cracks for one reason or another. However, to see that the usage has increased by 31% since 2006 is substantive.

What worries me is that we know who would be impacted by certain measures in the bill, such as increasing the age of OAS from 65 to 67. It would not impact corporate lawyers.

It is funny that today the Minister of Human Resources talked about what the government is doing with respect to income splitting for the poor people in this country. I am sure the guys down at the Salvation Army hostel were high-fiving each other when they heard that the government is coming forward with income splitting.

First of all, one has to have an income before it can be split. The government has turned its back on the most vulnerable in our society time after time, and certainly in this instance.

When we look at the increase in the OAS from 65 to 67, that would hurt the poor, the low-income earners in our community, the people who are not in a position to save going forward. They are just able to pay their bills from week to week, let alone save going forward.

This would also hurt those people who try to get by living with disabilities. I have had an opportunity to speak with several groups that represent people with disabilities. They say when some of these people hit 65 and get OAS and the guaranteed income supplement, that is the most wealth they have ever had in their entire lives. They hit easy street when they finally reach 65 and are able to receive OAS and GIS. We are widening the gap.

I want to speak specifically about the changes to EI and one of the programs in particular, working while on claim. This was a fairly good pilot project, one that was started in 2005 under a Liberal government and renewed by the Conservative government in 2007 and renewed once again.

It was a program for people receiving EI benefits who wanted to earn some additional money and had an employer who had a job for them to fill. It would allow them to earn 40% of their EI premium. If they were making $200 a week on EI, they could make $80 and keep that $80. It was a program that worked fairly well. For someone making full benefits on EI, they could make $195 without losing a dollar.

The government said it was going to increase the program to 50%, but it did not say the 50% was on total earnings. There was no mention of that being on total earnings. Now what happens is that people lose the 50¢ right from dollar one. Now that person who was making $200 a week and made $80 in a part-time job would lose $40 of that.

What is that doing to our economy, especially in communities that are driven by seasonal industries? I got a call from a farmer from Prince Edward Island. He tried to get someone to come and grade potatoes for an afternoon—