Rodger Cuzner

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment first on the point of order that was brought up by friend from Essex. It is easy to wander off on this legislation when it is as sprawling as it is. It is easy to think that perhaps a member has gone a bit off topic. That is probably why the minister could not answer two-thirds of the questions that were posed at finance committee, because they were under the realm of somebody else's portfolio. On behalf of all opposition members, I will issue an apology through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Essex for our tendency to wander.

Fifty-three per cent of the regional GDP in Atlantic Canada is found through seasonal industries such as the fishery, agriculture, forestry and tourism. What kind of impact will these cuts to EI have on these sectors? In my riding they will have a decimating impact on access to skilled labour for those industries. I would like to get my colleague's opinion as to how the cuts will impact his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, as part of a debate, if a member can help explain a certain position, either one side or the other, it is of benefit.

The government has talked a great deal about the NDP proposal for a cap and trade system. We know that the Conservatives put forward a similar cap and trade proposal, placing a $65 per tonne fee on carbon.

Could the member take a couple of minutes to explain the difference between those two approaches? They seem very similar to me.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

The Leafs made the playoffs.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member for London—Fanshawe to speculate on the thought process behind some of the changes made in the budget by the government and I would ask that presenter to do the same.

With regard to the changes to OAS and the increase of the age for receiving OAS, it seems like the government fabricated a crisis. We see now with the document tabled by the Auditor General that there was no crisis and that any savings at all would have been minuscule. I would appreciate the member's thoughts on this change, a change that would have a negative impact on so many, especially those Canadians who live with disabilities on whose lives it would have a substantive negative impact. What would have motivated the government to embark on this wrong-minded manoeuvre?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it might not be fair, but I am going to ask my colleague from the NDP to try to figure out the government's thinking in this particular case.

The bill that has come forward in fact changes a number of different aspects of the EI system. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently looking at Bill C-44. We have allocated five days for the study of that. It should maybe impact 6,000 people in Canada each year. However, the changes made in the bill will impact 750,000 to 900,000 people, and yet there is no study of it. It is being rammed through in this particular piece of legislation.

What would my colleague see as the government's rationale for doing something like this in making these changes to the EI system?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, October 19th, 2012]

With respect to the increase in the age eligibility for Old Age security (OAS) and the government's contention that it was necessary for the long-term sustainability of the program: (a) what is the measure that the government uses to determine the sustainability level for OAS; (b) what does the government consider OAS sustainability in terms of (i) maximum dollar figure per year expended on OAS, (ii) maximum percentage of the government's annual budget expended on OAS, (iii) maximum percentage of annual GDP spent on OAS; (c) what are the details, including dates and file numbers, of all studies the government has undertaken in determining that the OAS age of eligibility needed to be raised; (d) what is the expected saving in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility, detailing the assumptions included in these calculations, including annual inflation rate; (e) were any other options studied to ensure sustainability of OAS, and if so, what are the details, including dates and file numbers of these options and or studies and why they were not chosen; (f) how many individuals will not be eligible for (i) OAS, (ii) Guaranteed Income Support (GIS) in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility; (g) how many individuals will be eligible for (i) OAS, (ii) GIS, in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility; (h) given OAS and GIS are fully funded from general revenues, was the government anticipating deficits in years 2023 to 2029 and beyond as a reason to decrease OAS and GIS costs, and if so, how large were the anticipated deficits for these years and will the change in age of eligibility eliminate these deficits; (i) what is rationale for choosing 2023 as the year to start implementing the age eligibility increase; and (j) who was consulted, including public and private stakeholder groups, and when on the age of eligibility change?

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, each time my colleague delivers a speech in the House people usually take note, and today is no exception. He has nailed a couple of very important points, the reflection on and the comparison with what took place with Bill C-10. The member proposed amendments that were voted down by the Conservative majority in committee. The minister tried to put them back into the legislation at the last minute, which did not happen, but at least the amendments did get in through the Senate. Those improvements, because it was at odds with the charter, made sense.

Eight hundred amendments were proposed to the omnibus bill through debate here in the House and through votes in the House, and the government supported none of them. Was the member somewhat surprised that there was not one suggestion or amendment brought forward that might have been able to improve the omnibus bill? Was he surprised that the government rejected all 800 amendments?

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would caution my NDP colleague not to be sucked in by the talking points of the government. We are talking apples and oranges: a 21-page budget bill versus a 400-page budget bill. Do not fall for that stuff.

I would ask my colleague what aspects of the budget would have benefited from a full and thorough investigation by committee.

The fact is that the Conservatives now have a piece of legislation at the human resources committee, Bill C-44, which would impact about 6,000 Canadians. The bill received the unanimous consent of the House and it is now in committee for full hearings with witnesses and testimony. However, on something like working while on claim, which they have just made a mess of and impacts 900,000 Canadians, it gets flushed through in this omnibus bill.

Since the Conservatives have royally jigged up working while on claim, what other aspects of the bill spring to mind that may have been tweaked a little had it had the opportunity to go to committee?

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, does the member think 400 pages of information, 735 clauses, 70 acts of Parliament and 60 distinct measures are an abuse of this—

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today there were some comments made by the government House leader that caught my attention. People listening to this debate at home who are long-time supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada are on to the fact that these guys are abusing Parliament. Long-time supporters of the New Democratic Party understand fully that the government has abused the chamber and its majority within the chamber. This debate is really targeted at independence and some conservative-minded people or Conservative supporters who still have a high respect for democracy in this country and what goes on in the chamber.

The government House leader made reference to a ruling by then Speaker Gilbert Parent on a point of order by the current Prime Minister when he was questioning the use of omnibus legislation. In the ruling he said it is okay to amend several statutes, but in fact—