Rodger Cuzner

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the House an email that came to my office today.

I have been back and forth with this gentleman, Mr. Pink, although he says that his father's name was Mr. Pink, not his. He was in the fish business for 30 years, mainly in Louisbourg, which has a strong, proud tradition of being a very successful fishing port.

He has said that the businesses are going through a great difficulty retaining skilled workers. They have been drawing from communities around them for the last while. When they are trying to develop new product, sometimes it is just a day or a day and a half of work. People have to drive all the way to Louisbourg, which can be a considerable drive away from those other communities. He says that people cannot be blamed for not driving to Louisbourg with the price of gas.

He asks how this is ensuring claimants always benefit by accepting available work? That is what we are trying to get at. He goes on to say that the minister is clearly showing she has no idea what she is talking about on this pilot project.

The question for my colleague, from Mr. Pink, is this. How does this ensure claimants always benefit by accepting available work?

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will do the televangelist for those who are watching at home today so they can understand what this is all about.

The motion today is to help a group of Canadians who have been placed in hardship by a change that was made, whether it was intended or unintended. There are people being hurt by a change in the provision for working while on claim.

The government has criticized the NDP about the green carbon tax and it has talked about this program and that program. What we are trying to do today is help some of the most hard-pressed in this country. There was a pilot program that we had before that worked well. The government changed the way it is being administered and now low wage earners are being hurt. It is a disincentive. People could earn between $75 and $195 under the program.

How can the member explain to somebody who made $80 on the program pre-August 5, that they will now lose half of that $80 and will only make $40? How are people benefiting from that? I wish her good luck.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I said from the outset today that I hoped that all members engaging here today would work together to try to find some kind of solution to what is an obvious problem.

To lay this on the table, not everyone is being hurt by the changes being made. There are some instances where the changes are actually beneficial, but from what I can understand, these instances are minimal.

I asked the minister what she had predicated the changes on, what measurement was used. If we want to fix something, we have to be able to measure it. I asked what measurement she had referred to, but she came up with nothing.

We know that the median income of part-time workers in this country is $223 and that those who earn anything under $260 working while on claim are being hurt. I am wondering if my colleague from the NDP has seen in his research any kind of a measurement that would make sense out of the changes that have been made.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, again, the comments coming from the Conservatives are that they are all about jobs. That is wonderful. Everybody in the House would like to see every Canadian have a job. We would like to see all Canadians healthy, but not all Canadians are healthy. That is why there are hospitals and health services. Not all Canadians have a job. That is why there are these social safety nets like EI.

I want to ask my colleague this. They recited over there that I supported the initiative. I supported best weeks, and I spoke in favour of this provision because it was a successful pilot program. However, in typical Conservative fashion, what they did not say at the time was that it was doing away with the allowable earnings provision and moving the 40% of the EI benefit to 50% of overall earnings, which changed the whole plan. They did not announce that until August, three months after I had said it was a good initiative.

Does the hon. member recall the Conservatives giving us the fine details back when they were making these grand announcements—

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's comments she indicated that anyone, even if they only work a couple of hours a week, is much better off. I have gone through all the computations and it does not work out.

Let us take this out of the debate: if someone works, that is good and he or she does not need the help. If they are healthy, they do not need the hospital. This is for people who are trying to feed their families when they are out of work. Under the old system, if they worked a couple of hours, they would benefit. The member said in her statement that under this program even a couple of hours a week would be a benefit.

Does the member actually believe this? Having looked at these programs, the old one and the new one, can she say to the House that people are better off under this program than the old program? It is a simple question.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked a true or false question and I have asked a multiple choice question. I am going to go with an either or question now and I would be happy if she answered either or.

The first one would be what measurement she used. Because she has gone from it is going to help all people, to the vast majority, to the majority. One of the members over there said the other day that it would help most people.

However, in order to fix the problem, there has to be some kind of measurement that is referred to. Therefore, to help me understand why this decision was made, what measure did she use to determine who would benefit and who would not?

Then I have another one, and I will give her a choice.

She has used three examples in the House, all stemming from three days of work. Does she have an example if somebody only gets two days—

[Employment Insurance, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, twice last week the human resource minister told the House that anybody collecting EI benefits and working while on claim would lose every cent they earned after $75.00, which is patently wrong.

I gave her a little quiz, a true or false. She did not do that well. Today, I am going to try a multiple choice.

The minister's answers have been wrong because: (a) she does not know her files; (b) she does not care about her files; (c) her answers are tactically misleading; or (d) all of the above?

[Raylene Rankin, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. Raylene Rankin, of the internationally acclaimed Cape Breton musical family, the Rankins, died yesterday morning after a long and courageous battle with cancer.

Raylene and her siblings, Cookie, Heather, Jimmy and the late John Morris, were at the forefront of a resurgence of an entire culture when they took Cape Breton Celtic music mainstream about two decades ago.

However, that is not her only legacy. Raylene was, who we are as Cape Bretoner, and she showed that resilience with the personal strength she displayed in her fight with this incredibly cruel disease. Raylene's signature song as a vocalist was the Cape Breton anthem Rise Again. When she sang it, she brought a lump to our throats and she made us all stand taller as Cape Bretoners.

I am proud to have called Raylene a friend and I know there is a beautiful voice in Heaven's choir today.

On behalf of myself, Cape Bretoners everywhere and the entire House, I offer my deepest condolences to Raylene's husband, Colin; her son, Alexander; and her entire family.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of it. There were two pilot projects and both were showing benefit. My colleague from Malpeque, the Liberal caucus and I have long advocated for them. I have spoken on it on a number of occasions, whenever I can. Those were two pilot programs that worked well and took disincentives out of the system, and they should be adopted.

The government did one, but it had this new idea with working while on claim. It sounded really good going from 40% to 50%, but the 50% kicks in on dollar one. The 50% kicks in on the first dollar a claimant makes rather than 40% being free and clear. They are losing money from the first dollar, so it is a disincentive.

There is a way to fix it. Go back to the original. It was good the way it was. If we want to make it better, we could go from the 40% allowable to the 50% allowable and that would be taking away even more of a disincentive. We did not hear any complaints about the old system as it was at 40%, but if the government wants to go to 50% that would be even better.

We saw with Bill C-38, the omnibus bill, an unwillingness to adapt. There were 800 amendments put forward and none were accepted. I would hope that we can get together in the chamber today and help the people who are being hurt by these changes.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is just another brick on that load. There were a number of changes made that will certainly work against people who work in seasonal industries.

These are not seasonal workers. They are people who work in seasonal industries. Many Canadians work in a number of different industries to try to piece together an annual income. Some of the changes the government has made, such as the three categories of EI claimants or the repeat offenders legislation, are absolutely going to hurt and impact seasonal industries. This working while on claim project is just going to further aggravate the hardship of those people who work in seasonal industries.

We hear it all the time. There are municipal elections taking place in Nova Scotia and candidate after candidate is talking about out-migration and how we are losing population in rural communities. Certainly, these changes will do nothing to help their situation and their plight in rural Canada.