Rodger Cuzner

[Employment Insurance, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that this helps the majority of people. Let us talk about the majority, and I do not mean an NDP majority of 50% plus one, but the real majority. The basic math shows that anybody who makes $260 a week or under is penalized under these rule changes. Stats Canada figures show us that part-time workers' median income is $230 a week. That would tell me that EI recipients who are working part-time are being penalized.

When will the minister admit there is a problem and fix this problem? People are being hurt.

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

My congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker. Your appointment is very well deserved. You will do a great job in the Chair for the House.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to comment on how much confidence she has in the numbers cited by the leader of the official opposition. He just threw one out here that nearly knocked me out of my chair. He said it cost $750 million to clean up the Sydney tar ponds. The tar ponds had to be cleaned up. The money was allocated under the past Liberal government. The federal government provided $280 million and $120 million came from Premier John Hamm. That is $400 million in total. The leader says it is $750 million. I hope the pilot who will be flying me into Sydney tonight is able to judge a bit better than the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to hear him say, “We are going to miss the runway. I will be between Sydney harbour and the Mayflower Mall.”

Is this ramped-up rhetoric and bloated fairytales, which are nothing close to reality when it comes to the economy of this country, what we can expect from the leader of the official opposition?

[Employment Insurance, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I stand again today to hopefully have the minister lay down her talking points and answer this serious issue. The last three times she has responded, she said that anyone who worked two or three days while on EI would benefit.

The fact is that low wage earners actually lose money under the new rules. I know the minister feels no obligation to those people, but the math does not lie. I would encourage the minister to maybe lay off some communications people in her office and hire someone with grade 10 math to walk her through this. People are being hurt. They are losing money. Maybe somebody on the front bench might have a calculator. The minister—

[Employment Insurance, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development about the clawback disincentives she has recently introduced to the working while on claim provisions. Predictably, we got talking points that everyone was going to benefit.

Gordon Arsenault from Cheticamp in my riding works twice weekly as a cleaner and makes $79. Under the new rules, he will lose $38.

I have his phone number here if the minister would like to call him and explain to him how losing half of the income from his minimum wage job will actually be of benefit to him and his family.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 17th, 2012]

With regard to the closure of the Kingston Employment Insurance (EI) processing centre as a result of Service Canada's EI modernization plan: (a) what are the current EI processing centre hubs in Ontario; (b) what criteria determine whether a processing centre is an EI processing centre hub in Ontario; (c) what were the relevant factors in determining which Ontario EI processing centres were deemed EI processing centre hubs; (d) if the Kingston EI processing centre is not currently an EI processing centre hub, was it ever designated an EI processing hub, and if so, (i) when was it so designated, (ii) for what reasons was it so designated, (iii) on what date did it cease to be a hub, (iv) what are the reasons it is now no longer a hub; (e) what was the rationale for the decision to close the Kingston EI processing centre and to consolidate services to the Sudbury EI processing centre, and how do both locations compare in terms of the following Service Canada consolidation criteria, namely (i) existing EI staff and accommodations to minimize fit-up costs, (ii) close proximity to EI Call Centre to facilitate recruitment and career development opportunities, (iii) co-location with other business lines to decrease overhead costs associated with accommodation, operational and administrative services, (iv) bilingual capacity, (v) opportunities for lower cost leases, (vi) proximity to post secondary institutions to support recruitment, (vii) high speed telecommunications capacity to support EI modernization strategy, (vii) labour force availability; (f) what is the current staffing level at the Sudbury EI processing centre; (g) what is the anticipated staffing level at the Sudbury EI processing centre as a result of the centre becoming a consolidated site, broken down by (i) new hires, (ii) relocated/transferred existing Service Canada employees; (h) what are the anticipated costs of (i) training the new hires at the Sudbury EI processing centre, (ii) relocating/transferring existing service Canada employees to the Sudbury EI processing centre; (g) given that the Kingston EI processing centre currently handles all of the mail for Northern and Eastern Ontario, (i) where will these services be performed after the Kingston centre's closure, (ii) what is the anticipated cost to relocate this service; and (h) given that the Kingston processing centre processes interstate and overseas EI benefit claims, i) where will these services be performed after the Kingston centre's closure, (ii) what is the anticipated cost to relocate this service?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 17th, 2012]

With respect to the repair and divestiture of the seawall at Advocate Harbour, Nova Scotia, as referred to in the February 24, 2011, Department of Fisheries and Oceans press release and previous releases about this property: (a) has the government deemed this property surplus and, if it has, (i) when did it do so, (ii) what was the rationale behind this decision, (iii) does a property deemed surplus require automatic divestiture and, if so, what are the related regulations or policy, (iv) what is the full divestiture process for this property, (iii) at what stage of the divestiture process is the property now, (v) what is the relevant government department's strategy to ensure the property is fully divested, (vi) has any government departments been offered the property and, if so, what was their response, (vii) has the province of Nova Scotia been offered the property and, if so, what was its response, (viii) has the local municipality been offered the property and, if so, what was its response, (ix) has any community groups or private individual or entity been offered the property and, if so, what was their response; (b) what is the justification for funding repairs to this property if it is deemed surplus and/or to be divested and is this normal practice; (c) from which specific program do the repair funds come; (d) what is the criteria for the program from which the repair funds were accessed; (e) how much money did the government spend on plans and repairs of the Advocate Harbour Seawall from January 2006 to date and what future costs are anticipated, broken down by (i) cost item, (ii) date incurred or to be incurred, (iii) from which funding program the funds were, or planned to be, received; (f) has a fair market value been determined and, if so, what are the details of the assessment; (g) was the investment in the repair to the Advocate Harbour seawall solely to protect local infrastructure, agricultural land and private property, (h) what was the rationale for the government funding the 2012 assessment, as referenced by the May 21, 2010, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency press release; (i) did any funds for the repairs to the Advocate Harbour seawall come from a mechanism known as “invest to divest" which the government can use to facilitate the Treasury Board’s directive on the divestiture of surplus property and, if so (i) how much and (ii) by what rationale; (j) what are the specific guidelines for the government to use the mechanism known as “invest to divest”; and (k) in what instances in the last six years did the “invest to divest” mechanism been used but the property not been divested?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 17th, 2012]

With respect to studies Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) has undertaken or commissioned on workforce mobility: (a) under which HRSDC official's direction did HRSDC commission Sage Research Corp to study what type of migration incentives could encourage EI clients to accept a job that requires a residential move; (b) what was the rationale to undertake this study; (c) what are the details of the study; (d) what was the cost of the study; (e) what is HRSDC's response to the study; (f) what are the details and costs of other similar studies conducted or commissioned by HRSDC in the last six years; and (g) is HRSDC planning further studies on incentives for workforce mobility through the EI system?

[Employment Insurance, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, I took the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development at her word when she said changes would be made to benefit those who work while on claim to keep more of what they earn.

Whether or not she was aware, at the time, she said nothing about the new hidden disincentives to work. Clawing back wages from the first dollar made was a change that was never mentioned by the minister. I am sure she knows now these changes will hurt low weekly wage earners.

Will she admit today, in fact, there is a new hidden clawback and, further, will she commit to having it removed?

[Copyright Modernization Act, June 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my colleague cites the essence of the problem. It is in the balance. I am certainly no expert on this, but I have had an opportunity to speak to artists as well.

Rex Goudie, a fine upstanding young singer-songwriter from Newfoundland, a Canadian Idol runner-up, is driving a truck to supplement his income and develop as an artist. Artists are very concerned about the provisions in this legislation. Bruce Guthro, who has his own career, is concerned about it for other up-and-coming artists.

Certainly from the testimony I read, I do not believe the balance has been struck. I am comfortable where our party stands now, that we will not be supporting this legislation because there is an absence of balance in the legislation.

[Copyright Modernization Act, June 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and the comment from my colleague. These issues have been brought up and addressed, and amendments have been proposed at committee.

I will read into the record a quote from U.K. Professor Ian Hargreaves. He is the author of a 2011 report to the British government on intellectual property. In his presentation he states:

I don't think there is any doubt at all that there is a substantial online infringement problem. My own view is that a substantial online infringement problem will not be satisfactorily addressed until the law makes reasonable sense to reasonable people. Therefore, in the UK case for example, the continued unlawfulness of copying a song from a laptop to an MP3 player is something which has not been tenable for really quite some time. The law needs to be sensible.

That is what we are talking about here when we see a mom taking something off her laptop and burning it onto a DVD so that the kids can watch it in the van. She puts herself at risk of being charged criminally, and that is the reasonableness that I think we were hoping to attain.