Rodger Cuzner

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, what we have seen with the various pieces of legislation as they have come forward is that in private companies within the realm of federally regulated industries, there appears to be an assault on employees' pension plans.

The sense from most people who work in the sector is a belief that these companies are seeing the government's actions as an off-ramp to attack the pension plans. What we are seeing time and time again with this back-to-work legislation, in one example after another, is that it is making it easier just to rag the puck during negotiations, and it will become part of general business practice.

Does the parliamentary secretary see the risk to worker pensions that we are facing in following this path, in allowing the back-to-work legislation? Does she see the risk in this?

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the official opposition will be familiar with past history and back-to-work legislation that has been presented in this chamber.

Through some of the government's interventions today, we find that it tries to blur the line between legislation that was presented in 1995 and its actions today with this back-to-work legislation.

In 1995, when VIA, CN and CP were all in the midst of a labour dispute and rail had ground to a halt, the Liberal government brought forward back-to-work legislation and the NDP supported that legislation.

Could the leader share with people watching this debate at home what the difference is between 1995 and now?

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, could the parliamentary secretary explain the last two pieces of back-to-work legislation? They were certainly prescriptive in outlining what the arbitrator could not do. However, the government has taken a departure on this particular piece of back-to-work legislation. I am wondering what the government's rationale is on this occasion.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, having had an opportunity to read the legislation, it is completely different than past back-to-work legislation that we have seen in this chamber. We have seen it far more prescriptive and almost offensive.

I would appreciate if the minister would explain the shift in the approach of the back-to-work legislation, where this one certainly would not put the same parameters around as did the past two pieces of back-to-work legislation. It allows allow more flexibility with the arbitrator.

Could she explain the rationale as to why she followed this path at this time?

[Employment Insurance, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about an unprecedented skilled labour shortage and that being the reason for EI changes last week.

If there is a skilled labour shortage, it has been developed under the current government's watch.

What we have seen is that six years of doing nothing has put us in the situation we are in today. With a million and a half Canadians out of work, the government's answer is, “Let's get seniors to work two more years. Let's let disabled people live in poverty for two more years. Let's attack seasonal workers in seasonal industries. Let's help depopulate rural Canada”.

Is that the best the government can do? Is that its A game over there?

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2012]

That is too easy, Mr. Speaker. Are the Conservatives applauding the fact that they have been found guilty of election fraud? Are they applauding the fact that they have a minister over there who is on his third ethics investigation? Maybe they are applauding the $16 orange juice. Whatever it might be, these guys have been a rotten government, but as bad as it has been, it is going to get worse with the EI changes.

On behalf of mayors, wardens and counsellors in rural communities who fight out-migration every day, why is the government attacking seasonal industries?

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it has been six and a half years since the Conservatives took power.

[Employment Insurance, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government just celebrated its sixth year in government and it has so much to applaud: the largest deficits in the history of the country, $100 million added to the national debt, and forcing seniors and disabled people to work until they are 67. That deserves a great deal of applause.

However, the biggest blunder yet, the biggest cock-up, is what the government is doing to EI. I ask this question on behalf of mayors and wardens in rural communities across the country who fight with out-migration on a regular basis. Whose ignorant and stupid idea was that?

[Employment Insurance, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at the case of a single mother in Margaree Harbour in Cape Breton who contributes to the success of two seasonal industries. She works as a chambermaid during the tourism season and she makes Christmas wreaths at a small shop each fall. EI helps feed her family between seasons. Like many rural Canadians, she has no access to public transit or child care. And members should know this. Her attitude is not defeatist.

As the Prime Minister now makes the rules for EI, in the case of this single mother, will she be packing or will she just be poor?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 15th, 2012]

With respect to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA): (a) how many new employees were hired in the last five years, broken down by year; (b) how many ACOA employees over the last five years received full-time French language training, broken down by (i) province of employment, (ii) location where they received the French language training; (c) what is ACOA's policy regarding the length of time for which a job posting should be advertised; and (d) in the last five years, what was the length of time of each job posting for all management positions posted by ACOA?